Safety and efficacy of target-controlled infusion versus intermittent bolus administration of propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Cuiabano, Igor Seror
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: de Miranda Garbin, Priscila, Módolo, Norma Sueli Pinheiro [UNESP], do Nascimento, Paulo [UNESP]
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjane.2022.06.003
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/241438
Resumo: Background: Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of Target-Controlled Infusion (TCI) versus intermittent bolus of propofol for colonoscopy sedation. Methods: We conducted a randomized (1:1), single-blind, parallel-group superiority trial with fifty ASA I or II patients, both sexes, aged 18 to 65 years, Body Mass Index ≤ 30 kg.m−2, undergoing colonoscopy, allocated to receive propofol by TCI (effect-site, 2 μg.mL−1 plus 0.5 μg.mL−1 until unconsciousness and as necessary for agitation) or intermittent bolus (1 mg.kg−1 plus 0.5 mg.kg−1 every 5 minutes or as above). The primary safety outcome was the need for airway maneuvers and the primary efficacy outcome was the need for interventions to adjust the level of sedation. Secondary outcomes included incidence of agitation, propofol dose, and time to recovery. Results: The median (IQR) number of airway maneuvers and interventions needed to adjust sedation was 0 (0‒0) vs. 0 (0‒0) (p = 0.239) and 1 (0‒1) vs. 3 (1‒4) (p < 0.001) in the TCI and control groups, respectively. Agitation was more common in the intermittent bolus group ‒ 2 (0‒2) vs. 1 (0‒1), p < 0.001. The mean ± SD time to recovery was 4.9 ± 1.4 minutes in the TCI group vs. 2.3 ± 1.6 minutes in the control group (p < 0.001). The total propofol dose was higher in the TCI group (234 ± 46 µg.kg−1.min−1 vs. 195 ± 44 µg.kg−1.min−1 (p = 0.040)). Conclusions: During colonoscopy, TCI is as safe as intermittent bolus of propofol while reducing the incidence of agitation and the need for dose adjustments. However, intermittent bolus administration was associated with lower total propofol dose and earlier recovery.
id UNSP_0ffca623266096dafd04ea19ef047866
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/241438
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Safety and efficacy of target-controlled infusion versus intermittent bolus administration of propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trialColonoscopyDeep sedationIntravenous anestheticsPropofolBackground: Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of Target-Controlled Infusion (TCI) versus intermittent bolus of propofol for colonoscopy sedation. Methods: We conducted a randomized (1:1), single-blind, parallel-group superiority trial with fifty ASA I or II patients, both sexes, aged 18 to 65 years, Body Mass Index ≤ 30 kg.m−2, undergoing colonoscopy, allocated to receive propofol by TCI (effect-site, 2 μg.mL−1 plus 0.5 μg.mL−1 until unconsciousness and as necessary for agitation) or intermittent bolus (1 mg.kg−1 plus 0.5 mg.kg−1 every 5 minutes or as above). The primary safety outcome was the need for airway maneuvers and the primary efficacy outcome was the need for interventions to adjust the level of sedation. Secondary outcomes included incidence of agitation, propofol dose, and time to recovery. Results: The median (IQR) number of airway maneuvers and interventions needed to adjust sedation was 0 (0‒0) vs. 0 (0‒0) (p = 0.239) and 1 (0‒1) vs. 3 (1‒4) (p < 0.001) in the TCI and control groups, respectively. Agitation was more common in the intermittent bolus group ‒ 2 (0‒2) vs. 1 (0‒1), p < 0.001. The mean ± SD time to recovery was 4.9 ± 1.4 minutes in the TCI group vs. 2.3 ± 1.6 minutes in the control group (p < 0.001). The total propofol dose was higher in the TCI group (234 ± 46 µg.kg−1.min−1 vs. 195 ± 44 µg.kg−1.min−1 (p = 0.040)). Conclusions: During colonoscopy, TCI is as safe as intermittent bolus of propofol while reducing the incidence of agitation and the need for dose adjustments. However, intermittent bolus administration was associated with lower total propofol dose and earlier recovery.Hospital de Câncer de Mato Grosso (Hcan-MT), MTHospital Nossa Senhora do Perpétuo Socorro, SCUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu Departamento de Especialidades Cirúrgicas e Anestesiologia, SPUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu Departamento de Especialidades Cirúrgicas e Anestesiologia, SPHospital de Câncer de Mato Grosso (Hcan-MT)Hospital Nossa Senhora do Perpétuo SocorroUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)Cuiabano, Igor Serorde Miranda Garbin, PriscilaMódolo, Norma Sueli Pinheiro [UNESP]do Nascimento, Paulo [UNESP]2023-03-01T21:03:04Z2023-03-01T21:03:04Z2022-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjane.2022.06.003Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English Edition).2352-22910104-0014http://hdl.handle.net/11449/24143810.1016/j.bjane.2022.06.0032-s2.0-85135153070Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengBrazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English Edition)info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-08-14T13:20:02Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/241438Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-14T13:20:02Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Safety and efficacy of target-controlled infusion versus intermittent bolus administration of propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial
title Safety and efficacy of target-controlled infusion versus intermittent bolus administration of propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial
spellingShingle Safety and efficacy of target-controlled infusion versus intermittent bolus administration of propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial
Cuiabano, Igor Seror
Colonoscopy
Deep sedation
Intravenous anesthetics
Propofol
title_short Safety and efficacy of target-controlled infusion versus intermittent bolus administration of propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial
title_full Safety and efficacy of target-controlled infusion versus intermittent bolus administration of propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Safety and efficacy of target-controlled infusion versus intermittent bolus administration of propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Safety and efficacy of target-controlled infusion versus intermittent bolus administration of propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial
title_sort Safety and efficacy of target-controlled infusion versus intermittent bolus administration of propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial
author Cuiabano, Igor Seror
author_facet Cuiabano, Igor Seror
de Miranda Garbin, Priscila
Módolo, Norma Sueli Pinheiro [UNESP]
do Nascimento, Paulo [UNESP]
author_role author
author2 de Miranda Garbin, Priscila
Módolo, Norma Sueli Pinheiro [UNESP]
do Nascimento, Paulo [UNESP]
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Hospital de Câncer de Mato Grosso (Hcan-MT)
Hospital Nossa Senhora do Perpétuo Socorro
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Cuiabano, Igor Seror
de Miranda Garbin, Priscila
Módolo, Norma Sueli Pinheiro [UNESP]
do Nascimento, Paulo [UNESP]
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Colonoscopy
Deep sedation
Intravenous anesthetics
Propofol
topic Colonoscopy
Deep sedation
Intravenous anesthetics
Propofol
description Background: Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of Target-Controlled Infusion (TCI) versus intermittent bolus of propofol for colonoscopy sedation. Methods: We conducted a randomized (1:1), single-blind, parallel-group superiority trial with fifty ASA I or II patients, both sexes, aged 18 to 65 years, Body Mass Index ≤ 30 kg.m−2, undergoing colonoscopy, allocated to receive propofol by TCI (effect-site, 2 μg.mL−1 plus 0.5 μg.mL−1 until unconsciousness and as necessary for agitation) or intermittent bolus (1 mg.kg−1 plus 0.5 mg.kg−1 every 5 minutes or as above). The primary safety outcome was the need for airway maneuvers and the primary efficacy outcome was the need for interventions to adjust the level of sedation. Secondary outcomes included incidence of agitation, propofol dose, and time to recovery. Results: The median (IQR) number of airway maneuvers and interventions needed to adjust sedation was 0 (0‒0) vs. 0 (0‒0) (p = 0.239) and 1 (0‒1) vs. 3 (1‒4) (p < 0.001) in the TCI and control groups, respectively. Agitation was more common in the intermittent bolus group ‒ 2 (0‒2) vs. 1 (0‒1), p < 0.001. The mean ± SD time to recovery was 4.9 ± 1.4 minutes in the TCI group vs. 2.3 ± 1.6 minutes in the control group (p < 0.001). The total propofol dose was higher in the TCI group (234 ± 46 µg.kg−1.min−1 vs. 195 ± 44 µg.kg−1.min−1 (p = 0.040)). Conclusions: During colonoscopy, TCI is as safe as intermittent bolus of propofol while reducing the incidence of agitation and the need for dose adjustments. However, intermittent bolus administration was associated with lower total propofol dose and earlier recovery.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-01-01
2023-03-01T21:03:04Z
2023-03-01T21:03:04Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjane.2022.06.003
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English Edition).
2352-2291
0104-0014
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/241438
10.1016/j.bjane.2022.06.003
2-s2.0-85135153070
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjane.2022.06.003
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/241438
identifier_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English Edition).
2352-2291
0104-0014
10.1016/j.bjane.2022.06.003
2-s2.0-85135153070
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English Edition)
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1808128100210311168