A randomized controlled trial on use of propofol alone versus propofol with midazolam, ketamine, and pentazocine “sedato-analgesic cocktail” for sedation during ERCP

Background and aims: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) requires adequate patient sedation in order to carry out the procedure successfully. Propofol sedation is being increasingly used during ERCP. There are limited data to evaluate the efficacy of synergistic agents with propofol for sedation during ERCP. The aims of the current study were: (i) to compare patient sedation and tolerance during ERCP using either propofol alone or a “sedato-analgesic cocktail” for induction, along with propofol for maintenance, and (ii) to prospectively compare complications related to both sedation regimens.

Patients and methods: This was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with patients receiving either intravenous propofol alone (Group A) or a sedato-analgesic cocktail (midazolam, ketamine, and pentazocine plus propofol) (Group B) for induction; all patients received propofol for maintenance. Patient sedation and tolerance were assessed using 100-mm visual analog scales (VAS).

Results: A total of 199 patients undergoing ERCP were randomized (Group A, n = 104 vs. Group B, n = 95). Clinical characteristics were similar in both groups. Patient tolerance VAS scores were higher in Group B when assessed independently by both endoscopist (P = 0.002) and anesthetist (P = 0.001). The differences in scores occurred predominantly in younger patients. The mean propofol requirement was 192 mg in Group A and 131 mg in Group B; the mean difference was 61 mg (95 %CI 40 - 82 mg). Patients reported equivalent levels of satisfaction with both sedation regimens. On multivariate analysis, “cocktail” use (P = 0.013) and increasing age (P = 0.027) significantly improved patient tolerance during ERCP. Caution during “cocktail” induction is required as transient oxygen desaturation occurs.

Conclusion: During ERCP, propofol with a sedato-analgesic cocktail for induction results in improved patient tolerance compared with propofol alone, particularly in younger patients. Generalizations from this study to the Western world and to different cultural groups require further study.

References

• 1 Wehrmann T, Kokabpick S, Lembcke B. et al . Efficacy and safety of intravenous propofol sedation during routine ERCP: a prospective, controlled study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 677-683
• 2 Qadeer M A, Vargo J J, Khandwala F. et al . Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis.  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;  3 1049-1056
• 3 Byrne M F, Baillie J. Propofol for conscious sedation?.  Gastroenterology. 2002;  123 373-375
• 4 Seifert H, Schmitt T H, Gultekin T. et al . Sedation with propofol plus midazolam versus propofol alone for interventional endoscopic procedures: a prospective, randomized study.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2000;  14 1207-1214
• 5 Goh P K, Chiu C L, Wang C Y. et al . Randomized double-blind comparison of ketamine-propofol, fentanyl-propofol and propofol-saline on haemodynamics and laryngeal mask airway insertion conditions.  Anaesth Intensive Care. 2005;  33 223-228
• 6 Vargo J J, Zuccaro Jr G, Dumot J A. et al . Gastroenterologist-administered propofol versus meperidine and midazolam for advanced upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial.  Gastroenterology. 2002;  123 8-16
• 7 Graber R G. Propofol in the endoscopy suite: an anesthesiologist's perspective.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 803-806
• 8 Faigel D O, Baron T H, Goldstein J L. et al . Guidelines for the use of deep sedation and anesthesia for GI endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 613-617
• 9 Dundee J W, Robinson F P, McCollum J S, Patterson C C. Sensitivity to propofol in the elderly.  Anaesthesia. 1986;  41 482-485
• 10 Shaker R. A wake-up call? Unsedated versus conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy.  Gastroenterology. 1999;  117 1492-1495
• 11 Green S M, Sherwin T S. Incidence and severity of recovery agitation after ketamine sedation in young adults.  Am J Emerg Med. 2005;  23 142-144
• 12 Blankstein K C, Anderson J A. A double-blind comparison of low-dose intravenous ketamine and methohexital in adults.  J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991;  49 468-475
• 13 Teodorowicz J, Zimny M. The effect of ketamine in patients with refractory hiccup in the postoperative period. Preliminary report.  Anaesth Resusc Intensive Ther. 1975;  3 271-272
• 14 Krystal J H, Karper L P, Seibyl J P. et al . Subanesthetic effects of the noncompetitive NMDA antagonist, ketamine, in humans. Psychotomimetic, perceptual, cognitive, and neuroendocrine responses.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;  51 199-214
• 15 Camu F, Vanlersberghe C. Pharmacology of systemic analgesics.  Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2002;  16 475-488
• 16 Subramaniam K, Subramaniam B, Steinbrook R A. Ketamine as adjuvant analgesic to opioids: a quantitative and qualitative systematic review.  Anesth Analg. 2004;  99 482-495
• 17 Gruber R P, Morley B. Ketamine-assisted intravenous sedation with midazolam: benefits and potential problems.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;  104 1823-1825
• 18 Guit J B, Koning H M, Coster M L. et al . Ketamine as analgesic for total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol.  Anaesthesia. 1991;  46 24-27
• 19 Kirberg A, Sagredo R, Montalva G, Flores E. Ketamine for pediatric endoscopic procedures and as a sedation complement for adult patients.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  61 501-502
• 20 Cohen L B, Dubovsky A N, Aisenberg J, Miller K M. Propofol for endoscopic sedation: a protocol for safe and effective administration by the gastroenterologist.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  58 725-732