PROPOFOL SEDATION FOR OUTPATIENT UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY: COMPARISON WITH MIDAZOLAM

The objectives of this study were to assess midazolam and propofol as sedative agents for outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy, with particular reference to recovery profile, amnesic effects, and haemodynamic state and oxygenation during the procedure. Forty consecutive patients were allocated rand...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British journal of anaesthesia : BJA 1991-07, Vol.67 (1), p.108-111
Main Authors: PATTERSON, K.W., CASEY, P.B., MURRAY, J.P., O'BOYLE, C.A., CUNNINGHAM, A.J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Ambulatory Care
Anaesthetics
Biological and medical sciences
Conscious Sedation - methods
Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal
Gastrointestinal tract: endoscopy
Humans
Hypnotics. Sedatives
Hypnotics: midazolam
intravenous: propofol
Medical sciences
Memory - drug effects
Midazolam
Neuropharmacology
Oxygen - blood
Partial Pressure
Pharmacology. Drug treatments
Propofol
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopharmacology
Recovery: measurement
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The objectives of this study were to assess midazolam and propofol as sedative agents for outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy, with particular reference to recovery profile, amnesic effects, and haemodynamic state and oxygenation during the procedure. Forty consecutive patients were allocated randomly to two groups. Patients in group I (n = 19) received midazolam 81 (SEM 32) μg kg−1; those in group II (n = 21) received propofol 950 (400) μg kg−1. Both agents were administered as single injections to similar end-points of sedation. Psychomotor function was assessed using the digit symbol substitution test (DSST). Amnesia was measured with a visual memory test and subjective questionnaire. Patients in group I had a lower DSST score than those in group II (P < 0.01), indicating a hangover effect from midazolam. Amnesia was similar in the two groups up to the time of removal of the endoscope. More patients in group II remembered removal of the endoscope (P < 0.001). Oxygen desaturation from baseline was similar in both groups (P < 0.01). An increase in heart rate and decrease in mean arterial pressure were noted in both groups. Propofol provided more rapid recovery compared with midazolam, but was associated with pain on injection, a short amnesia span, and reduced patient acceptance.
ISSN:0007-0912
1471-6771
DOI:10.1093/bja/67.1.108