Quality of psychomotor recovery after propofol sedation for routine endoscopy: a randomized and controlled study

Background and study aims: Propofol sedation is increasingly being used for endoscopy in the outpatient setting. In view of the agent’s short period of action, current recommendations that patients should avoid driving or using public transport unescorted for 24 h may be too strict. Psychomotor recovery and driving skills before and after sedation were therefore assessed.
Patients and methods: A total of 100 patients undergoing routine upper or lower gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly sedated either with propofol alone or with midazolam plus pethidine. The recovery time and quality of recovery were assessed. Psychomotor recovery was evaluated using the number connection test (NCT) and a driving simulator test 1 h before and 2 h after the endoscopic procedure.
Results: Ninety-six patients completed the 2-hour post-sedation procedure. Vital signs were recorded, and no clinically relevant complications occurred. The mean recovery time and quality of recovery were significantly better after propofol sedation (14 ± 9 min vs. 25 ± 8 min and 8.7 ± 1.3 vs. 6.3 ± 1.1 points) (P < 0.01). Psychomotor and driving skills after propofol sedation were similar to the baseline results, while in the midazolam/pethidine group, patients showed significantly more lane deviations (1.1 ± 0.9 vs. 1.6 ± 0.9), time over the speed limit (0.3 ± 0.83 vs. 0.6 ± 0.88), missed stoplights more often (0.05 ± 0.31 vs. 0.11 ± 0.35), and had slower reaction times for unexpected events (1.11 ± 0.46 s vs. 1.39 ± 0.44 s) (P < 0.01). The time needed to complete the NCT after sedation did not differ between the two groups (32.1 ± 12.0 s vs. 33.4 ± 12.6 s for propofol; 31.5 ± 11.2 s vs. 34.6 ± 12.8 s for midazolam/pethidine).
Conclusions: Current recommendations that patients should refrain from driving and unescorted use of public transport for 24 h after sedation may need to be reconsidered in patients who receive propofol sedation.

References

• 1 Korttila K. Recovery from outpatient anaesthesia: factors affecting outcome.  Anaesthesia. 1995;  50 (Suppl) 22-28
• 2 Korttila K. Recovery period and discharge. In: White PF (ed) Outpatient anesthesia. New York; Churchill Livingstone 1990: 369-371
• 3 Sinclair D R, Chung F, Smiley A. General anesthesia does not impair simulator driving skills in volunteers in the immediate recovery period: a pilot study.  Can J Anaesth. 2003;  50 238-245
• 4 Willey J, Vargo J J, Connor J T. et al . Quantitative assessment of psychomotor recovery after sedation and analgesia for outpatient EGD.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 810-816
• 5 Assy N, Rosser B G, Grahame G R. et al . Risk of sedation for upper GI endoscopy exacerbating subclinical hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 690-694
• 6 Vasudevan A E, Goh K L, Bulgiba A M. Impairment of psychomotor responses after conscious sedation in cirrhotic patients undergoing therapeutic upper GI endoscopy.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;  97 1717-1721
• 7 Schwender D, Muller A, Madler M. et al . Recovery of psychomotor and cognitive functions following anesthesia: propofol/alfentanil and thiopental/isoflurane/ alfentanil.  Anaesthesist. 1993;  42 583-591
• 8 Oswald W D, Roth E. Der Zahlenverbindungs-Test (ZVT). Handanweisung. Göttingen; Hogrefe 1978
• 9 Reitan R M. Validity of the trail making test as an indication of organic brain damage.  Percept Mot Skills. 1958;  8 271-276
• 10 Kankaria A, Lewis J H, Ginsberg G. et al . Flumazenil reversal of psychomotor impairment due to midazolam or diazepam for conscious sedation for upper endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  44 416-421
• 11 British Society of Gastroenterology .Clinical practice guidelines: safety and sedation during endoscopic procedures. London; British Society of Gastroenterology 2003 http://http://www.bsg.org.uk/clinical_prac/guidelines/sedation.htm
• 12 Hofmann C, Jung M. Empfehlungen der DGVS für die Durchführung endoskopischer Untersuchungen. Stuttgart; Sauerbruch und Scheuerlen 2002
• 13 Chung F. Recovery pattern and home-readiness after ambulatory surgery.  Anesth Analg. 1995;  80 896-902
• 14 Aldrete J A. Modifications to the postanesthesia score for use in ambulatory surgery.  J Perianesth Nurs. 1998;  13 148-155
• 15 Korttila K. Recovery after intravenous sedation: a comparison of clinical and paper and pencil tests used in assessing late effects of diazepam.  Anaesthesia. 1976;  31 724-731
• 16 Nuotto E J, Korttila K T, Lichtor J L. et al . Sedation and recovery of psychomotor function after intravenous administration of various doses of midazolam and diazepam.  Anesth Analg. 1992;  74 265-271
• 17 Thapar P, Zacny J P, Choi M. et al . Objective and subjective impairment from often-used sedative/analgesic combinations in ambulatory surgery, using alcohol as a benchmark.  Anesth Analg. 1995;  80 1092-1098
• 18 Sobel K G, McCart G M. Drug use and accidental falls in an intermediate care facility.  Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1983;  17 539-542
• 19 Neutel C I. Risk of traffic accident injury after a prescription for a benzodiazepine.  Ann Epidemiol. 1995;  5 239-244
• 20 Johansson K, Bryding G, Dahl M L. et al . Traffic dangerous drugs are often found in fatally injured older male drivers.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;  45 1029-1031
• 21 Bastos M L, Galante L. Toxicological findings in victims of traumatic deaths.  J Forensic Sci. 1976;  21 176-186
• 22 Vermeeren A. Residual effects of hypnotics: epidemiology and clinical implications.  CNS Drugs. 2004;  18 297-328
• 23 Ogg T W. An assessment of postoperative outpatient cases.  Br Med J. 1972;  4 573-576
• 24 Patterson K W, Casey P B, Murray J P. et al . Propofol sedation for outpatient upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: comparison with midazolam.  Br J Anaesth. 1991;  67 108-111
• 25 Carlsson U, Grattidge P. Sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a comparative study of propofol and midazolam.  Endoscopy. 1995;  27 240-243
• 26 Sipe B W, Rex D K, Latinovich D. et al . Propofol versus midazolam/meperidine for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  55 815-825
• 27 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
• 28 Seifert H, Schmitt T H, Gultekin T. et al . Sedation with propofol plus midazolam versus propofol alone for interventional endoscopic procedures: a prospective, randomized study.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2000;  14 1207-1214
• 29 Riphaus A, Stergiou N, Wehrmann T. Sedation with propofol for routine ERCP in high-risk octogenarians: a randomized, controlled study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;  100 1957-1963
• 30 Grant S A, Murdoch J, Millar K. Blood propofol concentration and psychomotor effects on driving skills.  Br J Anaesth. 2000;  85 396-400
• 31 Martin J P, Sexton B F, Saunders B P. et al . Inhaled patient-administered nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture does not impair driving ability when used as analgesia during screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  51 701-703
• 32 Norton A C, Dundas C R. Induction agents for day-case anaesthesia: a double-blind comparison of propofol and midazolam antagonised by flumazenil.  Anaesthesia. 1990;  45 198-203