Electroacupuncture-reduced sedative and analgesic requirements for diagnostic EUS: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled study

• Published in: Gastrointestinal endoscopy Vol. 87; no. 2; pp. 476 - 485
• Main Authors: Teoh, Anthony Yuen Bun, Chong, Charing Ching Ning, Leung, Wing Wa, Chan, Simon Kin Cheong, Tse, Yee Kit, Ng, Enders Kwok Wai, Lai, Paul Bo San, Wu, Justin Che Yuen, Lau, James Yun Wong
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-02-2018
• Subjects: EA; SA; PCA
• ISSN: 0016-5107; 1097-6779
• DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.07.029

The role of electroacupuncture (EA) in reducing sedative and analgesic requirements during EUS is uncertain. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of EA in reducing procedure-related pain and discomfort during EUS.
This was a double-blinded randomized controlled study conducted between March 2014 and July 2016. Consecutive patients who were scheduled for diagnostic EUS were recruited and randomized to receive EA or sham-electroacupuncture (SA). The primary outcome was the dosage of propofol used. Other outcome measurements included pain scores, anxiety scores, satisfaction scores, patients’ willingness to repeat the procedure, total procedure time, and adverse events.
A total of 128 patients were recruited to the study. The patients who received EA had significantly fewer requirements for patient-controlled sedation and analgesia (PCA). The median (interquartile range) number of demands for PCA (2 [1-5] vs 16.5 [8.5-33.8]; P < .001), the number of successful demands (2 [1-4] vs 9 [5.3-13]; P < .001), and the total dose of propofol (0.15 [0.08-0.34] vs 0.77 [0.38-1.09]; P < .001) and alfentanil (0.38 [0.20-0.86] vs 1.92 [0.94-2.72]; P < .001) were all significantly less. Patients who received EA also had significantly lower procedural pain scores and anxiety scores (P < .001), and higher satisfaction scores (P < .001), and they were more willing to repeat the procedure (P < .001). Being in the SA group and the procedure time were significant predictors of increased PCA demands (P < .001 and P = .009, respectively).
In conclusion, the use of EA reduced sedative and analgesia demands, improved patient experience, and was associated with a low risk of adverse events during diagnostic EUS. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02066194.)
[Display omitted]