Allen Megan, Leslie Kate, Hebbard Geoffrey, Jones Ian, Mettho Tejinder, Maruff Paul
Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Anaesthesia, Perioperative and Pain Medicine Unit, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Can J Anaesth. 2015 Nov;62(11):1169-78. doi: 10.1007/s12630-015-0463-3. Epub 2015 Sep 3.
This study aimed to determine if the incidence of recall was equivalent between light and deep sedation for colonoscopy. Secondary analysis included complications, patient clinical recovery, and post-procedure cognitive impairment.
Two hundred patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to light (bispectral index [BIS] 70-80) or deep (BIS < 60) sedation with propofol and fentanyl. Recall was assessed by the modified Brice questionnaire, and cognition at baseline and discharge was assessed using a Cogstate test battery.
The median (interquartile range [IQR]) BIS values were different in the two groups (69 [65-74] light sedation vs 53 [46-59] deep sedation; P < 0.0001). The incidence of recall was 12% in the light sedation group and 1% in the deep sedation group. The risk difference for recall was 0.11 (90% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.17) in the intention-to-treat analysis, thus refuting equivalence in recall between light and deep sedation (0.05 significance level; 10% equivalence margin). Overall sedation-related complications were more frequent with deep sedation than with light sedation (66% vs 47%, respectively; P = 0.008). Recovery was more rapid with light sedation than with deep sedation as determined by the mean (SD) time to reach a score of 5 on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale [3 (4) min vs 7 (4) min, respectively; P < 0.001] and by the median [IQR] time to readiness for hospital discharge (65 [57-80] min vs 74 [63-86] min, respectively; P = 0.001). The incidence of post-procedural cognitive impairment was similar in those randomized to light (19%) vs deep (16%) sedation (P = 0.554).
Light sedation was not equivalent to deep sedation for procedural recall, the spectrum of complications, or recovery times. This study provides evidence to inform discussions with patients about sedation for colonoscopy. This trial was registered at the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number 12611000320954.
本研究旨在确定结肠镜检查中浅镇静与深镇静的术中知晓发生率是否相当。次要分析包括并发症、患者临床恢复情况及术后认知功能障碍。
200例行择期门诊结肠镜检查的患者被随机分为浅镇静组(脑电双频指数[BIS] 70 - 80)和深镇静组(BIS < 60),均使用丙泊酚和芬太尼。通过改良的布赖斯问卷评估术中知晓情况,使用Cogstate测试组合评估基线及出院时的认知功能。
两组的BIS值中位数(四分位间距[IQR])不同(浅镇静组为69[65 - 74],深镇静组为53[46 - 59];P < 0.0001)。浅镇静组术中知晓发生率为12%,深镇静组为1%。意向性分析中术中知晓的风险差异为0.11(90%置信区间,0.05至0.17),因此反驳了浅镇静与深镇静在术中知晓方面的等效性(显著性水平0.05;等效界值10%)。总体而言,深镇静相关并发症比浅镇静更常见(分别为66%和47%;P = 0.008)。根据改良的观察者警觉/镇静评分量表达到5分的平均(标准差)时间[分别为3(4)分钟和7(4)分钟;P < 0.001]以及出院准备的中位数[IQR]时间(分别为65[57 - 80]分钟和74[63 - 86]分钟;P = 0.001)判断,浅镇静比深镇静恢复更快。随机分为浅镇静组(19%)和深镇静组(16%)的患者术后认知功能障碍发生率相似(P = 0.554)。
在术中知晓、并发症范围或恢复时间方面,浅镇静与深镇静不等效。本研究为与患者讨论结肠镜检查镇静方式提供了依据。本试验在澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册中心注册,注册号为12611000320954。