Safety and efficacy of target-controlled infusion versus intermittent bolus administration of propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
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 |