Target-controlled infusion during monitored anesthesia care in patients undergoing EUS: Propofol alone versus midazolam plus propofol. A prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial

L. Fanti, M. Agostoni, P. G. Arcidiacono, A. Albertin, G. Strini, S. Carrara, M. Guslandi, G. Torri, P. A. Testoni

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

50 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: It has been speculated that midazolam may be effective in reducing the required dose of propofol during sedation. Aim: To evaluate the sparing effect of midazolam during target-controlled propofol infusion. Methods: Two hundred-seventy patients undergoing upper endoscopic ultrasound were randomised to receive sedation with propofol plus placebo (group A) or plus midazolam (group B). Outcome parameters were the procedure duration, the discharge time and the satisfaction of patients, operator and nurse about the quality of sedation. Results: The mean propofol dose administered was 364 ± 207 mg in group A and 394 ± 204 mg in group B. Mean procedure duration (group A: 32 ± 17 min, group B: 35 ± 22 min) and discharge time (group A: 39 ± 30 min, group B: 38 ± 24 min) were similar in both groups. No severe complications were observed. The quality of sedation was judged satisfactory for all patients by both the endoscopist and the nurse assistant without any difference between the two groups. No patient remembered the procedure or reported it as unpleasant. Conclusions: Target-controlled propofol infusion provides safe and effective sedation; premedication with low dose of midazolam does not reduce the total amount of propofol administered. Further studies are needed to compare propofol alone with propofol co-administered with opioid.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)81-86
Number of pages6
JournalDigestive and Liver Disease
Volume39
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2007

Fingerprint

Midazolam
Propofol
Patient Care
Anesthesia
Randomized Controlled Trials
Nurses
Premedication
Patient Satisfaction
Opioid Analgesics
Placebos

Keywords

  • EUS
  • Midazolam
  • Propofol
  • Sedation
  • Target-controlled infusion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

@article{381af20c97ce435cb72dbe870936149b,
title = "Target-controlled infusion during monitored anesthesia care in patients undergoing EUS: Propofol alone versus midazolam plus propofol. A prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial",
abstract = "Background: It has been speculated that midazolam may be effective in reducing the required dose of propofol during sedation. Aim: To evaluate the sparing effect of midazolam during target-controlled propofol infusion. Methods: Two hundred-seventy patients undergoing upper endoscopic ultrasound were randomised to receive sedation with propofol plus placebo (group A) or plus midazolam (group B). Outcome parameters were the procedure duration, the discharge time and the satisfaction of patients, operator and nurse about the quality of sedation. Results: The mean propofol dose administered was 364 ± 207 mg in group A and 394 ± 204 mg in group B. Mean procedure duration (group A: 32 ± 17 min, group B: 35 ± 22 min) and discharge time (group A: 39 ± 30 min, group B: 38 ± 24 min) were similar in both groups. No severe complications were observed. The quality of sedation was judged satisfactory for all patients by both the endoscopist and the nurse assistant without any difference between the two groups. No patient remembered the procedure or reported it as unpleasant. Conclusions: Target-controlled propofol infusion provides safe and effective sedation; premedication with low dose of midazolam does not reduce the total amount of propofol administered. Further studies are needed to compare propofol alone with propofol co-administered with opioid.",
keywords = "EUS, Midazolam, Propofol, Sedation, Target-controlled infusion",
author = "L. Fanti and M. Agostoni and Arcidiacono, {P. G.} and A. Albertin and G. Strini and S. Carrara and M. Guslandi and G. Torri and Testoni, {P. A.}",
year = "2007",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.dld.2006.09.004",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "81--86",
journal = "Digestive and Liver Disease",
issn = "1590-8658",
publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Target-controlled infusion during monitored anesthesia care in patients undergoing EUS

T2 - Propofol alone versus midazolam plus propofol. A prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial

AU - Fanti, L.

AU - Agostoni, M.

AU - Arcidiacono, P. G.

AU - Albertin, A.

AU - Strini, G.

AU - Carrara, S.

AU - Guslandi, M.

AU - Torri, G.

AU - Testoni, P. A.

PY - 2007/1

Y1 - 2007/1

N2 - Background: It has been speculated that midazolam may be effective in reducing the required dose of propofol during sedation. Aim: To evaluate the sparing effect of midazolam during target-controlled propofol infusion. Methods: Two hundred-seventy patients undergoing upper endoscopic ultrasound were randomised to receive sedation with propofol plus placebo (group A) or plus midazolam (group B). Outcome parameters were the procedure duration, the discharge time and the satisfaction of patients, operator and nurse about the quality of sedation. Results: The mean propofol dose administered was 364 ± 207 mg in group A and 394 ± 204 mg in group B. Mean procedure duration (group A: 32 ± 17 min, group B: 35 ± 22 min) and discharge time (group A: 39 ± 30 min, group B: 38 ± 24 min) were similar in both groups. No severe complications were observed. The quality of sedation was judged satisfactory for all patients by both the endoscopist and the nurse assistant without any difference between the two groups. No patient remembered the procedure or reported it as unpleasant. Conclusions: Target-controlled propofol infusion provides safe and effective sedation; premedication with low dose of midazolam does not reduce the total amount of propofol administered. Further studies are needed to compare propofol alone with propofol co-administered with opioid.

AB - Background: It has been speculated that midazolam may be effective in reducing the required dose of propofol during sedation. Aim: To evaluate the sparing effect of midazolam during target-controlled propofol infusion. Methods: Two hundred-seventy patients undergoing upper endoscopic ultrasound were randomised to receive sedation with propofol plus placebo (group A) or plus midazolam (group B). Outcome parameters were the procedure duration, the discharge time and the satisfaction of patients, operator and nurse about the quality of sedation. Results: The mean propofol dose administered was 364 ± 207 mg in group A and 394 ± 204 mg in group B. Mean procedure duration (group A: 32 ± 17 min, group B: 35 ± 22 min) and discharge time (group A: 39 ± 30 min, group B: 38 ± 24 min) were similar in both groups. No severe complications were observed. The quality of sedation was judged satisfactory for all patients by both the endoscopist and the nurse assistant without any difference between the two groups. No patient remembered the procedure or reported it as unpleasant. Conclusions: Target-controlled propofol infusion provides safe and effective sedation; premedication with low dose of midazolam does not reduce the total amount of propofol administered. Further studies are needed to compare propofol alone with propofol co-administered with opioid.

KW - EUS

KW - Midazolam

KW - Propofol

KW - Sedation

KW - Target-controlled infusion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845888247&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845888247&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.dld.2006.09.004

DO - 10.1016/j.dld.2006.09.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 17049322

AN - SCOPUS:33845888247

VL - 39

SP - 81

EP - 86

JO - Digestive and Liver Disease

JF - Digestive and Liver Disease

SN - 1590-8658

IS - 1

ER -