ABSTRACT
Although the role of nurses in endoscopic sedation and monitoring varies widely, our experience has been that an active role of nurses in the administration of sedation and in patient monitoring has been safe for patients, has allowed expansion of the use of propofol in GI endoscopy in a cost-effective fashion, and has been satisfying to patients and nurses. In addition, in some instances nurse administration of sedation has improved the efficiency of the endoscopy unit. The role of nurses in endoscopic sedation and monitoring continues to develop, and we are enthusiastic about an active role for nurses.
Subject(s)
Conscious Sedation/nursing , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/nursing , Hypnotics and Sedatives/administration & dosage , Propofol/administration & dosage , HumansABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Upper GI endoscopy is often performed in patients with chronic liver disease to screen for esophageal and gastric varices. Propofol is currently under evaluation as an alternative to the combination of midazolam and meperidine for sedation during endoscopic procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare nurse-administered propofol to midazolam and meperidine for sedation in patients with chronic liver disease undergoing diagnostic upper GI endoscopy. METHODS: Twenty outpatients who had known chronic liver disease (Child-Pugh class A or B) and were undergoing variceal screening were randomized to receive propofol or midazolam plus meperidine for sedation. Administration of sedation was performed by a registered nurse and supervised by the endoscopist. Outcome measures studied were induction and recovery times, efficacy and safety of sedation, patient satisfaction, and return to baseline function. RESULTS: The mean dose of propofol and meperidine/midazolam administered was 203 mg (SD 43.7, range 150-280) and 71.3 mg (SD 17.7, range 50-100)/5.3 mg (SD 0.9, range 3.0-6.0), respectively. The mean time to achieve adequate sedation was 3.6 min (SD 1.2) for the propofol group in comparison to 7.3 min (SD 2.8) for the meperidine/midazolam group (p<0.05). Procedure times between the groups were similar: propofol, 3.9 min (SD 1.9); midazolam/meperidine, 2.7 min (SD 0.8) (p=0.11). The level of sedation achieved by the propofol group was greater (p=0.0001). Time to full recovery was faster in the propofol group: 34.9 min (SD 10.3) versus 51.6 min (SD 18.4) (p<0.05). The mean time to reach a maximal level of alertness on the Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale for the propofol group was 15 min (SD 3.6) versus 29 min (SD 10.5) (p=0.001). Although both groups recorded a high level of satisfaction, patients receiving propofol expressed greater overall mean satisfaction with the quality of their sedation at the time of discharge (p<0.05), and reported a return to baseline function sooner in the majority of cases. Propofol achieved comparable levels of efficacy and safety to meperidine/midazolam in our study group. Both were well tolerated with minimal complications. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol sedation administered by registered nurses in the setting of adequate patient monitoring is efficacious and well tolerated in patients with liver disease who are undergoing variceal screening by upper endoscopy. Patients were more satisfied with the quality of sedation, and return to baseline function was usually sooner compared to results achieved with midazolam/meperidine. Propofol offers advantages over meperidine/midazolam in cirrhotic patients.
Subject(s)
Conscious Sedation/nursing , Endoscopy, Digestive System/methods , Liver Cirrhosis/diagnosis , Meperidine/administration & dosage , Midazolam/administration & dosage , Propofol/administration & dosage , Aged , Ambulatory Care , Chronic Disease , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Administration Schedule , Esophageal and Gastric Varices/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Male , Middle Aged , Pain Measurement , Patient Satisfaction , Probability , Reference Values , Risk Assessment , Severity of Illness IndexABSTRACT
Propofol for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has been associated with improved patient satisfaction relative to combinations of meperidine and midazolam. Delivery of propofol by registered nurses has been shown to be more cost-effective than administration by anesthesiologists or nurse anesthetists. Here, the authors review their experience with nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) at their institutions (a hospital endoscopy unit in a tertiary medical center and an ambulatory surgery center). Endoscopic procedures for which NAPS is (or is not) recommended are listed, and a profile of patients for whom NAPS is contraindicated is given. Steps toward the development of programs and acquisition of training in NAPS are recommended; these include determining what state, local, and institutional laws apply to propofol administration; developing a written protocol; and instituting a training program that proceeds from observation to supervised administration to independent administration of propofol, with appropriate monitoring of safety records. Experience with NAPS using bolus titration (dosage, timing, coadministration with other agents) is detailed, and proper patient monitoring is discussed. NAPS is in its infancy, but this method of sedation shows considerable promise for improving patient satisfaction with, and thereby the reputation of, endoscopic procedures.
Subject(s)
Conscious Sedation/methods , Endoscopy, Digestive System/methods , Nurse Clinicians/statistics & numerical data , Propofol/administration & dosage , Colonoscopy/methods , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Administration Schedule , Esophagoscopy/methods , Female , Gastroscopy/methods , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Male , Patient SatisfactionABSTRACT
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Propofol is under evaluation as a sedative for endoscopic procedures. We compared nurse-administered propofol to midazolam plus fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive propofol or midazolam plus fentanyl, administered by a registered nurse and supervised only by an endoscopist. Endpoints were patient satisfaction, procedure and recovery times, neuropsychologic function, and complications. RESULTS: The mean dose of propofol administered was 277 mg; mean doses of midazolam and fentanyl were 7.2 mg and 117 microg, respectively. Mean time to sedation was faster with propofol (2.1 vs. 6.1 min; P<0.0001), and depth of sedation was greater (P<0.0001). Patients receiving propofol reached full recovery sooner (16.5 vs. 27.5 min; P=0.0001) and were discharged sooner (36.5 vs. 46.1 min; P=0.01). After recovery, the propofol group scored better on tests reflective of learning, memory, working memory span, and mental speed. Six minor complications occurred in the propofol group: 4 episodes of hypotension, 1 episode of bradycardia, and 1 rash. Five complications occurred with the use of midazolam and fentanyl: one episode of oxygen desaturation requiring mask ventilation and 4 episodes of hypotension. Patients in the propofol vs. midazolam and fentanyl groups reported similar degrees of overall satisfaction using a 10-cm visual analog scale (9.3 vs. 9.4, P>0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-administered propofol resulted in several advantages for outpatient colonoscopy compared with midazolam plus fentanyl, but did not improve patient satisfaction.
