Nurse-Administered Propofol Versus Midazolam and Meperidine for Upper Endoscopy in Cirrhotic Patients

Brian R. Weston, Vidyasree Chadalawada, Naga Chalasani, Paul Kwo, Christine A. Overley, Michelle Symms, Eloise Strahl, Douglas Rex

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

82 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2440-2447
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume98
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2003

Fingerprint

Meperidine
Midazolam
Propofol
Endoscopy
Nurses
Liver Diseases
Chronic Disease
Patient Satisfaction
Safety
Esophageal and Gastric Varices
Physiologic Monitoring

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Nurse-Administered Propofol Versus Midazolam and Meperidine for Upper Endoscopy in Cirrhotic Patients. / Weston, Brian R.; Chadalawada, Vidyasree; Chalasani, Naga; Kwo, Paul; Overley, Christine A.; Symms, Michelle; Strahl, Eloise; Rex, Douglas.

In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 98, No. 11, 11.2003, p. 2440-2447.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Weston, Brian R. ; Chadalawada, Vidyasree ; Chalasani, Naga ; Kwo, Paul ; Overley, Christine A. ; Symms, Michelle ; Strahl, Eloise ; Rex, Douglas. / Nurse-Administered Propofol Versus Midazolam and Meperidine for Upper Endoscopy in Cirrhotic Patients. In: American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2003 ; Vol. 98, No. 11. pp. 2440-2447.
@article{8bd347a45f3c411c9f94168ea37a9e83,
title = "Nurse-Administered Propofol Versus Midazolam and Meperidine for Upper Endoscopy in Cirrhotic Patients",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Weston, {Brian R.} and Vidyasree Chadalawada and Naga Chalasani and Paul Kwo and Overley, {Christine A.} and Michelle Symms and Eloise Strahl and Douglas Rex",
year = "2003",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.08668.x",
language = "English",
volume = "98",
pages = "2440--2447",
journal = "American Journal of Gastroenterology",
issn = "0002-9270",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Nurse-Administered Propofol Versus Midazolam and Meperidine for Upper Endoscopy in Cirrhotic Patients

AU - Weston, Brian R.

AU - Chadalawada, Vidyasree

AU - Chalasani, Naga

AU - Kwo, Paul

AU - Overley, Christine A.

AU - Symms, Michelle

AU - Strahl, Eloise

AU - Rex, Douglas

PY - 2003/11

Y1 - 2003/11

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0344496205&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0344496205&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.08668.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.08668.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 14638346

AN - SCOPUS:0344496205

VL - 98

SP - 2440

EP - 2447

JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology

JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology

SN - 0002-9270

IS - 11

ER -