1994Canadian Journal of GastroenterologyOpen access

Sedation for Colonoscopy: A Double-Blind Comparison of Diazepam/Meperidine, Midazolam/Fentanyl and Propofol/Fentanyl Combinations

Mark A. Kostash, Richard Johnston, R. A. Bailey, Elsie Konopad, Lorraine P Guthrie

Open full text 17 citations

Abstract

Rate of recovery and incidence of complications were compared among three intravenous sedation techniques for colonoscopy. Sixty patients were randomized to receive diazepam and meperidine, midazolam and fentanyl, or propofol and fentanyl with a continuous infusion of propofol. Patients were sedated to a standard end-point using a double-blinded technique. There were no differences in rate of recovery or incidence of minor side effects among the three groups. The techniques were equally effective in providing sedation and analgesia for colonoscopy. All groups developed significant oxygen desaturation measured by continuous pulse oximetry. Over 20% of patients required supplemental oxygen due to persistent desaturation below 85% following administration of sedatives. The authors conclude that oxygen should be administered to all patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Rate of recovery and incidence of complications were compared among three intravenous sedation techniques for colonoscopy. Sixty patients were randomized to receive diazepam and meperidine, midazolam and fentanyl, or propofol and fentanyl with a continuous infusion of propofol. Patients were sedated to a standard end-point using a double-blinded technique. There were no differences in rate of recovery or incidence of minor side effects among the three groups. The techniques were equally effective in providing sedation and analgesia for colonoscopy. All groups developed significant oxygen desaturation measured by continuous pulse oximetry. Over 20% of patients required supplemental oxygen due to persistent desaturation below 85% following administration of sedatives. The authors conclude that oxygen should be administered to all patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 17 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Rate of recovery and incidence of complications were compared among three intravenous sedation techniques for colonoscopy. Sixty patients were randomized to receive diazepam and meperidine, midazolam and fentanyl, or propofol and fentanyl with a continuous infusion of propofol. Patients were sedated to a standard end-point using a double-blinded technique. There were no differences in rate of recovery or incidence of minor side effects among the three groups. The techniques were equally effective in providing sedation and analgesia for colonoscopy. All groups developed significant oxygen desaturation measured by continuous pulse oximetry. Over 20% of patients required supplemental oxygen due to persistent desaturation below 85% following administration of sedatives. The authors conclude that oxygen should be administered to all patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Key concepts: Midazolam, Sedation, Fentanyl, Anesthesia, Medicine, Propofol, Colonoscopy, Diazepam

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Sedation for Colonoscopy: A Double-Blind Comparison of Diazepam/Meperidine, Midazolam/Fentanyl and Propofol/Fentanyl Combinations — Research Paper | ScholarLens