search
Back to results

Propofol vs Propofol + Benzo/Opiates in High Risk Group

Primary Purpose

Sleep Apnea, Obstructive, Obesity

Status
Terminated
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Propofol Alone
Propofol+Benzo/Opioids
Sponsored by
Washington University School of Medicine
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Sleep Apnea, Obstructive focused on measuring Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Body Mass Index

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Ability to provide informed consent
  • Age greater than or equal to 18 years
  • Presence of at least 1 of the following criteria:

    1. ASA class 3 or higher
    2. BMI of 30 or greater
    3. At risk for OSA (score of 3 or greater on the STOP-BANG screening tool)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • drug allergy to Propofol, Benzodiazepines, or Opioids
  • patients who received Benzodiazepines or Opioids within 24 hours of the procedure

Sites / Locations

  • Washington University School of Medicine

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Active Comparator

Active Comparator

Arm Label

Propofol+Benzo/Opioids

Propofol Alone

Arm Description

If the patient is randomized into this arm the recommended Versed and Fentanyl doses are standardized: Recommended Versed: a. Prior to intubation patient is < 50 kg = 1 mg Versed patient is 50-75 kg = 1.5 mg Versed patient is > 75 kg = 2 mg Versed Recommended Fentanyl Prior to intubation = 0.5 ug/kg Total procedural dose = 1 ug/kg

The patients randomized into the sedation with propofol alone are able to cross over if they are unable to be successfully sedated under propofol alone. The the recommended doses before considering crossover are standardized: Induction Dose: 2-2.5 mg/kg Maintenance Dose: 0.1-0.2 mg/kg/min

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Number of Participants Who Experience Airway Maneuvers
In high risk patients (meeting at least of 1 of 3 criteria: ASA ≥ 3, BMI ≥ 30, those at risk for OSA) undergoing advanced endoscopy procedures, compare the number of participants who experience airway maneuvers (AMs) when sedated with propofol alone versus propofol in combination with benzodiazepines and opioids.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Number of Participants Who Experience Other Sedation Related Complications
Compare the number of participants who experience other sedation related complications such as hypotension, hypoxemia and need for termination of the procedure between the two groups
Compare Propofol Doses Between the Two Groups
The dose of propofol used between the two groups will be compared
Predictors of Sedation Related Complications as Measured by the Number of Participants Who Experience Hypoxemia (Defined as a Pulse Oximetry <90% for Any Duration)
Predictors of Sedation Related Complications as Measured by Hypopnea/Apnea (Defined as Fewer Than 6 Breaths/Minute Based on Capnography)
Predictors of Sedation Related Complications as Measured by the Incidences of Hypotension (Defined as Systolic Blood Pressure of Less Than 90mmHg or a Decrease of More Than 25% From Baseline)
Predictors of Sedation Related Complications as Measured by Early Procedure Termination for an Alternative Sedation Related Complication
Patient Tolerance as Assessed by Endoscopists
The frequency of symptoms of nausea and vomiting in the two groups of patients will be recorded. Patient tolerance of the procedure will be assessed independently by the endoscopist using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS, 0=unmanageable, 100=excellent). The patient will also score the level of tolerance using the same VAS at a routine follow-up phone call made 24-48 hours after the procedure.
Number of Participants Who Experience Symptoms of Nausea and Vomiting Will be Compared Between the Two Groups
The number of participants who experience symptoms of nausea and vomiting in the two groups of patients will be recorded. This will be recorded during the follow-up phone call made 24-48 hours after the procedure.

Full Information

First Posted
March 11, 2011
Last Updated
September 8, 2016
Sponsor
Washington University School of Medicine
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT01315158
Brief Title
Propofol vs Propofol + Benzo/Opiates in High Risk Group
Official Title
Incidence of Sedation Related Complications With Propofol Alone Versus Propofol With Benzodiazepines and Opiates in a High Risk Group Undergoing Advanced Endoscopic Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
September 2016
Overall Recruitment Status
Terminated
Why Stopped
- The research team is not able to obtain the necessary support to continue the study.
Study Start Date
January 2011 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
July 2014 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
July 2014 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Washington University School of Medicine

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
This will be a randomized controlled trial that compares the rates of sedation related complications in high risk patients (ASA greater or equal to 3, BMI greater or equal to 30, those at risk for OSA) undergoing advanced endoscopy procedures with propofol alone compared to propofol in combination with benzodiazepines and opioids.
Detailed Description
The use of propofol (2,6-di-isopropofol) for sedation during endoscopic procedures has increased in recent years primarily because of its favorable pharmacokinetic profile compared with traditional endoscopic sedation with benzodiazepines and opioids. Propofol has a rapid onset of action (30-45 sec) and short duration of effect (4-8 min). There also are data to support the safe use of propofol for advanced endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). There is limited information on the incidence of sedation related complications during advanced endoscopy. Prior studies were limited by controlled patient populations at low risk of developing sedation related cardiopulmonary complications. In a recent study, we defined the frequency of sedation related adverse events including the rate of airway modifications (AMs) with propofol use during advanced endoscopy. From a total of 799 patients, AMs were required in 14.4% of patients, hypoxemia in 12.8%, hypotension in 0.5% and premature termination in 0.6% of the patients. In addition, body mass index (BMI), male sex and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class of 3 or higher were independent predictors of AMs. Similarly, Wehrmann and Riphaus identified ASA class of 3 or higher, total propofol dose, history of alcohol use and having an emergency endoscopy as independent factors for sedation related complications in patients undergoing advanced procedures. Given the alarming rates of obesity in the United States, it is believed that the prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may be 10% or higher and in obese adults these numbers could be as high as 25%. Using a previously validated screening tool for OSA [STOP-BANG (SB)], we reported a prevalence rate of patients at risk for OSA of 43.3% in patients undergoing advanced endoscopy procedures. Patients at risk for OSA with a positive SB score (score ≥ 3 of 8) had a higher rate of AMs (20% vs. 6.1%, adjusted relative risk 1.7) and frequency of hypoxemia (12% vs. 5.2%, adjusted relative risk 1.63) compared to those at low risk for OSA. Thus, based on the available data, it appears that ASA class 3 or higher, high BMI, and patients at risk for OSA are factors that place patients undergoing advanced endoscopy procedures at high risk for sedation related complications including airway modifications. The optimal method for achieving deep sedation in this high risk group of patients is unclear. Propofol may accentuate airway collapse as patients become unresponsive to verbal stimulation (deep sedation). Recent studies suggest that propofol with midazolam and/or opioids may be synergistic in action and therefore the combined application of these drugs may permit smaller doses of each to be used and potentially lead to a reduction in risk of complications and in the dose of propofol needed while retaining the individual advantages of each compound. There is limited data evaluating the synergistic effect of propofol with midazolam and opioids in patients undergoing advanced endoscopy procedures. Ong and colleagues in a randomized controlled trial compared patient sedation and tolerance during ERCP using propofol alone or midazolam, ketamine and pentazocine (sedato-analgesic cocktail) for induction along with propofol for maintenance. Patient tolerance as assessed by visual analog scales by endoscopist and anesthetist were higher in the combination group. Paspatis et al reported higher dosage of intravenous propofol required in patients being sedated with propofol alone compared with that required in patients receiving oral dose of midazolam with propofol for ERCP procedures. In addition, the patients' anxiety levels before the procedure were lower in the combination group. The mean percentage decline in the oxygen saturation during the procedure was significantly greater in propofol alone group. However, these studies excluded patients deemed to be at a high risk for sedation related complications. Patients with ASA class 3 or higher were excluded, the mean BMI was less than 25, and included only patients at average risk for complications associated with sedation. The significance of synergistic sedation in patients undergoing advanced endoscopy procedures in the high risk patients is unclear. The overall risk of sedation related complications is thought to be higher compared to standard endoscopy due to longer procedure times and the need for relatively deeper levels of sedation.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Sleep Apnea, Obstructive, Obesity
Keywords
Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Body Mass Index

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
Outcomes Assessor
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
36 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Propofol+Benzo/Opioids
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
If the patient is randomized into this arm the recommended Versed and Fentanyl doses are standardized: Recommended Versed: a. Prior to intubation patient is < 50 kg = 1 mg Versed patient is 50-75 kg = 1.5 mg Versed patient is > 75 kg = 2 mg Versed Recommended Fentanyl Prior to intubation = 0.5 ug/kg Total procedural dose = 1 ug/kg
Arm Title
Propofol Alone
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
The patients randomized into the sedation with propofol alone are able to cross over if they are unable to be successfully sedated under propofol alone. The the recommended doses before considering crossover are standardized: Induction Dose: 2-2.5 mg/kg Maintenance Dose: 0.1-0.2 mg/kg/min
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Propofol Alone
Other Intervention Name(s)
Propofol, Diprivan, 2,6-di-isopropofol
Intervention Description
Recommended Propofol doses before considering crossover: Induction: 2-2.5 mg/kg Maintenance: 0.1-0.2 mg/kg/min
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Propofol+Benzo/Opioids
Other Intervention Name(s)
Benzodiazepine, Midazolam, Versed, Opioid, Fentanyl
Intervention Description
Recommended Versed: a. Prior to intubation patient is < 50 kg = 1 mg Versed patient is 50-75 kg = 1.5 mg Versed patient is > 75 kg = 2 mg Versed Recommended Fentanyl Prior to intubation = 0.5 ug/kg Total procedural dose = 1 ug/kg
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Number of Participants Who Experience Airway Maneuvers
Description
In high risk patients (meeting at least of 1 of 3 criteria: ASA ≥ 3, BMI ≥ 30, those at risk for OSA) undergoing advanced endoscopy procedures, compare the number of participants who experience airway maneuvers (AMs) when sedated with propofol alone versus propofol in combination with benzodiazepines and opioids.
Time Frame
One day (during procedure)
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Number of Participants Who Experience Other Sedation Related Complications
Description
Compare the number of participants who experience other sedation related complications such as hypotension, hypoxemia and need for termination of the procedure between the two groups
Time Frame
One day (during procedure)
Title
Compare Propofol Doses Between the Two Groups
Description
The dose of propofol used between the two groups will be compared
Time Frame
One day (during procedure)
Title
Predictors of Sedation Related Complications as Measured by the Number of Participants Who Experience Hypoxemia (Defined as a Pulse Oximetry <90% for Any Duration)
Time Frame
One year
Title
Predictors of Sedation Related Complications as Measured by Hypopnea/Apnea (Defined as Fewer Than 6 Breaths/Minute Based on Capnography)
Time Frame
One year
Title
Predictors of Sedation Related Complications as Measured by the Incidences of Hypotension (Defined as Systolic Blood Pressure of Less Than 90mmHg or a Decrease of More Than 25% From Baseline)
Time Frame
One year
Title
Predictors of Sedation Related Complications as Measured by Early Procedure Termination for an Alternative Sedation Related Complication
Time Frame
One year
Title
Patient Tolerance as Assessed by Endoscopists
Description
The frequency of symptoms of nausea and vomiting in the two groups of patients will be recorded. Patient tolerance of the procedure will be assessed independently by the endoscopist using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS, 0=unmanageable, 100=excellent). The patient will also score the level of tolerance using the same VAS at a routine follow-up phone call made 24-48 hours after the procedure.
Time Frame
24-48 hours
Title
Number of Participants Who Experience Symptoms of Nausea and Vomiting Will be Compared Between the Two Groups
Description
The number of participants who experience symptoms of nausea and vomiting in the two groups of patients will be recorded. This will be recorded during the follow-up phone call made 24-48 hours after the procedure.
Time Frame
24-48 hours

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Ability to provide informed consent Age greater than or equal to 18 years Presence of at least 1 of the following criteria: ASA class 3 or higher BMI of 30 or greater At risk for OSA (score of 3 or greater on the STOP-BANG screening tool) Exclusion Criteria: drug allergy to Propofol, Benzodiazepines, or Opioids patients who received Benzodiazepines or Opioids within 24 hours of the procedure
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Faris Murad, M.D.
Organizational Affiliation
Washington University School of Medicine
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Washington University School of Medicine
City
St. Louis
State/Province
Missouri
ZIP/Postal Code
63110
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Citations:
PubMed Identifier
19549528
Citation
Rex DK, Deenadayalu VP, Eid E, Imperiale TF, Walker JA, Sandhu K, Clarke AC, Hillman LC, Horiuchi A, Cohen LB, Heuss LT, Peter S, Beglinger C, Sinnott JA, Welton T, Rofail M, Subei I, Sleven R, Jordan P, Goff J, Gerstenberger PD, Munnings H, Tagle M, Sipe BW, Wehrmann T, Di Palma JA, Occhipinti KE, Barbi E, Riphaus A, Amann ST, Tohda G, McClellan T, Thueson C, Morse J, Meah N. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience. Gastroenterology. 2009 Oct;137(4):1229-37; quiz 1518-9. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.06.042. Epub 2009 Jun 21.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
18984096
Citation
Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; Lichtenstein DR, Jagannath S, Baron TH, Anderson MA, Banerjee S, Dominitz JA, Fanelli RD, Gan SI, Harrison ME, Ikenberry SO, Shen B, Stewart L, Khan K, Vargo JJ. Sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Nov;68(5):815-26. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.09.029. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16680635
Citation
Tohda G, Higashi S, Wakahara S, Morikawa M, Sakumoto H, Kane T. Propofol sedation during endoscopic procedures: safe and effective administration by registered nurses supervised by endoscopists. Endoscopy. 2006 Apr;38(4):360-7. doi: 10.1055/s-2005-921192.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16285939
Citation
Rex DK, Heuss LT, Walker JA, Qi R. Trained registered nurses/endoscopy teams can administer propofol safely for endoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2005 Nov;129(5):1384-91. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.08.014.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16128939
Citation
Riphaus A, Stergiou N, Wehrmann T. Sedation with propofol for routine ERCP in high-risk octogenarians: a randomized, controlled study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005 Sep;100(9):1957-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.41672.x.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
18938664
Citation
Wehrmann T, Riphaus A. Sedation with propofol for interventional endoscopic procedures: a risk factor analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008 Mar;43(3):368-74. doi: 10.1080/00365520701679181.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15332023
Citation
Yusoff IF, Raymond G, Sahai AV. Endoscopist administered propofol for upper-GI EUS is safe and effective: a prospective study in 500 patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Sep;60(3):356-60. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)01711-0.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
12105827
Citation
Vargo JJ, Zuccaro G Jr, Dumot JA, Shermock KM, Morrow JB, Conwell DL, Trolli PA, Maurer WG. Gastroenterologist-administered propofol versus meperidine and midazolam for advanced upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial. Gastroenterology. 2002 Jul;123(1):8-16. doi: 10.1053/gast.2002.34232.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
18058653
Citation
Paspatis GA, Manolaraki MM, Vardas E, Theodoropoulou A, Chlouverakis G. Deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: intravenous propofol alone versus intravenous propofol with oral midazolam premedication. Endoscopy. 2008 Apr;40(4):308-13. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-995346. Epub 2007 Dec 5.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
19607937
Citation
Cote GA, Hovis RM, Ansstas MA, Waldbaum L, Azar RR, Early DS, Edmundowicz SA, Mullady DK, Jonnalagadda SS. Incidence of sedation-related complications with propofol use during advanced endoscopic procedures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Feb;8(2):137-42. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2009.07.008. Epub 2009 Jul 14.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
12734134
Citation
Tishler PV, Larkin EK, Schluchter MD, Redline S. Incidence of sleep-disordered breathing in an urban adult population: the relative importance of risk factors in the development of sleep-disordered breathing. JAMA. 2003 May 7;289(17):2230-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.17.2230.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
11991871
Citation
Young T, Peppard PE, Gottlieb DJ. Epidemiology of obstructive sleep apnea: a population health perspective. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002 May 1;165(9):1217-39. doi: 10.1164/rccm.2109080.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16963675
Citation
Hiestand DM, Britz P, Goldman M, Phillips B. Prevalence of symptoms and risk of sleep apnea in the US population: Results from the national sleep foundation sleep in America 2005 poll. Chest. 2006 Sep;130(3):780-6. doi: 10.1378/chest.130.3.780.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
20580942
Citation
Cote GA, Hovis CE, Hovis RM, Waldbaum L, Early DS, Edmundowicz SA, Azar RR, Mullady DK, Jonnalagadda SS. A screening instrument for sleep apnea predicts airway maneuvers in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Aug;8(8):660-665.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.05.015. Epub 2010 May 23.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
14595310
Citation
Cohen LB, Dubovsky AN, Aisenberg J, Miller KM. Propofol for endoscopic sedation: A protocol for safe and effective administration by the gastroenterologist. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Nov;58(5):725-32. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02010-8.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
10971238
Citation
Seifert H, Schmitt TH, Gultekin T, Caspary WF, Wehrmann T. Sedation with propofol plus midazolam versus propofol alone for interventional endoscopic procedures: a prospective, randomized study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2000 Sep;14(9):1207-14. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2000.00787.x.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
17032185
Citation
VanNatta ME, Rex DK. Propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus propofol in combination with opioids and/or benzodiazepines and titrated to moderate sedation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Oct;101(10):2209-17. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00760.x.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
10718390
Citation
Reimann FM, Samson U, Derad I, Fuchs M, Schiefer B, Stange EF. Synergistic sedation with low-dose midazolam and propofol for colonoscopies. Endoscopy. 2000 Mar;32(3):239-44. doi: 10.1055/s-2000-134.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15173791
Citation
Cohen LB, Hightower CD, Wood DA, Miller KM, Aisenberg J. Moderate level sedation during endoscopy: a prospective study using low-dose propofol, meperidine/fentanyl, and midazolam. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Jun;59(7):795-803. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)00349-9.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
12190161
Citation
Paspatis GA, Manolaraki M, Xirouchakis G, Papanikolaou N, Chlouverakis G, Gritzali A. Synergistic sedation with midazolam and propofol versus midazolam and pethidine in colonoscopies: a prospective, randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Aug;97(8):1963-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05908.x.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
17703390
Citation
Ong WC, Santosh D, Lakhtakia S, Reddy DN. A randomized controlled trial on use of propofol alone versus propofol with midazolam, ketamine, and pentazocine "sedato-analgesic cocktail" for sedation during ERCP. Endoscopy. 2007 Sep;39(9):807-12. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-966725.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
18431116
Citation
Chung F, Yegneswaran B, Liao P, Chung SA, Vairavanathan S, Islam S, Khajehdehi A, Shapiro CM. STOP questionnaire: a tool to screen patients for obstructive sleep apnea. Anesthesiology. 2008 May;108(5):812-21. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31816d83e4.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
2286697
Citation
Chernik DA, Gillings D, Laine H, Hendler J, Silver JM, Davidson AB, Schwam EM, Siegel JL. Validity and reliability of the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale: study with intravenous midazolam. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1990 Aug;10(4):244-51.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
5534693
Citation
Aldrete JA, Kroulik D. A postanesthetic recovery score. Anesth Analg. 1970 Nov-Dec;49(6):924-34. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background

Learn more about this trial

Propofol vs Propofol + Benzo/Opiates in High Risk Group

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs