Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol

Abstract

Abstract Background There are limited data regarding the efficacy and safety of remifentanil sedation for diagnostic bronchoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of remifentanil by comparing it with those of conventional drugs, midazolam and propofol. Methods A retrospective study of 186 patients who underwent diagnostic bronchoscopy at Chonbuk National University Hospital was performed. Patients were classified into the remifentanil group and midazolam/propofol group according to the drugs used during bronchoscopy. Results Of the 186 patients, 111 patients received remifentanil and 75 received midazolam/propofol during the bronchoscopy. The proportion of patients who required bronchoscopy for endobronchial inspection alone was significantly higher in the midazolam/propofol group than in the remifentanil group (93.3% vs. 73.0%; p < 0.001). In contrast, the proportion of patients who required more invasive procedures, such as bronchoscopic biopsy, bronchoalveolar lavage, or transbronchial lung biopsy, was significantly higher in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (27.0% vs. 6.7%; p < 0.001). The recovery time was significantly shorter in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (mean 6.4 min vs. 11.6 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to safety events including desaturation, hypotension, and arrhythmia. Conclusions Despite the higher proportion of patients who underwent more invasive procedures in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group, there was no significant difference in safety events between the groups. Those in the remifentanil group also demonstrated a faster recovery time than those in the midazolam/propofol group.

Keywords

• Remifentanil
• Midazolam
• Propofol
• Bronchoscopy
• Analgosedation