© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
Sedation, surveillance, and preparation
04 December 2008 (eFirst)
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures (McQuaid & Laine, Gastrointest Endosc 2008 )
This important meta-analysis included 36 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of sedation efficacy, sedation-related complications, and procedure-related efficiency outcomes in patients (n = 3918) undergoing routine upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy under moderate sedation. Various intravenous sedation regimens were compared. Overall, the quality of the included studies was moderate, with only 11 of the 52 RCTs fulfilling the criteria for a Jadad quality score ≥ 4 . Regarding the question of whether sedation is really helpful in performing upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, the authors retrieved only two RCTs that investigated the sedation efficacy and safety during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with or without sedation; results from both trails were in favor of performing sedation. Therefore, solid-based scientific evidence enabling us to answer this question is not currently available; however, worldwide endoscopic practice has seen a substantial increase in the use of sedation during the last decade   .
Table 1 Sedation efficacy (rated by physicians) of different intravenous sedation regimens evaluated in randomized controlled trials during upper and/or lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (adapted from McQuaid & Laine, Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67 : 910 – 923). Sedation regimen 1 Sedation regimen 2 No. of studies Procedure Relative risk (95 % confidence interval) Midazolam Diazepam 3 EGD 1.2 (0.75 – 1.91) Midazolam plus opioids Diazepam plus opioids 2 Colonoscopy 1.06 (0.96 – 1.18) Midazolam Propofol 2 EGD 0.99 (0.86 – 1.14) Midazolam plus opioids Propofol 2 Colonoscopy 0.84 (0.68 – 1.04) EGD, Esophagogastroduodenoscopy.
Table 2 Sedation safety (by assessing the frequency of hypoxemic episodes) of different intravenous sedation regimens evaluated in randomized, controlled trials during upper and/or lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (adapted from McQuaid & Laine, Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67 : 910 – 923). Sedation regimen 1 Sedation regimen 2 No. of studies Procedure Relative risk (95 % confidence interval) Midazolam plus opioids Diazepam plus opioids 2 Colonoscopy 0.97 (0.41 – 2.31) Midazolam Propofol 2 EGD 1.11 (0.71 – 1.74) Midazolam plus opioids Propofol 3 Both 0.82 (0.22 – 2.98) EGD, Esophagogastroduodenoscopy.
Table 3 Patient recovery time after different intravenous sedation regimens evaluated in randomized, controlled trials during upper and/or lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (adopted from McQuaid & Laine, Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67 : 910 – 923). Sedation regimen 1 Sedation regimen 2 No. of studies Procedure Pooled mean recovery time, minutes(Regimen 1 vs. regimen 2) Midazolam plus opioids Diazepam plus opioids 3 Colonoscopy 36 vs. 36 Midazolam Propofol 2 EGD 52 vs. 40* Midazolam plus opioids Propofol 3 Colonoscopy 29 vs. 15* Midazolam plus opioids Propofol plus opioids 1 Colonoscopy 42 vs. 38 EGD, Esophagogastroduodenoscopy.*A significant difference was reported in all studies.
In conclusion, despite the known limitations of meta-analyses performed on clinical trials comparing very individualized sedation strategies (e. g. drug dosing not equivalent in different studies, different monitoring practices, and different definitions of quality parameters), the present meta-analysis allows several valid conclusions. First, the meta-analysis documented a sufficient efficacy and safety of all currently used intravenous sedation regimens. Second, regarding the use of propofol-based regimens for sedation during diagnostic upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, the authors found only significant advantages over the use of benzodiazepine-based regimens with respect to the recovery time, whereas sedation efficacy and safety were nearly comparable. This stands somewhat in contrast to the results from another meta-analysis , which showed a significantly lower frequency of cardiorespiratory side effects under propofol sedation compared with the use of benzodiazepines during routine upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, the present meta-analysis from McQuaid and Laine included only RCTs, whereas Quadeer et al.  also pooled data from noncomparative and retrospective studies. Therefore, there is clearly a need for further well-conducted prospective trials evaluating all aspects of endoscopic sedation.
- 1 McQuaid K R, Laine L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008; 67 910-923
- 2 Jadad A R, Moore R A, Caroll D. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized, clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials. 1996; 17 1-12
- 3 Cohen L B, Wechsler J S, Gaetano N. et al . Endoscopic sedation in the Unites States: results from a nationwide survey. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101 967-974
- 4 Ladas S D, Aabakken L R, Rey J F. et al . Use of sedation for routine diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy survey of national endoscopic society members. Digestion. 2006; 74 69-77
- 5 Froehlich F, Harris J K, Wietlisbach V. et al . Current sedation and monitoring practice for colonoscopy: an international observational study (EPAGE). Endoscopy. 2006; 38 461-469
- 6 Quadeer M, Vargo J, Khandwala F. et al . Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005; 3 1049-1056
- 7 Ong W C, Santosh D, Lakhtakia S, Reddy N. A randomized, controlled trial on use of propofol alone versus propofol with midazoloam, ketamine, and pentazocine “sedato-analgesic cocktail” for sedation during ERCP. Endoscopy. 2007; 39 807-812
- 8 Papsatis G A, Manolaraki M M, Theodoropoulo A, Chlouverakis G. Deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: intravenous propofol alone versus intravenous propofol with oral midazolam. Endoscopy. 2008; 40 308-313
- 9 Wehrmann T, Kokabpick S, Lembcke B. et al . Efficacy and safety of intravenous propofol sedation during routine ERCP: a prospective, controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999; 49 677-683
- 10 Jung M, Hoffmann C, Kiesslich R. et al . Improved sedation in diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: propofol is an alternative to midazolam. Endoscopy. 2000; 32 233-238
- 11 Krugliak P, Ziff B, Rusabrov Y. et al . Propofol versus midazolam for conscious sedation guided by processed EEG during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective, double-blind study. Endoscopy. 2000; 32 677-682
- 12 Riphaus A, Stergoiu N, Wehrmann T. Sedation with propofol for ERCP in high-risk octogenarians: a randomized, controlled study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005; 100 1957-1963
- 13 Seifert H, Schmitt T H, Gültekin H. et al . Sedation with propofol plus midazolam versus propofol alone for interventional endoscopic procedures: a prospective, randomized study. Aliment Pharmacol Therap. 2000; 14 1207-1214
- 14 Külling D, Orlandi M, Inauen W. Propofol sedation during endoscopic procedures: how much staff and monitoring are necessary?. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007; 66 443-449
- 15 Rex D K, Overley C, Kinser K. et al . Safety of propofol administered by registered nurses with gastroenterologist supervision in 2000 endoscopic cases. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002; 97 1159-1163
- 16 Vargo J J, Zucarro G, Dumont J A. et al . Gastroenterologist-administered Propofol versus meperidine and Midazolam for advanced upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial. Gastroenterology. 2002; 123 8-16
- 17 Heuss L T, Schnieper P, Drewe J. et al . Risk stratification and safe administration of propofol by registered nurses supervised by the gastroenterologist: a prospective observational study of more than 2000 cases. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57 664-671
- 18 Walker J A, McIntyre R D, Schleinitz P F. et al . Nurse-administered propofol sedation without anesthesia specialists in 9152 endoscopic cases in an ambulatory surgery center. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003; 98 1744-1750
- 19 Rex D K, Heuss L T, Walker J A, Qi R. Trained registered nurses/endoscopy teams can administer propofol safely for endoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2005; 129 1384-1391
- 20 Todha G, Higashi S, Wakahara S. et al . Propofol sedation during endoscopic procedures: safe and effective administration by registered nurses supervised by endoscopists. Endoscopy. 2006; 38 360-367
- 21 Gross J B, Bailey P L, Connis R T. et al . Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists. Anaesthesiology. 2002; 96 1004-1017
- 22 Waring J P, Baron T H, Hirota W K. et al . Guidelines for conscious sedation and monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 58 317-322
- 23 Vargo J J, Zuccaro jr. G, Dumot J A. et al . Automated graphic assessment of respiratory activity is superior to pulse oximetry and visual assessment for the detection of early respiratory depression during therapeutic upper endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 55 826-831
- 24 Wehrmann T, Riphaus A. Sedation with propofol for interventional endoscopic procedures: a risk factor analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008; 43 368-374
- 25 Pambianco D J, Whitten C J, Moermann A. et al . An assessment of computer-assisted personalized sedation: a sedation delivery system to administer propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008; 68 542-547
- 26 Ell C, Fischbach W, Bronisch H J. et al . Randomized trial of low-volume PEG solution versus standard PEG + electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008; 103 883-893
- 27 Wexner S D, Beck D E, Baron T H. et al . A consensus document on bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006; 49 792-809
T. Wehrmann, MD, PhD
Deutsche Klinik für Diagnostik
Fax: +49-0611-577 460