AGA Institute review of endoscopic sedation

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.

Endoscopic sedation: from training to performance

Adequate sedation and analgesia are considered essential requirements to relieve patient discomfort and pain and ultimately to improve the outcomes of modern gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. The willingness of patients to undergo sedation during endoscopy has increased steadily in recent years and standard sedation practices are needed for both patient safety and successful procedural outcomes. Therefore, regular training and education of healthcare providers is warranted. However, training curricula and guidelines for endoscopic sedation may have conflicts according to varying legal frameworks and/or social security systems of each country, and well-recognized endoscopic sedation training systems are not currently available in all endoscopy units. Although European and American curricula for endoscopic sedation have been extensively developed, general curricula and guidelines for each country and institution are also needed. In this review, an overview of recent curricula and guidelines for training and basic performance of endoscopic sedation is presented based on the current literature.

Efficacy of bispectral index monitoring during balanced propofol sedation for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Appropriate use of propofol is necessary, and objective monitoring of sedation with propofol may be helpful. Studies on the efficacy of bispectral index (BIS) monitoring in deep sedation have been conducted, but its efficacy in colonoscopy with moderate sedation is unknown. In this study, the efficacy of BIS monitoring during colonoscopy with moderate level sedation via balanced propofol sedation was investigated.

METHODS

To determine the cut-off value of BIS before the test, an optimal BIS value was determined. Patients who were scheduled to undergo outpatient colonoscopy were prospectively randomized to either a BIS or control group. Finally, a total of 115 patients were selected for this study. The satisfaction level, the complication, and the dosage of the administered propofol were compared.

RESULTS

The BIS values and the modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation scores (MOAA/S) were positively correlated (r=0.66 and p<0.001). The optimal cut-off value of BIS for maintaining moderate sedation was 81, and the area under the ROC curve was 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.93), indicating high prediction accuracy. However, there was no difference between the BIS group and the control group in levels of satisfaction of either patients or endoscopists. In addition, there was no difference in the complication and the required dose of propofol between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

BIS and clinical sedation scores, MOAA/S scores, showed a high level of correlation. However, no significant efficacy was observed in the BIS group who underwent outpatient colonoscopy.

Preprocedural considerations in gastrointestinal endoscopy

The current practice of open-access endoscopy allows primary care and other non-gastroenterology physicians to directly refer patients for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Open-access endoscopy is considered to be more cost-effective and time efficient than the traditional practice of referring patients for preprocedural consultation with a gastrointestinal endoscopist. Several studies have evaluated the performance of endoscopic procedures in an open-access environment and the utility of structured referral mechanisms to ensure safe and appropriately indicated procedures. This review focuses on 4 common preprocedural issues in gastrointestinal endoscopy encountered by primary care physicians: management of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, indication for prophylactic antibiotic drug therapy, need for anesthesia-assisted sedation, and management of poor bowel preparation. We summarize the current guidelines that address these 4 common preprocedural issues to facilitate safe and clinically appropriate procedures in open-access endoscopy.

Delayed flumazenil injection after endoscopic sedation increases patient satisfaction compared with immediate flumazenil injection

Background/Aims

Flumazenil was administered after the completion of endoscopy under sedation to reduce recovery time and increase patient safety. We evaluated patient satisfaction after endoscopy under sedation according to the timing of a postprocedural flumazenil injection.

Methods

In total, 200 subjects undergoing concurrent colonoscopy and upper endoscopy while sedated with midazolam and meperidine were enrolled in our investigation. We randomly administered 0.3 mg of flumazenil either immediately or 15 minutes after the endoscopic procedure. A postprocedural questionnaire and next day telephone interview were conducted to assess patient satisfaction.

Results

Flumazenil injection timing did not affect the time spent in the recovery room when comparing the two groups of patients. However, the subjects in the 15 minutes injection group were more satisfied with undergoing endoscopy under sedation than the patients in the immediate injection group according to the postprocedural survey (p=0.019). However, no difference in overall satisfaction, memory, or willingness to undergo a future endoscopy was observed between the two groups when the telephone survey was conducted on the following day.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that a delayed flumazenil injection after endoscopic sedation increased patient satisfaction without prolonging recovery time, even though the benefit of the delayed flumazenil injection did not persist into the following day.

Functional near-infrared spectroscopy for the measurement of propofol effects in conscious sedation during outpatient elective colonoscopy

Endoscopic procedures performed in the United States routinely involve the use of conscious sedation as standard of care. The use of sedation reduces patient discomfort and anxiety while improving the technical quality of the procedure, and as a result, over 98% of clinicians have adopted the practice. The tremendous benefits of sedation are offset by heightened costs, increased patient discharge time, and cardiopulmonary complication risks. The inherent liabilities of putting patients under sedation have necessitated a large number of physiological monitoring systems in order to ensure patient comfort and safety. Currently American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) guidelines recommend monitoring of pulse oximetry, blood pressure, heart rate, and end-tidal CO2; although important safeguards, these physiological measurements do not allow for the reliable assessment of patient sedation. Proper monitoring of patient state ensures procedure quality and patient safety; however no "gold-standard" is available to determine the depth of sedation which is comparable to the anesthesiologist's professional judgment. Developments in functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) over the past two decades have introduced cost-effective, portable, and non-invasive neuroimaging tools which measure cortical hemodynamic activity as a correlate of neural functions. Anesthetic drugs, such as propofol, operate by suppressing cerebral metabolism. fNIRS imaging methods have the ability to detect these drug related effects as well as neuronal activity through the measurement of local cerebral hemodynamic changes. In the present study, 41 patients were continuously monitored using fNIRS while undergoing outpatient elective colonoscopy with propofol sedation. The preliminary results indicated that oxygenated hemoglobin changes in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, as assessed by fNIRS were correlated with changes in response to bolus infusions of propofol, whereas other standard physiological measures were not significantly associated.

Classification of patients who experience a higher distress level to transoral esophagogastroduodenoscopy than to transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy

BACKGROUND

In Japanese routine clinical practice, endoscopy is generally carried out without sedation. The present study aimed to identify the factors essential for appropriate selection of transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (TN-EGD) as an alternative to unsedated transoral esophagogastroduodenoscopy (TO-EGD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Subjects in this prospective cohort study comprised consecutive outpatients who underwent EGD at a single center. Factors predicting TO-EGD-induced distress were evaluated on a visual analog scale (VAS) and analyzed. Patients were classified into a two-layered system on the basis of these predictive factors, and the severity of distress between the TN-EGD and TO-EGD groups was compared using VAS and the change in the rate-pressure product as subjective and objective indices, respectively.

RESULTS

In total, 728 outpatients (390 male, 338 female; mean age, 63.1 ± 0.5 years; TO-EGD group, 630; TN-EGD group, 98)met the inclusion criteria. Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed that age <65 years (P < 0.01; odds ratio [OR], 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.52), gender (female; P < 0.01; OR,1.97; 95% CI, 1.34-2.91), marital status (single; P < 0.01; OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.18-3.27), and anxiety towards TO-EGD (P < 0.001; OR, 3.62; 95% CI, 2.44-5.37) were independently associated with intolerance. Both indices were significantly higher in the TO-EGD subgroup than in the TN-EGD subgroup in the high predictive class, but not in the low predictive class.

CONCLUSION

Predictive factors for detecting intolerance to unsedated TO-EGD may be useful to appropriately select patients who transpose unsedated TO-EGD to TN-EGD.

Deep sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens

AIM

To compare deep sedation with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

After obtaining approval of the research ethics committee and informed consent, 200 patients were evaluated and referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive propofol-fentanyl or midazolam-fentanyl (n = 100/group). We assessed the level of sedation using the observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score and bispectral index (BIS). We evaluated patient and physician satisfaction, as well as the recovery time and complication rates. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software and included the Mann-Whitney test, χ² test, measurement of analysis of variance, and the κ statistic.

RESULTS

The times to induction of sedation, recovery, and discharge were shorter in the propofol-fentanyl group than the midazolam-fentanyl group. According to the OAA/S score, deep sedation events occurred in 25% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 11% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.014). Additionally, deep sedation events occurred in 19% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 7% of the midazolam-fentanyl group according to the BIS scale (P = 0.039). There was good concordance between the OAA/S score and BIS for both groups (κ = 0.71 and κ = 0.63, respectively). Oxygen supplementation was required in 42% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 26% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.025). The mean time to recovery was 28.82 and 44.13 min in the propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl groups, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no severe complications in either group. Although patients were equally satisfied with both drug combinations, physicians were more satisfied with the propofol-fentanyl combination.

CONCLUSION

Deep sedation occurred with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl, but was more frequent in the former. Recovery was faster in the propofol-fentanyl group.

[Role of pulse oximetric monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Prospective multicenter study of the Gastroenterology Working Group of the Veszprém Regional Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (VEAB)]

INTRODUCTION

Recent guidelines recommend routine pulse oximetric monitoring during endoscopy, however, this has not been the common practice yet in the majority of the local endoscopic units.

AIMS

To draw attention to the importance of the routine use of pulse oximetric recording during endoscopy.

METHOD

A prospective multicenter study was performed with the participation of 11 gastrointestinal endoscopic units. Data of pulse oximetric monitoring of 1249 endoscopic investigations were evaluated, of which 1183 were carried out with and 66 without sedation.

RESULTS

Oxygen saturation less than 90% was observed in 239 cases corresponding to 19.1% of all cases. It occurred most often during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (31.2%) and proximal enteroscopy (20%). Procedure-related risk factors proved to be the long duration of the investigation, premedication with pethidine (31.3%), and combined sedoanalgesia with pethidine and midazolam (34.38%). The age over 60 years, obesity, consumption of hypnotics or sedatives, severe cardiopulmonary state, and risk factor scores III and IV of the American Society of Anestwere found as patient-related risk factors.

CONCLUSION

To increase the safety of patients undergoing endoscopic investigation, pulse oximeter and oxygen supplementation should be the standard requirement in all of the endoscopic investigation rooms. Pulse oximetric monitoring is advised routinely during endoscopy with special regard to the risk factors of hypoxemia.

Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy

AIM

To explore the relationship of patient comfort and experience to commonly used performance indicators for colonoscopy.

METHODS

All colonoscopies performed in our four endoscopy centres are recorded in two reporting systems that log key performance indicators. From 2008 to 2011, all procedures performed by qualified endoscopists were evaluated; procedures performed by trainees were excluded. The following variables were measured: Caecal intubation rate (CIR), nurse-reported comfort levels (NRCL) on a scale from 1 to 5, polyp detection rate (PDR), patient experience of the procedure (worse than expected, as expected, better than expected), and use of sedation and analgesia. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to identify relationships between performance indicators.

RESULTS

A total of 17027 colonoscopies were performed by 23 independent endoscopists between 2008 and 2011. Caecal intubation rate varied from 79.0% to 97.8%, with 18 out of 23 endoscopists achieving a CIR of > 90%. The percentage of patients experiencing significant discomfort during their procedure (defined as NRCL of 4 or 5) ranged from 3.9% to 19.2% with an average of 7.7%. CIR was negatively correlated with NRCL-45 (r = -0.61, P < 0.005), and with poor patient experience (r = -0.54, P < 0.01). The average dose of midazolam (mean 1.9 mg, with a range of 1.1 to 3.5 mg) given by the endoscopist was negatively correlated with CIR (r = -0.59, P < 0.01). CIR was positively correlated with PDR (r = 0.44, P < 0.05), and with the numbers of procedures performed by the endoscopists (r = 0.64, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The best colonoscopists have a higher CIR, use less sedation, cause less discomfort and find more polyps. Measuring patient comfort is valuable in monitoring performance.

Intranasal atomized dexmedetomidine for sedation during third molar extraction

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the intranasal use of 1.5 μg/kg atomized dexmedetomidine for sedation in patients undergoing mandibular third molar removal. Eighteen patients underwent third molar removal in two surgical sessions. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intranasal water (placebo group) or 1.5 μg/kg atomized dexmedetomidine (group D) at the first session. The alternate regimen was used during the second session. Local anaesthesia was injected 30 min after placebo/sedative administration. Pain from local anaesthesia infiltration was rated on a scale from zero (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). Sedation status was measured every 10 min by a blinded observer with a modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scale and the bispectral index (BIS). Adverse reactions and analgesic consumption were recorded. Sedation values in group D were significantly different from placebo at 20-30 min, peaked at 40-50 min, and returned to placebo levels at 70-80 min after intranasal drug administration. Group D displayed decreased heart rate and systolic blood pressure, but the decreases did not exceed 20% of the baseline values. Intranasal administration of 1.5 μg/kg atomized dexmedetomidine is effective, convenient, and safe as a sedative for patients undergoing third molar extraction.

Recommended sedation and intraprocedural monitoring for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is associated with a longer treatment time and a higher risk of patient discomfort than conventional procedures. Adequate, safe sedation is therefore essential. Sedation can cause adverse effects such as hypoxemia and hypotension, requiring continuous intraoperative and postoperative monitoring of blood pressure, use of the electrocardiogram, and arterial blood oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry. A physician and a nurse solely responsible for sedating and monitoring the patient should be present during treatment.A combination of benzodiazepines and analgesics are generally used for sedation, but new sedatives such as propofol and dexmedetomidine hydrochloride are expected to be useful agents. Endoscopists should become more familiar with sedatives, analgesics, and emergency procedures in the future.

Propofol combined with traditional sedative agents versus propofol- alone sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

RCTs comparing the effects of PTSA and propofol alone 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), total dose of propofol used and amnesia were assessed.

RESULTS

Nine original RCTs investigating a total of 1,505 patients, of whom, 805 received PTSA sedation and 700 received propofol-alone sedation, met the inclusion criteria. Compared with propofol-alone sedation, the pooled relative risk with the use of PTSA sedation for developing hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmias, and apnea for all the procedures combined was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.30-2.92), 1.32 (95% CI, 0.38-4.64), 2.61 (95% CI, 0.23-29.29) and 2.81 (95% CI, 0.27-29.07), with no significant difference between the groups. The pooled mean difference in total dose of propofol used was -40.01 (95% CI, -78.96 to -1.05), which showed a significant reduction with use of PTSA sedation. The pooled relative risk for amnesia was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.07), suggesting no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PTSA sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy could significantly reduce the total dose of propofol, but without benefits of lower risk of cardiopulmonary complications compared with propofol-alone sedation.

The current status of procedural sedation for pediatric patients in out-of-operating room locations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To illustrate the changes that are occurring in the rapidly growing field of pediatric sedation. In the USA and throughout the world, children receive sedation from a multitude of specialists with varying levels of training. The current pediatric sedation literature reflects a growing body of sedation literature by medical specialists other than anesthesiologists. This article will review the controversial use of propofol by nonanesthesiologists and the manner in which this varied group of providers along with government entities, regulatory agencies, and national organizations contribute to the continuing evolution of sedation practices.

RECENT FINDINGS

The number of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures performed on children outside of the operating room continues to increase. The growing body of pediatric sedation literature suggests anesthesiologists are no longer at the forefront of pediatric sedation training, education, and research. Articles published by nonanesthesiologists describe pediatric sedation services, safety, and quality initiatives, drugs, and original sedation research. Medications that were considered under the realm of anesthesiologists are utilized by nonanesthesiologists to provide sedation to children. Regulating and government agencies, including the Joint Commission and the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services have recently issued statements on the oversight and practice of sedation.

SUMMARY

The direction of pediatric sedation is no longer solely under the leadership of anesthesiologists. The use of anesthetic agents, including propofol, have been administered by nonanesthesiologists and reported as safe and effective agents. Nonanesthesiologists and governmental and regulatory agencies influence the delivery of sedation services. The future direction of pediatric sedation will ultimately depend upon the ability of anesthesiologists to collaborate with specialists, hospital administrators, credentialing committees, and oversight agencies in order to provide high-quality efficient sedation services to children.

Randomized controlled trial for endoscopy with propofol versus midazolam on psychometric tests and critical flicker frequency in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

People with cirrhosis are at increased risk of development of complications related to sedation. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) with propofol and midazolam on psychometric tests and critical flicker frequency (CFF) in people with cirrhosis.

METHODS

A total of 127 people with cirrhosis were randomized into three groups: propofol group (n = 40), midazolam group (n = 42) and no sedation (n = 45). All patients underwent CFF test and combination of psychometry (number connection test-A and B [NCT-A,B]; digit symbol test [DST], line tracing test [LTT] and serial dotting test [SDT]) at baseline and at 2 h post-endoscopy. CFF was done at 30 min and repeated every 30 min for 2 h.

RESULTS

In the propofol group there was no deterioration in psychometry (NCT-A [55.6 ± 18.7 vs 56.4 ± 19.0 s], NCT-B [98.2 ± 35.1 vs 97.8 ± 34.6 s], DST [26.7 ± 5.7 vs 26.3 ± 5.3], LTT [112.9 ± 35.7 vs 113.7 ± 36.6 s], SDT [94.6 ± 34.1 vs 95.2 ± 34.5 s]). Significant deterioration from baseline (39.8 ± 2.9 Hz) was seen in CFF at 30 min (38.8 ± 2.3 Hz) and 1 h (39.2 ± 2.4 Hz), P = 0.01 but no difference thereafter. In the midazolam group, significant deterioration was observed on psychometry (NCT-A [56.0 ± 18.5 vs 60.4 ± 19.8 s], NCT-B [99.9 ± 29.1 vs 105.9.6 ± 30.3 s], DST [26.1 ± 4.7 vs 25.2 ± 4.3], LTT [129.1 ± 34.5 vs 132.9 ± 35.4 s], SDT [95.6 ± 34.2]). No deterioration was observed in psychometry and CFF in people with cirrhosis without sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation for UGIE was associated with earlier recovery compared with midazolam, which causes deterioration of psychometric tests and CFF for a longer time in comparison with propofol.

Preanesthetic medication in children: A comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral midazolam

Background:

Relieving preoperative anxiety is an important concern for the pediatric anesthesiologist. Midazolam has become the most frequently used premedication in children. However, new drugs such as the α₂ -agonists have emerged as alternatives for premedication in pediatric anesthesia.

Methods:

One hundred and twenty children scheduled for adenotonsillectomy were enrolled in this prospective, double-blind, randomized study. The children were divided into two equal groups to receive either intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg (group D), or oral midazolam 0.5 mg/kg (group M) at approximately 60 and 30 mins, respectively, before induction of anesthesia. Preoperative sedative effects, anxiety level changes, and the ease of child-parent separation were assessed. Also, the recovery profile and postoperative analgesic properties were assessed.

Results:

Children premedicated with intranasal dexmedetomidine achieved significantly lower sedation levels (P=0.042), lower anxiety levels (P=0.036), and easier child-parent separation (P=0.029) than children who received oral midazolam at the time of transferring the patients to the operating room. Postoperatively, the time to achieve an Aldrete score of 10 was similar in both the groups (P=0.067). Also, the number of children who required fentanyl as rescue analgesia medication was significantly less (P=0.027) in the dexmedetomidine group.

Conclusion:

Intranasal dexmedetomidine appears to be a better choice for preanesthetic medication than oral midazolam in our study. Dexmedetomidine was associated with lower sedation levels, lower anxiety levels, and easier child-parent separation at the time of transferring patients to the operating room than children who received oral midazolam. Moreover, intranasal dexmedetomidine has better analgesic property than oral midazolam with discharge time from postanesthetic care unit similar to oral midazolam.

What factors are associated with the difficult-to-sedate endoscopy patient?

BACKGROUND

Difficult sedation during endoscopy results in inadequate examinations and aborted procedures. We hypothesized that gender, alcohol abuse, physical/sexual abuse, and anxiety are predictors of difficult-to-sedate endoscopy patients.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study. At the time of enrollment, subjects completed the following three validated questionnaires: state-trait anxiety inventory, self-report version of alcohol use disorder inventory, and Drossman questionnaire for physical/sexual abuse. Conscious sedation was administered for the endoscopic procedures at the discretion of the endoscopist and was graded in accordance with the Richmond agitation sedation scale (RASS). Subjects' perceptions of sedation were documented on a four-point Likert scale 24 h after their procedure.

RESULTS

One-hundred and forty-three (79 %) of the 180 subjects enrolled completed the study. On the basis of the RASS score, 56 (39 %) subjects were found to be difficult to sedate of which only five were dissatisfied with their sedation experience. State (n = 39; p = 0.003) and trait (n = 41; p = 0.008) anxiety and chronic psychotropic use (p = 0.040) were associated with difficult sedation. No association was found between difficult sedation and gender (p = 0.77), alcohol abuse (p = 0.11), sexual abuse (p = 0.15), physical abuse (p = 0.72), chronic opioid use (p = 0.16), or benzodiazepines (BDZ) use (p = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

Pre-procedural state or trait anxiety is associated with difficult sedation during endoscopy. In this study neither alcohol abuse nor chronic opiate/BDZ use was associated with difficult sedation.

Intermittent manually controlled versus continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation during interventional endoscopy: a prospective randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

Beside the traditional, intermittent bolus application of propofol, continuous propofol infusion via infusion pump is an alternative procedure for deep sedation during long-lasting interventional endoscopy. However, up to now, there are no randomized comparisons for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred patients (ERCP: n = 60, EUS: n = 40) were randomly assigned to receive intermittent bolus application ("bolus group") or continuous infusion ("perfusor group") of propofol sedation after induction with 3 mg midazolam for deep sedation. Patients in the bolus group received an initial propofol dose according to body weight (bw <70 kg: 40 mg; bw ≥ 70 kg 60 mg). In the perfusor group, bw-adapted, continuous propofol infusion (6 mg/kg) via the Injectomat 2000 MC (Fresenius-Kabi) was administered after an initial bolus of 1 mg/kg. Vital signs, dose of propofol, patient cooperation (VAS 1-10), sedation depth, and the recovery time as well as the quality of recovery were evaluated.

RESULTS

Total propofol dose in the bolus group 305 ± 155 mg (100-570 mg) and in the perfusor group 343 ± 123 mg (126-590 mg, p = 0.5) were comparable. Oxygen saturation below 90% was seen in four patients of each group, with no need for assisted ventilation. Arterial blood pressure <90 mmHg was documented in two patients in the bolus group and seven patients in the perfusor group (p = 0.16). Patients' cooperation was rated as good in both groups (bolus group, 9.1 ± 0.9; perfusor group, 8.9 ± 1; p = 0.17). Recovery time was significantly shorter in the bolus group compared with the perfusor group (19 ± 5 versus 23 ± 6 min, p < 0.001) whereas the quality of recovery was nearly identical in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Both sedation regimens allow nearly identical good controllability of propofol sedation. However, recovery time was significantly slower and hypotension was tended to occur more often in the perfusor group.

Balanced propofol sedation versus propofol monosedation in therapeutic pancreaticobiliary endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Prolonged or complex endoscopic procedures are frequently performed under deep sedation. However, no studies of therapeutic ERCP have yet compared the use of balanced propofol sedation (BPS) to propofol alone, titrated to moderate levels of sedation.

AIM

This prospective, randomized, double-blind study was planned to compare the sedation efficacy and safety of BPS (propofol in combination with midazolam and fentanyl) and propofol monosedation in therapeutic ERCP and EUS.

METHODS

BPS, or propofol monosedation titrated to a moderate level of sedation, was performed by trained registered nurses under endoscopist supervision. The main outcome measurements included sedation efficacy focusing on recovery time, sedation safety, endoscopic procedure outcomes, and complications.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in sedation efficacy, safety, procedure outcomes, and complications, with the exception of recovery time. Mean recovery time (standard deviation) was 18.37 (7.86) min in BPS and 13.4 (6.24) min in propofol monosedation (P < 0.001). In a safety analysis, cardiopulmonary complication rates related to BPS and propofol monosedation were 7.8 % (8/102) and 9.6 % (10/104), respectively (P = 0.652). No patient required assisted ventilation or permanent termination of a procedure in either group. Technical success of the endoscopic procedures was 96.3 and 97.2 %, respectively (P = 0.701). Endoscopic procedure-related complications and outcomes did not differ depending on sedation procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol monosedation by trained, registered sedation nurses under supervision resulted in a more rapid recovery time than BPS. There were no differences in the sedation safety, endoscopic procedure outcomes, and complications between BPS and propofol monosedation.

Sedation practices for routine diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in Nigeria

AIM

To determine the sedation practices and preferences of Nigerian endoscopists for routine diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

A structured questionnaire containing questions related to sedation practices and safety procedures was administered to Nigerian gastrointestinal endoscopists at the 2011 annual conference of the Society for Gastroenterology and Hepatology in Nigeria which was held at Ibadan, June 23-35, 2011.

RESULTS

Of 35 endoscopists who responded, 17 (48.6%) used sedation for less than 25% of procedures, while 14 (40.0%) used sedation for more than 75% of upper gastrointestinal endoscopies. The majority of respondents (22/35 or 62.9%) had less than 5 years experience in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The sedative of choice was benzodiazepine alone in the majority of respondents (85.7%). Opioid use (alone or in combination with benzodiazepines) was reported by only 5 respondents (14.3%). None of the respondents had had any experience with propofol. Non-anaesthesiologist-directed sedation was practiced by 91.4% of endoscopists. Monitoring of oxygen saturation during sedation was practiced by only 57.1% of respondents. Over half of the respondents (18/35 or 51.4%) never used supplemental oxygen for diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Sedation for routine diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in Nigeria is characterized by lack of guidelines, and differs markedly from that in developed countries.

Ketamine with and without midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopies in children

OBJECTIVES

Numerous publications on sedation of and anaesthesia for diagnostic procedures in children prove that no ideal scheme is available. Therefore, we decided to study the protocol with midazolam and ketamine used by nonanaesthetists at our institution. The study aimed to establish the lowest effective starting dose of ketamine and to estimate a difference in the frequency of adverse reactions with or without the use of midazolam as premedication, with special stress on emergence reactions.

METHODS

During 1 year we prospectively randomised children scheduled for gastrointestinal endoscopies to a first group with and to a second group without midazolam premedication. The starting ketamine dose was increased until the appropriate dissociative state was reached. Physiological functions were closely monitored and adverse reactions noted.

RESULTS

The median age of 201 analysed patients (111 girls, 90 boys) was 8.2 years. The median starting dose of ketamine was 0.97 mg/kg (the group with midazolam premedication) and 0.99 mg/kg TT (without midazolam premedication). Laryngospasm was observed in 6 patients without statistical difference between the 2 groups. All of the adverse reactions were short lasting; they resolved by symptomatic treatment without complications. Emergence reactions during the observation period at the hospital occurred more often in the group sedated with ketamine without midazolam premedication (P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

: The sedation protocol with ketamine is safe and efficient. The starting dose of ketamine should be at least 1 mg/kg. There is an advantage to the use of midazolam as premedication before ketamine in paediatric patients because the frequency of emergence reactions in hospital was reduced compared with sole ketamine use.

Anesthetic management for small bowel enteroscopy in a World Gastroenterology Organization Endoscopy Training Center

AIM

To study the anesthetic management of patients undergoing small bowel enteroscopy in the World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO) Endoscopy Training Center in Thailand.

METHODS

Patients who underwent small bowel enteroscopy during the period of March 2005 to March 2011 in Siriraj Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Center were retrospectively analyzed. The patients' characteristics, pre-anesthetic problems, anesthetic techniques, anesthetic agents, anesthetic time, type and route of procedure and anesthesia-related complications were assessed.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-four patients underwent this procedure during the study period. The mean age of the patients was 57.6 ± 17.2 years, and most were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class II (53.2%). Indications for this procedure were gastrointestinal bleeding (59.7%), chronic diarrhea (14.3%), protein losing enteropathy (2.6%) and others (23.4%). Hematologic disease, hypertension, heart disease and electrolyte imbalance were the most common pre-anesthetic problems. General anesthesia with endotracheal tube was the anesthetic technique mainly employed (50.6%). The main anesthetic agents administered were fentanyl, propofol and midazolam. The mean anesthetic time was 94.0 ± 50.5 min. Single balloon and oral (antegrade) intubation was the most common type and route of enteroscopy. The anesthesia-related complication rate was relatively high. The overall and cardiovascular-related complication rates including hypotension in the older patient group (aged ≥ 60 years old) were significantly higher than those in the younger group.

CONCLUSION

During anesthetic management for small bowel enteroscopy, special techniques and drugs are not routinely required. However, for safety reasons anesthetic personnel need to optimize the patient's condition.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for removal of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms: A technical review

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is now the most common endoscopic treatment in Japan for intramucosal gastrointestinal neoplasms (non-metastatic). ESD is an invasive endoscopic surgical procedure, requiring extensive knowledge, skill, and specialized equipment. ESD starts with evaluation of the lesion, as accurate assessment of the depth and margin of the lesion is essential. The devices and strategies used in ESD vary, depending on the nature of the lesion. Prior to the procedure, the operator must be knowledgeable about the treatment strategy(ies), the device(s) to use, the electrocautery machine settings, the substances to inject, and other aspects. In addition, the operator must be able to manage complications, should they arise, including immediate recognition of the complication(s) and its treatment. Finally, in case the ESD treatment is not successful, the operator should be prepared to apply alternative treatments. Thus, adequate knowledge and training are essential to successfully perform ESD.

Comparison of an Intraoperative Infusion of Dexmedetomidine or Remifentanil on Perioperative Haemodynamics, Hypnosis and Sedation, and Postoperative Pain Control

This prospective, randomized, double-blind study compared the effects of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil on haemodynamic stability, sedation and postoperative pain control in the postanaesthetic care unit (PACU). Fifty consecutive patients scheduled for total laparoscopic hysterectomy were randomly assigned to receive infusions of either dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) i.v. over 10 min followed by 0.2-0.7 μg/kg per h continuous i.v. infusion or remifentanil (0.8-1.2 μg/kg) i.v. over 1 min followed by 0.05-0.1 μg/kg i.v. per min, starting at the end of surgery to the time in the PACU. Modified observer's assessment of alertness scores were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the remifentanil group at 0, 5 and 10 min after arrival in the PACU. Blood pressure and heart rate in the dexmedetomidine group were significantly lower than that recorded in the remifentanil group in the PACU. Dexmedetomidine, at the doses used in this study, had a significant advantage over remifentanil in terms of postoperative haemodynamic stability.

Sedation and monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A nationwide web survey in Italy

BACKGROUND

Best strategy of sedation/analgesia in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is still debated.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

To evaluate sedation and monitoring practice among Italian gastroenterologists and to assess their opinion about non-anaesthesiologist propofol administration.

METHODS

A 19-item survey was mailed to all 1192 members of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED). For each respondent were recorded demographic data, medical specialty, years of practise and practise setting.

RESULTS

A total of 494 SIED members returned questionnaires, representing a response rate of 41.4%. The most employed sedation pattern was benzodiazepines for oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDS) in 50.8% of procedures, benzodiazepines plus opioids for colonoscopy and enteroscopy in 39.5% and 35.3% of procedures, respectively, propofol for endoscopic retrograde colangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in 42.3% and 35.6% of procedures, respectively. With regard to propofol use, 66% respondents stated that propofol was exclusively administered by anaesthesiologists. However, 76.9% respondents would consider non-anaesthesiologist propofol administration after appropriate training. Pulse oximetry is the most employed system for procedural monitoring. Supplemental O(2) is routinely administered by 39.3% respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of sedation has become a standard practise during GI endoscopy in Italy. Pattern varies for each type of procedure. Pulse oximetry is the most employed system of monitoring. Administration of propofol is still directed by anaesthesiologists.

Ketamine and midazolam sedation for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy in the Arab world

AIM: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of intravenous ketamine-midazolam sedation during pediatric endoscopy in the Arab world.

METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all pediatric endoscopic procedures performed between 2002-2008 at the shared endoscopy suite of King Abdullah University Hospital, Jordan University of Science & Technology, Jordan was conducted. All children were > 1 year old and weighed > 10 kg with American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 or 2. Analysis was performed in terms of sedation-related complications (desaturation, respiratory distress, apnea, bradycardia, cardiac arrest, emergence reactions), adequacy of sedation, need for sedation reversal, or failure to complete the procedure.

RESULTS: A total of 301 patients (including 160 males) with a mean age of 9.26 years (range, 1-18 years) were included. All were premedicated with atropine; and 79.4% (239/301) had effective and uneventful sedation. And 248 (82.4%) of the 301 patients received a mean dose of 0.16 mg/kg (range, 0.07-0.39) midazolam and 1.06 mg/kg (range, 0.31-2.67) ketamine, respectively within the recommended dosage guidelines. Recommended maximum midazolam dose was exceeded in 17.6% patients [34 female (F):19 male (M), P = 0.003] and ketamine in 2.7% (3 M:5 F). Maximum midazolam dose was more likely to be exceeded than ketamine (P < 0.001). Desaturation occurred in 37 (12.3%) patients, and was reversible by supplemental oxygen in all except 4 who continue to have desaturation despite supplemental oxygen. Four (1.3%) patients had respiratory distress and 6 (2%) were difficult to sedate and required a 3rd sedative; 12 (4%) required reversal and 7 (2.3%) failed to complete the procedure. None developed apnea, bradycardia, arrest, or emergence reactions.

CONCLUSION: Ketamine-midazolam sedation appears safe and effective for diagnostic pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy in the Arab world for children aged > 1 year and weighing > 10 kg without co-morbidities.

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

BACKGROUND

The importance of sedation during endoscopy is well established. There is no consensus about the best techniques for sedation, which specialist should perform it, and in which location.

OBJECTIVE

To provide data on the epidemiology of adverse events during sedation for endoscopy.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of a prospective database.

SETTING

Endoscopy unit of a university hospital.

PROCEDURES

A total of 17,999 procedures performed over 8 years.

INTERVENTIONS

Sedation for GI endoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

We recorded the following information: sex, age, body mass index, smoking habits, American Society of Anesthesiologists and Mallampati scores, duration of the procedure, type of sedative drug administered, whether the procedure was performed emergently, and endoscopic interventions during the maneuver. Adverse events were defined as occurrences that warranted intervention and were classified as hypotension, desaturation, bradycardia, hypertension, arrhythmia, aspiration, respiratory depression, vomiting, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, angina, hypoglycemia, and/or allergic reaction.

RESULTS

Deep sedation with intravenous propofol target controlled infusion pump was the most frequently used means of administering sedation. Adverse events were rare in both the adult (4.5%) and pediatric (2.6%) populations. Six complications occurred in more than 0.1% of adult cases: arterial hypotension, desaturation, bradycardia, arterial hypertension, arrhythmia, and aspiration. Only bradycardia (2.1%) and hypotension (0.44%) occurred in children. Three adult patients (0.017%) died, and no pediatric patients died. Some predictive models for the occurrence of complications are proposed.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective analysis, single-center data collection.

CONCLUSIONS

Deep sedation during endoscopic procedures is safe in both adults and children. Our data may be useful for the future planning of new clinical strategies in this setting.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with 22- and 25-gauge needles in solid pancreatic masses: a prospective comparative study with randomisation of needle sequence

BACKGROUND

The difference in the diagnostic accuracy of 22- versus 25-gauge needles in EUS-FNA is not clear.

AIMS

To compare the rates of technical success, diagnostic accuracy and complications of EUS-FNA performed with 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles on the same solid pancreatic mass.

METHODS

All patients with solid pancreatic masses evaluated from September 2007 to December 2008 were enrolled and underwent EUS-FNA with both 22- and 25-gauge needles with randomisation of needle sequence. The accuracy of the EUS-FNA was determined by comparing the cytological results with the final surgical pathological diagnoses or with the results of a clinical follow-up. A cytological score with different qualitative parameters was created, and a comparison between these parameters was carried out for each needle.

RESULTS

Fifty patients with 50 pancreatic masses were recruited. Technical success was 100% and no complications occurred. Diagnostic accuracy was 94% and 86% for the 25- and 22-gauge needles, respectively. Analysis of the cytological score showed a tendency towards the 25-gauge needle, although the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNA performed with 22- or 25-gauge needles had the same diagnostic accuracy. Our study results confirm a significant trend towards a better cytological diagnosis for the 25-gauge needle.

[An established anesthesia team-care model: over 12000 cases in a digestive endoscopy unit]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The growing demand for digestive and other endoscopic procedures outside the operating room, both in terms of type of endoscopy and number of patients, requires reorganization of the anesthesiology department's workload. We describe 2 years of our hospital digestive endoscopy unit's experience with a now well-established care model involving both anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

After previously reviewing the medical records of outpatients and conducting a telephone interview about state of health, nurse anesthetists administered a combination of propofol and remifentanil through a target-controlled infusion system under an anesthesiologist's direct supervision.

RESULTS

The ratio of anesthesiologists to nurses ranged from 1:2 to 1:3 according to the complexity of the examination procedure. Over 12000 endoscopies (simple to advanced) in a total of 11853 patients were performed under anesthesia during the study period. Airway management maneuvers were required by 4.9% of the patients; 0.18% required bag ventilation for respiratory depression, and 0.084% required bolus doses of a vasopressor to treat hypotension or atropine to treat bradycardia. The procedure had to be halted early in 9 patients (0.07%). No patient required orotracheal intubation and none died. Nor were any complications related to sedation recorded.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that this care model can safely accommodate a large caseload in anesthesia at an optimum level of quality.

Sedation, analgesia, and monitoring

Endoscopic procedures are common and sedation is frequently used to minimize anxiety and discomfort, reduce the potential for physical injury during the procedure, and improve overall patient tolerability and satisfaction. In this article, the authors review the variety of options for sedation and analgesia available to the gastroenterologist or surgical endoscopist.

How best to approach endoscopic sedation?

Sedation is the drug-induced reduction of a patient's consciousness. The aim of sedation in endoscopic procedures is to increase the patient's comfort and to improve endoscopic performance, especially in therapeutic procedures. The most commonly used sedation regimen for conscious sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy is still the combination of benzodiazepines with opioids. However, the use of propofol has increased enormously in the past decade and several studies show advantages of propofol over the traditional regimes in terms of faster recovery time. It is important to be aware that the complication rate of endoscopies increases when sedation is used; therefore, a thorough risk evaluation before the procedure and monitoring during the procedure must be performed. In addition, properly trained staff and emergency equipment should be available. The best approach to sedation in endoscopy is to choose a sedation regimen for the individual patient, tailored according to the clinical risk assessment and the anxiety level of the patient, as well as to the type of planned endoscopic procedure.

Does anesthesiologist-directed sedation for ERCP improve deep cannulation and complication rates?

OBJECTIVES

While some gastroenterologists provide their own sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), others utilize anesthesiologists. There is limited information comparing cannulation success and complication rates between these two approaches. Theoretically, anesthesiologist-directed sedation (ADS) may lead to an improved deep cannulation rate by virtue of using deeper and more constant levels of sedation and by removing the minute-by-minute medication management and physiologic monitoring responsibilities from the endoscopy team.

AIMS

To compare ERCP deep cannulation success and complications between gastroenterologist-directed sedation (GDS) and ADS.

METHODS

All ERCPs completed by senior advanced endoscopists at a tertiary referral center over a 2-year period were reviewed. During the first year, all ERCP sedation was performed with GDS utilizing a narcotic and a benzodiazepine. Due to a change in division policy and practice, during the second year, all ERCP sedation was provided by ADS. Patients with prior papillary interventions were excluded. Demographics, procedure indications, deep cannulation success, sedation provider, and procedural complications were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 367 patients were studied: 178 (48.5%) GDS and 189 (51.5%) ADS. There was no difference in the groups with respect to race, age, and gender. Four patients (2.3%) in the GDS group could not be sedated. There were two deaths, one in each group; one death was due to cholangitis/sepsis and the other was due to post-ERCP pancreatitis. The overall cannulation success rates were similar between the two groups (94.4% vs. 95.2%, P = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Deep ductal cannulation rates between GDS and ADS are similar.

A survey of sedation practices for colonoscopy in Canada

BACKGROUND

There are limited data regarding the use of sedation for colonoscopy and concomitant monitoring practices in different countries.

METHODS

A survey was mailed to 445 clinician members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and 80 members of the Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons in May and June 2009.

RESULTS

Sixty-five per cent of Canadian Association of Gastroenterology members and 69% of Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons members responded with the full survey. Most endoscopists reported using sedation for more than 90% of colonoscopies. The most common sedation regimen was a combination of midazolam and fentanyl. Propofol, either alone or with another drug, was used in 12% of cases. A higher proportion (94%) of adult gastroenterologists who routinely used propofol were highly satisfied compared with those using other sedative agents (45%; P<0.001). Fifty per cent of adult gastroenterologists and 29% of surgeons who were not currently using propofol expressed interest in starting to use it for routine colonoscopies. Only a single nurse was present in the endoscopy room during colonoscopy performed by two-thirds of the endoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of the present survey suggest that gastroenterologists in Canada use sedation for colonoscopy in more than 90% of their patients. There was higher satisfaction among gastroenterologists who used propofol routinely for all colonoscopies. Most endoscopy rooms were staffed by a single nurse, which may limit further increases in the use of propofol. Further studies are needed to determine optimal staffing of endoscopy units with and without the use of propofol. Sedation practices of general surgery endoscopists need to be evaluated.

Analytic Reviews: Propofol Infusion Syndrome in the ICU

Propofol is an alkylphenol derivative named 2, 6, diisopropylphenol and is a potent intravenous short-acting hypnotic agent. It is commonly used as sedation, as well as an anesthetic agent in both pediatric and adult patient populations. There have been numerous case reports describing a constellation of findings including metabolic derangements and organ system failures known collectively as propofol infusion syndrome (PRIS). Although there is a high mortality associated with PRIS, the precise mechanism of action has yet to be determined. The best preventive measure for this syndrome is awareness and avoidance of clinical scenarios associated with development of PRIS. There is no established treatment for PRIS; care is primarily supportive in nature and may include the full array of advanced cardiopulmonary support, including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). This article reviews the reported cases of PRIS and describes the current understanding of the underlying pathophysiology and treatment options.

Computer-assisted personalized sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: a comparative, multicenter randomized study

BACKGROUND

The SEDASYS System is an investigational computer-assisted personalized sedation system integrating propofol delivery with patient monitoring to enable endoscopist/nurse teams to safely administer propofol.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of the SEDASYS System to the current standard of care for sedation during routine endoscopic procedures.

DESIGN

Nonblinded multicenter randomized comparative study.

SETTING

Four ambulatory surgery centers, 3 endoscopy centers, and 1 academic center in the United States.

PATIENTS

One thousand American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I to III adults undergoing routine colonoscopy or EGD.

INTERVENTIONS

Sedation with the SEDASYS System (SED) and sedation with each site's current standard of care (CSC; benzodiazepine/opioid combination).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Area under the curve of oxygen desaturation was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included patient satisfaction, clinician satisfaction, level of sedation, and patient recovery time.

RESULTS

Four hundred ninety-six patients were randomized to SED and 504 to CSC. Area under the curve of oxygen desaturation was significantly lower for SED (23.6 s·%) than for CSC (88.0 s·%; P = .028). Patients were predominately minimally to moderately sedated in both groups. SED patients were significantly more satisfied than CSC patients (P = .007). Clinician satisfaction was greater with SED than with CSC (P < .001). SED patients recovered faster than CSC patients (P < .001). The incidence of adverse events was 5.8% in the SED group and 8.7% in the CSC group.

LIMITATIONS

Nonblinded.

CONCLUSIONS

The SEDASYS System could provide endoscopist/nurse teams a safe and effective on-label means to administer propofol to effect minimal to moderate sedation during routine colonoscopy and EGD.

Sedation in the bariatric patient

Obesity is a significant health problem that has assumed epidemic proportions. A durable reduction in weight and improved morbidity and mortality have been realized with the introduction of various bariatric surgical procedures. It is unknown how safe the current practices of sedation for endoscopic procedures are in bariatric patients. Morbid obesity can result in pulmonary hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and restrictive lung disease. This article explores these issues and how they may impact the risk profile of current standards for endoscopic sedation.

Deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a comparison between clinical assessment and Narcotrend(TM) monitoring

INTRODUCTION

Moderate to deep sedation is generally used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The depth of sedation is usually judged by clinical assessment and electroencephalography-guided monitoring. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of clinical assessment and Narcotrend(TM) monitoring during deep-sedated ERCP.

METHODS

One hundred patients who underwent ERCP in a single year were randomly assigned to either group C or group N. Patients in group C (52) were sedated using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale. Patients in group N (48) were sedated using the Narcotrend(TM) system. The MOAA/S scale 1 or 2 and the Narcotrend(TM) index 47-56 to 57-64 were maintained during the procedure. The primary outcome variable of the study was the successful completion of the endoscopic procedure. The secondary outcome variables were the total dose of propofol used during the procedure, complications during and immediately after procedure, and recovery time.

RESULTS

All endoscopies were completed successfully. The mean total dose of propofol in group C was significantly lower than that in group N. However, the mean dose of propofol, expressed as dose/kg or dose/kg/h in both groups, was not significantly different (P = 0.497, 0.136). Recovery time, patient tolerance and satisfaction, and endoscopist satisfaction were comparable between the two groups. All sedation-related adverse events during and immediately after the procedure, such as hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, bradycardia, transient hypoxia, and upper airway obstruction, in group C (62.2%) were significantly higher than in group N (37.5%) (P = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

Clinical assessment and Narcotrend(TM)-guided sedation using propofol for deep sedation demonstrated comparable propofol dose and recovery time. Both monitoring systems were equally safe and effective. However, the Narcotrend(TM)-guided sedation showed lower hemodynamic changes and fewer complications compared with the clinical assessment-guided sedation.

An exploration of remifentanil-propofol combinations that lead to a loss of response to esophageal instrumentation, a loss of responsiveness, and/or onset of intolerable ventilatory depression

BACKGROUND

Remifentanil and propofol are increasingly used for short-duration procedures in spontaneously breathing patients. In this setting, it is preferable to block the response to moderate stimuli while avoiding loss of responsiveness (LOR) and intolerable ventilatory depression (IVD). In this study, we explored selected effects of combinations of remifentanil-propofol effect-site concentrations (Ces) that lead to a loss of response to esophageal instrumentation (EI), LOR, and/or onset of IVD. A secondary aim was to use these observations to create response surface models for each effect measure. We hypothesized that (1) in a large percentage of volunteers, selected remifentanil and propofol Ces would allow EI but avoid LOR and IVD, and (2) the drug interaction for these effects would be synergistic.

METHODS

Twenty-four volunteers received escalating target-controlled remifentanil and propofol infusions over ranges of 0 to 6.4 ng · mL(-1) and 0 to 4.3 μg · mL(-1), respectively. At each set of target concentrations, responses to insertion of a blunt end bougie into the midesophagus (40 cm), level of responsiveness, and respiratory rate were recorded. From these data, response surface models of loss of response to EI and IVD were built and characterized as synergistic, additive, or antagonistic. A previously published model of LOR was used.

RESULTS

Of the possible 384 assessments, volunteers were unresponsive to EI at 105 predicted remifentanil-propofol Ces; in 30 of these, volunteers had no IVD; in 30, volunteers had no LOR; and in 9, volunteers had no IVD or LOR. Many other assessments over the same concentration ranges, however, did have LOR and/or IVD. The combinations that allowed EI and avoided IVD and/or LOR primarily clustered around remifentanil-propofol Ces ranging from 0.8 to 1.6 ng · mL(-1) and 1.5 to 2.7 μg · mL(-1), respectively, and to a lesser extent approximately 3.0 to 4.0 ng · mL(-1) and 0.0 to 1.1 μg · mL(-1), respectively. Models of loss of response to EI and IVD both demonstrated a synergistic interaction between remifentanil and propofol.

CONCLUSION

Selected remifentanil-propofol concentration pairs, especially higher propofol-lower remifentanil concentration pairs, can block the response to EI while avoiding IVD in spontaneously breathing volunteers. It is, however, difficult to block the response to EI and avoid both LOR and IVD. It may be necessary to accept some discomfort and blunt rather than block the response to EI to consistently avoid LOR and IVD.

[Sedation and analgesia during gastrointestinal endoscopy]

Sedative and analgesic premedication is frequently used during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Sedation improves patient's compliance, helping the examinations and their safe completion, but it lengthens the procedures, increases the costs, and complications can occur. Sedative drugs are applied during upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, and also at ERCP. The review summarizes the different forms of sedation, drugs, future techniques and possibilities of improvements. Moreover, sedation practice in Hungary is also described.

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy

Propofol sedation by non-anaesthesiologists is an upcoming sedation regimen in several countries throughout Europe. Numerous studies have shown the efficacy and safety of this sedation regimen in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Nevertheless, this issue remains highly controversial. The aim of this evidence- and consensus-based set of guideline is to provide non-anaesthesiologists with a comprehensive framework for propofol sedation during digestive endoscopy. This guideline results from a collaborative effort from representatives of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). These three societies have endorsed the present guideline.The guideline is published simultaneously in the Journals Endoscopy and European Journal of Anaesthesiology.

A simple, innovative way to reduce rhinitis symptoms after sedation during endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Supplmental oxygen is routinely given via nasal cannula (NC) to patients undergoing moderate sedation for endoscopy. Some patients complain of profuse rhinorrhea and⁄or sneezing after the procedure, which results in additional medical costs and patient dissatisfaction.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the causal relationship between the route of oxygen delivery and troublesome nasal symptoms, and to seek possible solutions.

METHODS

Patients (n=836) were randomly assigned to one of the three following groups: the NC group (n=294), the trimmed NC (TNC) group (n=268) and the nasal mask (NM) group (n=274). All received alfentanil 12.5 μg⁄kg and midazolam 0.06 mg⁄kg, and adjunct propofol for sedation. Supplemental oxygen at a flow rate of 4 L⁄min was used in the NC and TNC groups, and 6 L⁄min in the NM group. The incidence of nasal symptoms and hypoxia were assessed.

RESULTS

The incidence of rhinitis symptoms was significantly higher in the NC group (7.1%) than in the TNC (0.4%) and NM (0%) groups (P<0.001). The incidence of hypoxia was lower in the NC group (3.1%) (P=0.040). All hypoxia events were transient (ie, less than 30 s in duration). On spirometry, the mean value of the lowest saturation of peripheral oxygen was found to be significantly lower in the NM group (96.8%) than in the NC group (97.7%) (P=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Trimming the NC or using NMs reduced the incidence of rhinitis symptoms; however, the incidence of hypoxia was higher. Further investigation regarding the efficiency of oxygen supplementation is warranted in the design of novel oxygen delivery devices.