Oxygen saturation monitoring during endoscopy

Predictive risk factors of cardiorespiratory abnormality for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in Tibet

BACKGROUND

To explore the predictive factors of cardiorespiratory abnormality in nonsedated patients at high altitude (HA) during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE).

METHODS

The pulse and saturated oxygen (SaO2) levels of 993 patients undergoing nonsedated UGIE in Tibet were monitored. Bivariate correlation and logistic regression were used to identify predictive risk factors for hypoxemia.

RESULTS

The basal and minimum SaO2 levels during UGIE of the Tibetan group were significantly higher than those of the non-Tibetan group. The minimum SaO2 and maximum pulse in the HA transient residents groups were significantly higher than those in the HA usual residents groups. The incidences of hypoxemia and severe hypoxemia in the Tibetan groups were significantly lower than those of the non-Tibetan groups. Bivariate correlation and logistic regression showed that race, age (≥ 40 years), residence time in HA (<10 years), and basal SaO2 (<89 %) were sufficiently effective to predict hypoxemia. High-risk hypoxemic patients whose residence time in HA was <2 years were more prone to severe hypoxemia. The combination of the four variables showed superior performance in hypoxemia prognosis (AUC-ROC, 0.941; sensitivity, 83.7 %; specificity, 92.5 %) and severe hypoxemia prognosis (AUC-ROC, 0.968; sensitivity, 90.3 %; specificity, 98.0 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Race, age, residence time in HA, and basal SaO2 of patients in HA were predictive variables for hypoxemia during UGIE. Non-Tibetan patients with age ≥ 40 years, residence time in HA <10 years, and basal SaO2 <89 % were prone to hypoxemia. Among those groups, patients whose residence time was <2 years were at higher risk for severe hypoxemia.

Comparison of midazolam alone versus midazolam plus propofol during endoscopic submucosal dissection

Background/Aims

For proper sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), propofol has been widely used. This study aimed to compare the levels of sedation and tolerance of patients treated with midazolam (M group) and a combination of midazolam and propofol (MP group) during ESD.

Methods

A total of 44 consecutive patients undergoing ESD were randomly assigned to the two groups. In the M group, 2 mg of midazolam was given repeatedly to maintain after a loading dose of 5 mg. The MP group initially received 5 mg of midazolam and 20 mg of propofol. Then, we increased the dosage of propofol by 20 mg gradually.

Results

The average amount of midazolam was 12 mg in the M group. In the M group, 10 patients were given propofol additionally, since they failed to achieve proper sedation. The average amount of propofol was 181 mg in the MP group. Procedure time, vital signs and rates of complications were not significantly different between two groups. Movement of patients and discomfort were lower in the MP group.

Conclusions

During ESD, treatment with propofol and a low dose of midazolam for sedation provides greater satisfaction for endoscopists compared to midazolam alone.

Nonlaxative PET/CT colonography: feasibility, acceptability, and pilot performance in patients at higher risk of colonic neoplasia

CT colonography without bowel preparation is a safer and better-tolerated alternative to full laxation protocols, but comparative sensitivity and specificity are potentially reduced. Uptake of (18)F-FDG by colonic neoplasia is well described, and combining PET with nonlaxative CT colonography could improve accuracy. The purpose was to prospectively test the technical feasibility and acceptability of combined nonlaxative PET/CT colonography in patients at higher risk of colorectal neoplasia and to provide pilot data on diagnostic performance.

METHODS

Fifty-six patients (median age, 64 y; 30 women) at high risk of colonic neoplasia underwent nonlaxative PET/CT colonography with barium fecal tagging within 2 wk of scheduled colonoscopy. Colonic segmental distension was graded 1 (poor) to 3 (good). A radiologist, experienced in CT colonography, and nuclear medicine physician in consensus analyzed the datasets. The diagnostic performance for standalone CT colonography and combined PET/CT colonography was compared with the reference colonoscopy. Patient experience for 25 items (each scored from 1 to 7) pertaining to satisfaction, worry, and physical discomfort was canvassed after both PET/CT colonography and colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Distension was good in 298 of 334 segments (89%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 85%-92%). Patients experienced more physical discomfort during colonoscopy (median, 4; interquartile range [IQR], 2-7) than during PET/CT colonography (median, 5; IQR, 3-7; P = 0.03) and were more willing to undergo PET/CT colonography again (36/43 [84%; 95% CI, 73%-95%] vs. 31/43 [72%; 95% CI, 59%-86%]; P = 0.001). Twenty-one patients had 54 polyps according to colonoscopy (10 with at least 1 polyp >or=6 mm and 8 with at least 1 polyp >or=10 mm). Of 14 polyps 6 mm or greater, 12 (86%; 95% CI, 67%-100%) were (18)F-FDG-avid, including all those 10 mm or greater (mean standardized uptake value, 10.1). CT colonography sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was 92.9% (95% CI, 79.4%-100%) and was not improved by the addition of PET. However, combined PET/CT colonography review improved per-patient positive predictive value for a polyp 10 mm or greater from 73% (95% CI, 39-92) to 100% (95% CI, 60-100).

CONCLUSION

In this feasibility study, simultaneous PET acquisition during nonlaxative CT colonography is technically feasible, is well tolerated, and potentially improves specificity.

Cardiovascular Effects at Multi–Detector Row CT Colonography Compared with Those at Conventional Endoscopy of the Colon

PURPOSE

To compare the cardiovascular effects of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and conventional endoscopy in a group of patients undergoing both procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 144 patients underwent CT colonography followed by flexible sigmoidoscopy (40 patients) or colonoscopy (104 patients). Pulse, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation were measured before, during, and after the procedures. Forty patients also underwent continuous Holter electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring. Periprocedural pain was assessed by using a handheld counting device. Outcome variables were assessed by using a combination of paired t testing and multilevel linear regression.

RESULTS

When a spasmolytic was not used, CT colonography was associated with only a small increase in oxygen saturation (P =.03), while use of a spasmolytic caused an increase in pulse (mean increase, 19.9 beats per minute; P <.001) and diastolic blood pressure (mean increase, 5 mm Hg; P <.001). Compared with that at CT, oxygen saturation decreased significantly during and after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy (mean decrease after colonoscopy with sedation, 1.0%; P <.001). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure also decreased during and after colonoscopy (mean systolic decrease after colonoscopy with sedation, 16.6 mm Hg, P <.001; mean diastolic decrease after colonoscopy with sedation, 7.5 mm Hg, P <.001). Patients were 30.3 times more likely to develop bradycardia after endoscopy (95% CI: 2.65, 346; P =.006). Ventricular couplets were significantly higher at endoscopy than at CT in patients with a history of cardiac disease (odds ratio: 72.5 and 95% CI: 4.56, 1,153 at CT vs odds ratio: 14.6 and 95% CI: 0.96, 222 at endoscopy; P =.002). Patients were 1.89 times more likely to register pain during colonoscopy than during CT (95% CI: 1.06, 3.38; P =.03).

CONCLUSION

CT colonography had no significant cardiovascular effect other than spasmolytic-induced tachycardia. Endoscopy-and colonoscopy in particular-causes cardiovascular effects that are largely related to sedation. CT colonography is less painful than colonoscopy and is comparable to flexible sigmoidoscopy.

The role of sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy in the diagnosis and management of lower gastrointestinal disorders: technique, indications, and contraindications

Flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy have revolutionized the clinical management of colonic diseases. Colonoscopy has a broad range of indications, including evaluating lower GI symptoms such as lower GI bleeding, evaluating abnormal radiographic findings, and screening and surveillance for colon cancer. Colonoscopy is increasingly being used therapeutically. Patient evaluation, patient instructions, and colonic preparation before colonoscopy are essential for safe and efficient colonoscopy. Intravenous sedation reduces patient pain and anxiety during colonoscopy, but requires monitoring by pulse oximetry and automated measurements of vital signs. An experienced colonoscopist can complete colonoscopy in 90% or more of cases, using maneuvers to maintain the colonic lumen in view, straighten the colonoscope, and avoid looping during colonic intubation.

Conscious sedation and cardiorespiratory safety during colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Cardiorespiratory events during colonoscopy are common. The effect of sedative premedication on cardiorespiratory parameters during colonoscopy has not been studied in controlled, prospective trials.

METHODS

One hundred eighty patients undergoing colonoscopy were divided into 3 groups: (1) sedation with intravenous midazolam (midazolam group); (2) sedation with intravenous saline (placebo group); and (3) no intravenous cannula (control group). Arterial oxygen saturation (SaO(2)), systolic and diastolic blood pressure and continuous electrocardiogram were recorded prior to, during and after the endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

Midazolam produced lower SaO(2) values during colonoscopy compared with placebo or control groups (p < 0.001, repeated measures analysis of variance). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure during colonoscopy were lower in the midazolam group than in the placebo group (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively), but no difference was found between the midazolam and the control groups. Hypotension (systolic blood pressure less than 100 mm Hg) occurred more frequently in the midazolam group (19%) than in the placebo (3%; p < 0.01) or control groups (7%; p < 0.05). ST-segment depression developed in 7% of patients during the recording with no difference between the groups. In 75% of cases ST-depression appeared prior to the endoscopic procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with midazolam induced a statistically significant decrease in arterial oxygen saturation and increased the risk for hypotension. However, colonoscopy proved to be a safe procedure both with and without sedation.

Sedation and analgesia for colonoscopy: patient tolerance, pain, and cardiorespiratory parameters

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is generally performed with the patient sedated and receiving analgesics. However, the benefit of the most often used combination of intravenous midazolam and pethidine on patient tolerance and pain and its cardiorespiratory risk have not been fully defined.

METHODS

In this double-blind prospective study, 150 outpatients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either (1) low-dose midazolam (35 micrograms/kg) and pethidine (700 micrograms/kg in 48 patients, 500 micrograms/kg in 102 patients), (2) midazolam and placebo pethidine, or (3) pethidine and placebo midazolam.

RESULTS

Tolerance (visual analog scale, 0 to 100 points: 0 = excellent; 100 = unbearable) did not improve significantly more in group 1 compared with group 2 (7 points; 95% confidence interval [-2-17]) and group 3 (2 points; 95% confidence interval [-7-12]). Similarly, pain was not significantly improved in group 1 as compared with the other groups. Male gender (p < 0.001) and shorter duration of the procedure (p = 0.004), but not amnesia, were associated with better patient tolerance and less pain. Patient satisfaction was similar in all groups. Oxygen desaturation and hypotension occurred in 33% and 11%, respectively, with a similar frequency in all three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the combination of low-dose midazolam and pethidine does not improve patient tolerance and lessen pain during colonoscopy as compared with either drug given alone. When applying low-dose midazolam, oxygen desaturation and hypotension do not occur more often after combined use of both drugs. For the individual patient, sedation and analgesia should be based on the endoscopist's clinical judgement.

Conscious sedation for gastroscopy: patient tolerance and cardiorespiratory parameters

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Most patients receive conscious sedation for gastroscopy. However, the benefit of the most often used combination of low-dose intravenous midazolam and topical lidocaine on patient tolerance remains poorly defined and has not been shown to outweigh cardiorespiratory risks. To respond to these issues, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective study was performed.

METHODS

Two hundred outpatients undergoing diagnostic gastroscopy were assigned to receive either (1) midazolam (35 micrograms/kg) and lidocaine spray (100 mg), (2) midazolam and placebo lidocaine, (3) placebo midazolam and lidocaine, or (4) placebo midazolam and placebo lidocaine.

RESULTS

Tolerance (visual analogue scale, 0-100 points; 0, excellent; 100, unbearable) improved as compared with placebo midazolam and placebo lidocaine by 23 points (95% confidence interval, 15-32) in group 1, 15 points (95% confidence interval, 7-24) in group 2, and 10 points (95% confidence interval, 2-18) in group 3. Increasing age (P < 0.001), low anxiety (P < 0.001), and male sex (P < 0.03), but not amnesia, were associated with better patient tolerance. Oxygen desaturation (< 1 minute) occurred in 8.2% and was not more frequent after midazolam treatment. Hypotension was rare (2.1%), and no adverse outcome occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Both low-dose midazolam (35 micrograms/kg) and lidocaine spray have an additive beneficial effect on patients tolerance and rarely induce significant alterations in cardiorespiratory monitoring parameters, thus supporting the widespread use of conscious sedation.

Endoscopic management of nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopic management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding has been expanded from a purely diagnostic role to a therapeutic role in many patients. In addition to controlling active bleeding, it is an option in a patient who is clinically at a high risk of rebleeding, or in patients who have peptic ulcers with visible vessels or stigmata indicating high risk. Several methods have been studied, and currently the most useful include thermal cautery with the heater probe or bipolar electrocoagulation, and injection using epinephrine and/or sclerosants. Endoscopic hemostasis can effect permanent control of bleeding in many patients, but should be considered complementary to conventional surgical control in other patients, where temporary control to stabilize the patient is a desired end.

Safety of fibreoptic endoscopy: analysis of cardiorespiratory events

Cardiorespiratory function during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy was studied prospectively in 164 patients. Cardiorespiratory events, which were defined as oxygen saturation < 90 per cent, electrocardiographic changes, heart rate < 50 or > 100 beats/min and systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg, occurred in 111 patients. In 24 of these, changes were attributed solely to intravenous sedation. In the remaining 140 patients, events were noted in 34 (52 per cent) of 66 upper gastrointestinal endoscopies and during 53 (72 per cent) of 74 colonoscopies. One patient suffered a myocardial infarction during colonoscopy. Although cardiorespiratory events were common (111 of 164; 68 per cent), the actual morbidity rate was low (one of 164; 0.6 per cent). Cardiorespiratory events were significantly more common in patients with a history of cardiac disease for both upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy (overall chi 2 = 7.41, 1 d.f., P < 0.05) and more common for oesophageal dilatation than for diagnostic endoscopy (chi 2 = 5.56, 1 d.f., P < 0.05). It is recommended that patients with a history of cardiac problems undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or colonoscopy and all those requiring therapeutic endoscopy should be monitored carefully to allow early detection of cardiorespiratory events, and that oxygen should be administered routinely.

Endoscopic interventional management of bleeding duodenal and gastric ulcers

Bleeding duodenal and gastric ulcers continue to be a common and serious problem. Definition of the precise appearance and location of the ulcer by endoscopy gives important information about the source of bleeding and additional information about the risk of rebleeding and the indications for surgery. Several endoscopic hemostatic methods are available. The nonerosive contact probes (heater and BICAP) are preferred. Injection therapy with vasoconstrictors or sclerosing agents can also be recommended as a safe, efficacious, and economical means of treatment. Several hemostatic modalities should be available for use depending on the anatomic location and type of bleeding ulcers. The collaboration of skilled interventional endoscopists with their traditional surgical colleagues offers the patient with bleeding peptic ulcer disease the optimum probability of a successful outcome, with minimum treatment-associated morbidity.