Propofol versus propofol plus hydrocodone for flexible bronchoscopy: a randomised study.

Propofol and the combination of a benzodiazepine and an opiate have been established for sedation in flexible bronchoscopy. It is as yet unknown whether propofol in combination with an opiate is superior to propofol alone to suppress cough during the procedure. 300 consecutive patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy at a tertiary care university hospital were randomly allocated to receive either the combination propofol and hydrocodone or propofol alone in a double-blind fashion. The primary end-point was the cough score during the procedure as estimated by the physician using a visual analogue scale. Demographics were similar in both groups. Compared with propofol alone, median (interquartile range) cough scores assessed by physicians, nurses and patients were significantly lower in the group randomised to the combination propofol and hydrocodone (2.5 (1.5-4.0) versus 2.0 (1.0-3.0), respectively, p=0.011). Additionally, patients receiving the combination required significantly lower doses of propofol than those receiving propofol alone (200 mg (140-280) versus 260 mg (180-350), p<0.0001). Complex examinations, including bronchoalveolar lavage or transbronchial biopsy, benefited more from additional opiate. The duration of the procedure, time to discharge and complication rate were similar in both groups. The combination of propofol and hydrocodone is safe and superior to propofol alone for cough suppression in flexible bronchoscopy.

Propofol versus combined sedation in flexible bronchoscopy: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

Combined sedation with a benzodiazepine and an opiate has been proposed as standard sedation for bronchoscopy. Propofol is a sedative-hypnotic with a rapid onset of action and fast recovery time, but carries the potential risk of respiratory failure. Consecutive patients (n = 200) were randomly allocated to receive either the combination midazolam and hydrocodone or intravenous propofol. The primary end-points were the mean lowest arterial oxygen saturation during bronchoscopy and the readiness-for-discharge score 1 h after the procedure. The mean lowest arterial oxygen saturation during bronchoscopy did not differ across treatment groups (p = 0.422), and the number of patients recording an arterial oxygen saturation of < or =90% on at least one occasion was similar in both groups (p = 0.273). The median (interquartile range) readiness-for-discharge score 1 h after the procedure was significantly higher in the propofol group than in the combined sedation group (8 (6-9) versus 7 (5-9); p = 0.035). Patients assigned propofol exhibited less tachycardia during bronchoscopy and for > or =1 h after the examination. Minor procedural complications were noted in 71 (35.5%) patients and exhibited a similar incidence in both treatment arms (p = 0.460). Propofol is as effective and safe as combined sedation in patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy, thus representing an appealing option if timely discharge is a priority.

Measurement of combined oximetry and cutaneous capnography during flexible bronchoscopy.

The aim of the present study was to assess the feasibility of measuring combined arterial oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry (Sp,O2) and cutaneous carbon dioxide tension (Pc,CO2) to monitor ventilation and quantify change in Pc,CO2 during bronchoscopy. Combined Sp,O2 and Pc,CO2 were measured at the ear lobe in 114 patients. In four patients, the ear-clip slipped and they were excluded. In total, 11 patients had artefacts with Sp,O2 recordings, thus, Sp,O2 was analysed in 99 patients. Spirometry data were available in 77 patients. Multivariate analysis of covariance and logistic regression were used for statistical analyses. Mean baseline Pc,CO2 was 4.78+/-1.06 kPa (36+/-8 mmHg) and mean rise in the Pc,CO2 during bronchoscopy was 1.26+/-0.70 kPa (9.5+/-5.3 mmHg), while mean Pc,CO2 at the end of bronchoscopy was 5.85+/-1.19 kPa (44+/-9 mmHg) . Baseline Pc,CO2 and the lowest Sp,O2 were significantly associated with peak Pc,CO2 and the change in Pc,CO2 during bronchoscopy. Risk of significant hypoxaemia (Sp,O2

Cough suppression during flexible bronchoscopy using combined sedation with midazolam and hydrocodone: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Current British Thoracic Society guidelines do not recommend routinely the combined use of a benzodiazepine and opiate during flexible bronchoscopy (FB). A randomised, placebo controlled, double blind study was undertaken to determine whether hydrocodone in combination with midazolan improves cough suppression during FB without increasing the risk of desaturation. METHODS: 120 patients were randomised to receive midazolam and 5 mg i.v. hydrocodone or midazolam and placebo with topical anaesthesia. Pulse oximetry was recorded continuously during FB. Bronchoscopists and nurses charted their perception of cough and the patients rated their discomfort during the procedure on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the indication for FB, duration of procedure (21 (11) min v 22 (10) min, p = 0.570), doses of supplemental lignocaine (171 (60) mg v 173 (66) mg, p = 0.766) and midazolam (4.5 (2.3) mg v 4.9 (2.7) mg, p = 0.309), lowest oxygen saturation (94.8 (2.7) v 94.9 (2.7), p = 0.433), and desaturations < or =90%. Perception of cough by both the bronchoscopist and the nurse was significantly lower in the hydrocodone group (3 (0-10) and 3 (0-10)) than in the placebo group (6 (0-10) and 6 (0-10)), respectively (p = 0.001). According to the VAS scale, patients' tolerance was also significantly better with hydrocodone than with placebo (2 (0-8) v 3 (0-9), p = 0.043). CONCLUSION: The combination of midazolam and hydrocodone markedly reduces cough during FB without causing significant desaturation, especially when invasive diagnostic procedures are performed.

Conscious sedation with propofol in elderly patients: a prospective evaluation.

AIM: To characterize the safety of endoscopic procedures and propofol use as administered by nurses in a cohort of elderly patients. METHODS: During 19 months all endoscopy patients > 70 years were eligible for this prospective observational study. Patients were assigned to group A (70-85 years) or group B (> 85 years). Records from all patients < 70 years treated during the same period served as controls. Specially trained nurses administered the propofol and monitored for complications (decrease in the peripheral oxygen saturation, mean arterial pressure or heart rate). RESULTS: There were 1435 endoscopic procedures in group A and 351 in group B. There was no procedure or sedation-related mortality, nor a significantly greater need for emergency intervention than in the control group. Two patients required short mask ventilation but recovered without sequelae. Compared with younger patients, there was a significant increase in risk for a short oxygen desaturation < 90% and a decrease in oxygen saturation > 5%. Arterial hypotension occurred significantly more often in the control group than among the aged patients. CONCLUSIONS: This present study documents that gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are safe and well tolerated even in the very elderly. Nurse-administered propofol is a safe and reasonable sedation method in these patients.