Archivos de bronconeumologia 2017 04 11() pii S0300-2896(17)30029-7
Evidence for the use of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for sedation during flexible bronchoscopy is scarce. The main objective of this study was to determine whether non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol balanced sedation was related to higher transcutaneous CO2 pressure compared with current guideline-based sedation (combination midazolam and opioid). Secondary outcomes were post-procedural recuperation time, patient satisfaction and frequency of adverse events.
In this randomized controlled trial we included data from outpatients aged 18 years or older with an indication for flexible bronchoscopy in a university hospital in northern Mexico.
Ninety-one patients were included: 42 in the midazolam group and 49 in the propofol group. During 60min of transcutaneous capnometry monitoring, mean transcutaneous CO2 pressure values did not differ significantly between groups (43.6 [7.5] vs. 45.6 [9.6]mmHg, P=.281). Propofol was related with a high Aldrete score at 5, 10, and 15min after flexible bronchoscopy (9 [IQR 6-10] vs. 10 [9,10], P=.006; 9 [8-10] vs. 10 [IQR 10-10], P<.001 and 10 [IQR 9-10] vs. 10 , respectively) and with high patient satisfaction on a visual analogue scale of 1 (not satisfied) to 10 (very satisfied) (8.41 [1.25] vs. 8.97 [0.98], P=.03). Frequency of adverse events was similar among groups (30.9% vs. 22.4%, P=.47). CONCLUSION
Compared with guideline-recommended sedation, non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol balanced sedation is not associated with higher transcutaneous CO2 pressure or with more frequent adverse effects. Propofol use is associated with faster sedation recovery and with high patient satisfaction.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION