Advertisement

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 59, Issue 8, pp 1717–1725 | Cite as

Significant and Safe Shortening of the Recovery Time After Flumazenil-Reversed Midazolam Sedation

  • Elisabeth M. H. Mathus-Vliegen
  • Linda de Jong
  • Hedwig A. Kos-Foekema
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Endoscopy under midazolam sedation requires a 2-h recovery facility.

Aim

To study the potential of shortening patients’ stay without jeopardizing patients’ safety by the use of the benzodiazepine-antagonist flumazenil in the everyday practice and to investigate the feasibility of a study comparing midazolam with recovery with midazolam–flumazenil and immediate discharge.

Methods

Consecutive ambulatory patients referred for endoscopy under midazolam sedation with ASA I or II, escorted by a person, were eligible. Flumazenil was given on arrival in the recovery room. Patients were discharged when adequate Aldrete scores and physical mobility were present. The next day, they were contacted by telephone.

Results

A total of 1,506 patients participated. They received 5 mg midazolam, while 887 patients also received 50 mcg fentanyl. The median dose of flumazenil was 0.2 mg. Oxygen desaturation (sO2 <92 %) occurred in 15 % during the procedure without an effect on recovery and discharge times. Patients left the department 65 min after the last midazolam administration. The majority (82.7 %) were fully alert during their journey home. At home, 2.7 % went to bed, 45.2 % took a nap, and 40 % undertook activities. Almost every patient (98.8 %) liked the shortened recovery time. Three patients had an incident (fainting, fall, and near-fall) without consequences. Based on this low incidence, a non-inferiority comparison of midazolam–flumazenil with midazolam-recovery would require a total of 32,650 patients.

Conclusions

Administration of flumazenil resulted in a safe shortening of the recovery period and offers the possibility for substantial savings in time, space, and nurse resources. A non-inferiority comparison will not be practicable.

Keywords

Midazolam Flumazenil Midazolam antagonist Endoscopy Intravenous sedation Fentanyl 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors are deeply indebted to the department of Anesthesiology for their help and advice.

Conflict of interest

None.

Supplementary material

10620_2014_3061_MOESM1_ESM.tif (488 kb)
Supplemental figure. Time in minutes from the administration of midazolam to arrival in the recovery room, administration of flumazenil, discharge, arrival at home, and end of sleep for 649 patients (289 in upper and 360 in lower endoscopy) who took a nap. ***p < 0.001 for the comparison of times between upper and lower endoscopy (TIFF 488 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen LB, Wecsler JS, Gaetano JN, et al. Endoscopic sedation in the United States: results from a nationwide survey. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:967–974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Froehlich F, Harris JK, Wietlisbach V, Burnand B, Vader JP, Gonvers JJ. Current sedation and monitoring practice for colonoscopy: an International Observational Study (EPAGE). Endoscopy. 2006;38:461–469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McQuaid KR, Laine L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:910–923.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartelsman JF, Sars PR, Tytgat GN. Flumazenil used for reversal of midazolam-induced sedation in endoscopy outpatients. Gastrointest Endosc. 1990;36:S9–S12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wille RT, Chaffee BW, Ryan ML, Elta GH, Walter V, Barnett JL. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of flumazenil for routine outpatient EGD. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51:282–287.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dunton AW, Schwam E, Pitman V, McGrath J, Hendler J, Siegel J. Flumazenil: US clinical pharmacology studies. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1988;2:81–95.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pearson RC, McCloy RF, Morris P, Bardhan KD. Midazolam and flumazenil in gastroenterology. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1990;92:21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosario MT, Costa NF. Combination of midazolam and flumazenil in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, a doubleblind randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc. 1990;36:30–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saletin M, Malchow H, Muhlhofer H, Fischer M, Pilot J, Rohde H. A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effects of flumazenil after midazolam premedication in outpatients undergoing colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 1991;23:331–333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kankaria A, Lewis JH, Ginsberg G, et al. Flumazenil reversal of psychomotor impairment due to midazolam or diazepam for conscious sedation for upper endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:416–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghouri AF, Ruiz MA, White PF. Effect of flumazenil on recovery after midazolam and propofol sedation. Anesthesiology. 1994;81:333–339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:1004–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dutch Association for Anesthesiology, CBO—Quality Institute for Health Services. Guideline Sedation and/or Analgesia in Adults Outside the Operation Theatre. www.anesthesiologie.nl.
  14. 14.
    Riphaus A, Gstettenbauer T, Frenz MB, Wehrmann T. Quality of psychomotor recovery after propofol sedation for routine endoscopy: a randomized and controlled study. Endoscopy. 2006;38:677–683.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Aparicio JR, et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Endoscopy. 2010;42:960–974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Qadeer MA, Vargo JJ, Khandwala F, Lopez R, Zuccaro G. Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:1049–1056.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wehrmann T, Riphaus A. Sedation with propofol for interventional endoscopic procedures: a risk factor analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008;43:368–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bauer TM, Ritz R, Haberthur C, et al. Prolonged sedation due to accumulation of conjugated metabolites of midazolam. Lancet. 1995;346:145–147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen LB, Delegge MH, Aisenberg J, et al. AGA Institute review of endoscopic sedation. Gastroenterology. 2007;133:675–701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Riphaus A, Wehrmann T, Weber B, et al. S3 guideline: sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy 2008. Endoscopy. 2008;41:787–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aldrete JA. The post-anesthesia recovery score revisited. J Clin Anesth. 1995;7:89–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jensen S, Knudsen L, Kirkegaard L, Kruse A, Knudsen EB. Flumazenil used for antagonizing the central effects of midazolam and diazepam in outpatients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1989;33:26–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Whitwam JG. The use of midazolam and flumazenil in diagnostic and short surgical procedures. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1990;92:16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Whitwam JG. Resedation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1990;92:70–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Andrews PJ, Wright DJ, Lamont MC. Flumazenil in the outpatient. A study following midazolam as sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Anaesthesia. 1990;45:445–448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Girdler NM, Lyne JP, Wallace R, et al. A randomised crossover trial of postoperative cognitive and psychomotor recovery from benzodiazepine sedation: effects of reversal with flumazenil over a prolonged recovery period. Br Dent J. 2002;192:335–339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maeda S, Miyawaki T, Higuchi H, Shimada M. Effect of flumazenil on disturbance of equilibrium function induced by midazolam. Anaesth Prog. 2008;55:73–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Willey J, Vargo JJ, Connor JT, Dumot JA, Conwell DL, Zuccaro G. Quantitative assessment of psychomotor recovery after sedation and analgesia for outpatient EGD. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:810–816.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Hidaka N, Ichise Y, Kajiyama M, Tanaka N. Low-dose propofol sedation for diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy: results in 10,662 adults. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:1650–1655.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carter AS, Bell GD, Coady T, Lee J, Morden A. Speed of reversal of midazolam-induced respiratory depression by flumazenil—a study in patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1990;92:59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mora CT, Tjorjman M, DiGiorgio K. Sedative and ventilatory effects of midazolam and flumazenil. Anesthesiology. 1987;67:A534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mora CT, Torjman M, White PF. Sedative and ventilatory effects of midazolam infusion: effect of flumazenil reversal. Can J Anaesth. 1995;42:677–684.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth M. H. Mathus-Vliegen
    • 1
  • Linda de Jong
    • 1
  • Hedwig A. Kos-Foekema
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical CenterUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations