Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Current issues

Feasibility of transnasal endoscopy in screening for esophageal and gastric varices in patients with chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Screening for esophageal and gastric varices is indicated for patients with portal hypertension or cirrhosis. Typically, conventional endoscopy is used; however, the need for sedation increases the costs and risks, especially in cirrhotic patients. Use of transnasal endoscopy with an ultrathin endoscope enables study of the upper gastrointestinal tract without the need for sedation. The objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of transnasal endoscopy in screening for esophageal and gastric varices in patients with chronic liver disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective study in which transnasal endoscopy was carried out in patients with cirrhosis or portal hypertension who had indications for screening of esophageal and gastric varices. The following variables were evaluated: demographical data, duration of procedure, patient tolerance and acceptance, adverse events (AEs), endoscopic findings and interobserver agreement related to portal hypertension alterations ( kappa index).

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients entered the study. The most common cause of liver disease was chronic viral hepatitis (66 %). Among the cirrhotic patients, most of the patients were Child-Pugh A (74 %). In 5 patients (10 %), nasal intubation was not possible. Two patients (4 %) experienced minor epistaxis. Tolerance was excellent or good in 92 % according with a visual analogic scale. In 16 patients (32 %), esophageal varices were detected and in 2 patients (4 %) gastric varices were detected. The mean duration of the procedure was 7 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

Transnasal endoscopy is feasible, effective and well tolerated for screening of esophageal and gastric varices in patients with chronic liver disease. It can be performed in outpatient clinics safely and without the use of sedation.

The Comparison of Etomidate and Propofol Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Etomidate and propofol played an important role in the sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare their efficacy and safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of etomidate versus propofol for the anesthesia of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. Two investigators independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were anesthesia duration and recovery time. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect model.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials involving 1115 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with propofol, etomidate resulted in comparable anesthesia duration [standard mean difference (Std. MD)=-0.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.16 to 0.10; P=0.66], recovery time (Std. MD=0.25; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.92; P=0.47), mean arterial pressure at intubation (Std. MD=0.44; 95% CI, -0.26 to 1.15; P=0.21), heart pulse at intubation (Std. MD=0.93; 95% CI, -0.69 to 2.55; P=0.26), SPO2 at intubation (Std. MD=-0.52; 95% CI, -1.04 to 0.01; P=0.05), patient satisfaction [odds risk (OR)=0.42; 95% CI, 0.11-1.66; P=0.22], hypotension (OR=0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-1.22; P=0.07), changes of heart rate (OR=0.97; 95% CI, 0.61-1.53; P=0.88), nausea-vomiting (OR=2.02; 95% CI, 0.73-5.57; P=0.17), and the reduction in apnea or hyoxemia (OR=0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.64; P=0.0002), and injection pain (OR=0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; P<0.00001), but the increase in myoclonus (OR=8.54; 95% CI, 3.14-23.20; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Between etomidate and propofol, no significant difference was revealed regarding anesthesia duration, recovery time, mean arterial pressure at intubation, heart pulse at intubation, SPO2 at intubation, patient satisfaction, hypotension, changes of heart rate and nausea-vomiting. Compared with propofol, etomidate showed reduced apnea or hyoxemia, and injection pain, but with an increased myoclonus.

Capnography compared to pulse oximetry for early detection of respiratory compromise in non-intubated patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures: a systematic review protocol

Does the use of capnography versus pulse oximetry increase the early detection of respiratory compromise and improve safety in non-intubated patients undergoing moderate sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures?Respiratory compromise will be detected by alveolar hypoventilation/hyperventilation (EtCO2 < 35 mmHg/EtCO2 > 50 mmHg), arterial oxygen desaturation (defined as a pulse oximetry reading of <95% for >5 s), visual assessments of abnormal ventilation including apnea detection and adverse respiratory events that involve the need for bag-mask ventilation.

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.

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.

Safety of Propofol Used as a Rescue Agent During Colonoscopy

GOAL

The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety of propofol when used by gastroenterologists in patients who have an inadequate response to standard sedation (narcotics and benzodiazepines).

BACKGROUND

Many patients fail to achieve adequate sedation from narcotics and benzodiazepines during colonoscopy. The administration of propofol for colonoscopy is increasing, although its use by gastroenterologists is controversial.

STUDY

We performed a retrospective review of our hospital's colonoscopy records from January 2006 to December 2009 to identify 403 subjects undergoing screening colonoscopies who required propofol (20 to 30 mg every 3 min as needed) because of inadequate response to standard sedation. We also randomly selected 403 controls undergoing screening colonoscopies from the same time period that only required standard sedation. The incidence of adverse effects was then compared.

RESULTS

There were no major adverse events in either group. The rates of minor adverse events in the propofol and control group were 0.02 and 0.01, respectively (P=0.56). Adverse effects in the propofol group included: transient hypotension (n=1), nausea/vomiting (n=3), agitation (n=2), and rash (n=1). Adverse effects seen with standard sedation included: transient hypotension (n=2), nausea/vomiting (n=1), and oversedation (n=2). Patients who received propofol were more likely to be younger, had a history of illicit drug use, and a longer procedure time (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive propofol administered by gastroenterologist for conscious sedation was not associated with increased incidence of adverse events. It may be of value in patients who do not respond to conventional sedation.

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.

Advanced Monitoring Is Associated with Fewer Alarm Events During Planned Moderate Procedure-Related Sedation: A 2-Part Pilot Trial

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Published ahead of print February 1, 2016

Diagnostic and interventional procedures are often facilitated by moderate procedure-related sedation. Many studies support the overall safety of this sedation; however, adverse cardiovascular and respiratory events are reported in up to 70% of these procedures, more frequently in very young, very old, or sicker patients. Monitoring with pulse oximetry may underreport hypoventilation during sedation, particularly if supplemental oxygen is provided. Capnometry may result in false alarms during sedation when patients mouth breathe or displace sampling devices. Advanced monitor use during sedation may allow event detection before complications develop. This 2-part pilot study used advanced monitors during planned moderate sedation to (1) determine incidences of desaturation, low respiratory rate, and deeper than intended sedation alarm events; and (2) determine whether advanced monitor use is associated with fewer alarm events.

Clinical study of anesthetization by dezocine combined with propofol for indolent colonoscopy

AIM: To assess the use of dezocine combined with propofol for the anesthetization of patients undergoing indolent colonoscopy.

METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of patients undergoing indolent colonoscopy in the Xinjiang People’s Hospital was conducted from April 1 to April 30, 2015. The survey collected patient general information and anesthesia data, including overall medical experience and pain management. Thirty minutes after colonoscopy surgery, samples of venous blood were collected and the biochemical indicators of gastrointestinal function were analyzed.

RESULTS: There were 98 female and 62 male respondents. Indolent colonoscopy was found to be more suitable for mid to older-aged patients. The necessary conditions for the diagnosis of digestive diseases were required in 65 of the 73 inpatients. Adverse reactions to the intraoperative process included two cases of body movement and two cases of respiratory depression. Gastrin and vasoactive intestinal peptide levels were slightly increased. However, somatostatin and endothelin levels were slightly decreased.

CONCLUSION: This study revealed that dezocine combined with propofol can be successfully used for the anesthetization of indolent colonoscopy patients without pain and should be widely used.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Propofol-Mediated Sedation for Outpatient Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Propofol sedation for endoscopy may result in a rapid and unpredictable progression from deep sedation to general anesthesia, leading to potential complications. We investigated the incidence and predictors of sedation-related adverse events (SAEs) in nonintubated patients who underwent outpatient ERCP procedures with propofol sedation.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent propofol sedation for ERCP procedures. Patients were sedated using propofol in combination with low-dose opiates. Data collected included patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASAs) physical status, and procedure times. SAE includes hypoxia (pulse oximetry <90 %), hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg), and conversation to endotracheal intubation. Factors associated with SAEs were examined by univariate analysis and multivariate regression analysis (MVA).

RESULTS

A total of 3041 patients were evaluated. The median BMI was 25.2 kg/m(2), and the median ASA score was 3. The mean (±SD) duration of the procedures was 59 ± 23 min. Hypoxia requiring airway manipulation occurred in 28 % (n = 843) patients and hypotension requiring vasopressors in 0.4 % (n = 12). Forty-nine (1.6 %) patients required endotracheal intubation as a result of food in the stomach. Procedures underwent early termination in 8 (0.3 %) cases due to sedation-related hypotension (n = 5) and refractory laryngospasm (n = 3). Six patients were admitted after the ERCP for aspiration pneumonia as a result of sedation. Patients who developed SAE were older, had a higher mean BMI, and had longer mean procedure durations. On MVA, older age (p = 0.003), female sex (p = 0.001), BMI (p = 0.02), and ASA class ≥3 (p = 0.01) independently predicted SAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol can be used safely and effectively as a sedative agent for patients undergoing ERCPs when administered by trained professionals. Age, female sex, BMI, and ASA class ≥3 are independent predictors of SAEs.

Adult and pediatric anesthesia/sedation for gastrointestinal procedures outside of the operating room

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review presents current trends of safe and efficient anesthesia and sedation for adults and children for gastrointestinal procedures outside of the operating room with a special focus on total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), target-controlled infusion (TCI), intravenous or topical lidocaine, and the use of the video laryngoscope.

RECENT FINDINGS

The concepts of a well tolerated and adequate anesthesia or sedation for gastrointestinal procedures outside of the operating room have to meet the needs of the adult and pediatric patients and the special requests of the gastroenterologists. Anesthesia and sedation of adults for gastrointestinal procedures with TIVA or TCI and spontaneous breathing is well established. Many institutions perform anesthesia for pediatric patients undergoing gastrointestinal procedures with an inhalational agent, especially in young children and for short procedures. Unlike adults, in young children the airways frequently must be secured with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask. Respiration may be spontaneous, assisted, or controlled. TIVA and TCI are increasingly chosen for older children and longer procedures. A local anesthetic administered intravenously or topically to the upper airways and the use of the video laryngoscope can facilitate the insertion of the endoscope.

SUMMARY

Both anesthesiologists and nonanesthesiologists have to achieve a consensus and develop quality-improvement strategies to provide safe and efficient anesthesia and sedation for gastrointestinal procedures outside of the operating room for pediatric and adult patients. Techniques using TIVA, TCI, intravenous or topical application of lidocaine, and the video laryngoscope may improve and facilitate gastrointestinal procedures for the patients, the anesthesiologists, and the gastroenterologists.

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.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation during endoscopy: A meta-analysis

Patients undergoing endoscopy frequently require sedation, which commonly includes the administration of midazolam or dexmedetomidine. Previous meta-analyses have mainly focused on comparing the effects of these two drugs in intensive care unit patients. In the present study, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the sedative and clinical effectiveness of these two drugs in patients undergoing endoscopy were searched in a number of databases. The meta-analysis showed that dexmedetomidine demonstrated a significantly lower rate of respiratory depression and adverse events compared with those presented upon midazolam administration. A significant difference was also observed in the sedation potency of the sedatives. The current controlled data suggest that dexmedetomidine may be an alternative to midazolam in the sedation for endoscopy. However, more high-quality and well-designed studies are required to further evaluate this conclusion.

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.

Patients Prefer Propofol to Midazolam Plus Fentanyl for Sedation for Colonoscopy: Results of a Single-Center Randomized Equivalence Trial

BACKGROUND

Common sedation options for colonoscopy include propofol alone or a combination of midazolam and fentanyl. The former usually requires the presence of an anesthesia caregiver. The strategy that optimizes patient satisfaction has not yet been determined.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to assess whether patient satisfaction at the time of colonoscopy is equivalent for propofol compared with midazolam and fentanyl.

DESIGN

In this prospective, single-center, parallel group, single-blind, randomized, equivalence trial (NCT-01488045), 262 patients blinded to treatment received propofol (n = 126) or midazolam plus fentanyl (n = 136) at the time of colonoscopy. A patient satisfaction survey was administered in the recovery room and 1 to 5 days postprocedure. The endoscopist completed a survey immediately postprocedure.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a tertiary academic hospital with a dedicated colon and rectal surgery division.

PATIENTS

Patients over the age of 18 years who were undergoing elective colonoscopy were included in this study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with the colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included physician and patient perception of patient pain, physician perception of patient tolerance of and difficulty of procedure, procedure duration, percentage of patients with cecal intubation, recovery time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Patient overall satisfaction scores in the recovery room after using the combination of midazolam and fentanyl (n = 136) during colonoscopy were not equivalent to patient satisfaction scores after using propofol (n = 126) alone (mean = 83.9 and 98.0 visual analog scale points) because the 90% CI (-18.5 to -9.6) for the mean treatment difference (-14.1) was completely outside the prespecified range of equivalence (±5 visual analog scale points). Patient pain as reported by the patient and as perceived by the physician and difficulty of the procedure were significantly worse for the midazolam/fentanyl group (n = 136) compared with the propofol group (n = 126). Time in the colonoscopy suite was significantly shorter for the propofol group, but the difference was small (4 minutes). There were no significant differences in percentage with cecal intubation, recovery time, or adverse events.

LIMITATIONS

This is a single-institution, single-endoscopist study and is limited by the inability to perform blinding of the endoscopist.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of propofol for conscious sedation during colonoscopy is associated with greater patient satisfaction and less pain when compared with midazolam/fentanyl, as perceived by the patient and endoscopist.

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.

Unsedation colonoscopy can be not that painful: Evaluation of the effect of “Lamaze method of colonoscopy”

AIM: To evaluate the pain relieving effect of intervention with “Lamaze method of colonoscopy” in the process of colonoscopy.

METHODS: Five hundred and eighty-five patients underwent colonoscopy were randomly divided into three groups, Lamaze group, anesthetic group and control group. Two hundred and twenty-four patients of Lamaze group, the “Lamaze method of colonoscopy” were practiced in the process of colonoscopy. The Lamaze method of colonoscopy is modified from the Lamaze method of childbirth, which helped patients to relieve pain through effective breathing control. One hundred and seventy-eight patients in anesthetic group accepted sedation colonoscopy. For 183 patients in control group, colonoscopy was performed without any intervention. The satisfactory of colon cleaning, intestinal lesions, intubation time, success ratio, pain grading and complications were recorded. All data were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS: There were no significant differences at base line of the three groups (P > 0.05). Anesthetic group shows advantage in intubation time than the other two groups (P < 0.05). Lamaze group shows no advantage in intubation time than that in control group (P > 0.05). The anesthetic group showed an apparent advantage in relieving pain (P < 0.01). Therefore, the “Lamaze method of colonoscopy” performed in colonoscopy could relieve pain effectively comparing with control group (P < 0.05). The patients in anesthetic group had the highest incidence of complications (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: The performance of the “Lamaze method of colonoscopy” in the process of colonoscopy could relieve patients’ pain, minimize the incidence of complications, and is worthy promotion in clinical practice.

Effects of balanced propofol sedation on QT, corrected QT, and P-wave dispersion on upper endoscopy

Objective:

Combined sedation with propofol and benzodiazepines, known as balanced propofol sedation (BPS), was developed to increase patient comfort during endoscopy. However, the effects of BPS on P-wave dispersion (Pwd), QT interval, and corrected QT (QTc) interval after endoscopy have not been investigated.

Methods:

The study population consisted of 40 patients with BPS and 42 without sedation who were scheduled to undergo upper endoscopy in this cross-sectional prospective study. Patients with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, renal failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, or valvular heart disease and those on medications that interfere with cardiac conduction times were excluded. Electrocardiograms (ECGs) was recorded in all patients pre-endoscopy and 10 min post-endoscopy. QT, QT dispersion (QTd), and Pwd were defined from 12-lead ECG. The QTc interval was calculated using Bazett’s formula. All analyses were performed using SPSS 15.0.

Results:

Post-endoscopy P max duration and Pwd were prolonged compared with baseline values (86±13 ms vs. 92±10 ms and 29±12 ms vs. 33±12 ms, respectively; p<0.05). Post-endoscopy QTc and QTd were decreased compared with baseline values, but these decreases were not statistically significant (431±25 ms vs. 416±30 ms and 62±28 ms vs. 43±22 ms, respectively; p>0.05).

Conclusion:

The present study showed that P-wave duration and Pwd values increased after endoscopy with a combination of midazolam and propofol sedation. Physicians should be made aware of the potential effects of BPS in terms on P-wave duration and Pwd values.

Propofol sedation versus no sedation in detection of pharyngeal and upper gastrointestinal superficial squamous cell carcinoma using endoscopic narrow band imaging: a multicenter prospective trial

Intravenous propofol can provide a superior quality of sedation compared to standard sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, the utility of propofol sedation for the endoscopic early detection of superficial pharyngeal and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma has not been investigated. In a multicenter, prospective trial, 255 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomas (ESCCs) were assigned to receive propofol sedation or no sedation according to their own willingness. The primary aim was to compare the detection rates of superficial cancer in the pharyngeal region and the esophagus between two groups. The secondary aim was to evaluate factors associated with technical adequacy. The detection rate was higher in the propofol sedation vs. no sedation group for H&N region (6.06% vs. 2.40%), but not significantly (P=0.22). However, the small lesion (less than 10 mm in diameter) detection rate was higher in sedation vs. no sedation group for H&N region (88.89% vs. 33.33%; P=0.048). The median time for pharyngeal observation in the sedation group was faster than in the no sedation group (20.6 s vs. 44.3 s; P<0.001). Ninety-five percent of H&N region evaluations were totally complete in sedation compared with sixty percent in the no sedation group (P<0.001). The overall p value indicated that only smoking habit was associated with incomplete pharyngeal observation (P<0.05), and it was more difficult to accomplish a complete pharyngeal observation in patients who smoked more than 10 packs per day. Intravenous propofol sedation compared to no intravenous sedation during conventional upper gastrointestinal endoscopy can facilitate a more complete pharyngeal examination and increase the detection rate of superficial H&N squamous cell carcinoma in high risk patients.

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

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

Review on sedation for gastrointestinal tract endoscopy in children by non-anesthesiologists

AIM

To present evidence and formulate recommendations for sedation in pediatric gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy by non-anesthesiologists.

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE, Cochrane and EMBASE were searched for the following keywords "endoscopy, GI", "endoscopy, digestive system" AND "sedation", "conscious sedation", "moderate sedation", "deep sedation" and "hypnotics and sedatives" for publications in English restricted to the pediatric age. We searched additional information published between January 2011 and January 2014. Searches for (upper) GI endoscopy sedation in pediatrics and sedation guidelines by non-anesthesiologists for the adult population were performed.

RESULTS

From the available studies three sedation protocols are highlighted. Propofol, which seems to offer the best balance between efficacy and safety is rarely used by non-anesthesiologists mainly because of legal restrictions. Ketamine and a combination of a benzodiazepine and an opioid are more frequently used. Data regarding other sedatives, anesthetics and adjuvant medications used for pediatric GI endoscopy are also presented.

CONCLUSION

General anesthesia by a multidisciplinary team led by an anesthesiologist is preferred. The creation of sedation teams led by non-anesthesiologists and a careful selection of anesthetic drugs may offer an alternative, but should be in line with national legislation and institutional regulations.

Complications during colonoscopy: prevention, diagnosis, and management

Colonoscopy is largely performed in daily clinical practice for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Although infrequent, different complications may occur during the examination, mostly related to the operative procedures. These complications range from asymptomatic and self-limiting to serious, requiring a prompt medical, endoscopic or surgical intervention. In this review, the complications that may occur during colonoscopy are discussed, with a particular focus on prevention, diagnosis, and therapeutic approaches.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine with on-demand midazolam versus midazolam alone for procedural sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric tumor

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is commonly performed as a treatment for gastric neoplasms. However, sedation with midazolam (MDZ) often does not reach satisfactory sedation levels during the procedure and the drug may suppress respiration and blood pressure. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine (DEX) with on-demand MDZ (the DEX group) in comparison with MDZ alone (the MDZ group) as a sedative during ESD of gastric neoplasms.

METHODS

Eighty patients undergoing ESD for gastric tumor were randomly assigned to one of two treatment regimens (40 patients in each). We investigated the depth of sedation by using a Modified Observers Assessment Alertness/Sedation score, the number of patients' reactions interfering with the procedure, sedation related-adverse events and the degree of satisfaction of patients and doctors.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding their age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification and the characteristics of the tumor. Appropriate sedation rate and the degree of satisfaction of the doctors were significantly higher in the DEX group than in the MDZ group. Patients' reactions interfering with the procedure were more numerous in the MDZ group than in the DEX group. There was no significant difference in adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DEX with on-demand MDZ for sedation during gastric ESD is as safe as MDZ alone and the sedation effect of DEX with MDZ is superior to that of MDZ alone.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in the cirrhotic patient

As advances in liver disease continue, including the increasing use of liver transplantation, the endoscopist needs to be familiar with the standards of care and potential complications in the management of the cirrhotic population. This includes both elective endoscopic procedures, such as screening colonoscopies and variceal banding, as well as the acutely bleeding cirrhotic patient. Peri-procedural management and standards of care for acute gastrointestinal hemorrhaging of cirrhotic patients will be emphasized. This article will focus on the plethora of data available to highlight the benefits of endoscopic intervention in the care of patients with liver disease and outline the areas of future emphasis.

Discovery of a novel trimebutine metabolite and its impact on N-desmethyltrimebutine quantification by LC–MS/MS

Hélène Montpetit has a Bachelor of Science in Biochemistry from the University du Québec at Montreal. For the past 15 years, she has worked in the bioanalysis field in CROs environment as well as in a big Pharma. She currently holds a position as scientific reviewer in the method development group at Algorithme Pharma.

Background: A failure in incurred sample reanalysis (ISR) for N-desmethyltrimebutine (NDMT), during the analysis of a trimebutine-containing drug GIC-1001 Phase I study, led to the discovery of a never-before reported metabolite of trimebutine. Results: A positive bias for NDMT during the ISR and post-reconstitution stability evaluations indicated the presence of an unstable metabolite of NDMT. Precursor ion scans performed on freshly extracted samples enabled the identification of this metabolite to be the NDMT glucuronide conjugate and its fragmentation pattern suggested that the glucuronide moiety was attached at the N-terminal of NDMT. Conclusions: An acidification step was introduced in the extraction procedure to completely hydrolyze the glucuronide and measure the total NDMT in plasma, rendering this method a successful fit-for-purpose assay.

Clinical impact of gastroenterologist-administered propofol during esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized comparison at a single medical clinic

BACKGROUND

Although midazolam is widely used during endoscopic procedures by endoscopists, propofol has been recently favored for its rapid action and metabolism. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical advantages between propofol and midazolam use during screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for gastric cancer and post-procedure management at a medical clinic.

METHODS

One hundred six healthy patients aged 20-69 years requesting sedation for screening EGD from October 2012 to May 2013 at a single clinic in Japan were randomly assigned to propofol (n = 54) or midazolam (n = 52). Medications were given by bolus injection, and the dose was adjusted by body weight. Sedation level and tolerability during EGD and recovery time were assessed. Sedation level and tolerability were evaluated by American Society of Anesthesiologists responsiveness levels and four levels of the gag reflex, respectively. For safety purposes, endoscopists and nurses were trained in administering propofol and an anesthesiologist was on call at all times.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in sedation level and patient tolerability. Full recovery time in the propofol group (4.7 min) was significantly shorter than that in the midazolam group (24 min, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding post-procedure management of patients in a medical clinic, propofol use might not necessitate a recovery room and excessive assessment tasks because of rapid recovery time without any prolonged reaction, which causes patient compliance. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000009142.).

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.

Sedation with etomidate-fentanyl versus propofol-fentanyl in colonoscopies: A prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

The combination of propofol-fentanyl for sedation during colonoscopy is characterized by high prevalence of side effects. Etomidate-fentanyl provides fewer hemodynamic and respiratory complications. The aim of our study was to compare the safety and efficacy of propofol-fentanyl and etomidate-fentanyl for conscious sedation in elective colonoscopy.

METHODS

This double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 90 patients aged between 18- 55 years old who were candidates for elective colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive sedation with fentanyl plus propofol or etomidate. Two minutes after injecting 1 micro/kg of fentanyl, the patients received 0.5mg/kg propofol by infusion (25 µ/kg/min) or 0.1 mg/kg etmoidate (15 µ/kg/min). Pulse rate, mean arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate, and saturation of peripheral oxygen (SPO2) were monitored. In addition, the patient and colonoscopist satisfaction, the recovery time, sedation and pain score in both groups were assessed.

RESULTS

Sedation score in propofol group was higher. Pain score as well as the physician and patient satisfaction showed no significant difference between the two study groups. Hemodynamic changes and arterial saturation were the same in both groups. The duration of recovery was 1.27±0.82 minutes in the etomidate group; versus 2.57±2.46 minutes in the propofol group (P=0.001). Recovery time in the etmoid group was 2.68±3.14 minutes and in the propofol group was 5.53±4.67 minutes (p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

The combination of fentanyl and etomidate provides an acceptable alternative to sedation with fentanyl and propofol with the advantage of significantly faster recovery time, in the outpatient setting.

Evaluation of discomfort during colonoscopy with conventional and ultrathin colonoscopes in ulcerative colitis patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), colonoscopy is an essential procedure for evaluating mucosal damage, and treatment outcomes. A new flexible ultrathin colonoscope (PCF-PQ260) has been developed to readily pass through tortuous and narrow lesions of the colon and cause minimum patient discomfort. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the comfort and performance of this new type of scope in UC patients who underwent colonoscopy for estimation of mucosal inflammation, basically without sedation.

METHODS

In a prospective, single-center setting, among 107 UC patients who were to undergo colonoscopy, 84 eligible cases were randomly assigned to the new ultrathin flexible colonoscope, PCF-PQ260 (n = 42) or to a conventional colonoscope, PCF-Q260A (n = 42). Main outcome measure was patient pain level determined by visual analogue scale (VAS) with 0 = none, and 100 = extremely painful. Other outcomes were cecal intubation time, rate of complete intubation (to reach the cecum) and rate of procedural complications.

RESULTS

VAS score was significantly lower in the new-scope group as compared with the conventional-scope group: mean ± SD, median (range): 19.3 ± 16.9, 14 (0-62) vs 32.0 ± 21.6, 31.8 (0-100, P = 0.005). However, cecal intubation rate (97.6%) and time (4 min) were similar in the two groups. There was no procedure-related serious complication in either group.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicated that the flexible ultrathin colonoscope PCF-PQ260 has significantly better tolerability in UC patients compared to a conventional colonoscope.

Cardiopulmonary safety of propofol versus midazolam/meperidine sedation for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study

Background:

Different levels of pharmacological sedation ranging from minimal to general anesthesia are often used to increase patient tolerance for a successful colonoscopy. However, sedation increases the risk of respiratory depression and cardiovascular complications during colonoscopy.

Objectives:

We aimed to compare the propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation methods for colonoscopy procedures with respect to cardiopulmonary safety, procedure-related times, and patient satisfaction.

Patients and Methods:

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, in which 124 consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient diagnostic colonoscopies were divided into propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation groups (n: 62, m/f ratio: 26/36, mean age: 46 ± 15 for the propofol group; n: 62, m/f ratio: 28/34, mean age: 49 ± 15 for the midazolam/meperidine group) by computer-generated randomization. The frequency of cardiopulmonary events (hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia), procedure-related times (duration of colonoscopy, time to cecal intubation, time to ileal intubation, awakening time, and time to hospital discharge) and patients’ evaluation results (pain assessment, quality of sedation, and recollection of procedure) were compared between the groups.

Results:

There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients, the frequency of hypotension, hypoxemia or bradycardia, cecal and ileal intubation times, and the duration of colonoscopy. The logistic regression analysis indicated that the development of cardiopulmonary events was not associated with the sedative agent used or the characteristics of the patients. The time required for the patient to be fully awake and the time to hospital discharge was significantly longer in the propofol group (11 ± 8 and 37 ± 11 minutes, respectively) than the midazolam/meperidine group (8 ± 6 and 29 ± 12 minutes, respectively) (P = 0.009 and P < 0.001, respectively). The patient satisfaction rates were not significantly different between the groups; however, patients in the propofol group experienced more pain than patients in the midazolam/meperidine group (VAS score: 0.31 ± 0.76 vs. 0 ± 0; P = 0.002).

Conclusions:

Midazolam/meperidine and propofol sedation for colonoscopy have similar cardiopulmonary safety profiles and patient satisfaction levels. Midazolam/meperidine can be preferred to propofol sedation due to a shorter hospital length of stay and better analgesic activity.

Assessment of the effects of ketamine-fentanyl combination versus propofol-remifentanil combination for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as a diagnostic and treatment procedure is used in most biliary tract and pancreatic. Either sedation or general anesthesia could be considered for this procedure. Combining a sedative with an opioid agent can provide effective moderate sedation. This study compared the impact of ketamine-fentanyl (KF) versus propofol-remifentanil (PR) on sedation scale in patients undergoing ERCP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

As a double-blinded randomized clinical trial, 80 patients selected by convenient sampling, allocated randomly into two groups. KF group received ketamine 0.5 mg/kg body weight intravenously over 60 s and then fentanyl 1 mcg/kg body weight intravenously. PR group received propofol l mg/kg body weight intravenously over 60 s and then remifentanil 0.05 mcg/kg body weight/min intravenously. Intravenous (IV) infusion of propofol was maintained by 50 mcg/kg body weight/min throughout ERCP. Ramsay Sedation Score, vital signs, oxygen saturation (SpO2), recovery score (modified Aldrete score) and visual analog scales of pain intensity, and endoscopist's satisfaction were considered as measured outcomes. All analysis were analyzed by SPSS Statistics version 22 and using t-test, Chi-square and repeated measured ANOVA and Mann-Whitney tests for data analysis.

RESULTS

Respiratory rate and SpO2 level during the time intervals were lower in PR group (P < 0.001). Sedation score at intervals was not significantly different (P = 0.07). The frequency of apnea in PR group was significantly higher than the KF group (P = 0.003). The percentage of need to supplemental oxygen in PR group was 35.1% that was also significantly higher than 8.8% in the KF group (P = 0.008), but the dosage frequency was significantly higher in KF group (P < 0.001). The KF and PR groups average length of stay in the recovery room were 50.71 standard deviation (SD = 9.99) and 42.57 (SD = 11.99) minutes, respectively, indicating a significant difference (P = 0.003). The mean severity of nausea in KF and PR groups was, respectively, 2.74 confidence interval (CI = 1.68-3.81) and 0.43 (CI = 0.11-0.75), that was significantly higher in KF group (P < 0.001). The average score of surgeon satisfaction in both KF and PR groups were 7.69 (CI = 7.16-8.21) and 8.65 (CI = 8.25-9.05), respectively, which was higher in KF group (P = 0.004), but the average level of patients satisfaction in KF group was 8.86 (CI = 8.53-9.19) and in PR group was 8.95 (CI - 8.54-9.35) that were not significantly different (P = 0.074).

CONCLUSION

There is no statistically significant difference between KF and PR combinations in sedation score, but PR combination provides better pain control, with less nausea and shorter recovery time while causing more respiratory side effects, that is, apnea and need to oxygen.

Prerequisites of colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is a widely accepted method for the evaluation of the colon and terminal ileum. Its diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic safety are influenced by prerequisites, including modulation of medication and bowel cleansing. Appropriate choices of sedative medication and bowel-cleansing regimen, together with diet modification, should be made based on the patient's underlying disease, age, and medication intake. Moreover, effective methods for patient education regarding bowel preparation should be considered.

Effects of nasal cleansing and topical decongestants on patient tolerance during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective randomized study

Adequate patient tolerance is essential for successful completion of safe endoscopic examination. Although there are many reported methods to increase patient tolerance, none of these fully resolve this problem. The aim of this study was to investigate whether relaxing the nasal airways increase patient tolerance to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). A total of 300 patients scheduled for diagnostic UGE were randomized into three separate groups. Prior to the UGE procedure the first group was administered intranasal cortisone spray following nasal cleansing (INC). Patients in the second group were administered intranasal saline after nasal cleansing (INSP). The patients in the third group were treated with the standard endoscopic procedure alone (SEP). After the UGE procedure, both endoscopists and patients were asked to evaluate the ease of performing the procedure. Furthermore, patients who had undergone endoscopy before were asked to compare their current experience to their most recent endoscopy. Results shown that INC and INSP groups had significantly better tolerance than the SEP group. When comparing their current experience with the previous one, INC and INSP groups reported that the current experience was better.

CONCLUSIONS

Taking measures to relax the nasal airways makes breathing more comfortable and increase patient tolerance during UGE.

Propofol use in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound

Compared to standard endoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are often lengthier and more complex, thus requiring higher doses of sedatives for patient comfort and compliance. The aim of this review is to provide the reader with information regarding the use, safety profile, and merits of propofol for sedation in advanced endoscopic procedures like ERCP and EUS, based on the current literature.

Sedation regimens for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Sedation allows patients to tolerate unpleasant endoscopic procedures by relieving anxiety, discomfort, or pain. It also reduces a patient's risk of physical injury during endoscopic procedures, while providing the endoscopist with an adequate setting for a detailed examination. Sedation is therefore considered by many endoscopists to be an essential component of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopic sedation by nonanesthesiologists is a worldwide practice and has been proven effective and safe. Moderate sedation/analgesia is generally accepted as an appropriate target for sedation by nonanesthesiologists. This focused review describes the general principles of endoscopic sedation, the detailed pharmacology of sedatives and analgesics (focused on midazolam, propofol, meperidine, and fentanyl), and the multiple regimens available for use in actual practice.

Endoscopist-directed propofol: pros and cons

Concerns about the safety of endoscopist-directed propofol (EDP) have been voiced that propofol should be given only by healthcare professionals trained in the administration of general anesthesia. Here we discuss the safety and drawbacks of EDP for routine endoscopic procedures. Currently, both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy are well tolerated and accepted by both patients and endoscopists due to the application of sedation in most clinics worldwide. Accordingly, propofol use is increasing in many countries. It is crucial for endoscopists to be very familiar with the use of propofol or a combination of drugs. However, the controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an anesthesiologist continues. Until now, there have been no randomized control trials comparing sedation induced by propofol administered by an endoscopist or by an anesthesiologist. It might be difficult to perform this kind of study. For the convenience and safety of sedative endoscopy, it would be important that EDP be generally applied to endoscopic procedures, and for more safety, an anesthesiologist may automatically take care of particular patients at high risk of suffering from propofol side effects.

Same-day bidirectional endoscopy with nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol: safety and cost-effectiveness compared with separated exams

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The safety and cost-effectiveness of a combination of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy [or bidirectional endoscopy (BDE)] versus alternative-day EGD and colonoscopy when using nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol have never been evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a single-center prospective registry of consecutive American Society of Anaesthesiology class I-III outpatients undergoing EGD, colonoscopy, and BDE. Propofol was the sole sedative used. Adverse events, recovery time, and procedure-related costs were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 1500 study participants (51.5% women), EGD, colonoscopy, and BDE were carried out on 449, 702, and 349 patients, respectively. All patients were discharged directly from the endoscopy unit. No sex differences were found with respect to age (mean 54.4, range 18-96 years), BMI, or procedure type. Propofol doses for BDE were 25.9% less than when EGD and colonoscopy were performed separately (P<0.001). Adverse events, including transient O2 saturation less than 90%, systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg, and bradycardia (<50 bpm), appeared in 10.7% of single EGD and 8.6% of EGD within BDE; for colonoscopies, the figures were 8.6 and 9.5%, respectively (P=NS). Recovery time to discharge after BDE was 47.9% shorter than when EGD and colonoscopy were performed separately (P<0.001). The cost of same-day BDE was 28.1% lower than that of EGD and colonoscopy performed as separated procedures (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Same-day BDE with nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol resulted in reductions in propofol doses, recovery time, and procedure-related costs as compared with carrying out EGD and colonoscopy separately, without an increase in adverse events.

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.

Double-balloon enteroscopy in the elderly with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: safety and feasibility

BACKGROUND

Double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) is a novel endoscopic procedure to access the small bowel. There is paucity of data on its use in the elderly.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the utility of DBE in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGB) in terms of safety and feasibility.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective review of consecutive patients who underwent DBE for OGB was conducted. Data were collected on demographics, dose of sedation/analgesia, diagnostic yield, and management and complications. Patients were divided into group 1, age of at least 70 years, and group 2, age less than 70 years.

RESULTS

A total of 148 DBE procedures were carried out for OGB. Group 1 (age≥70 years) comprised 27% (n=40) of the cohort with a mean age of 77 years (range 70-83 years). The mean age in group 2 (n=108) was 54 years, 44% women. The diagnostic yield in group 1 was 53 versus 35% in group 2 (P=0.06). Subsequent management was altered more frequently in group 1 (50 vs. 28%, P=0.01, odds ratio 2.6, 95% confidence interval 1.2-5.5). Sedation requirement was less in the elderly (median dose of midazolam, group 1: 4.5 mg versus group 2: 6 mg, P<0.001; fentanyl, group 1: 50 mcg vs. group 2: 75 mcg, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in complications between the two groups (0/40 vs. 1/108, P=0.54). On logistic regression, increasing age (P=0.008) was associated with a higher yield with DBE in all patients.

CONCLUSION

DBE is safe, has a high diagnostic yield and has a positive impact on patient management in the elderly.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Conscious sedation: A dying practice?

Sedation practices vary according to countries with different health system regulations, the procedures done, and local circumstances. Interestingly, differences in the setting in which the practice of gastroenterology and endoscopy takes place (university-based vs academic practice) as well as other systematic practice differences influence the attitude of endoscopists concerning sedation practices. Conscious sedation using midazolam and opioids is the current standard method of sedation in diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy. Interestingly, propofol is a commonly preferred sedation method by endoscopists due to higher satisfaction rates along with its short half-life and thus lower risk of hepatic encephalopathy. On the other hand, midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. The administration of sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist could become the standard practice and the urgent development of an updated international consensus regarding the use of sedative agents like propofol is needed.