Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The utility of nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) compared with midazolam and meperidine (M/M) for EUS is not known.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare recovery times, costs, safety, health personnel, and patient satisfaction of NAPS and M/M for EUS.

DESIGN:

Prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial.

SETTING:

Tertiary-referral hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana.

PATIENTS:

Outpatients referred for EUS.

INTERVENTIONS:

Sedation with M/M or NAPS. The patient and recovery nurse were blinded; however, the sedating nurse, endoscopist, and recording research nurse were unblinded to the sedatives used. A capnography, in addition to standard monitoring, was used. A questionnaire and visual analog scale assessed patient, endoscopist, and sedating nurse satisfaction.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS:

Recovery times, costs, safety, health personnel, and patient satisfaction in both groups.

RESULTS:

Eighty consecutive patients were randomized to NAPS (n = 40) or M/M (n = 40). More patients in the propofol group were current tobacco users; patient demographics, procedures performed, mean procedure length, and the overall frequency of adverse events were otherwise similar. Compared with M/M, NAPS was associated with a faster induction of sedation (2.3 vs 5.7 minutes, respectively; P = .001) and full recovery time (29 vs 49 minutes, respectively; P = .001), higher postprocedure patient satisfaction, and quicker anticipated return to baseline function. At discharge, total costs (recovery plus medications) were similar between the propofol ($406) and M/M groups ($399; P = .79).

LIMITATION:

Low-risk patient population.

CONCLUSIONS:

Compared with M/M, NAPS for an EUS offered a faster sedation induction and full recovery time, higher postprocedure patient satisfaction, and a quicker anticipated return to baseline function. Total costs were similar between the groups.