The use of propofol as a sedative agent in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

Effects of propofol sedation on pacing thresholds : Results from an observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Propofol is one of the most commonly used intravenous anaesthetic drugs for surgical procedures. The use of propofol for sedation is also common practice during endoscopic procedures, electrophysiology studies, and ablation procedures, as well as pacemaker and defibrillator implantation. It was found that propofol alters the electrophysiologic properties of the heart and its conduction system. The effects of propofol on pacing thresholds are unknown and could have implications for pacemaker (PM) and defibrillator (ICD) implantation procedures, as well as sedation and anaesthesia in PM and ICD patients in general.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to investigate the effects of propofol sedation on atrial and right ventricular pacing thresholds in PM and ICD patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 50 patients with PM, ICD, or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) undergoing propofol sedation for electrophysiology (EP) investigation, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), electrocardioversion (ECV), or bronchoscopy were included prospectively. Pacing thresholds, impedance, and sensing were assessed by device interrogation immediately prior to sedation and after the desired sedation depth was achieved by the administration of propofol.

RESULTS

Mean atrial (0.68 V vs 0.77 V, p = 0.136) and mean right ventricular thresholds (0.90 V vs 0.93 V, p = 0.274) remained unchanged. Impedances and sensing remained unaffected in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation did not affect pacing thresholds of atrial and right ventricular leads in this cohort of PM and ICD patients.

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

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

Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction

Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used, but propofol sedation is becoming more popular because its unique pharmacokinetic properties make endoscopy almost painless, with a very predictable and rapid recovery process. There is controversy as to whether propofol should be administered only by anesthesia professionals (monitored anesthesia care) or whether properly trained non-anesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation. The deployment of non-anesthesia administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall health care costs without sacrificing sedation quality. This review will discuss efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction issues with various modes of sedation for non-advanced, non-emergent endoscopic procedures, mainly esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy.

Patient Satisfaction With Propofol for Outpatient Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study

BACKGROUND

Previous literature has shown that propofol has ideal anesthetic properties for patients undergoing colonoscopy, a common procedure at outpatient surgery centers. However, there is a paucity of information regarding patient satisfaction with propofol.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction with propofol compared with nonpropofol (fentanyl/midazolam) anesthesia for outpatient colonoscopies. Safety and complications were secondary end points.

DESIGN

This study was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group controlled clinical trial (NCT 02937506).

SETTING

This study was conducted at a single ambulatory surgery center at an urban teaching community health system.

PATIENTS

Patients were scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy. Those with high-risk cardiac or pulmonary disease were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

Anesthesia personnel administered either fentanyl/midazolam (n = 300) or propofol (n = 300) for sedation during outpatient colonoscopy. A single, highly experienced endoscopist performed all colonoscopies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were patient satisfaction (5-point Likert scale) and procedure complications. Data were collected on the day of endoscopy by the nursing staff of the postanesthesia care unit. A subinvestigator blinded to the randomization called patients 24 to 72 hours after discharge to obtain data on postprocedure problems and status of resumption of normal activities. Analysis was intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Fewer patients who received propofol remembered being awake during the procedure (2% vs 17% for fentanyl, p < 0.0001) and were more likely to rate the amount of anesthesia received as being "just right" (98.7% vs 91.3% for fentanyl, p = 0.0002) and state that they were "very satisfied" with their anesthesia (86.3% vs 74% for fentanyl, p = 0.0005). Twenty-six percent of fentanyl procedures were rated "difficult" compared with 4.3% for propofol (p < 0.0001), and complications were fewer in the propofol group (2.7% vs 11.7%, p < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

The endoscopist could not be completely blinded to the anesthetic administered.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients prefer propofol over a combination of fentanyl/midazolam as their anesthetic for outpatient colonoscopies. From a patient and provider perspective, propofol appears to be superior to fentanyl/midazolam for outpatient colonoscopy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A445.

Etomidate versus propofol sedation for complex upper endoscopic procedures: a prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although a growing body of evidence demonstrates that propofol-induced deep sedation can be effective and performed safely, cardiopulmonary adverse events have been observed frequently. Etomidate is a new emerging drug that provides hemodynamic and respiratory stability, even in high-risk patient groups. The objective of this study was to compare safety and efficacy profiles of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation.

METHODS

A total of 128 patients undergoing EUS were randomized to receive either etomidate or propofol blinded administered by a registered nurse. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with any cardiopulmonary adverse events.

RESULTS

Overall cardiopulmonary adverse events were identified in 22 patients (34.38%) of the etomidate group and 33 patients (51.56%) of the propofol group, without significant difference (P = .074). However, the incidence of oxygen desaturation (4/64 [6.25%] vs 20/64 [31.25%]; P =.001) and respiratory depression (5/64 [7.81%] vs 21/64 [32.81%]; P =.001) was significantly lower in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. The frequency of myoclonus was significantly higher in the etomidate group (22/64 [34.37%]) compared with the propofol group (8/64 [12.50%]) (P =.012). Repeated measure analysis of variance revealed significant effects of sedation group and time on systolic blood pressure (etomidate group greater than propofol group). Physician satisfaction was greater in the etomidate group than in the propofol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Etomidate administration resulted in fewer respiratory depression events and had a better sedative efficacy than propofol; however, it was more frequently associated with myoclonus and increased blood pressure during endoscopic procedures. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0001701.).

Prevention of anesthesia-induced injection pain of propofol in pediatric anesthesia

Objective:

Propofol is a new anesthetic agent in clinical practice, but randomized double-blinded prospective studies on its role in pediatric anesthesia remain limited. We aimed to compare the preventive effects of pre-injected lidocaine or ketamine and its pre-mixture on the anesthesia-induced injection pain of propofol using a randomized double-blinded prospective method, and to compare the outcomes with those of medium-/long-chain propofol (M/LCT).

Methods:

A total of 360 pediatric patients (aged 5-12 years old) who received elective surgery were randomly divided into six groups (n= 60) as follows. S group: control group; L group: lidocaine group; L + P group: lidocaine + propofol group; K group: ketamine group; K + P group: ketamine + propofol group; M group: M/LCT group. After the drug fluid completely entered the cubital vein, the venous access was closed. During propofol injection, the injection pain was scored using the VRS 4-point scale. Meanwhile, the heart rates before and during injection were recorded, the adverse reactions during and after injection were observed, and the incidence rate and degree of pain were evaluated.

Results:

The VRS 4-point scale showed that the incidence rates of injection pain of S group, L group, L + P group, K group, K + P group and M group were 78.3%, 66.67%, 51.66%, 43.33%, 48.33% and 45% respectively. The incidence rates of injection pain of all experimental groups were significantly lower than that of S group (P<0.01). The incidence rates of injection pain of L + P group, K group, K + P group and M group were significantly lower than that of L group (P<0.05). The differences among the other groups were not statistically significant.

Conclusions:

Intravenous pre-injection of lidocaine, ketamine or those mixed with propofol can all significantly reduce the incidence rate of injection pain of propofol.

Does deep sedation with propofol affect adenoma detection rates in average risk screening colonoscopy exams?

AIM

To determine the effect of sedation with propofol on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rates (CIR) in average risk screening colonoscopies compared to moderate sedation.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 2604 first-time average risk screening colonoscopies performed at MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2010-2013. ADR and CIR were calculated in each sedation group. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders of age and body mass index (BMI).

RESULTS

One-third of the exams were done with propofol (n = 874). Overall ADR in the propofol group was significantly higher than moderate sedation (46.3% vs 41.2%, P = 0.01). After adjustment for age and BMI differences, ADR was similar between the groups. CIR was 99% for all exams. The mean cecal insertion time was shorter among propofol patients (6.9 min vs 8.2 min; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Deep sedation with propofol for screening colonoscopy did not significantly improve ADR or CIR in our population of average risk patients. While propofol may allow for safer sedation in certain patients (e.g., with sleep apnea), the overall effect on colonoscopy quality metrics is not significant. Given its increased cost, propofol should be used judiciously and without the implicit expectation of a higher quality screening exam.

Combined use of dexmedetomidine and propofol in monitored anesthesia care: a randomized controlled study

Backgroud

Although propofol and dexmedetomidine have been widely used for monitored anesthesia care, their adverse effects necessitate the search for better methods. Therefore, we performed this randomized controlled trial to evaluate the combined use of propofol and dexmedetomidine.

Methods

Eighty-seven adult patients undergoing hand surgery under brachial plexus block were randomly allocated to receive 1.6 μg/ml of the target effect site concentration of propofol (P group) and infusion of 0.4 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine following a loading dose of 1.0 μg/kg for 10 min (D group). The M group received a half-dose of both drugs simultaneously. The maintenance dose was adjusted to maintain an Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score of 3. Cardiorespiratory variables, adverse effects, and drug efficacy were observed.

Results

The significantly higher mean arterial pressure (mmHg) in the D group [P group 86.9 (12.6), D group 96.0 (12.2), M group 85.6 (10.6), p = 0.004)] and a significantly higher heart rate (beat/min) in the P group were observed [P group 67.3 (9.0), D group 57.8 (6.9), M group 59.2 (7.4), p < 0.001)]. The M group had a significant lower incidence of airway obstruction (p < 0.001) and the D group had a higher incidence of bradycardia requiring atropine (p = 0.001). The P group had higher incidences of hypoxia (p = 0.001), spontaneous movement (p < 0.001) and agitation (p = 0.001). The satisfaction scores of the patients (p = 0.007) and surgeon (p < 0.001) were higher in the M group. Onset time was significantly longer in the D group (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The combined use of propofol and dexmedetomidine provided cardiovascular stability with decreased adverse effects. Additionally, it led to a similar onset time of propofol and achieved higher satisfaction scores.

Trial registration

KCT0001284. Retrospectively registered 25 November 2014.

Dexmedetomidine vs propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis

Background and aim

Several randomized controlled trials have compared sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy, with contradictory results. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials that compared dexmedetomidine with propofol.

Methods

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database for randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We identified six eligible randomized trials from the database search, and compared the effect of propofol versus dexmedetomidine with respect to: (a) patient's satisfaction level, (b) body movement or gagging, (c) cardiopulmonary complications, and (d) change in heart rate. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled risk difference (RD) or weighted mean difference (WMD).

Results

Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the patient's satisfaction level (WMD: -0.678, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.149 to -0.207, p = 0.0048), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. The pooled RD for developing body movement or gagging when using dexmedetomidine was 0.107 (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.305, p = 0.288), with no significant differences. Compared with propofol, the pooled RD for hypotension, hypoxia, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were -0.029 (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.05), -0.080 (95% CI: -0.178 to 0.018), and 0.022 (95% CI: -0.027 to 0.07), respectively, with no significant differences. Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the heart rate (WMD: -10.41, 95% CI: -13.77 to -7.051, p ≤ 0.0001), without significant heterogeneity.

Conclusions

In gastrointestinal endoscopy, patient satisfaction level was higher in propofol administration, when compared to dexmedetomidine. The risk of complications was similar.

Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Use of Propofol Plus Fentanyl versus Midazolam Plus Fentanyl as Sedation in Diagnostic Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of propofol plus fentanyl versus midazolam plus fentanyl as sedative for patients with advanced liver disease presented for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients with liver cirrhosis referred for upper endoscopy were enrolled and divided equally in two groups, midazolam plus fentanyl group and propofol plus fentanyl group. All patients were subjected to history taking, estimation of level of sedation, endoscopist rating, and hemodynamic parameters including oxygen saturation, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, incidence of side effect as (bradycardia, hypotension, hypoxia, nausea and vomiting, cough, shivering, or diplopia), time needed for complete recovery, and time needed for discharge.

RESULTS

There was no statistical significant difference between the studied groups regarding age, sex, weight, Child-Pugh classification score, type and duration of endoscopic intervention, time needed for complete recovery, or time needed for discharge. Complication rates were similar in both groups except for mean arterial blood pressure which was significantly lower in group of patients receiving propofol and fentanyl (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of either propofol or midazolam in combination to fentanyl is effective in sedation of patients with advanced liver diseases presented for upper GIT endoscope. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03063866.

A comparison of propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing interest in sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). Prospective randomized studies comparing sedation properties and complications of propofol and midazolam/meperidine in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) are few.

AIM

To compare propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation for UGE in terms of cardiopulmonary side effects, patient and endoscopist satisfaction and procedure-related times.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of propofol versus midazolam and meperidine in 100 patients scheduled for diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The patients were divided into propofol and midazolam/meperidine groups. Randomization was generated by a computer. Cardiopulmonary side effects (hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia), procedure-related times (endoscopy time, awake time, time to hospital discharge), and patient and endoscopist satisfaction were compared between groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the cost, endoscopy time, or demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients. Awake time and time to hospital discharge were significantly shorter in the propofol group (6.58 ±4.72 vs. 9.32 ±4.26 min, p = 0.030 and 27.60 ±7.88 vs. 32.00 ±10.54 min, p = 0.019). Hypotension incidence was significantly higher in the propofol group (12% vs. 0%, p = 0.027). The patient and endoscopist satisfaction was better with propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol may be preferred to midazolam/meperidine sedation, with a shorter awake and hospital discharge time and better patient and endoscopist satisfaction. However, hypotension risk should be considered with propofol, and careful evaluation is needed, particularly in cardiopulmonary disorders.

The feasibility of office-based propofol sedation for dental care in patients with intellectual disability by sedation practitioners

BACKGROUND

The quality of oral health care for intellectually disabled patients is a significant challenge due to behavioral issues. Intravenous propofol sedation may be useful to relieve the anxiety and fear, and make dental procedures more acceptable. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of propofol sedation, by trained nonmedical sedation practitioners, during dental treatments in an office-based setting.

METHODS

Intellectually disabled patients (124) were subjected to restorative dental procedures and moderately sedated using intravenous propofol. Vital signs, cooperation of the patient, and sedation depth were continuously assessed.

RESULTS

Propofol sedation was effective for dental treatment. All procedures resulted in a sufficient level of sedation without moderate or severe complications.

CONCLUSION

Propofol sedation can be safely and effectively performed in an office-based setting by sedation practitioners, who have experience in propofol sedation and are trained in the care of patients with disabilities.

Room for Quality Improvement in Endoscopist-Directed Sedation: Results from the First Nationwide Survey in Korea

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study sought to characterize the current sedation practices of Korean endoscopists in real-world settings.

METHODS

All active members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy were invited to complete an anonymous 35-item questionnaire.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 22.7% (1,332/5,860). Propofol-based sedation was the dominant method used in both elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy (55.6%) and colonoscopy (52.6%). The mean satisfaction score for propofol-based sedation was significantly higher than that for standard sedation in both examinations (all p<0.001). The use of propofol was supervised exclusively by endoscopists (98.6%). Endoscopists practicing in nonacademic settings, gastroenterologists, or endoscopists with.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopist-directed propofol administration is the predominant sedation method used in Korea. This survey strongly suggests that there is much room for quality improvement regarding sedation training and patient vigilance in endoscopist-directed sedation.

Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation by anesthesiologists and gastroenterologist-led teams using computer-assisted personalized sedation during upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

No randomized controlled studies comparing propofol versus no sedation have been reported. Comparative data demonstrating the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation by anesthesiologists (ANES), and gastroenterologist-led teams (GLT) using computer-assisted personalized sedation (CAPS), during routine gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in Japan do not exist. We aimed to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of propofol sedation versus no sedation (PLCB) when propofol is given by ANES or GLT, during routine GI endoscopy.

METHODS

Two hundred and seventy two American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II adults were prospectively enrolled in this multicenter study and randomized into three groups (PLCB, ANES, GLT). Ability to maintain moderate sedation, defined as MOAA/S scores of 2-4 for ≥50% of all MOAA/S measurements from scope-in to scope-out, was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included patient (PSSI) and clinician (CSSI) satisfaction.

RESULTS

Proportion of subjects maintained in moderate sedation by ANES (88.1%) and GLT (94.5%) was significantly higher than PLCB (21.6%; P < 0.001); there was no difference between the ANES and GLT groups (P = 0.116). Mean PSSI scores for subjects sedated by ANES (81.2 ± 12.5) and GLT (80.8 ± 14.1) were significantly higher than PLCB (65.3 ± 19.7; P < 0.001) and mean CSSI scores were also significantly higher in both active treatment groups (75.5 ± 10.2, 77.9 ± 10.3) than PLCB (60.8 ± 18.6; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Moderate sedation can be achieved and maintained with propofol, improving both patient and physician satisfaction, when propofol is given by an anesthesiologist or a gastroenterologist-led team using CAPS.

Practice guidelines for propofol sedation by non-anesthesiologists: the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force recommendations on propofol sedation

In South Korea, as in many other countries, propofol sedation is performed by practitioners across a broad range of specialties in our country. However, this has led to significant variation in propofol sedation practices, as shown in a series of reports by the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists (KSA). This has led the KSA to develop a set of evidence-based practical guidelines for propofol sedation by non-anesthesiologists. Here, we provide a set of recommendations for propofol sedation, with the aim of ensuring patient safety in a variety of clinical settings. The subjects of the guidelines are patients aged ≥ 18 years who were receiving diagnostic or therapeutic procedures under propofol sedation in a variety of hospital classes. The committee developed the guidelines via a de novo method, using key questions created across 10 sub-themes for data collection as well as evidence from the literature. In addition, meta-analyses were performed for three key questions. Recommendations were made based on the available evidence, and graded according to the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Draft guidelines were scrutinized and discussed by advisory panels, and agreement was achieved via the Delphi consensus process. The guidelines contain 33 recommendations that have been endorsed by the KSA Executive Committee. These guidelines are not a legal standard of care and are not absolute requirements; rather they are recommendations that may be adopted, modified, or rejected according to clinical considerations.

Propofol Versus Midazolam/Fentanyl Sedation for Colonoscopy in the Elderly Patient Population

PURPOSE

Despite current literature, data on the most effective sedation and best patient outcomes are insufficient for providing recovery time recommendations for elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy with sedation. We sought to identify the best sedation practice for shorter recovery times. Therefore, a study was conducted to examine recovery times among patients older than 65 years undergoing elective colonoscopy with intravenous sedation with either propofol or the combination of midazolam/fentanyl.

DESIGN

A retrospective descriptive, exploratory design was used.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from patients older than 65 years undergoing outpatient elective colonoscopy at our institution between January and December 2013. Recovery times were evaluated for those administered intravenous propofol or a combination of midazolam/fentanyl. Patient demographics and sedation medications were obtained from patient records. A modified Aldrete score greater than 8 was required for discharge. Recovery time was defined as the time from procedure completion to a modified Aldrete score greater than 8.

FINDINGS

Propofol sedation was associated with longer recovery times compared with sedation with a combination of midazolam and fentanyl (mean: 50 minutes versus 31 minutes, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation was not associated with shorter recovery times. Further studies are needed to validate these findings.

Safety and efficacy of etomidate and propofol anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy: A double-blind randomized clinical study

The aim of the present study is to compare the safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of anesthetic regimens by compound, using etomidate and propofol in elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy. A total of 200 volunteers (65-79 years of age) scheduled for gastroscopy under anesthesia were randomly divided into the following groups: P, propofol (1.5-2.0 mg/kg); E, etomidate (0.15-0.2 mg/kg); P+E, propofol (0.75-1 mg/kg) followed by etomidate (0.075-0.1 mg/kg); and E+P, etomidate (0.075-0.01 mg/kg) followed by propofol (0.75-1 mg/kg). Vital signs and bispectral index were monitored at different time points. Complications, induction and examination time, anesthesia duration, and recovery and discharge time were recorded. At the end of the procedure, the satisfaction of patients, endoscopists and the anesthetist were evaluated. The recovery (6.1±1.2 h) and discharge times (24.8±2.8 h) in group E were significantly longer compared with groups P, P+E and E+P (P<0.05). The occurrence of injection pain in group P+E was significantly higher compared with the other three groups (P<0.05). In addition, the incidence of myoclonus and post-operative nausea and vomiting were significantly higher in group P+E compared with the other three groups (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference among the four groups with regards to the patients' immediate, post-procedure satisfaction (P>0.05). Furthermore, there was no difference in the satisfaction of anesthesia, as evaluated by the anesthetist and endoscopist, among the four groups (P>0.05). The present study demonstrates that anesthesia for gastroscopy in elderly patients can be safely and effectively accomplished using a drug regimen that combines propofol with etomidate. The combined use of propofol and etomidate has unique characteristics which improve hemodynamic stability, cause minimal respiratory depression and less side effects, provide rapid return to full activity and result in high levels of satisfaction.

Midazolam for sedation before procedures

BACKGROUND

Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.

Propofol sedation with a target-controlled infusion pump and bispectral index monitoring system in elderly patients during a complex upper endoscopy procedure

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although the usefulness of propofol sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric neoplasms was reported previously, information is limited on its use in elderly patients. We investigated the safety and efficacy of propofol sedation with a target-controlled infusion (TCI) pump and bispectral index (BIS) monitoring system (TCI/BIS system) in elderly patients during gastric ESD.

METHODS

Included were 413 consecutive gastric ESD procedures involving 455 lesions (379 patients) performed in patients under propofol sedation with a TCI/BIS system between October 2009 and September 2013. Patients were divided into 3 groups: group A, age <70 years (n = 162); group B, age ≥70 and <80 years (n = 171); and group C, age ≥80 years (n = 80). We compared the propofol dose and adverse events (eg, hypotension and hypoxemia) during ESD.

RESULTS

Older groups required a lower target concentration of propofol (group A: median 2.1 μg/mL [interquartile range (IQR), 1.9-2.3]; group B: median 1.6 μg/mL [IQR, 1.3-1.8]; and group C: median 1.4 μg/mL [IQR, 1.2-1.6]; P < .0001). Hypotension tended to occur in the younger group, and hypoxemia occurred at a significantly higher rate in the older groups, although the number of cases was small. Low preoperative systolic blood pressure (≤125 mm Hg) was associated with hypotension (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-2.70; P = .013) and abnormal pulmonary function was associated with hypoxemia in groups B and C (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 1.01-31.5; P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients required lower doses of propofol with the TCI/BIS system than younger patients. Attention to hypoxemia is necessary in elderly patients, particularly patients with abnormal pulmonary function.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Reversal Agent Use in Moderate Sedation During Endoscopy and Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Moderate sedation has been standard for noninvasive gastrointestinal procedures for decades yet there are limited data on reversal agent use and outcomes associated with need for reversal of sedation.

AIM

To determine prevalence and clinical significance of reversal agent use during endoscopies and colonoscopies.

METHODS

Individuals with adverse events requiring naloxone and/or flumazenil during endoscopy or colonoscopy from 2008 to 2013 were identified. A control group was obtained by random selection of patients matched by procedure type and date. Prevalence of reversal agent use and statistical comparison of patient demographics and risk factors against controls were determined.

RESULTS

Prevalence of reversal agent use was 0.03% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.02-0.04]. Events triggering reversal use were oxygen desaturation (64.4%), respiration changes (24.4%), hypotension (8.9%), and bradycardia (6.7%). Two patients required escalation of care and the majority of patients were stabilized and discharged home. Compared with the control group, the reversal group was older (61±1.8 vs. 55±1.6, P=0.01), mostly female (82% vs. 50%, P<0.01), and had lower body mass index (24±0.8 vs. 27±0.7, P=0.03) but received similar dosages of sedation. When adjusted for age, race, sex, and body mass index, the odds of reversal agent patients having a higher ASA score than controls was 4.7 (95% CI, 1.7-13.1), and the odds of having a higher Mallampati score than controls was 5.0 (95% CI, 2.1-11.7) with P<0.01.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of reversal agent use during moderate sedation is low and outcomes are generally good. Several clinically relevant risk factors for reversal agent use were found suggesting that certain groups may benefit from closer monitoring.

Propofol target-controlled infusion for sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy: A comparison of propofol alone versus propofol-fentanyl-midazolam

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is the major technique for diagnosis of GI disease and treatment. Various sedation and analgesia regimens such as midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol can be used during GI endoscopy. The purpose of the study was to compare propofol alone and propofol combination with midazolam and fentanyl in moderate sedation for GI endoscopy. One hundred patients undergoing GI endoscopy were enrolled in this study. All patients received a propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) to maintain sedation during the procedure. Patients were randomly allocated into either Group P (propofol TCI alone) or Group C (combination of propofol TCI plus midazolam and fentanyl). Dermographic data, anesthetic parameters (sedation regimen, blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation), procedure parameters (procedure time, colonoscopy, or panendoscopy), propofol consumption, and adverse events (hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia) were all recorded. Postprocedural records included recovery time, postoperative adverse events (nausea, vomiting, dizziness, recall, and pain) and satisfaction. The average propofol consumption was 251 ± 83 mg in Group P and 159 ± 73 mg in Group C (p < 0.001). The incidence of transient hypotension was higher in Group P (p = 0.009). The recovery time and discharge time were both shorter in Group C (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006 respectively). Overall, postprocedural adverse events were similar in both groups. The postanesthetic satisfaction was comparable in both groups. TCI of propofol combined with midazolam and fentanyl achieved sedation with fewer hypotension episodes and shorter recovery and discharge time than propofol TCI alone in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

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.

Endoscopic sedation and monitoring practices in Portugal: a nationwide web-based survey

BACKGROUND

National surveys have been used to obtain information on sedation and monitoring practices in endoscopy in several countries.

AIMS

To provide data from Portugal and query the Portuguese endoscopists on nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 31-item web survey was sent to all 490 members of the Portuguese Society of Gastroenterology.

RESULTS

A total of 129 members (26%) completed the questionnaire; 57% worked in both public and private practice. Most performed esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation (public - 70%; private - 57%) and colonoscopies with sedation (public - 64%; private - 69%). Propofol was the most commonly used agent for colonoscopy, especially in private practice (52 vs. 33%), and it provided the best satisfaction (mean 9.6/10). A total of 94% chose propofol as the preferred sedation for routine colonoscopy. Nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol was performed only by four respondents; however, 71% reported that they would consider its use, given adequate training. Pulse oximetry is monitored routinely (99%); oxygen supplementation is administered by 81% with propofol and 42% with traditional sedation. Most (82%) believed that propofol sedation may increase the uptake of endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

The use of sedation is routine practice in colonoscopy, but not esophagogastroduodenoscopy. The preferred agent is propofol and it is used almost exclusively by anesthesiologists.

Propofol versus midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is often achieved using propofol or midazolam in general population. However, impaired protein synthesis, altered drug metabolism, and compromised hepatic blood flow in patients with liver cirrhosis might affect the pharmacokinetics of sedatives, placing cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy at a greater risk of adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess comparative efficacies and safety of propofol and midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy.

METHODS

Randomized, controlled trials comparing propofol with midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were selected. We performed the meta-analysis, using a random-effect model, the Review Manager, Version 5.2, statistical software package (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Five studies between 2003 and 2012, including 433 patients, were included. Propofol provided a shorter time to sedation (weight mean difference: -2.76 min, 95% confidence interval: -3.00 to -2.51) and a shorter recovery time (weight mean difference -6.17 min, 95% confidence interval: -6.81 to -5.54) than midazolam did. No intergroup difference in the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, or hypoxemia was observed. Midazolam was associated with the deterioration of psychometric scores for a longer period than propofol.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that Propofol sedation for endoscopy provides more rapid sedation and recovery than midazolam does. The risk of sedation-related side effects for propofol does not differ significantly from that of midazolam. The efficacy of propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy is superior to those of midazolam.

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.

Implantation of venous access devices under local anesthesia: patients' satisfaction with oral lorazepam

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study reported here was to evaluate patients' satisfaction with implantation of venous access devices under local anesthesia (LA) with and without additional oral sedation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 77 patients were enrolled in the prospective descriptive study over a period of 6 months. Subcutaneous implantable venous access devices through the subclavian vein were routinely implanted under LA. Patients were offered an additional oral sedative (lorazepam) before each procedure. The level of anxiety/tension, the intensity of pain, and patients' satisfaction were evaluated before and immediately after the procedure using a visual analog scale (ranging from 0 to 10) with a standardized questionnaire.

RESULTS

Patients' satisfaction with the procedure was high (mean: 1.3±2.0) with no significant difference between the group with premedication and the group with LA alone (P=0.54). However, seven out of 30 patients (23.3%) in the group that received premedication would not undergo the same procedure without general anesthesia. There was no significant influence of lorazepam on the intensity of pain (P=0.88). In 12 out of 30 patients (40%) in the premedication group, the level of tension was higher than 5 on the visual analog scale during the procedure. In 21 out of 77 patients (27.3%), the estimate of the level of tension differed between the interventionist and the patient by 3 or more points in 21 out of 77 patients (27.3%).

CONCLUSION

Overall patient satisfaction is high for implantation of venous access devices under LA. A combination of LA with lorazepam administered orally might not be adequate for patients with a high level of anxiety and tension. The level of tension is often underestimated by the interventionist. Pre-procedural standardized questionnaires could be used to identify patients for whom a gradual approach of individualized sedation may be more effective.

Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Propofol has been suggested to be superior to benzodiazepines when used as a sedative agent for endoscopic examination. The aim of the present study was to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of propofol sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi database were searched in order to identify randomized trials eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) of developing restlessness, full awakening at 1 h post-ESD, hypoxia, and hypotension.

RESULTS

We identified three randomized trials (298 patients) from the database search. Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled OR of restlessness and full awakening at 1 h post-ESD with propofol sedation were 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-0.81) and 8.59 (95% CI: 4.29-17.2), respectively, without significant heterogeneity. Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled OR of hypoxia and hypotension with propofol sedation were 1.13 (95% CI: 0.58-2.21) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.25-3.41), respectively, indicating no significant differences between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Propofol sedation during ESD is more effective as compared with traditional sedative agent. The risk of complications is similar.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The optimum method for sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures is not known. Propofol deep sedation has a faster recovery time than traditional sedative agents, but may be associated with increased complication rates. The aim of the present study was to pool data from all available studies to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of propofol with traditional sedative agents for advanced endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials updated as of January 2013 were searched. Main outcome measures were procedure duration, recovery time, incidence of complications (hypotension, hypoxia), sedation level, patient cooperation and amnesia during advanced endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasonography, and deep small bowel enteroscopy.

RESULTS

Nine prospective randomized trials with a total of 969 patients (485 propofol, 484 conscious sedation) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled mean difference in procedure duration between propofol and traditional sedative agents was -2.3 min [95% CI: -6.36 to 1.76, P = 0.27], showing no significant difference in procedure duration between the two groups. Pooled mean difference in recovery time was -30.26 min [95% CI: -46.72 to -13.80, P < 0.01], showing significantly decreased recovery time with propofol. There was also no significant difference between the two groups with regard to hypoxia and hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol for advanced endoscopic procedures is associated with shorter recovery time, better sedation and amnesia level without an increased risk of cardiopulmonary complications. Overall patient cooperation was also improved with propofol sedation.

Anaesthetic considerations for endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography procedures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Comparison of moderate versus deep sedation for endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration

RATIONALE

Most bronchoscopic procedures are performed using moderate sedation achieved by combining a short-acting benzodiazepine with an opioid agent. Propofol (2.6-diisopropylphenol), a short-acting hypnotic agent, has been increasingly used to provide deep sedation in the endoscopy community with an acceptable safety profile.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the impact of moderate versus deep sedation on the adequacy and diagnostic yield of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA).

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed at two academic institutions with interventional pulmonary fellowships using two methods of sedation during EBUS (deep vs. moderate sedation). Rapid on-site cytologic evaluation was used on all procedures in both groups. EBUS-TBNA nodal sampling was considered adequate if the aspirate yielded a specific diagnosis or lymphocytes. EBUS-TBNA was considered diagnostic if a lymph node aspirate yielded a specific diagnosis or if subsequent surgical sampling or prolonged radiographic surveillance revealed no nodal pathology.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

No difference was observed in the indication for EBUS-TBNA between the two groups. More lymph nodes were sampled per patient in the deep sedation group (314 nodes from 163 patients; 2.2 nodes per patient) than in the moderate sedation group (181 lymph nodes from 146 patients; 1.4 nodes per patient; P < 0.01). The EBUS-TBNA diagnostic yield was higher for the deep sedation group (80% of patients) than for the moderate sedation group (66% of patients; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic yield and number of lymph nodes sampled using deep sedation is superior to moderate sedation in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA. Prospective studies accounting for other factors including patient selection and cost are needed.

Complications of colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is a relatively invasive modality for the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal disease and for the prevention or early detection of colorectal neoplasia. Millions of colonoscopies are performed each year in the United States by endoscopists with varying levels of skill in colons that present varying levels of challenge. Although better scope technology has made colonoscopy gentler and more accurate, the sheer number of examinations performed means that complications inevitably occur. This article considers the most common complications of colonoscopy, and advises how to minimize their incidence and how to treat them if they do occur.