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

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 In an effort to include unpublished data, abstracts from prior gastroenterological society meetings as well as other reference sources were interrogated.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.

High-Risk Residual Gastric Content in Fasted Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Prospective Cohort Study of Prevalence and Predictors

In this prospective cohort study, we examined the residual gastric contents of 255 fasted patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. The volume and pH of residual gastric contents collected by suction under direct visualisation during gastroscopy were accurately quantified. All patients completed the minimum two-hour fast for clear fluids and 97.2% of patients completed the minimum six-hour fast for solids. High-risk residual gastric content, defined as volume >25 ml and pH <2.5, was present in 12.2% (95% CI 8.7% to 16.7%) of patients. We used multiple logistic regression analysis to identify demographic and clinical factors associated with high-risk residual gastric content. The odds of having high-risk residual gastric content were reduced with increase in age (adjusted odds ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.96, P=0.0230), and use of a proton pump inhibitor or histamine type 2 receptor antagonist (adjusted odds ratio 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.55, P=0.0013), and were increased in male patients (adjusted odds ratio 2.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.28, P=0.0348). Notably, residual gastric content was classified as high-risk in 20.4% of patients who did not take a proton pump inhibitor or histamine type 2 receptor antagonist versus only 5.6% of those who did. Our findings suggest that, despite currently recommended fasting, males presenting for endoscopy are more likely to have high-risk gastric content than females, and that the incidence appears to be reduced with increasing age, and by the use of proton pump inhibitors or histamine type 2 receptor antagonists, we were unable to confirm or exclude an effect of body mass index, peptic pathology, diabetes or other clinical or demographic factors in our study population.

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.

The hemodynamic effect of an intravenous antispasmodic on propofol requirements during colonoscopy: A randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

Hemodynamic status during induction of anesthesia may modify the amount of propofol needed to induce loss of consciousness (LOC). This study was aimed to evaluate the effect of antispasmodic-induced tachycardia on the concentration of propofol at the effect-site for inducing LOC when deep sedation was executed for colonoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred and sixteen adult patients were randomly assigned to receive either 20 mg of the antispasmodic Buscopan intravenously (Buscopan group; n = 58) or normal saline (control group; n = 58) for colonoscopy. After administration of Buscopan, the antispasmodic or normal saline, propofol was given by means of target-controlled infusion to induce LOC. We recorded patient characteristics, hemodynamic profiles, effect-site propofol concentration upon LOC, total propofol dosage for colonoscopy, and colonoscopy outcomes.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the characteristics between the two groups. Although the patients receiving Buscopan had a higher heart rate than those of the control group (101 ± 15 beats/minute vs. 77 ± 13 beats/minute; p < 0.001), we found no significant difference between two groups in the effect-site propofol concentration for inducing LOC (3.9 ± 0.6 μg/mL vs. 3.8 ± 0.6 μg/mL; p = 0.261) nor total propofol dosage required for colonoscopy (3.2 ± 1.4 mg/kg vs. 3.1 ± 1.1 mg/kg; p = 0.698). Both groups had comparable colonoscopy outcomes, including percentage of patients completing the procedure and total procedure time.

CONCLUSION

The hemodynamic responses to intravenous Buscopan neither affected the effect-site propofol concentration needed to induce LOC, nor the total propofol dosage required for colonoscopy in this study. There is no need to modify the dosage of propofol in patients subject to Buscopan premedication in colonoscopy.

Modifications in endoscopic practice for pediatric patients

We recommend that endoscopy in children be performed by pediatric-trained endoscopists whenever possible. We recommend that adult-trained endoscopists coordinate their services with pediatricians and pediatric specialists when they are needed to perform endoscopic procedures in children. We recommend that endoscopy be performed within 24 hours in symptomatic pediatric patients with known or suspected ingestion of caustic substances. We recommend emergent foreign-body removal of esophageal button batteries, as well as 2 or more rare-earth neodymium magnets. We recommend that procedural and resuscitative equipment appropriate for pediatric use should be readily available during endoscopic procedures. We recommend that personnel trained specifically in pediatric life support and airway management be readily available during sedated procedures in children. We recommend the use of endoscopes smaller than 6 mm in diameter in infants and children weighing less than 10 kg. We recommend the use of standard adult duodenoscopes for performing ERCP in children who weigh at least 10 kg. We recommend the placement of 12F or 16F percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in children who weigh less than 50 kg.

Anaesthetic considerations for endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography procedures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current literature on the use of general anaesthesia and propofol deep sedation for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) procedures. Propofol is primarily an anaesthetic agent, but its use in a sedative capacity has resulted in the extensive off-label administration of this drug by gastroenterologists and other nonanaesthesia personnel. This has created controversy and enabled the gastroenterology community to gather evidence and campaign for US Food and Drug Administration approval to administer propofol to patients undergoing ERCP and other endoscopic procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

General anaesthesia appears to be a well tolerated technique for patients undergoing ERCP procedures, although there is a scarcity of publications in this field. The available evidence from prospective and retrospective cohort studies suggests a low incidence of serious outcomes (from sedation-related incidents) in patients undergoing ERCP procedures under propofol deep sedation. However, data from the American Society of Anesthesiologists closed claims analysis report suggests that endoscopy procedures performed under monitored anaesthetic care using propofol as a sedative agent can result in serious patient harm.

SUMMARY

Deep sedation with propofol, administered by anaesthesia personnel, can be used as an alternative to general anaesthesia for a select group of patients undergoing ERCP procedures. Further research is necessary to clarify the nature and parameters of deep sedation.

Adverse events related to gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in pediatric patients under anesthesia care and a predictive risk model (AEGEP Study)

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have analyzed perioperative factors related to adverse events (AEs) in children who require gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (GEP) in settings where deep sedation is the preferred anesthetic technique over general anesthesia (GA) but not for the opposite case.

METHODS

We reviewed our anesthesia institutional database, seeking children less than 12 years who underwent GEP over a 5-year period. A logistic regression was used to determine significant associations between preoperative conditions, characteristics of the procedure, airway management, anesthetic approaches and the presence of serious and non-serious AEs.

RESULTS

GA was preferred over deep sedation [77.8% vs. 22.2% in 2178 GEP under anesthesia care (n=1742)]. We found 96 AEs reported in 77 patients, including hypoxemia (1.82%), bronchospasm (1.14%) and laryngospasm (0.91%) as the most frequent. There were 2 cases of severe bradycardia related to laryngospasm/hypoxemia and a case of aspiration resulting in unplanned hospitalization, but there were no cases of intra- or postoperative deaths. Final predictive model for perioperative AEs included age <1 year, upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) <1 week prior to the procedure and low weight for the age (LWA) as independent risk factors and ventilation by facial mask as a protector against these events (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

AEs are infrequent and severe ones are remote in a setting where AG is preferred over deep sedation. Ventilatory AEs are the most frequent and depend on biometrical and comorbid conditions more than anesthetic drugs chosen. Age <1 year, history of URTI in the week prior to the procedure and LWA work as independent risk factors for AEs in these patients.

Safety analysis of endoscopist-directed propofol sedation: a prospective, national multicenter study of 24 441 patients in German outpatient practices

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Since 2008, there exists a German S3-guideline allowing non-anesthesiological administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. In this prospective, national, multicenter study, we evaluated the safety of endoscopist-administered propofol sedation (EDP) in German outpatient practices of Gastroenterology.

METHODS

In this multicenter survey of 53 ambulatory practices of Gastroenterology, we prospectively evaluated 24 441 patients that had received EDP. We recorded adverse events during the endoscopic procedure and additionally retrieved questionnaires investigating subjective parameters 24 h after the endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

In 24 441 patients 13 793 colonoscopies, 6467 esophagogastroduodenoscopies, and 4181 double examinations were performed. In this study, 52.1% of the patients received propofol mono-sedation, and 47.9% received a combination of midazolam and propofol. Major adverse events occurred in four patients (0.016%) enrolled to this study (three mask ventilations and one laryngospasm). Minor adverse events were observed in 112 patients (0.46%) with hypoxemia being the most common minor event. All patients with adverse events recovered without persistent impairment. Minor adverse events occurred more frequently in patients sedated with propofol mono compared to propofol and midazolam (P < 0.0001) and correlated with increasing propofol dosages (P < 0.001; Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.044). Twenty-four hours after the endoscopy, patients sedated with propofol plus midazolam stated a significantly reduced sensation of pain (P < 0.01) and improved symptoms of dizziness, nausea and vomiting (P < 0.001) compared to patients having received propofol mono-sedation.

CONCLUSION

Four years after the implementation of a German S3-Guideline for endoscopic sedation, we demonstrated that EDP is a safe procedure.

Stepwise sedation for elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

AIM

To investigate stepwise sedation for elderly patients with mild/moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy.

METHODS

Eighty-six elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD and 82 elderly patients without COPD scheduled for upper GI endoscopy were randomly assigned to receive one of the following two sedation methods: stepwise sedation involving three-stage administration of propofol combined with midazolam [COPD with stepwise sedation (group Cs), and non-COPD with stepwise sedation (group Ns)] or continuous sedation involving continuous administration of propofol combined with midazolam [COPD with continuous sedation (group Cc), and non-COPD with continuous sedation (group Nc)]. Saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2), blood pressure, and pulse rate were monitored, and patient discomfort, adverse events, drugs dosage, and recovery time were recorded.

RESULTS

All endoscopies were completed successfully. The occurrences of hypoxemia in groups Cs, Cc, Ns, and Nc were 4 (9.3%), 12 (27.9%), 3 (7.3%), and 5 (12.2%), respectively. The occurrence of hypoxemia in group Cs was significantly lower than that in group Cc (P < 0.05). The average decreases in value of SpO2, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure in group Cs were significantly lower than those in group Cc. Additionally, propofol dosage and overall rate of adverse events in group Cs were lower than those in group Cc. Finally, the recovery time in group Cs was significantly shorter than that in group Cc, and that in group Ns was significantly shorter than that in group Nc (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The stepwise sedation method is effective and safer than the continuous sedation method for elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD during upper GI endoscopy.