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

Users Online : 21980

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 : 2023 | Month : January | Volume : 17 | Issue : 1 | Page : UC05 - UC09 Full Version

Preprocedural Nebulisation with 4% Lignocaine and Ketofol Sedation during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Procedure for Abolition of Gag Reflex: A Randomised Double-blinded Study

Published: January 1, 2023 | DOI:
Dandub Gialchhen Negi, Arti Sharma, Sonam Norbu, Jyoti Pathania, Brij Sharma

1. Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesia, IGMC, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, IGMC, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, IGMC, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India. 4. Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, IGMC, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India. 5. Professor and Head, Department of Gastroenterology, IGMC, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India.

Correspondence Address :
Jyoti Pathania,
Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, IGMC, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India.


Introduction: Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is preferably carried out under deep sedation with propofol alone or with adjuncts to reduce the dose of propofol thereby reducing the intraprocedural complications and improving the patient and endoscopist acceptance of the procedure. There is no consensus on the ideal dose of ketamine as adjunct to propofol to be used in such scenario.

Aim: To evaluate the sedation characteristics, abolition of gag reflex and haemodynamic profile of the patients undergoing ERCP under ketofol sedation, with or without 4% lignocaine prenebulisation.

Materials and Methods: This randomised double-blinded study was undertaken in Indra Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, from September 2018 to October 2019. Sixty patients of American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical class I and II aged between 25-65 of both sexes posted for routine ERCP were included. In group 1, patients were nebulised with 6 cc normal saline, and group 2 with 6 cc 4% lignocaine 15 min prior to procedure in the recovery room. Entropy-guided ketofol induction (ketamine and propofol used in 1:2 concentration) was used, followed by propofol infusion at the rate of 8 mL/hr. Gag reflex, haemodynamic and sedation characteristics were observed peri and postoperatively.

Results: The mean time to onset of sedation and duration of recovery room stay were comparable in both the groups. Total mean dose of propofol and ketamine used was 105.67 mg, 55.33±18.75 mg in group 1 and 101.83 mg, 48.67±15.588 mg in group 2. Gag reflex was similarly obtunded and endoscopists’ rating of the procedure were similar in both the groups perioperatively (p-value >0.05).

Conclusion: Target controlled entropy guided infusion with ketofol is an effective drug combination to achieve all aspects of safe sedation practice in ERCP procedure.


Deep sedation, Entropy, Ketamine, Lidocaine, Propofol

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a gold standard procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of biliary and pancreatic diseases (1). This procedure is preferably carried out under sedation by propofol for patient immobility, analgesia, patient comfort and endoscopist satisfaction. Although propofol is close to an ideal intravenous sedative hypnotic agent, it has a narrow therapeutic range without analgesia, with resultant rapid unpredictable progression from deep sedation to general anaesthesia (2).

The main approach to decrease the propofol-related complications would be to use adjuncts, monitor depth of anaesthesia thereby, decrease the dose of sedative drugs and use locally acting drugs like lignocaine to allow easy maneuverability of endoscope in a prone position. So, all these factors were taken into consideration in this study individually. Balanced propofol sedation is thus used for ERCP worldwide in combination with other drug like opioids, benzodiazepine, dexmedetomidine, etomidate and ketamine in various concentration to reduce the dose of propofol (3),(4),(5).

As propofol is a main constituent in all sedation technique, ketamine was used with propofol in the study. Ketamine may be closer as an ideal adjunct to propofol as it causes analgesia, amnesia, an anaesthesia in addition to requisite haemodynamic stability. Ketamine is being used with propofol in varying concentrations (1:1 to 1:4) but researchers used 1:2 concentration as increasing the ketamine concentration increases the emergence reactions and decreasing the dose will compromise with analgesic effect thereby researchers might have to increase the propofol dose to take care of patient’s movement (6),(7),(8). Opioids are also good analgesic but their use can lead to spasm of sphincter of Oddi. Dexmedetomidine is expensive and may lead to hypotension and bradycardia. Etomidate is known to suppress the adrenal function and so is also not a good choice as sedation agent in such scenario (3),(4),(5). Sedation technique was chosen over general anaesthesia in the patients as most of the guidelines advocate moderate to deep sedation only for these procedures with better postoperative profiles and less postoperative complications (1).

Monitoring the depth of sedation by entropy can further reduce the amount of drugs used perioperatively there by reducing the sedation related complications. The entropy/BIS (Bispectoral Index) calculates and displays two indices, the State Entropy (SE) reflects the cortical state of the patients and is computed over the frequency range of 0.8 Hz-32 Hz corresponding to EEG dominated part of spectrum and (RE) Response Entropy in a range of 0.8-47 Hz frequency corresponds with EMG (Electromyography) dominated frequencies (9). The computer-generated values range from 0 (Coma) to 100 (Fully awake). The normal trend is to keep the patient between 60-80 entropy during sedation. Since this is non invasive estimation of the depth of anaesthesia hence it was used in present study too (10).

In addition to sedation, the requirement of abolition of gag reflex is essential for easy insertion of endoscope in prone position. Therefore, the sedation has to be deepened to abolish gag reflex with resultant respiratory depression (11),(12). Lignocaine is used locally in different concentration and technique for this purpose namely as gargles, intraoral spray and nebulisation with varying results. Nebulised lidocaine is known to attenuate the heightened airway reflex sensitivity (13).

Thus, studies done so far on attenuating the pharyngeal reflexes used nebulised lignocaine preoperatively to help in the passage of flexible bronchoscope, reported varying results. In these studies, patients reported better satisfaction with nebulisation technique. As there is paucity of studies on patients undergoing ERCP procedures with pharyngeal reflex attenuation, hence the dilemma over the choice of particular technique over other remains unresolved (14),(15).

Hence, the hypothesis that preprocedural 4% lignocaine nebulisation by depressing the cough and gag reflex along with ketofol (ketamine and propofol in 1:2 concentration) induction and propofol target infusion could help in the easy maneuverability of the endoscope thereby increasing the patient comfort and endoscopist satisfaction was tested in the study. The primary objective was to evaluate the sedation characteristics, presence or absence of gag reflex and periprocedure haemodynamic profile of the patient in the two groups. Secondary objective was to determine endoscopist’s satisfaction and recovery time seen after the procedure in the patients.

Material and Methods

This randomised double-blinded study was undertaken in Indra Gandhi Medical College Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India, from September 2018 to October 2019. An Institutional Ethics Committee clearance was obtained vide letter no. HFW(MC)SURG/477 /30.10.2018.

Inclusion criteria: Total of 60 patients of ASA physical class I and II aged between 25-65 of both sexes posted for routine ERCP were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients aged below 25 yrs and above 65 yrs., of ASA class IV and above, having allergies to drugs, pregnant patients and patients with history of substance abuse, diastolic blood pressure more than 110 mmHg, asthmatic patients and patients with blood glucose level <60 were excluded from the study. Hence, total of 73 patients were assessed for the study but 13 patients were excluded (Table/Fig 1).

Sample size calculation: The sample size was calculated using ClinCal.Com calculator, taking following assumptions as incidence of gag reflex in group 1-32% and it was assumed that nebulisation will abolish the gag reflex in group 2 hence the incidence will be 0% from the study by Abbas (7), Confidence interval of 95%, power of study 80%. Sample size was 19 in each group. Thirty patients in each group were studied to cover up for loss of patient data to any cause (16).

Study Procedure

Patients were examined and informed of the procedure to be carried out on them and written informed consent was undertaken. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, group 1 and group 2 using random allocation software [random Alloc.exe] (17) and record maintained by a separate anaesthetis not involved in recording variables perioperatively in the recovery room and disclosed at the end of the study. The nebulisation was also done by the same anaesthesia via nebulisation kit with oxygen face mask and flow at 7 litre/min. Endoscopist, patient, and the anaesthesia’s recording perioperative measurements were blind to the drugs being used for nebulisation in the preprocedural room. The patients were kept fasting for 6-8 hours overnight. Intravenous access was secured in all patients (i.v. fluid started) and kept in place for administration of sedation and premedication. The groups were:

• Group 1 (n=30): Patients received nebulisation with normal saline 0.9% 6 cc 15 minute prior to endoscopy
• Group 2 (n=30): Patients received nebulisation with 4% lignocaine 6 cc 15 minute prior to endoscopy

Patients were monitored for Heart Rate (HR), lead II Electrocardiography (ECG), pulse oximetry (SpO2) and Non invasive Blood Pressure (NIBP). All parameters were recorded at presentation, and after every five minutes during and after the procedure. Premedication of the patient was done with injection Glycopyrrolate (0.2 mg), inj. Ondansetron (4 mg i.v.), and inj. Midazolam (1 mg i.v.). Sedation was carried out in prone position. Ketofol in dose of 0.5 mg/kg ketamine and 1 mg/kg of propofol (1:2) was calculated and mixed in one syringe and was given slowly followed by propofol infusion at 8 mL/hr (80 mg). Sedation was maintained by entropy in the range of 60-80. In case of sedation level decreasing, with entropy level >80 then 2 mL of propofol bolus was given and this was recorded. If sedation deepened or entropy was <60 then researchers stopped the propofol infusion and this was recorded. If the patient moved with pain then 25 mg of ketamine was given and recorded.

Systolic Blood Pressure of <90 mmhg or Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) decreased more than 30% from baseline was treated with inj. Mephentermine 6 mg and heart rate less than 50/min was treated by injection atropine 0.6 mg and was recorded. If any patient desaturated intraoperatively (SpO2 less than 90%), plan was to increase Fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2). If patient did not improve, endoscopist was informed, procedure stopped, patient positioned supine, and oxygenated by bag and mask. Monitoring was continued after completion of endoscopy until regaining of full consciousness.

The primary objectives were to evaluate the sedation characteristics, abolition of gag reflex and haemodynamic profile of the patient in the two groups. The secondary objectives were to determine the physician’s satisfaction and recovery time seen after the procedure, total amount of drug boluses (propofol and Ketamine) used in the procedure and adverse effects and complications, if any. Onset of sedation was taken as time when entropy was <80 and patient stopped responding to verbal commands. Time of endoscopy was taken as time from insertion to taking out of endoscope.

The observations were recorded at baseline before nebulisation (presentation), at the time of induction of sedation (0 min) and then followed every five min till completion of the procedure. At the end of the procedure, the endoscopist was asked to rate the ease of procedure on a four-point scale (very easy, easy, adequate, impossible). Modified Aldrete score was used to assess the sedation level in recovery. Patients were discharged to postoperative ward only when they achieved a score of >9 (5).

Statistical Analysis

Associations between intervention groups and other co-variables were tested using Chi-square tests and two Student t-test. Difference between the two tailed groups at different time points was reported as mean difference with 95% CI. Significance level was set at p-value ≤0.05. All statistical analysis was performed using software “Epi Info version 7.1.5 CDC Atlanta, USA”.


The mean age (years) in groups 1 and 2 was 45.07±14.198 and 50.83±12.485, respectively (p-value=0.100) (Table/Fig 2).

The mean time of onset of sedation in group 1 was 0.72±0.26 min, while it was 0.65±0.24 min in group 2 (p-value=0.303). In group 1, 4 patients (13.3%), while 7 patients (23.3%) patients in group 2 moved with endoscopy manipulation during the procedure (p-value=0.506). Perioperative gag reflex to endoscope insertion was abolished similarly in both the groups. There was no significant difference in endoscopist’s satisfaction grading between the two groups (p-value=0.112). The mean duration of endoscopy was 17.33±5.371 min. in group 1, and 17.17±5.522 min in group 2 (p-value=0.906). Endoscopist graded the procedure ‘easy’ in 26 patients (86.7%) in group 1 and in all 30 patients (100%) of group 2. Mean duration of recovery room stay was comparable in both the groups (p-value=0.935) (Table/Fig 3). The mean Response Entropy (RE) and State Entropy (SE) were comparable between both the groups at various time intervals (p-value >0.05).

When mean arterial pressure, mean heart rate, and respiratory rate was compared between both the groups, it was noted that there was no statistically significant difference at any period of time (p-value >0.05). One patient in each group underwent post-ERCP laparoscopic cholecystectomy, hence, they were shifted to the surgery OT on completion of the ERCP-guided CBD stone retrieval. So their Aldrete score was not assessed and these two patients were not included in post-op assessment. Hence, the number of patients in postoperative period was 29, making up a total of 58 patients (Table/Fig 4),(Table/Fig 5).

The mean SpO2 was comparable between the groups at various time intervals perioperatively (p-value >0.05). The mean ketamine bolus dose, rescue dose, and total dose given to patients was comparable in the two groups (p-value >0.05) (Table/Fig 6).

There was no incidence of any adverse effect like apnoea, uncontrolled hypotension, bradycardia, desaturation, nausea, vomiting and emergence reaction in both the groups at any time interval.


The ERCP is routinely performed by either trained persons other than anaesthetists as NAAP (Non anaesthesiologist Administered Propofol) or is performed under the supervision of anaesthetist by BPS (Balanced Propofol Sedation) technique with addition of opioids, benzodiazepines, ketamine or dexmedetomidine with propofol for achieving moderate to deep sedation required for the procedure (1). Propofol sedation although has fast onset and is still considered a gold standard for these techniques but achieving all aspects of sedation with a single drug leads to most of the adverse events associated with its use (2). Patients movement, gag reflex and vomiting associated with endoscope insertion prompt the care giver to deepen the level of sedation culminating into respiratory depression and other side effects (8). Exaggerated patient reflexes movements can lead to problems with endoscopist and even cause injury to the oesophagus and the procedure execution can become difficult. Too deep sedation can lead to hypoxemia, desaturation, aspiration and late emergence from anaesthesia. Thus ideal technique should look into all these factors for safe anaesthesia practice (3).

The incidence of gag reflex varies between 20-32% and pharyngeal anaesthesia is an essential part of the sedation to improve patient acceptance of the procedure with least respiratory depression and other complications (18),(19). In two separate experimental studies on rats, ketamine sedation was considered superior in terms of depression of superior laryngeal nerve stimulated gag reflex and maintenance of airway patency during sedation (20),(21). Yamagata R and Koga T reported that Neurokinin 1 antagonist (NK1) or NMDA (N-Methyl D-aspartate) antagonist dizocilpine in 1 mg/kg dose was able to diminish the gag reflex in decerebrated rats (20). Eikermann M et al., et al., in a study on rats, and Mishima G et al., in a study on young healthy volunteers, concluded that ketamine stabilised the airway patency during sedation and anaesthesia (21),(22). Tandon M et al., used ketamine in 0.15 mg/kg dose with 50 mg propofol and reported 2.2% incidence of gag reflex over 17% in plain propofol group (23). Thus, most of the studies find low dose ketamine as a superior adjunct to propofol in ERCP procedures in dose of 15 mg to 0.5 mg/kg for blunting the gag reflex, maintaining the upper airway collapsibility, stable haemodynamic profile and less desaturation episodes than observed with propofol alone. Higher than 0.5 mg dose is associated with more incidence of emergence delirium and desaturation perioperatively. Ketamine although depresses the gag reflex, but there is inconclusive data as to the dose at which it can optimally function in such scenario (5),(6),(7). Hence current study used ketofol (ketamine 0.5 mg/kg: propofol 1 mg/kg) induction followed by entropy lignocaine nebulisation to improve the pharyngeal anaesthesia, thereby, leading to ease in insertion of endoscope and better patient profile perioperatively as few studies have reported persistence of cough and gag reflex at this dosage of drugs (10),(18).

Pharyngeal anaesthesia during moderate to deep sedation can be augmented with various techniques like topical 10% spray, nebulisation with 4% lignocaine or superior laryngeal nerve blocks with varying results (10),(11),(12),(14),(15). Researchers who have used ketamine in less than 0.5 mg dose have reported less but persistence of gag reflex in some patients (10). Tsai HI et al., used 10% lignocaine spray with propofol, 6 and propofol and dexmedetomidine combination and observed 32% incidence of gag reflex in plain propofol group, 20% in ketofol group and 8% in dexmedetomidine with propofol group. They had used 0.2 mg ketamine with 50 mg propofol hence the incidence of gag reflex in patients was high (20%) (10). Tandon M et al., used ketamine in 0.15 mg/kg dose with 50 mg propofol and reported 2.2% incidence of gag reflex over 17% in plain propofol group (23). Tekeli AE et al., also reported persistence of cough during the procedure in his patients undergoing ERCP but they had used ketamine in 1 mg/kg dose with around 60 mg propofol bolus followed by infusion at the rate of 60 mg/hr (24). Although Mathur PR et al., found better anaesthesia with nerve blocks in patients undergoing bronchoscopy over nebulisation method but routine invasive nerve block use is unwarranted in patients undergoing ERCP, when the similar effect can be achieved by the use of pharmacological drugs like ketamine (15). Noitasaeng P et al., compared the effectiveness of spraying and nebulised lidocaine for patients undergoing ERCP. In their study, patients were more comfortable with nebulised technique whereas endoscopist were at ease with spray as you go technique with better patient’s variable like less cough, secretions and less time to start the procedure (14). In the present study, none of the patients in either group experienced gag reflex to endoscope insertion. Basturk A et al., used midazolam and ketamine in 0.5 mg/kg dose with lignocaine spray 10% at 1 mg/kg dose and observed that the gag reflex was reduced to 6.5% with lignocaine over 33.3% in patients without it. Hence, the incidence was less but not eradicated which could because propofol was not used in the study, but the dose of lignocaine was high in their patients (12). Thus, there is no added advantage with nebulised lignocaine and hence its use is questionable in patients receiving ketofol as it will increase the procedural time, and unnecessary usage of additional drugs (25).

Hypotension was the main adverse event reported and was maximally seen when propofol was used alone or with dexmedetomidine and almost all studies like present study reported higher MAP with the use of ketamine as adjunct to propofol (18),(23),(26). Airway assistance was also required maximally with the use of propofol or dexmedetomidine (12-20%) as compared to 0-8% with low dose ketamine (18). Recovery time was least with propofol and maximum with dexmedetomidine and few have even reported more emergence delirium with propofol alone over ketamine used alone in ERCP procedures (26).

Target controlled entropy-guided ketamine and propofol combination helped in restricting the amount of these drugs to be used preoperatively thus minimising the adverse effects and also obtained the maximum results with these drugs.


The ASA III were not included in the study.


Target controlled entropy guided infusion with ketofol (1:2) is an effective drug combination to achieve all aspects of safe sedation practice in ERCP procedure. Nebulisation with lignocaine 4% is not required as it only increases the procedure time and leads to unnecessary use of lignocaine in patients of choledocholithiasis.


Adler DG, Baron TH, Davila RE, Egan J, Hirota WK, Leighton JA, et al.; Standards of Practice Committee of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. ASGE guideline: The role of ERCP in diseases of the biliary tract and the pancreas. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62(1):01-08. [crossref] [PubMed]
Coté GA, Hovis RM, Ansstas MA, Waldbaum L, Azar RR, Early DS, et al. Incidence of sedation-related complications with propofol use during advanced endoscopic procedures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8(2):137-42. Doi: 10.1016/j.cgh. 2009.07.008. Epub 2009 Jul 14. PMID: 19607937. [crossref] [PubMed]
Hasanein R, El-Sayed W. Ketamine/propofol versus fentanyl/propofol for sedating obese patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Egyptian J Anaesthesia. 2013;29(3):207-11. Doi: 10.1016/j.egja. 2013.02.009. [crossref]
Salem HA. Low-dose ketamine and propofol combination for upper endoscopy in morbidly obese patients. Glob J Anesth. 2017;4(1):06-12. Doi: http://doi. org/10.17352/2455-3476.000030. [crossref]
Abdalla MW, El Shal SM, El Sombaty AI, Abdalla NM, Zeedan RB. Propofol dexmedetomidine versus propofol ketamine for anaesthesia of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (A randomized comparative study). Egyptian J Anaesthesia. 2015;31(2):97-05. [crossref]
Daabis M, Elsherbiny M, Alotibi R. Assessment of different concentration of ketofol in procedural operation. 2009;2(1):27-31. [crossref]
Baker MA, Ibrahim NM, Makkey MM. Hemodynamic stability of ketamine/ propofol admixture ketofol in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. J Curr Med Res Pract. 2018;3(1):43-46. [crossref]
Green SM, Rothrock SG, Lynch EL, Ho M, Harris T, Hestdalen R, et al. Intramuscular ketamine for pediatric sedation in the emergency department: Safety profile in 1,022 cases. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;31(6):688-97. Doi: 10.1016/ s0196-0644(98)70226-4. PMID: 9624307. [crossref] [PubMed]
Vakkuri A, Yli-Hankala A, Talja P, Mustola S, Tolvanen-Laakso H, Sampson T, et al. Time-frequency balanced spectral entropy as a measure of anesthetic drug effect in central nervous system during sevoflurane, propofol, and thiopental anesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004;48(2):145-53. Doi: 10.1111/j.0001- 5172.2004.00323.x. PMID: 14995935. [crossref] [PubMed]
Tsai HI, Tsai YF, Liou SC, Su MY, Lin CC, Chang CJ, et al. The questionable efficacy of topical pharyngeal anaesthesia in combination with propofol sedation in gastroscopy. Dig Dis Sci. 2012;57(10):2519-26. Doi: 10.1007/s10620-012- 2206-4. Epub 2012 May 6. PMID: 22562540. [crossref] [PubMed]
Müller T, Cornelissen C, Dreher M. Nebulization versus standard application for topical anaesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy under moderate sedation- A randomized controlled trial. Respir Res. 2018;19(1):227. Doi: 10.1186/s12931- 018-0926-5. PMID: 30463577; PMCID: PMC6249909. [crossref] [PubMed]
Basturk A, Artan R, Yilmaz A. Investigation of efficacy of lidocaine spray for sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children. Pediatr Gastroenterol Hepatol Nutr. 2017;20(2):87-93. [crossref] [PubMed]
Hall AP, Fox AJ, Raphael JH, Nandwani N, Smith G. Upper airway reactivity and upper respiratory tract infection: Effect of nebulized lidocaine. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82(6):857-60. [crossref] [PubMed]
Noitasaeng P, Vichitvejpaisal P, Kaosombatwattana U, Tassanee J, Suwannee S. Comparison of spraying and nebulized lidocaine in patients undergoing esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy: A randomized trial. J Med Assoc Thai. 2016;99(5):462-68. [crossref] [PubMed]
Mathur PR, Jain N, Kumar A, Thada B, Mathur V, Garg D. Comparison between lignocaine nebulization and airway nerve block for awake fiberoptic bronchoscopy-guided nasotracheal intubation: A single-blind randomized prospective study. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018;71(2):120-26. [crossref] [PubMed]
16. [].
Random-allocation-software [ com/2.0/].
Abbas I, Hassanein A, Mokhtar M. Effect of low dose ketamine versus dexmedetomidine on gag reflex during propofol based sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. A randomized controlled study. Egyptian J Anaes. 2017;33(2):165-70. [crossref]
Gorji FB, Amri P, Shokri J, Alereza H, Bijani A. Sedative and analgesic effects of propofol-fentanyl versus propofol-ketamine during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A double-blind randomized clinical trial. Anesth Pain Med. 2016; 6(5):e39835. [crossref] [PubMed]
Yamagata R, Koga T. Effects of NK1 and NMDA receptor antagonists on severe gagging induced by superior laryngeal nerve stimulation in rats. Kawasaki J Med Welf. 2010;16(1):01-08.
Eikermann M, Grosse-Sundrup M, Zaremba S, Henry ME, Bittner EA, Hoffmann U, et al. Ketamine activates breathing and abolishes the coupling between loss of consciousness and upper airway dilator muscle dysfunction. Anesthesiology. 2012;116(1):35-46. [crossref] [PubMed]
Mishima G, Sanuki T, Sato S, Kobayashi M, Kurata S, Ayuse T. Upper-airway collapsibility and compensatory responses under moderate sedation with ketamine, dexmedetomidine, and propofol in healthy volunteers. Physiol Rep. 2020;8(10):e14439. [crossref] [PubMed]
Tandon M, Pandey VK, Dubey GK, Pandey CK, Wadhwa N. Addition of sub- anaesthetic dose of ketamine reduces gag reflex during propofol based sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A prospective randomised double-blind study. Indian J Anaesth. 2014;58(4):436-41. [crossref] [PubMed]
Tekeli AE, Og? uz AK, Tunçdemir YE, Almali N. Comparison of dexmedetomidine- propofol and ketamine-propofol administration during sedation-guided upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(49):e23317. [crossref] [PubMed]
Sun X, Xu Y, Zhang X, Li A, Zhang H, Yang T, et al. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia provides no additional benefit to propofol sedation for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A randomized controlled double-blinded clinical trial. Sci Rep. 2018 27;8(1):6682. [crossref] [PubMed]
Aydogan H, Aydgoan T, Uyankoglu A. Propofol–ketamine combination has shorter recovery times with similar hemodynamics compared to propofol alone in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in adults: A randomized trial. Acta Med Mediterranea. 2013;29:259-64.

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/58963.17232

Date of Submission: Jul 08, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Aug 30, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Sep 29, 2022
Date of Publishing: Jan 01, 2023

• 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: Jul 15, 2022
• Manual Googling: Sep 19, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Sep 27, 2022 (16%)

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)