Midazolam with meperidine or fentanyl for colonoscopy: results of a randomized trial

被引:46
|
作者
Hayee, Bu'Hussain [1 ]
Dunn, Jason [1 ]
Loganayagam, Aathavan [1 ]
Wong, Mandy [1 ]
Saxena, Vishal [1 ]
Rowbotham, David [1 ]
McNair, Alistair [1 ]
机构
[1] Queen Elizabeth NHS Trust, Dept Gastroenterol, London SE18 4QH, England
关键词
SEDATION-FREE COLONOSCOPY; GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY; CLINICAL PHARMACOKINETICS; DIFFICULTY; PETHIDINE; PAIN;
D O I
10.1016/j.gie.2008.09.033
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: A combination of midazolant and opioid is usually used to achieve sedation and analgesia during colonoscopy Two commonly used opioids are meperidine and fentanyl, but few studies have compared their efficacy. Objective: This randomized trial aimed to compare the efficacy and recovery time of 2 sedation regimens consisting of midazolam in combination with either meperidine or fentanyl. Design, Setting, and Patients: A total of 300 Consecutive, unselected adults attending Outpatient colonoscopy at a District General Hospital were enrolled with informed consent and randomized to receive midazolam with meperidine or fentanyl. Data for procedure times, perceived discomfort (according to standard 100-mm visual analog scales [VAS]), and recovery time were collected. Patients and all endoscopy staff directly involved with the procedure were blinded to the regimen used. Main Outcome Measurements: Primary: patients' experience of pain (postrecovery VAS score); secondary: recovery time. Results: A total of 287 patients (150 female, mean [SD] age 54 [17] years) were studied. Recovery time (in minutes) was significantly shorter in patients receiving fentanyl (n = 138) than in those receiving meperidine (n = 149, mean +/- SE: 13.7 +/- 1.8 vs 18.7 +/- 1.7, P = .03), whereas there was no difference in the patients', endoscopists', or nurses' perception of pain during the procedure between the 2 groups. Both groups received a median dose of 3 mg of midazolam (range 2-5 mg). In patients receiving lower closes (2-2.5 and 3-3.5 mg), recovery times were significantly faster with fentanyl (P < .01 and < .05, respectively), whereas at higher closes of midazolam (>= 4 mg) there was no difference between the 2 groups. Limitations: The use of VAS scores and nurse assessment of recovery time were chosen in this study because, despite their subjectivity, these measures were felt to most closely reflect true clinical practice. Conclusions: The use of fentanyl in combination with low-close midazolam results in significantly faster recovery from sedation compared with meperidine, without any apparent loss of analgesic effect. (Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:681-7.)
引用
收藏
页码:681 / 687
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparison of impact of adjuvant treatment of midazolam, fentanyl, and magnesium sulfate with intrathecal bupivacaine on block characteristics and postoperative analgesia in knee arthroplasty: A randomized clinical trial
    Modir, Hesameddin
    Moshiri, Esmail
    Azami, Mehran
    Sayafi-Sharifi, Tayebe Sadat
    JOURNAL OF ACUTE DISEASE, 2022, 11 (03) : 94 - 100
  • [32] TOWARDS PAINLESS COLONOSCOPY: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL ON CARBON DIOXIDE-INSUFFLATING COLONOSCOPY
    Wong, James C. H.
    Yau, Kevin K.
    Cheung, Hester Y. S.
    Wong, Denis C. T.
    Chung, Cliff C.
    Li, Michael K. W.
    ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2008, 78 (10) : 871 - 874
  • [33] Optimal Volume of Administration of Intranasal Midazolam in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial
    Tsze, Daniel S.
    Ieni, Maria
    Fenster, Daniel B.
    Babineau, John
    Kriger, Joshua
    Levin, Bruce
    Dayan, Peter S.
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2017, 69 (05) : 600 - 609
  • [34] Use of an abdominal obstetric binder in colonoscopy: A randomized, prospective trial
    Yu, Guang Qiu
    Huang, Xiao Mei
    Li, Hai Yan
    Tang, Wen
    Hu, Duan Min
    Lu, Mu Han
    Fu, Kuang-I
    JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2018, 33 (07) : 1365 - 1369
  • [35] Combined Oral Fentanyl Citrate and Midazolam as Premedication for Bone Marrow Aspiration and Biopsy in Patients with Hematological Malignancies: A Randomized, Controlled and Patient-Blinded Clinical Trial
    Cerchione, Claudio
    Martinelli, Giovanni
    Picardi, Marco
    Pugliese, Novella
    Nappi, Davide
    Casoria, Aniello
    Gravetti, Angela
    Cangini, Delia
    Giannini, Maria Benedetta
    Ronconi, Sonia
    Simonetti, Giorgia
    Di Rora, Andrea Ghelli Luserna
    De Giorgi, Ugo
    Altini, Mattia
    Bravaccini, Sara
    Santoriello, Ilaria
    Minucci, Cristiano
    Pane, Fabrizio
    Martinelli, Vincenzo
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2020, 9 (02)
  • [36] A comparison of prophylactic use of meperidine, meperidine plus dexamethasone, and ketamine plus midazolam for preventing of shivering during spinal anesthesia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study
    Solhpour, Ali
    Jafari, Alireza
    Hashemi, Masoud
    Hosseini, Behnam
    Razavi, Sajad
    Mohseni, Gholamreza
    Vosoughian, Maryam
    Behnaz, Faranak
    Nejad, Reza Amin
    Pourhoseingholi, Mohamad Amin
    Sottani, Fereshteh
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA, 2016, 34 : 128 - 135
  • [37] Magnetic endoscope imaging for routine colonoscopy: impact on propofol dosage and patient safety - a randomized trial
    Klare, Peter
    Hartrampf, Bonnie
    Haller, Bernhard
    Schlag, Christoph
    Geisler, Fabian
    Abdelhafez, Mohamed
    Einwaechter, Henrik
    Bajbouj, Monther
    Schmid, Roland M.
    von Delius, Stefan
    ENDOSCOPY, 2016, 48 (10) : 916 - 922
  • [38] Comparison of midazolam sedation with or without fentanyl in cataract surgery
    Cok, O. Yalcin
    Ertan, A.
    Bahadir, M.
    ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA BELGICA, 2008, 59 (01) : 27 - 32
  • [39] Use of diphenhydramine as an adjunctive sedative for colonoscopy in patients on chronic opioid therapy: a randomized controlled trial
    Nusrat, Salman
    Madhoun, Mohammed F.
    Tierney, William M.
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2018, 88 (04) : 695 - 702
  • [40] CO2 versus Air Insufflation for Private Practice Routine Colonoscopy: Results of a Randomized Double Blind Trial
    Mayr, M.
    Miller, A.
    Gauger, U.
    Roesch, T.
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR GASTROENTEROLOGIE, 2012, 50 (05): : 445 - 448