Trial reportWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2025
Fentanyl may not be necessary for adequate endoscopic moderate sedation.
Trial report in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sedation in endoscopy: Finding the balance between safety and efficacy.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the majority of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopies in the United States are now performed with propofol sedation, a substantial minority are performed with midazolam and fentanyl sedation. Despite the ubiquity of conscious sedation with midazolam and fentanyl in the United States, there is scant evidence specifically supporting the superiority of midazolam plus fentanyl over single agent midazolam sedation in GI endoscopy. We hypothesize that single agent sedation with midazolam is noninferior to sedation with midazolam plus fentanyl in GI endoscopy.
aimTo investigate whether sedation with midazolam alone is noninferior to sedation with midazolam plus fentanyl in GI endoscopy.
methodsWe conducted a randomized, single-blind study to compare the safety and effectiveness of single agent midazolam vs. standard fentanyl/midazolam moderate sedation in 300 outpatients presenting for upper endoscopy and/or colonoscopy at a tertiary care hospital. Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction as measured by the previously validated Procedural Sedation Assessment Survey. Secondary outcomes were procedure quality measures and adverse events. Statistical analysis was performed by a biomedical statistician using the
resultsThere was no difference in patient satisfaction between sedation groups, as measured by a less than 1 point difference between groups in Procedural Sedation Assessment Survey scores for discomfort during the procedure, and for preference for level of sedation with future procedures. There were no differences in adverse events or procedure quality measures. Cecal intubation time was 1 minute longer in the single agent midazolam group, and an average of 2.7 mg more midazolam was administered when fentanyl was not included in the sedation regimen. The recruitment goal of 772 patients was not reached.
conclusionIt may be possible to minimize or avoid using fentanyl in endoscopist administered moderate sedation for GI endoscopy. We hope these findings spur further work in this under-researched area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.