Propofol sedation for colonoscopy with a new ultrathin or a standard endoscope: a prospective randomized controlled study

Background and study aims: The majority of colonoscopies in Germany are performed under conscious sedation. Previous studies reported that pediatric colonoscopes reduce the demand for sedative drugs and may improve cecal intubation. The aim of this study was to compare a new ultrathin and a standard colonoscope in terms of propofol demand during colonoscopy.

Patients and methods: A total of 203 patients were prospectively randomized to undergo colonoscopy with either a 9.5-mm ultrathin (UTC) colonoscope or a standard colonoscope of variable stiffness. Initially, 40 or 60 mg of propofol were administered according to body weight, followed by bolus injections of 20 mg as deemed necessary. Propofol was administered by a separate physician who was blinded to the endoscope used. Sedation levels were defined according to guidelines; pain and complaints were recorded on a numeric rating scale.

Results: Significantly less propofol was required to reach the cecum with the UTC (adjusted mean 94.9 mg [95 % confidence interval (CI) 85.7 – 105.0] vs. 115.3 mg [95 %CI 105.8 – 124.7]; P = 0.003). The level of sedation and pain score were lower with the UTC (sedation level 1 76 % vs. 61 %; P = 0.003; pain score adjusted mean 2.0 [95 %CI 1.7 – 2.4] vs. 2.8 [95 %CI 2.5 – 3.1]; P = 0.001). The rate of ileal and cecal intubation, time to reach the cecum, number of external compressions, withdrawal time, polyp and adenoma detection rate, and patient satisfaction were not different between the two colonoscopes. The time to intubate the ileum was longer with the UTC (1.73 minutes [95 %CI 1.42 – 2.04] vs. 1.22 minutes [95 %CI 0.91 – 1.52]; P = 0.020).

Conclusions: Use of a new ultrathin colonoscope was associated with reduced propofol consumption, lower patient sedation levels, and less pain than the standard colonoscope, but ileal intubation time was longer.

^* The authors contributed equally to this work

• References

• 1 Cotton PB, Connor P, McGee D et al. Colonoscopy: practice variation among 69 hospital-based endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 352-357
• 2 Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C et al. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow?. Gut 2004; 53: 277-283
• 3 Huppe D, Lemberg L, Felten G. Effectiveness and patient tolerance of screening colonoscopy – first results. Z Gastroenterol 2004; 42: 591-598
• 4 Saunders BP, Macrae F, Williams CB. What makes colonoscopy difficult?. Gut 1993; 34: A181
• 5 Waye JD, Bashkoff E. Total colonoscopy: is it always possible?. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 152-154
• 6 Marshall JB, Barthel JS. The frequency of total colonoscopy and terminal ileal intubation in the 1990s. Gastrointest Endosc 1993; 39: 518-520
• 7 Saunders BP, Fukumoto M, Halligan S et al. Why is colonoscopy more difficult in women?. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 43: 124-126
• 8 Friedland S, Soetikno RM. Small caliber overtube-assisted colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 5933-5937
• 9 Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kajiyama M et al. Usefulness of a small-caliber, variable-stiffness colonoscope as a backup in patients with difficult or incomplete colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 1936-1940
• 10 Pietropaolo V, Hassan C, Pontone S et al. Ileal intubation with a transnasal endoscope. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 22: 374-375
• 11 Kaffes AJ, Mishra A, Ding SL et al. A prospective trial of variable stiffness pediatric vs. standard instrument colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 685-689
• 12 Park CH, Lee WS, Joo YE et al. Sedation-free colonoscopy using an upper endoscope is tolerable and effective in patients with low body mass index: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 2504-2510
• 13 Leung FW. Is there a place for sedationless colonoscopy?. J Interv Gastroenterol 2011; 1: 19-22
• 14 Riphaus A, Macias-Gomez C, Deviere J et al. Propofol, the preferred sedation for screening colonoscopy, is underused. Results of an international survey. Dig Liver Dis 2012; 44: 389-392
• 15 Bell GD. Preparation, premedication, and surveillance. Endoscopy 2004; 36: 23-31
• 16 Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Aparicio JR et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 960-974
• 17 Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Fujii H et al. Psychomotor recovery and blood propofol level in colonoscopy when using propofol sedation. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 506-512
• 18 Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Portish V. Patients willing to try colonoscopy without sedation: associated clinical factors and results of a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 49: 554-559
• 19 Eckardt VF, Kanzler G, Schmitt T et al. Complications and adverse effects of colonoscopy with selective sedation. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 49: 560-565
• 20 Yoruk G, Aksoz K, Unsal B et al. Colonoscopy without sedation. Turk J Gastroenterol 2003; 14: 59-63
• 21 Qadeer MA, Vargo JJ, Khandwala F et al. Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 3: 1049-1056
• 22 Kulling D, Rothenbuhler R, Inauen W. Safety of nonanesthetist sedation with propofol for outpatient colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 679-682
• 23 Padmanabhan U, Leslie K, Eer AS et al. Early cognitive impairment after sedation for colonoscopy: the effect of adding midazolam and/or fentanyl to propofol. Anesth Analg 2009; 109: 1448-1455
• 24 VanNatta ME, Rex DK. Propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus propofol in combination with opioids and/or benzodiazepines and titrated to moderate sedation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 2209-2217
• 25 Chen PJ, Shih YL, Chu HC et al. A prospective trial of variable stiffness colonoscopes with different tip diameters in unsedated patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 1365-1371
• 26 Hsieh YH, Zhou AL, Lin HJ. Long pediatric colonoscope versus intermediate length adult colonoscope for colonoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 23: e7-e10
• 27 Anderson JC, Walker G, Birk JW et al. Tapered colonoscope performs better than the pediatric colonoscope in female patients: a direct comparison through tandem colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 1042-1047
• 28 Okamoto M, Kawabe T, Kato J et al. Ultrathin colonoscope with a diameter of 9.8 mm for total colonoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005; 39: 679-683
• 29 Shumaker DA, Zaman A, Katon RM. A randomized controlled trial in a training institution comparing a pediatric variable stiffness colonoscope, a pediatric colonoscope, and an adult colonoscope. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 172-179
• 30 Luo DJ, Hui AJ, Yan KK et al. A randomized comparison of ultrathin and standard colonoscope in cecal intubation rate and patient tolerance. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 484-490
• 31 Brooker JC, Saunders BP, Shah SG et al. A new variable stiffness colonoscope makes colonoscopy easier: a randomised controlled trial. Gut 2000; 46: 801-805
• 32 Othman MO, Bradley AG, Choudhary A et al. Variable stiffness colonoscope versus regular adult colonoscope: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 17-24
• 33 Porostocky P, Chiba N, Colacino P et al. A survey of sedation practices for colonoscopy in Canada. Can J Gastroenterol 2011; 25: 255-260
• 34 Shah SG, Brooker JC, Thapar C et al. Patient pain during colonoscopy: an analysis using real-time magnetic endoscope imaging. Endoscopy 2002; 34: 435-440
• 35 Anderson JC, Gonzalez JD, Messina CR et al. Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy: thinner is not always better. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 2784-2787
• 36 Marshall JB, Perez RA, Madsen RW. Usefulness of a pediatric colonoscope for routine colonoscopy in women who have undergone hysterectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 838-841
• 37 Dechene A, Jochum C, Bechmann LP et al. Magnetic endoscopic imaging saves abdominal compression and patient pain in routine colonoscopies. J Dig Dis 2011; 12: 364-370