Evaluation of safe, effective intravenous sedation for utilization in endoscopic procedures

Office-based anesthesia: an overview

Office-based anesthesia, like other specific forms of anesthesia practice, has many unique attributes. Better work hours and a closer working relationship with surgeons and patients can provide the forum for a considerable amount of professional resonance. Moreover, the itinerant nature of the practice, the limited resources, and the need to innovate on the spur of the moment can make for variety and excitement. The gamut of anesthesia techniques, patient comorbidities, and surgeon expectations does not necessarily produce a facile experience, of course. But no specific anesthesia specialty or venue is devoid of challenge. While OBA is different from other types of anesthesia practice, this distinction does not necessarily make it superior or inferior. The political climate has improved, with more states acknowledging the status of OBS and OBA. This may force those OBA providers who routinely practice without regard to practical and appropriate industry standards out of business. AAAHC accreditation of an OBA practice may serve as a confidence-inspiring indication to patients that nationwide peer-reviewed standards are being met. However, everyone involved must recognize that accreditation is not a substitute for the sound application of clinical knowledge and expertise, as well as the collection and assessment of quality assurance data. It is inappropriate to view each OBS client as a minihospital. Although this may seem a simpler business model, the business and legal issues can be far more complex than those found in more traditional locales. A meld between business-person and clinician is becoming more a rule than an exception, and efforts to maintain and promote professional sovereignty will help forge continued growth of this unique form of anesthesiology practice.

Oxygen saturation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children: general anesthesia versus intravenous sedation

BACKGROUND

Hypoxia may occur in children undergoing upper digestive endoscopy under sedation. The purpose of this study was to compare the occurrence of desaturation during intravenous sedation with that which occurs during general anesthesia.

METHODS

Thirty-six patients between 3 months and 6 years old underwent a diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy under sedation (n = 18) or general anesthesia (n = 18). Oxygen pulse oximetry, heart rate, and mean arterial pressure were monitored throughout the procedure. At the end of the procedure, the operator gave the value of the endoscopy satisfaction score on a scale of I (very good conditions) to IV (impossible procedure).

RESULTS

The minimum oxygen pulse oximetry value was significantly lower in the sedation group compared with that in the general anesthesia group (89 +/- 5 vs. 97 +/- 1; p < 0.001). In the general anesthesia group, the oxygen pulse oximetry level declined to less than 95% in only one child; but in the sedation group, it declined to less than 95% in 16 patients (5.5% vs. 89%). Nine patients had a profound desaturation in sedation group (oxygen pulse oximetry < 90%); no patients in the general anesthesia group had desaturation (50% vs. 0%). In the general anesthesia group, heart rate and mean arterial pressure remained stable during the whole procedure, whereas in the sedation group, heart rate and mean arterial pressure increased significantly during the procedure. The endoscopy satisfaction score was I in all 18 patients in the general anesthesia group, whereas in the sedation group, it was I in only 2 patients, II in 8 patients, and III in 10 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm that hypoxia during upper digestive endoscopy in patients under sedation is a frequent occurrence in children. When compared with sedation, general anesthesia is a safer technique that prevents hypoxia and allows the gastroenterologist to perform the endoscopy under better conditions.

Recovery time and safe discharge of endoscopy patients after conscious sedation

The aim of this study was to identify the best method for determining when to safely discharge the endoscopy patient; specifically, it was designed to determine whether the patient's risk factors, intraoperative occurrences, and/or medications used during endoscopy should be used to determine the minimum length of stay postconscious sedation or whether a general policy can be used, as is currently practiced at many institutions. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected on a convenience sample of 405 adult ambulatory outpatients undergoing upper endoscopy and/or colonoscopy. Subjects were also interviewed by phone within 48 hours of discharge to assess postdischarge complications and their duration. Age predicted length of time in recovery, but only 2% of the variation in recovery time was predicted by the study variables. Intraprocedure occurrences predicted postprocedure occurrence. The implications of these and other findings are discussed in relation to nursing practice and future research.

[Ambulatory 24-hour home pH-metry: parental and familial reactions. Prospective study of 100 cases]

BACKGROUND

The ambulatory twenty-four hour esophageal pHmetry is nowadays a common mode of assessment of gastro-esophageal reflux in children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the test on child and family's ordinary daily life.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One-hundred children (64 boys, 36 girls) were included in this study during a 10-month period from August 1992 until May 1993. Mean age was 2 years 9 months (range: 22 days--12 years). Forms with a list of questions concerning parental understanding of the test, child's reaction after introduction of the pH-electrode, general reactions in the household, and eventual disturbance of the child's temper and appetite, were given to the parents. Six months later, 81 families were contacted by telephone and asked the same questions. Children were divided into three groups: those under 1 year of age (n = 38), from 1 to 4 years (n = 35), and more than 4 years (n = 27).

RESULTS

One child aged 2 months had to be admitted to hospital due to the mother's overanxiety. The majority of parents (80%) assumed they knew about the principles of the test, with little change once the test was over. Those whose child had previously been submitted to the test were less apprehensive. When the test was first initiated, 81% of parents feared it would cause some discomfort, either due to pain (69%), or to poor acceptance at home (25%) with the risk of having the catheter accidently removed. Once the catheter had been positioned with the parents close to the child at that time, its presence was judged by them tolerable in 88.9% of cases. Once at home, 84.8% of the parents were not worried, as the child was calm (83.8%) and also due to the possibility for them to get in touch with the physician if necessary (86.9%). No change in routine daily life was reported by 80.8% of the families; in only 19.2% was the child reported to be overwhelmed with the test. When asked if the test should be undertaken another time, 91.9% would still prefer it as a home procedure, the only families requesting it be done in hospital being those with a history of sudden death syndrome.

CONCLUSION

pHmetry test as a 24-hour procedure done at home may be the source of some discomfort and anxiety both to the child and parents; yet it appears to be generally well-accepted, both for its non-aggressive and diagnostic value.

Intravenous sedation in pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

To assess the safety and efficacy of intravenous sedation in pediatric upper endoscopy, all elective outpatient procedures performed during a 2-year period (January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1992) were retrospectively reviewed. Of 614 children, 553 received intravenous meperidine and midazolam; 61 received fentanyl and midazolam. The mean dose of meperidine was 1.5 +/- 0.7 mg/kg and of fentanyl 0.0031 +/- 0.0014 mg/kg. Less midazolam was needed for children receiving fentanyl than for those receiving meperidine (0.05 +/- 0.03 mg/kg versus 0.08 +/- 0.05 mg/kg, p < 002). Recovery time (minutes) was shorter for those receiving fentanyl (74.7 +/- 22.8 versus 95.1 +/- 23.0, p < .003). Side effects occurred in 117 patients (19.1%), of which the majority were mild (83%); all were transient with no residual sequelae. Inability to complete the procedure occurred in fewer than 1%. We conclude that both combinations of medication are safe and effective for children of all ages. The use of fentanyl/midazolam results in a shorter recovery time and a lower dose of midazolam.

Guidelines for sedation by nonanesthesiologists during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The Risk Management Committee of the Department of Anaesthesia of Harvard Medical School

The increasing use of sedation to enhance patient comfort during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures has been noted by the Joint Commission of Accredited Healthcare Organizations, specialty societies, and the public. Although anesthesiologists, by virtue of training and experience, possess unique qualifications to provide such sedation services, their availability remains somewhat limited by primary commitments to the operating room, intensive care unit, or pain service. The Risk Management Committee of the Department of Anaesthesia of Harvard Medical School has made specific recommendations to the Harvard-affiliated hospitals for anesthesiologists who participate in institutional-level committees in setting guidelines for such services when they are provided by nonanesthesiologists. Specific consideration is given to facilities, backup emergency services, equipment, education and training, issues of informed consent, documentation, and release of patients from medical care. These recommendations emphasize the collaboration of the department of anesthesia and other departments that provide sedation services in formulating policies and procedures that reflect values intrinsic to the practice of anesthesiology.