Fentanyl may not be necessary for adequate endoscopic moderate sedation.

IF 1.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Greg S Cohen, Kwang-Youn A Kim
{"title":"Fentanyl may not be necessary for adequate endoscopic moderate sedation.","authors":"Greg S Cohen, Kwang-Youn A Kim","doi":"10.4253/wjge.v17.i5.105031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although the majority of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopies in the United States are now performed with propofol sedation, a substantial minority are performed with midazolam and fentanyl sedation. Despite the ubiquity of conscious sedation with midazolam and fentanyl in the United States, there is scant evidence specifically supporting the superiority of midazolam plus fentanyl over single agent midazolam sedation in GI endoscopy. We hypothesize that single agent sedation with midazolam is noninferior to sedation with midazolam plus fentanyl in GI endoscopy.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To investigate whether sedation with midazolam alone is noninferior to sedation with midazolam plus fentanyl in GI endoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a randomized, single-blind study to compare the safety and effectiveness of single agent midazolam vs. standard fentanyl/midazolam moderate sedation in 300 outpatients presenting for upper endoscopy and/or colonoscopy at a tertiary care hospital. Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction as measured by the previously validated Procedural Sedation Assessment Survey. Secondary outcomes were procedure quality measures and adverse events. Statistical analysis was performed by a biomedical statistician using the <i>χ</i> <sup>2</sup> test, Fisher's exact test, and Welch's 2-sample <i>t</i>-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no difference in patient satisfaction between sedation groups, as measured by a less than 1 point difference between groups in Procedural Sedation Assessment Survey scores for discomfort during the procedure, and for preference for level of sedation with future procedures. There were no differences in adverse events or procedure quality measures. Cecal intubation time was 1 minute longer in the single agent midazolam group, and an average of 2.7 mg more midazolam was administered when fentanyl was not included in the sedation regimen. The recruitment goal of 772 patients was not reached.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It may be possible to minimize or avoid using fentanyl in endoscopist administered moderate sedation for GI endoscopy. We hope these findings spur further work in this under-researched area.</p>","PeriodicalId":23953,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"17 5","pages":"105031"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12110154/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v17.i5.105031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although the majority of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopies in the United States are now performed with propofol sedation, a substantial minority are performed with midazolam and fentanyl sedation. Despite the ubiquity of conscious sedation with midazolam and fentanyl in the United States, there is scant evidence specifically supporting the superiority of midazolam plus fentanyl over single agent midazolam sedation in GI endoscopy. We hypothesize that single agent sedation with midazolam is noninferior to sedation with midazolam plus fentanyl in GI endoscopy.

Aim: To investigate whether sedation with midazolam alone is noninferior to sedation with midazolam plus fentanyl in GI endoscopy.

Methods: We conducted a randomized, single-blind study to compare the safety and effectiveness of single agent midazolam vs. standard fentanyl/midazolam moderate sedation in 300 outpatients presenting for upper endoscopy and/or colonoscopy at a tertiary care hospital. Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction as measured by the previously validated Procedural Sedation Assessment Survey. Secondary outcomes were procedure quality measures and adverse events. Statistical analysis was performed by a biomedical statistician using the χ 2 test, Fisher's exact test, and Welch's 2-sample t-test.

Results: There was no difference in patient satisfaction between sedation groups, as measured by a less than 1 point difference between groups in Procedural Sedation Assessment Survey scores for discomfort during the procedure, and for preference for level of sedation with future procedures. There were no differences in adverse events or procedure quality measures. Cecal intubation time was 1 minute longer in the single agent midazolam group, and an average of 2.7 mg more midazolam was administered when fentanyl was not included in the sedation regimen. The recruitment goal of 772 patients was not reached.

Conclusion: It may be possible to minimize or avoid using fentanyl in endoscopist administered moderate sedation for GI endoscopy. We hope these findings spur further work in this under-researched area.

芬太尼可能不需要足够的内窥镜适度镇静。
背景:在美国,虽然大多数胃肠道内窥镜检查使用异丙酚镇静,但也有少数使用咪达唑仑和芬太尼镇静。尽管咪达唑仑和芬太尼在美国普遍用于有意识镇静,但在胃肠道内窥镜检查中,咪达唑仑加芬太尼优于单药咪达唑仑镇静的证据很少。我们假设在胃肠道内窥镜检查中,咪达唑仑单药镇静不逊于咪达唑仑加芬太尼镇静。目的:探讨咪达唑仑在胃肠道内镜下的镇静效果是否优于咪达唑仑联合芬太尼。方法:我们进行了一项随机、单盲研究,比较了300名在三级医院接受上颌内窥镜和/或结肠镜检查的门诊患者单药咪达唑仑与标准芬太尼/咪达唑仑中度镇静的安全性和有效性。主要结果是通过先前验证的程序性镇静评估调查测量患者满意度。次要结局是手术质量测量和不良事件。统计分析由生物医学统计学家使用χ 2检验、Fisher确切检验和Welch两样本t检验进行。结果:镇静组之间的患者满意度没有差异,在手术过程中不适的程序性镇静评估调查得分中,两组之间的差异小于1分,以及对未来手术镇静水平的偏好。在不良事件或程序质量测量方面没有差异。单药咪达唑仑组盲肠插管时间延长1分钟,镇静方案中不含芬太尼时,平均多给药2.7 mg咪达唑仑。未达到772例患者的招募目标。结论:内镜医师在胃肠内镜下给予适度镇静时,可以尽量减少或避免芬太尼的使用。我们希望这些发现能刺激这一研究不足领域的进一步工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
5.00%
发文量
1164
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信