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
M.D. G. M. Gurman,
Division of Anesthesiology Soroka Medical Center
Beer Sheva
Israel 84101
Telefon: + 972-7-6480391
eMail: gurman@bgumail.bgu.ac.il