JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Mandel, J. E. Articles by Kochman, M. L. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mandel, J. E. Articles by Kochman, M. L. Related Collections Anesthetic Techniques Clinical Pharmacology Pharmacology Ambulatory

---

AMBULATORY ANESTHESIOLOGY

A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Trial of Patient-Controlled Sedation with Propofol/Remifentanil Versus Midazolam/Fentanyl for Colonoscopy

Jeff E. Mandel, MD, MS^*, Jonathan W. Tanner, MD, PhD^*, Gary R. Lichtenstein, MD, David C. Metz, MD, David A. Katzka, MD, Gregory G. Ginsberg, MD, and Michael L. Kochman, MD

From the Departments of *Anesthesiology and Critical Care, and Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Address correspondence to Jeff E. Mandel, MD, MS, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, 780 B Dulles Building, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. Address e-mail to mandelj{at}uphs.upenn.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol has been advocated as a method for dealing with the narrow therapeutic window for moderate sedation, but previous studies have methodologic limitations. We hypothesized that, by using remifentanil in conjunction with propofol and using PCS in both arms of the study, we could demonstrate marked improvements in facility use compared with fentanyl plus midazolam.

METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomized (with concealed allocation) to midazolam/fentanyl (group MF) or propofol/remifentanil (group PR) administered via PCS. Time intervals for sedation and recovery, perceptions by patient, nurse, and gastroenterologist, and need for anesthesiologist intervention were assessed.

RESULTS: Group PR patients were sedated and recovered significantly more rapidly than did group MF (P < 0.0001). In the group PR, recovery room time was actually shorter than procedure room time. Patient, nurse, and gastroenterologist perceptions were equivalent between the groups. Two patients in group PR required anesthesiologist intervention for arterial desaturation exceeding the primary safety end point.

CONCLUSIONS: PCS with propofol/remifentanil yields superior facility throughput compared with midazolam/fentanyl when used in an appropriate care setting.

Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999