Logo Medical Science Monitor

Call: +1.631.470.9640
Mon - Fri 10:00 am - 02:00 pm EST

Contact Us

Logo Medical Science Monitor Logo Medical Science Monitor Logo Medical Science Monitor

01 September 2012: Clinical Research  

Ketamine, propofol and low dose remifentanil versus propofol and remifentanil for ERCP outside the operating room: Is ketamine not only a “rescue drug”?

Lea Paola Fabbri ACDEF , Maria Nucera ABF , Massimo Marsili EG , Mohamed Al Malyan CDEF , Chiara Becchi ACDEF

DOI: 10.12659/MSM.883354

Med Sci Monit 2012; 18(9): CR575-580

0 Comments

Background

Procedural sedation and monitored anaesthesia care for several endoscopic procedures have become increasingly common in locations outside the operating room. Among these, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a painful and long procedure that requires transient deep analgesia associated with a conscious sedation to guarantee the maintenance of cough reflex, spontaneous breathing and cardiovascular stability [1].

An ideal anaesthetic that guarantees a rapid and smooth induction, good quality of maintenance, lack of adverse effects and rapid recovery is still lacking.

Propofol is widely used for sedation because of its pharmacological characteristics and rapid recovery profile. Unfortunately, it is not an analgesic, and high doses are often required during painful procedures [2]. Interventional endoscopy under propofol sedation is not risk-free in terms of respiratory adverse effects, particularly when undertaking long-duration interventions [3].

Remifentanil, an ultra-short-acting opioid, has advantages over other opioids because of its rapid onset and offset times, making it suitable for administration by continuous infusion during procedures. Many studies have compared the effective analgesic, sedative and amnesic doses, recovery profiles, adverse effects and safety of remifentanil and propofol infusions, with or without other sedatives, in monitored care anaesthesia [4,5]. However, remifentanil infusion may cause respiratory depression and nausea/vomiting.

Ketamine’s ability to produce sedation-analgesia without clinically significant respiratory depression might offer an advantage over techniques using only opioid drugs [6]. Although ketamine, also combined with propofol infusion, has been proved to be safe and effective in pediatric patients [7,8] and in the emergency department [9,10] its use in adult advanced endoscopy is not yet widely accepted.

The present study aimed to compare the administration of ketamine/propofol/low dose remifentanil versus propofol/normal dose remifentanil drug combinations during ERCP procedures in terms of respiratory depression, postprocedural incidence of nausea/vomiting, quality of intraoperative conditions, and discharge time.

Material and Methods

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:

The calculation of sample size for this study was based on previous literature [2,7,8,11]. It was computed that a sample of 35 patients per group would detect a difference in SpO2 values of more than 7%, and in discharge time of more than 1.5 times with a power of 90% and a 2-tailed significance level of 5% (b=0.1, a=0.05). The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for the analysis of demographic parameters. Data are expressed as mean ±SD or ratio. The difference between groups was evaluated by the Mann-Whitney test for non-parametric data. A value of P≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. A 95% confidence interval was applied. STATA software 8.0 for Windows (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX) was used for the statistical analysis.

Results

Among 330 consecutive patients assessed for eligibility, 322 patients were randomized in this prospective randomized-controlled study between January 2006 and December 2007. No differences between groups were found in terms of mean age, sex, ASA physical status, type of procedure, and ERCP duration (Table 2).

Quality of intraoperative conditions was rated highly satisfactory in 92% GK and in 67% of GR (p=0.028).

During all the procedure SpO2 values were lower in GR and statistically different from those in GK (Figure 1). In particular, respiratory depression was observed in 25 GR patients, as opposed to 9 GK patients (p=0.0035). In 9 GR cases vs. no GK cases, ERCP was interrupted, and the patient was aroused and manually ventilated without any cardiopulmonary complications.

The total amount of propofol dose administered ranged between 122–192 mg in GK and 117–175 mg in GR in relation to procedure duration. In 3 GK patients and in 5 GR patients, 2 propofol boluses per patient were required as hypnotic supplementation, without any significant difference between groups.

No differences in cardiovascular parameters were found between groups.

Time to reach PAR score of 9 was 3±1 min in GK and 8±2 in GR (p=0.0063) and mean discharge time to the ward was 20±5 min in GK as opposed to 35±6 min in GR (p=0.0078). Transfer to the ward of 30 GR patients vs. 5 GK patients was delayed because of nausea and vomiting (p=0.0024). No “emergence reactions” were observed.

Discussion

Endoscopic procedures have to meet several requirements, such as satisfactory but safe sedation, while also allowing complete examination and rapid discharge time. Several studies have tried to compare different drug combinations [12,16,17]; however, a major cornerstone of anaesthesia for ERCP procedures should be the achievement of conscious sedation combined with deep analgesia. This allows the patient to respond to verbal stimuli and to maintain both cardiovascular and respiratory balance.

This study demonstrates that combined continuous infusion of ketamine and remifentanil plus propofol is able to maintain conscious sedation and deep analgesia in patients undergoing ERCP, thus reducing the risk for respiratory depression and need for airway support.

Propofol is an anaesthetic drug widely used to perform ERCP [18–22]. However, because of its narrow therapeutic window, close patient monitoring is recommended to avoid over-sedation, particularly if combined with other drugs such as opioids [3,23]. This is particularly true in ASA II–III patients, usually undergoing ERCP procedures and possibly affected by cardiovascular, respiratory and metabolic co-morbidities.

Remifentanil, a μ-opioid receptor agonist, has been successfully used as the analgesic component of sedation techniques for endoscopic procedures [24,25]. Remifentanil is predominantly metabolized by non-specific esterases, with extremely rapid clearance and offset of effect. The half-life of remifentanil is very short, ranging between 3–5 min, and it is frequently used alone or combined with propofol. However, an expected adverse effect of remifentanil administration, well known among opioids, is respiratory depression. This is more frequently observed with rates of infusion above 0.2 μg/kg/min [22] and remains an important clinical and safety drawback. Therefore, to minimize risk of respiratory depression, in our study no bolus dose of remifentanil was administered. Nevertheless, we observed 9 cases of deep respiratory depression in GR that required interruption of the procedure and manual ventilation over a few minutes.

To minimize adverse effects of remifentanil on respiratory drive while also maintaining a good level of analgesia, ketamine was added.

Ketamine is a phencyclidine analogue, and acts as a non-competitive inhibitor of the N-methyl-Daspartate (NMDA) receptor in the central nervous system by binding to the phencyclidine recognition site in the NMDA receptor ion-channel complex [26]. Analgesic doses of ketamine appear to be mediated by this non-opioid phencyclidine receptor mechanism in both experimental and postoperative pain. Additionally, laboratory studies have found the primary metabolite of ketamine, norketamine, also to have antinociceptive properties and to inhibit NMDA receptor function stereoselectively at the spinal and the supraspinal levels [27,28]. In this way, use of ketamine has been reported to reduce opioid requirements for its synergistic pharmacodynamic effects [29,30]. Moreover, the wide safety margins of ketamine allow its use in procedures where protection of airway reflexes is mandatory. Another useful characteristic of ketamine is its efficacy in maintaining cardiovascular balance. However, no significant differences in cardiovascular parameters have been found between groups. Nevertheless, until now ketamine was used only as a “rescue drug” to achieve an effective and safe sedation in adult and pediatric patients characterized by inadequate sedation undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures or for procedures in the emergency department [7–10].

In our prospective randomized study we propose the routine use of continuous infusion of subanesthetic doses of Ketamine. Its combination with low doses of remifentanil plus propofol infusion has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective technique to achieve conscious sedation and deep analgesia, which is very desirable for all endoscopic procedures performed outside the operating room. In this setting it is mandatory to avoid deep sedation because this could inadvertently progress to general anaesthesia with loss of protective airway reflexes [31,32]. In a study involving 80 healthy outpatients undergoing various endoscopic procedures who were given midazolam and remifentanil to achieve moderate sedation, deep sedation occurred in 68% of all patients, but varied with procedure type – 45% colonoscopy, 60% EGDS, 80% endoscopic ultrasound and 85% ERCP [17].

Several concerns have been raised regarding routine use of ketamine in endoscopic procedures. Among these, the risk of “emergence reactions” during wakening has been reported [33]. These adverse effects are reported more frequently when large and rapid doses are administered. In our study no cases of emergence reactions were been reported. This is probably due to the relatively small and slow doses of Ketamine (5 mcg/kg/min) used in our protocol in comparison to “standard” doses [12].

One of the main problems inherent in sedation technique when using propofol is the difficulty in adequately monitoring depth of respiration [34,35]. Capnography is considered to be a useful adjunct in the assessment of ventilator states of patients undergoing sedation and analgesia [36]. In our setting, capnographic monitoring has not been used, even though respiratory rate has been measured by impedance pneumography. However, capnography has been reported to be a more precise measure of ventilation [37]. This is undoubtedly a limitation of our study. However, we used low doses of propofol, ensuring deep analgesia coupled with conscious sedation to maintain continuous verbal contact between the patient and anesthesiologist. Moreover, patient safety and comfort were ensured by left lateral decubitus, avoiding the more dangerous semi-prone position. Until now no data have been available regarding clinical endpoints (e.g., severe hypoventilation with clinical consequences) when capnography is not used in gastrointestinal endoscopy [38].

Conclusions

Subanesthetic doses of Ketamine combined with a standard infusion regimen of low dose remifentanil with continuous propofol infusion should be widely used in ERCP procedures for its safe and convenient profile. This combination confers clinical advantages. In fact, it effectively avoids deep sedation, maintains adequate analgesia with conscious sedation, and results in less incidence of post-procedural nausea and vomiting, with shorter discharge times. Therefore, our “take home” message is that ketamine has to be considered to be not only a “rescue drug”, but also as a strongly advisable drug for use in settings outside the operating room.

References

1. Jamieson J, Anesthesia and sedation in the endoscopy suite? (Influences and opinions): Curr Opin Anesthesiol, 1999; 12; 417-23

2. Ackaboy ZN, Ackaboy EY, Albayrak D, Can remifentanil be a better choice than propofol for colonoscopy during monitored anesthesia care?: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, 2006; 50; 736-41, pmid: 16987370

3. Wehrmann T, Riphaus A, Sedation with propofol for interventional endoscopic procedures: a risk factor analysis: Scand J Gastroenterol, 2008; 43; 368-74, pmid: 18938664

4. Rosow C, Remifentanil: a unique opioids analgesic: Anesthesiology, 1993; 78; 875-76, pmid: 8489060

5. Medina HJ, Galvin EM, Dirckx M, Remifentanil as a single drug for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a comparison of infusion doses in terms of analgesic potency and side effects: Anesth Analg, 2005; 101; 365-70, pmid: 16037145

6. Fabbri LP, Batacchi S, Linden M, Anaesthesia for urologic endosopic procedures in adult outpatients: Eur J Anaesthesiol, 1995; 12; 319-24, pmid: 7641724

7. van Beek EJ, Leroy PL, Safe and Effective Procedural Sedation For Gastro-Intestinal Endoscopy In Children: A Systematic Review: J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr, 2011

8. Chiaretti A, Ruggiero A, Barbi E, Comparison of propofol versus propofol-ketamine combination in pediatric oncologic procedures performed by non-anesthesiologists: Pediatr Blood Cancer, 2011; 57(7); 1163-67, pmid: 21584935

9. Nejati A, Moharari RS, Ashraf H, Ketamine/propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department: a randomized, prospective, double-blind trial: Acad Emerg Med, 2011; 18(8); 800-6, pmid: 21843215

10. Smally AJ, Nowicki TA, Simelton BH, Procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department: Curr Opin Crit Care, 2011; 17(4); 317-22, pmid: 21677578

11. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologists, Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists: Anesthesiology, 2002; 96; 1004-17, pmid: 11964611

12. Varadarajulu S, Eloubedi MA, Tamhane A, Prospective randomized trial evaluating ketamine for advanced endoscopic procedures in difficult to sedate patients: Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2007; 25; 987-97, pmid: 17403003

13. Aldrete JA, A post-anesthesia recovery score revisited: J Clin Anesth, 1995; 7; 89-91, pmid: 7772368

14. Abu-Shahwan I, Mack D, Propofol and remifentanil for deep sedation in children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: Pediatric Anesthesia, 2007; 17; 460-63, pmid: 17474953

15. World Medical Association, Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects: Eur J Emerg Med, 2001; 8; 221-24, pmid: 11587468

16. El-Bitar N, Sfeir S, Evaluation of remifentanil in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Middle East J Anesthesiol, 2006; 18; 1209-16, pmid: 17263277

17. Trummel J, Sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: the changing landscape: Curr Opin Anaesthesiol, 2007; 20; 359-64, pmid: 17620846

18. Jung M, Hofman C, Kiesslich R, Improved sedation in diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: propofol is an alternative to midazolam: Endoscopy, 2000; 32; 233-38, pmid: 10718389

19. Wehrmann T, Grotkamp J, Stergiou N, Electroencephalogram monitoring facilitates sedation with propofol for routine ERCP: a randomized, controlled trial: Gastrointest Endosc, 2002; 56; 817-24, pmid: 12447291

20. Seifert H, Schmitt TH, Gultekin T, Sedation with propofol plus midazolam versus propofol alone for interventional endoscopic procedures: a prospective randomized study: Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2000; 14; 1207-14, pmid: 10971238

21. Van Natta 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; 101; 2209-17, pmid: 17032185

22. Moerman AT, Foubert LA, Herregods LL, Propofol versus remifentanil for monitored anesthesia care during colonoscopy: Eur J Anesthesiol, 2003; 20; 461-66

23. Rudner R, Jalowiecki JM, Kawecki P, Conscious analgesia/sedation with remifentanil and propofol versus total intravenous anaesthesia with fentanyl, midazolam and propofol for outpatient colonoscopy: Gastrointes Endoscop, 2003; 57; 657-63

24. Bouvet L, Allaouchiche B, Duflo F, Remifentanil is an effective alternative to propofol for patient-controlled analgesia during digestive endoscopic procedures: Can J Anesth, 2004; 51; 122-25, pmid: 14766686

25. Glass PS, Gan TJ, Howell S, A review of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil: Anaesth Analg, 1999; 89; S7-14

26. Church L, lodge D, N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonism is central to the actions of ketamine and other phencyclidine receptor lignds: Status of ketamine in Anesthesiology, 1990; 501-19, Ann Arbor, NPP Books

27. Maurset A, Skoglund LA, Hustveit O, Oye I, Comparison of ketamine and pethidine in experimental and postoperative pain: Pain, 1989; 36; 37-41, pmid: 2919093

28. Oye I, Paulsen O, Maurste A, Effects of ketamine on sensory perception: Evidence for a role of NMDA receptors: J Pharmacol Exp Ther, 1992; 260; 1209-60, pmid: 1312163

29. Menigaux C, Fletcher D, Dupont X, The benefits of intraoperative small-dose Ketamine on postoperative pain after anterior cruciate ligament repair: Anesth Analg, 2000; 90; 129-35, pmid: 10624993

30. Guignard B, Coste C, Costes H, Supplementing desflurane-remifentanil anesthesia with small-dose Ketamine reduces perioperative opioid analgesic requirements: Anesth Analg, 2002; 95; 103-8, pmid: 12088951

31. Patel S, Vargo JJ, Khandwala F, Deep sedation occurs frequently during endoscopy with meperidine and midazolam: Am J Gastroenterol, 2005; 100; 2689-95, pmid: 16393221

32. Pino RM, The nature of anesthesia and procedural sedation outside of the operating room: Curr Opin Anaesthesiol, 2007; 20; 347-51, pmid: 17620844

33. Garfield JM, Garfield FB, Stone JG, A comparison of psychologic responses to ketamine and thiopental – nitrous oxide – halothane anesthesia: Anesthesiology, 1972; 36; 329-38, pmid: 5020642

34. Wilson S, McCluskey A, Use of capnography during endoscopic retrograde cholangio -pancreatography: Anaesthesia, 2008; 63; 1016-17, pmid: 18699880

35. Cacho G, Pérez-Calle JL, Barbado A, Capnography is superior to pulse oximetry for the detection of respiratory depression during colonoscopy: Rev Esp Enferm Dig, 2010; 102; 86-89, pmid: 20361844

36. Yarchi D, Cohen A, Umansky T, Assessment of end-tidal carbon dioxide during pediatric and adult sedation for endoscopic procedures: Gastrointest Endosc, 2009; 69; 877-82, pmid: 19019361

37. Qadeer MA, Vargo JJ, Dumot JA, Capnographic monitoring of respiratory activity improves safety of sedation for endoscopic cholangiopancreatography and ultrasonography: Gastroenterology, 2009; 136; 1568-76, pmid: 19422079

38. Riphaus A, Wehrmann T, Weber B, S3 Guideline: Sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy 2008: Endoscopy, 2009; 41; 787-815

In Press

Clinical Research  

Institutional and Regional Variations in Access to Clinical Trials and Next-Generation Sequencing in Turkis...

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.951027  

Clinical Research  

Low-Intensity Blood Flow-Restricted Multi-Joint Exercise Improves Muscle Function in Patients With Patellof...

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.950516  

Review article  

Musculoskeletal Ultrasound and MRI in the Evaluation of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Review

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.951283  

Clinical Research  

Sensory Processing, Dissociation, and Affective Symptoms in Misophonia: A Cross-Sectional Study of 35 Adults

Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.950938  

Most Viewed Current Articles

17 Jan 2024 : Review article   10,187,196

Vaccination Guidelines for Pregnant Women: Addressing COVID-19 and the Omicron Variant

DOI :10.12659/MSM.942799

Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e942799

0:00

13 Nov 2021 : Clinical Research   3,708,487

Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination and Its Associated Factors Among Cancer Patients Attending the Oncology ...

DOI :10.12659/MSM.932788

Med Sci Monit 2021; 27:e932788

0:00

14 Dec 2022 : Clinical Research   2,341,643

Prevalence and Variability of Allergen-Specific Immunoglobulin E in Patients with Elevated Tryptase Levels

DOI :10.12659/MSM.937990

Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e937990

0:00

16 May 2023 : Clinical Research   706,524

Electrophysiological Testing for an Auditory Processing Disorder and Reading Performance in 54 School Stude...

DOI :10.12659/MSM.940387

Med Sci Monit 2023; 29:e940387

0:00

Your Privacy

We use cookies to ensure the functionality of our website, to personalize content and advertising, to provide social media features, and to analyze our traffic. If you allow us to do so, we also inform our social media, advertising and analysis partners about your use of our website, You can decise for yourself which categories you you want to deny or allow. Please note that based on your settings not all functionalities of the site are available. View our privacy policy.

Medical Science Monitor eISSN: 1643-3750
Medical Science Monitor eISSN: 1643-3750