Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume 67, Issue 6 , Pages 910-923, May 2008

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures

  • Kenneth R. McQuaid, MD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Kenneth R. McQuaid, MD, GI Section, 111B, VA Medical Center, 4150 Clement St, San Francisco, CA 94121.
    • ,
  • Loren Laine, MD

Current affiliations: Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco (K.R.M.), University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA (L.L.)

Received 30 July 2007; accepted 17 December 2007.

San Francisco, Los Angeles, California, USA

Background

Numerous agents are available for moderate sedation in endoscopy.

Objective

Our purpose was to compare efficacy, safety, and efficiency of agents used for moderate sedation in EGD or colonoscopy.

Design

Systematic review of computerized bibliographic databases for randomized trials of moderate sedation that compared 2 active regimens or 1 active regimen with placebo or no sedation.

Patients

Unselected adults undergoing EGD or colonoscopy with a goal of moderate sedation.

Main Outcome Measurements

Sedation-related complications, patient assessments (satisfaction, pain, memory, willingness to repeat examination), physician assessments (satisfaction, level of sedation, patient cooperation, examination quality), and procedure-related efficiency outcomes (sedation, procedure, or recovery time).

Results

Thirty-six studies (N = 3918 patients) were included. Sedation improved patient satisfaction (relative risk [RR] = 2.29, range 1.16-4.53) and willingness to repeat EGD (RR = 1.25, range 1.13-1.38) versus no sedation. Midazolam provided superior patient satisfaction to diazepam (RR = 1.18, range 1.07-1.29) and less frequent memory of EGD (RR = 0.57, range 0.50-0.60) versus diazepam. Adverse events and patient/physician assessments were not significantly different for midazolam (with or without narcotics) versus propofol except for slightly less patient satisfaction (RR = 0.90, range 0.83-0.97) and more frequent memory (RR = 3.00, range 1.25-7.21) with midazolam plus narcotics. Procedure times were similar, but sedation and recovery times were shorter with propofol than midazolam-based regimens.

Limitations

Marked variability in design, regimens tested, and outcomes assessed; relatively poor methodologic quality (Jadad score ≤3 in 23/36 trials).

Conclusions

Moderate sedation provides a high level of physician and patient satisfaction and a low risk of serious adverse events with all currently available agents. Midazolam-based regimens have longer sedation and recovery times than does propofol.

Abbreviations: RCT, randomized controlled trial, RR, relative risk

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0016-5107(07)03354-8

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2007.12.046

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume 67, Issue 6 , Pages 910-923, May 2008

Article Tools