Search

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol, is well tolerated and reduces recovery time and staff required during endoscopic interventions. "Who" administers the drug proves economically crucial. With the aim of maintaining safety, medical quality, and patient satisfaction, this study investigates PCS versus nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) in a cohort of consecutive patients.One hundred and fourteen patients, aged 22-90 yr, undergoing only colonoscopy participated in this prospective randomized trial. Patients were randomly assigned to either PCS or NAPS. If patients declined randomization for different reasons of reluctance to PCS they were assigned to a standard nurse-sedated control group. All patients received pethidine presedation for analgesia. Visual analogue scales followed patient anxiety level, tolerability, pain, and satisfaction, and endoscopist's assessment of the procedure.Given the choice, 35% of the patients who were rather younger and more anxious declined randomization to PCS. The mean total dose of propofol needed in this group was higher, but the patients had a tendency to rate the global tolerance and the pain of the examination as less comfortable compared to the two randomized groups. Self-administration of propofol created a significantly different drug profile and higher medication costs. With regard to the safety parameters there was no difference between PCS and NAPS. In their global assessments, the patients and endoscopists tended to prefer NAPS.Individual patient characteristics and attitudes toward self-control are crucial for PCS. While being a viable option for patients who are able and willing to handle, this technique is not applicable in a considerable portion of everyday patients.

Propofol, a rapidly-acting hypnotic agent, is increasingly being used for endoscopic sedation. Serious adverse effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular depression, make many endoscopists reluctant to use propofol in critically ill patients. This study characterizes propofol's safety profile in consecutive high-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] classes III and IV) compared with matched subjects (ASA classes I and II).During a 19-month period, 1370 at risk-patients were sedated with propofol, of whom 47% (614 ASA III, 28 ASA IV) were age matched with 642 consecutive patients of the same gender and age assigned to ASA classes I and II and undergoing the same endoscopic procedures (395 gastroscopies, 201 colonoscopies, 14 combined). Registered nurses performed all sedations by propofol dose titration while carefully monitoring arterial oxygen saturation, heart rate, and blood pressure.No major complications occurred among the critically ill patients. There was, however, an increased risk for a short relevant oxygen desaturation (90%) of 3.6% for ASA III and IV versus 1.7% for ASA I and II (p = 0.036). In four versus one case, short mask ventilation was necessary. Also, a greater proportion of patients showed aor =5% oxygen saturation decrease. There was no pronounced influence on arterial pressure or heart rate and no perforations in 336 colonoscopies.With careful monitoring, propofol sedation during GI endoscopies is safe, even for high-risk patients. Considering their higher comorbidity and tendency toward oxygen desaturation, they need particularly careful monitoring, and the required dose is, on mean, 10-20% lower than in ASA classes I and II.

Summary Aim: To characterize the safety of endoscopic procedures and propofol use as administered by nurses in a cohort of elderly patients. Methods: During 19 months all endoscopy patients > 70 years were eligible for this prospective observational study. Patients were assigned to group A (70–85 years) or group B (> 85 years). Records from all patients