Nurse-administered propofol sedation is safe for patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing routine endoscopy: a pilot study

Deep sedation with propofol in patients undergoing left atrial ablation procedures - is it safe?

Background

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) or left atrial tachycardia is well established. To avoid body movement and pain, sedative and analgesic agents are used.

Objective

The aim was to investigate safety of sedation/anti-pain protocol administered by electrophysiology (EP) staff.

Methods

A total of 3211 consecutive patients (61% male) undergoing left atrial ablation for paroxysmal AF (37.1%), persistent AF (35.3%) or left atrial tachycardia (27.6%) were included. Midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol were administered by EP staff. In case of respiratory depression, endotracheal intubation (eIT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) was implemented. Risk factors for eIT or NIV were analyzed.

Results

Mean doses of propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl were 33.7 ± 16.7 mg, 3 ± 11.1 mg, and 0.16 ± 2.2 mg, respectively. Norepinephrine was administered in 396 of 3211 patients (12.3%) because of blood pressure drop (mean arterial pressure <60 mm Hg). NIV was necessary in 47 patients (1.5%) and eIT in 1 patient (0.03%). Procedure duration, high body mass index (BMI), high CHADS₂-VASC₂ score, high age, low glomerular filtration rate, diabetes mellitus, and low baseline oxygen saturation were associated with NIV or eIT. The only independent predictor for NIV/eIT was high BMI (>30.1 ± 9.0 kg/m²). Therefore, patients with a BMI of ≥30 had a 40% higher risk for the need of NIV/eIT during the procedure in our study.

Conclusion

Sedation/anti-pain control including midazolam, propofol, and fentanyl administered by EP staff is safe, with only 1.53% requirement of NIV/eIT. High BMI (>30 kg/m²) emerged as an independent predictor for eIT/NIV.

Safety of endoscopist-administered deep sedation with propofol in patients ASA III

INTRODUCTION

Deep sedation controlled by the endoscopist is safe in patients with low anesthetic risk (ASA I-II). However, scarce evidence is available in patients with intermediate risk (ASA III).

OBJETIVE

To evaluate the safety of deep sedation with propofol controlled by the usual endoscopy staff (endoscopist, nurse, assistant) in outpatients classified as ASA III and the risk factors for the occurrence of complications during deep sedation in these patients.

DESIGN

This observational and single-centre cross-sectional study includes consecutive patients undergoing non-complex procedures in which deep sedation is administered by the endoscopy staff. Patients were divided into group I (ASA=III) and group II (ASA<III).

RESULTS

A total of 562 patients were included, 80 (14.2%) group I. Complications related to deep sedation were more frequent in group I (23.8% vs 14.5%; p=0.036), mainly mild desaturations (13.8% vs 7.5%; p=0.058). Emergency intervention or exitus were not registered. The adjusted analysis identified age as the one independent baseline risk factor for developing global adverse events.

CONCLUSION

ASA III patients developed more sedation-related complications that ASA I-II patients. However these complications were mild and do not prevent to correctly perform the procedure.

Safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered balanced propofol sedation in patients with severe systemic disease (ASA class III)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) has been demonstrated in low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] class I and II). There are limited data regarding the safety of EDNAPS for endoscopic procedures in ASA class III patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of EDNAPS for routine outpatient endoscopy in this population.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all outpatient EGDs and colonoscopies performed with EDNAPS at the University of Utah from January 2015 to November 2018. Exclusion criteria were inpatient procedures, combined procedures, ASA IV or higher, use of continuous or bilevel positive airway pressure at the start of the procedure, or procedures performed by a nongastroenterologist. Major adverse events were defined as intubation or death. Minor adverse events were defined as hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, or need for airway interventions. Patients were stratified by procedure type and ASA I/II status and were compared with patients with ASA III status and matched according to age, gender, and the involvement of a fellow in a 3 to 1 fashion.

RESULTS

The final sample size was 18,910 colonoscopy procedures (17,205 patients) and 9178 EGD procedures (6827 patients). In both colonoscopy and EGD procedures, there were no major adverse events such as intubation, need for resuscitation, or death. The rates of any airway intervention, jaw thrust, oral nasal airway, or use of positive pressure ventilation were low in both procedure types and not different between ASA I/II and ASA III patients.

CONCLUSION

EDNAPS is safe in both ASA I/II and ASA class III patients undergoing routine outpatient endoscopy.

Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guideline on Intraoperative Management of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea

The purpose of the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guideline on Intraoperative Management of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is to present recommendations based on current scientific evidence. This guideline seeks to address questions regarding the intraoperative care of patients with OSA, including airway management, anesthetic drug and agent effects, and choice of anesthesia type. Given the paucity of high-quality studies with regard to study design and execution in this perioperative field, recommendations were to a large part developed by subject-matter experts through consensus processes, taking into account the current scientific knowledge base and quality of evidence. This guideline may not be suitable for all clinical settings and patients and is not intended to define standards of care or absolute requirements for patient care; thus, assessment of appropriateness should be made on an individualized basis. Adherence to this guideline cannot guarantee successful outcomes, but recommendations should rather aid health care professionals and institutions to formulate plans and develop protocols for the improvement of the perioperative care of patients with OSA, considering patient-related factors, interventions, and resource availability. Given the groundwork of a comprehensive systematic literature review, these recommendations reflect the current state of knowledge and its interpretation by a group of experts at the time of publication. While periodic reevaluations of literature are needed, novel scientific evidence between updates should be taken into account. Deviations in practice from the guideline may be justifiable and should not be interpreted as a basis for claims of negligence.

Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guidelines on Preoperative Screening and Assessment of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The purpose of the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine guideline on preoperative screening and assessment of adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is to present recommendations based on the available clinical evidence on the topic where possible. As very few well-performed randomized studies in this field of perioperative care are available, most of the recommendations were developed by experts in the field through consensus processes involving utilization of evidence grading to indicate the level of evidence upon which recommendations were based. This guideline may not be appropriate for all clinical situations and all patients. The decision whether to follow these recommendations must be made by a responsible physician on an individual basis. Protocols should be developed by individual institutions taking into account the patients’ conditions, extent of interventions and available resources. This practice guideline is not intended to define standards of care or represent absolute requirements for patient care. The adherence to these guidelines cannot in any way guarantee successful outcomes and is rather meant to help individuals and institutions formulate plans to better deal with the challenges posed by perioperative patients with OSA. These recommendations reflect the current state of knowledge and its interpretation by a group of experts in the field at the time of publication. While these guidelines will be periodically updated, new information that becomes available between updates should be taken into account. Deviations in practice from guidelines may be justifiable and such deviations should not be interpreted as a basis for claims of negligence.

Post-gastrointestinal endoscopy complications in patients with obstructive sleep apnea or at high risk for sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is becoming increasingly more prevalent with the rise in obesity. Complications from gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in this patient population have been reported in several studies, but the modest complication rates from these procedures make it difficult to come to definitive conclusions based on single studies. The objective of our study was to systematically review these studies reporting the incidence of post-procedure complications in patients with OSA undergoing endoscopy to determine whether the presence of OSA increases post-procedure complications.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using the Cochrane Collaboration Methodology. We searched Medline via Ovid, PubMed, Embase, and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews databases from 1950 to August 2013. We rated the quality of evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Meta-analysis was done using Review Manager Version 5.0.20.

RESULTS

Our search resulted in seven eligible studies. There was no significant association between diagnosis of OSA and post-GI endoscopy complications including hypoxemia, respiratory distress, variations in blood pressure or heart rate, bradypnea, or need for significant interventions. Subgroup analysis based on the type of GI endoscopy or the type of anesthesia used did not show any significant associations either.

CONCLUSIONS

Obstructive sleep apnea patients and/or patients at high risk for obstructive sleep apnea do not appear to be at increased risk of adverse outcomes from GI endoscopy.

Myths, fallacies and practical pearls in GI lab

Many prevalent practices and guidelines related to Gastrointestinal endoscopy and procedural sedation are at odds with the widely available scientific-physiological and clinical outcome data. In many institutions, strict policy of pre-procedural extended fasting is still rigorously enforced, despite no evidence of increased incidence of aspiration after recent oral intake prior to sedation. Supplemental oxygen administration in the setting of GI procedural sedation has been increasingly adopted as reported in the medical journals, despite clear evidence that supplemental oxygen blunts the usefulness of pulse oximetry in timely detection of sedation induced hypoventilation, leading to increased number of adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes. Use of Propofol by Gastroenterologist-Nurse team is erroneously considered dangerous and often prohibited in various institutions, at the same time worldwide reports of remarkable safety and patient satisfaction continue to be published, dating back more than a decade. Of patient monitoring practices that have been advocated to be standard, many merely add cost, not value. Advances in the technology often are not incorporated in a timely manner in guidelines or clinical practices, e.g., Capsule endoscopy or electrocautery during GI procedures do not interfere with proper functioning of the current pacemakers or defibrillators. Orthopedic surgeons have continued to recommend prophylactic antibiotics for joint replacement patients prior to GI procedures, without any evidence of need. These myths are explored for a succint review to prompt a change in clinical practices and institutional policies.

Safety analysis of endoscopist-directed propofol sedation: a prospective, national multicenter study of 24 441 patients in German outpatient practices

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Since 2008, there exists a German S3-guideline allowing non-anesthesiological administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. In this prospective, national, multicenter study, we evaluated the safety of endoscopist-administered propofol sedation (EDP) in German outpatient practices of Gastroenterology.

METHODS

In this multicenter survey of 53 ambulatory practices of Gastroenterology, we prospectively evaluated 24 441 patients that had received EDP. We recorded adverse events during the endoscopic procedure and additionally retrieved questionnaires investigating subjective parameters 24 h after the endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

In 24 441 patients 13 793 colonoscopies, 6467 esophagogastroduodenoscopies, and 4181 double examinations were performed. In this study, 52.1% of the patients received propofol mono-sedation, and 47.9% received a combination of midazolam and propofol. Major adverse events occurred in four patients (0.016%) enrolled to this study (three mask ventilations and one laryngospasm). Minor adverse events were observed in 112 patients (0.46%) with hypoxemia being the most common minor event. All patients with adverse events recovered without persistent impairment. Minor adverse events occurred more frequently in patients sedated with propofol mono compared to propofol and midazolam (P < 0.0001) and correlated with increasing propofol dosages (P < 0.001; Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.044). Twenty-four hours after the endoscopy, patients sedated with propofol plus midazolam stated a significantly reduced sensation of pain (P < 0.01) and improved symptoms of dizziness, nausea and vomiting (P < 0.001) compared to patients having received propofol mono-sedation.

CONCLUSION

Four years after the implementation of a German S3-Guideline for endoscopic sedation, we demonstrated that EDP is a safe procedure.

Preoperative screening and perioperative care of the patient with sleep-disordered breathing

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Emerging data are raising concerns that patients with known or suspected obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are at increased risk for a myriad of perioperative complications. Strategies to identify patients preoperatively with OSA, or at risk for OSA, are being advocated. In addition, approaches to identify patients most at risk for OSA-related postoperative complications have been described. While lacking solid evidence, a number of perioperative management strategies have been proposed for the care of these patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies utilizing different methodologies have provided additional evidence regarding the impact that OSA can have on postoperative outcomes, including increased risk of difficult intubations, adverse pulmonary outcomes, and delirium. Tools, such as the STOP-Bang questionnaire and limited channel monitoring, have been investigated with regards to their utility to identify not only patients at risk for OSA but also those at risk for more severe OSA. Consensus-based guidelines for the perioperative care of OSA patients have recently been published.

SUMMARY

OSA is quite common in patients presenting for elective surgery and has been linked to increased perioperative complications. Attempts to identify these patients preoperatively appear prudent. Protocols on how best to manage these patients are available, although validation of their effectiveness is needed.

Sleep endoscopy with midazolam: sedation level evaluation with bispectral analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study examines subjects' level of consciousness with bispectral analysis in sedation endoscopy of the upper airway.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective study.

SETTING

University hospital.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Bispectral analysis levels recorded in natural sleep of 43 patients with obstructive sleep apnea during an overnight polysomnographic sleep study were directly compared with the levels recorded during midazolam sedation sleep endoscopy in the same subjects. The possible muscle relaxation effect of midazolam was examined via surface chin electrodes. Supine Müller maneuver findings in 50 patients with obstructive sleep apnea were also compared with soft tissue dynamics during midazolam sedation sleep endoscopy.

RESULTS

In our study of the 43 patients with bispectral analysis during natural sleep and midazolam sedation sleep endoscopy, a predominance of bispectral analysis values indicating N1 and N2 sleep was observed during the sedation study. Midazolam failed to achieve deeper levels of sleep with minimal N3 and no convincing rapid eye movement. As N1 and N2 are the stages during which maximal dynamic activities occur, and they make up an average of 70.5% of total sleep time, from 210 sleep studies at our laboratory, the present technique would be ideal as a surgical assessment tool. No muscle relaxation effect could be detected at our protocol dose of midazolam. The supine Müller maneuver findings were significantly different from those observed during sedation sleep.

CONCLUSION

These findings support the value of sleep endoscopy as an efficient and informative technique for the examination of upper airway dynamics relevant to focused surgical planning.