Anesthesia or sedation for gastroenterologic endoscopies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Because propofol is the sedative preferred by gastroenterologists, we focus this review on gastroenterologist-directed propofol sedation, provide simulations of the respiratory depressant effect of different dosing protocols and give a perspective on future developments in computer-assisted sedation techniques. RECENT FINDINGS: Propofol use by nonanesthesiologists remains a contraindication in the package insert of propofol in most countries. Sedation guidelines produced by the American Society of Gastroenterology partially contradict those produced by the American Society of Anesthesiologists for sedation by nonanesthesiologists, whereas the German guidelines were developed with anesthesiologists involved. The use of fospropofol, recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for sedation, is considered an alternative to propofol by some gastroenterologists. Methodological errors in earlier pharmacological studies have to be solved before widespread use of fospropofol is justified, however. Our simulations show that dosing protocols with small boluses administered at reasonable intervals induce less respiratory depression than large boluses. Interindividual variability of propofol-induced respiratory depression is illustrated by different pharmacokinetic and dynamic parameter sets used in the simulation. Two computer-assisted propofol infusion systems are currently being investigated. They not only incorporate the target effect but also the side effects, which may limit respiratory depression. SUMMARY: Propofol use by gastroenterologists may be well tolerated if appropriate patient selection, staff training, monitoring and low-dose sedation protocols are applied.

Response surface modeling of the interaction between propofol and sevoflurane

BACKGROUND: Propofol and sevoflurane display additivity for gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor activation, loss of consciousness, and tolerance of skin incision. Information about their interaction regarding electroencephalographic suppression is unavailable. This study examined this interaction as well as the interaction on the probability of tolerance of shake and shout and three noxious stimulations by using a response surface methodology. METHODS: Sixty patients preoperatively received different combined concentrations of propofol (0-12 microg/ml) and sevoflurane (0-3.5 vol.%) according to a crisscross design (274 concentration pairs, 3 to 6 per patient). After having reached pseudo-steady state, the authors recorded bispectral index, state and response entropy and the response to shake and shout, tetanic stimulation, laryngeal mask airway insertion, and laryngoscopy. For the analysis of the probability of tolerance by logistic regression, a Greco interaction model was used. For the separate analysis of bispectral index, state and response entropy suppression, a fractional Emax Greco model was used. All calculations were performed with NONMEM V (GloboMax LLC, Hanover, MD). RESULTS: Additivity was found for all endpoints, the Ce(50, PROP)/Ce(50, SEVO) for bispectral index suppression was 3.68 microg. ml(-1)/ 1.53 vol.%, for tolerance of shake and shout 2.34 microg . ml(-1)/ 1.03 vol.%, tetanic stimulation 5.34 microg . ml(-1)/ 2.11 vol.%, laryngeal mask airway insertion 5.92 microg. ml(-1) / 2.55 vol.%, and laryngoscopy 6.55 microg. ml(-1)/2.83 vol.%. CONCLUSION: For both electroencephalographic suppression and tolerance to stimulation, the interaction of propofol and sevoflurane was identified as additive. The response surface data can be used for more rational dose finding in case of sequential and coadministration of propofol and sevoflurane.