Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 3256

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : December | Volume : 16 | Issue : 12 | Page : UC28 - UC31 Full Version

Intermittent Manually Controlled versus Continuous Infusion of Propofol for Procedural Sedation during Interventional Endoscopic Procedures: A Single-blinded Randomised Study

Published: December 1, 2022 | DOI:
Ramandeep Kaur Haher, Bhupinderjeet Singh Heera, Harjinder Kohli, Ritul Mehta

1. Medical Officer, Department of Anaesthesia, Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, India. 2. Medical Officer, Department of Anaesthesia, Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, India. 3. Senior Consultant, Department of Anaesthesia, Deep Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab, India. 4. Senior Consultant, Department of Anaesthesia, Orison Multispeciality Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Ramandeep Kaur Haher,
Near Government High School, Sanghera, Barnala, Punjab, India.


Introduction: Sedation with propofol during interventional gastrointestinal endoscopy is usually accomplished with two main modes-intermittent manually controlled using a syringe, and continuous infusion using an infusion device.

Aim: To compare the effect of bolus administration and infusion of propofol on recovery profile during sedation in patients undergoing interventional endoscopy procedures.

Materials and Methods: The present study was a single-blinded randomised study in which 120 patients, belonging to American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade I and II, of either gender, and age 18-70 years, were randomly assigned to receive intermittent bolus (Bolus Group, BG) or continuous infusion (Infusion Group, IG) of propofol sedation after induction with 2 mg Midazolam for deep sedation. BG patients received an initial dose of propofol, 1%, according to body weight (<60 kg: 40 mg, >60 kg: 60 mg), followed by boluses of 10-20 mg adjusted to maintain a Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (MOAA/S) of 0 or 1. In the IG, continuous propofol infusion (4-6 mg/kg/hr) via Graseby 2000 (Smiths Medical) was administered after a bolus of 1 mg/kg of propofol. Vital signs, recovery time, quality of recovery, total dose of propofol, side-effects as well as patient and endoscopist satisfaction score were evaluated. The data was compiled systematically and analysed using unpaired Student’s t-test and Chi-square test. The p-value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results: The demographic profile of patients was comparable in both the groups. The recovery time (6.30±2.06 minutes in BG versus 5.71±2.19 minutes in IG) and total propofol dose (327.74±45.52 mg in BG versus 314.46±64.52 mg in IG) were comparable. Similarly, the quality of recovery was identical in both groups. At 10 and 15 minutes after induction, arterial blood pressure was significantly lower in group BG as compared to group IG (114±16.96 in BG versus 120.34±8.78 in IG; p-value=0.031). The endoscopist’s satisfaction score was better in IG (p-value=0.001), whereas, the patient satisfaction score was comparable in both the groups (p-value=0.162).

Conclusion: Both regimes allowed good controllability of propofol sedation. However, endoscopist satisfaction score was significantly better and haemodynamic fluctuations were less in infusion group.


Bolus vs infusion propofol, Gastrointestinal endoscopy, Out of operating room anaesthesia, Sedation for endoscopy

Sedation, analgesia, or both may be needed for gastrointestinal endoscopic interventional or diagnostic procedures (1). Propofol is an ideal agent for procedural sedation these days as it possesses many properties like rapid onset of action, short half-life, faster psychomotor recovery and better patient and investigator satisfaction (2). There are two main modes of propofol administration for sedation-intermittent bolus using a syringe and continuous infusion using an infusion device (3).

The well-known side-effects are hypoxaemia and hypotension, which are related to the total dose as well to the application rate of propofol. Continuous infusion of propofol may be theoretically associated with a less need for user interventions, maintenance of a more consistent level of sedation. Additionally, avoidance of high peak propofol plasma concentration during bolus application may reduce the intensity of hypotensive effects of propofol and a rapid lightening of the sedative effect with subsequent patient movements may be avoided by only minimal fluctuations of the plasma propofol concentration under continuous infusion. Continuous infusion scheme instead of repeated bolus administration can reduce “peaks and valleys” in blood concentration and thereby decrease the total amount of drug given (2). However, in contrast to these assumptions, some studies, performed outside the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy, showed a significant higher total dose of propofol was required when continuous administration of propofol was compared with the repeated bolus technique (4),(5),(6).

The aim of the study was to compare the effect of bolus administration and infusion of propofol on recovery profile during sedation in patients undergoing interventional endoscopy procedures. The primary outcomes measures were recovery time and total dose of propofol required. The secondary outcome measures were adverse events, endoscopist’s satisfaction score and patient satisfaction score.

Material and Methods

This single-centered, single-blinded randomised study was conducted from June 2018 to April 2019, at Satguru Partap Singh Hospitals, District Ludhiana, Punjab, India. The approval from Institutional Ethics and Scientific Review Committee was obtained, in the committee meeting dated July 13, 2018. Written informed consent was taken from all patients.

Sample size calculation: Riphaus A et al., studied 100 patients, and observed that the recovery time was 19.0±5.0 minutes in the bolus group and the recovery time was 23.0±6.0 minutes in the perfusion group (2). Sample size analysis determined that at alpha value of less than 0.05, 60 subjects in each group were required to detect a difference of 3.36 in the recovery time between both the groups to achieve power of 90%. Hence, the sample size of 60 each was considered for each group.

Inclusion criteria: Patients of either gender, aged 18-70 years, belonging to ASA physical status I and II who were planned for interventional endoscopic procedures, were enrolled into the present study.

Exclusion criteria: Obesity (Body Mass Index (BMI) >30 kg/m2), history of obstructive sleep apnoea, on sedatives, hypnotics or narcotics, anticipated difficult airway, mental illness, hypoxaemia (SpO2 <90%) on room air, bradycardia (heart rate <50 beats per minutes (bpm)), pregnant and lactating women, and patients allergic to midazolam, eggs, sulphite or soyabean were excluded from the study. The present study was limited to procedures lasting upto 60 minutes.

The patients were divided randomly into two groups using website-based plan generator: Group Bolus (BG) and Group Infusion (IG), comprising of 60 patients each (7).

A total of 127 patients were assessed for eligibility. However, seven patients had to be excluded as they did not meet the eligibility criteria (n=7) or refused to participate (n=2). In total, 120 patients were randomly assigned to receive intermittent propofol bolus application (n=60) or continuous propofol infusion (n=60). During analysis, seven patients from Bolus group and four patients from infusion group were excluded based on exclusion criteria (Table/Fig 1).

Study Procedure

After evaluation of baseline data (age, sex, history, physical examination, airway examination, fasting status), patients were prepared for endoscopy with a temporary intravenous line and standard monitoring (i.e. pulse oximeter, non invasive blood pressure measurement and electrocardiography). All patients also received prophylactic oxygen 2 L/min via nasal prongs throughout the procedure.

All patients received Inj. Midazolam 2 mg bolus and inj Buscopan 20 mg (as per the endoscopist’s protocol). The following solutions were randomly administered: inj. propofol, 1%, according to the body weight (bw) (bw <60 kg: 40 mg, bw >60 kg: 60 mg), followed by bolus of 10-20 mg adjusted as needed for the desired level of sedation in bolus group (n=60) and inj. propofol, 1%, at a dosage of 1 mg per kg body weight followed by infusion at a rate of 4-6 mg/kg/hr via Graseby 2000 (Smiths Medical) in infusion group (n=60). Also in group I, bolus of 10-20 mg of propofol adjusted as needed for the desired level of sedation was also given, however patients requiring more than two boluses were excluded from the study. The level of sedation was monitored using clinical criteria, MOAA/S targeted 0 or 1 in both the groups (2). Vital signs, recovery time, total dose of propofol, side-effects as well as Endoscopist and patient satisfaction scores were observed. In addition, quality of recovery was assessed every 15 minutes till one hour and then every 30 minutes till patient was discharged using Ramsay Sedation score and Post Anaesthesia Recovery Score (PARS) (2).

For PARS, patients were assigned points of 0, 1, 2 for each of the following categories. Complete recovery is indicated by the maximum PARS of 10 points.

i. Activity (inability to move the limbs, ability to move two or four limbs with or without command).
ii. Respiration (evidence of apnoea, laboured breathing or normal breathing pattern).
iii. Circulation (blood pressure compared with baseline prior sedation: ±50% to baseline, ±20±50% to baseline, ±20% to baseline).
iv. Consciousness (hypnotic, arousable or fully awake); and
v. Skin colour (cyanotic, pink or normal).

At the end of procedure, the endoscopist was asked to rate the procedure based on their level of satisfaction from 1=fully satisfied to 5=unsatisfied. Similarly, prior to discharge from recovery room, patients were asked to rate their level of satisfaction from 1=acceptable to 5=unacceptable.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS) version 21.0. To test the normality Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied. Quantitative variables were compared using using unpaired t-test/Mann-Whitney test (when the data sets were not normally distributed). Qualitative variables were correlated using Chi-square test/Fisher’s exact test. Categorical variables were presented in the form of numbers and percentages and continuous variables were presented as Mean and Median. The p-value <0.05 was taken as statistically significant.


The demographic and clinical characteristics of study population in both the groups were not statistically significant (Table/Fig 2).

Primary Outcome

The mean recovery time in BG and IG were comparable (6.30±2.06 min versus 5.71±2.19 min; p-value=0.153) (Table/Fig 3). Similarly, the quality of recovery (Ramsay sedation score, 5.53±0.87 versus 5.61±0.71) and PARS (6.26±0.49 versus 6.23±0.63) immediately after termination of endoscopic procedure were also comparable.

The total dose of propofol used in BG was 327.75±45.52 mg, while in IG was 314.46±64.52 mg, and the difference in both the groups found to be statistically in significant (Table/Fig 3).

Secondary Outcome

The number of episodes of desaturation (SpO2 <90%) were comparable in both groups (Table/Fig 4).

However, Endoscopist satisfaction score was significantly better in IG as compared to BG while the patient satisfaction score was comparable between both the groups (Table/Fig 5).

The mean value of heart rate of the two groups was calculated at baseline, after giving the drugs and after five minute intervals. The difference was statistically not significant at all time intervals (Table/Fig 6).

Similarly, the mean value of SBP of the two groups was recorded every 5 minutes and was found to be statistically not significant at all time intervals except at 10 minutes and 15 minutes when these were found to be significant (Table/Fig 7).


Propofol, a short acting agent is increasingly being used for sedation in interventional endoscopic procedures as it has many properties required for an ideal agent. Besides the traditional intermittent bolus application of propofol, alternative techniques in procedural sedation are Continuous Controlled Infusion (CCI), Target Controlled Infusion (TCI), Patient Controlled Sedation (PCS) and Computer Assisted Personalised Sedation (CAPS). In the present study, bolus administration versus continuous infusion of propofol was compared for sedation for interventional endoscopic procedures. Continuous infusion of propofol showed lesser fluctuations in SBP and more endoscopist’s satisfaction when compared to bolus technique. However, the recovery profile and the patient satisfaction were similar in both the groups.

The duration of recovery in the present study was similar in both the groups. The quality of recovery indicated by PARS and RSS were also similar in both the groups. The results regarding duration of recovery were similar to study done by Bennett J et al., (4) and Klein SM et al., (5). However, Riphaus A et al., (2) showed higher recovery time in infusion group compared to bolus group because unlike in this study, the index study maintained target MOAA/S score of 0 or 1. The quality of recovery indicated by RSS and PARS was similar in two groups of the present study. The mean of PARS in bolus group and infusion group were comparable.The results were similar to the study done by Riphaus A et al., (2), where the quality of recovery as indicated by the PARS was nearly similar in both groups 30 minutes after termination of the endoscopic procedure. However, a prolonged recovery with the use of continuous infusion compared with bolus propofol administration was described in a study by Brownlie GS et al., (6).

The mean total dose of propofol required was similar in both the groups. The results were in concordance with those of Riphaus A et al., (2) and Seyitoglu D et al., (7). However, studies by Bennett J et al., (4), Klein SM et al., (5) and Brownlie GS et al., (6) contrasted the present study results. The present study results regarding the total dose of propofol might be best explained by the fact that dose required to induce deep sedation might be equal irrespective of technique of propofol administration used. On the other hand, studies that contrasted the results had not provided any convincing evidence of monitoring depth of sedation at target level.

The most striking feature of present study was haemodynamic fluctuations which were more in BG than IG. Although the heart rate fluctuations were minimal in both groups, the perturbations in SBP were more in BG than IG. However, Riphaus A et al., (2) showed that SBP was comparable in both groups, while study done by Klein SM et al., (5) concluded SBP decrease more in continuous infusion group. In present study, more haemodynamic fluctuations were seen in BG which might be due to sudden rise in plasma concentration of propofol during bolus administration leading to significant fall in SBP and heart rate variability.

The rest of haemodynamic parameters such as respiratory rate and oxygen saturation were comparable between both groups. But there were few episodes of desaturation, (four in BG and two in IG) for which chin lift manoeuvre sufficed. The results were consistent with study done by Riphaus A et al., (2) where desaturation was seen in four patients of each group with no need for assisted ventilation.

The side-effect profile of both groups exhibited no significant outcome. Similar results were seen by Riphaus A et al., (2). Another major significant finding was noted in Endoscopist satisfaction score, where Endoscopist was more satisfied in continuous infusion than bolus group method. These results were consistent with the study done by Bennett J et al., (4). On the other hand, patient satisfaction score was comparable in between both groups.

Hence, the present study shows more haemodynamic fluctuations in BG and better Endoscopist score in IG. Therefore, infusion technique is proved to be better than intermittent bolus method.


Since the present study limited procedures to upto one hour, some dose variability was expected between the two groups for procedures extending beyond an hour. Additionally, the present study used clinical assessment alone as a guide for depth of sedation in titrating propofol dose. EEG guided monitored (BIS Monitor) could have been used.


Both the techniques provided good control of sedation for endoscopy and are associated with similar recovery profile and patient safety. However, the haemodynamic stability and Endoscopist satisfaction was more during continuous infusion of propofol than bolus administration. Therefore, continuous administration of propofol should be the standard of care during endoscopic sedation during longer interventional endoscopic procedures.


Sheta SA. Procedural sedation analgesia. Saudi J Anaesth. 2010;4(1):11-16. [crossref] [PubMed]
Riphaus A, Geist C, Schrader K, Martchenko K, Wehrmann T. Intermittent manually controlled versus continuous infusion of Propofol for deep sedation during interventional endoscopy: A prospective randomised trial. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2012;47(8-9):1078-85. [crossref] [PubMed]
Choi GJ, Kang H, Baek CW, Jung YH, Lee JJ. Comparison of bolus versus continuous infusion of Propofol for procedural sedation: A meta-analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2017;33 (11):1935-43. [crossref] [PubMed]
Bennett J, Shafer DM, Efaw D, Goupil M. Incremental bolus versus a continuous infusion of Propofol for deep sedation/general anaesthesia during dentoalveolar surgery. J Oral-Max-illofac Surg.1998;56(9):1049-53. [crossref] [PubMed]
Klein SM, Hauser GJ, Anderson BD, Shad AT. Comparison of intermittent versus continuous infusion of Propofol for elective oncology procedures in children. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2003;4(1):78-82. [crossref] [PubMed]
Brownlie GS, Baker JA, Ogg TW. Propofol bolus or continuous infusion. A day case for vaginal termination of pregnancy. Anaesthesia. 1991;46(9):775-77. [crossref] [PubMed]
Seyitoglu D, Iskender E, Azzarok A, Sagir A. Continuous propofol and bolus propofol result in similar sedative use during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A retrospective study. Gastroenterol Hepatol Endosc. 2017;2(2):01-04. [crossref]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/58768.17322

Date of Submission: Jun 29, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Aug 08, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Sep 22, 2022
Date of Publishing: Dec 01, 2022

• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

• Plagiarism X-checker: Jun 30, 2022
• Manual Googling: Aug 21, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Sep 19, 2022 (25%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)