Guidelines for the use of deep sedation and anesthesia for GI endoscopy

Intranasal dexmedetomidine in combination with patient-controlled sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Sedation using intranasal dexmedetomidine is a convenient and well-tolerated technique. This study evaluated the sedative efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine in combination with patient-controlled sedation (PCS) for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomised, controlled trial, 50 patients received either intranasal dexmedetomidine 1.5 μg/kg (dexmedetomidine group) or intranasal saline (placebo group) 1 h before the procedure. PCS with propofol and alfentanil was provided for rescue sedation. Additional sedative consumption, perioperative sedation scores using Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scale, recovery, vital signs, adverse events and patient satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

Total consumption of PCS propofol and alfentanil was significantly less in the dexmedetomidine than placebo group with a mean difference of -13.8 mg propofol (95% confidence interval -27.3 to -0.3) and -34.5 μg alfentanil (95% confidence interval -68.2 to -0.7) at the completion of the procedure (P = 0.044). Weighted areas under the curve (AUCw ) of OAA/S scores were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group before, during and after procedures (P < 0.001, P = 0.024 and P = 0.041 respectively). AUCw of heart rate and systolic blood pressure were also significantly lower during the procedure (P = 0.007 and P = 0.022 respectively) with dexmedetomidine. There was no difference in recovery, side effects or satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal dexmedetomidine with PCS propofol and alfentanil confers deeper perioperative clinical sedation with significantly less use of additional sedatives during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Utility of noninvasive ventilation in high-risk patients during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Background:

There is little evidence on noninvasive ventilation (NIV) preventing respiratory complications in high-risk patients undergoing endoscopy procedures.

Objectives:

The objective of this study is to demonstrate that the application of NIV through a nasal interface can prevent the appearance of ventilatory alterations during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with risk factors associated with the development of hypoventilation.

Patients and Methods:

A non-randomized interventional study was performed on 37 consecutive high-risk patients undergoing ERCP. During the procedure, 21 patients received oxygen by nasal cannula (3 L/minute) and sixteen received NIV through a nasal mask. Arterial blood gas analyses were conducted before and immediately after the ERCP. An Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) score pre-ERCP was recorded. The complications during the procedure were recorded.

Results:

The groups with and without NIV were comparable. A post-ERCP pH of <7.35 was found in eight patients, who did not receive ventilatory support (38.1%) compared to zero patients in the NIV group (P = 0.006). A post-ERCP pCO₂ >45 mmHg was found in one case (6.3%) in the NIV-group and in nine cases in the nasal cannula group (42.9%; P = 0.01). The median pCO₂ post-ERCP was lower (36.5 ± 6.2 vs. 44.5 ± 6.8 mmHg) (P = 0.001) and median pH post-ERCP was higher (7.41 ± 0.4 vs. 7.34 ± 0.5) (P = 0.001) in patients treated with NIV. In the multivariate analysis, after adjusting for gender, the APACHE score, pH and pCO₂ pre-ERCP, age, propofol doses, and procedure duration, the following differences were maintained (pCO₂ difference = 5.54, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) =2.3 – 8.7, pH difference = 0.047, and 95% CI = 0.013 – 0.081). Among the 37 procedures, four complications occurred: One in the NIV group and three in the nasal cannula group. None of them was related to NIV.

Conclusions:

Our preliminary results demonstrate that in high-risk patients undergoing ERCP, hypercapnia and respiratory acidosis are frequent. NIV prevents the appearance of these complications.

Evaluation of Pharyngeal Function between No Bolus and Bolus Propofol Induced Sedation for Advanced Upper Endoscopy

This study aimed to assess pharyngeal function between no bolus and bolus propofol induced sedation during gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection. A retrospective study was conducted involving consecutive gastric cancer patients. Patients in the no bolus group received a 3 mg/kg/h maintenance dose of propofol after the initiation of sedation without bolus injection. All patients in the bolus group received the same maintenance dose of propofol with bolus 0.5 mg/kg propofol injection. Pharyngeal functions were evaluated endoscopically for the first 5 min following the initial administration of propofol. Fourteen patients received no bolus propofol induction and 13 received bolus propofol induction. Motionless vocal cords were observed in 2 patients (14%) in the no bolus group and 3 (23%) in the bolus group. Trachea cartilage was not observed in the no bolus group but was apparent in 6 patients (46%) in the bolus group (P < 0.01). Scope stimulated pharyngeal reflex was observed in 11 patients (79%) in the no bolus group and in 3 (23%) in the bolus group (P < 0.01). Propofol induced sedation without bolus administration preserves pharyngeal function and may constitute a safer sedation method than with bolus.

Sedation-associated complications in endoscopy are not reduced significantly by implementation of the German S-3-guideline and occur in a severe manner only in patients with ASA class III and higher

INTRODUCTION

The German guideline for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy was published in 2008. Several recommendations in this guideline, especially concerning staffing and structural requirements for sedation, have low evidence and therefore are subject to discussion in the field.

AIM

Comparison of endoscopic complications in a department specialized for gastrointestinal and pulmological diseases before and after implementation of the German guideline grouped in sedation-associated and non-sedation-associated complications.

METHODS

Prospective documentation of complications with retrospective analysis of two patient groups (before guideline: 1.5.2008-30.4.2010; after guideline: 1.5.2010-30.4.2012) at which the sedation technique remained the same (balanced propofol sedation, BPS).

RESULTS

Both investigation periods covered almost 7000 procedures. Interventional and general complications were nonsignificantly elevated in the latter group (1.27% before vs. 1.55% after guideline, p = 0.08). Saturation decline (in both groups 0.26%) was unchanged, and circulation-associated complications (0.27% vs. 0.13%, p = 0.07) were reduced nonsignificantly. Necessity for the administration of flumazenil and for intensive care monitoring was reduced in a nonsignificant manner after the implementation of the guideline. Severe complications (reanimation, apnea, and death) were unchanged, and no patient with ASA I-II suffered from a severe complication. Propofol consumption was higher after guideline implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations of the new German sedation guideline do not significantly reduce complications in endoscopic procedures. Especially, procedures involving patients with ASA classes I and II do not require an additional staff member solely for sedation. Prospective randomized studies might be necessary to optimize the utilization of resources.

Deep sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens

AIM

To compare deep sedation with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

After obtaining approval of the research ethics committee and informed consent, 200 patients were evaluated and referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive propofol-fentanyl or midazolam-fentanyl (n = 100/group). We assessed the level of sedation using the observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score and bispectral index (BIS). We evaluated patient and physician satisfaction, as well as the recovery time and complication rates. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software and included the Mann-Whitney test, χ² test, measurement of analysis of variance, and the κ statistic.

RESULTS

The times to induction of sedation, recovery, and discharge were shorter in the propofol-fentanyl group than the midazolam-fentanyl group. According to the OAA/S score, deep sedation events occurred in 25% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 11% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.014). Additionally, deep sedation events occurred in 19% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 7% of the midazolam-fentanyl group according to the BIS scale (P = 0.039). There was good concordance between the OAA/S score and BIS for both groups (κ = 0.71 and κ = 0.63, respectively). Oxygen supplementation was required in 42% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 26% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.025). The mean time to recovery was 28.82 and 44.13 min in the propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl groups, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no severe complications in either group. Although patients were equally satisfied with both drug combinations, physicians were more satisfied with the propofol-fentanyl combination.

CONCLUSION

Deep sedation occurred with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl, but was more frequent in the former. Recovery was faster in the propofol-fentanyl group.

Sedation and monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy

The safe sedation of patients for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures requires a combination of properly trained physicians and suitable facilities. Additionally, appropriate selection and preparation of patients, suitable sedative technique, application of drugs, adequate monitoring, and proper recovery of patients is essential. The goal of procedural sedation is the safe and effective control of pain and anxiety as well as to provide an appropriate degree of memory loss or decreased awareness. Sedation practices for gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) vary widely. The majority of GIE patients are ambulatory cases. Most of this procedure requires a short time. So, short acting, rapid onset drugs with little adverse effects and improved safety profiles are commonly used. The present review focuses on commonly used regimens and monitoring practices in GIE sedation. This article is to discuss the decision making process used to determine appropriate pre-sedation assessment, monitoring, drug selection, dose of sedative agents, sedation endpoint and post-sedation care. It also reviews the current status of sedation and monitoring for GIE procedures in Thailand.

Regional variation in anesthesia assistance during outpatient colonoscopy is not associated with differences in polyp detection or complication rates

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We investigated the rate and predictors of anesthesia assistance during outpatient colonoscopy and whether anesthesia assistance is associated with colonoscopy interventions and outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using a 20% sample of Medicare administrative claims submitted during the 2003 calendar year. We analyzed data from 328,177 adults, 66 years old or older, who underwent outpatient colonoscopy examinations.

RESULTS

Overall, 8.7% of outpatient colonoscopies were performed with anesthesia assistance. In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of anesthesia assistance included black race, female sex, and a nonscreening indication; anesthesia assistance increased with median income and comorbidities. General and colorectal surgeons, fewer years in their practice, and nonhospital site of service were also significantly associated with anesthesia assistance. The strongest predictor of anesthesia assistance was the Medicare carrier, with odds ratios ranging from 0.22 (95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.43) for the Arkansas carrier (crude rate 0.9%) to 9.90 (95% confidence interval: 7.92-12.39) for the Empire carrier in New York area (crude rate 35.3%) compared with the Wisconsin carrier (crude rate 4.3%). There was also considerable variation among endoscopists; 75% of providers had no colonoscopies with anesthesia assistance recorded in their dataset, and 4.5% of providers had anesthesia assistance in at least three quarters of their examinations. Anesthesia assistance was not associated with the diagnosis of polyps, the performance of biopsy or polypectomy, or complications in multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant variations among regions and sites of service in anesthesia assistance during outpatient colonoscopies of Medicare beneficiaries. Although this variation has considerable economic implications, it was not associated with measures of patient risk or outcomes, such as polyp detection or procedure-related complications.

Administration of additional analgesics can decrease the incidence of paradoxical reactions in patients under benzodiazepine-induced sedation during endoscopic transpapillary procedures: prospective randomized controlled trial

AIM

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of giving pentazocine as an analgesic with benzodiazepine during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

The paradoxical reactions (PR) incidence was evaluated as an indicator of usefulness. Transcutaneous arterial carbon dioxide tension (PtcCO(2) ) was evaluated as an indicator of safety. A total of 160 patients were enrolled. Subjects were randomly divided into two groups; group 1 sedated with midazolam only and group 2 sedated both with midazolam and pentazocine (7.5 mg).

RESULTS

The initial dosage introduced sedation before procedure was significantly higher in group 1. The occurrence rate of PR's in group 1 was significantly higher compared to that in group 2 (P = 0.0108). Although maximum PtcCO(2) observed during sedation did not differ between the two groups (48.7 ± 7.2, 50.3 ± 7.6 mmHg, respectively),maximum PtcCO(2) during the first 15 min after the start of sedation was significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1 (P = 0.0294). In multivariate analysis, procedure duration (odds ratio [OR] = 1.048) and midazolam dose (OR = 1.221) were predictive factors for PR.

CONCLUSION

The administration of pentazocine is significantly reduced the incidence of PR's in patients under midazolam induced sedation during ERCP.

Difficult colonoscopies in the propofol era

BACKGROUND

To study the relationship between endoscopic practice and adverse events during colonoscopy under standard deep sedation induced and monitored by an anesthetist.

METHODS

We investigated the routine activity of an endoscopy center at the Padova University teaching hospital. We considered not only endoscopic and cardiorespiratory complications, but also the need to use high-dose propofol to complete the procedure, and the inability to complete the procedure. Variables relating to the patient's clinical conditions, bowel preparation, the endoscopist's and the anesthetist's experience, and the duration of the procedure were input in the model.

RESULTS

617 procedures under deep sedation were performed with a 5% rate of adverse events. The average dose of propofol used was 2.6 ± 1.2 mg/kg. In all, 14 endoscopists and 42 anesthetists were involved in the procedures. The logistic regression analysis identified female gender (OR=2.3), having the colonoscopy performed by a less experienced endoscopist (OR=1.9), inadequate bowel preparation (OR=3.2) and a procedure lasting longer than 17.5 minutes (OR=1.6) as the main risk factors for complications. An ASA score of 2 carried a 50% risk reduction (OR=0.5).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Our model showed that none of the variables relating to anesthesiological issues influenced which procedures would prove difficult.

STOP questionnaire to screen for hypoxemia in deep sedation for young and middle-aged colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hypoxemia is the most common unexpected cardiopulmonary complication that is used as a surrogate for severe complications in colonoscopy. The aim of the present study was to access the STOP Questionnaire to screen for hypoxemia in deep sedation for colonoscopy in young and middle-aged outpatients.

METHODS

Outpatients aged 18-65 with ASA class I or II who were to undergo elective colonoscopy with deep sedation were offered participation. Before sedation, the patients were given the STOP Questionnaire, a brief survey that stratifies patients into high or low risk of hypoxemia. Data on pulse oxygen saturation (SpO(2) ) were collected during sedation. Hypoxemia was defined as SpO(2)<95% anytime during the procedure, regardless of episode duration. We estimated the score of the STOP Questionnaire and the incidence of hypoxemia.

RESULTS

A total of 210 consecutive outpatients were offered enrollment. Thirteen (6.2%) patients had hypoxemia. Thirty-two (15.2%) patients were scored to be at high risk of hypoxemia, of whom 10 had hypoxemia. Results of analyzing the STOP Questionnaire for the incidence of hypoxemia were sensitivity 76.9%, specificity 88.8%, Youden's index 0.658, consistency rate 88%, kappa value 0.39, positive predictive value 31.3%, negative predictive value 98.3%, and area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve 0.935 (P<0.001, 95% CI 0.879-0.991).

CONCLUSIONS

STOP Questionnaire is a validated and easy-to-use screening tool for hypoxemia in outpatient colonoscopy. It has high sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value.

Diazepam during endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric epithelial neoplasias

AIM: To investigate risk factors and adverse events related to high-dose diazepam administration during endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasias.

METHODS: Between February 2002 and December 2009, a total of 286 patients with gastric epithelial neoplasia underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection in our hospital. To achieve moderate sedation, 5-7.5 mg of diazepam was administered intravenously by non-anesthesiologists. Intermittent additional administration of 2.5-5 mg diazepam was performed if uncontrollable body movement of the patient was observed. All patients were classified into groups based on the required diazepam dose: low-dose (≤ 17.5 mg, n = 252) and high-dose (> 17.5 mg, n = 79).

RESULTS: Differences between the low- and high-dose diazepam groups were observed in lifetime alcohol consumption (0.30 ± 0.48 vs 0.44 ± 0.52 tons, P = 0.032), body weight (58.4 ± 10.3 vs 62.0 ± 9.9 kg, P = 0.006), tumor size (15 ± 10 vs 23 ± 18 mm, P < 0.001), lesion location (P < 0.001) and the presence of ulcerative findings (14/238 vs 18/61, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified all five variables as independently related to required diazepam dosage. In terms of adverse reactions to diazepam administration, paradoxical excitement was significantly more frequent in the high-dose diazepam group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: Intermittent administration of diazepam enabled safe completion of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection except in patients who were alcohol abusers or obese, or who showed complicated lesions.

Age-dependent safety analysis of propofol-based deep sedation for ERCP and EUS procedures at an endoscopy training center in a developing country

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) procedures in elderly patients are on the rise, and they play an important role in the diagnosis and management of various gastrointestinal diseases. The use of deep sedation in these patients has been established as a safe and effective technique in Western countries; however, it is uncertain if the situation holds true among Asians. The present study aimed to evaluate the age-dependent safety analysis and clinical efficacy of propofol-based deep sedation (PBDS) for ERCP and EUS procedures in adult patients at a World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO) Endoscopy Training Center in Thailand.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective review of anesthesia or sedation service records of patients who underwent ERCP and EUS procedures. All procedures were performed by staff endoscopists, and all sedations were administered by anesthesia personnel in the endoscopy room.

RESULTS

PBDS was provided for 491 ERCP and EUS procedures. Of these, 252 patients (mean age, 45.1 + 11.1 years, range 17-65 years) were in the <65 age group, 209 patients (mean age, 71.7 + 4.3 years, range 65-80 years) were in the 65-80 year-old group, and 30 patients (mean age, 84.6 + 4.2 years, range 81-97 years) were in the >80 age group. Common indications for the procedures were pancreatic tumor, cholelithiasis, and gastric tumor. Fentanyl, propofol, and midazolam were the most common sedative drugs used in all three groups. The mean doses of propofol and midazolam in the very old patients were relatively lower than in the other groups. The combination of propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl, as well as propofol and fentanyl, were frequently used in all patients. Sedation-related adverse events and procedure-related complications were not statistically significantly different among the three groups. Hypotension was the most common complication.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of the WGO Endoscopy Training Center in a developing country, PBDS for ERCP and EUS procedures in elderly patients by trained anesthesia personnel with appropriate monitoring is relatively safe and effective. Although adverse cardiovascular events, including hypotension, in this aged group is common, all adverse events were usually transient, mild, and easily treated, with no sequelae.

Sedation and monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A nationwide web survey in Italy

BACKGROUND

Best strategy of sedation/analgesia in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is still debated.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

To evaluate sedation and monitoring practice among Italian gastroenterologists and to assess their opinion about non-anaesthesiologist propofol administration.

METHODS

A 19-item survey was mailed to all 1192 members of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED). For each respondent were recorded demographic data, medical specialty, years of practise and practise setting.

RESULTS

A total of 494 SIED members returned questionnaires, representing a response rate of 41.4%. The most employed sedation pattern was benzodiazepines for oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDS) in 50.8% of procedures, benzodiazepines plus opioids for colonoscopy and enteroscopy in 39.5% and 35.3% of procedures, respectively, propofol for endoscopic retrograde colangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in 42.3% and 35.6% of procedures, respectively. With regard to propofol use, 66% respondents stated that propofol was exclusively administered by anaesthesiologists. However, 76.9% respondents would consider non-anaesthesiologist propofol administration after appropriate training. Pulse oximetry is the most employed system for procedural monitoring. Supplemental O(2) is routinely administered by 39.3% respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of sedation has become a standard practise during GI endoscopy in Italy. Pattern varies for each type of procedure. Pulse oximetry is the most employed system of monitoring. Administration of propofol is still directed by anaesthesiologists.

Stratification of sedation risk--a challenge to the sedation continuum

We detail the limitations of the current paradigm of the sedation continuum - a tool ubiquitous to all sedation care settings and now a quarter century old. Definitions in this existing taxonomy are based on patient responsiveness to verbal and/or tactile stimuli, and the inherent subjectivity of this focus has both challenged the reliable assessment of adverse event risk and precluded clear delineation of sedation boundaries, e.g., what is the dividing line between moderate and deep sedation? We present the rationale to support a broadening of this sedation continuum precept to include an objective mechanism to predict the ongoing risk of serious adverse events, and then propose sequential steps for the development of such a restructured framework. This process, while ambitious, would yield a clear and consistent language to facilitate quality assurance, provide an objective framework for standardized sedationist training and credentialing, and permit inclusion into computerized decision-support algorithms to facilitate more precise sedative delivery. It is important to clearly delineate this goal now to permit design and initiation of the requisite research.

Efficacy of Bispectral Index Monitoring for Midazolam and Meperidine Induced Sedation during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Propofol induced sedation with bispectral index (BIS) monitoring has been reported to lead to higher satisfaction in patients and endoscopists during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures. There are no data, however, regarding the efficacy of midazolam and meperidine (M/M) induced sedation with BIS monitoring during ESD. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether M/M induced sedation with BIS monitoring could improve satisfaction and reduce the dose of M/M required during ESD.

METHODS

Between September 2009 and January 2010, 56 patients were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to a BIS group (n=28) and a non-BIS group (n=28). Patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores were assessed using the visual analog scale (0 to 100) following the ESD.

RESULTS

The mean satisfaction scores did not significantly differ between the BIS and non-BIS groups (92.3±16.3 vs 93.3±15.5, p=0.53) or endoscopists (83.1±15.4 vs 80.0±16.7, p=0.52). Although the mean meperidine dose did not differ (62.5±27.6 vs 51.0±17.3, p=0.18) between the two groups, the mean dose of midazolam in the non-BIS group was lower than in the BIS group (6.8±2.0 vs 5.4±2.1, p=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

BIS monitoring during ESD did not increase the satisfaction of endoscopists or patients and did not lead to an M/M dose reduction. These results demonstrate that BIS monitoring provides no additional benefit to M/M induced sedation during ESD.

[Sedation and analgesia during gastrointestinal endoscopy]

Sedative and analgesic premedication is frequently used during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Sedation improves patient's compliance, helping the examinations and their safe completion, but it lengthens the procedures, increases the costs, and complications can occur. Sedative drugs are applied during upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, and also at ERCP. The review summarizes the different forms of sedation, drugs, future techniques and possibilities of improvements. Moreover, sedation practice in Hungary is also described.

Modified Mallampati classification as a clinical predictor of peroral esophagogastroduodenoscopy tolerance

Background

Unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is simpler and safer than sedated EGD; however, approximately 40% of patients cannot tolerate it. Early identification of patients likely to poorly tolerate unsedated EGD is valuable for improving compliance. The modified Mallampati classification (MMC) has been used to evaluate difficult tracheal intubation and laryngoscope insertion. We tried to assess the efficacy of MMC to predict the tolerance of EGD in unsedated patients.

Methods

Two hundred patients who underwent an unsedated diagnostic EGD were recruited. They were stratified according to the view of the oropharynx as either MMC class I + II (good view) or class III + IV (poor view). EGD tolerance was assessed in three ways: gag reflex by endoscopist assessment, patient satisfaction by interview, and the degree of change in vital signs.

Results

MMC was significantly correlated to gag reflex (P < 0.001), patient satisfaction (P = 0.028), and a change of vital signs (P = 0.024). Patients in the poor view group had a 3.87-fold increased risk of gag reflex (P < 0.001), a 1.78-fold increased risk of unsatisfaction (P = 0.067), and a 1.96-fold increased risk of a change in vital signs (P = 0.025) compared to those in the good view group.

Conclusions

MMC appears to be a clinically useful predictor of EGD tolerance. Patients with poor view of oropharynx by MMC criteria may be candidates for sedated or transnasal EGD.

Efficacy of propofol sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD): assessment with prospective data collection

OBJECTIVE

The indications for endoscopic treatment in early stage cancer of the digestive tract are expanding with the emergence and technical development of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). ESD requires longer term stable sedation than conventional endoscopic procedures due to the necessity of meticulous control of the devices during the procedure. Propofol has a very short half-life and can be administered continuously, which is advantageous for long-term sedation. Propofol, thus, is likely to be useful for sedation during ESD.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients who underwent ESD for early gastric cancer with propofol sedation (Group P) and those with midazolam sedation (Group M) were included in this study. Cardiorespiratory suppression rate and the condition of arousal were compared between the groups. A questionnaire survey on the satisfaction of endoscopists, anesthesiologists, endoscopy nurses, and ward nurses with the use of propofol was also carried out.

RESULTS

Respiratory suppression was observed in 50% in Group M and in 20% in Group P (p<0.05). Hypotension was seen in 14% and 36% in Groups M and P, respectively (p<0.05). No sedation-related complications were encountered in either of the groups. Arousal rates 1 hour and 3 hours after the procedure were 23% and 60% in group M and 86% and 100% in Group P (p<0.05). As for the questionnaire survey, most respondents, in particular the ward nurses, supported the use of propofol.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that propofol is safe and useful during ESD as compared with midazolam.

Sedation during upper GI endoscopy in cirrhotic outpatients: a randomized, controlled trial comparing propofol and fentanyl with midazolam and fentanyl

BACKGROUND

Patients with liver cirrhosis frequently undergo diagnostic or therapeutic upper GI endoscopy (UGIE), and the liver disease might impair the metabolism of drugs usually administered for sedation.

OBJECTIVE AND SETTING

To compare sedation with a combination of propofol plus fentanyl and midazolam plus fentanyl in cirrhotic outpatients undergoing UGIE.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted between February 2008 and February 2009.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS

Efficacy (proportion of complete procedures using the initial proposed sedation scheme), safety (occurrence of sedation-related complications), and recovery time were measured.

RESULTS

Two hundred ten cirrhotic patients referred for UGIE were randomized to 2 groups: midazolam group (0.05 mg/kg plus fentanyl 50 μg intravenously) or propofol group (0.25 mg/kg plus fentanyl 50 μg intravenously). There were no differences between groups regarding age, sex, weight, etiology of cirrhosis, and Child-Pugh or American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Sedation with propofol was more efficacious (100% vs 88.2%; P < .001) and had a shorter recovery time than sedation with midazolam (16.23 ± 6.84 minutes and 27.40 ± 17.19 minutes, respectively; P < .001). Complication rates were similar in both groups (14% vs 7.3%; P = .172).

LIMITATIONS

Single-blind study; sample size.

CONCLUSION

Both sedation schemes were safe in this setting. Sedation with propofol plus fentanyl was more efficacious with a shorter recovery time compared with midazolam plus fentanyl. Therefore, the former scheme is an alternative when sedating cirrhotic patients undergoing UGIE.

Pediatric sedation: a global challenge

Pediatric sedation is a challenge which spans all continents and has grown to encompass specialties outside of anesthesia, radiology and emergency medicine. All sedatives are not universally available and local and national regulations often limit the sedation practice to specific agents and those with specific credentials. Some specialties have established certification and credentials for sedation delivery whereas most have not. Some of the relevant sedation guidelines and recommendations of specialty organizations worldwide will be explored. The challenge facing sedation care providers moving forward in the 21st century will be to determine how to apply the local, regional and national guidelines to the individual sedation practices. A greater challenge, perhaps impossible, will be to determine whether the sedation community can come together worldwide to develop standards, guidelines and recommendations for safe sedation practice.

Predicting patient tolerance of endoscopy with conscious sedation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the adequacy of benzodiazepine/opiate sedation for endoscopic procedures and to identify patient and procedure characteristics that may predict poor procedural tolerance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 2155 patients who underwent sedated gastroscopy, colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy between January and December 2007, participated in the prospective evaluation of procedural tolerance and the procedures were evaluated using three questionnaires completed by the patient, endoscopist and assisting nurse. Perception of procedural tolerance was scored using a 100-point visual analog scale (VAS), 0: very good to 100: very poorly. In order to identify patient and procedure characteristics predictive of poor procedural tolerance, we compared 10% of patients who tolerated the procedure least well with the remaining patients.

RESULTS

About 216 (10%) of 2155 patients gave a VAS score of >30, and were compared with the 1939 patients with a VAS <30. Patients who tolerated the procedure least well (VAS ≥30) were more likely female [odds ratio (OR) 2.8, 95% confidence interval 1.9-4.1], had colonoscopy (OR 2.9, 1.8-4.5) or had a training endoscopist perform the procedure (OR 3.2, 2.2-4.8). Patients with BMI ≥35 were also more likely to have a VAS ≥30 (p < 0.01). Sedation type and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade had no significant effect on patient tolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of patients tolerate endoscopic procedures well when benzodiazepine/opiate sedation is used. Accurately identifying the minority who tolerate these procedures less well remains difficult.

Comparison of propofol deep sedation versus moderate sedation during endosonography

BACKGROUND

The purposes of this study are: (1) to prospectively evaluate clinically relevant outcomes including sedation-related complications for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures performed with the use of propofol deep sedation administered by monitored anesthesia care (MAC), and (2) to compare these results with a historical case-control cohort of EUS procedures performed using moderate sedation provided by the gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients referred for EUS between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2002 were enrolled. Complication rates for EUS using MAC sedation were observed and also compared with a historical case-control cohort of EUS patients who received meperidine/midazolam for moderate sedation, administered by the GI endoscopist. Logistic regression analysis was used to isolate possible predictors of complications.

RESULTS

A total of 1,000 patients underwent EUS with propofol sedation during the period from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002 (mean age 64 years, 53% female). The distribution of EUS indications based on the primary area of interest was: 170 gastroduodenal, 92 anorectal, 508 pancreaticohepatobiliary, 183 esophageal, and 47 mediastinal. The primary endpoint of the study was development of sedation-related complications occurring during a performed procedure. A total of six patients experienced complications: duodenal perforation (one), hypotension (one), aspiration pneumonia (one), and apnea requiring endotracheal intubation (three). The complication rate with propofol was 0.60%, compared with 1% for the historical case-control (meperidine/midazolam moderate sedation) group.

CONCLUSIONS

There does not appear to be a significant difference between complication rates for propofol deep sedation with MAC and meperidine/midazolam administered for moderate sedation.

Safe and effective sedation in endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a randomized comparison between propofol continuous infusion and intermittent midazolam injection

PURPOSE

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) generally takes longer to perform than conventional endoscopy and usually requires moderate/deep sedation with close surveillance for patient safety. The aim of this study was to compare the safety profiles and recovery scores propofol continuous infusion and intermittent midazolam (MDZ) injection as sedation for ESD.

METHODS

Sixty EGC patients scheduled for ESDs between August and November 2008 were included in this prospective study and randomly divided into a propofol (P-group, 28 patients) and an MDZ (M-group, 32 patients) group using an odd-even system. The P-group received a 0.8 mg/kg induction dose and a 3 mg/kg/h maintenance dose of 1% propofol using an infusion pump. All patients received 15 mg pentazocine at the start of the ESD and at 60-min intervals thereafter. We recorded and analyzed blood pressure, oxygen saturation and heart rate during and following the procedure and evaluated post-anesthetic recovery scores (PARS) and subsequent alertness scores.

RESULTS

The propofol maintenance and total dose amounts were (mean +/- standard deviation) 3.7 +/- 0.6 mg/kg/h and 395 +/- 202 mg, respectively. The mean total dose of MDZ was 10.3 +/- 4.5 mg. There were no cases of de-saturation <90% or hypotension <80 mmHg in either group. Alertness scores 15 and 60 min after the procedures were significantly higher in the P-group (4.9/4.9) than in the M-group (4.6/4.5; p < 0.05). The mean PARS 15 and 30 min after the ESDs were significantly higher in the P-group (9.6/9.9) than in the M-group (8.6/9.2; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Based on our results, the ESDs for EGC performed under sedation using propofol continuous infusion were as safe as those performed using intermittent MDZ injection. Propofol-treated patients had a quicker recovery profile than those treated with MDZ. We therefore recommend the use of continuous propofol sedation for ESD, but sedation guidelines for the use of propofol are necessary.

Sedation and analgesia in gastrointestinal endoscopy: What’s new?

Various types of sedation and analgesia technique have been used during gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. The best methods for analgesia and sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy are still debated. Providing an adequate regimen of sedation/analgesia might be considered an art, influencing several aspects of endoscopic procedures: the quality of the examination, the patient’s cooperation and the patient’s and physician’s satisfaction with the sedation. The properties of a model sedative agent for endoscopy would include rapid onset and offset of action, analgesic and anxiolytic effects, ease of titration to desired level of sedation, rapid recovery and an excellent safety profile. Therefore there is an impulse for development of new approaches to endoscopic sedation. This article provides an update on the methods of sedation today available and future directions in endoscopic sedation.

Sedation trends in the 21st century: the transition to dexmedetomidine for radiological imaging studies

Sedation for radiological imaging studies encompasses the majority of all sedation-related procedures outside of the intensive care unit. This review will follow the evolution of pediatric sedation for radiological imaging studies in North America as well as the transition of sedation services from the oversight of radiologists to those of other providers. The evolving options for sedation agents will be reviewed, with attention given to examining the advantages, limitations, and risks of replacing the standard sedatives with dexmedetomidine.

Superiority of split dose midazolam as conscious sedation for outpatient colonoscopy

AIM: To elucidate the efficacy and safety of a split dose of midazolam in combination with meperidine for colonoscopy.

METHODS: Eighty subjects undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomly assigned to group A or B. Group A (n = 40) received a split dose of midazolam in combination with meperidine. Group B (n = 40) received a single dose of midazolam in combination with meperidine. Outcome measurements were level of sedation, duration of sedation and recovery, degree of pain and satisfaction, procedure-related memory, controllability, and adverse events.

RESULTS: Group A had a lower frequency of significant hypoxemia (P = 0.043) and a higher sedation score on withdrawal of the endoscope from the descending colon than group B (P = 0.043). Group B recovered from sedation slightly sooner than group A (P < 0.002). Scores for pain and memory, except insertion-related memory, were lower in group A one week after colonoscopic examination (P = 0.018 and P < 0.030, respectively). Poor patient controllability was noted by the endoscopist and nurse in group B (P = 0.038 and P = 0.032, respectively).

CONCLUSION: Split dose midazolam in combination with meperidine resulted in a safer, more equable sedation status during colonoscopic examination and a reduction in procedure-related pain and memory, but resulted in longer recovery time.

Use of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a nationwide survey in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal endoscopy causes discomfort and pain in patients. Sedation reduces anxiety and pain. Its use, however, continues to be a controversial issue and it varies greatly from one country to another. The use of sedation in Spanish gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) units is unknown.

AIM

To determine the use of sedation in Spanish GIE units.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 24-question survey on the use of sedation was distributed among 300 Spanish GIE units.

RESULTS

Surveys were answered by 197 GIE units (65%), which had performed 588,326 endoscopies over the past 12 months. Sedation was used in more than 20% of gastroscopies performed at 55% of the GIE units, and more than 20% of colonoscopies were sedated at 71% of the units; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is almost always performed under sedation. The most common drugs were midazolam for gastroscopy and midazolam and pethidine for colonoscopy and ERCP; propofol is used by anesthetists; pulse oximetry is used at 77% of GIE units; 42% of the GIE units fill in a nursing record; 52% of GIE units have recovery rooms and 91% have a cardiac arrest trolley.

CONCLUSION

The use of sedation in endoscopy varies greatly in Spain. It is seldom used in gastroscopy; it is more frequent in colonoscopy, and in ERCP it is the norm. In most GIE units sedation is controlled by the endoscopist with pulse oximetry. The most commonly used drugs are benzodiazepines, on their own for gastroscopy and combined with opioids for colonoscopy and ERCP.

DISCONTINUATION OF DROPERIDOL FOR THE CONTROL OF ACUTELY AGITATED OUT-OF-HOSPITAL PATIENTS

OBJECTIVE

To identify the effects of the removal of droperidol as a treatment option for sedation of agitated out-of-hospital patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review conducted January 1, 2001, through December 5, 2002, of patients with an out-of-hospital diagnosis of agitation who received either droperidol or midazolam prior to arrival in the emergency department (ED). The need for continuous cardiac or pulse oximetry monitoring, intubation, critical care ED management, intensive care unit admission, and mortality was reviewed.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients received droperidol or midazolam for acute agitation in the out-of-hospital setting. Forty-one patients received droperidol in 2001 (D2001); three patients received midazolam in 2001 (M2001). No patients received droperidol in 2002, and 27 patients received midazolam (M2002). Comparing the D2001 and M2002 groups, the need for continuous pulse oximetry monitoring in the ED [14/41 (34.1%) versus 18/27 (66.7%)], intubations [4/41 (9.8%) versus 10/27 (37.0%)], critical emergency medical services transports [5/41 (12.2%) versus 11/27 (40.7%)], critical ED care cases [6/41 (14.6%) versus 11/27 (40.7%)], and intensive care unit admissions [6/13 (46.2%) versus 14/15 (93.3%)] were increased in the M2002 group. No difference was found in the frequencies of ED cardiac monitoring, hospital admission, complications, or death.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the removal of droperidol as a treatment option for out-of-hospital agitated patients, the authors have observed an increased frequency of continuous pulse oximetry monitoring, intubation, ED critical care management, and intensive care unit admission in patients requiring chemical sedation for control of agitation in the out-of-hospital setting.

Safer sedation practice may not translate into improvements in endoscopic outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Although the literature surrounding sedation practice and endoscopic outcomes remains sparse and controversial, there have been a number of stringent guidelines issued regarding sedation use in endoscopy.

AIMS

To assess the impact of changes to enhance safer sedation practice on endoscopic outcomes.

METHODS

Sedation practice was audited in 7234 consecutive gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in 2004 and protocols for enhancing safer sedation practice were introduced. These included; introduction of a unit sedation policy, exchange of midazolam 10 mg vials to 5 mg repacked syringes, adverse events recording of midazolam use of greater than 5 mg and reversal agents, more stringent patient monitoring procedures and endoscopists education and feedback. A reaudit of 7071 procedures was performed in 2006. Outcomes audited the included midazolam doses, patient intolerance, 30-day postprocedure mortality, reversal agent use and total adverse events.

RESULTS

Sedation doses were reduced substantially after intervention [mean midazolam dose (SD): 4.9 mg (2.5) in 2004 vs. 2.9 mg (1.2) in 2006; P<0.0001] with no endoscopist using a mean greater than 5 mg in 2006 compared with 19% in 2004 (P=0.005). The use of reversal agents (0.6 vs. 0.7% for 2004 and 2006, respectively; P=0.74), mortality (1.0 vs. 1.3%; P=0.23) and the adverse events (1.7 vs. 2%; P=0.44) were similar. Unsuccessful procedures because of patient intolerance increased from 0.1 to 1.9% (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Although protocols to enhance safer sedation practice substantially reduced sedation doses used; this did not, however, translate into improved endoscopic outcomes. Moreover, incomplete procedures because of poor tolerance increased.

Sedation Guidelines for Gastro Intestinal Endoscopy

Effective sedation is usually a vital precursor to any successful endoscopic procedure. With advanced techniques and medications available today this component of the procedure can be dealt with safely and in an efficient manner.

Cardiorespiratory changes during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

To determine the changes in oxygen saturation, blood pressure and heart rate during various endoscopic procedures and to find out the risk factors for these changes.

METHODS

Forty patients without cardiorespiratory disorders were recruited. Oxygen saturation, blood pressure and pulse rate were monitored during endoscopy using pulse oximeter and automated blood pressure monitor. These were recorded from baseline until 5 minutes after the procedure. The important variables, which were evaluated in relation to these changes, included age, gender, duration of the procedure and drug/dosages.

RESULTS

Baseline mean oxygen saturation was 96.8 +/- 1.55%. It decreased significantly to 94.53 +/- 3.30%(p= 0.002) during insertion of probe. Mild to moderate hypoxia was found in 19 (47.5%) patients. Severe hypoxia was found in 5 (12.5%) patients. The variables that reached statistical significance for desaturation were age greater than 50 years and duration longer than 27 minutes. Changes in pulse rate were significant post-sedation, during probe insertion, during scoping, at removal of probe and immediately post-procedure (p < 0.02). The mean change in systolic blood pressure was not significant throughout the procedure when compared to baseline, however 14 (35%) patients developed transient hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

Mild to moderate hypoxia is common during endoscopic procedures and of no serious consequence. However severe hypoxia is less common. We recommend a non-invasive monitoring in patients with age greater than 50 years and procedure longer than 27 minutes.

Endoscopic sedation: legislative update and implications for reimbursement

Endoscopic sedation has traditionally been considered to be an element of the endoscopic examination. Endoscopists, together with endoscopy nurses, administered benzodiazepines and opioids with acceptable safety and efficiency. Today, sedation practices for endoscopy have become more diversified due to the entry of anesthesia specialists into the endoscopy unit, gastroenterologist-directed propofol administration, and prolonged diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that require deeper sedation. The economic implications of these changes in sedation are examined in this article.

Gastroenterologist-directed propofol: an update

Gastroenterologist directed propofol has been proven safe in more than 220,000 published cases. Administration of low doses of opioid and/or benzodiazepine ("balanced propofol sedation") is the safest format for gastroenterologist directed propofol. Specific training is needed to undertake gastroenterologist directed propofol administration.

The difficult-to-sedate patient in the endoscopy suite

More than 20 million endoscopic procedures are performed in the United States annually. More than 98% of these endoscopies are performed with sedation. This includes both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Sedation reduces a patient's anxiety and discomfort, often improving their satisfaction with the procedure. Sedation creates a relaxed patient and a relaxed procedure environment allowing for a successful endoscopic examination.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Numerous agents are available for moderate sedation in endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to compare efficacy, safety, and efficiency of agents used for moderate sedation in EGD or colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Systematic review of computerized bibliographic databases for randomized trials of moderate sedation that compared 2 active regimens or 1 active regimen with placebo or no sedation.

PATIENTS

Unselected adults undergoing EGD or colonoscopy with a goal of moderate sedation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sedation-related complications, patient assessments (satisfaction, pain, memory, willingness to repeat examination), physician assessments (satisfaction, level of sedation, patient cooperation, examination quality), and procedure-related efficiency outcomes (sedation, procedure, or recovery time).

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies (N = 3918 patients) were included. Sedation improved patient satisfaction (relative risk [RR] = 2.29, range 1.16-4.53) and willingness to repeat EGD (RR = 1.25, range 1.13-1.38) versus no sedation. Midazolam provided superior patient satisfaction to diazepam (RR = 1.18, range 1.07-1.29) and less frequent memory of EGD (RR = 0.57, range 0.50-0.60) versus diazepam. Adverse events and patient/physician assessments were not significantly different for midazolam (with or without narcotics) versus propofol except for slightly less patient satisfaction (RR = 0.90, range 0.83-0.97) and more frequent memory (RR = 3.00, range 1.25-7.21) with midazolam plus narcotics. Procedure times were similar, but sedation and recovery times were shorter with propofol than midazolam-based regimens.

LIMITATIONS

Marked variability in design, regimens tested, and outcomes assessed; relatively poor methodologic quality (Jadad score </=3 in 23/36 trials).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation provides a high level of physician and patient satisfaction and a low risk of serious adverse events with all currently available agents. Midazolam-based regimens have longer sedation and recovery times than does propofol.

Bispectral index monitoring of conscious sedation with the combination of meperidine and midazolam during endoscopy

background & aims: Current practice guidelines strongly recommend differentiation of deep from moderate sedation during endoscopy. Standard methods of sedation monitoring are labor-intense. Bispectral index monitoring (BIS) is widely used during anesthesia, but its benefits during conscious sedation are controversial. Thus, we performed a prospective observational study to assess its ability for detecting deep sedation during endoscopy.

METHODS

Patients presenting for elective outpatient endoscopy were monitored simultaneously with the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) and BIS. A combination of a narcotic and benzodiazepine was used, with the target being moderate sedation and analgesia. Deep sedation was defined by MOAA/S score of 1-2 and BIS score of <or=75. With MOAA/S as the reference standard, the accuracy of BIS for detecting deep sedation was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 775 simultaneous observations of BIS and MOAA/S scores were recorded on 76 patients. Deep sedation, defined by MOAA/S and BIS, was seen in 204 (26%) and 92 (12%) observations, respectively. BIS correlated poorly with deep sedation (rho, -0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.16-0.12). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (95% CI) for detecting deep sedation were 29.6 (23.4-36.3), 94.9 (92.8-96.6), 68.2 (57.4-77.7), and 78.6 (75.3-81.7), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

BIS has a low accuracy for detecting deep sedation as a result of a considerable overlap of scores across the sedation levels. Further refinements in BIS are needed to differentiate deep from moderate sedation for future studies on conscious sedation.

Conscious sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: midazolam or midazolam plus meperidine?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

No consensus exists for the safest and most effective agent and for optimal drug doses for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We aimed to compare the efficacy of midazolam with that of midazolam+meperidine, which provided comfort for the patient during ERCP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The patients were randomized to sedation with midazolam only (2.87+/-0.67 mg) (n=48, median age 55.54+/-14.66, 21 women, 27 men) or midazolam (1.82+/-0.71 mg) with meperidine (42.81+/-14.61 mg) (n= 48, median age 55.48+/-2.57, 20 women, 28 men). Procedure-related parameters and the efficacy of sedation as assessed by the endoscopist and the patients were compared.

RESULTS

Prior endoscopic history, preprocedure anxiety scores, age, sex, baseline vital signs and type of interventions were similar in both groups. Sedation level, duration of procedure and recovery time were comparable in both groups. Sedation quality assessment scale was significantly higher in the midazolam with meperidine group. Degree of pain sensed during the procedure was significantly lower in the midazolam with meperidine group. Midazolam with meperidine group had better patient satisfaction. Twenty-four hours after the procedure, the degree of amnesia between both sedation groups was similar. The number of patients unwilling to repeat the procedure was distinctly higher in midazolam group. Development of hypoxia and arrythmia in the midazolam and midazolam with meperidine groups were comparable. Two patients in the midazolam group developed paradoxical agitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Conscious sedation for ERCP can be successfully and safely achieved by using either only midazolam or a low dose of midazolam with meperidine. Adding of meperidine to midazolam resulted in better patient and endoscopist comfort.

[Safety of propofol administration by the staff of a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit]

Deep sedation controlled by the staff of gastrointestinal endoscopy units is currently controversial. In the last few years, numerous studies have provided data supporting the safety of propofol use in these techniques. We present a large series of patients who underwent gastroscopy or colonoscopy under endoscopist-controlled deep sedation. A total of 875 procedures (297 gastroscopies and 578 colonoscopies) were included. In all procedures intravenous propofol with or without intravenous midazolam was administered. In gastroscopies, complications attributable to the sedation were found in only 6.7% of the patients, mostly due to desaturation, which was resolved without the need for intubation. In colonoscopies, complications were found in 11.2%, the most frequent being bradycardia and desaturation, none of which were serious. No association was found between the presence of complications and the propofol dose administered. In the group of patients undergoing colonoscopy, simultaneous midazolam administration allowed reduction of the propofol dose required to achieve deep sedation. In conclusion, propofol shows a good safety profile and excellent tolerance in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy and can be administrated by the endoscopy team. At least in the case of colonoscopy, the associated use of midazolam allows the propofol dose to be decreased, thus, theoretically, reducing the drug's adverse effects.

Single use of fentanyl in colonoscopy is safe and effective and significantly shortens recovery time

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy remains an uncomfortable examination and many patients prefer to be sedated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous administration of fentanyl in titrated doses compared with intravenous administration of the well-known midazolam in titrated doses.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-six patients scheduled for ambulatory colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either 25 mcg fentanyl (Fentanyl group, n = 66, 35 females, mean age = 61.5 years) and titrated up to 50 mcg or 2 mg midazolam (Midazolam group, n = 60, 33 females, mean age = 63.2 years) and titrated up to 5 mg. Patients graded discomfort on a scale from 0 to 4 and pain on a scale from 0 to 10. Success of the procedure, time to cecum, complications, and recovery time for each patient were independently recorded.

RESULTS

Mean discomfort scores were 0.4 in the Fentanyl group and 1.0 in the Midazolam group (p = 0.002). Similarly, mean scores for pain and anus to cecum time were lower in the Fentanyl group than in the Midazolam group [2.59 vs. 4.43 (p = 0.002) and 8.7 vs. 12.9 min (p = 0.012), respectively]. No adverse events were reported in the Fentanyl group, while in the Midazolam group a decrease in oxygen saturation was noted in 23/60 (35%) patients. Mean recovery time was 5.6 min in the Fentanyl group and 16 min in the Midazolam group (p = 0.014). Mean dosage was 36 mcg for fentanyl and 4.6 mg for midazolam.

CONCLUSION

Administration of fentanyl in low incremental doses is sufficient to achieve a satisfactory level of comfort during colonoscopy.