Skip to content

Probability Ramp Control of Propofol for EGD

A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Depth of Sedation With Propofol Titrated by Probability Ramp Control to Control by Anesthesia Providers During Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01838304
Enrollment
40
Registered
2013-04-24
Start date
2013-03-31
Completion date
2013-05-31
Last updated
2018-01-23

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Gastrointestinal Disease

Keywords

propofol sedation endoscopy

Brief summary

Endoscopic sedation requires titration of propofol to deep sedation without minimum overshoot into general anesthesia. This skill is demanding and acquired slowly. Probability Ramp Control (PRC) simplifies this by providing the clinician with a simple infusion sequence that permits gradual titration of propofol. The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of this technology to that of experienced anesthesia providers in endoscopic sedation.

Detailed description

Administration of propofol to achieve a target of moderate sedation is a challenging task for which anesthesia providers receive minimal training. Undersedation results in a noncompliant patient, while oversedation results in airway obstruction, respiratory depression, and hypotension. Considerable variability in patient pharmacokinetics (the distribution of drug within the body) and pharmacodynamics (the translation of drug concentration to clinical effect) has been demonstrated. The skill of titrating propofol to the desired target and maintaining this state is slowly acquired in the clinical environment of the endoscopy center with frequent reliance on rescue skills. An automated system that facilitates this process would be useful. Pharmacokinetic models allow us to make predictions of the results of drug administration. If we know the age and size of the patient, we can determine a quantity of propofol that will attain a desired concentration at some point in the future (within the predictive accuracy of the model). If they are old, this is less than if they are young. If they are obese, this is more than if they are thin. By adjusting the dosing, we can achieve similar concentrations at a specified time in a wide range of patients. Pharmacodynamic models allow us to relate drug concentration to a probability of response. Sensitivity is a randomly distributed variable, and the cumulative probability of response to propofol is well represented by a sigmoid curve. While we do not know the concentration that will suffice for a given individual, we can determine the probability that this individual will lose responsiveness within an interval of concentrations. For example, the probability of loss of responsiveness between 1 µg/ml and 6 µg/ml is around 99%. For any given age and size, an infusion sequence can be determined so that we traverse this interval smoothly. The infusion sequence is determined by minimization of the difference between the simulated probability and the target (1). We predict that 90% of 50 year old 70 kg patients will lose responsiveness between one minute and three minutes after initiating the infusion, and 99% by five minutes. The infusion sequence for this patient is comprised of a bolus of 287 µg/kg followed by an initial infusion of 216 µg/kg/min, with an increase to 550 µg/kg/min after 147 seconds. By selecting the infusion sequence based on the age and size of the patient, all patients will track the same target line. These infusion rates are determined prior to initiation of sedation, and the clinician can verify that they are appropriate for the patient before beginning sedation. Once the endpoint of adequate sedation is observed, the effect site concentration associated with this endpoint is inferred, and the infusion that will maintain this concentration can be determined. This allows the clinical observation to be translated into an infusion rate, much as a driver accelerates to a desired speed and then engages the cruise control to maintain that speed. The intent of this study is to demonstrate equivalent safety and efficacy of PRC to control by a skilled clinician. References 1\. Mandel JE, Sarraf E. The Variability of Response to Propofol Is Reduced When a Clinical Observation Is Incorporated in the Control: A Simulation Study. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2012;114:1221-9.

Interventions

DEVICEProbability ramp control

Decision support software that calculates propofol doses appropriate for age and weight of the patient

DEVICEMonitoring

Manual recording of drug doses determined by CRNA

Sponsors

University of Pennsylvania
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* scheduled for elective EGD

Exclusion criteria

* Unable to provide informed consent

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Participants Requiring Adjustment in Propofol DosingIntraprocedure (average of 9 minutes)Following initial sedation, an infusion rate for propofol is determined by the CRNA (control) or software (experimental). If this rate is appropriate for the duration of the brief procedure, no adjustment to the rate will be required. A greater requirement for rate changes suggests that the anesthesia provider needs to be immediately available to perform these adjustments.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Decrease in Minute Ventilation From BaselineDuration of sedation (average of 25 minutes)Minute ventilation as determined by respiratory inductance plethysmography from initiation of sedation until emergence.
Time Spent Below a Saturation of 80%Duration of sedation (mean 25 minutes)Number of seconds spent below saturation of 80%, reported as the total per group
Procedure TimeProcedure time (average of 9 minutes)Time from endoscopic intubation until completion of the procedure. This is not really an outcome measure, but is used to assess balance between groups.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Monitoring
Standard of care sedation by CRNA using proposal with manual recording of drug dosing Monitoring: Manual recording of drug doses determined by CRNA
20
Probability Ramp Control
Propofol titrated to deep sedation using PRC software. Probability ramp control: Decision support software that calculates propofol doses appropriate for age and weight of the patient
20
Total40

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTotalMonitoringProbability Ramp Control
Age, Continuous50.625 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 15.345
48.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.2
52.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 16.5
ASA 315 Participants7 Participants8 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
21 Participants8 Participants13 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
19 Participants12 Participants7 Participants
Weight82.22 kg
STANDARD_DEVIATION 25.4
82.3 kg
STANDARD_DEVIATION 27.4
82.1 kg
STANDARD_DEVIATION 23.9

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 200 / 20
other
Total, other adverse events
1 / 200 / 20
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 200 / 20

Outcome results

Primary

Number of Participants Requiring Adjustment in Propofol Dosing

Following initial sedation, an infusion rate for propofol is determined by the CRNA (control) or software (experimental). If this rate is appropriate for the duration of the brief procedure, no adjustment to the rate will be required. A greater requirement for rate changes suggests that the anesthesia provider needs to be immediately available to perform these adjustments.

Time frame: Intraprocedure (average of 9 minutes)

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
MonitoringNumber of Participants Requiring Adjustment in Propofol Dosing16 Participants
Probability Ramp ControlNumber of Participants Requiring Adjustment in Propofol Dosing2 Participants
Secondary

Decrease in Minute Ventilation From Baseline

Minute ventilation as determined by respiratory inductance plethysmography from initiation of sedation until emergence.

Time frame: Duration of sedation (average of 25 minutes)

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
MonitoringDecrease in Minute Ventilation From Baseline25 percentage of baseline
Probability Ramp ControlDecrease in Minute Ventilation From Baseline50 percentage of baseline
Secondary

Procedure Time

Time from endoscopic intubation until completion of the procedure. This is not really an outcome measure, but is used to assess balance between groups.

Time frame: Procedure time (average of 9 minutes)

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
MonitoringProcedure Time9.03 minutesStandard Deviation 3.75
Probability Ramp ControlProcedure Time8.9 minutesStandard Deviation 4.75
Secondary

Time Spent Below a Saturation of 80%

Number of seconds spent below saturation of 80%, reported as the total per group

Time frame: Duration of sedation (mean 25 minutes)

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_UNITS)
MonitoringTime Spent Below a Saturation of 80%168 seconds
Probability Ramp ControlTime Spent Below a Saturation of 80%22 seconds
Comparison: Fisher's exact test for odd's ratio of time below a saturation of 80% to total timep-value: <0.000195% CI: [4.21, 14.81]Fisher Exact

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026