1
|
Sidhu R, Turnbull D, Haboubi H, Leeds JS, Healey C, Hebbar S, Collins P, Jones W, Peerally MF, Brogden S, Neilson LJ, Nayar M, Gath J, Foulkes G, Trudgill NJ, Penman I. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gut 2024; 73:219-245. [PMID: 37816587 PMCID: PMC10850688 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2023-330396] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2023] [Accepted: 09/06/2023] [Indexed: 10/12/2023]
Abstract
Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reena Sidhu
- Academic Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
- Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - David Turnbull
- Department of Anaesthetics, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
| | - Hasan Haboubi
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Llandough, Llandough, South Glamorgan, UK
- Institute of Life Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
| | - John S Leeds
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Unit, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Newcastle University Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Chris Healey
- Airedale NHS Foundation Trust, Keighley, West Yorkshire, UK
| | - Srisha Hebbar
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Midlands, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Paul Collins
- Department of Gastroenterology, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Wendy Jones
- Specialist Pharmacist Breastfeeding and Medication, Portsmouth, UK
| | - Mohammad Farhad Peerally
- Digestive Diseases Unit, Kettering General Hospital; Kettering, Kettering, Northamptonshire, UK
- Department of Population Health Sciences, College of Life Science, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Sara Brogden
- Department of Gastroenterology, University College London, UK, London, London, UK
| | - Laura J Neilson
- Department of Gastroenterology, South Tyneside District Hospital, South Shields, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Manu Nayar
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Unit, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Newcastle University Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Jacqui Gath
- Patient Representative on Guideline Development Group and member of Independent Cancer Patients' Voice, Sheffield, UK
| | - Graham Foulkes
- Patient Representative on Guideline Development Group, Manchester, UK
| | - Nigel J Trudgill
- Department of Gastroenterology, Sandwell General Hospital, West Bromwich, UK
| | - Ian Penman
- Centre for Liver and Digestive Disorders, Royal Infirmary Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Midlothian, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wehrmann T, Riphaus A, Eckardt AJ, Klare P, Kopp I, von Delius S, Rosien U, Tonner PH. Updated S3 Guideline "Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy" of the German Society of Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS) - June 2023 - AWMF-Register-No. 021/014. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR GASTROENTEROLOGIE 2023; 61:e654-e705. [PMID: 37813354 DOI: 10.1055/a-2165-6388] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/11/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Till Wehrmann
- Clinic for Gastroenterology, DKD Helios Clinic Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Germany
| | - Andrea Riphaus
- Internal Medicine, St. Elisabethen Hospital Frankfurt Artemed SE, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Alexander J Eckardt
- Clinic for Gastroenterology, DKD Helios Clinic Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Germany
| | - Peter Klare
- Department Internal Medicine - Gastroenterology, Diabetology, and Hematology/Oncology, Hospital Agatharied, Hausham, Germany
| | - Ina Kopp
- Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany e.V. (AWMF), Berlin, Germany
| | - Stefan von Delius
- Medical Clinic II - Internal Medicine - Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Endocrinology, Hematology, and Oncology, RoMed Clinic Rosenheim, Rosenheim, Germany
| | - Ulrich Rosien
- Medical Clinic, Israelite Hospital, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Peter H Tonner
- Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Clinic Leer, Leer, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wehrmann T, Riphaus A, Eckardt AJ, Klare P, Kopp I, von Delius S, Rosien U, Tonner PH. Aktualisierte S3-Leitlinie „Sedierung in der gastrointestinalen Endoskopie“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie, Verdauungs- und Stoffwechselkrankheiten (DGVS). ZEITSCHRIFT FUR GASTROENTEROLOGIE 2023; 61:1246-1301. [PMID: 37678315 DOI: 10.1055/a-2124-5333] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/09/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Till Wehrmann
- Klinik für Gastroenterologie, DKD Helios Klinik Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Deutschland
| | - Andrea Riphaus
- Innere Medizin, St. Elisabethen Krankenhaus Frankfurt Artemed SE, Frankfurt, Deutschland
| | - Alexander J Eckardt
- Klinik für Gastroenterologie, DKD Helios Klinik Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Deutschland
| | - Peter Klare
- Abteilung Innere Medizin - Gastroenterologie, Diabetologie und Hämato-/Onkologie, Krankenhaus Agatharied, Hausham, Deutschland
| | - Ina Kopp
- Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften e. V. (AWMF), Berlin, Deutschland
| | - Stefan von Delius
- Medizinische Klinik II - Innere Medizin - Gastroenterologie, Hepatologie, Endokrinologie, Hämatologie und Onkologie, RoMed Klinikum Rosenheim, Rosenheim, Deutschland
| | - Ulrich Rosien
- Medizinische Klinik, Israelitisches Krankenhaus, Hamburg, Deutschland
| | - Peter H Tonner
- Anästhesie- und Intensivmedizin, Klinikum Leer, Leer, Deutschland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sebastian S, Dhar A, Baddeley R, Donnelly L, Haddock R, Arasaradnam R, Coulter A, Disney BR, Griffiths H, Healey C, Hillson R, Steinbach I, Marshall S, Rajendran A, Rochford A, Thomas-Gibson S, Siddhi S, Stableforth W, Wesley E, Brett B, Morris AJ, Douds A, Coleman MG, Veitch AM, Hayee B. Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy. Gut 2023; 72:12-26. [PMID: 36229172 PMCID: PMC9763195 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-328460] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2022] [Accepted: 09/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/08/2022]
Abstract
GI endoscopy is highly resource-intensive with a significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste generation. Sustainable endoscopy in the context of climate change is now the focus of mainstream discussions between endoscopy providers, units and professional societies. In addition to broader global challenges, there are some specific measures relevant to endoscopy units and their practices, which could significantly reduce environmental impact. Awareness of these issues and guidance on practical interventions to mitigate the carbon footprint of GI endoscopy are lacking. In this consensus, we discuss practical measures to reduce the impact of endoscopy on the environment applicable to endoscopy units and practitioners. Adoption of these measures will facilitate and promote new practices and the evolution of a more sustainable specialty.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shaji Sebastian
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire, UK .,Clinical Sciences Centre, Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK
| | - Anjan Dhar
- Department of Gastroenterology, Darlington Memorial Hospital, Darlington, UK,School of Health & Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Robin Baddeley
- Institute for Therapeutic Endoscopy, King's College Hospital, London, UK,Department of Gastroenterology, St Mark's National Bowel Hospital & Academic Institute, London, UK
| | - Leigh Donnelly
- Department of Gastroenterology, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Shields, UK
| | - Rosemary Haddock
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, UK
| | - Ramesh Arasaradnam
- Applied Biological and Experimental Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, UK,Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
| | - Archibald Coulter
- Department of Gastroenterology, Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK
| | - Benjamin Robert Disney
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
| | - Helen Griffiths
- Department of Gastroenterology, Brecon War Memorial Hospital, Brecon, UK
| | - Christopher Healey
- Department of Gastroenterology, Airedale NHS Foundation Trust, Keighley, UK
| | | | | | - Sarah Marshall
- Bowel Cancer Screening & Endoscopy, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, Harrow, UK,Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy, London, UK
| | - Arun Rajendran
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Uxbridge, UK
| | - Andrew Rochford
- Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Free Hospitals, London, UK
| | - Siwan Thomas-Gibson
- Department of Gastroenterology, St Mark's National Bowel Hospital & Academic Institute, London, UK
| | - Sandeep Siddhi
- Department of Gastroenterology, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK
| | - William Stableforth
- Departments of Gastroenterology & Endoscopy, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, UK
| | - Emma Wesley
- Departments of Gastroenterology & Endoscopy, Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK
| | - Bernard Brett
- Department of Gastroenterology, Norfolk and Norwich Hospitals NHS Trust, Norwich, UK
| | | | - Andrew Douds
- Department of Gastroenterology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust, Norwich, UK
| | - Mark Giles Coleman
- Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy, London, UK,Department of Colorectal Surgery, Plymouth University Hospitals Trust, Plymouth, UK
| | - Andrew M Veitch
- Department of Gastroenterology, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK
| | - Bu'Hussain Hayee
- King's Health Partners Institute for Therapeutic Endoscopy, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Yang X, Cheng Y, Cheng N, Gong J, Bai L, Zhao L, Deng Y. Gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 3:CD009569. [PMID: 35288930 PMCID: PMC8921952 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009569.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013 and last updated in 2017. Laparoscopic surgery is now widely performed to treat various abdominal diseases. Currently, carbon dioxide is the most frequently used gas for insufflation of the abdominal cavity (pneumoperitoneum). Although carbon dioxide meets most of the requirements for pneumoperitoneum, the absorption of carbon dioxide may be associated with adverse events. Therefore, other gases have been introduced as alternatives to carbon dioxide for establishing pneumoperitoneum. OBJECTIVES To assess the safety, benefits, and harms of different gases (e.g. carbon dioxide, helium, argon, nitrogen, nitrous oxide, and room air) used for establishing pneumoperitoneum in participants undergoing laparoscopic abdominal or gynaecological pelvic surgery. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, four other databases, and three trials registers on 15 October 2021 together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum in participants (irrespective of age, sex, or race) undergoing laparoscopic abdominal or gynaecological pelvic surgery under general anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS We included 10 RCTs, randomising 583 participants, comparing different gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum: nitrous oxide (four trials), helium (five trials), or room air (one trial) was compared to carbon dioxide. All the RCTs were single-centre studies. Four RCTs were conducted in the USA; two in Australia; one in China; one in Finland; one in Iran; and one in the Netherlands. The mean age of the participants ranged from 27.6 years to 49.0 years. Four trials randomised participants to nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum (132 participants) or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (128 participants). None of the trials was at low risk of bias. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum compared to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum on cardiopulmonary complications (Peto odds ratio (OR) 2.62, 95% CI 0.78 to 8.85; 3 studies, 204 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or surgical morbidity (Peto OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.31; 3 studies, 207 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no serious adverse events related to either nitrous oxide or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (4 studies, 260 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Four trials randomised participants to helium pneumoperitoneum (69 participants) or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (75 participants) and one trial involving 33 participants did not state the number of participants in each group. None of the trials was at low risk of bias. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of helium pneumoperitoneum compared to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum on cardiopulmonary complications (Peto OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.28 to 9.72; 3 studies, 128 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or surgical morbidity (5 studies, 177 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were three serious adverse events (subcutaneous emphysema) related to helium pneumoperitoneum (3 studies, 128 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One trial randomised participants to room air pneumoperitoneum (70 participants) or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (76 participants). The trial was at high risk of bias. There were no cardiopulmonary complications, serious adverse events, or deaths observed related to either room air or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of nitrous oxide, helium, and room air pneumoperitoneum compared to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum on any of the primary outcomes, including cardiopulmonary complications, surgical morbidity, and serious adverse events. The safety of nitrous oxide, helium, and room air pneumoperitoneum has yet to be established, especially in people with high anaesthetic risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xudong Yang
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Yao Cheng
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Nansheng Cheng
- Department of Bile Duct Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Jianping Gong
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Lian Bai
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Yongchuan Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Longshuan Zhao
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Yilei Deng
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
The Use of a Fixed 50:50 Mixture of Nitrous Oxide and Oxygen to Reduce Lumbar Puncture-Induced Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Med 2022; 11:jcm11061489. [PMID: 35329815 PMCID: PMC8953352 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11061489] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2022] [Revised: 02/28/2022] [Accepted: 03/07/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Lumbar puncture (LP) is stressful and often painful. We evaluated the efficacy of a fixed 50% nitrous oxide−oxygen mixture (50%N2O-O2) versus placebo to reduce immediate procedural pain and anxiety during LP performed in an emergency setting. We conducted a randomized controlled trial involving adults who needed a cerebrospinal fluid analysis in an emergency department. Patients were randomly assigned to inhale either 50%N2O-O2 or medical air. The primary endpoint, assessed using a numerical scale, was the maximum pain felt by the patient during the procedure and the maximum anxiety and satisfaction as secondary outcomes. Eighty-eight patients were randomized and analyzed (ITT). The maximal pain was 5.0 ± 2.9 for patients receiving air and 4.2 ± 3.0 for patients receiving 50%N2O-O2 (effect-size = −0.27 [−0.69; 0.14], p = 0.20). LP-induced anxiety was 4.7 ± 2.8 vs. 3.7 ± 3.7 (p = 0.13), and the proportion of patients with significant anxiety (score ≥ 4/10) was 72.7% vs. 50.0% (p = 0.03). Overall satisfaction was higher among patients receiving 50%N2O-O2 (7.4 ± 2.4 vs. 8.9 ± 1.6, p < 0.001). No serious adverse events were attributable to 50%N2O-O2 inhalation. Although inhalation of 50%N2O-O2 failed to reduce LP-induced pain in an emergency setting, it tended to reduce anxiety and significantly increased patient satisfaction.
Collapse
|
7
|
Solano Calvo JA, Del Valle Rubido C, Rodríguez-Miguel A, de Abajo FJ, Delgado Espeja JJ, González Hinojosa J, Fernández Muñoz L, Zapico Goñi Á. Nitrous oxide versus lidocaine versus no analgesic for in-office hysteroscopy: a randomised clinical trial. BJOG 2021; 128:1364-1372. [PMID: 33528862 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.16657] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the effect of inhaled nitrous oxide (INO) on pain control during in-office hysteroscopy with 1% lidocaine paracervical infiltration and no analgesic. DESIGN Single-blind stratified randomised clinical trial with masked assessment by a third party. SETTING Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in a Spanish hospital. POPULATION Women who underwent hysteroscopy. METHODS Patients were stratified into three groups according to the purpose of the hysteroscopy (biopsy, polypectomy or tubal sterilisation) and then assigned to different treatment groups through a permuted-blocks randomisation within strata. Pain scale was provided by a gynaecologist totally blinded to procedures and treatments. Effects were assessed using a one-way analysis of variance following an intention-to-treat approach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 mm. RESULTS A total of 314 women were included: 105 to INO, 104 to 1% lidocaine and 105 to no analgesic. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Mean VAS score after the procedure was 34.7 ± 25.8 mm, 36.1 ± 22.9 mm (P = 1.0) and 47.3 ± 28.2 mm (P = 0.001) for INO, 1% lidocaine and no analgesic, respectively. No adverse events were reported in 91 (86.7%) patients in the INO group compared with 79 (76%) in the 1%-lidocaine group (P = 0.04) and 85 (81%) in the no-analgesic group (P = 0.26). CONCLUSION INO was as effective as 1% lidocaine in pain control for in-office hysteroscopy and was better tolerated. The no-analgesic group presented the poorer results, so was the least recommended clinical option.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J A Solano Calvo
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital 'Príncipe de Asturias', Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain
| | - C Del Valle Rubido
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital 'Ramón y Cajal', Madrid, Spain
| | - A Rodríguez-Miguel
- Clinical Pharmacology Unit, University Hospital 'Príncipe de Asturias', Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain.,Pharmacology Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Alcalá (IRYCIS), Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain
| | - F J de Abajo
- Clinical Pharmacology Unit, University Hospital 'Príncipe de Asturias', Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain.,Pharmacology Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Alcalá (IRYCIS), Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain
| | - J J Delgado Espeja
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital 'Príncipe de Asturias', Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain
| | - J González Hinojosa
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital 'Príncipe de Asturias', Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain
| | - L Fernández Muñoz
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital 'Príncipe de Asturias', Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain
| | - Á Zapico Goñi
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital 'Príncipe de Asturias', Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Anesthesia for Colonoscopy. Anesthesiology 2018. [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-74766-8_20] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
|
9
|
Robertson AR, Kennedy NA, Robertson JA, Church NI, Noble CL. Colonoscopy quality with Entonox ®vs intravenous conscious sedation: 18608 colonoscopy retrospective study. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 9:471-479. [PMID: 28979712 PMCID: PMC5605347 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v9.i9.471] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2017] [Revised: 07/10/2017] [Accepted: 08/15/2017] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM To compare colonoscopy quality with nitrous oxide gas (Entonox®) against intravenous conscious sedation using midazolam plus opioid. METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospectively held database of 18608 colonoscopies carried out in Lothian health board hospitals between July 2013 and January 2016. The quality of colonoscopies performed with Entonox was compared to intravenous conscious sedation (abbreviated in this article as IVM). Furthermore, the quality of colonoscopies performed with an unmedicated group was compared to IVM. The study used the following key markers of colonoscopy quality: (1) patient comfort scores; (2) caecal intubation rates (CIRs); and (3) polyp detection rates (PDRs). We used binary logistic regression to model the data. RESULTS There was no difference in the rate of moderate-to-extreme discomfort between the Entonox and IVM groups (17.9% vs 18.8%; OR = 1.06, 95%CI: 0.95-1.18, P = 0.27). Patients in the unmedicated group were less likely to experience moderate-to-extreme discomfort than those in the IVM group (11.4% vs 18.8%; OR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.60-0.83, P < 0.001). There was no difference in caecal intubation between the Entonox and IVM groups (94.4% vs 93.7%; OR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.92-1.28, P = 0.34). There was no difference in caecal intubation between the unmedicated and IVM groups (94.2% vs 93.7%; OR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.79-1.22, P = 0.87). Polyp detection in the Entonox group was not different from IVM group (35.0% vs 33.1%; OR = 1.01, 95%CI: 0.93-1.10, P = 0.79). Polyp detection in the unmedicated group was not significantly different from the IVM group (37.4% vs 33.1%; OR = 0.97, 95%CI: 0.87-1.08, P = 0.60). CONCLUSION The use of Entonox was not associated with lower colonoscopy quality when compared to intravenous conscious sedation using midazolam plus opioid.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander R Robertson
- Department of Gastroenterology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, United Kingdom
| | - Nicholas A Kennedy
- Centre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, United Kingdom
- Department of Gastroenterology, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QJ, United Kingdom
| | - James A Robertson
- School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NJ7 2UH, United Kingdom
| | | | - Colin L Noble
- Department of Gastroenterology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Burbano-Paredes CC, Amaya-Guio J, Rubiano-Pinzón AM, Hernández-Caicedo ÁC, Grillo-Ardila CF. Clinical practice guideline for the management of sedation outside of operating room in patients over 12 years. COLOMBIAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY 2017. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rcae.2017.03.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022] Open
|
11
|
Burbano-Paredes CC, Amaya-Guio J, Rubiano-Pinzón AM, Hernández-Caicedo ÁC, Grillo-Ardila CF. Guía de práctica clínica para la administración de sedación fuera del quirófano en pacientes mayores de 12 años. COLOMBIAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY 2017. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rca.2017.02.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
|
12
|
Yu T, Cheng Y, Wang X, Tu B, Cheng N, Gong J, Bai L. Gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 6:CD009569. [PMID: 28635028 PMCID: PMC6481852 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009569.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is an update of the review published in 2013.Laparoscopic surgery is now widely performed to treat various abdominal diseases. Currently, carbon dioxide is the most frequently used gas for insufflation of the abdominal cavity (pneumoperitoneum). Although carbon dioxide meets most of the requirements for pneumoperitoneum, the absorption of carbon dioxide may be associated with adverse events. People with high anaesthetic risk are more likely to experience cardiopulmonary complications and adverse events, for example hypercapnia and acidosis, which has to be avoided by hyperventilation. Therefore, other gases have been introduced as alternatives to carbon dioxide for establishing pneumoperitoneum. OBJECTIVES To assess the safety, benefits, and harms of different gases (i.e. carbon dioxide, helium, argon, nitrogen, nitrous oxide, and room air) used for establishing pneumoperitoneum in participants undergoing laparoscopic general abdominal or gynaecological pelvic surgery. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to September 2016), Ovid Embase (1974 to September 2016), Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to September 2016), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to September 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (September 2016), and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (September 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum in participants (irrespective of age, sex, or race) undergoing laparoscopic abdominal or gynaecological pelvic surgery under general anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or Peto odds ratio for very rare outcomes), and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence, MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs, randomising 519 participants, comparing different gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum: nitrous oxide (three trials), helium (five trials), or room air (one trial) was compared to carbon dioxide. Three trials randomised participants to nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum (100 participants) or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (96 participants). None of the trials was at low risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide on cardiopulmonary complications (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.43; two studies; 140 participants; very low quality of evidence), or surgical morbidity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.18 to 5.71; two studies; 143 participants; very low quality of evidence). There were no serious adverse events related to either nitrous oxide or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (three studies; 196 participants; very low quality of evidence). We could not combine data from two trials (140 participants) which individually showed lower pain scores (a difference of about one visual analogue score on a scale of 1 to 10 with lower numbers indicating less pain) with nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum at various time points on the first postoperative day, and this was rated asvery low quality .Four trials randomised participants to helium pneumoperitoneum (69 participants) or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (75 participants) and one trial involving 33 participants did not state the number of participants in each group. None of the trials was at low risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of helium or carbon dioxide on cardiopulmonary complications (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 6.12; three studies; 128 participants; very low quality of evidence) or pain scores (visual analogue score on a scale of 1 to 10 with lower numbers indicating less pain; MD 0.49 cm, 95% CI -0.28 to 1.26; two studies; 108 participants; very low quality of evidence). There were three serious adverse events (subcutaneous emphysema) related to helium pneumoperitoneum (three studies; 128 participants; very low quality of evidence).One trial randomised participants to room air pneumoperitoneum (70 participants) or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (76 participants). The trial was at unclear risk of bias. There were no cardiopulmonary complications or serious adverse events observed related to either room air or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (both outcomes very low quality of evidence). The evidence of lower hospital costs and reduced pain during the first postoperative day with room air pneumoperitoneum compared with carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (a difference of about one visual analogue score on a scale of 1 to 10 with lower numbers indicating less pain, was rated as very low quality of evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The quality of the current evidence is very low. The effects of nitrous oxide and helium pneumoperitoneum compared with carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum are uncertain. Evidence from one trial of small sample size suggests that room air pneumoperitoneum may decrease hospital costs in people undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery. The safety of nitrous oxide, helium, and room air pneumoperitoneum has yet to be established.Further trials on this topic are needed, and should compare various gases (i.e. nitrous oxide, helium, argon, nitrogen, and room air) with carbon dioxide under standard pressure pneumoperitoneum with cold gas insufflation for people with high anaesthetic risk. Future trials should include outcomes such as complications, serious adverse events, quality of life, and pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tianwu Yu
- Yongchuan Hospital, Chongqing Medical UniversityDepartment of Hepatobiliary SurgeryNo. 439, Quxuanhua RoadChongqingChina402160
| | - Yao Cheng
- The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical UniversityDepartment of Hepatobiliary SurgeryChongqingChina
| | - Xiaomei Wang
- The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical UniversityDepartment of Hepatobiliary SurgeryChongqingChina
| | - Bing Tu
- The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical UniversityDepartment of Hepatobiliary SurgeryChongqingChina
| | - Nansheng Cheng
- West China Hospital, Sichuan UniversityDepartment of Bile Duct SurgeryNo. 37, Guo Xue XiangChengduSichuanChina610041
| | - Jianping Gong
- The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical UniversityDepartment of Hepatobiliary SurgeryChongqingChina
| | - Lian Bai
- Yongchuan Hospital, Chongqing Medical UniversityDepartment of Gastrointestinal SurgeryNo. 439, Quxuanhua RoadChongqingChina402160
| | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Ambrogi V, Tezenas du Montcel S, Collin E, Coutaux A, Bourgeois P, Bourdillon F. Care-related pain in hospitalized patients: severity and patient perception of management. Eur J Pain 2015; 19:313-21. [PMID: 25055764 DOI: 10.1002/ejp.549] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/23/2014] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hospitalized patients commonly undergo painful procedures, but little is known about care-related pain (CRP) in the overall population of inpatients. We conducted a cross-sectional 1-day survey to assess the prevalence and characteristics of CRP and its management in all units of a university hospital in Paris and determined the factors linked to severe CRP. METHODS All patients who were able to communicate and were hospitalized for at least 24 h but not in a day-care or neonatal unit were included. RESULTS From 938 patients who completed the questionnaire, 554 patients reported pain within the previous 24 h, for a 59% prevalence of pain, and 540 (58%) had experienced CRP in the previous 15 days (51% males; mean [SD] age 54 [18] years). Of 907 procedures, 330 (37%) resulted in severe pain. The most-often reported painful procedures were vascular punctures and patient mobilization. Severe CRP was associated with long hospitalization; non-vascular invasive punctures, catheterization, mobilization or radiological examination; or pain during the previous 24 h due to surgery or treatment. Only half of the patients declared that they had received information regarding the painful procedure. Treatment for pain was proposed and delivered in less than one quarter of cases. CONCLUSIONS Our results of a survey of pain management in hospitalized patients relate to a wide variety of medical conditions and procedures. Health-care workers should be more systematic in managing CRP, and attention should be paid to patients at greatest risk of severe CRP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- V Ambrogi
- Public Health Department, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Ball AJ, Campbell JA, Riley SA. Nitrous oxide use during colonoscopy: a national survey of English screening colonoscopists. Frontline Gastroenterol 2014; 5:254-259. [PMID: 28839782 PMCID: PMC5369751 DOI: 10.1136/flgastro-2014-100446] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2014] [Revised: 03/18/2014] [Accepted: 03/19/2014] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Nitrous oxide can improve patient experience during colonoscopy, and its rapid elimination minimises after effects and inconvenience. Despite its advantages, nitrous oxide is used infrequently in the UK. We sought to understand the reasons for its low use. METHODS Colonoscopists within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) were invited to participate in a web-based survey assessing the availability, current practices and perceptions towards nitrous oxide. Respondents were able to select predefined answers or offer written responses. Free text responses were assessed using thematic analysis. RESULTS The survey was completed by 68% of the English BCSP colonoscopists. Nitrous oxide was available to 73% of respondents but with considerable regional variation. Most colonoscopists rated the properties of nitrous oxide favourably and would use it if they had a colonoscopy themselves. Despite this, nearly half used it in less than 20% of examinations. 80% instruct patients to use nitrous oxide as required, and differences in how it was used in combination with intravenous sedation and analgesia were reported. Written responses suggest nitrous oxide is often used in the patients who are expected to have the least discomfort. CONCLUSIONS Most colonoscopists perceive that nitrous oxide is effective and reduces inconvenience and would use it themselves if they required a colonoscopy. Studies to improve patient selection and optimise the use of nitrous oxide would be of value.
Collapse
|
15
|
Bourikas LA, Tsiamoulos ZP, Haycock A, Thomas-Gibson S, Saunders BP. How we can measure quality in colonoscopy? World J Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 5:468-475. [PMID: 24147190 PMCID: PMC3797899 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v5.i10.468] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2013] [Revised: 07/10/2013] [Accepted: 08/17/2013] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Measuring quality is a current need of medical services either to assess their cost-effectiveness or to identify discrepancies requiring refinement. With the advent of bowel cancer screening and increasing patient awareness of bowel symptoms, there has been an unprecedented increase in demand for colonoscopy. Consequently, there is an expanding open-discussion on missed rates of cancer or precancerous polyps during diagnostic/screening colonoscopy and on the rate of adverse events related to therapeutic colonoscopy. Delivering a quality colonoscopy service is therefore a healthcare priority. Colonoscopy is a multi-step process and therefore assessment of all aspects of the procedure must be addressed. Quality in colonoscopy refers to a combination of many patient-centered technical and non-technical skills and knowledge aiming to patient’s safety and satisfaction through a continuous effort for improvement. The benefits of this endless process are hiding behind small details which can eventually make the difference in colonoscopy. Identifying specific quality metrics help to define and shape an optimal service and forms a secure basis of improvement. Τhis paper does not aim to give technical details on how to perform colonoscopy but to summarize what to measure and when, in accordance with the current identified quality indicators and standards for colonoscopy.
Collapse
|
16
|
Cheng Y, Lu J, Xiong X, Wu S, Lin Y, Wu T, Cheng N. Gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD009569. [PMID: 23440841 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009569.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Laparoscopic surgery is now widely performed to treat various abdominal diseases. Currently, carbon dioxide is the most frequently used gas for insufflation of the abdominal cavity (pneumoperitoneum). Many other gases have been introduced as alternatives to carbon dioxide for establishing pneumoperitoneum. OBJECTIVES To assess the safety, benefits, and harms of different gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery. SEARCH METHODS We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) until September 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA We only included randomized controlled trials comparing different gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery under general anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS Carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum versus nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum Three trials randomized 196 participants (the majority with low anaesthetic risk) to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (n =96) or nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum (n =100). All of the trials were of high risk of bias. Two trials (n=143) showed lower pain scores in nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum at various time points on the first post-operative day. One trial (n=53) showed no difference in the pain scores between the groups. There were no significant differences in cardiopulmonary complications, surgical morbidity, or cardiopulmonary changes between the groups. There were no serious adverse events related to either carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum. Carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum versus helium pneumoperitoneum Four trials randomized 144 participants (the majority with low anaesthetic risk) to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (n =75) or helium pneumoperitoneum (n =69). All of the trials were of high risk of bias. Fewer cardiopulmonary changes were observed with helium pneumoperitoneum than carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum. There were no significant differences in cardiopulmonary complications, surgical morbidity, or pain scores. There were three serious adverse events (subcutaneous emphysema) related to helium pneumoperitoneum. Carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum versus any other gas pneumoperitoneum There were no randomized controlled trials comparing carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum to any other gas pneumoperitoneum. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS 1. Nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic abdominal surgery appears to decrease post-operative pain in patients with low anaesthetic risk.2. Helium pneumoperitoneum decreases the cardiopulmonary changes associated with laparoscopic abdominal surgery. However, this did not translate into any clinical benefit over carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum in patients with low anaesthetic risk.3. The safety of nitrous oxide and helium pneumoperitoneum has yet to be established. More randomized controlled trials on this topic are needed. Future trials should include more patients with high anaesthetic risk. Furthermore, such trials need to use adequate methods to reduce the risk of bias.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yao Cheng
- Bile Duct Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Eberl S, Preckel B, Fockens P, Hollmann MW. Analgesia without sedatives during colonoscopies: worth considering? Tech Coloproctol 2012; 16:271-6. [PMID: 22669482 PMCID: PMC3398250 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-012-0834-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2012] [Accepted: 04/17/2012] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Colonoscopy is a proven method for bowel cancer screening and is often experienced as a painful procedure. Today, there are two main strategies to facilitate colonoscopy. First, deep sedation results in satisfied patients but increases sedation-associated risks and raises costs for healthcare providers. Second, there is the advocacy for colonoscopies without any form of sedation. This might be an option for a special group of patients, but does not hold true for everybody. Following Moerman’s hypothesis: “If pain is the crucial point, why do we need sedation?” this review shows the analgesic options for a painless procedure, increasing success rates without increasing risk of sedation. There are two agents, with the potential to be a nearly ideal analgesic agent for colonoscopy: alfentanil and nitrous oxide (N2O). Administration of either substance causes the patient to be comfortable yet alert and facilitates a short turnover. Advantages of these drugs include rapid onset and offset of action, analgesic and anxiolytic effects, ease of titration to desired level, rapid recovery, and an excellent safety profile.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Eberl
- Department of Anesthesiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Lu J, Cheng Y, Xiong X, Wu S, Lin Y, Wu T, Cheng N. Gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009569] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
|