Propofol Versus Midazolam for Conscious Sedation Guided by Processed EEG During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study

Background and Study Aims: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a complex procedure, which requires appropriate sedation. The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the quality and characteristics of sedation with midazolam or propofol in patients undergoing ERCP.

Patients and Methods: A total of 32 patients undergoing ERCP were randomly allocated for sedation with propofol (n = 15) or midazolam (n = 17). Blood pressure, heart rate, and O₂ saturation were monitored. Sedation was maintained at near constant levels by use of the spectral edge frequency (SEF) technique, an EEG-based method for measuring the depth of sedation. Clinical variables, patient cooperation, time to recovery, and amnesia served as outcome variables.

Results: There was no significant difference between the two study groups in patient characteristics. The „target SEF” was 13.6 ± 0.7 Hz for the propofol group and 14.8 ± 1.1 Hz for the midazolam group (n.s.). The only clinical parameter with a significant difference between the groups was the percent of time in which the heart rate deviated more than 20 % from baseline for at least 2 minutes, i.e. 14.6 ± 2.0 % for propofol and 48.2 ± 38.0 % for midazolam (P < 0.01). Patient cooperation was better in the propofol group than in the midazolam group (full cooperation, 13/15 vs. 1/17, respectively; P < 0.001). Patient recovery was significantly quicker in the propofol group (P< 0.001). The degree of amnesia was similar in both groups; no patient in either group remembered details of the procedure.

Conclusions: ERCP is better tolerated by patients sedated with propofol compared with midazolam, with a shorter recovery time and lesser hemodynamic side effects. Propofol should be considered to be the sedative drug of choice for ERCP.

References

• 1 McCune WS, Shorb PE, Moscovitz H. Endoscopic cannulation of the ampulla of Vater: a preliminary report.  Ann Surg. 1968;  167 752-756
• 2 Classen M. Endoscopic papillotomy - new indications, short and long term results.  Clin Gastroenterol. 1986;  15 457-469
• 3 Huibregtse K, Havercamp HJ, Tytgat GNJ. Trans-papillary positioning of a large bore 3.2-mm biliary endoprosthesis.  Endoscopy. 1981;  13 217-219
• 4 McCloy RF, Pearson RC. Which agent and how to deliver it? A review of benzodiazepine sedation and its reversal in endoscopy.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1990;  25 Suppl 179 7-11
• 5 Bell GD, Spickett GP, Reeve PA, et al. Intravenous midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. A study of 800 consecutive cases relating dose to age and sex of patient.  Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1987;  23 241-243
• 6 Pearson RC, McCloy RF, Morris B, Bardhan KD. Midazolam and flumazenil in gastroenterology.  Acta Anaesthiol Scand. 1990;  34 Suppl 92 21-24
• 7 Smith I, White PF, Nathanson M, Gouldson R. Propofol. An update on its clinical use.  Anesthesiology. 1994;  81 1005-1042
• 8 Carlsson U, Grattidge P. Sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a comparative study of propofol and midazolam.  Endoscopy. 1995;  27 240-243
• 9 Patterson KW, Casey PB, Murray JP, et al. Propofol sedation for outpatient upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: comparison with midazolam.  Br J Anaesth. 1991;  67 108-111
• 10 Gurman GM, Karayev V, Estis E, et al. Continuous I-V propofol administration monitored by computerized EEG in anesthesia and intensive care.  Appl Cardiopulmon Pathophysiol. 1996;  6 71-80
• 11 Shearer ES, O'Sullivan EP, Hunter JM. An assessment of the Cerebrotac 2500 for continuous monitoring of cerebral function in the intensive care units.  Anaesthesia. 1991;  46 750-755
• 12 Jensen S, Knudsen L, Kirkegard L, et al. Flumazenil used for antagonising the central effects of midazolam and diazepam in outpatients.  Acta Anaesthiol Scand. 1989;  33 26-28
• 13 McCune WS. ERCP - the first 20 years.  Endoscopy. 1988;  34 277-278
• 14 Gurman GM, Fajer S, Porat A, et al. Use of EEG spectral edge as an index of equipotency in a comparison of propofol and isoflurane for maintenance of general anesthesia.  Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1994;  11 443-448
• 15 Bardhan KD, Morris P, Taylor PC, et al. Intravenous sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy - diazepam versus midazolam.  BMJ. 1984;  288 1046
• 16 Polster MR, Gray PA, O'Sullivan GO, et al. Comparison of the sedative and amnestic effects of midazolam and propofol.  Br J Anaesth. 1991;  70 612-616
• 17 Weinbroum AA, Halpern P, Rudick V, et al. Midazolam versus propofol for long term sedation in the ICU: a randomized prospective comparison.  Intens Care Med. 1997;  23 1258-1263
• 18 Slogoff S, Keats AS. Randomized trial of primary anesthetic agents on outcome of coronary artery bypass operations.  Anesthesiology. 1989;  70 179-188
• 19 Carrasco G, Molina R, Costa J, et al. Propofol vs. midazolam in short, medium and long term sedation of critically ill patients.  Chest. 1993;  103 557-564
• 20 Baile GR, Cockshott ID, Douglas EJ, et al. Pharmacokinetics of propofol during and after long term continuous infusion for maintenance of sedation of ICU patients.  Br J Anaesth. 1992;  68 486-491