Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Anesthesiology

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Propofol and sufentanil may affect the patients’ sleep quality independently of the surgical stress response: a prospective nonrandomized controlled trial in 1033 patients’ undergone diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Contributed equally
BMC AnesthesiologyBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:53

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0341-3

Received: 3 June 2016

Accepted: 16 March 2017

Published: 31 March 2017

Abstract

Background

It is unknown whether sedative per se contributes to the postoperative sleep disturbance. Diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) is a minimally invasive procedure which is not likely to cause tissue trauma and pain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sleep quality of patients undergoing routine (without sedative) diagnostic UGE or UGE with sedative, before, 1 week, and 1 month after the procedure.

Methods

One thousand and thirty-three patients undergoing UGE were enrolled. Patients chose sedative or without sedative. Propofol and sufentanil were administered to the sedative group, not allowed for the routine group. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was measured before, 1 week and 1 month after the procedure.

Results

Five hundred and ten patients were enrolled in the sedative group and 523 in the routine group. One week after the procedure, patients in the sedative group showed significantly higher PSQI scores (worse sleep quality) than the baseline PSQI scores (p < 0.001), but there was no significant change for the routine group in the same period (p = 0.096). One month after the procedure, there was no significant difference in PSQI scores between the two groups compared with the baseline values (p = 0.358 for sedative group, p = 0.161 for routine group). There were also no significant difference in the PSQI scores between the two groups in the entire 1 month follow-up period (p = 0.885).

Conclusions

The sedative group showed impaired sleep quality 1 week after diagnostic UGE. Propofol and sufentanil may independently affect the sleep quality of patients after sedative of diagnostic UGE for only one week.

Trial registration

This study is registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (IDChiCTR-OCH-13003128). Registered 2 April 2013.

Keywords

PropofolAnaestheticsSleepPittsburgh Sleep Quality Index

Background

Although the function of sleep is unknown, it is no doubt that a normal sleep pattern and cycle is important to maintain the normal function of physiological and mental processes [1]. Previous studies have shown that inpatients, particularly postoperative patients, for example cardiac surgery [2], hip and knee arthroplasty [3], major abdominal surgery [4], even laparoscopic cholecystectomy [5] often complained about sleep disturbance. Surgical stress response, sedative and postoperative pain are the main factors that may influence the postoperative sleep [6]. However, previous studies always reported those three factors together, so it was not known whether the sedative would independently affect postoperative sleep disturbance.

Diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) is a minimal invasion procedure which can be performed with or without sedative. Propofol, opioids or midazolam are commonly used to provide the sedation to facilitate patients’ tolerance [7]. Also, it is well-known that diagnostic UGE is not likely to cause tissue trauma and patients seldom complain of pain after this procedure. By the advantage of these factors, this study attempts to estimate whether sedative independently contribute to the postoperative sleep disturbance without the confounding effects of surgical stress response and postoperative pain.

With higher degree of internal homogeneity, overall consistency and clinical validity than any other test available, the PSQI (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), originally described by Buysse in 1989, has established itself as the main tool for the assessment of quality of sleep [8]. Generally speaking, the reporting period of PSQI is 1 month, but the PSQI questionnaire was used for short-term evaluation for 1 week in our study. Broderick et al once have evaluated the accuracy of PSQI across different lengths of reporting periods (3-, 7- and 28-days). They found there is no significant difference of PSQI scores among 3-, 7- and 28- days reporting period [9]. Besides, many previously studies investigated the short-term sleep quality using PSQI [2, 1016]. Therefore, PSQI can be also administered with confidence for weeklong reporting periods for between-subject analyses. In this study, we rely on PSQI questionnaire to evaluate the sleep quality of diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy participants before, 1 week and 1 month after the procedure.

Methods

Patients

The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee of West China Hospital Sichuan University (Chengdu, China) and registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ID ChiCTR-OCH-13003128). Written informed consent about the study protocol was obtained from each patient preoperatively. Patients who decided diagnostic UGE under sedative were allocated to the sedative group, while other patients allocated to the routine group (without sedative). One thousand and thirty-three patients, ≥18 years, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification I–II, undergoing outpatient diagnostic UGE were enrolled to the study (Fig. 1). Exclusion criteria included known sleep disorders, use of sedatives or hypnotics, alcohol abuse (more than 35 units per week), expected compliance problems (known psychiatric disease, difficulty in reading or speaking in Chinese) or undergoing sedative (general or local) or surgery during the 1 month follow-up period.
Fig. 1

Study flowchart. UGE = diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy procedure

Standard monitoring including electrocardiograph (ECG), pulse oximeter (SPO2), and noninvasive blood pressure (BP) were applied. Two minutes before endoscopy, patients were pre-oxygenated (Fraction of inspiration O2, FiO2 = 1.0) by face mask and oxygen was delivered (FiO2 = 0.33) for the following procedure. For the sedative group, anaesthetic management was standardized. After pre-oxygenation, sedative was administered with sufentanil 3-5 μg over 5 to 10 s and propofol (1% Diprivan™; AstraZeneca Japan, Osaka, Japan) 1.0 mg · kg–1intravenously. Supplemental doses of 0.5 mg/kg propofol were administered when the patient was conscious or body movement was found [17]. In contrast, no anaesthetics were administered to the patients in the routine group and the patients maintained conscious throughout the procedure. The diagnostic UGE was performed with a video endoscope by the experience gastroenterologist. Atropine (0.005-0.01 mg/kg) or ephedrine (0.1-0.2 mg/kg) would be respectively administered IV, when HR was less than 60 bpm or systolic blood pressure was less than 80 mmHg or 80% of its baseline. Patients who achieve Modified Post anaesthesia Discharge Scoring System (PADSS) score of 9 or more were considered to be ready for discharge [18].

Quality of sleep

The sleep quality was assessed using the 19-item PSQI (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index) questionnaire (Additional files 1 and 2) [8, 9]). The PSQI have 7 components including sleep latency, sleep duration, habitual sleep efficiency, sleep disturbances, daytime dysfunction, and use of sleeping medications which range 0–3, respectively. The global PSQI score ranging from 0 to 21 is generated by summing up all the seven component scores, where 0 indicates no difficulty and 21 is severe difficulty in all areas. A global cut-off score of PSQI greater than 5 is used to distinguish poor sleepers from good sleepers.

All patients were required to evaluate their sleep quality as the baseline when they make an appointment on the Endoscopy Center of West China Hospital 3-5 days before the diagnostic UGE. At the time of the follow-up visit (1 week and 1 month after procedure), all patients were asked to assess their sleep quality via telephone by an investigator who was blinded to the assigned groups.

Sample and statistical analysis

Based on our pilot study data from our 150 patients, the mean PSQI scores were 5.24 for the sedative group and 4.82 for the routine group with a standard deviation (SD) of 2.11. A sample size of 796 (398 in each group) allowed the detection of a 20% difference between the two group, with an α of 0.05 (two tailed) and a β of 0.20, power of 0.8. To account for 20% attrition, a sample size of 956 (478 in each group) was selected.

Data was analyzed with SPSS Version 13.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Mann-Whitney U test or χ 2 test was used to compare the two groups with respect to the background characteristics such as age, sex, ASA and baseline PSQI scores. Linear mixed model was used to evaluate the PSQI score differences between the two groups and changes after post-endoscopy time. Bonferroni correction was made when necessary to correct for multiple test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Five hundred and ten patients were enrolled for sedative group and 523 for routine group. All patients participated in the PSQI questionnaire before endoscopy. Thirty-one (6.1%) patients in the sedative group and 33(6.3%) patients in the routine group were lost for the 1 week follow-up after endoscopy. Forty-five (9.6%) patients in the sedative group and 31 (6.4%) in the routine group were lost for the 1 month follow up. Twenty-two (4.3%) patients in the sedative group and 15 (2.9%) patients in the routine group were excluded because another sedative was administered during the 1 month follow-up period (Fig. 1). Finally, 856 (82.9%) patients were analyzed. Demographic variables were similar among the two groups (Table 1). There was no significant difference between the two groups for the pathological findings (p = 0.172, Table 2).
Table 1

Patient characteristics in two groups

 

Sedative group (N = 412)

Routine group (N = 444)

p value

Age(year)

60(18-80)

61(19-81)

0.801

Sex(male/female)

211/201

229/215

0.915

ASA(I/II/III)

156/178/78

192/190/62

0.096

Values are given as frequencies or median (range)

Table 2

Endoscopic and pathological findings of the diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy between two groups

 

Sedative group, n (%)

Routine group, n (%)

Negative findings

123 (29.85%)

139 (31.31%)

Gastritis

173 (41.99%)

193 (43.47%)

Peptic ulcer

72 (17.48%)

58 (13.06%)

Malignancy

20 (4.85%)

34 (7.66%)

Others

24 (5.83%)

20 (4.50%)

Total

412 (100%)

444 (100%)

PSQI scores were 4.71 ± 1.99 in the sedative group and 4.93 ± 2.11 in the routine group before diagnostic UGE. There were no significant differences with regard to the baseline PSQI scores (p = 0.097) between groups. Sedative group had a global PSQI score of 5.34 ± 2.37 and 5.02 ± 2.21 in the routine group, 1 week after diagnostic UGE. The sedative group patients showed higher PSQI scores 1 week after diagnostic UGE than the baseline values (p < 0.001), but there was no significant differences in the routine group (p = 0.096) in the same period. The PSQI scores returned to the baseline in both groups 1 month after the diagnostic UGE (4.81 ± 1.94 in the sedative group, p = 0.358, and 4.84 ± 2.09 in the routine group, p = 0.161). However, there was no significant difference in PSQI scores between two groups in the entire 1 month follow-up period (p = 0.885). The PSQI scores in the two groups at the individual questionnaire time points were shown in the Fig. 2.
Fig. 2

PSQI (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index) scores at 3 time points in the two groups (*p < 0.05 versus Baseline PSQI). There were no significant differences with regard to the baseline PSQI scores (p = 0.097) between groups. There was no significant differences in the routine group (p = 0.096) in the same period. The PSQI scores returned to the baseline values in both groups, 4.81 ± 1.94 in the sedative group (p = 0.358) and 4.84 ± 2.09 in the routine group (p = 0.161) 1 month after the diagnostic UGE

Discussion

The current study demonstrated that only patients undergoing sedative diagnostic UGE showed significant impaired sleep quality compared with baseline values 1 week after procedure. To our knowledge, this is the first study attempted to investigate the independent effect of sedative on the sleep quality of patients undergoing diagnostic UGE. In this study, propofol and sufentanil may independently affect the sleep quality for only 1 week after diagnostic UGE.

Several studies have shown the similar results about impaired postoperative sleep quality. For example, in a non-randomized controlled trial study, Yilmaz et al investigated the self-report sleep quality and objective sleep parameters in 85 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery and 40 healthy humans [2]. The authors observed significantly impaired sleep quality and sleep architecture in CABG patients 1 week after surgery but matched healthy humans did not show this problem during the same follow-up period. Our study also showed significantly diminished sleep quality 1 week after sedative diagnostic UGE. Probably because cardiac surgery was a more invasive surgery procedure, the CABG patients showed more serious of impaired sleep quality than our patients. However, the quality of sleep returned to the preoperative baseline values 1 month after CABG, so did the diagnostic UGE.

The injury of surgery followed by a complex stress response has been proposed as an important cause of postoperative sleep disturbances. The stress response involving endocrine-metabolic system and an inflammatory response may last for a few days or even weeks [19]. Moreover, the magnitude of the surgical procedure was associated with the severity of sleep disturbances [6, 20]. For example, probably as a result of more extensive surgical trauma, the patients following the open cholecystectomy suffered worse sleep quality than patients following the laparoscopic cholecystectomy [21]. Postoperative pain is another reason for sleep disturbances after surgery. Since diagnostic UGE was not likely to cause tissue injury and pain after the procedure, the potential effect of surgical stress response and postoperative pain as the co-contributors to postoperative sleep disturbances would not make any confusion in this study. We successful evaluated the independent effect of sedative or anaesthetics on postoperative sleep disturbance in the diagnostic UGE patients.

Psychological factors including anxiety and negative mood states have been known to contribute to the sleep disturbances [22]. Patients’ psychological condition can be easily affected by the state of illness, especially malignant disease. Since no significant difference was found with regard to endoscopic and pathological findings of the diagnostic UGE in the sedative group compared with the routine group, we believed that the effect of psychological factors on the sleep quality were comparable between the sedative and routine group.

Although inducing sleep-like EEG slow waves [23], propofol recently have been demonstrated to significantly change the sleep architecture with increase inN3 sleep and total abolishment of rapid-eye-movement (REM) in health humans [24, 25]. Opioids use, whether acute (when used to provide sedation or sedative) or chronic, have been shown to disturb the sleep pattern [26]. For example, some studies have shown that morphine significantly altered sleep architecture with increase of N2 sleep and reduction of slow wave sleep (SWS) in health humans [27, 28]. REM and SWS are generally associated with the restorative processes in the body (especially the energy restoration) [29]. Therefore, we presume that the reduction of REM and SWS might be the most possible reasons that sedative patients showed subjective impaired sleep quality 1 week after diagnostic UGE.

A limitation of our design was the absence of randomization. Therefore evident as well as unknown confounders might have influenced the outcomes. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is an invasive procedure and some patients can’t tolerance this procedure [30]. We considered it unethical to randomize the participants regardless of their desires. In fact this study was a real world study.

Conclusion

In conclusion, 1033 patients (510 for sedative group VS. 523 for routine group) were enrolled to evaluate the sleep quality of patients undergoing routine (without sedative) diagnostic UGE or UGE with sedative, before, 1 week, and 1 month after the procedure. The sedative group showed impaired sleep quality only for 1 week after diagnostic UGE. Therefore, propofol and sufentanil may independently affect the sleep quality of patients undergoing diagnostic UGE.

Abbreviations

ASA: 

American Society of Anaesthesiologists

BP: 

Noninvasive blood pressure

CABG: 

Coronary artery bypass grafting

ECG: 

Electrocardiograph

FiO2: 

Fraction of inspiration O2

PADSS: 

Post anaesthesia discharge scoring system

PSQI: 

Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index

REM: 

Rapid-eye-movement

SD: 

Standard deviation

SPO2: 

Pulse oximeter

SWS: 

Slow wave sleep

UGE: 

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Endoscopy Center of West China Hospital for support the study.

Funding

This work was supported by grants 81200865 from National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC).

Availability of data and materials

Upon publication all relevant data will be made available from Ling Ye by the Email if anybody is interested in our study.

Authors’ contributions

ML and PZ contributed equally to the conception and design of the study, manuscript writing and final approval of the manuscript. LYF and FFF contributed to the conception and the design of the study, critical revision of the manuscript, and final approval of the manuscript. LY and TZ contributed to the design of the study, with emphasis on the statistical analysis and sample size analyses, critical revision of the manuscript and final approval of the study. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee of West China Hospital Sichuan University (Chengdu, China) and registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ID ChiCTR-OCH-13003128). Written informed consent about the study protocol was obtained from each patient preoperatively.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Anaesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University
(2)
Current address: Department of Anaesthesiology, AVIC 363 Hospital
(3)
Department of Anaesthesiology, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital
(4)
Department of Pain Management, West China Hospital, Sichuan University

References

  1. Shapiro CM, Flanigan MJ. ABC of sleep disorders. Function of sleep. BMJ. 1993;306:383–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Yilmaz H, Iskesen I. Follow-up with objective and subjective tests of the sleep characteristics of patients after cardiac surgery. Circ J. 2007;71:1506–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Krenk L, Jennum P, Kehlet H. Sleep disturbances after fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:769–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Knill RL, Moote CA, Skinner MI, Rose EA. Anesthesia with abdominal surgery leads to intense REM sleep during the first postoperative week. Anesthesiology. 1990;73:52–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gogenur I, Bisgaard T, Burgdorf S, et al. Disturbances in the circadian pattern of activity and sleep after laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1026–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Rosenberg-Adamsen S, Kehlet H, Dodds C, Rosenberg J. Postoperative sleep disturbances: mechanisms and clinical implications. Br J Anaesth. 1996;76:552–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Haq MM, Faisal N, Khalil A, et al. Midazolam for sedation during diagnostic or therapeutic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patients. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;24:1214–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Buysse DJ, Reynolds 3rd CF, Monk TH, et al. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res. 1989;28:193–213.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Broderick JE, Junghaenel DU, Schneider S, et al. Pittsburgh and Epworth sleep scale items: accuracy of ratings across different reporting periods. Behav Sleep Med. 2013;11:173–88.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Yeung WF, Chung KF, Tso KC, et al. Electroacupuncture for residual insomnia associated with major depressive disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Sleep. 2011;34:807–15.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Yilmaz M, Sayin Y, Gurler H. Sleep quality of hospitalized patients in surgical units. Nurs Forum. 2012;47:183–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Sunami E, Usuda K, Nishiyama Y, et al. A preliminary study of fluvoxamine maleate on depressive state and serum melatonin levels in patients after cerebral infarction. Intern Med. 2012;51:1187–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Karkare K, Sinha S, Taly AB, Rao S. Prevalence and profile of sleep disturbances in Guillain-Barre Syndrome: a prospective questionnaire-based study during 10 days of hospitalization. Acta Neurol Scand. 2013;127:116–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim SJ, Lee YJ, Lee YJ, Cho SJ. Effect of quetiapine XR on depressive symptoms and sleep quality compared with lithium in patients with bipolar depression. J Affect Disord. 2014;157:33–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu L, Rissling M, Natarajan L, et al. The longitudinal relationship between fatigue and sleep in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Sleep. 2012;35:237–45.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Wenk M, Popping DM, Chapman G, et al. Long-term quality of sleep after remifentanil-based anaesthesia: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110:250–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Xu ZY, Wang X, Si YY, et al. Intravenous remifentanil and propofol for gastroscopy. J Clin Anesth. 2008;20:352–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Palumbo P, Tellan G, Perotti B, et al. Modified PADSS (Post Anaesthetic Discharge Scoring System) for monitoring outpatients discharge. Ann Ital Chir. 2012;84:661.Google Scholar
  19. Rosenberg J. Sleep disturbances after non-cardiac surgery. Sleep Med Rev. 2001;5:129–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Cronin AJ, Keifer JC, Davies MF, et al. Postoperative sleep disturbance: influences of opioids and pain in humans. Sleep. 2001;24:39–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gogenur I, Kucukakin B, Bisgaard T, et al. The effect of melatonin on sleep quality after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:1152–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lund HG, Reider BD, Whiting AB, Prichard JR. Sleep patterns and predictors of disturbed sleep in a large population of college students. J Adolesc Health. 2010;46:124–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Xu Z, Jiang X, Li W, et al. Propofol-induced sleep: efficacy and safety in patients with refractory chronic primary insomnia. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2011;60:161–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rabelo FA, Kupper DS, Sander HH, et al. Polysomnographic evaluation of propofol-induced sleep in patients with respiratory sleep disorders and controls. Laryngoscope. 2013;123:2300–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kondili E, Alexopoulou C, Xirouchaki N, Georgopoulos D. Effects of propofol on sleep quality in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a physiological study. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38:1640–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang D, Teichtahl H. Opioids, sleep architecture and sleep-disordered breathing. Sleep Med Rev. 2007;11:35–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Shaw IR, Lavigne G, Mayer P, Choiniere M. Acute intravenous administration of morphine perturbs sleep architecture in healthy pain-free young adults: a preliminary study. Sleep. 2005;28:677–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Dimsdale JE, Norman D, DeJardin D, Wallace MS. The effect of opioids on sleep architecture. J Clin Sleep Med. 2007;3:33–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Boyko Y, Ording H, Jennum P. Sleep disturbances in critically ill patients in ICU: how much do we know? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012;56:950–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Brandt LJ. Patients’ attitudes and apprehensions about endoscopy: how to calm troubled waters. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:280–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement