Propofol Versus Midazolam for Conscious Sedation Guided by Processed EEG During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background and Study Aims: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a complex procedure, which requires appropriate sedation. The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the quality and characteristics of sedation with midazolam or propofol in patients undergoing ERCP. Patients and Methods: A total of 32 patients undergoing ERCP were randomly allocated for sedation with propofol (n = 15) or midazolam (n = 17). Blood pressure, heart rate, and O2 saturation were monitored. Sedation was maintained at near constant levels by use of the spectral edge frequency (SEF) technique, an EEG-based method for measuring the depth of sedation. Clinical variables, patient cooperation, time to recovery, and amnesia served as outcome variables. Results: There was no significant difference between the two study groups in patient characteristics. The „target SEF” was 13.6 ± 0.7 Hz for the propofol group and 14.8 ± 1.1 Hz for the midazolam group (n.s.). The only clinical parameter with a significant difference between the groups was the percent of time in which the heart rate deviated more than 20 % from baseline for at least 2 minutes, i.e. 14.6 ± 2.0 % for propofol and 48.2 ± 38.0 % for midazolam (P < 0.01). Patient cooperation was better in the propofol group than in the midazolam group (full cooperation, 13/15 vs. 1/17, respectively; P < 0.001). Patient recovery was significantly quicker in the propofol group (P< 0.001). The degree of amnesia was similar in both groups; no patient in either group remembered details of the procedure. Conclusions: ERCP is better tolerated by patients sedated with propofol compared with midazolam, with a shorter recovery time and lesser hemodynamic side effects. Propofol should be considered to be the sedative drug of choice for ERCP.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: