Scott W. Mueller¹, Gina D. Moore² and Robert MacLaren³

¹Critical Care Pharmacy Fellow, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Colorado School of Pharmacy, Aurora, Colorado, USA. ²Director of Clinical Affairs, University of Colorado School of Pharmacy, Aurora, Colorado, USA. ³Associate Professor, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Colorado School of Pharmacy, Aurora,  Colorado, USA.

Abstract

Background: Fospropofol is a phosphate-ester water soluble prodrug of propofol approved in the United States for the short-term  sedation of adults undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic procedures with monitored anesthesia care. Fospropofol may be advantageous for procedural sedation because it is not a lipid formulation, it lacks pain on injection, it possesses a different pharmacokinetic profile due to in vivo conversion of fospropofol to propofol, and it offers rapid recovery from sedation.

Objective: To review published pharmacokinetic data, clinical trials, and the safety profile of fospropofol and provide comment on its use for sedation.

Clinical trials: Fospropofol has been studied for sedation in colonoscopy and bronchoscopy with fentanyl for analgesia. Results  indicate that a 6.5 mg/kg bolus dose with repeated doses of 25% of the original bolus dose up to every 4 minutes produces an effective and safe level of sedation. Fospropofol comparisons to midazolam were not assessed. Patient satisfaction is high for those treated with the recommended dosage regimen. Most commonly reported adverse effects included pruritus and paresthesia. Sedation related side effects such as hypoxia and apnea were rarely reported and generally mild in scope.

Conclusion: Fospropofol represents an alternative sedative agent to midazolam and propofol for short-term sedation. However, the efficacy and safety of fospropofol compared to midazolam or propofol has not been assessed, therefore use will be based on practitioner preference. Restrictive package labelling requiring MAC poses medico-legal and cost-benefit issues thereby not conferring a benefit over propofol which caries similar labelling. Additional studies designed to compare fospropofol to propofol and/or midazolam for procedural sedation are needed.