Safety of Non-anesthesia Provider-Administered Propofol (NAAP) Sedation in Advanced Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures: Comparative Meta-Analysis of Pooled Results

Safety of propofol sedation administered by interventional radiologists for radiofrequency ablation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety of propofol sedation administered by interventional radiologists during radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Propofol sedation was administered by interventional radiologists in 72 patients (85 procedures, 93 tumors) during RFA for HCC between August 2018 and December 2020. Interventional radiologists equipped with adequate knowledge and skills in sedation and respiratory management were responsible for sedation. Sedation was carefully assessed based on vital signs, including end-tidal carbon dioxide, consciousness status, and bispectral index. The primary endpoint was the incidence of sedation-related complications, which were evaluated separately as respiratory and cardiovascular complications. Secondary endpoints were technical success rate, ablation-related complications, and local tumor control rate. Technical success was defined as completion of ablation in the planned area. Complications were evaluated using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Sedation-related complications, technical success rate, and ablation-related complications were evaluated on a procedure basis, and local tumor control was evaluated on a tumor basis.

RESULTS

Respiratory and cardiovascular complications were observed in eight (8/85, 9.4%) and two (2/85, 2.4%) patients, respectively. Four patients required the jaw thrust maneuver due to glossoptosis, whereas a decrease in oxygen saturation to < 90% was recorded in the other four patients. However, these were temporary, and none required manual ventilation or endotracheal intubation. Bradycardia (< 50 bpm) was detected in two patients; one recovered immediately without treatment, whereas the other rapidly improved after atropine sulfate administration. No severe hypotension (< 80 mmHg) was observed. The technical success rate was 100% (85/85). Grade 3 ablation-related complications were identified in three patients (3/85, 3.5%). The local tumor control rate was 95.7% (89/93).

CONCLUSION

Propofol sedation can be safely administered by interventional radiologists during RFA for HCC. Although it requires special safety considerations, it may be a sedation option during hepatic RFA.

Effects of Earmuffs and Eye Masks on Propofol Sedation during Spinal Anesthesia for Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Intravenous sedative drugs are commonly administered during regional anesthesia. However, reducing the excessive use of sedatives while providing adequate sedation is important from the clinical perspective, since the use of sedatives can cause considerable complications. We hypothesized that the application of earmuffs and eye masks would help reduce the sedative dose required to maintain proper sedation by blocking external stimuli. Patients who underwent orthopedic surgery under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated to the control (no intervention) or intervention group (wearing earmuffs and eye masks). Intravenous sedation was administered using target-controlled infusion of propofol. The target concentration was controlled to maintain a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation score of 3 or 4. The primary outcome was the intraoperative propofol requirement. We also investigated the incidence of apnea, and patient satisfaction. Propofol requirement was significantly lower in the intervention group than that in the control group (2.3 (2.0-2.7) vs. 3.1 (2.7-3.4) mg·kg^-1·h^-1; p < 0.001). Intraoperative apnea occurred less frequently (p = 0.038) and patient satisfaction was higher (p = 0.002) in the intervention group compared to the control group. This study demonstrated that the use of earmuffs and eye masks during sedation was associated with lower propofol requirement and improved sedation quality.

Phase II study comparing nasal pressure monitoring with capnography during invasive endoscopic procedures: a single-center, single-arm trial

Nasal pressure signal is commonly used to evaluate obstructive sleep apnea. This study aimed to assess its safety for respiratory monitoring during sedation. A total of 45 adult patients undergoing sedation with propofol and fentanyl for invasive endoscopic procedures were enrolled. While both nasal pressure and capnograph signals were continuously recorded, only the nasal pressure signal was displayed. The primary outcome was the incidence of oxygen desaturation below 90%. The secondary outcomes were the ability to predict the desaturation and incidence of harmful events and false alarms, defined as an apnea waveform lasting more than 3 min without desaturation. Of the 45 participants, 43 completed the study. At least one desaturation event occurred in 12 patients (27.9%; 95% confidence interval 15.3-43.7%). In these 12 patients, more than half of the desaturation events were predictable in 9 patients by capnography and 11 patients by nasal pressure monitoring (p = 0.59). In the 43 patients, false alarms were detected in 7 patients with capnography and 11 patients with nasal pressure monitoring (p = 0.427). Harmful events unrelated to nasal pressure monitoring occurred in 2 patients. Nasal pressure monitoring is safe and possibly useful for respiratory monitoring despite false alarms during sedation.

Pro-Con Debate: Monitored Anesthesia Care Versus General Endotracheal Anesthesia for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Over the past several decades, anesthesia has experienced a significant growth in nonoperating room anesthesia. Gastrointestinal suites represent the largest volume location for off-site anesthesia procedures, which include complex endoscopy procedures like endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). These challenging patients and procedures necessitate a shared airway and are typically performed in the prone or semiprone position on a dedicated procedural table. In this Pro-Con commentary article, the Pro side supports the use of monitored anesthesia care (MAC), citing fewer hemodynamic perturbations, decreased side effects from inhalational agents, faster cognitive recovery, and quicker procedural times leading to improved center efficiency (ie, quicker time to discharge). Meanwhile, the Con side favors general endotracheal anesthesia (GEA) to reduce the infrequent, but well-recognized, critical events due to impaired oxygenation and/or ventilation known to occur during MAC in this setting. They also argue that procedural interruptions are more frequent during MAC as anesthesia professionals need to rescue patients from apnea with various airway maneuvers. Thus, the risk of hypoxemic episodes is minimized using GEA for ERCP. Unfortunately, neither position is supported by large randomized controlled trials. The consensus opinion of the authors is that anesthesia for ERCP should be provided by a qualified anesthesia professional who weighs the risks and benefits of each technique for a given patient and clinical circumstance. This Pro-Con article highlights the many challenges anesthesia professionals face during ERCPs and encourages thoughtful, individualized anesthetic plans over knee-jerk decisions. Both sides agree that an anesthetic technique administered by a qualified anesthesia professional is favored over an endoscopist-directed sedation approach.

Impact of endoscopist experience, patient age and comorbidities on dose of sedation and sedation-related complications by endoscopic ultrasound

AIM

The aim of the study is to investigate the influence of endosonographer experience and patient-related factors on the dose of sedation and sedation-related complications during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

METHODS

Our retrospective analysis included EUS investigations performed between 2015 and 2018 at our institution. Sedation-related complications were defined as cardiorespiratory instability with oxygen saturation drop below 90% or prolonged low blood pressure or bradycardia.

RESULTS

In total, 537 EUS examinations were analyzed (37.3% interventional). The median dose of propofol and midazolam were: 140 (30-570) and 3(1-7) mg, respectively. Sedation-related complications were documented in 1.8% of cases. All patients had transient, nonfatal respiratory insufficiency. Totally, 60% of the patients who developed complications were >75 years and 70% were male. The presence of cardiac and/or pulmonary comorbidities was associated with an OR = 8.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-41.7] and American Society of Anesthesiologists class III with an OR = 7.64 (95% CI, 1.60-36.3) for the occurrence of sedation-related complications. Endosonographer experience did not influence the rate of sedation-related complications. In both diagnostic and interventional EUS, patients with comorbidities and older age received significantly less sedation. Experienced endosonographers used less sedation than trainees.

CONCLUSION

Endosonographer experience, patient age and the presence of comorbidities had a significant influence on sedation dose. Sedation-related complications occurred only in 1.8% of cases.

Anesthesia for Advanced Endoscopic Procedures

The gastrointestinal endoscopy paradigm is rapidly changing, and technological advancements are largely responsible. In tandem, anesthesia providers are adapting to the changing needs and demands. The challenges are unique. Complications arising from the procedures are both routine, such as aspiration and hypoxia, and procedure specific, such as bleeding, pneumothorax, pneumopericardium, and pneumoperitoneum. It is crucial for the anesthesia provider to have a good understanding of the techniques employed by the endoscopist. A higher index of suspicion is also essential to diagnose and appropriately manage many of the complications. In this review, an effort is made to discuss both procedural aspects and anesthesia challenges. We hope that both endoscopists and anesthesia providers will benefit from this review.

Academy of Medicine, Singapore clinical guideline on the use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting

INTRODUCTION

In Singapore, non-anaesthesiologists generally administer sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The drugs used for sedation in hospital endoscopy centres now include propofol in addition to benzodiazepines and opiates. The requirements for peri-procedural monitoring and discharge protocols have also evolved. There is a need to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline on the safe and effective use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting.

METHODS

The Academy of Medicine, Singapore appointed an expert workgroup comprising 18 gastroenterologists, general surgeons and anaesthesiologists to develop guidelines on the use of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The workgroup formulated clinical questions related to different aspects of endoscopic sedation, conducted a relevant literature search, adopted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and developed recommendations by consensus using a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

The workgroup made 16 recommendations encompassing 7 areas: (1) purpose of sedation, benefits and disadvantages of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (2) pre-procedural assessment, preparation and consent taking for sedation; (3) Efficacy and safety of drugs used in sedation; (4) the role of anaesthesiologist administered sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (5) performance of sedation; (6) post-sedation care and discharge after sedation; and (7) training in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy for non-anaesthesiologists.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations serve to guide clinical practice during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-anaesthesiologists in the hospital setting.

Controversies in ERCP: Indications and preparation

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss the pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. The first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites before ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis, and other related technical topics. In the second part, specific procedural ERCP-techniques including precut techniques and its timing as well as management algorithms are discussed. In addition, controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

A plea for a unified approach to sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy in Romania: results from a prospective multicentric trial

Background. Adequate sedation is a prerequisite for quality endoscopic examination of the digestive tract. We aimed to evaluate the current practices and safety profile of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Romania and its impact on the technical success of the procedure and procedure-related adverse events.

Methods. We conducted a prospective, multicentric, observational study including all patients undergoing digestive endoscopic procedures under various degrees of sedation. We collected data regarding the endoscopic procedure, type and degree of sedation, drug regimens, personnel in charge of sedation, and relevant patient related information. The main study outcome was the rate of sedation-related adverse events; secondary study outcomes included procedure-related adverse events and the impact of sedation on procedure success.

Results. 1,043 consecutive endoscopic procedures from eight Romanian endoscopy units were included in our study. Sedation regimens were highly variable between participating centers, with 566 (54%) of procedures being performed under sedation provided by an anaesthesiologist. Sedation-related adverse events occurred in 40 cases (3.8%), most of them were mild respiratory and cardiovascular events and all reversed spontaneously.

On multivariate analysis, male gender, procedure type (endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) and deep sedation were risk factors for complications. The endoscopy unit, ASA status, age and type of sedative did not influence the complication rate.

Conclusion. In conclusion, sedation for endoscopic procedures is generally safe, despite a high variability in sedation practices between centers in Romania. Establishing a national guideline on sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy will ensure consistent and safe practice for these procedures.

Comparison of Lidocaine Spray and Lidocaine Ice Popsicle in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A Single Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under topical pharyngeal anesthesia has the advantage of avoiding the unwanted cardiopulmonary adverse events experienced following intravenous sedation. Lidocaine spray is a common anesthetic option and is safe for unsedated EGD. Although several studies have compared different topical anesthetic agents, their formulations, and delivery techniques, questions still remain concerning the optimal mode of administration. We have designed a lidocaine formulation in the form of an ice popsicle and compared its effectiveness and tolerability with lidocaine spray in patients undergoing unsedated EGD.

Methods

This was a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial. Unsedated EGD patients were randomly allocated the lidocaine spray [Group (Gp) A] or lidocaine ice popsicle (Gp B) formulation.

Results

In total, 204 unsedated EGD patients were evaluated. Compared to the spray, the lidocaine ice popsicle group showed better scores for effects in terms of endoscopist satisfaction (Gp A, 7.28±1.44; Gp B, 7.8±0.89; p=0.0022), gag reflex (Gp A, 1.3±0.66; Gp B, 1.02±0.61; p=0.0016), patient satisfaction (Gp A, 7.74±0.82; Gp B, 8.08±0.82; p=0.0039), discomfort (Gp A, 6.54±1.34; Gp B, 5.95±1.21; p=0.0012), and pain (Gp A, 5.38±1.85; Gp B, 4.51±2.01; p=0.0015).

Conclusion

Both the lidocaine spray and ice popsicle formulations are safe, effective options for diagnostic EGD with the ice popsicle exhibiting better performance. We propose the lidocaine ice popsicle formulation for topical pharyngeal anesthesia in patients undergoing unsedated diagnostic EGD and suggest it may be a suitable option during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinical Trial Register

Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) number TCTR20190502001.

Prospective audit of the safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation in an Australian referral hospital

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopist directed nurse administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) is widely considered to be safe and efficient, but there are limited data from the Australian health-care setting, and Australian sedation guidelines do not support the practice. Thus, we report data from a prospective audit of EDNAPS over a 6.5-year period in an Australian referral hospital.

METHODS

Consecutive endoscopic procedures performed between January 2013 and June 2019. Sedation protocol was an initial dose of midazolam 1-3 mg intravenously (i.v.) and propofol 10-50 mg i.v.. Further aliquots of propofol 10-30 mg i.v. were given as required. ProvationMD® endoscopic reporting system was used to prospectively record patient demographics, medication and dose, American Society of Anesthesiologist's (ASA) class, and sedation-related complications.

RESULTS

During the 78-month period, 28 051 eligible procedures were performed; 3093 procedures performed with anesthetic support or without EDNAPS were excluded. In total, 24 958 procedures with EDNAPS were analyzed including 7563 gastroscopies, 12 941 colonoscopies, 2932 gastroscopy and colonoscopy, 1440 flexible sigmoidoscopies, and 82 combined gastroscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Of these, 9539 were ASA 1 (38.2%), 13 680 were ASA 2 (54.8%), 1733 were ASA 3 (6.9%), and 4 were ASA 4 (0.02%). Sedation-related complications occurred in 66 patients (0.26%), predominantly transient hypoxic episodes. No patient required intubation for an airway emergency, and there was no sedation-related mortality. Sedation-related complications increased with ASA class and were significantly more common with gastroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopist directed nurse administered propofol sedation is a safe way of performing endoscopic sedation in low-risk patients in the hospital setting.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

Endoscopist-directed propofol is more efficient than anesthesiologist-administered propofol in patients at low-intermediate anesthetic risk

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopist-directed propofol (EDP) sedation is becoming more popular, with a reported safety and efficacy similar to anesthesiologist-administered propofol (AAP). The aim of this study is to compare the efficiency of EDP and AAP in patients of low-intermediate anesthetic risk.

METHODS

A prospective cost-effectiveness comparison study was conducted. The costs of the endoscopic procedures in the EDP and AAP group were calculated using the full cost methodology after breaking down the endoscopic activity into relative value units to allocate costs in an equitable way. To determine the effectiveness, adverse events related to endoscopic sedation and the number of incomplete procedures were registered for the EDP group and compared with those published by anesthesiologists for AAP.

RESULTS

A total of 1165 and 18 919 endoscopic procedures were, respectively, included in the EDP and AAP groups. The average costs of EDP vs. AAP for gastroscopy, colonoscopy and endoscopic ultrasound were &OV0556; 182.81 vs. &OV0556; 332.93, &OV0556; 297.07 vs. &OV0556; 459.76, and &OV0556; 319.92 vs. &OV0556; 485.12, respectively. No significant differences were detected regarding the rate of overall adverse events (4.43 vs. 4.46%) or serious adverse events (0 vs. 0.17%); the rate of arterial hypotension was significantly lower in the EDP group: 0.34 vs. 1.78% [odds ratio (OR), 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.08-0.46] and the desaturation rate was significantly lower in the AAP group: 3.26 vs. 1.29% (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.85-3.60). No significant differences were found in terms of incomplete examinations (0.17 vs. 0.14%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with low-intermediate anesthetic risk referred for an endoscopic examination, EDP appears to be more efficient than AAP.

Nonoperating room anesthesia in different parts of the world

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advances in early diagnosis and treatment of diseases using minimally invasive procedures has led to an increase in the number of cases in locations outside the operating room. This surge created the need for anesthesia services to expand to these areas to provide well tolerated and favorable procedural conditions. The present review describes nonoperating room anesthesia patterns in different parts of the world.

RECENT FINDINGS

Nonoperating room anesthesia has grown exponentially over the last years. Patients scheduled in these areas are sicker and older compared to the operating room patients. Anesthesiologist-directed care has proven to be well tolerated, with less serious complications and improvement in patients and proceduralist satisfaction.

SUMMARY

There are marked variations in how anesthesia services are delivered in out of operating room locations in different parts of the world. Although there are some data available from the United States, expansion of minimally invasive procedures across continents will likely lead to the emergence of various models of delivering anesthetic care.

Sedation-related complications during anesthesiologist-administered sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective study

Background

Patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) require adequate sedation or general anesthesia. To date, there is lack of consensus regarding who should administer sedation in these patients. Several studies have investigated the safety and efficacy of non-anesthesiologist-administered sedation for ERCP; however, data regarding anesthesiologist-administered sedation remain limited. This prospective single-center study investigated the safety and efficacy of anesthesiologist-administered sedation and the rate of successful performed ERCP procedures.

Methods

The study included 200 patients who underwent ERCP following anesthesiologist-administered sedation with propofol and remifentanil. Procedural data, oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure (SBP), heart rate, recovery score, patient and endoscopist satisfaction, as well as 30-day mortality and morbidity data were analyzed.

Results

Sedation-related complications occurred in 36 of 200 patients (18%) and included hypotension (SBP < 90 mmHg) and hypoxemia (O₂ saturation < 90%) in 18 patients (9%) each. Most events were minor and did not necessitate discontinuation of the procedure. However, ERCP was terminated in 2 patients (1%) secondary to sedation-related complications. Successful cannulation was performed in all patients. The mean duration of the examination was 25 ± 16 min. Mean recovery time was 14 ± 10 min, and high post-procedural satisfaction was observed in both, patients (mean visual analogue scale [VAS] 9.6 ± 0.8) and endoscopists (mean VAS 9.3 ± 1.3).

Conclusion

This study suggests that anesthesiologist-administered sedation is safe in patients undergoing ERCP and is associated with a high rate of successful ERCP, shorter procedure time, and more rapid post-anesthesia recovery, with high patient and endoscopist satisfaction.

Outcomes of Non-anesthesiologist-Administered Propofol in Pediatric Gastroenterology Procedures

Background and Aims: Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) has been found to have an acceptable safety profile in adult endoscopy, but its use remains controversial and pediatric data is limited. Our aim was to examine the safety and efficacy of NAAP provided by pediatric hospitalists in pediatric endoscopy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 929 esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, and combined EGD/colonoscopy cases in children aged 5-20 years between April 2015 and December 2016 at a large children's hospital. We analyzed the data for adverse events in relation to demographics and anthropometrics, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical classification score, presence of a trainee, comorbid conditions, and procedure time. Results: A total of 929 cases were included of which 496 (53%) were completed with NAAP. Seventeen (3.4%) of NAAP cases had an adverse event including the following: 12 cases of hypoxia, 2 cardiac, and 3 gastrointestinal adverse events. General anesthesia cases had 62 (14.3%) adverse events including the following: 54 cases of hypoxia, 1 cardiac, 7 gastrointestinal, and 1 urologic adverse event. No adverse events in either group required major resuscitation. NAAP vs. general anesthesia had a lower overall adverse event rate (3.4 vs. 14.3%, p < 0.0004) and respiratory adverse event rate (2.4% vs. 12.5%, p < 0.0004). Overall, cardiac and gastrointestinal adverse event rates between the two groups were comparable. When accounting for all captured factors via logistic regression, both younger age (P < 0.001) and general anesthesia (P < 0.0001) remained risk factors for an adverse event. Conclusion: The overall adverse event rate of NAAP was low (3.4%) with none requiring major resuscitation or hospitalization. This is comparable to studies of NAAP in adult endoscopy and suggests that NAAP provided by pediatric hospitalists has an acceptable safety profile.

Safety and efficacy of endoscopist-directed balanced propofol sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Background

Endoscopist-directed balanced propofol sedation (BPS) appears to be safe and effective for routine endoscopy. However, there are limited data on its use in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We evaluated the safety and efficacy of endoscopist-directed BPS for ERCP, and compared patient outcomes with anesthesiologist-administered moderate sedation.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study, using prospectively collected endoscopy data from a tertiary care medical center where endoscopist-directed BPS during ERCP is routine practice. Adverse outcomes included need for bag-mask ventilation or intubation, aborted ERCP due to sedation, hospital admission post-ERCP (outpatients)/change in the level of care (inpatients), and death within 24 h.

Results

A total of 501 patients underwent ERCP with the use of endoscopist-directed BPS: Cohort 1 - 380 (76%) inpatients, mean age 64.1, 46% male, 24% American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA) score I, 65% ASA II, 11% ASA III. Concurrently, 24 patients received anesthesiologist-administered moderate sedation: Cohort 2 - 19 (79%) inpatients, mean age 65.0, 67% male, 12% ASA I, 25% ASA II, 38% ASA III, 25% ASA IV. In Cohort 1, none of the adverse outcomes were observed. Propofol dose was inversely correlated with age (r=-0.42, P<0.001), ASA score (r=-0.19, P<0.001), and Mallampati score (r=-0.24, P<0.001). One patient in Cohort 2 who received anesthesiologist-administered BPS required bag-mask ventilation and the ERCP was prematurely aborted because of the sedation. There were no deaths from any cause within 24 h of ERCP.

Conclusion

Endoscopist-directed BPS appears safe, efficacious, and feasible for ASA I-III patients undergoing inpatient or ambulatory ERCP.

Propofol administration by endoscopists versus anesthesiologists in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient safety outcomes

BACKGROUND

With a growing demand for endoscopic services, the role of anesthesiologists in endoscopy units must be reassessed. The aim of this study was to compare patient outcomes in non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) versus anesthesiologist-administered propofol (AAP) during routine endoscopy.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL and the grey literature for studies comparing NAAP and AAP. Primary outcomes included endoscopy- and sedation-related complications. Secondary outcomes included measures of endoscopy quality and of patient and endoscopist satisfaction. We reported treatment effects using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Of 602 articles identified, 5 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies included only patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of I or II. Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol did not result in increased rates of airway intervention (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29 to 3.95; 3443 patients) or hypotension (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.41; 17 978 patients) but did result in higher rates of bradycardia (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.65 to 8.17; 17 978 patients). Nonanesthesiologists administered lower propofol dosages than anesthesiologists (mean difference -61.79, 95% CI -114.46 to -9.12; 3443 patients), and their patients more commonly experienced awareness with recall (OR 19.99, 95% CI 7.88 to 50.76; 2090 patients). However, NAAP neither compromised patient willingness to repeat the procedure (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.83; 2367 patients) nor lengthened total procedure time (mean difference -0.08, 95% CI -3.51 to 3.34; 2367 patients).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopists may safely administer propofol without compromising procedural quality in patients classified as ASA I or II undergoing routine endoscopy. The results of this meta-analysis are limited by a lack of available high-quality studies. Further, large-scale studies are needed for definitive conclusions.

Periprocedural Role of Nurses During Interventional Endoscopic Procedures Under Deep Sedation

Background. Most of endoscopic procedures, either diagnostic or therapeutic, are nowadays performed under sedation, used as a standard practice in most of the centers. Consequently, the number and complexity of endoscopic procedures has increased as sedation diminishes anxiety and discomfort for patients, also improving the quality of endoscopic examinations, and outcomes in therapeutic endoscopy. Compared to standard diagnostic upper or lower GI endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are often longer and more complicated procedures, thus requiring higher doses of sedatives. Sedation levels and medication types depend on a variety of factors, related both to patient characteristics (age, comorbidities, preference, etc.), and procedure types (simple diagnostic endoscopy or more complex therapeutic procedures). Propofol has become undoubtedly the induction agent of choice as it is easy to administer, enables prompt awakening, and has fewer side effects. Aim. The aim of this paper is to outline the role and efficacy of the endoscopy nurse in the peri-procedural care of patients undergoing complex therapeutic interventions (EUS-guided and/or ERCP) under propofol sedation. Methods. At our institution, the Research Centre of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Craiova, 192 patients underwent interventional endoscopic procedures between January 2014-December 2014 (130 EUS and 62 ERCP) under sedation with propofol. We included 110 patients in our study that were followed-up between 4 to 6 hours after the procedures. The GI nurse was responsible that the patients and/or their accompanying persons receive proper information in both written and spoken form regarding their procedure and potential adverse events after sedation. After the procedures the side effects related to anesthesia were marked down by the GI nurse based on a standard questionnaire. Results. The patients mean age was 53.5 years old, with 46 (41.8%) women and 64 (58.2%) men. Most of the patients, that is 90 (81.8%), presented no adverse events. The other 20 patients (18.2%) had the following side effects from sedation: drowsiness in 5 (4.5%) of the cases, nausea in 3 cases (2.8%), vomiting in one case (0.9%), 2 (1.8%) of the patients presented dizziness, 2 (1.8%) headache, 3 (2.8%) coughing, only one patient (0.9%) had an injection site reaction, one (0.9%) had shivers, and 2 patients (1.8%) presented bradycardia. Patients that had side effects were mainly of advanced age and with associated diseases which included chronic kidney disease, cardio-vascular diseases. The nurse responsible with the follow-up of patients was able to rapidly assess their complaints and intervene to the benefit of the patient, before serious adverse events could occur. Conclusions. Although propofol sedations is generally considered safe, potential side effects should be held in mind. The GI nurse has a valuable role in monitoring patients and assessing their response to sedation after the procedure, as well as in timely stepping in where necessary to prevent further complications.

Polysomnographic assessment of respiratory disturbance during deep propofol sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric tumors

AIM

To investigate that polysomnographic monitoring can accurately evaluate respiratory disturbance incidence during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy compare to pulse oximetry alone.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included 10 elderly patients with early gastric cancer undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) under propofol sedation. Apart from routine cardiorespiratory monitoring, polysomnography measurements were acquired. The primary hypothesis was tested by comparing the apnea hypopnea index (AHI), defined as the number of apnea and hypopnea instances per hour during sedation, with and without hypoxemia; hypoxemia was defined as the reduction in oxygen saturation by ≥ 3% from baseline.

RESULTS

Polysomnography (PSG) detected 207 respiratory disturbances in the 10 patients. PSG yielded a significantly greater AHI (10.44 ± 5.68/h) compared with pulse oximetry (1.54 ± 1.81/h, P < 0.001), thus supporting our hypothesis. Obstructive AHI (9.26 ± 5.44/h) was significantly greater than central AHI (1.19 ± 0.90/h, P < 0.001). Compared with pulse oximetry, PSG detected the 25 instances of respiratory disturbances with hypoxemia 107.4 s earlier on average.

CONCLUSION

Compared with pulse oximetry, PSG can better detect respiratory irregularities and thus provide superior AHI values, leading to avoidance of fatal respiratory complications during ESD under propofol-induced sedation.

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.

Practical considerations in the development of a nonoperating room anesthesia practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

More than 25% of the procedures necessitating an anesthesia provider's involvement are performed outside the operating room. As a result, it is imperative that the expansion of anesthesia services to any new nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) location takes into account the challenges and safety considerations associated with such a transformation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although the adverse events encountered in the NORA suite are similar to those met in the operating room, the frequency and implications are different. In addition, many adverse events are site specific. Hypoxemia events, including cardiac arrest continue to dominate all areas of NORA practice. Challenges posed by new minimally invasive procedures continue to grow. Electronic documentation is rapidly expanding into the NORA suite, which brings both advantages and challenges.

SUMMARY

Involvement of anesthesia providers at the development stage and an understanding of the administrative and clinical challenges are essential elements in the building of a NORA practice.

Propofol promotes apoptosis and suppresses the HOTAIR-mediated mTOR/p70S6K signaling pathway in melanoma cells

Propofol is an intravenous anesthetic, which is widely used in clinical anesthesia induction and maintenance and is critical in the sedation of patients. However, the functions and mechanisms of propofol on apoptosis of melanoma cells remain unclear. The present study investigated whether propofol promotes cell apoptosis and suppresses the HOX transcript antisense RNA (HOTAIR)-mediated mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway in melanoma cells. B16F10 cells were cultured with different concentrations (0-10 µM) of propofol for 24 or 48 h. Proliferation and apoptosis of B16F10 cells were detected using MTT assay and flow cytometry. The pcDNA 3.1(-)-HOTAIR and pcDNA 3.1(-)-control plasmids were transfected into B16F10 cells using Lipofectamine 2000. In the present study, treatment with propofol significantly reduced viability, and induced apoptosis and caspase-3 activity in melanoma cells. Propofol treatment significantly inhibited HOTAIR expression and the expression of phosphorylated (p)-mTOR and p- p70S6K protein in melanoma cells. Overexpression of HOTAIR significantly increased viability of melanoma cells, and increased HOTAIR, p-mTOR and p-p70S6K protein expression in melanoma cells. These results indicated that propofol promotes apoptosis and suppresses the HOTAIR-mediated mTOR signaling pathway in melanoma cells.

[Safety of Non-anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) is a hypnotic drug with a very rapid onset and offset of action. It has increasingly been used in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Administration of propofol by nurses or endoscopists is commonly referred to as non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP). There have been a lot of studies on the safety of NAAP compared with those by anesthesiologists. Safety results of those studies are summarized in this review.

Meta-analysis comparing radial versus femoral approach in patients 75 years and older undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures

Introduction

Elderly patients (≥75 years) undergoing coronary angioplasty are increasing. Meta-analyses have shown the benefits of radial access which might reduce hospital stay by decreasing access site complications with associated secondary benefits, however, the population over the age of 75 years were not a large part of the cohort and may behave differently due to increased atherosclerotic burden and age-related vascular changes. In addition, complications unique to this age group such as delirium and deconditioning might occur which could have a bearing on the outcome.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, SCOPUS, Medline, Dynamed, Cochrane. The search terms used were femoral and radial, femoral versus radial, radial or femoral access site, radial or femoral comparison. There were no restrictions.

Results

There was a significant decrease (85%)in the incidence of access site complications in the radial group. The time to achieve ambulation was lower by 14.25 h (8.86–19.56 h). However, the incidence of crossover (in effect failure to perform catheterization by radial access) from radial to femoral was significantly higher. Radial access was associated with longer procedural times (2.75 min) and increased contrast dose however, there was no statistical difference in the fluoroscopy time between the two.

Conclusions

Radial access has similar benefits in elderly patients as those under the age of 75 and may be beneficial in patients at risk of delirium or deconditioning. However, crossover rates, contrast dose and procedure time were higher. It is conceivable that as experience is gained, these rates will diminish.

Assessing the safety of physician-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation in low-risk patients undergoing endoscopy and colonoscopy

Background and study aims Physician-directed nurse-administered balanced propofol sedation (PhD NAPS) in patients undergoing endoscopy and/or colonoscopy is being increasingly utilized worldwide. However, this method of sedation is not universally employed in Australian hospitals due to concerns surrounding its safety. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of PhD NAPS in low-risk patients undergoing endoscopy and/or colonoscopy. Patients and methods This study was conducted at a single tertiary teaching hospital in Adelaide, Australia. It was a prospective study involving 1000 patients with an ASA score of 1 - 3 presenting with any indication for endoscopy, colonoscopy or both. A total of 981 patients (451 male) with a mean age of 53 years (range: 16 - 87) were recruited from January 2010 to October 2012. 440 endoscopies, 420 colonoscopies, and 121 combined procedures were performed. The intra-procedural adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Results There were no major intra-procedural adverse events. Minor AEs occurred in 6.42 % of patients, and resolved spontaneously or with intravenous fluid boluses in all cases. Conclusion PhD NAPS is safe when the proceduralist and nursing staff are adequately trained and strict patient selection criteria are used.

Safety of non-anesthesia provider administered propofol sedation in non-advanced gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAPP) administered propofol sedation in patients undergoing non-advanced gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving non-advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 608 publications, 25 [colonoscopy (9), upper GI endoscopy (5), and combined procedures (11)] were identified to meet inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Data was analyzed for hypoxia rates, airway intervention rates, and airway complication rates.

RESULTS

A total of 137,087 patients were involved. A total of 2931 hypoxia episodes (defined as an oxygen saturation below 90%) were reported with a pooled hypoxia rate of 0.014 (95% CI being 0.008-0.023). Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates and pooled airway complication rates were 0.002 (95% CI being 0.006-0.001) and 0.001 (95% CI being 0.000-0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of adverse events in patients undergoing non-advanced GI endoscopic procedures with NAPP sedation are extremely small. Similar data for anesthesia providers is not available. It is prudent for anesthesia providers to demonstrate their superiority in prospective randomized controlled trials, if they like to retain exclusive ownership over propofol sedation in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Chronic Pain: A Meta-analysis

Background:

In this meta-analysis, we explore the role of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a noninvasive neuromodulation technique in the treatment of chronic pain.

Methods:

Studies comparing rTMS and conventional treatment for chronic pain were searched. The comparison was made for decrease in the pain scores with and without (sham) the use of rTMS after a follow-up interval of 4–8 weeks. All reported pain scores were converted into a common scale ranging from “0” (no pain) to “10” (worst pain).

Results:

Nine trials with 183 patients in each of the groups were included in the analysis. The decrease in pain scores with rTMS was 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] being 1.46–0.78) (fixed effects, I² = 0%, P < 0.001) and in sham-rTMS was 0.28 (95% CI being 0.49–0.07) (Fixed effects, I² = 0, P = 0.01). The pooled mean drop in pain scores with rTMS therapy was higher by 0.79 (95% CI being 0.26–1.33) (fixed effects, I² = 0, P < 0.01). The duration and frequency of rTMS were highly variable across trials. Publication bias was unlikely (Egger's test, X-intercept = 0.13, P = 0.75).

Conclusions:

Use of rTMS improves the efficacy of conventional medical treatment in chronic pain patients. This treatment is not associated with any direct adverse effects. However, the duration and frequency of rTMS therapy is presently highly variable and needs standardization.

Author´s reply to the letter: In response to the editorial "Sedation in endoscopy in 2016: Is it safe sedation with propofol led by the endoscopist in complex situations?"

Author's reply to the letter: In response to the editorial "Sedation in endoscopy in 2016: is it safe sedation with propofol led by the endoscopist in complex situations?"

Safety of Propofol Used as a Rescue Agent During Colonoscopy

GOAL

The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety of propofol when used by gastroenterologists in patients who have an inadequate response to standard sedation (narcotics and benzodiazepines).

BACKGROUND

Many patients fail to achieve adequate sedation from narcotics and benzodiazepines during colonoscopy. The administration of propofol for colonoscopy is increasing, although its use by gastroenterologists is controversial.

STUDY

We performed a retrospective review of our hospital's colonoscopy records from January 2006 to December 2009 to identify 403 subjects undergoing screening colonoscopies who required propofol (20 to 30 mg every 3 min as needed) because of inadequate response to standard sedation. We also randomly selected 403 controls undergoing screening colonoscopies from the same time period that only required standard sedation. The incidence of adverse effects was then compared.

RESULTS

There were no major adverse events in either group. The rates of minor adverse events in the propofol and control group were 0.02 and 0.01, respectively (P=0.56). Adverse effects in the propofol group included: transient hypotension (n=1), nausea/vomiting (n=3), agitation (n=2), and rash (n=1). Adverse effects seen with standard sedation included: transient hypotension (n=2), nausea/vomiting (n=1), and oversedation (n=2). Patients who received propofol were more likely to be younger, had a history of illicit drug use, and a longer procedure time (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive propofol administered by gastroenterologist for conscious sedation was not associated with increased incidence of adverse events. It may be of value in patients who do not respond to conventional sedation.

On the Horizon: The Future of Procedural Sedation

Sedation plays an integral part in endoscopy. By achieving patient comfort, it allows for a better examination and enhances patient satisfaction. Various medications have been used, propofol being the current favorite. With emphasis on patient safety and quality of endoscopy, various new medications in different combinations are being used to achieve adequate sedation and not escalate the cost of the procedure. With the advent of newer medications and newer modalities to administer these medications, there is need for more specialized training for the endoscopist to feel comfortable while using these medications.

Training and Competency in Sedation Practice in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The practice of endoscopic sedation requires a thorough understanding of preprocedural assessment, sedation pharmacology, intraprocedure monitoring, adverse event management, and postprocedural care. The training process has become increasingly standardized and entails knowledge and practice-based components. The use of propofol in particular requires a higher level of structured training owing to its narrow therapeutic window. Simulation has increased opportunities for practice-based training in a controlled environment. After completion of training, the endoscopist must demonstrate competence in theoretical understanding and technical ability to administer sedation. Although individual institutions have certification processes, there is a lack of validated, standardized methods to confirm competence.

Association between Type of Sedation and the Adverse Events Associated with Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: An Analysis of 5 Years' Data from a Tertiary Center in the USA

Background/Aims

The landscape of sedation for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures and the nature of the procedures themselves have changed over the last decade. In this study, an attempt is made to analyze the frequency and etiology of all major adverse events associated with GI endoscopy.

Methods

All adverse events extracted from the electronic database and local registry were analyzed. Although the data analysis was retrospective, the adverse events themselves were documented prospectively. These events were evaluated after subdivision into propofol-based anesthesia and intravenous conscious sedation groups.

Results

Cardiorespiratory events, including cardiac arrest, were the most common adverse events during esophagogastroduodenoscopy, while bleeding was more frequent in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Pancreatitis was the most frequent adverse event in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The frequencies of most adverse events were significantly higher in patients anesthetized with propofol. Automatic regression modeling showed that the type of sedation, the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, and the procedure type were some of the predictors of immediate life-threatening complications.

Conclusions

Clearly, our regression modeling suggests a strong association between the type of sedation as well as various patient factors and the frequency of adverse events. The possible reasons for our results are the changing demographics, the worsening comorbidities of the patient population, and the increasing technical complexity of these procedures. Although extensive use of propofol has increased patient satisfaction and procedure acceptability, its use is also associated with more frequent adverse events.

High efficacy with deep nurse-administered propofol sedation for advanced gastroenterologic endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Whereas data on moderate nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) efficacy and safety for standard endoscopy is abundant, few reports on the use of deep sedation by endoscopy nurses during advanced endoscopy, such as Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) are available and potential benefits or hazards remain unclear. The aims of this study were to investigate the efficacy of intermittent deep sedation with propofol for a large cohort of advanced endoscopies and to provide data on the safety.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All available data from patients sedated with intermittent deep NAPS for ERCP, EUS or double balloon enteroscopy (DBE, since the method was implemented in May 2007 through December 2012 were included for evaluation in a retrospective case-control design.

RESULTS

Data from 1899 patients undergoing 1899 procedures were included for evaluation. All but one procedure were completed with intermittent deep NAPS. The mean propofol dose was 397 mg (SD: 232.4) and the infusion rate was 23.9 mg/kg. The frequency of hypoxia was 4.3 % and 20 patients needed assisted ventilation (1.1 %). Anesthesiologic support was requested eight times (0.4 %). One patient was intubated due to suspected aspiration.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermittent deep NAPS for advanced endoscopies in selected patients provided an almost 100 % success rate. However, the rate of hypoxia, hypotension and respiratory support was high compared with previously published data, but the method was still assessed as safe.

Aprepitant for postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an important clinical problem. Aprepitant is a relatively new agent for this condition which may be superior to other treatment. A systematic review was performed after searching a number of medical databases for controlled trials comparing aprepitant with conventional antiemetics published up to 25 April 2015 using the following keywords: 'Aprepitant for PONV', 'Aprepitant versus 5-HT3 antagonists' and 'NK-1 versus 5-HT3 for PONV'. The primary outcome for the pooled analysis was efficacy of aprepitant in preventing vomiting on postoperative day (POD) 1 and 2. 172 potentially relevant papers were identified of which 23 had suitable data. For the primary outcome, 14 papers had relevant data. On POD1, 227/2341 patients (9.7%) patients randomised to aprepitant had a vomiting episode compared with 496/2267 (21.9%) controls. On POD2, the rate of vomiting among patients receiving aprepitant was 6.8% compared with 12.8% for controls. The OR for vomiting compared with controls was 0.48 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.67) on POD1 and 0.54 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.72) on POD2. Aprepitant also demonstrated a better profile with a lower need for rescue antiemetic and a higher complete response. Efficacy for vomiting prevention was demonstrated for 40 mg, 80 mg and 125 mg without major adverse effects. For vomiting comparison there was significant unexplainable heterogeneity (67.9% and 71.5% for POD1 and POD2, respectively). We conclude that (1) aprepitant reduces the incidence of vomiting on both POD1 and POD2, but there is an unexplained heterogeneity which lowers the strength of the evidence; (2) complete freedom from PONV on POD1 is highest for aprepitant with minimum need for rescue; and (3) oral aprepitant (80 mg) provides an effective and safe sustained antivomiting effect.