Sedation with propofol for routine ERCP in high-risk octogenarians: a randomized, controlled study. Propofol infusion versus intermittent meperidine and midazolam injection for conscious sedation in ERCP. Sedation with propofol for interventional endoscopy by trained nurses in high-risk octogenarians: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.
Adequate patient sedation is mandatory for diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In this respect it is known that the short-acting anesthetic propofol offers certain potential advantages for sedation during ERCP, but there are no controlled studies concerning the feasibility and safety of propofol sedation in elderly, high-risk patients.
                One hundred and fifty consecutive patients aged >or=80 yr with high comorbidity (ASA score >or=III: 91 %), randomly received midazolam plus meperidine (n = 75) or propofol alone (n = 75) for sedation during ERCP. Vital signs were continuously monitored and procedure-related parameters, recovery time, and quality as well as patients' cooperation and tolerance of the procedure were assessed.
                Clinically relevant changes in vital signs were observed at comparable frequencies with a temporary oxygen desaturation (<90%) occurring in eight patients in the propofol-group and seven patients receiving midazolam/meperidine (n.s.). Hypotension was documented in two patients in the propofol group and one patient receiving midazolam/meperidine. Propofol provided a significantly better patient cooperation than midazolam/meperidine (p < 0.01), but the procedure tolerability was rated nearly the same by both groups. Mean recovery time was significantly shorter in the propofol group (22 +/- 7 min vs 31 +/- 8 min for midazolam/meperidine (p < 0.01)) while the recovery score was significantly higher under propofol (8.3 +/- 1.2 vs 6.1 +/- 1.1(p < 0.01)). During recovery a significant lower number of desaturation events (<90%) were observed in the propofol group (12%) than in the midazolam/meperidine group (26%, p < 0.01).
                Under careful monitoring the use of propofol for sedation during ERCP is superior to midazolam/meperidine even in high-risk octogenarians. ERCP generally requires longer time than standard endoscopy. Only few studies have shown benefit of intermittent propofol over conventional sedation. This study was conducted to compare satisfaction, recovery score, and recovery/safety profiles for ERCP sedation between continuous infusion of propofol and conventional sedation.
                One hundred thirty-four patients with ASA I-III underwent ERCP and were randomly assigned into two groups (n=67 each). Patients underwent propofol sedation or meperidine/midazolam sedation. Supplemental oxygen was offered only when oxygen saturation was lower than 90 %. Oxygen saturation, blood pressure, heart rate, recovery score, times for recovery and satisfaction score after procedure were recorded and analyzed.
                Average amount of meperidine, midazolam and propofol per each patient were 61.54 (+/- 27.29), 7.80 (+/- 3.73), 299.90 (+/- 146.15) mg, respectively. Time to regain full consciousness in the propofol arm was significantly shorter than in the conventional arm (17.24 +/- 5.99 versus 34.25 +/- 16.06 min, p<0.001). The rates of desaturation, bradycardia and hypotension in both arms were low and comparable. Propofol provided higher level of recovery scores at 15, 30, 45 and 60 min after the procedure (p < 0.001).
                Continuous infusion of propofol for ERCP by direction of gastroenterologist yields no difference in the completion rate and adverse profiles when compared with conventional technique but it provides a better recovery profile. The maintainance of appropriate level of sedation by well trained personnel is the key to achieve this success. Sedation with the short-acting anesthetic agent propofol has shown several advantages, particularly in interventional endoscopy. So far, however, there are no valid data on the safety of nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) during interventional endoscopy in elderly high-risk patients.
                A total of 150 patients aged > 80 years with high comorbidity were randomized to receive midazolam plus meperidine (n = 75) or propofol alone (n = 76) for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), or double-balloon endoscopy (DBE). Sedation was supervised by a trained nurse and a trained physician both of whom were not involved in the endoscopic procedure. Vital signs were continuously monitored as well as patient cooperation and tolerance. Mortality and morbidity at 30 days was analyzed.
                The overall cardiopulmonary complication rate was 16 % in the midazolam group and 23.7 % in the propofol group ( P > 0.05). The mean decline in oxygen saturation (initial vs. lowest O (2) saturation) and the mean decline of blood pressure (initial vs. lowest blood pressure) were significantly greater with propofol (7 % +/- 3 % vs. 4 % +/- 2 % [ P < 0.05] and 10 % +/- 2 % vs. 8 % +/- 2 %, respectively [ P < 0.05]). No procedure had to be interrupted due to serious adverse events. Patient cooperation was statistically significantly better in the propofol group (7 +/- 2 vs. 5 +/- 2 points). Patients sedated with propofol showed a significantly lower oxygen saturation rate during recovery time (8 % vs. 28 %; P < or = 0.01).
                NAPS during interventional endoscopy is as safe as midazolam/pethidine sedation even in high-risk patients aged > 80 years.
Results from individual studies suggested that patients have a better recovery profile after propofol sedation for ERCP procedures than after midazolam and meperidine sedation. As there was no difference between the two sedation techniques as regards safety, propofol sedation is probably preferred for patients undergoing ERCP procedures. However, in all of the studies that were identified only non-anaesthesia personnel were involved in administering the sedation. It would be helpful if further research was conducted where anaesthesia personnel were involved in the administration of sedation for ERCP procedures. This would clarify the extent to which anaesthesia personnel should be involved in the administration of propofol sedation.