Adverse events during monitored anesthesia care for GI endoscopy: an 8-year experience

Safety and Acceptability of Esophageal Cytosponge Cell Collection Device in a Pooled Analysis of Data From Individual Patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Diagnosis and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have become emerging public health issues. Cytosponge is a novel, minimally invasive esophageal cell collection device. We aimed to assess the data on safety and acceptability of this device.

METHODS

We performed a patient-level review of 5 prospective trials assessing Cytosponge performance in patients with reflux disease, BE and EoE in primary and secondary care. Acceptability of Cytosponge and subsequent endoscopy were recorded with visual analogue scale (VAS), wherein 0 and 10 denoted lowest and highest acceptability. Median VAS scores were compared using a Mann-Whitney test. The number of attempts, failures in swallowing the device and occurrence of adverse events were analyzed. Risk factors for failure in swallowing were analyzed using a multivariate regression model.

RESULTS

In total, 2672 Cytosponge procedures were performed, in 2418 individuals from 2008 through 2017. There were 2 adverse events related to the device: a minor pharyngeal bleed and a case of detachment (<1:2000). The median acceptability score for the Cytosponge was 6.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 5.0-8.0), which was higher than the score for endoscopy without sedation (median 5.0; IQR, 3.0-7.0; P < .001) and lower than the score for endoscopy with sedation (median 8.0; IQR, 5.0-9.0; P < .001). Nearly all patients (91.1%) successfully swallowed the Cytosponge, most on the first attempt (90.1%). Failure to swallow the device was more likely to occur in secondary care (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% CI, 1.48-17.79; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The Cytosponge test is a safe procedure with good acceptability ratings in a variety of health care settings.

Effectiveness and safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy during a specific sedation training program for non-anesthesiologists

INTRODUCTION

sedation is a key component for the improvement of sedation quality. A correct administration requires appropriate training. We performed a study to compare sedation effectiveness, safety and patient satisfaction when administered by gastroenterologists, with and without specific training.

METHODS

a training program enrolled a group of gastroenterologists (trained group, n = 4) and their results were compared to those from a non-trained group (n = 3). ASA 1-3 patients who had undergone sedation by a gastroenterologist using midazolam and fentanyl were included over a period of 30 months. Safety was assessed in terms of the complication rate, effectiveness was assessed via the rate of completed endoscopic procedures and patient satisfaction was evaluated via a phone interview the day after the procedure.

RESULTS

a total of 3,475 patients were sedated by gastroenterologists during the study period. Significant differences were found that favored the trained group for completed procedures (5.6% vs 8.9%). A lower rate of excessive sedation (1.3% vs 8.61%), hypoxemia (0.72% vs 2.49%) and post-procedural pain (1.8% vs 4.3%) were also achieved. Patient satisfaction surpassed 99.5% and there were no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

our sedation training program improved the effectiveness and safety outcomes when compared to sedation administered by gastroenterologists without this specific training.

Pulmonary aspiration during procedural sedation: a comprehensive systematic review

Background

Although pulmonary aspiration complicating operative general anaesthesia has been extensively studied, little is known regarding aspiration during procedural sedation.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive, systematic review to identify and catalogue published instances of aspiration involving procedural sedation in patients of all ages. We sought to report descriptively the circumstances, nature, and outcomes of these events.

Results

Of 1249 records identified by our search, we found 35 articles describing one or more occurrences of pulmonary aspiration during procedural sedation. Of the 292 occurrences during gastrointestinal endoscopy, there were eight deaths. Of the 34 unique occurrences for procedures other than endoscopy, there was a single death in a moribund patient, full recovery in 31, and unknown recovery status in two. We found no occurrences of aspiration in non-fasted patients receiving procedures other than endoscopy.

Conclusions

This first systematic review of pulmonary aspiration during procedural sedation identified few occurrences outside of gastrointestinal endoscopy, with full recovery typical. Although diligent caution remains warranted, our data indicate that aspiration during procedural sedation appears rare, idiosyncratic, and typically benign.

Safety of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in a group of university-affiliated hospitals: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Service models for gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation must be safe, as endoscopy is the most common procedure performed under sedation in many countries. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to determine the patient risk profile, and incidence of and risk factors for significant unplanned events, in adult patients presenting for gastrointestinal endoscopy in a group of university-affiliated hospitals where most sedation is managed by anaesthetists.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 yr presenting for elective and emergency gastrointestinal endoscopy under anaesthetist-managed sedation at nine hospitals affiliated with the University of Melbourne, Australia, were included. Outcomes included significant airway obstruction, hypoxia, hypotension and bradycardia; unplanned tracheal intubation; abandoned procedure; advanced life support; prolonged post-procedure stay; unplanned over-night admission and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

2,132 patients were included. Fifty percent of patients were aged >60 yr, 50% had a BMI >27 kg m ^-2, 42% were ASA physical status III-V and 17% were emergency patients. The incidence of significant unplanned events was 23.0% (including significant hypotension 11.8%). Significant unplanned intraoperative events were associated with increasing age, BMI <18.5 kg m ^-2, ASA physical status III-V, colonoscopy and planned tracheal intubation. Thirty-day mortality was 1.2% (0.2% in electives and 6.0% in emergencies) and was associated with ASA physical status IV-V and emergency status.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting for gastrointestinal endoscopy at a group of public university-affiliated hospitals where most sedation is managed by anaesthetists, had a high risk profile and a substantial incidence of significant unplanned intraoperative events and 30-day mortality.

Comparison of two supplement oxygen methods during gastroscopy with intravenous propofol anesthesia in obese patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hypoxemia is a major complication in obese patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy under intravenous anesthesia or sedation due to altered airway anatomy. We design this randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare efficacy and safety of the Wei nasal jet tube (WNJT) and nasal prongs for supplement oxygen during gastroscopy with intravenous propofol anesthesia in obese patients.

METHODS

The study will be a single-center, prospective RCT. A total of 308 obese patients will be recruited and randomly assigned to receive either the WNJT (group A) or nasal prongs (group B). During gastroscopy with intravenous propofol anesthesia, 5 L/min of oxygen will be delivered through the jet port of the WNJT in the group A and via the nasal prongs in the group B. The primary outcome is the incidence of hypoxemia and severe hypoxemia. The secondary outcomes are adverse events during the gastroscopy, postoperative complications, and satisfaction of the anesthetist, physician, and patient.

DISCUSSION

This RCT aims to clarify whether the WNJT can result in reduced incidences of hypoxemia and complications and provide improved satisfaction to the anesthetist, physician, and patient. Thus, it can be determined if the WNJT is a useful tool for supplement oxygen in obese patients undergoing gastroscopy with intravenous propofol anesthesia. The results will provide the evidence for anesthesiologists to make a decision regarding the choice of supplementary oxygen methods in this condition.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial, ChiCTR-IOR-17013089 . Registered on 23 October 2017.

Procedural sedation by advanced care paramedics for emergency gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

At the QEII Health Sciences Centre Emergency Department (ED) in Halifax, Nova Scotia, advanced care paramedics (ACPs) perform procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) for many indications, including orthopedic procedures. We have begun using ACPs as sedationists for emergent upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy. This study compares ACP-performed ED PSA for UGI endoscopy and orthopedic procedures in terms of adverse events, airway intervention, vasopressor requirement, and PSA medication use.

METHODS

A data set was built from an ED PSA quality control database matching 61 UGI endoscopy PSAs to 183 orthopedic PSAs by propensity scores calculated using age, gender, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification. Outcomes assessed were hypotension (systolic BP30 sec), vomiting, arrhythmias, death, airway intervention, vasopressor requirement, and PSA medication use.

RESULTS

UGI endoscopy patients experienced hypotension more frequently than orthopedic patients (OR=4.11, CI: 2.05-8.22) and required airway repositioning less often (OR=0.24, CI: 0.10-0.59). They received ketamine more frequently (OR=15.7, CI: 4.75-67.7) and fentanyl less often (OR=0.30, CI: 0.15-0.63) than orthopedic patients. Four endoscopy patients received phenylephrine, and one required intubation. No patient died in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

In ACP-led sedation for UGI endoscopy and orthopedic procedures, adverse events were rare with the notable exception of hypotension, which was more frequent in the endoscopy group. Only endoscopy patients required vasopressor treatment and intubation. We provide preliminary evidence that ACPs can manage ED PSA for emergent UGI endoscopy, although priorities must shift from pain control to hemodynamic optimization.

Clinical and economic burden of procedural sedation-related adverse events and their outcomes: analysis from five countries

Background

Studies have reported on the incidence of sedation-related adverse events (AEs), but little is known about their impact on health care costs and resource use.

Methods

Health care providers and payers in five countries were recruited for an online survey by independent administrators to ensure that investigators and respondents were blinded to each other. Surveys were conducted in the local language and began with a “screener” to ensure that respondents had relevant expertise and experience. Responses were analyzed using Excel and R, with the Dixon’s Q statistic used to identify and remove outliers. Global and country-specific average treatment patterns were calculated via bootstrapping; costs were mean values. The sum product of costs and intervention probability gave a cost per AE.

Results

Responses were received from 101 providers and 26 payers, the majority having >5 years of experience. At a minimum, the respondents performed a total of 3,430 procedural sedations per month. All AEs detailed occurred in clinical practice in the last year and were reported to cause procedural delays and cancellations in some patients. Standard procedural sedation costs ranged from €74 (Germany) to $2,300 (US). Respondents estimated that AEs would increase costs by between 16% (Italy) and 179% (US). Hypotension was reported as the most commonly observed AE with an associated global mean cost (interquartile range) of $43 ($27–$68). Other frequent AEs, including mild hypotension, bradycardia, tachycardia, mild oxygen desaturation, hypertension, and brief apnea, were estimated to increase health care spending on procedural sedation by $2.2 billion annually in the US.

Conclusion

All sedation-related AEs can increase health care costs and result in substantial delays or cancellations of subsequent procedures. The prevention of even minor AEs during procedural sedation may be crucial to ensuring its value as a health care service.

Liver transplant-related anastomotic biliary strictures: a novel, rapid, safe, radiation-sparing, and cost-effective management approach

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Biliary strictures after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) are typically managed by sequential ERCP procedures, with incremental dilation of the stricture and stent exchange (IDSE) and placement of new stents. This approach resolves >80% of strictures after 12 months but requires costly, lengthy ERCPs with significant patient radiation exposure. Increasing awareness of the harmful effects of radiation, escalating healthcare costs, and decreasing reimbursement for procedures mandate maximal efficiency in performing ERCP. We compared the traditional IDSE protocol with a sequential stent addition (SSA) protocol, in which additional stents are placed across the stricture during sequential ERCPs, without stent removal/exchange or stricture dilation.

METHODS

Patients undergoing ERCP for OLT-related anastomotic strictures from 2010 to 2016 were identified from a prospectively maintained endoscopy database. Procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, stricture resolution rates, adverse events, materials fees, and facility fees were analyzed for IDSE and SSA procedures.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients underwent 277 IDSE and 132 SSA procedures. Mean fluoroscopy time was 64.5% shorter (P < .0001) and mean procedure duration 41.5% lower (P < .0001) with SSA compared with IDSE. SSA procedures required fewer accessory devices, resulting in significantly lower material (63.8%, P < .0001) and facility costs (42.8%, P < .0001) compared with IDSE. Stricture resolution was >95%, and low adverse event rates did not significantly differ.

CONCLUSIONS

SSA results in shorter, cost-effective procedures requiring fewer accessory devices and exposing patients to less radiation. Stricture resolution rates are equivalent to IDSE, and adverse events do not differ significantly, even in this immunocompromised population.

Safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy with conscious sedation in obstructive sleep apnea

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety of conscious sedation in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed from inception until March 1, 2015. In an effort to include unpublished data, abstracts from prior gastroenterological society meetings as well as other reference sources were interrogated. After study selection, two authors utilizing a standardized data extraction form collected the data independently. Any disagreements between authors were resolved by consensus among four authors. The methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa tool for observational studies. The primary variables of interest included incidence of hypoxia, hypotension, tachycardia, and bradycardia. Continuous data were summarized as odds ratio (OR) and 95%CI and pooled using generic inverse variance under the random-effects model. Heterogeneity between pooled studies was assessed using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

Initial search of MEDLINE and EMBASE identified 357 citations. A search of meeting abstracts did not yield any relevant citations. After systematic review and exclusion consensus meetings, seven studies met the a priori determined inclusion criteria. The overall methodological quality of included studies ranged from moderate to low. No significant differences between OSA patients and controls were identified among any of the study variables: Incidence of hypoxia (7 studies, 3005 patients; OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.73-1.11; P = 0.47; I² = 0%), incidence of hypotension (4 studies, 2125 patients; OR = 1.10; 95%CI: 0.75-1.60; P = 0.63; I² = 0%), incidence of tachycardia (3 studies, 2030 patients; OR = 0.94; 95%CI: 0.53-1.65; P = 0.28; I² = 21%), and incidence of bradycardia (3 studies, 2030 patients; OR = 0.88; 95%CI: 0.63-1.22; P = 0.59; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSION

OSA is not a significant risk factor for cardiopulmonary complications in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures with conscious sedation.

Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) position paper on the non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Propofol sedation by non-anesthesiologists in GI endoscopy, despite generally considered a safe procedure, is still a matter of debate. Benefits of propofol sedation include rapid onset of action, greater patient comfort and fast recovery with prompt discharge from the endoscopy unit. The use of propofol for sedation in GI endoscopy, preceded by dedicated training courses, has been approved by several anaesthesiologist and gastroenterologist societies but an Italian position paper taking into account the Italian law is lacking. In the present document, the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) Sedation Group, on behalf of the SIED, presents a series of updated position statements concerning propofol sedation in GI endoscopy. The paper summarizes the advantages of propofol, how it should be administered and how patients should be monitored. Moreover, details concerning proper training of non-anaesthesiologist personnel involved in its use are provided. Protocols concerning propofol use s must be shared with the hospital's anaesthesiology staff and approved by the hospital's Executive Director.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy under sedation is associated with pneumonia in older inpatients-results of a retrospective case-control study

Background and aims

Apparent aspiration is a notable adverse event during gastrointestinal endoscopy under sedation (GIES), but data about inapparent aspiration are scarce. Generally, particularly older patients are at higher risk of suffering from adverse events.

Objective

The objective of this article is to determine the risk of pneumonia, lower respiratory tract infection (LRI) and systemic inflammatory activation after GIES, especially in patients of at least 65 years.

Methods

The retrospective case-control study included 250 patients undergoing GIES and assigned age-, gender- and time of performance-matched controls without invasive procedure or sedation (ratio 1:1).

Results

On day 3 patients of advanced age presented with both pneumonia and LRI more often (2.6 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.041 and 7.8 vs. 2.5%, p = 0.034, respectively). In general, several inflammatory parameters increased significantly after GIES (i.e. white blood cell count (increase of ≥ 25%) 18.6 vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001), leading to more frequent antibiotic treatment (6.8 vs. 1.6%, p = 0.004). The effects were less pronounced on day 7.

Conclusions

Patients of advanced age carry an increased risk of pneumonia and LRI after GIES. Patients are generally more likely to feature inflammation and to receive antibiotic treatment.

Systematic Review: Outcomes by Duration of NPO Status prior to Colonoscopy

Background/Aims

Variation exists among anesthesia providers as to acceptable timing of NPO (“nothing by mouth”) for elective colonoscopy procedures. There is a need to balance optimal colonic preparation, patient convenience, and scheduling efficiency with anesthesia safety concerns. We reviewed the evidence for the relationship between NPO timing and aspiration incidence and colonoscopy rescheduling.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE (1990–April 2015) for English language studies of any design and included them if at least one bowel preparation regimen was completed within 8 hours of colonoscopy. Study characteristics, patient characteristics, and outcomes were abstracted and verified by investigators. We determined risk of bias for each study and overall strength of evidence for primary and secondary outcomes.

Results

We included 28 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 2 controlled clinical trials, and 10 observational reports. Six studies reported on aspiration; none found that shorter NPO status prior to colonoscopy increased aspiration risk, though studies were not designed to assess this outcome (low strength of evidence). One RCT found fewer rescheduled procedures following split-dose preparation but NPO status was not well-documented (insufficient evidence).

Conclusions

Aspiration incidence requiring hospitalization during colonoscopy with moderate or deep sedation is very low. No study found that shorter NPO status prior to colonoscopy increased aspiration risk. We did not find direct evidence of the effect of NPO status on colonoscopy rescheduling.

Residual Gastric Volume After Bowel Preparation With Polyethylene Glycol for Elective Colonoscopy: A Prospective Observational Study

GOAL

To examine the residual gastric volume (RGV) in colonoscopy after bowel preparations with 3-L polyethylene glycol (PEG).

BACKGROUND

Obstacles to high-volume bowel preparation by anesthesia providers resulting from concerns over aspiration risk are common during colonoscopy.

STUDY

Prospective measurements of RGV were performed in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and morning colonoscopy with split-dose PEG preparation, patients undergoing EGD and afternoon colonoscopy with same-day PEG preparation, and patients undergoing EGD alone under moderate conscious sedation. Colonoscopy patients were allowed to ingest clear liquids until 2 hours before the procedure. Patients undergoing EGD alone were instructed to eat/drink nothing after midnight.

RESULTS

There were 860 evaluated patients, including 330 in the split-dose preparation group, 100 in the same-day preparation group, and 430 in the EGD-only group. Baseline demographics and disease/medication factors were similar. The mean RGV in patients receiving the same-day preparation (35.4 mL or 0.56 mL/kg) was significantly higher than that in patients receiving the split-dose preparation (28.5 mL or 0.45 mL/kg) and in patients undergoing EGD alone (22.8 mL or 0.36 mL/kg) (P=0.023 and P<0.0001, respectively). Within the bowel-preparation groups, patients with fasting times of 2 to 3 hours had similar RGV compared with patients who had fasting times >3 hours. The shape of the distribution and the range of RGV among the 3 study groups were similar. No aspiration occurred in any group.

CONCLUSIONS

PEG bowel preparations increase RGV mildly, but seem to have no clinical significance. These results support the current fasting guidelines for colonoscopy.

Patient safety under deep sedation for digestive endoscopic procedures

Deep sedation with Propofol has become popular in recent years. The safety of this technique when administered by non-anaesthesiologists has created much controversy which at times is masked in a contentious debate on the economic sustainability of the health system. In 2011, the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy, along with 20 other organisations from European countries, revoked the recommendations of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy on the administration of Propofol by non-anaesthesiologists, citing that it is "extremely dangerous for the safety and quality of endoscopic procedures". The FDA in 2005 had already rejected the use of Propofol by non-anaesthesiologists in the United States, a prohibition which was reiterated in 2010 and is still in force, basing its evidence, among others, on the recommendations and guidelines of the Joint Commission and the Declaration of Helsinki. In Spain, the data sheet of Propofol restricts the use of the drug to anaesthesiologists and intensivists in intensive care units. In our opinion, the key elements to discuss (which we develop in our paper) are those related to: a) the morbidity and mortality of sedation (which is the same as speaking about the factors that influence its safety); b) the appropriate professionals to use this technique; and c) economic aspects related to the use of said technique. Our conclusion is that a technique cannot be declared safe when a high percentage of patients present with varying respiratory depression (and therefore hypoxaemia) and hypotension. We are confident that the collaboration of the Spanish Society of Digestive Pathology and the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy with the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy is the first step towards finding a satisfactory solution for everyone, and especially for our patients.

The Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Sufentanil in Monitored Anesthesia Care during Burr-Hole Surgery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Retrospective Clinical Trial

Background: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a very common clinical emergency encountered in neurosurgery. While both general anesthesia (GA) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC) can be used during CSDH surgery, MAC is the preferred choice among surgeons. Further, while dexmedetomidine (DEX) is reportedly a safe and effective agent for many diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, there have been no trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEX vs. sufentanil in CSDH surgery.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEX vs. sufentanil in MAC during burr-hole surgery for CSDH.

Methods: In all, 215 fifteen patients underwent burr-hole surgery for CSDH with MAC and were divided into three groups: Group D1 (n = 67, DEX infusion at 0.5 μg·kg⁻¹ for 10 min), Group D2 (n = 75, DEX infusion at 1 μg·kg⁻¹ for 10 min), and Group S (n = 73, sufentanil infusion 0.3 μg·kg⁻¹ for 10 min). Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) of all three groups was maintained at 3. Anesthesia onset time, total number of intraoperative patient movements, hemodynamics, total cumulative dose of DEX, time to first dose and amount of rescue midazolam or fentanyl, percentage of patients converted to alternative sedative or anesthetic therapy, postoperative recovery time, adverse events, and patient and surgeon satisfaction scores were recorded.

Results: The anesthesia onset time was significantly less in group D2 (17.36 ± 4.23 vs. 13.42 ± 2.12 vs. 15.98 ± 4.58 min, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). More patients in groups D1 and S required rescue midazolam to achieve RSS = 3 (74.63 vs. 42.67 vs. 71.23%, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). However, the total dose of rescue midazolam was significantly higher in group D1 (2.8 ± 0.3 vs. 1.9 ± 0.3 vs. 2.0 ± 0.4 mg, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). The time to first dose of rescue midazolam was significantly longer in group D2 (17.32 ± 4.47 vs. 23.56 ± 5.36 vs. 16.55 ± 4.91 min, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Significantly fewer patients in groups S and D2 required rescue fentanyl to relieve pain (62.69 vs. 21.33 vs. 27.40%, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Additionally, total dose of rescue fentanyl in group D1 group was significantly higher (212.5 ± 43.6 vs. 107.2 ± 35.9 vs. 98.6 ± 32.2 μg, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Total number of patient movements during the burr-hole surgery was higher in groups D1 and S (47.76 vs. 20.00 vs. 47.95%, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Four patients in D1 and five in S converted to propofol. The time to recovery for discharge from the PACU was significantly shorter in group D2 (16.24 ± 4.15 vs. 12.48 ± 3.29 vs. 15.91 ± 3.66 min, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Results from the patient and surgeon satisfaction scores showed significant differences favoring group D2 (P < 0.05). More patients in groups D1 and S showed higher levels of the overall incidence of tachycardia and hypertension, and required higher doses of urapidil and esmolol (P < 0.05). Six patients experienced respiratory depression in group S.

Conclusion: Compared with sufentanil, DEX infusion at 1 μg·kg⁻¹ was associated with fewer intraoperative patient movements, fewer rescue interventions, faster postoperative recovery, and better patient and surgeon satisfaction scores and could be safely and effectively used for MAC during burr-hole surgery for CSDH.

In response to the editorial "Sedation in endoscopy in 2016: Is it safe sedation with propofol led by the endoscopist in complex situations?"

It is universally accepted that deep sedation involves more risks than light-to-moderate sedation. Deep sedation for endoscopic explorations is normally provided by anesthesiologists in Spain and in most countries of the European Unión. The present debate about deep sedation-anesthesia states goes beyond the topic of cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events, and targets the cognitive consequences and global increased mortality of uncontrolled sedation states, especially in specific fragile populations. We consider that strong recomendations for sedative techniques in endoscopic procedures should be made in Spain taking in consideration to two basic principles: 1) according to published evidence concerning patient safety, deep sedation must be an unequivocal responsibility of the anesthesiologist, and 2) we must define which patients are candidates for deep sedation during endoscopic procedures, as this will help to regulate patient flow in clinics and to reduce adverse effects associated with overtreatment of patients.

Monitored anesthesia care in and outside the operating room

Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is an anesthesia technique combining local anesthesia with parenteral drugs for sedation and analgesia. The use of MAC is increasing for a variety of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in and outside of the operating room due to the rapid postoperative recovery with the use of relatively small amounts of sedatives and analgesics compared to general anesthesia. The purposes of MAC are providing patients with safe sedation, comfort, pain control and satisfaction. Preoperative evaluation for patients with MAC is similar to those of general or regional anesthesia in that patients should be comprehensively assessed. Additionally, patient cooperation with comprehension of the procedure is an essential component during MAC. In addition to local anesthesia by operators or anesthesiologists, systemic sedatives and analgesics are administered to provide patients with comfort during procedures performed with MAC. The discretion and judgment of an experienced anesthesiologist are required for the safety and efficacy profiles because the airway of the patients is not secured. The infusion of sedatives and analgesics should be individualized during MAC. Many procedures in and outside of the operating room, including eye surgery, otolaryngologic surgery, cardiovascular procedures, pain procedures, and endoscopy are performed with MAC to increase patient and operator satisfaction.

A Response Surface Model Exploration of Dosing Strategies in Gastrointestinal Endoscopies Using Midazolam and Opioids

Classical midazolam-opioid combination for gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation has been adopted for decades. Dosing regimens have been studied but most require fixed dosing intervals. We intend to use a sophisticated pharmacodynamic tool, response surface model (RSM), to simulate sedation using different regimens. RSM can predict patient's response during different phases of the examination and predict patient's wake-up time with precision and without the need for fixed dosing intervals. We believe it will aid physicians in guiding their dosing strategy and timing.The study is divided into 2 parts. The first part is the full Greco RSMs development for 3 distinct phases: esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, and intersession (the time lapse between procedures). Observer's Assessment of Alertness Score (OAA/S) is used to assess patient response. The second part simulates 6 regimens with different characteristics using the RSMs: midazolam only, balanced midazolam and opioids, high-dose opioids and midazolam, low-dose midazolam with high-dose opioids, high-dose midazolam and low-dose opioids, and finally midazolam with continuous opioid infusion. Loss of response at 95% probability for adequate anesthesia during examination and return of consciousness at 50% probability during intersession was selected for simulation purposes.The average age of the patient population is 49.3 years. Mean BMI is 21.9 ± 2.3 kg/m. About 56.7% were females and none received prior abdominal surgery. The cecal intubation rate was 100%. Only 1 patient (3%) developed temporary hypoxemia, which was promptly managed with simple measures. The RSMs for each phase showed significant synergy between midazolam and alfentanil. The balanced midazolam and alfentanil combination provided adequate anesthesia and most rapid return of consciousness. The awakening time from the final drug bolus was 7.4 minutes during EGD and colonoscopy stimulation, and 9.1 minutes during EGD simulation.Simulation of regimens with different characteristics gives insights on dosing strategies. A balanced midazolam-alfentanil regimen is adequate in providing good anesthetic depth and most rapid return of consciousness. We believe with the aid of our RSM, clinicians can perform sedation with more flexibility and precision.

Clinical analysis of moderate-to-deep-sedation by nonmedical sedation practitioners in 597 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether moderate-to-deep sedation with propofol and alfentanil can be administered safely by nonmedical sedation practitioners, and the outcomes of this practice in the Netherlands. We retrospectively analyzed the occurrence of sedation-related complications in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this study, 597 adult patients consecutively underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. The health status of the patients was screened according to a standardized protocol, and the patients were sedated by trained nonmedical sedation practitioners. Their vital signs were continuously monitored and recorded. All patients received oxygen, and the depth of sedation was continuously assessed and recorded. Mild and severe complications were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

All patients recovered uneventfully, and no mortality occurred. Overall, of the 597 sedated patients, 85 had mild and 4 had severe complications. Hypoxemia and upper airway obstruction, which were easily managed by trained nonmedical sedation practitioners, were the most common events. Hypotension was rare. No signs or symptoms suggestive of aspiration were reported.

CONCLUSION

Moderate-to-deep sedation has been and continues to be a risky medical procedure. Serious complications of propofol/opioid-based sedation, especially respiratory and cardiovascular adverse events, may occur. These complications need to be recognized rapidly and appropriately managed. Our study shows that well-trained nonmedical sedation practitioners can be entrusted to take responsibility for the safe administration of moderate-to-deep sedation.

Sedation for endoscopy in 2016 - Is endoscopist-guided sedation safe in complex situations?

The higher number of adverse events reported with anesthetist-delivered sedation are likely due to the fact that anethesia professionals induce deeper sedation as compared to sedation delivered by endoscopists. The former are trained to induce general anesthesia in their daily practice, where protective reflexes are more commonly depressed and the risk for undesired cardiopulmonary events is higher.

Association between Type of Sedation and the Adverse Events Associated with Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: An Analysis of 5 Years' Data from a Tertiary Center in the USA

Background/Aims

The landscape of sedation for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures and the nature of the procedures themselves have changed over the last decade. In this study, an attempt is made to analyze the frequency and etiology of all major adverse events associated with GI endoscopy.

Methods

All adverse events extracted from the electronic database and local registry were analyzed. Although the data analysis was retrospective, the adverse events themselves were documented prospectively. These events were evaluated after subdivision into propofol-based anesthesia and intravenous conscious sedation groups.

Results

Cardiorespiratory events, including cardiac arrest, were the most common adverse events during esophagogastroduodenoscopy, while bleeding was more frequent in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Pancreatitis was the most frequent adverse event in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The frequencies of most adverse events were significantly higher in patients anesthetized with propofol. Automatic regression modeling showed that the type of sedation, the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, and the procedure type were some of the predictors of immediate life-threatening complications.

Conclusions

Clearly, our regression modeling suggests a strong association between the type of sedation as well as various patient factors and the frequency of adverse events. The possible reasons for our results are the changing demographics, the worsening comorbidities of the patient population, and the increasing technical complexity of these procedures. Although extensive use of propofol has increased patient satisfaction and procedure acceptability, its use is also associated with more frequent adverse events.

Clinical outcomes of cardiac arrest patients according to opioid use history

PURPOSE

Opioid analgesics are potent respiratory depressants. The purpose of this study was to describe the effects of opioids administered within 24hours before cardiac arrest on clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected the cardiac arrest data of noncancer patients who were admitted to the general ward of Asan Medical Center from January 2008 to August 2012. We investigated the proportion of these patients who received opioids within 24hours of a cardiac arrest event, as well as the cardiac arrest characteristics, survival rates, and opioid administration patterns.

RESULTS

Of the 193 patients identified, 58 (30%) had been administered opioids within the previous 24hours (the opioid group), whereas the remaining 135 (70%) had not been administered opioids (the nonopioid group). The survival rate did not differ significantly between these 2 groups. In the opioid group, as-needed opioid administration was associated with a lower 24-hour survival rate than regular opioid administration (9 [33.3%] of 27 patients vs 20 [64.5%] of 31 patients; P=.030). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, as-needed opioid administration was negatively associated with 24-hour survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid administration within 24hours before cardiac arrest per se was not associated with adverse outcomes. However, administration of opioid analgesics on an as-needed basis was associated with poorer survival outcomes than regular dosing. Greater attention should be paid to patients who receive as-needed opioid administration in the general ward.

Colonoscopy sedation: clinical trial comparing propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam

Colonoscopy is one of the most common procedures. Sedation and analgesia decrease anxiety and discomfort and minimize risks. Therefore, patients prefer to be sedated when undergoing examination, although the best combination of drugs has not been determined. The combination of opioids and benzodiazepines is used to relieve the patient's pain and discomfort. More recently, propofol has assumed a prominent position. This randomized prospective study is unique in medical literature that specifically compared the use of propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam for colonoscopy sedation performed by anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the side effects of sedation, discharge conditions, quality of sedation, and propofol consumption during colonoscopy, with or without midazolam as preanesthetic. The study involved 140 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the University Hospital of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I received intravenous midazolam as preanesthetic 5min before sedation, followed by fentanyl and propofol; Group II received intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol. Patients in Group II had a higher incidence of reaction (motor or verbal) to the colonoscope introduction, bradycardia, hypotension, and increased propofol consumption. Patient satisfaction was higher in Group I. According to the methodology used, the combination of midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy sedation reduces propofol consumption and provides greater patient satisfaction.

Safety of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy With Conscious Sedation in Patients With and Without Obstructive Sleep Apnea

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) undergoing endoscopy with sedation are considered by practitioners to be at a higher risk for cardiopulmonary complications. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety of conscious sedation in patients with OSA undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is an IRB-approved prospective cohort study performed at the James A. Haley VA. A total of 248 patients with confirmed moderate or severe OSA by polysomnography and 252 patients without OSA were enrolled. Cardiopulmonary variables such as heart rate, blood pressure, and level of blood oxygen saturation were recorded at 3-minute intervals throughout the endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

In total, 302 colonoscopies, 119 esophagogastroduodenoscopies, 6 flexible sigmoidoscopies, and 60 esophagogastroduodenoscopy/colonoscopies were performed. None of the patients in the study required endotracheal intubation, pharmacologic reversal, or experienced an adverse outcome as a result of changes in blood pressure, heart rate, or blood oxygen saturation. There were no significant differences in the rate of tachycardia (P=0.749), bradycardia (P=0.438), hypotension (systolic/diastolic, P=0.460; mean arterial pressure, P=0.571), or hypoxia (P=0.787) between groups. The average length of time spent in each procedure and the average dose of sedation administered also did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the presumed increased risk of cardiopulmonary complications, patients with OSA who undergo endoscopy with conscious sedation have clinically insignificant variations in cardiopulmonary parameters that do not differ from those without OSA. Costly preventative measures in patients with OSA are not warranted.

Safety of Digestive Endoscopy following Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Background. The safety of endoscopy after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is poorly characterized. We thus performed a systematic review assessing the safety of endoscopy following ACS. Methods. Searches in EMBASE, Medline, and Web of Science identified articles for inclusion. Data abstraction was completed by two independent reviewers. Results. Fourteen retrospective studies yielded 1178 patients (mean 71.3 years, 59.0% male) having suffered an ACS before endoscopy. Patients underwent 1188 endoscopies primarily to investigate suspected gastrointestinal bleeding (81.2%). Overall, 810 EGDs (68.2%), 191 colonoscopies (16.1%), 100 sigmoidoscopies (8.4%), 64 PEGs (5.4%), and 22 ERCPs (1.9%) were performed 9.0 ± 5.2 days after ACS, showing principally ulcer disease (25.1%; 95% CI 22.2-28.3%) and normal findings (22.9%; 95% CI 20.1-26.0%). Overall, 108 peri- and postprocedural complications occurred (9.1%; 95% CI 7.6-10.9%), with hypotension (24.1%; 95% CI 17.0-32.9%), arrhythmias (8.1%; 95% CI 4.5-18.1%), and repeat ACS (6.5%; 95% CI 3.1-12.8%) as the most frequent. All-cause mortality was 8.1% (95% CI 6.3-10.4%), with 4 deaths attributed to endoscopy (<24 hours after ACS, 3.7% of all complications; 95% CI 1.5-9.1%). Conclusion. A significant proportion of possibly endoscopy-related negative outcomes occur following ACS. Further studies are required to better characterize indications, patient selection, and appropriate timing of endoscopy in this cohort.

Intraperitoneal co-administration of low dose urethane with xylazine and ketamine for extended duration of surgical anesthesia in rats

Procedures involving complex surgical techniques in rats, such as placement of abdominal aortic graft require extended duration of surgical anesthesia, which often can be achieved by repeated administrations of xylazine-ketamine combination. However such repeated anesthetic administration, in addition to being technically challenging, may be associated with potential adverse events due to cumulative effects of anesthesia. We report here the feasibility of using urethane at low dose (~1/10 the recommended anesthetic dose) in combination with a xylazine-ketamine mix to achieve an extended duration of surgical anesthesia in rats. The anesthesia induction phase was quick and smooth with an optimal phase of surgical anesthesia achieved for up to 90 minutes, which was significantly higher compared to that achieved with use of only xylazine-ketamine combination. The rectal temperature, heart rate and respiratory rate were within the physiological range with an uneventful recovery phase. Post surgery the rats were followed up to 3 months without any evidence of tumor or any other adverse effects related to the use of the urethane anesthetic combination. We conclude that low dose urethane can be effectively used in combination with xylazine and ketamine to achieve extended duration of surgical anesthesia up to 90 minutes in rats.

Unsedation colonoscopy can be not that painful: Evaluation of the effect of "Lamaze method of colonoscopy"

AIM

To evaluate the pain relieving effect of intervention with "Lamaze method of colonoscopy" in the process of colonoscopy.

METHODS

Five hundred and eighty-five patients underwent colonoscopy were randomly divided into three groups, Lamaze group, anesthetic group and control group. Two hundred and twenty-four patients of Lamaze group, the "Lamaze method of colonoscopy" were practiced in the process of colonoscopy. The Lamaze method of colonoscopy is modified from the Lamaze method of childbirth, which helped patients to relieve pain through effective breathing control. One hundred and seventy-eight patients in anesthetic group accepted sedation colonoscopy. For 183 patients in control group, colonoscopy was performed without any intervention. The satisfactory of colon cleaning, intestinal lesions, intubation time, success ratio, pain grading and complications were recorded. All data were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences at base line of the three groups (P > 0.05). Anesthetic group shows advantage in intubation time than the other two groups (P < 0.05). Lamaze group shows no advantage in intubation time than that in control group (P > 0.05). The anesthetic group showed an apparent advantage in relieving pain (P < 0.01). Therefore, the "Lamaze method of colonoscopy" performed in colonoscopy could relieve pain effectively comparing with control group (P < 0.05). The patients in anesthetic group had the highest incidence of complications (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The performance of the "Lamaze method of colonoscopy" in the process of colonoscopy could relieve patients' pain, minimize the incidence of complications, and is worthy promotion in clinical practice.

Prevalence and Predictors of Adverse Events during Procedural Sedation Anesthesia-Outside the Operating Room for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and Colonoscopy in Children: Age Is an Independent Predictor of Outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Procedural sedation/anesthesia outside the operating room for a variety of procedures is well described with an overall low adverse event rate in certain settings. Adverse event associated with procedural sedation/anesthesia outside the operating room for gastrointestinal procedures have been described, albeit in small, single-center studies with wide variance in outcomes. Predictors of such outcomes are unclear. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of adverse event in children undergoing procedural sedation/anesthesia outside the operating room for esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, or both to identify predictors of adverse event.

DESIGN/SETTING/PATIENTS

Retrospective analysis of Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database, a large data repository of pediatric patients aged 21 years old or younger undergoing procedural sedation/anesthesia outside the operating room during September 2007 to November 2011. Twenty-two of the 40 centers provided data pertaining to the procedure of interest.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Primary outcome variable is any adverse event. Independent variables include: age (five groups), sex, American Societyof Anaesthesiologists status, procedure (esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, or both), provider responsible, medication used, location, and presence of coexisting medical conditions. Descriptive statistics used to summarize the data. Using multivariablelogistic regression model, odds ratio, 95% CI) were computed. A total of 12,030 procedures were performed (esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 7,970; colonoscopy, 1,378; and both, 2,682). A total of 96.9% of patients received propofol. Eighty-three percent were performed in a sedation unit. Prevalence of adverse event was 4.8%. The most common adverse event were persistent desaturations (1.5%), airway obstruction (1%), cough (0.9%), and laryngospasm (0.6%). No deaths or CPR occurred. Infants and children aged 5 years old or younger had a higher adverse event rate than older children (15.8%, 7.8% vs 4%). Regression analysis revealed age 5 years old or younger, American Society of Anaesthesiologists greater than or equal to 2, esophagogastroduodenoscopy ± colonoscopy, and coexisting medical conditions of obesity and lower airway disease were independent predictors of higher adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall prevalence of any adverse event was 4.8%. Independent predictors of adverse events in procedural sedation/anesthesia outside the operating room in pediatric esophagogastroduodenoscopy/colonoscopy onoscopy were identified. Recognition of such risk factors may enable optimization of procedural sedation.

Safety of gastroenterologist-guided sedation with propofol for upper gastrointestinal therapeutic endoscopy in elderly patients compared with younger patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Propofol sedation for elderly patients during time-consuming endoscopic procedures is controversial. Therefore, we investigated the safety of using propofol in elderly patients during upper gastrointestinal therapeutic endoscopy.

METHODS

The medical records of 160 patients who underwent therapeutic endoscopic procedures under gastroenterologist-guided propofol sedation at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. The subjects were divided into two groups a younger group, patients <75 years old; and an elderly group, patients ≥75 years old. The two groups were compared with respect to the therapeutic regimen, circulatory dynamics, and presence/absence of discontinuation of propofol treatment.

RESULTS

Although the number of patients with liver dysfunction was higher in the elderly group, there were no other significant differences in the baseline characteristics, including the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, between the elderly and younger groups. The average maintenance rate of continuous propofol infusion was lower in the elderly patients. No statistically significant differences were found in the occurrence of adverse events between the elderly and younger groups. None of the patients returned to a re-sedated state after the initial recovery from sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroenterologist-guided propofol sedation in elderly patients can be safely achieved in the same manner as that in younger patients, even for time-consuming upper gastrointestinal therapeutic endoscopic procedures.

Review on sedation for gastrointestinal tract endoscopy in children by non-anesthesiologists

AIM

To present evidence and formulate recommendations for sedation in pediatric gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy by non-anesthesiologists.

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE, Cochrane and EMBASE were searched for the following keywords "endoscopy, GI", "endoscopy, digestive system" AND "sedation", "conscious sedation", "moderate sedation", "deep sedation" and "hypnotics and sedatives" for publications in English restricted to the pediatric age. We searched additional information published between January 2011 and January 2014. Searches for (upper) GI endoscopy sedation in pediatrics and sedation guidelines by non-anesthesiologists for the adult population were performed.

RESULTS

From the available studies three sedation protocols are highlighted. Propofol, which seems to offer the best balance between efficacy and safety is rarely used by non-anesthesiologists mainly because of legal restrictions. Ketamine and a combination of a benzodiazepine and an opioid are more frequently used. Data regarding other sedatives, anesthetics and adjuvant medications used for pediatric GI endoscopy are also presented.

CONCLUSION

General anesthesia by a multidisciplinary team led by an anesthesiologist is preferred. The creation of sedation teams led by non-anesthesiologists and a careful selection of anesthetic drugs may offer an alternative, but should be in line with national legislation and institutional regulations.

Patient willingness for repeat screening and preference for CT colonography and optical colonoscopy in ACRIN 6664: the National CT Colonography trial

BACKGROUND

Current American Cancer Society recommendations for colon cancer screening include optical colonoscopy every 10 years or computed tomography colonography (CTC) every 5 years. Bowel preparation (BP) is currently required for both screening modalities.

PURPOSE

To compare ACRIN 6664: the National CT Colonography Trial (NCTCT) participant experiences with CTC and optical colonoscopy (OC), procedure preference, and willingness to return for each procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants from fifteen NCTCT sites, who underwent CTC followed by OC under sedation, were invited to complete questionnaires 2 weeks postexam, asking about procedure preference, physical discomfort, and embarrassment experienced and whether that discomfort and embarrassment was better or worse than expected during BP, CTC, and OC, as well as willingness to return for repeat CTC and OC at different time intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 2,310 of 2,600 patients (89%) returned their questionnaires. Of patients reporting a preference, 1,058 (46.6%) preferred CTC, 569 (25.0%) preferred OC, and 626 (27.6%) reported no preference. Participant-reported discomfort worse than expected differed significantly between CTC (32.9%) and OC (5.0%) (P<0.001). About 79.3% were willing to be screened again with CTC in 5 years, and 96.6% with OC in 10 years. Discomfort and embarrassment worse than expected with OC were associated with increased intention to adhere with CTC in the future. Conversely, embarrassment experienced during CTC and discomfort worse than expected on CTC were associated with increased intention to adhere with OC in the future.

CONCLUSION

While a larger proportion of participants indicated that they preferred CTC to OC, willingness to undergo repeat CTC compared to OC was limited by unanticipated exam discomfort and embarrassment and CTC's shorter screening interval.

The impact of anesthesia providers on major morbidity following screening colonoscopies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Few studies evaluate the impact of anesthesia providers during procedures, such as colonoscopy, on low-risk patients. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of anesthesia providers on several outcome variables, including major morbidity, following screening colonoscopies.

METHODS

A propensity-matched cohort study of 14,006 patients who enrolled with a national insurer offering health maintenance organization (HMO), preferred provider organization (PPO), and Medicare Advantage plans for a screening colonoscopy between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2007 were studied. Records were evaluated for completion of the colonoscopy, new cancer diagnosis (colon, anal, rectal) within 6 months of the colonoscopy, new primary diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI), new primary diagnosis of stroke, hospital admission within 7 days of the colonoscopy, and adherence to guidelines for use of anesthesia providers.

RESULTS

The presence of an anesthesia provider did not affect major morbidity or the percent of completed exams. Overall morbidity within 7 days was very low. When an anesthesia provider was present, a nonsignificant trend toward greater cancer detection within 6 months of the procedure was observed. Adherence to national guidelines regarding the use of anesthesia providers for low-risk patients was poor.

CONCLUSION

A difference in outcome associated with the presence or absence of an anesthesia provider during screening colonoscopy in terms of MI, stroke, or hospital admission within 7 days of the procedure was not observed. Adherence to published guidelines for the use of anesthesia providers is low. The incidence of completed exams was unaffected by the presence of an anesthesia provider. However, a nonstatistically significant trend toward increased cancer detection requires further study.

[Colonoscopy sedation: clinical trial comparing propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam]

Colonoscopy is one of the most common procedures. Sedation and analgesia decrease anxiety and discomfort and minimize risks. Therefore, patients prefer to be sedated when undergoing examination, although the best combination of drugs has not been determined. The combination of opioids and benzodiazepines is used to relieve the patient's pain and discomfort. More recently, propofol has assumed a prominent position. This randomized prospective study is unique in medical literature that specifically compared the use of propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam for colonoscopy sedation performed by anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the side effects of sedation, discharge conditions, quality of sedation, and propofol consumption during colonoscopy, with or without midazolam as preanesthetic. The study involved 140 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the University Hospital of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I received intravenous midazolam as preanesthetic five minutes before sedation, followed by fentanyl and propofol; Group II received intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol. Patients in Group II had a higher incidence of reaction (motor or verbal) to the colonoscope introduction, bradycardia, hypotension, and increased propofol consumption. Patient satisfaction was higher in Group I. According to the methodology used, the combination of midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy sedation reduces propofol consumption and provides greater patient satisfaction.

[Characteristics of deep sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed by intensivists]

OBJECTIVE

To determine tolerance, pain intensity, percentage of tests completed successfully and complications of deep sedation controlled by intensivists during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

DESIGN

A one-year, prospective observational study was carried out.

SETTING

Department of Intensive Care intervention in the Endoscopy Unit of Hospital Universitario del Tajo (Spain).

PATIENTS

Subjects over 15 years of age subjected to endoscopic procedures under deep sedation.

RESULTS

A total of 868 patients were sedated during the study period, with the conduction of 1010 endoscopic procedures. The degree of tolerance was considered adequate («Very good»/«Good») in 96.9% of the patients (95%CI: 95.7-98.1%), with a median score of 0 on the pain visual analog scale. A total of 988 endoscopic procedures were successfully completed (97.8%; 95%CI: 96.9-98.8%): 675 colonoscopies (97.1%) and 305 endoscopies (99.7%). Complications were recorded in 106 patients (12.2%; 95%CI: 10.0-14.5%). The most frequent being desaturation (6.1%), rhythm disturbances (5.1%) and hypotension (2.4%).

CONCLUSION

Gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures under sedation controlled by intensivists are well tolerated and satisfactory for the patient, and are successfully completed in a very large percentage of cases. The procedures are associated with frequent minor complications that are resolved successfully.

The safety of nurse-administered procedural sedation compared to anesthesia care in a historical cohort of advanced endoscopy patients

BACKGROUND

In April 2010, in response to a change in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regulation placing deep sedation under hospital anesthesia services, our institution began providing anesthesia care for all advanced endoscopic procedures. Because it remains unknown whether anesthesia care reduces sedation-related complications or improves quality of care versus nurse-administered sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound patients, we retrospectively compared complications in a 5-year historical cohort before and after the policy change.

METHODS

We reviewed a historical cohort of 9598 consecutive endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound examinations for adult patients at a single institution during a 5-year period (October 2007-October 2012). We compared procedures performed before and after the policy change for the incidence of sedation, endoscopic, and total complications, and for major morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

The incidence of reported sedation-related complications was 0.38% (17 of 4514) before the policy change and 0.08% (4 of 5084) after the policy change, which was statistically significant (P = 0.002, diff = 0.3, 95% confidence interval, 0.11%-0.53%). Endoscopic complications were not significantly different before versus after: 0.66% vs 0.87% (P = 0.293, diff = 0.2, 95% confidence interval, -0.16% to 0.56%). Total complications (1.11% vs 1.00%, P = 0.618) and major morbidity and mortality (0.27% vs 0.33%, P = 0.581) did not differ between the 2 time periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesia care for advanced endoscopy in a high-risk population significantly reduced sedation complications compared with nurse-administered sedation. Endoscopic complications were unchanged. The sedation risk reduction did not reduce major morbidity, mortality, or total complications.

Conscious sedation for upper endoscopy in the gastric bypass patient: prevalence of cardiopulmonary adverse events and predictors of sedation requirement

BACKGROUND

Safety of conscious sedation for performing esophagoduodenoscopy (EGD) in obese and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) patients remains controversial. Additionally, it has been suggested that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) require higher sedation doses, imparting greater risk.

AIM

The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of sedation-related adverse events and the independent predictors of sedation requirements in RYGB patients.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective database review of RYGB patients who underwent EGD under conscious sedation. Database analysis was performed and linear regression applied to identify significant predictors of sedation requirement. Primary outcomes are sedation-related adverse events and predictors of sedation requirement.

RESULTS

Data on 1,385 consecutive procedures (diagnostic 967; therapeutic 418) performed under conscious sedation were analyzed. Unplanned events were reported in 1.6 %, with 0.6 % being cardiopulmonary in nature and 0.7 % requiring early termination. Multivariable linear regression revealed procedural time was the only significant predictor of fentanyl (standardized β 0.34; P value < 0.001) and midazolam (standardized β 0.30; P value < 0.001) doses. Post-RYGB BMI was not significantly associated with the dose of fentanyl (standardized β 0.08; P value 0.29) or midazolam administered (standardized β 0.01; P value 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

Upper endoscopy can be safely performed in RYGB patients under conscious sedation with a similar cardiopulmonary risk profile to that of standard EGD. The non-cardiopulmonary adverse events were procedure-specific and unrelated to sedation. Procedure length, and not absolute BMI, was the only predictor of sedation requirement in this patient population.

Monitored anesthesia care without endotracheal intubation is safe and efficacious for single-balloon enteroscopy

BACKGROUND

General endotracheal (GET) anesthesia is often used during single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE). However, there is currently limited data regarding monitored anesthesia care (MAC) without endotracheal intubation for this procedure.

AIMS

The aim of the study was to determine the safety and efficacy of MAC sedation during SBE and to identify risk factors for adverse events.

METHODS

All patients who underwent SBE and SBE-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography between June 2011 and July 2013 at a tertiary-care referral center were studied in a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. Patients received MAC anesthesia or GET. The main outcome measurements were sedation-related adverse events, diagnostic yield, and therapeutic yield.

RESULTS

Of the 178 cases in the study, 166 cases (93 %) were performed with MAC and 12 (7 %) with GET. Intra-procedure sedation-related adverse events occurred in 17 % of cases. The most frequent event was transient hypotension requiring pharmacologic intervention in 11.8 % of procedures. In MAC cases, the diagnostic yield was 58.4 % and the therapeutic yield was 30.1 %. Anesthesia duration was strongly associated with the occurrence of a sedation-related adverse event (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

MAC is a safe and efficacious sedation approach for most patients undergoing SBE. Sedation-related complications in SBE are uncommon, but are more frequent in longer procedures.