NCT01404689

Brief Summary

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) takes a longer time and is more complex to perform than the other parallel procedures, causing discomfort to patients. It is commonly performed under sedation endoscopy. Until recently, the combination administration of midazolam and opioid has been widely used as standard therapy due to its superior sedation effect compared to the other sedation agents. Midazolam, however, has problems, such as an insufficient sedation effect and an intermittent paradoxical response. Unlike midazolam, propofol has no antagonist and may cause problems such as respiratory depression, and has a narrow therapeutic range for the sedation effect, consequently requiring supervision by experienced experts, although it has a better sedation effect than midazolam. Due to these disadvantages, propofol is clinically less useful than midazolam. Meanwhile, dexmedetomidine, a selective α2 adrenergic agonist, is known to maintain the proper level of sedation and has a weak influence on respiratory depression. Recent studies have shown positive results with dexmedetomidine in relation with the sedation effect for surgery patients under local anesthesia or in intensive care units. As such, extensive studies are being conducted on the use of dexmedetomidine in endoscopic procedures due to the increased attention to dexmedetomidine. This notwithstanding, the clinical usefulness of dexmedetomidine is still debatable. In particular, studies on the use of dexmedetomidine for ERCP are very rare. Given the recent idea that dexmedetomidine may exert a synergistic effect in combination with midazolam, these authors endeavored to prospectively compare and analyze the sedation effect and adverse events, including respiratory depression, of the combination therapy of midazolam and meperidine, both of which have been widely used in patients undergoing ERCP, and of the combination therapy of midazolam, meperidine, and dexmedetomidine. The small-scale comparative study on the combination administration of propofol and fentanyl, which has a high risk of causing complications, and on the single administration of dexmedetomidine is the only study on the sedation effect of dexmedetomidine in the ERCP procedure that has yet been conducted; there has been no study that investigated the effect of the combination administration of dexmedetomidine and other drugs in the ERCP procedure. This study is thus expected to contribute to the development of guidelines on sedation in the ERCP procedure.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
110

participants targeted

Target at P50-P75 for phase_4

Timeline
Completed

Started Aug 2011

Shorter than P25 for phase_4

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

July 24, 2011

Completed
4 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

July 28, 2011

Completed
4 days until next milestone

Study Start

First participant enrolled

August 1, 2011

Completed
7 months until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

March 1, 2012

Completed
Same day until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

March 1, 2012

Completed
Last Updated

July 16, 2013

Status Verified

July 1, 2013

Enrollment Period

7 months

First QC Date

July 24, 2011

Last Update Submit

July 13, 2013

Conditions

Keywords

dexmedetomidinemidazolamERCPcholangiopancreatographysedationpropofol

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

  • Level of sedation

    The sedation level recorded by the RSS and the requirement of the additional sedative (midazolam) or the analgesic (meperidine), and the proportion (%) of cases where adequate sedation was maintained during entire procedure time.

    During entire procedure(ERCP) time; an expected average of the procedure time is 20 minutes

Secondary Outcomes (1)

  • Complication rate

    From start point of the procedure(ERCP) to 60 minutes after the procedure

Study Arms (2)

Midazolam-Meperidine-Dexmedetomidine

EXPERIMENTAL

midazolam 0.06mg/kg IV bolus, meperidine 50mg IV bolus and dexmedetomidine 1μg/Kg•hr infusion (30% reduction of midazolam dose and 25mg of meperidine for patients 65 years of age or older)

Drug: Dexmedetomidine

Midazolam-Meperidine

SHAM COMPARATOR

midazolam 0.06mg/kg IV bolus, meperidine 50mg IV bolus and placebo(saline) infusion(30% reduction of midazolam dose and 25mg of meperidine for patients 65 years of age or older)

Other: normal saline

Interventions

dexmedetomidine 1μg/Kg•hr IV continuous infusion, initiated 15 min before the procedure (ERCP) till complete procedure

Also known as: Precedex® 100μg/1ml vial: DMDTIA
Midazolam-Meperidine-Dexmedetomidine

0.9% NaCl 1μg/Kg•hr IV continuous infusion, initiated 15 min before the procedure (ERCP) till complete procedure

Also known as: NaCl 0.9% 20ml plastic ample: NSIP
Midazolam-Meperidine

Eligibility Criteria

Age20 Years - 80 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

  • Those who are admitted for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCPs
  • aged 20 to 80 years
  • American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I to III

You may not qualify if:

  • ASA physical status IV and V
  • allergic to any components of sedation and opioid drugs
  • patients with chronic illicit drug use

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital

Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-707, South Korea

Location

Related Publications (19)

  • Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; Lichtenstein DR, Jagannath S, Baron TH, Anderson MA, Banerjee S, Dominitz JA, Fanelli RD, Gan SI, Harrison ME, Ikenberry SO, Shen B, Stewart L, Khan K, Vargo JJ. Sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Nov;68(5):815-26. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.09.029. No abstract available.

    PMID: 18984096BACKGROUND
  • Yuksel O, Parlak E, Koklu S, Ertugrul I, Tunc B, Sahin B. Conscious sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: midazolam or midazolam plus meperidine? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Nov;19(11):1002-6. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e3282cf5167.

    PMID: 18049171BACKGROUND
  • Reimann FM, Samson U, Derad I, Fuchs M, Schiefer B, Stange EF. Synergistic sedation with low-dose midazolam and propofol for colonoscopies. Endoscopy. 2000 Mar;32(3):239-44. doi: 10.1055/s-2000-134.

    PMID: 10718390BACKGROUND
  • Honan VJ. Paradoxical reaction to midazolam and control with flumazenil. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994 Jan-Feb;40(1):86-8. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(94)70020-6. No abstract available.

    PMID: 8163147BACKGROUND
  • Chen WX, Lin HJ, Zhang WF, Gu Q, Zhong XQ, Yu CH, Li YM, Gu ZY. Sedation and safety of propofol for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2005 Aug;4(3):437-40.

    PMID: 16109532BACKGROUND
  • Kongkam P, Rerknimitr R, Punyathavorn S, Sitthi-Amorn C, Ponauthai Y, Prempracha N, Kullavanijaya P. Propofol infusion versus intermittent meperidine and midazolam injection for conscious sedation in ERCP. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2008 Sep;17(3):291-7.

    PMID: 18836622BACKGROUND
  • Ladas SD, Aabakken L, Rey JF, Nowak A, Zakaria S, Adamonis K, Amrani N, Bergman JJ, Boix Valverde J, Boyacioglu S, Cremers I, Crowe J, Deprez P, Dite P, Eisen M, Eliakim R, Fedorov ED, Galkova Z, Gyokeres T, Heuss LT, Husic-Selimovic A, Khediri F, Kuznetsov K, Marek T, Munoz-Navas M, Napoleon B, Niemela S, Pascu O, Perisic N, Pulanic R, Ricci E, Schreiber F, Svendsen LB, Sweidan W, Sylvan A, Teague R, Tryfonos M, Urbain D, Weber J, Zavoral M; European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Survey of National Endoscopy Society Members. Use of sedation for routine diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Survey of National Endoscopy Society Members. Digestion. 2006;74(2):69-77. doi: 10.1159/000097466. Epub 2006 Nov 27.

    PMID: 17135728BACKGROUND
  • Cohen LB, Delegge MH, Aisenberg J, Brill JV, Inadomi JM, Kochman ML, Piorkowski JD Jr; AGA Institute. AGA Institute review of endoscopic sedation. Gastroenterology. 2007 Aug;133(2):675-701. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.06.002. No abstract available.

    PMID: 17681185BACKGROUND
  • Kamibayashi T, Maze M. Clinical uses of alpha2 -adrenergic agonists. Anesthesiology. 2000 Nov;93(5):1345-9. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200011000-00030. No abstract available.

    PMID: 11046225BACKGROUND
  • Kunisawa T, Hanada S, Kurosawa A, Suzuki A, Takahata O, Iwasaki H. Dexmedetomidine was safely used for sedation during spinal anesthesia in a very elderly patient. J Anesth. 2010 Dec;24(6):938-41. doi: 10.1007/s00540-010-1025-z. Epub 2010 Oct 7.

    PMID: 21110048BACKGROUND
  • Dere K, Sucullu I, Budak ET, Yeyen S, Filiz AI, Ozkan S, Dagli G. A comparison of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation, pain and hemodynamic control, during colonoscopy under conscious sedation. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010 Jul;27(7):648-52. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283347bfe.

    PMID: 20531094BACKGROUND
  • Boehm CA, Carney EL, Tallarida RJ, Wilson RP. Midazolam enhances the analgesic properties of dexmedetomidine in the rat. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2010 Nov;37(6):550-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2995.2010.00565.x.

    PMID: 21040379BACKGROUND
  • Bol CJ, Vogelaar JP, Tang JP, Mandema JW. Quantification of pharmacodynamic interactions between dexmedetomidine and midazolam in the rat. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2000 Jul;294(1):347-55.

    PMID: 10871332BACKGROUND
  • Salonen M, Onaivi ES, Maze M. Dexmedetomidine synergism with midazolam in the elevated plus-maze test in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1992;108(1-2):229-34. doi: 10.1007/BF02245313.

    PMID: 1357706BACKGROUND
  • Bergese SD, Patrick Bender S, McSweeney TD, Fernandez S, Dzwonczyk R, Sage K. A comparative study of dexmedetomidine with midazolam and midazolam alone for sedation during elective awake fiberoptic intubation. J Clin Anesth. 2010 Feb;22(1):35-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2009.02.016.

    PMID: 20206849BACKGROUND
  • Dasta JF, Jacobi J, Sesti AM, McLaughlin TP. Addition of dexmedetomidine to standard sedation regimens after cardiac surgery: an outcomes analysis. Pharmacotherapy. 2006 Jun;26(6):798-805. doi: 10.1592/phco.26.6.798.

    PMID: 16716133BACKGROUND
  • Heard C, Burrows F, Johnson K, Joshi P, Houck J, Lerman J. A comparison of dexmedetomidine-midazolam with propofol for maintenance of anesthesia in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Anesth Analg. 2008 Dec;107(6):1832-9. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31818874ee.

    PMID: 19020127BACKGROUND
  • Muller S, Borowics SM, Fortis EA, Stefani LC, Soares G, Maguilnik I, Breyer HP, Hidalgo MP, Caumo W. Clinical efficacy of dexmedetomidine alone is less than propofol for conscious sedation during ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Apr;67(4):651-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.09.041. Epub 2008 Mar 4.

    PMID: 18291396BACKGROUND
  • Lee BS, Ryu J, Lee SH, Lee MG, Jang SE, Hwang JH, Ryu JK, Do SH, Kim YT. Midazolam with meperidine and dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam with meperidine for sedation during ERCP: prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial. Endoscopy. 2014 Apr;46(4):291-8. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1358909. Epub 2014 Mar 26.

Related Links

MeSH Terms

Interventions

DexmedetomidineSaline Solution

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

ImidazolesAzolesHeterocyclic Compounds, 1-RingHeterocyclic CompoundsCrystalloid SolutionsIsotonic SolutionsSolutionsPharmaceutical Preparations

Study Officials

  • Sang Hyub Lee, M.D. Ph.D

    Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital

    STUDY DIRECTOR
  • Ban Seok Lee, M.D.

    Fellowship doctor, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
phase 4
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
TRIPLE
Who Masked
PARTICIPANT, CARE PROVIDER, INVESTIGATOR
Purpose
SUPPORTIVE CARE
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

July 24, 2011

First Posted

July 28, 2011

Study Start

August 1, 2011

Primary Completion

March 1, 2012

Study Completion

March 1, 2012

Last Updated

July 16, 2013

Record last verified: 2013-07

Locations