Using Etomidate and Midazolam for Screening Colonoscopies Results in More Stable Hemodynamic Responses in Patients of All Ages
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background/Aims: Recent studies have demonstrated that etomidate is a safe sedative drug with noninferior sedative effects. In our recent study, we revealed that etomidate/midazolam was more hemodynamically stable than propofol/midazolam in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopies. We aimed to investigate whether compared with propofol/midazolam, etomidate/midazolam causes fewer cardiopulmonary adverse events with noninferior efficacy for screening colonoscopies in patients of all ages. Methods: In this single-center, randomized, double-blind study, we prospectively enrolled 200 patients. The patients were divided into etomidate and propofol groups. The primary outcome was the occurrence of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with fluctuations in vital signs (oxygen desaturation and transient hypotension), adverse events interrupting the procedure, and sedation-related outcomes. Results: Adverse cardiopulmonary events were more common in the propofol group than the etomidate group (65.0% vs 51.0%, respectively; p=0.045). Forty-six patients (46.0%) in the propofol group and 29 (29.0%) in the etomidate group experienced fluctuations in their vital signs (p=0.013). The proportions of patients experiencing adverse events that interrupted the procedure, including myoclonus, were not significantly different between the two groups (etomidate: 20.0% vs propofol: 11.0%; p=0.079). Both groups had similar sedation-related outcomes. Multivariate analysis revealed that compared with the propofol groups, the etomidate group had a significantly lower risk of fluctuations in vital signs (odds ratio, 0.427; 95% confidence interval, 0.230 to 0.792; p=0.007). Conclusions: Compared with using propofol/midazolam, using etomidate/midazolam for screening colonoscopies results in more stable hemodynamic responses in patients of all ages; therefore, we recommend using etomidate/midazolam for colonoscopies in patients with cardiovascular risk factors.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Recent studies have demonstrated that etomidate is a safe sedative drug with noninferior sedative effects. In our recent study, we revealed that etomidate/midazolam was more hemodynamically stable than propofol/midazolam in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopies. We aimed to investigate whether compared with propofol/midazolam, etomidate/midazolam causes fewer cardiopulmonary adverse events with noninferior efficacy for screening colonoscopies in patients of all ages. Methods: In this single-center, randomized, double-blind study, we prospectively enrolled 200 patients. The patients were divided into etomidate and propofol groups. The primary outcome was the occurrence of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with fluctuations in vital signs (oxygen desaturation and transient hypotension), adverse events interrupting the procedure, and sedation-related outcomes. Results: Adverse cardiopulmonary events were more common in the propofol group than the etomidate group (65.0% vs 51.0%, respectively; p=0.045). Forty-six patients (46.0%) in the propofol group and 29 (29.0%) in the etomidate group experienced fluctuations in their vital signs (p=0.013). The proportions of patients experiencing adverse events that interrupted the procedure, including myoclonus, were not significantly different between the two groups (etomidate: 20.0% vs propofol: 11.0%; p=0.079). Both groups had similar sedation-related outcomes. Multivariate analysis revealed that compared with the propofol groups, the etomidate group had a significantly lower risk of fluctuations in vital signs (odds ratio, 0.427; 95% confidence interval, 0.230 to 0.792; p=0.007). Conclusions: Compared with using propofol/midazolam, using etomidate/midazolam for screening colonoscopies results in more stable hemodynamic responses in patients of all ages; therefore, we recommend using etomidate/midazolam for colonoscopies in patients with cardiovascular risk factors.
참고문헌 (32)
- Gentile M, "2 L PEG plus ascorbic acid versus 4 L PEG plus simethicon for colonoscopy preparation : a randomized single-blind clinical trial", Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 23, pp.276~280 (2013)
- 강성희, "Preparation and Patient Evaluation for Safe Gastrointestinal Endoscopy", Clinical Endoscopy, 46(3), pp.212~218 (2013), 대한소화기내시경학회
- Jung Min Lee, "Is There a Change in Patient Preference for a Female Colonoscopist during the Last Decade in Korea?", Clinical Endoscopy, 51(1), pp.72~79 (2018), 대한소화기내시경학회
- Abraham NS, "Assessing clinical generalizability in sedation studies of upper GI endoscopy", Gastrointest Endosc, 60, pp.28~33 (2004)
- Heuss LT, "Propofol sedation alone or in combination with pharyngeal lidocaine anesthesia for routine upper GI endoscopy : a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial", Gastrointest Endosc, 74, pp.1207~1214 (2011)
- Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, "Sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy", Gastrointest Endosc, 68, pp.815~826 (2008)
- Liu J, "Propofol decreases etomidate-related myoclonus in gastroscopy", Medicine (Baltimore), 96, pp.e7212~ (2017)
- Wang D, "Propofol combined with traditional sedative agents versus propofol-alone sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy : a meta-analysis", Scand J Gastroenterol, 48, pp.101~110 (2013)
- Ye L, "The comparison of etomidate and propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy : a systematic review and meta-analysis", Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 27, pp.1~7 (2017)
- Song JC, "Etomidate anesthesia during ERCP caused more stable haemodynamic responses compared with propofol : a randomized clinical trial", Int J Med Sci, 12, pp.559~565 (2015)
- Shah SB, "Comparison of hemodynamic effects of intravenous etomidate versus propofol during induction and intubation using entropy guided hypnosis levels", J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol, 31, pp.180~185 (2015)
- Kim MG, "Etomidate versus propofol sedation for complex upper endoscopic procedures : a prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial", Gastrointest Endosc, 86, pp.452~461 (2017)
- Park CH, "Efficacy and safety of etomidate-based sedation compared with propofol-based sedation during ERCP in low-risk patients : a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial", Gastrointest Endosc, 87, pp.174~184 (2018)
- Lee JM, "Efficacy and safety of etomidate-midazolam for screening colonoscopy in the elderly: a prospective double-blinded randomized controlled study", Medicine(Baltimore), 97, pp.e10635~ (2018)
- Qureshi WA, "ASGE guideline : modifications in endoscopic practice for the elderly", Gastrointest Endosc, 63, pp.566~569 (2006)
- Cohen LB, "AGA Institute review of endoscopic sedation", Gastroenterology, 133, pp.675~701 (2007)
- Sachar H, "Continued midazolam versus diphenhydramine in difficult-to-sedate patients : a randomized double-blind trial", Gastrointest Endosc, 87, pp.1297~1303 (2018)
- Cotton PB, "A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop", Gastrointest Endosc, 71, pp.446~454 (2010)
- Banno S, "Risk factor for vital signs fluctuation during colonoscopy under conscious sedation consisting of midazolam and meperidine", Dig Dis, 36, pp.113~117 (2018)
- Ead H, "From Aldrete to PADSS : reviewing discharge criteria after ambulatory surgery", J Perianesth Nurs, 21, pp.259~267 (2006)
- Riphaus A, "Intermittent manually controlled versus continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation during interventional endoscopy : a prospective randomized trial", Scand J Gastroenterol, 47, pp.1078~1085 (2012)
- Upchurch CP, "Comparison of etomidate and ketamine for induction during rapid sequence intubation of adult trauma patients", Ann Emerg Med, 69, pp.24~33 (2017)
- Eames WO, "Comparison of the effects of etomidate, propofol, and thiopental on respiratory resistance after tracheal intubation", Anesthesiology, 84, pp.1307~1311 (1996)
- Vargo JJ, "Etomidate : coming to an endoscopy unit near you", Gastrointest Endosc, 86, pp.462~463 (2017)
- Ruth WJ, "Intravenous etomidate for procedural sedation in emergency department patients", Acad Emerg Med, 8, pp.13~18 (2001)
- 문성훈, "Sedation Regimens for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy", Clinical Endoscopy, 47(2), pp.135~140 (2014), 대한소화기내시경학회
- Triantafillidis JK, "Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy : current issues", World J Gastroenterol, 19, pp.463~481 (2013)
- Igea F, "Sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy", Endoscopy, 46, pp.720~731 (2014)
- Toklu S, "Comparison of etomidate-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil sedation in patients scheduled for colonoscopy", Eur J Anaesthesiol, 26, pp.370~376 (2009)
- Hüter L, "Low-dose intravenous midazolam reduces etomidate-induced myoclonus : a prospective, randomized study in patients undergoing elective cardioversion", Anesth Analg, 105, pp.1298~1302 (2007)
- Zhou C, "Effect of pretreatment with midazolam on etomidate-induced myoclonus : a meta-analysis", J Int Med Res, 45, pp.399~406 (2017)
- Meng QT, "Safety and efficacy of etomidate and propofol anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy : a double-blind randomized clinical study", Exp Ther Med, 12, pp.1515~1524 (2016)