Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2018; 06(01): E51-E57
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-122225
Original article
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2018

Efficacy and safety of sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric cancers using a comparative trial of propofol versus midazolam

Hitomi Kikuchi
1   Department of Endoscopy, Fukushima Medical University Hospital, Fukushima, Japan
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan
,
Takuto Hikichi
1   Department of Endoscopy, Fukushima Medical University Hospital, Fukushima, Japan
,
Ko Watanabe
1   Department of Endoscopy, Fukushima Medical University Hospital, Fukushima, Japan
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan
,
Jun Nakamura
1   Department of Endoscopy, Fukushima Medical University Hospital, Fukushima, Japan
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan
,
Tadayuki Takagi
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan
,
Rei Suzuki
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan
,
Mitsuru Sugimoto
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan
,
Yuichi Waragai
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan
,
Naoki Konno
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan
,
Hiroyuki Asama
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan
,
Mika Takasumi
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan
,
Yuki Sato
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan
,
Katsutoshi Obara
3   Department of Advanced Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan
,
Hiromasa Ohira
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 22 January 2017

accepted after revision 11 September 2017

Publication Date:
12 January 2018 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Proper sedation is necessary for the safe and satisfactory completion of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer. This study was conducted as a comparative trial of efficacy and safety, comparing propofol-based sedation and midazolam-based sedation during ESD of early gastric cancer patients.

Patients and methods This study examined 64 lesions in 58 patients treated using ESD with midazolam plus pentazocine between July 2013 and January 2014 (group M) and 237 lesions in 216 patients treated by ESD using propofol plus pentazocine between February 2014 and December 2015 (group P). The two groups were compared in terms of the frequency of body movement during ESD as the primary outcome and in terms of the procedure time, en bloc resection rate, intraoperative change in cardiorespiratory dynamics, and postoperative awareness as the secondary outcomes. Body movement was defined as movement by a patient that required interruption of the procedure or restraint of the patient’s body trunk, and addition of a sedative agent.

Results The median frequency of body movement during ESD was significantly lower in group P (0 times) than in group M (3 times) (P < 0.001). No significant difference was found for the mean procedure time (117 min in group P; 127 min in group M). Although no significant difference was found in the incidence of hypoxemia, bradycardia, or bradypnea, the incidence of hypotension was significantly higher in group P (31.5 %) than in group M (6.9 %) (P = 0.004). Patients in group P had significantly higher postoperative awareness immediately after ESD and at 1 hour after ESD (P = 0.002 and 0.022, respectively).

Conclusion These results demonstrate the efficacy and safety of propofol-based sedation for gastric ESD.

 

  • References

  • 1 Gotoda T, Iwasaki M, Kusano C. et al. Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer treated by guideline and expanded National Cancer Centre criteria. Br J Surg 2010; 97: 868-871
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Oda I, Gotoda T, Hamanaka H. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: technical feasibility, operation time and complications from a large consecutive series. Dig Endosc 2005; 17: 54-58
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Gotoda T. Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2007; 10: 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Nonaka S, Oda I, Nakaya T. et al. Clinical impact of a strategy involving endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: determining the optimal pathway. Gastric Cancer 2011; 14: 56-62
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Imagawa A, Okada H, Kawahara Y. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: results and degrees of technical difficulty as well as success. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 987-990
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Kiriyama S, Gotoda T, Sano H. et al. Safe and effective sedation in endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a randomized comparison between propofol continuous infusion and intermittent midazolam injection. J Gastroenterol 2010; 45: 831-837
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Skues MA, Prys-Roberts C. The pharmacology of propofol. J Clin Anesth 1989; 1: 387-400
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Yamagata T, Hirasawa D, Fujita N. et al. Efficacy of Propofol sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD): assessment with prospective data collection. Intern Med 2011; 50: 1455-1460
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Larijani GE, Gratz I, Afshar M. et al. Clinical pharmacology of propofol: an intravenous anesthetic agent. DICP 1989; 23: 743-749
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Kanto J, Gepts E. Pharmacokinetic implications for the clinical use of propofol. Clin Pharmacokinet 1989; 17: 308-326
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Riphaus A, Gstettenbauer T, Frenz MB. et al. Quality of psychomotor recovery after propofol sedation for routine endoscopy: a randomized and controlled study. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 677-683
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Sipe BW, Rex DK, Latinovich D. et al. Propofol versus midazolam/meperidine for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 815-825
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Weston BR, Chadalawada V, Chalasani N. et al. Nurse-administered propofol versus midazolam and meperidine for upper endoscopy in cirrhotic patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2440-2447
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Carlsson U, Grattidge P. Sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a comparative study of propofol and midazolam. Endoscopy 1995; 27: 240-243
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Koshy G, Nair S, Norkus EP. et al. Propofol versus midazolam and meperidine for conscious sedation in GI endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 1476-1479
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Vargo JJ, Zuccaro GJr, Dumot JA. et al. Gastroenterologist-administered propofol versus meperidine and midazolam for advanced upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2002; 123: 8-16
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Kiriyama S, Naitoh H, Kuwano H. Propofol sedation during endoscopic treatment for early gastric cancer compared to midazolam. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 11985-11990
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 American Society of Anesthesiologists. Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologists. Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists Anesthesiology. American Society of Anesthesiologists; 2002 96. 1004-1017
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Cohen LB, Wecsler JS, Gaetano JN. et al. Endoscopic sedation in the United States: results from a nationwide survey. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 967-974
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Friedrich K, Stremmel W, Sieg A. Endoscopist-administered propofol sedation is safe - a prospective evaluation of 10,000 patients in an outpatient practice. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2012; 21: 259-263
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Jung M, Hofmann C, Kiesslich R. et al. Improved sedation in diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: propofol is an alternative to midazolam. Endoscopy 2000; 32: 233-238
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Yusoff IF, Raymond G, Sahai AV. Endoscopist administered propofol for upper-GI EUS is safe and effective: a prospective study in 500 patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 356-360
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Park CH, Shin S, Lee SK. et al. Assessing the stability and safety of procedure during endoscopic submucosal dissection according to sedation methods: a randomized trial. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0120529
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar