AI Article Synopsis

  • The study investigates whether adding intravenous lidocaine to propofol sedation can reduce propofol usage in elderly patients during colonoscopy while maintaining satisfaction and hemodynamic stability.
  • Ninety-two patients were divided into two groups: one receiving lidocaine with propofol and the other receiving normal saline with propofol, assessing the total and supplemental propofol needed during the procedure.
  • Results showed that the lidocaine group required significantly less supplemental propofol and fewer boluses compared to the saline group, indicating potential benefits of lidocaine in lowering propofol dosage without compromising patient satisfaction.

Article Abstract

Background: Propofol provides a prominent sedation effect in colonoscopy. However, anesthesia and sedation induced with propofol in the elderly might result in cardiopulmonary complications, especially when it is combined with opoids in the regimen. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation could decrease the overall propofol requirement in elderly patients during colonoscopy while the procedural sedation satisfaction and the hemodynamic stability were not compromised.

Methods: Ninety-two patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly enrolled into lidocaine+propofol (L + P) group or normal saline+propofol (NS + P) groups. Subjects received intravenous bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine followed by 4 mg kg h lidocaine continuous infusion in L + P group or equivalent volumes of normal saline for boluses and infusion in NS + P group. Anesthesia was induced with 2.5 μg sufentanil followed by injection of 1.2 mg kg propofol in all patients. A single supplemental bolus of 0.6 mg kg propofol was administered whenever MOAA/S score > 1 or had body movement during the colonoscopy. The recorded primary endpoints included: the total amount of propofol administered during entire procedure, the supplemental amount of propofol after induction, and the frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol.

Results: A total of 79 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with NS + P group, the total amounts of propofol (induction plus supplemental) were no significant differences in L + P group; however, the required supplemental propofol was less (69.9 ± 39.2 mg vs. 51.5 ± 38.6 mg) (P = 0.039); the average frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol given after induction were lower (2.1 ± 1.1 vs. 1.4 ± 0.9) (P = 0.003); the calculated "unit propofol" infusion rate was lower (0.18 ± 0.05 vs. 0.14 ± 0.04 mg kg min) (P = 0.002).

Conclusions: The addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation resulted in a remarked reduction of supplemental propofol in the elderly during colonoscopy.

Trial Registration: The present clinical trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn on 11th March 2019 (registration No. ChiCTR1900021818).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7260845PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01049-zDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

intravenous lidocaine
12
l + p group
12
propofol induction
12
supplemental propofol
12
propofol
11
elderly patients
8
patients undergoing
8
undergoing colonoscopy
8
propofol elderly
8
addition intravenous
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!