HOME
Return to Table of Contents
143 A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL COMPARING PROPOFOL TO MIDAZOLAM PLUS MEPERIDINE FOR SEDATION IN OUTPATIENT COLONOSCOPY D Kao, E Lalor, F McAlister, R Fedorak, L Sheelar, M Buss, M Yeh, G Sandha BACKGROUND: Although some studies have suggested that propofol sedation may be superior to standard sedatives for endoscopic procedures, the Joint Position Statements by the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy have indicated that "clinically important benefits [of propofol sedation] over standard sedatives have not been consistently demonstrated in average-risk patients undergoing standard upper and lower endoscopy".
University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta
AIM: To compare propofol sedation to sedation with midazolam plus meperidine in outpatient colonoscopy.
METHOD: This is a prospective, randomized, single center trial comparing propofol sedation to sedation with midazolam plus meperidine in average-risk outpatient colonoscopy. The primary outcome was patient recovery time (assessed using previously validated scales including Aldrete and Observer's assessment scales). The secondary outcomes were procedure time, patient satisfaction, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Between February 2006 and June 2006, 81 patients were enrolled in this study (mean age 56 yrs, 41 males). Forty two patients were randomized to propofol (P) and thirty nine to midazolam plus meperidine (MM). Recovery times were significantly shorter in the P group (mean 19.3 min, SD 9.9 min) than the MM group (mean 46.9 min, SD 24.9 min, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in procedure time, patient satisfaction, or adverse events between the two study groups.
CONCLUSION: Compared to sedation with midazolam plus meperidine, propofol sedation for outpatient colonoscopy is well tolerated, safe and results in significant and substantial reductions in patient recovery time.