PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Peter Grendelmeier AU - Eric Pflimlin AU - Michael Tamm AU - Daiana Stolz TI - Propofol versus midazolam for conscious sedation in medical thoracoscopy: A randomized non-inferiority trial DP - 2013 Sep 01 TA - European Respiratory Journal PG - P3089 VI - 42 IP - Suppl 57 4099 - http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/42/Suppl_57/P3089.short 4100 - http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/42/Suppl_57/P3089.full SO - Eur Respir J2013 Sep 01; 42 AB - Background: Propofol has been established as a reliable method for conscious sedation in patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy. However, there are only limited data about sedation-related complications in medical thoracoscopy using propofol. Moreover, there are no data directly comparing propofol sedation with another regimen for conscious sedation in medical thoracoscopy.Methods: 90 consecutive patients undergoing medical thoracoscopy were randomly allocated to receive either intravenous propofol or midazolam. The primary endpoint was mean lowest oxygen saturation during the procedure.Results: The mean lowest oxygen saturation during the procedure was significantly lower in the propofol group (93 ± 6 % in propofol group vs. 96 ± 3 % in midazolam group; p = 0.007). Hypoxemia defined as an oxygen saturation ≤ 90 % was seen more frequently in the propofol group (12 (27 %) vs. 2 (4 %), p = 0.007). Similarly, hypotension defined as a systolic pressure ≤ 90 %, was more common in the propofol group (37 (82 %) vs. 18 (40 %), p = <0.0001). Medical thoracoscopy was successful in 81 cases (90 %). No procedure had to be aborted. None of the patients had to be intubated, required ICU care or died.Conclusions: Propofol is associated with a higher incidence of adverse events than midazolam in medical thoracoscopy. In contrast to flexible bronchoscopy, propofol should not be considered the first choice for conscious sedation in medical thoracoscopy.