Manual versus target-controlled infusion of balanced propofol during diagnostic colonoscopy: A prospective randomized controlled trial

• Main Authors: Vučićević Vera, Milaković Branko, Tešić Milorad, Đorđević Jelena, Đuranović Srđan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Serbian Medical Society 2016-01-01
• Series: Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo
• Subjects: balanced propofol sedation; deep sedation; colonoscopy; endoscopist’s comfort; target controlled infusion
• Online Access: http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0370-8179/2016/0370-81791610514V.pdf
• ISSN: 0370-8179; 2406-0895

Introduction. There is an increasing interest in balanced propofol sedation (BPS) for colonoscopy in outpatient settings. Propofol is a potent anesthetic agent for this purpose and has a narrow therapeutic range, which increases a risk of cardiovascular and respiratory complications in case of improper administration. Objective. The aim of this study was to compare patients’ safety and comfort of endoscopists in two methods of BPS targeting deep sedation - propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) and manual intravenous titration technique (MT) - during colonoscopy. Methods. This prospective randomized controlled trial included 90 patients (class I or II of the American Society of Anesthesiologists) deeply sedated with propofol, coadministered with small doses of midazolam and fentanyl. Propofol was given by MT technique (45 patients) or by TCI (45 patients). The following adverse effects were recorded: hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, hypoxemia, bradypnea, apnea, hiccupping, and coughing, as well as endoscopist’s comfort during colonoscopy by means of a questionnaire. Results. The MT group compared to the TCI group had a lower mean arterial pressure in the 10th minute after the beginning (p = 0.017), and at the end of colonoscopy (p = 0.006), higher oxygen saturation in the fifth minute (p = 0.033), and in the 15th minute (p = 0.008) after the beginning of colonoscopy, and lower heart rate at the beginning of the procedure (p = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in adverse events. Endoscopist’s comfort during colonoscopy was high 95.6% in the TCI group vs. 88.9% in the MT group (p = 0.069). Conclusion. MT is clinically as stable as TCI of propofol for deep sedation during colonoscopy, and endoscopists experienced the same comfort during colonoscopy in both groups. Thus, both combinations are suitable for deep sedation during diagnostic colonoscopy.