Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for advanced endoscopic procedures: a meta-analysis

An effective and safe sedation technique combining target-controlled infusion pump with propofol, intravenous pentazocine, and bispectral index monitoring for peroral double-balloon endoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Because peroral double-balloon endoscopy (DBE) is a time-consuming, painful procedure, sedation with analgesics, and/or anesthetics is generally required. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of our sedation protocol for peroral DBE, which consisted of target-controlled infusion (TCI) anesthesia with propofol, an intravenous bolus of pentazocine, and bispectral index (BIS) monitoring.

METHODS

A total of 34 consecutive patients who underwent DBE by the oral approach were enrolled. Patients were primarily sedated with a continuous infusion of propofol and adjusted in accordance with the BIS levels. The bolus infusion of pentazocine was performed when the propofol infusion was insufficient. The primary outcome measure of this study was to ensure the safety and efficacy of this sedation technique. The secondary purpose was to identify the characteristics of the patient who required the bolus infusion of pentazocine.

RESULTS

Five patients (14.7%) required a reduction in the dose of propofol. However, no patient experienced any serious adverse events. All patients (100%) and 80.6% (25/31) of endoscopists answered that the sedation protocol was 'excellent' or 'enough' for peroral DBE. Eleven patients (32.3%) required a bolus injection of pentazocine. Age <60 years and a total procedure time of >70 min were significant risk-factors for pentazocine use.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of propofol via TCI pump, bolus injection of pentazocine as needed, and BIS monitoring was a safe and effective procedure for peroral DBE. Reasonable satisfaction indices were obtained from both patients and endoscopists. Pentazocine was required for young patients and in cases with longer procedure times.

Safety of Non-anesthesia Provider-Administered Propofol (NAAP) Sedation in Advanced Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures: Comparative Meta-Analysis of Pooled Results

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAAP)-administered propofol sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures with those of anesthesia provider (AAP).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 519 publications, 26 were identified to meet inclusion criteria (10 AAPs and 16 NAAPs) and were analyzed. Data were analyzed for hypoxia rate, airway intervention rates, endoscopist, and patient satisfaction scores and total propofol administered.

RESULTS

Total number of procedures in NAAP and AAP groups was 3018 and 2374, respectively. Pooled hypoxia (oxygen saturation less than 90 %) rates were 0.133 (95 % CI 0.117-0.152) and 0.143 (95 % CI 0.128-0.159) in NAAP and AAP, respectively. Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates were 0.035 (95 % CI 0.026-0.047) and 0.133 (95 % CI 0.118-0.150), respectively. Pooled patient satisfaction rate, pooled endoscopist satisfaction rate, and mean propofol administered dose for NAAP were 7.22 (95 % CI 7.17-7.27), 6.03 (95 % CI 5.94-6.11), and 251.44 mg (95 % CI 244.39-258.49) in that order compared with 9.82 (95 % CI 9.76-9.88), 9.06 (95 % CI 8.91-9.21), and 340.32 mg (95 % CI 327.30-353.33) for AAP.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety of NAAP sedation compared favorably with AAP sedation in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures. However, it came at the cost of decreased patient and endoscopist satisfaction.

Current role of non-anesthesiologist administered propofol sedation in advanced interventional endoscopy

Complex and lengthy endoscopic examinations like endoscopic ultrasonography and/or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography benefit from deep sedation, due to an enhanced quality of examinations, reduced discomfort and anxiety of patients, as well as increased satisfaction for both the patients and medical personnel. Current guidelines support the use of propofol sedation, which has the same rate of adverse effects as traditional sedation with benzodiazepines and/or opioids, but decreases the procedural and recovery time. Non-anesthesiologist administered propofol sedation has become an option in most of the countries, due to limited anesthesiology resources and the increasing evidence from prospective studies and meta-analyses that the procedure is safe with a similar rate of adverse events with traditional sedation. The advantages include a high quality of endoscopic examination, improved satisfaction for patients and doctors, as well as decreased recovery and discharge time. Despite the advantages of non-anesthesiologist administered propofol, there is still a continuous debate related to the successful generalization of the procedures.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during endoscopic submucosal dissection

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of sedation protocols for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil.

METHODS: Fifty-nine patients scheduled for ESD were randomly allocated into a dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (DR) group or a propofol-remifentanil (PR) group. To control patient anxiety, dexmedetomidine or propofol was infused to maintain a score of 4-5 on the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. Remifentanil was infused continuously at a rate of 6 μg/kg per hour in both groups. The ease of advancing the scope into the throat, gastric motility grading, and satisfaction of the endoscopist and patient were assessed. Hemodynamic variables and hypoxemic events were compared to evaluate patient safety.

RESULTS: Demographic data were comparable between the groups. The hemodynamic variables and pulse oximetry values were stable during the procedure in both groups despite a lower heart rate in the DR group. No oxygen desaturation events occurred in either group. Although advancing the scope into the throat was easier in the PR group (“very easy” 24.1% vs 56.7%, P = 0.010), gastric motility was more suppressed in the DR group (“no + mild” 96.6% vs 73.3%, P = 0.013). The endoscopists felt that the procedure was more favorable in the DR group (“very good + good” 100% vs 86.7%, P = 0.042), whereas patient satisfaction scores were comparable between the groups. En bloc resection was performed 100% of the time in both groups, and the complete resection rate was 94.4% in the DR group and 100% in the PR group (P = 0.477).

CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil were comparable to propofol and remifentanil during ESD. However, the endoscopists favored dexmedetomidine perhaps due to lower gastric motility.

A target-controlled infusion system with bispectral index monitoring of propofol sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Propofol administration via a target-controlled infusion system with bispectral index monitoring (BIS/TCI system) is expected to prevent complications from sedation during complex and long endoscopic procedures. We evaluated the feasibility of setting the BIS/TCI system for non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From May 2009 to February 2013, 250 patients with esophagogastric neoplasms were treated with ESD using the BIS/TCI system with NAAP. In the TCI system, the initial target blood concentration of propofol was set at 1.2 μg/mL. The titration speed of propofol was adjusted according to the BIS score and the movement of the patient. The BIS target level ranged from moderate to deep sedation, at which a stable BIS score between 60 and 80 was obtained.

RESULTS

In 80.4 % of patients, it was possible to maintain stable sedation with a blood concentration of propofol of less than 1.6 µg/mL using TCI throughout the ESD procedure. The default setting for ideal blood concentration of propofol was 1.2 μg/mL, because the medians of the lower and upper bounds of blood concentration were 1.2 μg/mL (range 0.6 - 1.8 μg/mL) and 1.4 μg/mL (range 1.0 - 3.8 μg/mL), respectively. Although hypotension occurred in 27 patients (10.8 %), oxygen desaturation occurred in only nine patients (3.6 %), and severe desaturation in only two patients (0.8 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Using our settings, it is possible for a non-anesthesiologist to maintain stable sedation during a lengthy endoscopic procedure through propofol sedation with a BIS/TCI system.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related adverse events: general overview

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) represents a monumental advance in the management of patients with pancreaticobiliary diseases, but is a complex and technically demanding procedure with the highest inherent risk of adverse events of all routine endoscopic procedures. Overall adverse event rates for ERCP are typically reported as 5-10%. The most commonly reported adverse events include post-ERCP pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation, infection (cholangitis), and cardiopulomary or "sedation related" events. This article evaluates patient-related and procedure-related risk factors for ERCP-related adverse events, and discusses strategies for the prevention, diagnosis and management of these events.

Effects of propofol with midazolam verus lidocaine during gastroscopy in elderly patients

AIM: To compare the effects of propofol with midazolam versus lidocaine during endoscopy in elderly patients.

METHODS: Ninety-seven ASA-Ⅱ class patients were used as an experimental group. They were treated with propofol with midazolam for painless gastroscopy between July 2008 and July 2013 at our hospital. Eighty-two ASA-Ⅱ level patients who used traditional lidocaine gel pulp in painless gastroscopy were used as a control group. Age, weight, baseline blood pressure between two groups had no significant differences (P > 0.05 for all). Professional medical personnel recorded the changes in blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation and adverse reactions in the examination process.

RESULTS: After the painless gastroscopy procedure, blood pressure and heart rate in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group (blood pressure: 90.2 mmHg ± 2.5 mmHg vs 131.2 mmHg ± 3.4 mmHg; heart rate: 70.2 ± 1.5 vs 85.0 ± 6.4, P < 0.05). During the examination process, blood pressure and heart rate dropped initially and then rose to a stable level in the experimental group, while in the control group, blood pressure and heart rate initially increased and then decreased to a stable level. The differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05) within the two groups. Oxygen saturation between groups and within groups showed no significant differences (P > 0.05). Compared with the control group, adverse reactions in the experimental group were significantly reduced (χ² = 12.991, 142.482, 55.838, 179.000, P < 0.05). Times to wake up from anesthesia and drug elimination were relatively short in the experimental group (1.51 s ± 0.17 s, 8.21 s ± 2.32 s).

CONCLUSION: Propofol combined with midazolam in painless gastroscopy can effectively reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases in patients and is associated with shorter times to wake up and drug elimination.