Prospective Long-Term Assessment of Sedation-Related Adverse Events and Patient Satisfaction for Upper Endoscopy and Colonoscopy

Background: Fear of pain and sedation-related adverse events are impediments for patients to attend endoscopic screening or surveillance programs. Objective: To investigate the long-term effect of different sedation protocols in patients undergoing screening or surveillance endoscopy. Moreover, motivation of patients to decline endoscopic procedures was evaluated by focusing on the patient's satisfaction, fear and pain in relation to type of sedation used. Methods: Design: A prospective, double-blind controlled trial data collection was performed by using a standardized clinical questionnaire followed by a telephone interview 3-4 weeks after the initial endoscopic procedure. Setting: The study was conducted at the Department of Medicine I at the University Hospital of Erlangen-Nuremberg. Data collection was performed during June 2012 till April 2013. Patients: Overall, 307 patients were prospectively evaluated (44.3% female, mean age 51 +/- 17.4 years; mean BMI 25.5 +/- 5.7). 247 patients (80.5%) were outpatients, 60 inpatients (19.5%). Interventions: Endoscopic procedures were divided into five groups: (i) procedures in the upper gastrointestinal tract, (ii) complete colonoscopies, (iii) ileocolonoscopies, (iv) incomplete colonoscopies, and (v) other procedures. Main outcome measurements: Patient satisfaction, fear and pain were measured in a structured and standardized clinical interview using a 6-point numerical rating scale, where 1 was 'very satisfied/no pain' and 6 was 'very unsatisfied/unsupportable pain'. Results: Different types of sedation were assessed: propofol in monosedation (6.5%), combination of propofol + meperidine (41.0%), combination of midazolam + meperidine (48.5%) and other combinations (3.9%). Patient satisfaction was significantly reduced regarding fear and pain during the endoscopic procedure (p = 0.001 and p = 0.0001, respectively). All patients receiving propofol monosedation indicated significantly less pain in comparison to other sedation groups (p < 0.0001). Moreover, sedation with midazolam + meperidine increased the fear during the procedure significantly in comparison to monosedation with propofol (p = 0.082). Propofol/meperidine in combination and midazolam/meperidine increased the probability for cardiovascular events in comparison to monosedation with propofol (p = 0.005; p = 0.039). Finally, we observed significantly lower doses of propofol when used in monosedation than propofol in combination with meperidine (p = 0.066). Limitation: Single-center study at a tertiary referral center. Conclusions: Propofol in monosedation should preferably be used for patient sedation in screening and surveillance endoscopies. Whether this approach could also improve participation rates in screening and surveillance endoscopies requires further investigations. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel