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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Modifications in endoscopic practice for pediatric patients

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

Anaesthetic considerations for endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography procedures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Anesthesia for ERCP: Impact of Anesthesiologist's Experience on Outcome and Cost

The present study evaluates the effect of anesthesiologist's experience in providing deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) on cost and safety. Methodology. Perioperative records of 1167 patients who underwent ERCP were divided on the basis of anesthesiologist assisting these procedures either on regular basis (Group R) or on ad hoc basis (Group N). Comparisons were made for anesthesia times, complication rates, and airway interventions. Results. Across all American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Classes, regular anesthesiologists were more efficient (overall mean anesthesia time in Group R was 24.82 ± 12.96 versus 48.63 ± 21.53 minutes in Group N). Within Group R, anesthesia times across all ASA classes were comparable. In Group N, anesthesia times for higher ASA status patients were significantly longer (ASA IV, 64.62 ± 35.78 versus ASA I, 45.88 ± 11.19 minutes). Intubation rates (0.76% versus 12.8%) and median minimal oxygen saturation (100% versus 97.01%) were significantly higher in Group R. Had Group R anesthesiologists performed all procedures, the hospital could have saved US $ 758536 (based upon operating room time costs). Conclusion. Experience in providing deep sedation improved patient safety and decreased the operating room turnaround time, thereby lowering operating room costs associated with these procedures.

Complications following colonoscopy with anesthesia assistance: a population-based analysis

IMPORTANCE

Deep sedation for endoscopic procedures has become an increasingly used option but, because of impairment in patient response, this technique also has the potential for a greater likelihood of adverse events. The incidence of these complications has not been well studied at a population level.

DESIGN

Population-based study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Using a 5% random sample of cancer-free Medicare beneficiaries who resided in one of the regions served by a SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry, we identified all procedural claims for outpatient colonoscopy without polypectomy from January 1, 2000, through November 30, 2009.

INTERVENTION

Colonoscopy without polypectomy, with or without the use of deep sedation (identified by a concurrent claim for anesthesia services).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The occurrence of hospitalizations for splenic rupture or trauma, colonic perforation, and aspiration pneumonia within 30 days of the colonoscopy.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 165 527 procedures in 100 359 patients, including 35 128 procedures with anesthesia services (21.2%). Selected postprocedure complications were documented after 284 procedures (0.17%) and included aspiration (n = 173), perforation (n = 101), and splenic injury (n = 12). (Some patients had >1 complication.) Overall complications were more common in cases with anesthesia assistance (0.22% [95% CI, 0.18%-0.27%]) than in others (0.16% [0.14%-0.18%]) (P < .001), as was aspiration (0.14% [0.11%-0.18%] vs 0.10% [0.08%-0.12%], respectively; P = .02). Frequencies of perforation and splenic injury were statistically similar. Other predictors of complications included age greater than 70 years, increasing comorbidity, and performance of the procedure in a hospital setting. In multivariate analysis, use of anesthesia services was associated with an increased complication risk (odds ratio, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.09-1.94]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although the absolute risk of complications is low, the use of anesthesia services for colonoscopy is associated with a somewhat higher frequency of complications, specifically, aspiration pneumonia. The differences may result in part from uncontrolled confounding, but they may also reflect the impairment of normal patient responses with the use of deep sedation.

PillCam colon capsule endoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of severity and extent of ulcerative colitis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate PillCam colon capsule endoscopy (PCCE) in detecting the severity and extent of active ulcerative colitis (UC), in comparison with conventional endoscopy.

METHODS

From July 2009 to June 2012, patients with confirmed UC were enrolled in this prospective single-center study. After they had undergone the PCCE, they received a conventional colonoscopy. The extent of mucosal damage and inflammatory lesions during both procedures was recorded for comparison. In addition, the regimen of bowel preparation, completion rate, colonic cleansing, compliance or adverse events were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 26 patients was consecutively included, among whom one was withdrawn. The remaining 25 (nine females and 16 males with a mean age of 44.2 years) completed the study. There was significant correlation in the severity (κ = 0.751, P < 0.001) and extent (κ = 0.522, P < 0.001) of UC between the PCCE and conventional colonoscopy. In addition, the excellent to good rate of colonic cleanliness in PCCE was 80%. There were no remarkable adverse events during the study.

CONCLUSION

PCCE provides an outstanding performance in the detection of the severity and extent of active UC.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with traditional sedative agents.

METHODS

RCTs comparing the effects of propofol and traditional sedative agents during gastrointestinal endoscopy were found on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Cardiopulmonary complications (i.e., hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmia, and apnea) and sedation profiles were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two original RCTs investigating a total of 1,798 patients, of whom 912 received propofol only and 886 received traditional sedative agents only, met the inclusion criteria. Propofol use was associated with shorter recovery (13 studies, 1,165 patients; WMD -19.75; 95% CI -27.65, 11.86) and discharge times (seven studies, 471 patients; WMD -29.48; 95% CI -44.13, -14.83), higher post-anesthesia recovery scores (four studies, 503 patients; WMD 2.03; 95% CI 1.59, 2.46), better sedation (nine studies, 592 patients; OR 4.78; 95% CI 2.56, 8.93), and greater patient cooperation (six studies, 709 patients; WMD 1.27; 95% CI 0.53, 2.02), as well as more local pain on injection (six studies, 547 patients; OR 10.19; 95% CI 3.93, 26.39). Effects of propofol on cardiopulmonary complications, procedure duration, amnesia, pain during endoscopy, and patient satisfaction were not found to be significantly different from those of traditional sedative agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol is safe and effective for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures and is associated with shorter recovery and discharge periods, higher post-anesthesia recovery scores, better sedation, and greater patient cooperation than traditional sedation, without an increase in cardiopulmonary complications. Care should be taken when extrapolating our results to specific practice settings and high-risk patient subgroups.

Comparison between the recovery time of alfentanil and fentanyl in balanced propofol sedation for gastrointestinal and colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized study

Background

There is increasing interest in balanced propofol sedation (BPS) titrated to moderate sedation (conscious sedation) for endoscopic procedures. However, few controlled studies on BPS targeted to deep sedation for diagnostic endoscopy were found. Alfentanil, a rapid and short-acting synthetic analog of fentanyl, appears to offer clinically significant advantages over fentanyl during outpatient anesthesia.

It is reasonable to hypothesize that low dose of alfentanil used in BPS might also result in more rapid recovery as compared with fentanyl.

Methods

A prospective, randomized and double-blinded clinical trial of alfentanil, midazolam and propofol versus fentanyl, midazolam and propofol in 272 outpatients undergoing diagnostic esophagogastroduodenal endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy for health examination were enrolled. Randomization was achieved by using the computer-generated random sequence. Each combination regimen was titrated to deep sedation. The recovery time, patient satisfaction, safety and the efficacy and cost benefit between groups were compared.

Results

260 participants were analyzed, 129 in alfentanil group and 131 in fentanyl group. There is no significant difference in sex, age, body weight, BMI and ASA distribution between two groups. Also, there is no significant difference in recovery time, satisfaction score from patients, propofol consumption, awake time from sedation, and sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications between two groups. Though deep sedation was targeted, all cardiopulmonary complications were minor and transient (10.8%, 28/260). No serious adverse events including the use of flumazenil, assisted ventilation, permanent injury or death, and temporary or permanent interruption of procedure were found in both groups. However, fentanyl is New Taiwan Dollar (NT$) 103 (approximate US$ 4) cheaper than alfentanil, leading to a significant difference in total cost between two groups.

Conclusions

This randomized, double-blinded clinical trial showed that there is no significant difference in the recovery time, satisfaction score from patients, propofol consumption, awake time from sedation, and sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications between the two most common sedation regimens for EGD and colonoscopy in our hospital. However, fentanyl is NT$103 (US$ 4) cheaper than alfentanil in each case.

Trial registration

Institutional Review Board of Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital (IRB097-18) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC-12002575)

The effect of pre-procedure anxiety on sedative requirements for sedation during colonoscopy

This study investigated the effects of pre-procedural anxiety (assessed using the Beck Anxiety Inventory) on sedative requirements in 135 patients undergoing sedation for colonoscopy. Deep sedation was defined as loss of consciousness and no response to colonoscopy, and was achieved by target-controlled infusion of propofol. Patients' characteristics, baseline haemodynamic profiles, Beck Anxiety Inventory scores, effect-site propofol concentration at loss of consciousness and characteristics of recovery were recorded. No correlations were found between Beck Anxiety Inventory scores and effect-site propofol concentration at loss of consciousness or baseline haemodynamic profiles. There was no statistical difference in the characteristics of recovery among patients with different levels of anxiety. In conclusion, in patients receiving deep sedation for colonoscopies, the level of pre-procedural anxiety did not relate to the sedative requirement or post-procedural recovery characteristics.

Prospective description of coughing, hemodynamic changes, and oxygen desaturation during endoscopic sedation

BACKGROUND

Deep sedation is increasingly used for endoscopy. The impact of sedation level on hemodynamic status, oxygenation, and aspiration risk is incompletely described.

AIMS

To describe the incidence of intraprocedural cough, hemodynamic changes, oxygen desaturation, and their relationship to clinical factors and sedation level.

METHODS

Detailed prospective recordings of hemodynamic changes, oxygen desaturation, and cough during 757 nonemergent endoscopic procedures done under sedation using propofol, midazolam, and/or fentanyl.

RESULTS

Thirteen percent of patients had at least one cough and 3% had prolonged cough. Cough was more common in nonsmokers (P = 0.05), upper endoscopy (P < 0.0001), with propofol (P = 0.0008), longer procedures (P = 0.0001), and hiccups (P = 0.01). The association between supine positioning during colonoscopy and cough approached significance (P = 0.06). Oxygen desaturation was rare (4%) and associated only with deep sedation (P = 0.02). Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) dropped by 7.3 and 5.6% respectively. Decreases in systolic BP were more common in whites (P = 0.03), males (P = 0.004), nonsmokers (P = 0.04), during colonoscopy (P < 0.0001), and in patients receiving midazolam and fentanyl (P = 0.01). Heart rate (HR) dropped >20% from baseline in 15% of patients and was more common during colonoscopy (P = 0.002). HR increased >20% in 20% of patients and was more common with coughing (P < 0.0001) and in younger patients (P = 0.0002). No patient required pharmacologic treatment of BP or HR.

CONCLUSIONS

We have described procedural predictors of cough that may help clinicians reduce the risk of aspiration during endoscopy. Hemodynamic changes during endoscopy are common but largely clinically insignificant.

Reducing complications in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

This article reviews the principal aspects related to sedation in endoscopy and to the prevention of adverse events in some of the most frequently performed therapeutic upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures (esophageal dilation and stenting, endoscopic resection of upper GI early neoplasia, hemostasis of upper GI bleeding and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion). These procedures have an inherent risk of negative outcomes that cannot be entirely avoided. Endoscopic procedures are best performed by well-trained, competent and thoughtful endoscopists in facilities suited to provide for patient safety. Attention to clinical risk management may effectively reduce the frequency and intensity of adverse events, enhance recognition and early detection, and improve responsiveness.