Clin Endosc.  2020 Sep;53(5):555-561. 10.5946/ce.2019.210.

Efficacy and Safety of Etomidate in Comparison with Propofol or Midazolam as Sedative for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

• Kim JH
• Byun S
• Choi YJ
• Kwon HJ
• Jung K
• Kim SE
• Park MI
• Moon W
• Park SJ

• KMID: 2507589
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2019.210

Abstract

Background/Aims
In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of etomidate with those of propofol or midazolam for the maintenance of sedation during endoscopy.
Methods
The study enrolled patients who underwent sedative endoscopy in our hospital and divided them into three groups. Patients in each group were administered midazolam as induction therapy and were subsequently administered either midazolam (M + M group), propofol (M + P group), or etomidate (M + E group) as maintenance medication. The primary outcome was overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events.
Results
In total, 105 patients who underwent sedative endoscopic examination were enrolled. The outcomes related to the procedure and sedation were not significantly different among the groups. Overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events were observed in 9 patients (25.7%) in the M + M group, 8 patients (23.5%) in the M + P group, and 10 patients (27.8%) in the M + E group. The logistic regression analysis revealed that etomidate use was not an independent risk factor for overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events.
Conclusions
The outcomes following the use of etomidate for maintenance after induction with midazolam for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were not inferior to those following midazolam or propofol use from the perspectives of safety and efficacy.

Keyword

Endoscopy; Etomidate; Midazolam; Propofol; Sedative

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Changes in heart rate (A) and oxygen saturation (B) of each group at every 2 minutes from baseline to after the examination

Reference

1. Abraham NS, Wieczorek P, Huang J, Mayrand S, Fallone CA, Barkun AN. Assessing clinical generalizability in sedation studies of upper GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004; 60:28–33.

2. Igea F, Casellas JA, González-Huix F, et al. Sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy. 2014; 46:720–731.

3. Cohen LB, Wecsler JS, Gaetano JN, et al. Endoscopic sedation in the United States: results from a nationwide survey. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101:967–974.

4. Riphaus A, Geist F, Wehrmann T. Endoscopic sedation and monitoring practice in Germany: re-evaluation from the first nationwide survey 3 years after the implementation of an evidence and consent based national guideline. Z Gastroenterol. 2013; 51:1082–1088.

5. Erdoes G, Basciani RM, Eberle B. Etomidate--a review of robust evidence for its use in various clinical scenarios. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014; 58:380–389.

6. Falk J, Zed PJ. Etomidate for procedural sedation in the emergency department. Ann Pharmacother. 2004; 38:1272–1277.

7. Guler A, Satilmis T, Akinci SB, Celebioglu B, Kanbak M. Magnesium sulfate pretreatment reduces myoclonus after etomidate. Anesth Analg. 2005; 101:705–709.

8. Hüter L, Schreiber T, Gugel M, Schwarzkopf K. Low-dose intravenous midazolam reduces etomidate-induced myoclonus: a prospective, randomized study in patients undergoing elective cardioversion. Anesth Analg. 2007; 105:1298–1302.

9. Conway A, Rolley J, Sutherland JR. Midazolam for sedation before procedures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; (5):CD009491.

10. Lewis JH, Benjamin SB. Safety of midazolam and diazepam for conscious sedation. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1990; 12:716–717.

11. Nishizawa T, Suzuki H. Propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. United European Gastroenterol J. 2018; 6:801–805.

12. Mackenzie N, Grant IS. Propofol for intravenous sedation. Anaesthesia. 1987; 42:3–6.

13. Sasaki T, Tanabe S, Azuma M, et al. Propofol sedation with bispectral index monitoring is useful for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized prospective phase II clinical trial. Endoscopy. 2012; 44:584–589.

14. Lin OS. Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction. Intest Res. 2017; 15:456–466.

15. Park JH, Kim HJ, Seo JS. Medicolegal review of deaths related to propofol administration: analysis of 36 autopsied cases. Korean J Leg Med. 2012; 36:56–62.

16. Lee TH, Lee CK, Park SH, et al. Balanced propofol sedation versus propofol monosedation in therapeutic pancreaticobiliary endoscopic procedures. Dig Dis Sci. 2012; 57:2113–2121.

17. Lee CK, Lee SH, Chung IK, et al. Balanced propofol sedation for therapeutic GI endoscopic procedures: a prospective, randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 73:206–214.

18. Levitzky BE, Lopez R, Dumot JA, Vargo JJ. Moderate sedation for elective upper endoscopy with balanced propofol versus fentanyl and midazolam alone: a randomized clinical trial. Endoscopy. 2012; 44:13–20.

19. Kim MG, Park SW, Kim JH, et al. Etomidate versus propofol sedation for complex upper endoscopic procedures: a prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 86:452–461.

20. Lee JM, Min G, Lee JM, et al. Efficacy and safety of etomidate-midazolam for screening colonoscopy in the elderly: a prospective double-blinded randomized controlled study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97:e10635.

21. Park CH, Park SW, Hyun B, et al. Efficacy and safety of etomidate-based sedation compared with propofol-based sedation during ERCP in low-risk patients: a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 87:174–184.

22. Gelissen HP, Epema AH, Henning RH, Krijnen HJ, Hennis PJ, den Hertog A. Inotropic effects of propofol, thiopental, midazolam, etomidate, and ketamine on isolated human atrial muscle. Anesthesiology. 1996; 84:397–403.

23. Schwarzkopf KR, Hueter L, Simon M, Fritz HG. Midazolam pretreatment reduces etomidate-induced myoclonic movements. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2003; 31:18–20.

24. Forman SA. Clinical and molecular pharmacology of etomidate. Anesthesiology. 2011; 114:695–707.