Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 64, Issue 1, pp 144–151 | Cite as

Etomidate Sedation for Advanced Endoscopic Procedures

  • Su Jung Han
  • Tae Hoon LeeEmail author
  • Jae Kook Yang
  • Young Sin Cho
  • Yunho Jung
  • Il-Kwun Chung
  • Sang-Heum Park
  • Suyeon Park
  • Sun-Joo Kim
Original Article


Background and Study Aim

Although propofol is widely used for sedation for endoscopic procedures, concerns remain regarding cardiopulmonary adverse events. Etomidate has little effect on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, but patient satisfaction analysis is lacking. We compared the efficacy and safety of balanced propofol and etomidate sedation during advanced endoscopic procedures.


As a randomized noninferiority trial, balanced endoscopic sedation was achieved using midazolam and fentanyl, and patients were randomly assigned to receive propofol (BPS) or etomidate (BES) as add-on drug. The main outcomes were sedation efficacy measured on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and safety.


In total, 186 patients (94 in the BPS group and 92 in the BES group) were evaluated. BES did not show noninferiority in terms of overall patient satisfaction, with a difference in VAS score of −0.35 (97.5 % confidence interval −1.03 to ∞, p = 0.03). Among endoscopists and nurses, BES showed noninferiority to BPS, with differences in VAS scores of 0.06 and 0.08, respectively. Incidence of cardiopulmonary adverse events was lower in the BES group (27.7 versus 14.1 %, p = 0.023). Hypoxia occurred in 5.3 and 1.1 % of patients in the BPS and BES group (p = 0.211). Myoclonus occurred in 12.1 % (11/92) in the BES group. BES had lower risk of overall cardiopulmonary adverse events (odds ratio 0.401, p = 0.018).


BES was not noninferior to BPS in terms of patient satisfaction. However, BES showed better safety outcomes in terms of cardiopulmonary adverse events.


Endoscopic sedation Advanced endoscopic procedure Propofol Etomidate 



This work was supported by the Soonchunhyang University Research Fund.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Gouda B, Gouda G, Borle A, et al. Safety of non-anesthesia provider administered propofol sedation in non-advanced gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a meta-analysis. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2017;23:133–143.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burtea DE, Dimitriu A, Malos AE, et al. Current role of non-anesthesiologist administered propofol sedation in advanced interventional endoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;7:981–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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;60:356–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Schreiber F, et al. Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates Guideline. Endoscopy. 2015;47:1175–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee CK, Lee SH, Chung IK, et al. Balanced propofol sedation for therapeutic GI endoscopic procedures: a prospective, randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee SJ, Lee TH, Park SH, et al. Efficacy of carbon dioxide versus air insufflation according to different sedation protocols during therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Dig Endosc. 2015;27:512–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee TH, Lee CK, Park SH, et al. Balanced propofol sedation versus propofol monosedation in therapeutic pancreaticobiliary endoscopic procedures. Dig Dis Sci. 2012;57:2113–2121. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cote GA, Hovis RM, Ansstas MA, et al. Incidence of sedation-related complications with propofol use during advanced endoscopic procedures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Triantafillidis JK, Merikas E, Nikolakis D, et al. Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forman SA. Clinical and molecular pharmacology of etomidate. Anesthesiology. 2011;114:695–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Falk J, Zed PJ. Etomidate for procedural sedation in the emergency department. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38:1272–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhou X, Li BX, Chen LM, et al. Etomidate plus propofol versus propofol alone for sedation during gastroscopy: a randomized prospective clinical trial. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:5108–5116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim MG, Park SW, Kim JH, et al. Etomidate versus propofol sedation for complex upper endoscopic procedures: a prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86:452–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park CH, Park SW, Hyun B, et al. Efficacy and safety of etomidate-based sedation compared with propofol-based sedation during ERCP in low-risk patients: a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:174–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologists, Gross JB, Bailey PL, Connis RT et al. Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists (An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologists). Anesthesiology. 2002;96:1004–1017.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lovett P, Gomez V, Hodge DO, et al. Propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl sedation for colonoscopy in the elderly patient population. J Perianesth Nurs. 2017;32:210–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Han SJ, Lee TH, Park SH, et al. Efficacy of midazolam- versus propofol-based sedations by non-anesthesiologists during therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients aged over 80 years. Dig Endosc. 2017;29:369–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khan MA, Akbar A, Baron TH, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61:684–703. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yates AM, Wolfson AB, Shum L, et al. A descriptive study of myoclonus associated with etomidate procedural sedation in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31:852–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huter L, Schreiber T, Gugel M, et al. Low-dose intravenous midazolam reduces etomidate-induced myoclonus: a prospective, randomized study in patients undergoing elective cardioversion. Anesth Analg. 2007;105:1298–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meng QT, Cao C, Liu HM, et al. Safety and efficacy of etomidate and propofol anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy: a double-blind randomized clinical study. Exp Ther Med. 2016;12:1515–1524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu J, Liu R, Meng C, et al. Propofol decreases etomidate-related myoclonus in gastroscopy. Medicine. 2017;96:7212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang J, Li QB, Wu YY, et al. Efficacy and safety of opioids for the prevention of etomidate-induced myoclonus: a meta-analysis. Am J Ther. 2016;. Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Oss GE, Rachmat Y, Booij LH, et al. Continuous infusion of etomidate as a method for outpatient anesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 1980;31:39–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    St Pierre M, Dunkel M, Rutherford A, et al. Does etomidate increase postoperative nausea? A double-blind controlled comparison of etomidate in lipid emulsion with propofol for balanced anaesthesia. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2000;17:634–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ye L, Xiao X, Zhu L. The comparison of etomidate and propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2017;27:1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yeung JK, Zed PJ. A review of etomidate for rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department. Can J Emerg Med. 2002;4:194–198.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morel J, Salard M, Castelain C, et al. Haemodynamic consequences of etomidate administration in elective cardiac surgery: a randomized double-blinded study. Br J Anaesthesiol. 2011;107:503–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moller Petrun A, Kamenik M. Bispectral index-guided induction of general anaesthesia in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery using propofol or etomidate: a double-blind, randomized, clinical trial. Br J Anaesthesiol. 2013;110:388–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Toklu S, Iyilikci L, Gonen C, et al. Comparison of etomidate–remifentanil and propofol–remifentanil sedation in patients scheduled for colonoscopy. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009;26:370–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Baradari AG, Alipour A, Habibi MR, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing hemodynamic responses to ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) versus etomidate during anesthesia induction in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Arch Med Sci. 2017;13:1102–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Digestive Disease Center, Cheonan HospitalSoonchunhyang University School of MedicineCheonan-siRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsSoonchunhyang University School of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations