Small bolus injections of intravenous midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a study of 788 consecutive cases

Smith, Margaret; Bell, G. D.; Quine, M A; Spencer, G M; Morden, A.; Jones, J. G.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.1993.tb00417.x

Cited by 18 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings mirror earlier studies in the United Kingdom of bolus sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, again demonstrating fewer adverse outcomes in the bolus group. 17,18 Our findings augment those presented by Morrow et al 11 in 2 important ways. First, we evaluated the bolus sedation approach with fentanyl as opposed to meperidine.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Bolus Administration of Fentanyl and Midazolam for Colonoscopy Increases Endoscopy Unit Efficiency and Safety Compared With Titrated Sedation

Finn

Boyd

Lin

et al. 2017

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Bolus Administration of Fentanyl and Midazolam for Colonoscopy Increases Endoscopy Unit Efficiency and Safety Compared With Titrated Sedation

Finn

Boyd

Lin

et al. 2017

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Midazolam has been proven effective and is routinely given in other invasive procedures such as endoscopy and bronchoscopy because of its amnestic characteristics (Smith et al , 1993; Maguire et al , 1998; Williams and Bowie, 1999; Bonta et al , 2003) and its minimal side‐effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intravenous sedation with short‐acting medications such as midazolam has been successfully used during many invasive ambulatory procedures including transoesophageal echocardiogram, bronchoscopy, gastroscopy and colonoscopy (Smith et al , 1993; Ishiguro et al , 2002; Bonta et al , 2003). Although midazolam is not analgetic, it has been proven to reduce discomfort and anxiety during these procedures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sedation with midazolam versus local anaesthesia with lignocaine for transrectal prostate biopsies

Golan

Gdor

Katz

et al. 2008

Int J of Uro Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transrectal ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of the prostate is the only method for diagnosing prostate cancer. Although tolerated by most patients, 65-90% of patients complain of pain during the procedure. Most urologists utilize ultrasound-guided transrectal injection of lignocaine. Intravenous sedation with short-acting medications such as midazolam has been successfully used during many invasive ambulatory procedures, reducing discomfort and anxiety. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of pain and anxiety reduction using intravenous sedation with midazolam versus local anaesthesia with lignocaine during transrectal biopsies of the prostate in a cross-sectional study. Ninety consecutive candidates for transrectal prostate biopsy were divided into 2 groups. Group A received periprostatic block with 2% lignocaine and group B received sedation with intravenous injection of 4 mg midazolam prior to insertion of the probe. Side-effects and patient satisfaction were documented by questionnaires, which included a pain visual analogue scale (VAS). Significant differences were found between the two groups with respect to the patient's perceived intensity of pain. Pain level expressed by a VAS was 4Á2 in group A and 1Á9 in group B (P < 0Á001). Eighty-seven per cent of the patients in group B stated that they would be willing to repeat the procedure if necessary compared with 55% in group A (P = 0Á002). There were no complications or side-effects as a result of midazolam sedation. Midazolam is more effective in relieving pain and anxiety during transrectal prostate biopsies and as safe as a local injection of lignocaine.

show abstract

“…Literary evidence suggests that intermittent boluses of midazolam can be successfully and safely used for patients undergoing upper GI endoscopic procedures. [ 13 ]…”

Section: Alternatives To Propofolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Propofol alternatives in gastrointestinal endoscopy anesthesia

Goudra¹,

Singh

2014

Saudi J Anaesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although propofol has been the backbone for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy, both anesthesiologists and endoscopists are faced with situations where an alternative is needed. Recent national shortages forced many physicians to explore these options. A midazolam and fentanyl combination is the mainstay in this area. However, there are other options. The aim of this review is to explore these options. The future would be, invariably, to move away from propofol. The reason is not in any way related to the drawbacks of propofol as a sedative. The mandate that requires an anesthesia provider to administer propofol has been a setback in many countries. New sedative drugs like Remimazolam might fill this void in the future. In the meantime, it is important to keep an open eye to the existing alternatives.

show abstract

Small bolus injections of intravenous midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a study of 788 consecutive cases

Cited by 18 publications

References 29 publications

Bolus Administration of Fentanyl and Midazolam for Colonoscopy Increases Endoscopy Unit Efficiency and Safety Compared With Titrated Sedation

Bolus Administration of Fentanyl and Midazolam for Colonoscopy Increases Endoscopy Unit Efficiency and Safety Compared With Titrated Sedation

Sedation with midazolam versus local anaesthesia with lignocaine for transrectal prostate biopsies

Propofol alternatives in gastrointestinal endoscopy anesthesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About