Nurse-administered propofol sedation without anesthesia specialists in 9152 endoscopic cases in an ambulatory surgery center

Sedation issues in quality colonoscopy

The subject of endoscopic sedation for colonoscopy remains controversial because of unresolved questions concerning the relative benefits, risks, and cost of service. There is also disagreement about the most appropriate sedation drug(s), delegation of responsibility for drug administration, and patient monitoring. This article examines recent trends in endoscopic sedation; the impact of sedation on the quality, safety, and patient tolerability of colonoscopy; and reviews the economic implications of current sedation practices.

The changing faces of endoscopic sedation

The practice of sedation for digestive endoscopy continues to evolve throughout the world. In many countries, there is a trend for increased utilization of sedation during routine endoscopic procedures. Sedation improves patient satisfaction with endoscopy and the willingness to comply with screening guidelines and it improves the quality of examination. Moderate sedation, using a benzodiazepine and an opioid, remains the standard method of sedation in most areas of the world, although propofol, a short-acting hypnotic agent, is being used increasingly in some countries. Controversy regarding the feasibility of endoscopist-directed propofol administration continues, in spite of overwhelming evidence supporting this practice. In the USA, recent revisions in policy by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services may threaten the practice of endoscopist-directed propofol administration. In this article, future trends in sedation practice, including fospropofol and computer-assisted personalized sedation, are discussed.

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.

Estudo comparativo de eficácia e segurança entre propofol e midazolam durante sedação para colonoscopia

OBJETIVO: Comparar a segurança e a eficácia do propofol com a do midazolam na sedação profunda durante colonoscopias. MÉTODOS: Sessenta e seis pacientes foram submetidos à colonoscopias e estudados prospectivamente. Um total de 50 pacientes recebeu 3,25 mg.kg-1 de peso de propofol. No grupo controle de 16 pacientes foi administrado 2,05 mg.kg-1 de peso de midazolam. A dose de manutenção foi titulada de acordo com a necessidade. Os parâmetros cardiovasculares e respiratórios observados foram a saturação de oxigênio, pressão arterial sistólica e diastólica e frequência cardíaca. Após o procedimento foi realizado um questionário sobre intercorrências como dor, desconforto e satisfação após a colonoscopia, utilizando uma escala visual de zero a dez. Foi aplicado o teste t de Student para a análise estatística. RESULTADOS: A amostra foi similar com relação às variáveis idade, peso, sexo e condição física. Houve diferença estatística significativa para os parâmetros saturação de oxigênio do sangue e pressão arterial sistólica entre os dois grupos. Não houve diferença estatística significativa para os parâmetros pressão arterial diastólica e pulso. Apesar das diferenças nos parâmetros cardiovasculares e respiratórios, não houve repercussões hemodinâmicas significativas. Não houve diferença estatística no parâmetro dor e satisfação. Os pacientes que apresentaram agitação (25%) no grupo midazolam, relataram mais desconforto (p=0,038). CONCLUSÃO: As variações nos parâmetros cardiovasculares e respiratórios, mesmo com diferenças significativas entre os grupos, não causaram repercussões clínicas significativas nos dois grupos, caracterizando a segurança na sedação profunda. A sedação com midazolam ou propofol não está associada a níveis de dor e satisfação diferentes entre os dois grupos. O grupo midazolan referiu significativamente mais desconforto que o grupo propofol.

Comparison of differing sedation practice for upper endoscopic ultrasound using expert observational analysis of the procedural sedation

AIM

To compare the quality between 2 commonly used sedation practices for upper endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) by using expert observational analysis of the sedation practice.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, 50 adults undergoing EUS had videotape observation of the procedural sedation: 25 received benzodiazepine/opiate administered by the endoscopy team as per the standard protocol at our institution, and 25 received propofol administered by a dedicated anesthesiologist. Quantitative analysis of the video was performed using the Dartmouth Operative Conditions Scale (DOCS). The DOCS is a tool previously developed to quantify the adequacy of procedural sedation through an objective measurement of the patient state during the sedation process. In this study, the DOCS was used in a novel way to compare the quality of sedation provided by different sedation protocols. Data were collected on patient demographics, patient and provider satisfaction, efficiency, side effects, and safety measures.

RESULTS

Videotape analysis using the DOCS revealed that 52% (13/25) of the standard group exhibited an uncontrolled patient state (significant undersedation and/or oversedation) on 1 or more occasion during their EUS procedure compared with 28% (7/25) of the propofol group. Patients in the standard group spent 7.1% of the procedure in an uncontrolled patient state, whereas patients in the propofol group experienced an uncontrolled state approximately 1.0% of the procedure time. Overall efficiency as measured by time in both the procedure room and in recovery was superior in the propofol group. These patients spent 12 less minutes on average in the procedure room and were ready for discharge in about half the time (56 minutes versus 109 minutes). The propofol group experienced significantly less in-hospital and at-home nausea and vomiting and felt back to baseline status more quickly. Finally, patient satisfaction was improved in the propofol group: 60% felt the procedure was better than anticipated versus 21% in the standard group.

CONCLUSIONS

Expert videotape analysis of the patient state during procedural sedation allows direct comparison of sedation methodologies using small numbers of patients. In our institution, endoscopist-directed sedation using a midazolam/narcotic combination for EUS proved inferior to sedation using propofol given by an anesthesiologist. Specifically, a midazolam/narcotic combination provided less effective intraprocedural conditions, was less efficient both before and after the procedure, and was less satisfactory to patients as compared with propofol. Results of this type of analysis can be used to drive appropriate system redesign and improve patient care.

Endoscopic sedation in Greece: results from a nationwide survey for the Hellenic Foundation of gastroenterology and nutrition

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Recent surveys regarding practices in sedation during endoscopic procedures are limited, particularly in Greece where they are nonexistent. This survey was designed to provide national data on sedation practices in Greece.

METHODS

A 27-item survey regarding practices of endoscopy and sedation was mailed nationwide to 502 members of the Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology.

RESULTS

A total of 201 questionnaires were returned (40%). Survey respondents performed an average of 48 oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) and 35 colonoscopies per month. 50 of the respondents, who perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), conducted an average of 10 ERCP per month. 15 of the respondents, who perform endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), conducted an average of 6 EUS per month. Respondents administered sedation intravenously in 64% of EGD, 78% of colonoscopies, 100% of ERCP and 100% of EUS. 125 of the respondents (62.1%) reported the use of synergistic sedation (benzodiazepines plus opioids), 71 of the respondents (35.3%) reported the use of benzodiazepines alone and 68 of the respondents (33.8%) reported the use of propofol based sedation in selected cases (more than one response was permitted). In most cases, propofol administration was directed by an anaesthesiologist. The majority of the respondents monitored vital signs and pulse oximetry (90% and 96%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The use of sedation and physiologic monitoring in Greece is now standard practice during endoscopy. Benzodiazepines, either alone or combined with an opioid, are used by the majority of endoscopists, while propofol is used in selected cases, mainly in the presence of an anaesthesiologist.

Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopist-directed propofol sedation (EDP) remains controversial. We sought to update the safety experience of EDP and estimate the cost of using anesthesia specialists for endoscopic sedation.

METHODS

We reviewed all published work using EDP. We contacted all endoscopists performing EDP for endoscopy that we were aware of to obtain their safety experience. These complications were available in all patients: endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and death.

RESULTS

A total of 646,080 (223,656 published and 422,424 unpublished) EDP cases were identified. Endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and deaths were 11, 0, and 4, respectively. Deaths occurred in 2 patients with pancreatic cancer, a severely handicapped patient with mental retardation, and a patient with severe cardiomyopathy. The overall number of cases requiring mask ventilation was 489 (0.1%) of 569,220 cases with data available. For sites specifying mask ventilation risk by procedure type, 185 (0.1%) of 185,245 patients and 20 (0.01%) of 142,863 patients required mask ventilation during their esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy, respectively (P < .001). The estimated cost per life-year saved to substitute anesthesia specialists in these cases, assuming they would have prevented all deaths, was $5.3 million.

CONCLUSIONS

EDP thus far has a lower mortality rate than that in published data on endoscopist-delivered benzodiazepines and opioids and a comparable rate to that in published data on general anesthesia by anesthesiologists. In the cases described here, use of anesthesia specialists to deliver propofol would have had high costs relative to any potential benefit.

Low-dose propofol sedation for diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy: results in 10,662 adults

OBJECTIVE

The use of propofol sedation during endoscopic procedures has increased in recent years. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of nurse-administered low-dose propofol sedation for diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

METHODS

We prospectively assessed the outcome and complications of low-dose bolus propofol for endoscopic sedation for diagnostic EGD. Propofol was administered by bolus injection, with a standard protocol of 40 mg for patients <70 years old, 30 mg for patients 70-89 years old, and 20 mg for patients 90 years or older. When required for adequate sedation, additional doses were given, to a maximum of 120 mg. The primary outcome measure was respiratory depression, defined as oxygen desaturation (SpO(2) <90%) that continued for more than 20 s. Secondary measures included successful procedures, full recovery within 60 min of the procedure, and complications.

RESULTS

All procedures were successful; 8,431 of 10,662 patients (79.1%) completed diagnostic EGD with a single bolus of propofol. Only 0.26% (28 patients) required transient supplemental oxygen supply; neither mask ventilation nor endotracheal intubation was required. Full recovery occurred in 99.9% of patients 60 min after the procedure. Men and younger patients required significantly higher doses of propofol than did the women and older patients (men vs. women, 46.5+/-19 vs. 42.7+/-15 mg, P=0.0008; age 40-49 vs. age 50-59, 51.5+/-16 vs. 46.3+/-13 mg, P<0.0001). Of the 400 patients, 368 (92%) wanted to drive home or to their offices, and all did so without incident. A total of 99% were willing to repeat the same procedure again.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose nurse-administered propofol sedation is safe and practical for diagnostic EGD.

Clinical trial: a randomized, study comparing meperidine (pethidine) and fentanyl in adult gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence to guide choice between meperidine (pethidine) and fentanyl for sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

AIM

To compare meperidine with fentanyl in terms of procedure time and analgesia.

METHODS

Single centre randomized controlled trial. Patients received narcotic doses and midazolam at the discretion of the attending endoscopist who was unaware of narcotic assignment. Endoscopy and recovery times were then recorded. The main outcome was total procedure time, defined as endoscopy time plus recovery time. Patient discomfort was assessed prior to discharge via visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

In total, 55 patients were randomized to meperidine [44 colonoscopy and 11 esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)] and 56 to fentanyl (45 colonoscopy and 11 EGD). Total procedure time was shorter for those receiving fentanyl (mean = 87.7 min) than for those receiving meperidine (mean = 102.9 min) (P = 0.05). The difference between the groups was explained by a shorter mean recovery time in the fentanyl group (63.0 min) than in the meperidine group (76.2 min) (P = 0.07). Based on post procedure pain scores, examinations with meperidine (mean = 1.99) were less painful when compared with those receiving fentanyl (mean = 2.86, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Fentanyl shortened total procedure time by reducing recovery time. A simple change in narcotic choice could increase endoscopy unit efficiency.

[Experience of an interdisciplinary anesthesiology and nursing team for providing anesthesia outside the operating room]

OBJECTIVE

To report on the creation and development of an interdisciplinary anesthesiology and nursing team to provide anesthesia outside the operating room.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We describe the creation of an interdisciplinary team and preanesthesia evaluation protocols for using nurses specializing in anesthesia for procedures outside the operating room. We analyzed the anesthetic procedures performed outside the operating room, the rate of suspensions due to failure of the procedure, and their impact on the rate of associated complications, from October 2006 to October 2007.

RESULTS

Since the start of the project, 586 procedures outside the operating room have been performed. No suspensions or delays were observed that were due to comorbidity not detected in the preanesthesia evaluation carried out by the nurses. The incidences of complications and inadequate sedations were comparable to those reported for other similar interdisciplinary groups in this area.

CONCLUSIONS

The creation of an interdisciplinary team of anesthesiologists and specialized nurses for providing anesthesia outside the operating room optimizes resources and improves routine clinical practice. It has allowed for universal preanesthesia evaluation, improved the distribution of resources, and proven a stimulus to the care-giving process.

Propofol for sedation during colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Propofol is increasingly used for sedation during colonoscopy, with many recent reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large non-randomized case series.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to identify, analyze and summarize RCTs comparing the relative effectiveness, patient acceptance and safety of propofol for colonoscopy, to traditional sedatives (narcotics and/or benzodiazepines).The secondary objective was to synthesize the studies comparing propofol administration by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists for sedation during colonoscopy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Medline, Cancerlit, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, Biological Abstracts, Web of Science and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry database between January 1980 and June 2007; and conference proceeding abstracts for DDW, EUGW and ACG between 1990 and June 2007. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing use of propofol and traditional agents or administration of propofol by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists for sedation during colonoscopy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted the data. The data were pooled using the Cochrane Collaborations' methodology and statistical software RevMan 4.2.10.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria for the primary objective. Most studies included only healthy out-patients. Recovery and discharge times were shorter with use of propofol. There was higher patient satisfaction with use of propofol (OR for dissatisfaction 0.35, 95% CI 0.23, 0.53). There was no difference in procedure time, cecal intubation rate or complications. There was no difference in pain control with non- patient controlled sedation (PCS) use of propofol as compared to the traditional agents (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.58, 1.39). Although there was higher patient satisfaction (OR for dissatisfaction 0.42, 95% CI 0.20, 0.89), the pain control was inferior with use of PCS use of propofol as compared to the use of traditional agents (OR 3.09; 95% CI 2.15, 4.46).There was only one study comparing administration of propofol by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists for sedation during colonoscopy, with no difference in procedure time or patient satisfaction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Propofol for sedation during colonoscopy for generally healthy individuals can lead to faster recovery and discharge times, increased patient satisfaction without an increase in side-effects. More studies with standardized end-points are needed to compare propofol administration by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists.

Propofol for sedation during colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Propofol is increasingly used for sedation during colonoscopy, with many recent reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large non-randomized case series.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to identify, analyze and summarize RCTs comparing the relative effectiveness, patient acceptance and safety of propofol for colonoscopy, to traditional sedatives (narcotics and/or benzodiazepines).The secondary objective was to synthesize the studies comparing propofol administration by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists for sedation during colonoscopy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Medline, Cancerlit, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, Biological Abstracts, Web of Science and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry database between January 1980 and June 2007; and conference proceeding abstracts for DDW, EUGW and ACG between 1990 and June 2007. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing use of propofol and traditional agents or administration of propofol by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists for sedation during colonoscopy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted the data. The data were pooled using the Cochrane Collaborations' methodology and statistical software RevMan 4.2.10.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria for the primary objective. Most studies included only healthy out-patients. Recovery and discharge times were shorter with use of propofol. There was higher patient satisfaction with use of propofol (OR for dissatisfaction 0.35, 95% CI 0.23, 0.53). There was no difference in procedure time, cecal intubation rate or complications. There was no difference in pain control with non- patient controlled sedation (PCS) use of propofol as compared to the traditional agents (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.58, 1.39). Although there was higher patient satisfaction (OR for dissatisfaction 0.42, 95% CI 0.20, 0.89), the pain control was inferior with use of PCS use of propofol as compared to the use of traditional agents (OR 3.09; 95% CI 2.15, 4.46).There was only one study comparing administration of propofol by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists for sedation during colonoscopy, with no difference in procedure time or patient satisfaction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Propofol for sedation during colonoscopy for generally healthy individuals can lead to faster recovery and discharge times, increased patient satisfaction without an increase in side-effects. More studies with standardized end-points are needed to compare propofol administration by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists.

Bispectral index monitoring for nurse-administered propofol sedation during upper endoscopic ultrasound: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

Bispectral index monitoring (BIS) is a quantitative assessment of brain cortical activity. The aim of this study was to determine if BIS-guided nurse-administered propofol sedation would decrease by > or = 20% both recovery time and propofol dose compared to standard propofol sedation for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Prospectively, eligible outpatients were randomized to BIS-guided or standard propofol sedation during EUS. Propofol was given by nurses in intermittent boluses with sedation targeted at a BIS score of < 65-75. For the control group, the nurse was blinded to BIS scores and sedation was titrated to a modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation scale (MOAA/S) score < or = 3. Of 50 patients enrolled, data for 44 randomized to BIS-guidance (n = 24) and the control group (n = 20) were evaluated. Between the BIS-guided and control group there was no difference between the mean procedure duration, total propofol dose, recovery time, mean intraoperative MOAA/S, and mean BIS score. Compared to standard propofol sedation for EUS, BIS-guided propofol sedation offers no significant decrease in postprocedure recovery times or propofol doses.

Human patient simulation and its role in endoscopic sedation training

Patient simulation is now considered to be a valid method for the education and evaluation of providers of sedation. Using full-scale human simulators to provide a realistic setting, participants can acquire skills for patient monitoring, administration of sedation medications, and the recognition and management of critical events. Although obstacles to its implementation exist, it appears likely that simulation training will become an integral part of training for providers of procedural sedation.

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.

Nurse-administered propofol sedation compared with midazolam and meperidine for EUS: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The utility of nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) compared with midazolam and meperidine (M/M) for EUS is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To compare recovery times, costs, safety, health personnel, and patient satisfaction of NAPS and M/M for EUS.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial.

SETTING

Tertiary-referral hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana.

PATIENTS

Outpatients referred for EUS.

INTERVENTIONS

Sedation with M/M or NAPS. The patient and recovery nurse were blinded; however, the sedating nurse, endoscopist, and recording research nurse were unblinded to the sedatives used. A capnography, in addition to standard monitoring, was used. A questionnaire and visual analog scale assessed patient, endoscopist, and sedating nurse satisfaction.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Recovery times, costs, safety, health personnel, and patient satisfaction in both groups.

RESULTS

Eighty consecutive patients were randomized to NAPS (n = 40) or M/M (n = 40). More patients in the propofol group were current tobacco users; patient demographics, procedures performed, mean procedure length, and the overall frequency of adverse events were otherwise similar. Compared with M/M, NAPS was associated with a faster induction of sedation (2.3 vs 5.7 minutes, respectively; P = .001) and full recovery time (29 vs 49 minutes, respectively; P = .001), higher postprocedure patient satisfaction, and quicker anticipated return to baseline function. At discharge, total costs (recovery plus medications) were similar between the propofol ($406) and M/M groups ($399; P = .79).

LIMITATION

Low-risk patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with M/M, NAPS for an EUS offered a faster sedation induction and full recovery time, higher postprocedure patient satisfaction, and a quicker anticipated return to baseline function. Total costs were similar between the groups.

An assessment of computer-assisted personalized sedation: a sedation delivery system to administer propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Demand for colonoscopy and EGD procedures is increasing. Impediments to performing these examinations persist. Patients perceive these procedures as unpleasant and painful. The use of suboptimal sedatives results in inefficiency in endoscopy practices. Improving sedation methods utilizing precise control of preferred sedatives may increase patient satisfaction and practice efficiency.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to demonstrate the feasibility of computer-assisted personalized sedation (CAPS) for facilitating the precise administration of propofol by endoscopist/nurse teams, achieving minimal to moderate sedation in subjects undergoing routine endoscopies.

DESIGN

Open label, single-center studies.

SETTING

Endoscopy clinics in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Gent, Belgium.

SUBJECTS

Twenty-four adults per center; 12 colonoscopies, 12 EGDs.

INTERVENTIONS

Propofol sedation with CAPS by endoscopist/registered nurse care teams.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sedation level measured by modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (MOAA/S), recovery time measured from endoscope removal until Aldrete >/= 12, dosage of propofol, oxygen saturation, and safety assessments.

RESULTS

Subjects responded to mild tactile and verbal stimuli MOAA/S = 5, 4, 3, or 2) 99% of the time. Mean propofol doses in the United States and Belgium were 65.4 and 72.1 mg, respectively. Mean recovery times were 29 and 10 seconds, respectively. Oxygen desaturation occurred in only 6% of subjects. No device-related adverse events occurred.

LIMITATION

Open-label design.

CONCLUSIONS

Using CAPS, the endoscopist/nurse teams precisely controlled the administration of propofol achieving minimal to moderate sedation in subjects undergoing colonoscopy and EGD procedures. Mean propofol dosage was low and post-procedure recovery times were rapid. The device performed well when operated by the endoscopist/nurse team, with no device-related adverse events.

Nurse-administered propofol sedation for upper endoscopic ultrasonography

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist regarding the safety of nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) for advanced endoscopy.

AIMS

To evaluate the frequency of and the risk factors for complications associated with NAPS for upper endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

METHODS

Consecutive upper EUS examinations using NAPS were retrospectively identified. Clinical data and adverse events were recorded. Univariate and multivariable repeated measures logistic regression models were used to identify independent risk factors for complications.

RESULTS

Among 806 EUS procedures, the mean procedure duration, time for sedation induction, and postprocedure recovery time were: 34 +/- 20 min, 3.6 +/- 1.4 min, and 27 +/- 23 min, respectively. A decline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) to <90 mm Hg occurred in 104 patients (13%). Six patients (0.7%) had a decline in oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) to <90%. Four patients (0.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-1.27) required assisted positive pressure ventilation. There were no major complications. The minor complication rate from sedation was 21% (95% CI 17.2-25.3). All of the complications were clinically insignificant. Overall complication risk was not related to age, dose, or procedure time. Sedation-related complication rates for advanced experience-level (> or =100 NAPS procedures) nurses were lower compared to the least-experienced (< or =30 NAPS procedures) nurses (17.2%vs 25.4%, odds ratio [OR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

NAPS for upper EUS is safe and may be performed without major complications. Four patients (0.5%) required assisted ventilation. Minor complications occurred in 21% of patients, but were not associated with patient age, propofol dose, or procedure time.

Efficiency of propofol versus midazolam and fentanyl sedation at a pediatric teaching hospital: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Many pediatric endoscopists are adopting propofol in their practices, with the expectation that propofol will increase their overall efficiency.

OBJECTIVE AND SETTING

To compare the efficiency of propofol versus midazolam and fentanyl by measuring elapsed times between initial intravenous administration and patient discharge at a pediatric teaching hospital.

DESIGN

Endoscopy times were prospectively collected for consecutive patients who were undergoing either anesthesiologist-administered propofol or endoscopist-administered midazolam and fentanyl. The effect of the type of sedation on these times was assessed by using multiple linear regression by adjusting for other candidate predictors, including concomitant use of other sedatives, endotracheal intubation by anesthesiologists, and the presence of fellow trainees.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Time to onset of sedation (time sedation started to scope in), procedure time (endoscope in to endoscope out), discharge time (endoscope out to hospital discharge), and total time (sedation started to hospital discharge).

RESULTS

The times for 134 children (mean age 12 +/- 5 years) to receive propofol sedation were compared with those of 195 children (13 +/- 5 years) who received midazolam and fentanyl. Midazolam and fentanyl cases disproportionately included EGDs (P < .001) and patients who were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists I (P < .03). Patients who received propofol had shorter times until sedated, similar procedure times, longer discharge times, and comparable total times. Multivariate analyses confirmed that fellow participation prolonged the procedure times (P < .0001), and endotracheal intubation prolonged propofol times (P <. 01), but adjusting for these did not change the comparison results.

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in a pediatric teaching endoscopy unit may not lead to faster hospital times when compared with endoscopist-administered midazolam and fentanyl. These results are not explained by controlling for patient characteristics, the presence of a trainee, the sedative doses, or endotracheal intubation for airway management.

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.

Safety of nurse-administered propofol sedation using PCA pump for outpatient colonoscopy in Chinese patients: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

To determine the safety and effectiveness of nurse-administered propofol sedation using patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump in outpatient colonoscopy in a Chinese population.

METHODS

From April to June 2005, 50 consecutive ASA class I or II patients aged 18-65 undergoing outpatient colonoscopy in an endoscopy centre of a regional hospital were prospectively recruited in this study. After a loading dose of 40-60 mg intravenous propofol, a mixture containing 14.3 mg propofol and 35 microg alfentanil were delivered via a patient-controlled syringe pump as bolus dose by an endoscopy nurse under the supervision of an endoscopist during the procedure. Lockout time was set to be zero. We aimed to achieve conscious sedation, with an Observers Scale for Sedation and Alertness (OSSA) score of 3. The primary outcome measure was complications from sedation, which included hypotension, bradycardia and desaturation. Other outcome measures included onset time, patients pain score, endoscopists and nurses satisfaction on the level of sedation, patients satisfaction regarding the procedure (measured by 10 cm visual analogue scale), and their willingness to repeat the procedure.

RESULTS

The mean lowest systolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were 103.2 +/- 12.4 mmHg and 78.3 +/- 11.0 mmHg, respectively. The mean percentage drop in MAP was 15.7 +/- 11.9%. Six patients (12.2%) developed transient hypotension. Three patients (6.1%) had bradycardia. There was no episode of desaturation. The median onset time to reach OSSA score of 3 was 1 minute (range, 0.5-20.5). The OSSA score of 3 could be maintained throughout the procedure. The mean loading dose of propofol was 48.9 +/- 6.7 mg. The mean total dosages of propofol and alfentanil given were 124.2 +/- 38.1 mg and 184.3 +/- 93.7 mug, respectively. Endoscopists, endoscopy nurses and patients were highly satisfied with the sedation. The median pain score was 1 (range, 0-10; 0 = no pain, 10 = very painful), and the mean recovery time was 2.8 +/- 2.8 minutes. Most patients (93.9%) were willing to repeat the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Nurse-administered propofol sedation using PCA pump is safe and effective in sedation and pain control in outpatient colonoscopy in a healthy Chinese population.

The nature of anesthesia and procedural sedation outside of the operating room

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Procedural sedation and monitored anesthesia care have become increasingly common in locations outside of the operating room. The different types of procedures are presented along with pertinent safety issues with the use of different drug combinations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on the annual data from one hospital, of approximately 63,000 patients undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic procedures under sedation or anesthesia, 41% were sedated by non-anesthesiologists. Monitored anesthesia care was given to 0.4% of patients outside of the operating room. Events associated with monitored anesthesia care have been related to age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and obesity. Without the use of capnography, significant delays in the detection of apnea were demonstrable. Respiratory compromise with propofol for sedation appears less than that described for sedation using opiates and benzodiazepines.

SUMMARY

The number and types of procedures done outside of the operating room are steadily increasing. Sedation for these is often provided by nonanesthesiologists. A quality assurance system dedicated to track events associated with procedural sedation and anesthesia done outside of the operating room is instrumental for the maintenance of exemplary quality of sedation and safety of our patients.

Propofol sedation during endoscopic procedures: how much staff and monitoring are necessary?

BACKGROUND

Propofol has been shown to be safe for nonanesthetist use during GI endoscopy. However, published studies involved propofol administration by an additional nurse or used specialized patient monitoring or were carried out in tertiary hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

Considering the downward pressure on reimbursement for endoscopic procedures, we asked how much staff and monitoring is necessary for safe use of propofol.

SETTING

Two private gastroenterology practices.

PATIENTS AND DESIGN

A total of 27,061 endoscopic procedures (14,856 EGDs and 12,205 colonoscopies) were prospectively assessed regarding patient characteristics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, dosage of propofol, fall of oxygen saturation below 90%, need to increase nasal oxygen administration above 2 L/min, and need for assisted ventilation.

INTERVENTION

Propofol was administered by the endoscopy nurse supervised by the endoscopist. Patient monitoring consisted of only pulse oximetry and clinical assessment.

RESULTS

The mean propofol dose for EGD was 161 mg (range 50-650 mg). During colonoscopy patients received a mean propofol dose of 116 mg (30-500 mg) in addition to 25 mg of meperidine. Oxygen saturation fell below 90% (lowest 74%) in 623 procedures (2.3%), normalizing within less than 30 seconds by stimulating the patient and increasing the nasal oxygen flow to 4 to 10 L/min. Six patients (ASA III) required mask ventilation for less than 30 seconds. No endotracheal intubation was necessary.

LIMITATIONS

There was no further follow-up regarding adverse events after patient discharge from the endoscopy unit.

CONCLUSIONS

An endoscopy team, consisting of 1 physician endoscopist and 1 endoscopy nurse, can safely administer propofol sedation for GI endoscopy in a practice setting without additional staff or specialized monitoring.

Clinical Practice Advisory: Emergency Department Procedural Sedation With Propofol

We present an evidence-based clinical practice advisory for the administration of propofol for emergency department procedural sedation. We critically discuss indications, contraindications, personnel and monitoring requirements, dosing, coadministered medications, and patient recovery from propofol. Future research questions are considered.

Minimizing complications: sedation and monitoring

Serious adverse events are fortunately quite rare for procedural sedation. Current physiologic monitoring recommendations are therefore either based on "softer" outcomes, such as transient hypoxemia, or on expert opinion. Pulse oximetry and supplemental oxygen are recommended for the reduction of hypoxemia. Outcomes-based data for extended monitoring are just starting to emerge, and one of these technologies may become a recommended component of patient monitoring. With data on more than 150,000 patients published in the literature, propofol is the most studied sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy. In this author's opinion, its safety and efficacy have been established.

Sedation in endoscopic practice

Sedation impacts every aspect of endoscopy practice--the quality fo the examination, the satisfaction of endoscopist and of patient, the efficiency and cost of delivering services, and the compliance of patients with surveillance guidelines. New sedation agents and improved patient-monitoring and drug-delivery technologies are challenging traditional practices. Increasing demand for endoscopic services, shrinking reimbursements, and competing diagnostic technologies are prompting recognition that new approaches to sedation can improve practice efficiency and patient outcome. This article discusses new developments in endoscopic sedation and their implications for practice management.

Propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus propofol in combination with opioids and/or benzodiazepines and titrated to moderate sedation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Propofol by nonanesthesiologists is controversial because the drug is commonly used to produce deep sedation or general anesthesia. Propofol in combination with opioids and/or benzodiazepines can be titrated to moderate sedation, which might be safer.

AIM

To compare recovery time, patient satisfaction, and other end points with propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus propofol combination therapy with opioids and/or benzodiazepines.

METHOD

A randomized controlled clinical trial of propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus fentanyl plus propofol versus midazolam plus propofol versus fentanyl plus midazolam plus propofol in 200 outpatients undergoing colonoscopy. Each combination regimen was titrated to moderate sedation.

RESULTS

Patients receiving propofol alone received higher doses of propofol and had deeper sedation scores compared with combination therapy (both p < 0.001). Patients receiving combination regimens were discharged more quickly (median 13.0-14.7 versus 18.1 min) than those receiving propofol alone (p < 0.01). There were no differences in vital signs or oxygen saturations among the study arms. There were no significant differences in pain or satisfaction among the study arms in the recovery area. At a follow-up phone call, patients receiving fentanyl and propofol remembered more of the procedure than those in the other regimens (p < 0.005) and remembered more pain than those receiving propofol alone (p < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol in combination with fentanyl and/or midazolam can be titrated to moderate levels of sedation without substantial loss of satisfaction and with shorter recovery times compared with propofol titrated to deep sedation throughout the procedure.

Risk factors for cardiopulmonary events during propofol-mediated upper endoscopy and colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Propofol-mediated sedation for endoscopy is popular because of its rapid onset and recovery profile.

AIM

To examine procedure-specific occurrence and risk factors for cardiopulmonary events during propofol-mediated upper endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy.

DESIGN

A cohort study using the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative database was used to determine the frequency of cardiopulmonary events. Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative consisted of 69 practice sites comprising 593 US endoscopists. Multivariate logistic regression analysis used variables, such as age, ASA classification and propofol administration by monitored anaesthesia care or gastroenterologist-administered propofol to determine the risk of cardiopulmonary events.

RESULTS

The overall cardiopulmonary event rate for 5928 EGDs and 11 683 colonoscopies was 11.7/1000 cases. For colonoscopy, ascending ASA classification was associated with an increased risk. Monitored anaesthesia care was associated with a decreased adjusted relative risk (0.5, 95% CI: 0.36-0.72). ASA I and II patients receiving monitored anaesthesia care for EGD exhibited a significantly lower relative risk (ARR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.14-0.64). For subjects with ASA class III or greater, there was no difference in the risk between monitored anaesthesia care and gastroenterologist-administered propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

There are procedure-specific risk factors for cardiopulmonary events during propofol-mediated EGD and colonoscopy. These should be taken into account during future prospective comparative trials.

Sedation for endoscopic procedures: not as simple as it seems

The Bispectral Index (BIS) is a processed electroencephalogram, which has been evaluated as an automated monitoring technique for patients receiving sedation for endoscopic procedures. BIS monitoring has not been shown to be of significant clinical benefit, but the need for an objective quantitative measure of the depth of sedation in patients undergoing endoscopy remains.

Efficacy of bispectral monitoring as an adjunct to nurse-administered propofol sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Bispectral (BIS) monitoring provides an objective, non-invasive measure of the level of consciousness in sedated patients. BIS has been shown to lag behind the level of sedation during induction and emergence of sedation with propofol. In this study, we sought to determine whether BIS is a useful adjunctive maneuver to registered nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) as measured by reductions in recovery time and doses of propofol administered.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial of 102 outpatients presenting for colonoscopy was performed. BIS values were recorded continuously in all subjects. Patients were randomized to receive NAPS with BIS visible to nurse and endoscopist versus BIS invisible to nurse and endoscopist. In phase 1 (47 patients), the nurse and endoscopist team were instructed to consider BIS (when visible) as only adjunctive information with regard to titrating sedation. In phase 2 (55 patients), the nurse endoscopist team was instructed to use BIS as the primary endpoint for titration of sedation, and to target BIS to greater than 60 (60-70 is deep sedation).

RESULTS

In phase 1, the mean (SD) BIS value from scope-in (SI) to scope-out (SO) for BIS was 59.3 (9.9) and was not different from controls at 59.9 (10.1; p= 0.82). The mean (SD) propofol dose (mg/min) was 15.8 (5.6) and 17.2 (6.2) for BIS and controls, respectively (p= 0.45). The mean (SD) recovery time with BIS visible in phase 1 was 20.6 min (5.5) versus 19.2 min (4.5) in controls (p= 0.34). In phase 2, the mean (SD) BIS from SI to SO in those randomized to have BIS visible was 64.1 (5.4) versus 63.1 (8.5) in controls (p= 0.58). The mean (SD) dose of propofol (mg/min) was 16.1 (11.2) and 16.4 (12.3) for BIS and control groups, respectively (p= 0.92). The mean (SD) recovery time in phase 2 with BIS visible was 18.7 (3.5) versus 20.1 (5.6) in controls (p= 0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

BIS did not lead to reductions in mean propofol dose or recovery time when used as an adjunct to NAPS for colonoscopy, or when used as the primary target for sedation. No clinically important role for BIS monitoring as an adjunct to NAPS has yet been established.

The evolution of nurse-monitored sedation

The practice of nurse-administered sedation has evolved over the past decade. As the use of sedation increased and adverse events were reported, the need for guidelines to benefit patient safety became crucial. Guidelines have been issued from nursing organizations, medical organizations, and accrediting agencies that have the patient's safety as a priority. This article looks at the history of sedation and discusses how practice issues have evolved to the present day.

Diphenhydramine as an adjunct to sedation for colonoscopy: a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous benzodiazepines in combination with opiates are used to achieve moderate sedation for colonoscopy. Although effective, these agents have potential adverse effects, such as respiratory depression and hypotension. Diphenhydramine hydrochloride possesses central nervous system depressant effects that theoretically could provide a synergistic effect for sedating patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess the efficacy of adding diphenhydramine hydrochloride as an adjunct to improve sedation and to reduce the amount of standard sedatives used during colonoscopy.

DESIGN

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

The study was conducted in a university hospital with an active GI fellowship training program.

PATIENTS

The study group comprised 270 patients undergoing screening/diagnostic/therapeutic colonoscopy were enrolled.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive either 50 mg of diphenhydramine or placebo, given intravenously 3 minutes before starting conscious sedation with intravenous midazolam and meperidine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The main outcome measure was anesthetic effect as assessed by the endoscopy team and by the patient; quantity of adjunctive sedatives to achieve adequate sedation.

RESULTS

Of 270 patients, data were analyzed for 258 patients, with 130 patients in the diphenhydramine group and 128 patients in the placebo group. There was a 10.1% reduction in meperidine usage and 13.7% reduction in midazolam usage in favor of the diphenhydramine group. The mean evaluation scores as judged by the faculty, the fellows, and the nurses were statistically significant in favor of the diphenhydramine group. In addition, patient scores for overall sedation and pain level favored the group that received diphenhydramine.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous diphenhydramine given before initiation of standard sedation offers a significant benefit to conscious sedation for patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Trained registered nurses/endoscopy teams can administer propofol safely for endoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Propofol has advantages as a sedative for endoscopic procedures. Its administration by anesthesia specialists is associated with high cost. Administration by nonanesthesiologists is controversial because of concerns about safety, particularly respiratory depression.

METHODS

Three endoscopy units developed programs to train registered nurses supervised only by endoscopists in the administration of propofol for endoscopic procedures. The rate of adverse respiratory events was tracked from the inception of the programs. To estimate whether training nurses to give propofol on a widespread basis might be effective, we evaluated the individual safety records of all nurses and endoscopists involved in propofol delivery at the 3 centers.

RESULTS

Among a total of 36,743 cases of nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) at the 3 centers, there were no cases requiring endotracheal intubation or resulting in death, neurologic sequelae, or other permanent injury. The rate of respiratory events requiring assisted ventilation was not significantly different among the 3 centers and ranged from just <1 per 500 cases to just <1 per 1000 cases among the 3 centers. There was no individual nurse or physician for whom the rate of respiratory events requiring assisted ventilation differed from the overall rate of events at the respective centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Trained nurses and endoscopists can administer propofol safely for endoscopic procedures. Nurse-administered propofol sedation is one potential solution to the high cost associated with anesthetist-delivered sedation for endoscopy.

Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Even though propofol has better recovery profile than traditional agents, its use is limited because of the perception of increased complication rates. Because an adequately powered trial comparing risk of propofol with traditional agents is lacking, we performed a meta-analysis of the current literature.

METHODS

We searched Medline (1966-October 2004), EMBASE (1980-October 2004), and Cochrane controlled trials registry. The following 4 cardiopulmonary complications were assessed: hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmias, and apnea. Procedures were divided into 3 groups: esophagogastroduodenoscopy group, colonoscopy group, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/endoscopic ultrasonography group. Pooled odds ratios for complications were calculated for all the procedures combined and then separately for the 3 groups. Random effects models were used for 2-proportion comparisons.

RESULTS

Of the 90 citations identified, 12 original studies qualified for this meta-analysis and included 1161 patients. Of these, 634 received propofol, and 527 received midazolam, meperidine, and/or fentanyl. Most of the included studies were randomized trials of moderate quality and nonsignificant heterogeneity (Cochran Q = 4.81, P = .90). Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled odds ratio with the use of propofol for developing hypoxia or hypotension for all the procedures combined was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.24); for EGD, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.33-2.17); for colonoscopy, 0.4 (95% CI, 0.2-0.79); and for ERCP/EUS, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.38-3.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation during colonoscopy appears to have lower odds of cardiopulmonary complications compared with traditional agents, but for other procedures, the risk of complications is similar.

Sedation and the technical performance of colonoscopy

The use of sedation for routine endoscopic procedures, including colonoscopy, varies widely across cultures. This variation in sedation practice is greater than any other culturally based variation in the technical performance of endoscopy. This article sequentially reviews the technical performance of colonoscopy in patients who undergo unsedated colonoscopy, sedation with narcotics and benzodiazepines, and deep sedation with propofol. For each of these approaches to colonoscopy, the advantages and disadvantages also are listed and discussed.

The science and politics of propofol

Propofol use for endoscopy is increasing rapidly. Its administration by registered nurses under the supervision of endoscopists has thus far proven safe, but is not realistically feasible in most U.S. endoscopy units. Therefore, propofol in the United States is being administered almost entirely by anesthetists. Transition to anesthetist-delivered sedation for endoscopy is being accompanied by increased costs, which in turn has the potential to adversely affect endoscopic practice. The gastroenterology and anesthesia communities should work together to explore mechanisms to expand propofol use or an alternative for endoscopy in a safe and cost-effective manner.

Efficiency issues in sedation and monitoring

Sedation and monitoring are key elements of the endoscopy process. There continues to be intense study of better methods for sedation and monitoring to improve the endoscopic "experience" for both patient and physicians alike. Our current practices will likely change in the future with technologic advances (monitoring) and expansion of our pharmacologic armamentarium (sedation).