A randomized controlled trial of light versus deep propofol sedation for elective outpatient colonoscopy: recall, procedural conditions, and recovery

被引:2
|
作者
Allen, Megan [1 ,2 ]
Leslie, Kate [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Hebbard, Geoffrey [5 ,6 ]
Jones, Ian [7 ,8 ]
Mettho, Tejinder [1 ,2 ]
Maruff, Paul [9 ,10 ]
机构
[1] Royal Melbourne Hosp, Dept Anaesthesia & Pain Management, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Univ Melbourne, Anaesthesia Perioperat & Pain Med Unit, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] Univ Melbourne, Dept Pharmacol, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[4] Monash Univ, Dept Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
[5] Royal Melbourne Hosp, Dept Gastroenterol, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[6] Univ Melbourne, Dept Med, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[7] Royal Melbourne Hosp, Colorectal Surg Unit, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[8] Univ Melbourne, Dept Surg, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[9] Cogstate Ltd, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[10] Univ Melbourne, Ctr Neurosci, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
关键词
COGNITIVE FUNCTION; MIDAZOLAM; COMBINATION; IMPAIRMENT; ANESTHESIA; AWARENESS; HYPNOSIS; BATTERY; EXAMPLE;
D O I
10.1007/s12630-015-0463-3
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
This study aimed to determine if the incidence of recall was equivalent between light and deep sedation for colonoscopy. Secondary analysis included complications, patient clinical recovery, and post-procedure cognitive impairment. Two hundred patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to light (bispectral index [BIS] 70-80) or deep (BIS < 60) sedation with propofol and fentanyl. Recall was assessed by the modified Brice questionnaire, and cognition at baseline and discharge was assessed using a Cogstate test battery. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) BIS values were different in the two groups (69 [65-74] light sedation vs 53 [46-59] deep sedation; P < 0.0001). The incidence of recall was 12% in the light sedation group and 1% in the deep sedation group. The risk difference for recall was 0.11 (90% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.17) in the intention-to-treat analysis, thus refuting equivalence in recall between light and deep sedation (0.05 significance level; 10% equivalence margin). Overall sedation-related complications were more frequent with deep sedation than with light sedation (66% vs 47%, respectively; P = 0.008). Recovery was more rapid with light sedation than with deep sedation as determined by the mean (SD) time to reach a score of 5 on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale [3 (4) min vs 7 (4) min, respectively; P < 0.001] and by the median [IQR] time to readiness for hospital discharge (65 [57-80] min vs 74 [63-86] min, respectively; P = 0.001). The incidence of post-procedural cognitive impairment was similar in those randomized to light (19%) vs deep (16%) sedation (P = 0.554). Light sedation was not equivalent to deep sedation for procedural recall, the spectrum of complications, or recovery times. This study provides evidence to inform discussions with patients about sedation for colonoscopy. This trial was registered at the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number 12611000320954.
引用
收藏
页码:1169 / 1178
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] A Randomized controlled trial on procedural sedation among adult patients in emergency departments: Comparing fentanyl with midazolam versus fentanyl with propofol
    Ab-Rahman, N. H.
    Hashim, A.
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2008, 51 (04) : 479 - 480
  • [42] Patient-controlled sedation and analgesia, using propofol and alfentanil, during colonoscopy:: A prospective randomized controlled trial
    Roseveare, C
    Seavell, C
    Patel, P
    Críswell, J
    Kimble, J
    Jones, C
    Shepherd, H
    ENDOSCOPY, 1998, 30 (09) : 768 - 773
  • [43] Effect of Midazolam in Addition to Propofol and Opiate Sedation on the Quality of Recovery After Colonoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial
    Gurunathan, Usha
    Rahman, Tony
    Williams, Zelda
    Vandeleur, Ann
    Sriram, Sweta
    Harch, Jennifer
    Boggett, Stuart
    Hill, Cindy
    Bowyer, Andrea
    Royse, Colin
    ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2020, 131 (03): : 741 - 750
  • [44] Deep sedation compared with moderate sedation in polyp detection during colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial Reply
    Banerjee, A. K.
    Oshowo, A.
    Mukhtar, H.
    Suri, D.
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2011, 13 (08) : 946 - 946
  • [45] Propofol Versus Midazolam for Procedural Sedation of Anterior Shoulder Dislocation in Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial
    Hatamabadi, Hamid Reza
    Dolatabadi, Ali Arhami
    Derakhshanfar, Hojjat
    Younesian, Somaye
    Shad, Ensieh Ghaffari
    TRAUMA MONTHLY, 2015, 20 (02) : 4 - 7
  • [46] Efficacy of Bispectral Monitoring As An Adjunct to Propofol Deep Sedation for ERCP: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Hainaki, Irene
    Manolaraki, Maria
    Tribonias, Georgios
    Konstantinidis, Konstantinos
    Vardas, Emmanouil
    Theodoropoulou, Angeliki
    Chlouverakis, Gregorios
    Paspatis, Gregorios A.
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2009, 69 (05) : AB208 - AB209
  • [47] A randomized controlled trial for measuring effects on cognitive functions of adding ketamine to propofol during sedation for colonoscopy
    Tian, Liang
    Luan, Hengfei
    Zhu, Pin
    Zhang, Zhiyuan
    Bao, Hongguang
    MEDICINE, 2020, 99 (36) : E21859
  • [48] Efficacy of Bispectral Index Monitoring During Balanced Propofol Sedation for Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial
    Yeon Hwa Yu
    Dong Soo Han
    Hyun Soo Kim
    Eun Kyung Kim
    Chang Soo Eun
    Kyo-Sang Yoo
    Woo Jong Shin
    Seungho Ryu
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2013, 58 : 3576 - 3583
  • [49] Efficacy of bispectral monitoring as an adjunct to nurse-administered propofol sedation for colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial
    Drake, Luke M.
    Chen, Shawn C.
    Rex, Douglas K.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2006, 101 (09): : 2003 - 2007
  • [50] Efficacy of Bispectral Index Monitoring During Balanced Propofol Sedation for Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial
    Yu, Yeon Hwa
    Han, Dong Soo
    Kim, Hyun Soo
    Kim, Eun Kyung
    Eun, Chang Soo
    Yoo, Kyo-Sang
    Shin, Woo Jong
    Ryu, Seungho
    DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES, 2013, 58 (12) : 3576 - 3583