Propofol vs Propofol + Benzo/Opiates in High Risk Group

Brief Summary

Official Title: “Incidence of Sedation Related Complications With Propofol Alone Versus Propofol With Benzodiazepines and Opiates in a High Risk Group Undergoing Advanced Endoscopic Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial”

This will be a randomized controlled trial that compares the rates of sedation related complications in high risk patients (ASA greater or equal to 3, BMI greater or equal to 30, those at risk for OSA) undergoing advanced endoscopy procedures with propofol alone compared to propofol in combination with benzodiazepines and opioids.

  • Study Type: Interventional
  • Study Design: Allocation: Randomized, Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment, Masking: Single Blind (Outcomes Assessor), Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Study Primary Completion Date: July 2014

Detailed Clinical Trial Description

The use of propofol (2,6-di-isopropofol) for sedation during endoscopic procedures has increased in recent years primarily because of its favorable pharmacokinetic profile compared with traditional endoscopic sedation with benzodiazepines and opioids. Propofol has a rapid onset of action (30-45 sec) and short duration of effect (4-8 min). There also are data to support the safe use of propofol for advanced endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

There is limited information on the incidence of sedation related complications during advanced endoscopy. Prior studies were limited by controlled patient populations at low risk of developing sedation related cardiopulmonary complications. In a recent study, we defined the frequency of sedation related adverse events including the rate of airway modifications (AMs) with propofol use during advanced endoscopy. From a total of 799 patients, AMs were required in 14.4% of patients, hypoxemia in 12.8%, hypotension in 0.5% and premature termination in 0.6% of the patients. In addition, body mass index (BMI), male sex and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class of 3 or higher were independent predictors of AMs. Similarly, Wehrmann and Riphaus identified ASA class of 3 or higher, total propofol dose, history of alcohol use and having an emergency endoscopy as independent factors for sedation related complications in patients undergoing advanced procedures.

Given the alarming rates of obesity in the United States, it is believed that the prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may be 10% or higher and in obese adults these numbers could be as high as 25%. Using a previously validated screening tool for OSA [STOP-BANG (SB)], we reported a prevalence rate of patients at risk for OSA of 43.3% in patients undergoing advanced endoscopy procedures. Patients at risk for OSA with a positive SB score (score ≥ 3 of 8) had a higher rate of AMs (20% vs. 6.1%, adjusted relative risk 1.7) and frequency of hypoxemia (12% vs. 5.2%, adjusted relative risk 1.63) compared to those at low risk for OSA. Thus, based on the available data, it appears that ASA class 3 or higher, high BMI, and patients at risk for OSA are factors that place patients undergoing advanced endoscopy procedures at high risk for sedation related complications including airway modifications.

The optimal method for achieving deep sedation in this high risk group of patients is unclear. Propofol may accentuate airway collapse as patients become unresponsive to verbal stimulation (deep sedation). Recent studies suggest that propofol with midazolam and/or opioids may be synergistic in action and therefore the combined application of these drugs may permit smaller doses of each to be used and potentially lead to a reduction in risk of complications and in the dose of propofol needed while retaining the individual advantages of each compound. There is limited data evaluating the synergistic effect of propofol with midazolam and opioids in patients undergoing advanced endoscopy procedures. Ong and colleagues in a randomized controlled trial compared patient sedation and tolerance during ERCP using propofol alone or midazolam, ketamine and pentazocine (sedato-analgesic cocktail) for induction along with propofol for maintenance. Patient tolerance as assessed by visual analog scales by endoscopist and anesthetist were higher in the combination group. Paspatis et al reported higher dosage of intravenous propofol required in patients being sedated with propofol alone compared with that required in patients receiving oral dose of midazolam with propofol for ERCP procedures. In addition, the patients' anxiety levels before the procedure were lower in the combination group. The mean percentage decline in the oxygen saturation during the procedure was significantly greater in propofol alone group. However, these studies excluded patients deemed to be at a high risk for sedation related complications. Patients with ASA class 3 or higher were excluded, the mean BMI was less than 25, and included only patients at average risk for complications associated with sedation.

The significance of synergistic sedation in patients undergoing advanced endoscopy procedures in the high risk patients is unclear. The overall risk of sedation related complications is thought to be higher compared to standard endoscopy due to longer procedure times and the need for relatively deeper levels of sedation.

Interventions Used in this Clinical Trial

  • Drug: Propofol Alone
    • Recommended Propofol doses before considering crossover: Induction: 2-2.5 mg/kg Maintenance: 0.1-0.2 mg/kg/min
  • Drug: Propofol+Benzo/Opioids
    • Recommended Versed: a. Prior to intubation patient is < 50 kg = 1 mg Versed patient is 50-75 kg = 1.5 mg Versed patient is > 75 kg = 2 mg Versed Recommended Fentanyl Prior to intubation = 0.5 ug/kg Total procedural dose = 1 ug/kg

Arms, Groups and Cohorts in this Clinical Trial

  • Active Comparator: Propofol+Benzo/Opioids
    • If the patient is randomized into this arm the recommended Versed and Fentanyl doses are standardized: Recommended Versed: a. Prior to intubation patient is < 50 kg = 1 mg Versed patient is 50-75 kg = 1.5 mg Versed patient is > 75 kg = 2 mg Versed Recommended Fentanyl Prior to intubation = 0.5 ug/kg Total procedural dose = 1 ug/kg
  • Active Comparator: Propofol Alone
    • The patients randomized into the sedation with propofol alone are able to cross over if they are unable to be successfully sedated under propofol alone. The the recommended doses before considering crossover are standardized: Induction Dose: 2-2.5 mg/kg Maintenance Dose: 0.1-0.2 mg/kg/min

Outcome Measures for this Clinical Trial

Primary Measures

  • Frequency of airway maneuvers
    • Time Frame: one day (during procedure)
      Safety Issue?: No

Secondary Measures

  • Frequency of other sedation related complications
    • Time Frame: one day (during procedure)
      Safety Issue?: No
  • Compare propofol doses between the two groups
    • Time Frame: one day (during procedure)
      Safety Issue?: No
  • Predictors of sedation related complications
    • Time Frame: one year
      Safety Issue?: No
  • Patient tolerance as assessed by the patient, endoscopist and CRNAs will be compared between the two groups
    • Time Frame: 24-48 hours
      Safety Issue?: No
  • Frequency of symptoms of nausea and vomiting will be compared between the two groups
    • Time Frame: 24-48 hours
      Safety Issue?: No

Criteria for Participation in this Clinical Trial

Inclusion Criteria

  • Ability to provide informed consent
  • Age greater than or equal to 18 years
  • Presence of at least 1 of the following criteria:

1. ASA class 3 or higher

2. BMI of 30 or greater

3. At risk for OSA (score of 3 or greater on the STOP-BANG screening tool)

Exclusion Criteria

  • drug allergy to Propofol, Benzodiazepines, or Opioids
  • patients who received Benzodiazepines or Opioids within 24 hours of the procedure

Gender Eligibility for this Clinical Trial: Both

Minimum Age for this Clinical Trial: 18 Years

Maximum Age for this Clinical Trial: N/A

Are Healthy Volunteers Accepted for this Clinical Trial: No

Clinical Trial Investigator Information

  • Lead Sponsor
    • Washington University School of Medicine
  • Provider of Information About this Clinical Study
    • Sponsor
  • Overall Official(s)
    • Faris Murad, M.D., Principal Investigator, Washington University School of Medicine


Rex DK, Deenadayalu VP, Eid E, Imperiale TF, Walker JA, Sandhu K, Clarke AC, Hillman LC, Horiuchi A, Cohen LB, Heuss LT, Peter S, Beglinger C, Sinnott JA, Welton T, Rofail M, Subei I, Sleven R, Jordan P, Goff J, Gerstenberger PD, Munnings H, Tagle M, Sipe BW, Wehrmann T, Di Palma JA, Occhipinti KE, Barbi E, Riphaus A, Amann ST, Tohda G, McClellan T, Thueson C, Morse J, Meah N. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience. Gastroenterology. 2009 Oct;137(4):1229-37; quiz 1518-9. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.06.042. Epub 2009 Jun 21. Review.

Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Lichtenstein DR, Jagannath S, Baron TH, Anderson MA, Banerjee S, Dominitz JA, Fanelli RD, Gan SI, Harrison ME, Ikenberry SO, Shen B, Stewart L, Khan K, Vargo JJ. Sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Nov;68(5):815-26. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.09.029.

Tohda G, Higashi S, Wakahara S, Morikawa M, Sakumoto H, Kane T. Propofol sedation during endoscopic procedures: safe and effective administration by registered nurses supervised by endoscopists. Endoscopy. 2006 Apr;38(4):360-7.

Rex DK, Heuss LT, Walker JA, Qi R. Trained registered nurses/endoscopy teams can administer propofol safely for endoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2005 Nov;129(5):1384-91.

Riphaus A, Stergiou N, Wehrmann T. Sedation with propofol for routine ERCP in high-risk octogenarians: a randomized, controlled study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005 Sep;100(9):1957-63.

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

Yusoff IF, Raymond G, Sahai AV. Endoscopist administered propofol for upper-GI EUS is safe and effective: a prospective study in 500 patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Sep;60(3):356-60.

Vargo JJ, Zuccaro G Jr, Dumot JA, Shermock KM, Morrow JB, Conwell DL, Trolli PA, Maurer WG. Gastroenterologist-administered propofol versus meperidine and midazolam for advanced upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial. Gastroenterology. 2002 Jul;123(1):8-16.

Paspatis GA, Manolaraki MM, Vardas E, Theodoropoulou A, Chlouverakis G. Deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: intravenous propofol alone versus intravenous propofol with oral midazolam premedication. Endoscopy. 2008 Apr;40(4):308-13. Epub 2007 Dec 5.

Coté GA, Hovis RM, Ansstas MA, Waldbaum L, Azar RR, Early DS, Edmundowicz SA, Mullady DK, Jonnalagadda SS. Incidence of sedation-related complications with propofol use during advanced endoscopic procedures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Feb;8(2):137-42. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2009.07.008. Epub 2009 Jul 14.

Tishler PV, Larkin EK, Schluchter MD, Redline S. Incidence of sleep-disordered breathing in an urban adult population: the relative importance of risk factors in the development of sleep-disordered breathing. JAMA. 2003 May 7;289(17):2230-7.

Young T, Peppard PE, Gottlieb DJ. Epidemiology of obstructive sleep apnea: a population health perspective. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002 May 1;165(9):1217-39. Review.

Hiestand DM, Britz P, Goldman M, Phillips B. Prevalence of symptoms and risk of sleep apnea in the US population: Results from the national sleep foundation sleep in America 2005 poll. Chest. 2006 Sep;130(3):780-6.

Coté GA, Hovis CE, Hovis RM, Waldbaum L, Early DS, Edmundowicz SA, Azar RR, Mullady DK, Jonnalagadda SS. A screening instrument for sleep apnea predicts airway maneuvers in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Aug;8(8):660-665.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.05.015. Epub 2010 May 23.

Cohen LB, Dubovsky AN, Aisenberg J, Miller KM. Propofol for endoscopic sedation: A protocol for safe and effective administration by the gastroenterologist. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Nov;58(5):725-32.

Seifert H, Schmitt TH, Gültekin T, Caspary WF, Wehrmann T. Sedation with propofol plus midazolam versus propofol alone for interventional endoscopic procedures: a prospective, randomized study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2000 Sep;14(9):1207-14.

VanNatta 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 Oct;101(10):2209-17.

Reimann FM, Samson U, Derad I, Fuchs M, Schiefer B, Stange EF. Synergistic sedation with low-dose midazolam and propofol for colonoscopies. Endoscopy. 2000 Mar;32(3):239-44.

Cohen LB, Hightower CD, Wood DA, Miller KM, Aisenberg J. Moderate level sedation during endoscopy: a prospective study using low-dose propofol, meperidine/fentanyl, and midazolam. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Jun;59(7):795-803.

Paspatis GA, Manolaraki M, Xirouchakis G, Papanikolaou N, Chlouverakis G, Gritzali A. Synergistic sedation with midazolam and propofol versus midazolam and pethidine in colonoscopies: a prospective, randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Aug;97(8):1963-7.

Ong WC, Santosh D, Lakhtakia S, Reddy DN. A randomized controlled trial on use of propofol alone versus propofol with midazolam, ketamine, and pentazocine "sedato-analgesic cocktail" for sedation during ERCP. Endoscopy. 2007 Sep;39(9):807-12.

Chung F, Yegneswaran B, Liao P, Chung SA, Vairavanathan S, Islam S, Khajehdehi A, Shapiro CM. STOP questionnaire: a tool to screen patients for obstructive sleep apnea. Anesthesiology. 2008 May;108(5):812-21. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31816d83e4.

Chernik DA, Gillings D, Laine H, Hendler J, Silver JM, Davidson AB, Schwam EM, Siegel JL. Validity and reliability of the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale: study with intravenous midazolam. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1990 Aug;10(4):244-51.

Aldrete JA, Kroulik D. A postanesthetic recovery score. Anesth Analg. 1970 Nov-Dec;49(6):924-34.


Clinical Trials content is provided directly by the US National Institutes of Health via and is not reviewed separately by Every page of information about a specific clinical trial contains a unique identifier which can be used to find further details directly from the National Institutes of Health.

The URL of this page is: