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

Use of an Ultra-slim Gastroscope to Accomplish Endoscopist-Facilitated Rescue Intubation During ERCP: A Novel Approach to Enhance Patient and Staff Safety

BACKGROUND

ERCP is often performed under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) rather than general anesthesia (GA), with patients positioned semi-prone on the fluoroscopy table. Rarely, a MAC ERCP must be converted to GA due to hypoxia or retained food in the stomach. In these circumstances, standard intubation is associated with a significant delay and potential for patient/staff injury during repositioning. We report a novel endoscopist-driven approach to intubation during ERCP using an ultra-slim, flexible gastroscope with an endotracheal tube backloaded onto it.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients who underwent ERCP from 2014 to 2019, and MAC to GA conversion events. Mode of intubation (standard vs. endoscopist-facilitated) and patient/procedure characteristics were evaluated. All endoscopist-facilitated intubations were performed under anesthesiologist supervision.

RESULTS

A total of 3409 patients underwent ERCP; 1568 (46%) GA and 1841 (54%) MAC. Of these, 42 (2.3%) required intubation during ERCP and 16 underwent endoscopist-facilitated intubation due to retained food in the stomach and/or hypoxia. In 3 patients, aspirated material was suctioned from the trachea and bronchi using the ultra-slim gastroscope. Immediate post-procedure extubation was successful in all endoscopist-facilitated intubation patients and none exhibited radiographic evidence of aspiration pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopist-facilitated intubation using an ultra-slim flexible gastroscope is feasible and expeditious for MAC to GA conversion during ERCP. This technique is readily accomplished in the semi-prone position, while standard intubation requires patient transfer from fluoroscopy table to gurney, with associated delay/risks. These data suggest that further study of this approach is warranted, and this may be the most favorable approach for intubation during ERCP.

Enhancing the current evidence on endoscopist-directed propofol-based sedation

During the last years, there is more and more scientific evidence about the safety and feasibility of non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) in gastrointestinal endoscopy, reducing sedation induction and recovery time as well as increasing patient and endoscopist satisfaction. Furthermore, a similar risk of adverse events compared with traditional agents or anesthesiologist administration of propofol (AAP) has been described. The present special issue of the Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology (Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas) focusses on NAAP in different settings, including complex endoscopic procedures.

Anesthetist-Directed Sedation Favors Success of Advanced Endoscopic Procedures

OBJECTIVES

Sedation is required to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) given the duration and complexity of these advanced procedures. Sedation options include anesthetist-directed sedation (ADS) vs. gastroenterologist-directed sedation (GDS). Although ADS has been shown to shorten induction and recovery times, it is not established whether it impacts likelihood of procedure completion. Our aim was to assess whether ADS impacts the success of advanced endoscopy procedures.

METHODS

We prospectively assessed the sedation strategy for patients undergoing ERCP and EUS between October 2010 and October 2013. Although assignment to ADS vs. GDS was not randomized, it was determined by day of the week. A sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching was used to model a randomized trial. The main outcome, procedure failure, was defined as an inability to satisfactorily complete the ERCP or EUS such that an additional endoscopic, radiographic, or surgical procedure was required. Failure was further categorized as failure due to inadequate sedation vs. technical problems.

RESULTS

During the 3-year study period, 60% of the 1,171 procedures were carried out with GDS and 40% were carried out with ADS. Failed procedures occurred in 13.0% of GDS cases compared with 8.9% of ADS procedures (multivariate odds ratio (OR): 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5-3.6)).This was driven by a higher rate of sedation failures in the GDS group, 7.0%, than in the ADS group, 1.3% (multivariate OR: 7.8 (95% CI: 3.3-18.8)). There was no difference in technical success between the GDS and ADS groups (multivariate OR: 1.2 (95% CI: 0.7-1.9)). We were able to match 417 GDS cases to 417 ADS cases based on procedure type, indication, and propensity score. Analysis of the propensity score-matched patients confirmed our findings of increased sedation failure (multivariate OR: 8.9 (95% CI: 2.5-32.1)) but not technical failure (multivariate OR: 1.2 (0.7-2.2)) in GDS compared with ADS procedures. Adverse events of sedation were rare in both groups. Failed ERCP in the GDS group resulted in a total of 93 additional days of hospitalization. We estimate that $67,891 would have been saved if ADS had been used for all ERCP procedures. No statistically significant difference in EUS success was identified, although this sub-analysis was limited by sample size.

CONCLUSION

ADS improves the success of advanced endoscopic procedures. Its routine use may increase the quality and efficiency of these services.

Safety and risk factors for difficult endoscopist-directed ERCP sedation in daily practice: a hospital-based case-control study

BACKGROUND

There are limited data concerning endoscopist-directed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography deep sedation. The aim of this study was to establish the safety and risk factors for difficult sedation in daily practice.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Hospital-based, frequency matched case-control study. All patients were identified from a database of 1,008 patients between 2014 and 2015. The cases were those with difficult sedations. This concept was defined based on the combination of the receipt of high-doses of midazolam or propofol, poor tolerance, use of reversal agents or sedation-related adverse events. The presence of different factors was evaluated to determine whether they predicted difficult sedation.

RESULTS

One-hundred and eighty-nine patients (63 cases, 126 controls) were included. Cases were classified in terms of high-dose requirements (n = 35, 55.56%), sedation-related adverse events (n = 14, 22.22%), the use of reversal agents (n = 13, 20.63%) and agitation/discomfort (n = 8, 12.7%). Concerning adverse events, the total rate was 1.39%, including clinically relevant hypoxemia (n = 11), severe hypotension (n = 2) and paradoxical reactions to midazolam (n = 1). The rate of hypoxemia was higher in patients under propofol combined with midazolam than in patients with propofol alone (2.56% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001). Alcohol consumption (OR: 2.674 [CI 95%: 1.098-6.515], p = 0.030), opioid consumption (OR: 2.713 [CI 95%: 1.096-6.716], p = 0.031) and the consumption of other psychoactive drugs (OR: 2.015 [CI 95%: 1.017-3.991], p = 0.045) were confirmed to be independent risk factors for difficult sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopist-directed deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is safe. The presence of certain factors should be assessed before the procedure to identify patients who are high-risk for difficult sedation.

Sedation in the Endoscopy Suite

OPINION STATEMENT

Sedation practices in the endoscopy suite have changed dramatically in the decades since the introduction of routine colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Patients initially received moderate sedation (or even no sedation), but now frequently receive monitored anesthesia care (MAC). This significant shift has introduced anesthesiologists to the endoscopy suite along with new sedative medications and safety concerns. Appreciating the ramifications of this change requires an understanding of sedation depth, patient selection, drug use, sedation delivery, patient monitoring, recovery from sedation, and patient outcomes. Furthermore, the changing landscape of healthcare quality and reimbursement challenges us to provide the best possible care for our patients in the most economical way possible. The endoscopy suite is a unique sedation environment, and it is the purpose of this article to review those elements that contribute to a uniquely demanding work environment.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography under moderate sedation and factors predicting need for anesthesiologist directed sedation: A county hospital experience

AIM

To evaluate variables associated with failure of gastroenterologist directed moderate sedation (GDS) during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and derive a predictive model for use of anesthesiologist directed sedation (ADS) in selected patients.

METHODS

With institutional review board approval, we retrospectively analyzed consecutive records of all patients who underwent ERCPs between July 1, 2009 to October 1, 2011 to identify patient related and procedure related factors which could predict failure of GDS. For patient related factors, we abstracted and analyzed data regarding the age, gender, ethnicity, alcohol and illicit drug use habits. For procedure related factors, we abstracted data regarding initial or repeat procedures, indication for performing ERCP, the interventions performed during ERCP, and the grade d difficulty of cannulation as defined in the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines. Our outcome of interest was procedural success. If the procedure was not successful, the reasons for failure of procedures were recorded along with immediate post procedure complications. Multivariate analysis was then performed to define factors associated with failure of GDS and a model constructed to predict requirement of ADS.

RESULTS

Fourteen percent of patients undergoing GDS could not complete the procedure due to intolerance and 2% due to cardiovascular complications. Substance abuse, male gender, black race and alcohol use were significant predictors of failure of GDS on univariate analysis and substance abuse and higher grade of procedure remained significant on multivariate analysis. Using our predictive model where the presence of substance abuse was given 1 point and planned grade of intervention was scored from 1-3, only 12% patients with a score of 1 would require ADS due to failure of GDS, compared to 50% with a score of 3 or higher.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that ERCP under GDS is safe and effective for low grade procedures, and ADS should be judiciously reserved for procedures which have a higher risk of failure with moderate sedation.

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.

Advanced cannulation technique and precut

For most ERCP endoscopists, the greatest hurdle to a successful procedure is deep cannulation of the bile duct. This article explores basic cannulation technique, then reviews a variety of instruments and techniques designed to increase the average endoscopist's success rate. Expert ERCP endoscopists have a few favorite techniques that have proved reliable over time. The most frequently used ones are highlighted in this review.