Intermittent Manually Controlled versus Continuous Infusion of Propofol for Procedural Sedation during Interventional Endoscopic Procedures: A Single-blinded Randomised Study

Abstract

Introduction: Sedation with propofol during interventional gastrointestinal endoscopy is usually accomplished with two main modes-intermittent manually controlled using a syringe, and continuous infusion using an infusion device. Aim: To compare the effect of bolus administration and infusion of propofol on recovery profile during sedation in patients undergoing interventional endoscopy procedures. Materials and Methods: The present study was a singleblinded randomised study in which 120 patients, belonging to American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade I and II, of either gender, and age 18-70 years, were randomly assigned to receive intermittent bolus (Bolus Group, BG) or continuous infusion (Infusion Group, IG) of propofol sedation after induction with 2 mg Midazolam for deep sedation. BG patients received an initial dose of propofol, 1%, according to body weight (<60 kg: 40 mg, >60 kg: 60 mg), followed by boluses of 10- 20 mg adjusted to maintain a Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness /Sedation Scale (MOAA/S) of 0 or 1. In the IG, continuous propofol infusion (4-6 mg/kg/hr) via Graseby 2000 (Smiths Medical) was administered after a bolus of 1 mg/ kg of propofol. Vital signs, recovery time, quality of recovery, total dose of propofol, side-effects as well as patient and endoscopist satisfaction score were evaluated. The data was compiled systematically and analysed using unpaired Student’s t-test and Chi-square test. The p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: The demographic profile of patients was comparable in both the groups. The recovery time (6.30±2.06 minutes in BG versus 5.71±2.19 minutes in IG) and total propofol dose (327.74±45.52 mg in BG versus 314.46±64.52 mg in IG) were comparable. Similarly, the quality of recovery was identical in both groups. At 10 and 15 minutes after induction, arterial blood pressure was significantly lower in group BG as compared to group IG (114±16.96 in BG versus 120.34±8.78 in IG; p-value=0.031). The endoscopist’s satisfaction score was better in IG (p-value=0.001), whereas, the patient satisfaction score was comparable in both the groups (p-value=0.162). Conclusion: Both regimes allowed good controllability of propofol sedation. However, endoscopist satisfaction score was significantly better and haemodynamic fluctuations were less in infusion group.