Aim The administration of trans esophageal echocardiography (TEE) may cause nausea, shortness of breath, agitation, emotional distress and pain in patients due to pharyngo-esophageal intubation, which may be partially relieved by sedoanalgesia. The aim of this study was to compare clinical effects of midazolam, midazolam-alfentanil combination and propofol sedation given for sedation and sedoanalgesia to patients with planned diagnostic TEE interventions. Methods This study was prospectively completed with 90 randomized adult patients in ASA risk groups I-II-III. Group M were given 2.5 mg midazolam, group MA were given 1 mg midazolam and 5 μg/kg alfentanil and group P were given 0.5 mg/kg propofol intravenous bolus. If necessary, additional doses were administered. Patients administered with TEE were evaluated in terms of additional dose requirements, Ramsey Sedation Scale (RSS), modified Aldrete Scoring (MAS), recovery time and duration of stay in the hospital. Results In the group P additional dose requirements were greater (p<0.05), as well as the duration of stay in the recovery unit and hospital were shorter (p<0.05). On insertion of the TEE probe, the RSS in the group P was clearly higher than in other groups M and MA (p<0.05). Conclusion During the TEE intervention, the use of propofol, contrary to requirements for additional dose and observation of apnea, appears to be advantageous due to providing more rapid and effective sedation depth without a need of expensive antagonist agents, and allowing early discharge of patients. Additionally, it seems that the use of midazolam combined with alfentanil, is more advantageous comparing to midazolam alone.
Vignon P, Boncoeur M, François B, Rambaud G, Maubon A, Gastinne H. Comparison of multiplane transesophageal echocardiography and contrast-enhancedhelical CT in the diagnosis of blunt traumatic cardiovascular injuries. Anesthesiology. 2001. p. 615–22.
2.
Goarin J, Cluzel P, Gosgnach M, Lamine K, Coriat P, Riou B. Evaluation of transesophageal echocardiography for diagnosis of traumatic aortic injury. Anesthesiology. 2000. p. 1373–7.
3.
Daniel W, Mügge A. Transesophageal Echocardiography. N Eng J Med. 1995. p. 1268–79.
4.
Blondheim D, Levi D, Marmor A. Mild sedation before transesophageal echo induces significant hemodynamic and respiratory depression. Echocardiography. 2004. p. 241–5.
5.
Daniel W, Erbel R, Kasper W, Visser C, Engberding R, Sutherland G, et al. Safety of transesophageal echocardiography. A multicenter survey of 10,419 examinations. Circulation. 1991. p. 817–21.
6.
Wenzel R, Bartel T, Eggebrecht H, Philipp T, Erbel R. Central-nervous side effects of midazolam during transesophageal echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2002. p. 1297–300.
7.
Renna M, Chung R, Li W, Maguire C, Mullen M, Chambers J, et al. Remifentanil plus low-dose midazolam for outpatient sedation in transesophageal echocardiography. Int J Cardiol. 2009. p. 325–9.
8.
Vinik H, Kissin B, I. Triple anesthetic combination: propofol-midazolam-alfentanil. Anesth Analg. 1994. p. 354–8.
9.
Ferreira A, Cravo M. Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Where are we at in 2014? World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015. p. 102–9.
10.
Koo C, Hyder J, Wanderer J, Eikermann M. Ramachandran SK. A meta-analysis of the predictive accuracy of postoperative mortality using the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ physical status classification system. World J Surg. 2015. p. 88–103.
11.
Heidari S, Loghmani P. Assessment of the effects of ketamine-fentanyl combination versus propofol-remifentanil combination for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. J Res Med Sci. 2014. p. 860–6.
12.
De Belder M, Leech G, Camm A. Transesophageal echocardiography in unsedated outpatients: technique and patient tolerance. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1989. p. 375–9.
13.
Sutaria N, Northridge D, Denvir M. A survey of sedation andmonitoring practices during transoesophageal echocardiography in the UK: are recommended guidelines being followed. Heart. 2000. p. 19.
14.
Eren G, Dogan Y, Demir G, Tulubas E, Hergunsel O, Tekdos Y, et al. Hypnosis for sedation in transesophageal echocardiography: a comparison with midazolam. Ann Saudi Med. 2015. p. 58–63.
15.
Maeda S, Miyawaki T, Higuchi H, Shimada M. Effect of flumazenil on disturbance of equilibrium function induced by midazolam. Anesth Prog. 2008. p. 73–7.
16.
Pratila M, Fischer M, Alagesa R. Propofol versus midazolam for monitored sedation, a comparasion of intraoperative and recovery parameters. J Clin Anesth. 1993. p. 268–72.
17.
Mchardy F, Fortier J, Chung F, Krishnathas A, Marshall S. A Comparison of midazolam, alfentanil and propofol for sedation in oupatient intraocular surgery. Can J Anaesth. 2000. p. 211–4.
18.
Smith I, Monk T, White P, Ding Y. Propofol infusion during regional anaesthesia, sedative , amnestic and anxiolytic properties. Anesth Analg. 1994. p. 313–9.
19.
Triantafillidis J, Merikas E, Papalois D, A. Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Current issues. World J Gastroenterol. 2013. p. 463–81.
20.
Janssen, Products R. 10AD.
21.
José G, Silva C, Ferreira L, Novaes Y, Monaco C, Gil M, et al. Effective dose of sedation in transesophageal echocardiography: relation to age, body surface area and left ventricle function. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2009. p. 623–9.
22.
Horn E, Nesbit S. Pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of sedatives and analgesics. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2004. p. 247.
23.
Bahn E, Holt K. Procedural sedation and analgesia: a review and new concepts. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2005. p. 503.
24.
Vinik H, Kissin B, I. Midazolam-alfentanil synergism for anesthetic induction in patients. Anesth Analg. 1989. p. 213–7.
25.
Morgan G, Mikhail M, Murray M. Clinical Anesthesiology. 3. Lange Medical Boks/MC Graw-Hill Medical Publishing Division; 2002.
26.
Drugs. Propofol-Lipuro. 11AD.
27.
Farm D, Emc. Midazolam Injection BP 5 mg/ml solution for injection or infusion Summary of Product Characteristics. 25AD.
28.
Maltepe F, Kocaayan E, Ugurlu B, Akdeniz B, Guneri S. Comparison of remifentanil and fentanyl in anaesthesia for elective cardioversion. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2006. p. 353–7.
29.
Clarkson K, Power C, ’connell O, Pathmakanthan F, Burke S, C. A comparative evaluation of propofol and midazolam as sedative agents in fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Chest. 1993. p. 1029–31.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
