Effect of the midazolam added with propofol-based sedation in esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A randomized trial

Eun Hye Kim, Jun Chul Park, Sung Kwan Shin, Yong Chan Lee, Sang Kil Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Aim: Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension may be a concern in the propofol-based sedation. We aimed to analyze whether administration of midazolam would improve safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in EGD. Methods: One hundred twenty patients who were scheduled to undergo diagnostic EGD were randomly assigned to either midazolam plus propofol (MP) or propofol alone groups. In the MP group, 2 mg of midazolam and 10 mg of propofol were given initially. In the propofol alone group, 40–60 mg of propofol was given initially. In both groups, 20 mg of propofol was given repeatedly to maintain moderate sedation as needed. Vital signs including oxygen saturation were monitored every 2 min. After the patients fully recovered, satisfaction score was investigated from endoscopists, nurses, and patients, respectively. Results: The baseline characteristics did not differ between the MP and propofol alone groups. The mean required doses of propofol was (mean ± standard deviation) 0.3 ± 0.3 and 0.8 ± 0.2 mg/kg in the MP and propofol alone groups, respectively (P < 0.001). In addition, sedation-related adverse events and recovery time did not differ between the two groups. The proportion of satisfactory did not differ between the two groups (MP vs propofol alone; proportion; patient, 95.0% vs 93.3%, P > 0.999; endoscopist, 73.3% vs 80.0%, P = 0.064; nurse, 73.3% vs 76.7%, P = 0.551). Conclusion: Adding midazolam to propofol did not reduced the safety and efficacy, and sedation using propofol alone could be suitable for sedation during diagnostic EGD.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)894-899
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)
Volume33
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018 Apr

Fingerprint

Digestive System Endoscopy
Midazolam
Propofol
Nurses
Conscious Sedation
Safety
Vital Signs

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

@article{74ecd43c852343d38e451dd8ccec0ab1,
title = "Effect of the midazolam added with propofol-based sedation in esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A randomized trial",
abstract = "Background and Aim: Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension may be a concern in the propofol-based sedation. We aimed to analyze whether administration of midazolam would improve safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in EGD. Methods: One hundred twenty patients who were scheduled to undergo diagnostic EGD were randomly assigned to either midazolam plus propofol (MP) or propofol alone groups. In the MP group, 2 mg of midazolam and 10 mg of propofol were given initially. In the propofol alone group, 40–60 mg of propofol was given initially. In both groups, 20 mg of propofol was given repeatedly to maintain moderate sedation as needed. Vital signs including oxygen saturation were monitored every 2 min. After the patients fully recovered, satisfaction score was investigated from endoscopists, nurses, and patients, respectively. Results: The baseline characteristics did not differ between the MP and propofol alone groups. The mean required doses of propofol was (mean ± standard deviation) 0.3 ± 0.3 and 0.8 ± 0.2 mg/kg in the MP and propofol alone groups, respectively (P < 0.001). In addition, sedation-related adverse events and recovery time did not differ between the two groups. The proportion of satisfactory did not differ between the two groups (MP vs propofol alone; proportion; patient, 95.0{\%} vs 93.3{\%}, P > 0.999; endoscopist, 73.3{\%} vs 80.0{\%}, P = 0.064; nurse, 73.3{\%} vs 76.7{\%}, P = 0.551). Conclusion: Adding midazolam to propofol did not reduced the safety and efficacy, and sedation using propofol alone could be suitable for sedation during diagnostic EGD.",
author = "Kim, {Eun Hye} and Park, {Jun Chul} and Shin, {Sung Kwan} and Lee, {Yong Chan} and Lee, {Sang Kil}",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1111/jgh.14026",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "894--899",
journal = "Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)",
issn = "0815-9319",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

Effect of the midazolam added with propofol-based sedation in esophagogastroduodenoscopy : A randomized trial. / Kim, Eun Hye; Park, Jun Chul; Shin, Sung Kwan; Lee, Yong Chan; Lee, Sang Kil.

In: Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia), Vol. 33, No. 4, 04.2018, p. 894-899.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of the midazolam added with propofol-based sedation in esophagogastroduodenoscopy

T2 - A randomized trial

AU - Kim, Eun Hye

AU - Park, Jun Chul

AU - Shin, Sung Kwan

AU - Lee, Yong Chan

AU - Lee, Sang Kil

PY - 2018/4

Y1 - 2018/4

N2 - Background and Aim: Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension may be a concern in the propofol-based sedation. We aimed to analyze whether administration of midazolam would improve safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in EGD. Methods: One hundred twenty patients who were scheduled to undergo diagnostic EGD were randomly assigned to either midazolam plus propofol (MP) or propofol alone groups. In the MP group, 2 mg of midazolam and 10 mg of propofol were given initially. In the propofol alone group, 40–60 mg of propofol was given initially. In both groups, 20 mg of propofol was given repeatedly to maintain moderate sedation as needed. Vital signs including oxygen saturation were monitored every 2 min. After the patients fully recovered, satisfaction score was investigated from endoscopists, nurses, and patients, respectively. Results: The baseline characteristics did not differ between the MP and propofol alone groups. The mean required doses of propofol was (mean ± standard deviation) 0.3 ± 0.3 and 0.8 ± 0.2 mg/kg in the MP and propofol alone groups, respectively (P < 0.001). In addition, sedation-related adverse events and recovery time did not differ between the two groups. The proportion of satisfactory did not differ between the two groups (MP vs propofol alone; proportion; patient, 95.0% vs 93.3%, P > 0.999; endoscopist, 73.3% vs 80.0%, P = 0.064; nurse, 73.3% vs 76.7%, P = 0.551). Conclusion: Adding midazolam to propofol did not reduced the safety and efficacy, and sedation using propofol alone could be suitable for sedation during diagnostic EGD.

AB - Background and Aim: Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension may be a concern in the propofol-based sedation. We aimed to analyze whether administration of midazolam would improve safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in EGD. Methods: One hundred twenty patients who were scheduled to undergo diagnostic EGD were randomly assigned to either midazolam plus propofol (MP) or propofol alone groups. In the MP group, 2 mg of midazolam and 10 mg of propofol were given initially. In the propofol alone group, 40–60 mg of propofol was given initially. In both groups, 20 mg of propofol was given repeatedly to maintain moderate sedation as needed. Vital signs including oxygen saturation were monitored every 2 min. After the patients fully recovered, satisfaction score was investigated from endoscopists, nurses, and patients, respectively. Results: The baseline characteristics did not differ between the MP and propofol alone groups. The mean required doses of propofol was (mean ± standard deviation) 0.3 ± 0.3 and 0.8 ± 0.2 mg/kg in the MP and propofol alone groups, respectively (P < 0.001). In addition, sedation-related adverse events and recovery time did not differ between the two groups. The proportion of satisfactory did not differ between the two groups (MP vs propofol alone; proportion; patient, 95.0% vs 93.3%, P > 0.999; endoscopist, 73.3% vs 80.0%, P = 0.064; nurse, 73.3% vs 76.7%, P = 0.551). Conclusion: Adding midazolam to propofol did not reduced the safety and efficacy, and sedation using propofol alone could be suitable for sedation during diagnostic EGD.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85043982118&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85043982118&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jgh.14026

DO - 10.1111/jgh.14026

M3 - Article

C2 - 29048708

AN - SCOPUS:85043982118

VL - 33

SP - 894

EP - 899

JO - Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)

JF - Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)

SN - 0815-9319

IS - 4

ER -