Sedation During Endoscopy in Patients with Cirrhosis: Safety and Predictors of Adverse Events

Safety of Endoscopy in Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic procedures are among the most commonly performed medical procedures and the serious adverse event rate is reported to be 1-3 adverse events per 1000 procedures.

AIMS

Here, we have examined the safety of endoscopy specifically in cirrhotic populations.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case (cirrhosis)-control (non-cirrhosis) study of the outcomes of patients undergoing endoscopy in a large academic medical center. The primary outcome was a procedural or post-procedural complication. Complete clinical data were collected for all patients undergoing endoscopic procedures-including esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, EUS, ERCP, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and others. Cirrhosis was carefully defined based on clinico-pathological grounds.

RESULTS

We identified 16,779 patients who underwent endoscopy, including 2618 with cirrhosis and 14,161 without cirrhosis. There were 167 complications (0.99%), which included 15/2618 cirrhotics (0.6%) and 152/14,161 (1.1%) non-cirrhotics. The most common complications were cardiopulmonary (including hypotension and hypoxemia) found in 67% of patients; procedurally related complications occurred in 19% of patients. The complication rate was the same or lower in cirrhotics than controls undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (0.6% vs 0.9%, p = 0.03), colonoscopy (0.6% vs. 0.6%, p = NS), or ERCP (0.7% vs. 1.4%, p = NS) Logistic regression analysis identified the following features to be associated with an increased risk of having a complication: inpatient status, history of myocardial infarction, and an EUS procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy in cirrhotic patients was as safe or safer than non-cirrhotic patients undergoing similar procedures.

Role of endoscopy in hepatology

The growing and evolving field of EUS and advanced hepatobiliary endoscopy has amplified traditional upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and unveiled novel options for remaining unsolved hepatobiliary issues, both diagnostically and therapeutically. This conceptually appealing and fascinating integration of endoscopy within the practice of hepatology is referred to as 'endo-hepatology'. Endo-hepatology focuses on the one hand on disorders of the liver parenchyma and liver vasculature and of the hepatobiliary tract on the other hand. Applications hanging under the umbrella of endohepatology involve amongst others EUS-guided liver biopsy, EUS-guided portal pressure measurement, EUS-guided portal venous blood sampling, EUS-guided coil & glue embolization of gastric varices and spontaneous portosystemic shunts as well as ERCP in the challenging context of (decompensated cirrhosis) and intraductal cholangioscopy for primary sclerosing cholangitis. Although endoscopic proficiency however does not necessarily equal in an actual straightforward end-solution for currently persisting (complex) hepatobiliary situations. Therefore, endohepatology continues to generate high-quality data to validate and standardize procedures against currently considered (best available) "golden standards" while continuing to search and trying to provide novel minimally invasive solutions for persisting hepatological stalemate situations. In the current review, we aim to critically appraise the status and potential future directions of endo-hepatology.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Deep sedation versus orotracheal intubation for endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG): preliminary experience

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is an emerging bariatric procedure currently performed under general anaesthesia with orotracheal intubation (OTI). Several studies have shown the feasibility of advanced endoscopic procedures under deep sedation (DS) without impacting patient outcomes or adverse event rates. Our goal was to perform an initial comparative analysis of ESG in DS with ESG under OTI.

METHODS

A prospective institutional registry was reviewed for ESG patients between 12/2016 and 1/2021. Patients were stratified into OTI or DS cohorts, and the 1st 50 cases performed in each cohort were included for comparability. Univariate analysis was performed on demographics, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes (up to 90 days). Multivariate analyses evaluated the relationship between anesthesia type, preclinical and clinical variables.

RESULTS

Of the 50 DS patients, 21(42%) underwent primary and 29 (58%) revisional surgery. There was no significant differences in Mallampati score across groups. No DS patient required intubation. DS patients were younger (p = 0.006) and lower BMI (p = 0.002) than OTI. As expected, DS patients overall and in the primary subgroup had shorter operative time (p ≤ 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively) and higher rates (84% DS vs. 20% OTI, p ≤ 0.001) of ambulatory procedures. There were no significant differences in the sutures used between groups (p = 0.616). DS patients required less postoperative opioids (p ≤ 0.001) and antiemetics (p = 0.006) than OTI. There were no significant differences in 3-month postoperative weight loss across cohorts. There was no rehospitalization in either group. In primary ESG cases, we found DS patients were more likely younger (p = 0.006), female (p = 0.001), and had a lower BMI (p = 0.0027).

CONCLUSIONS

ESG under DS is safe and feasible in select patients. We found DS safely increased rates of outpatient care, reduced use of opioids and antiemetics, and provided the same results of postoperative weight loss. Patient selection for DS may be more clearer for durable weight loss.

Endo-anesthesia: a primer

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has witnessed a Cambrian explosion of techniques, indications, and expanding target populations. GI endoscopy encompasses traditional domains that include preventive measures, palliation, as alternative therapies in patients with prohibitive risks of more invasive procedures, and indicated primary treatments. But, it has expanded to include therapeutic and diagnostic interventional endosonography, luminal endoscopic resection, third space endotherapy, endohepatology, and endobariatrics. The lines between surgery and endoscopy are blurred on many occasions within this paradigm. Moreover, patients with high degrees of co-morbidity and complex physiology require more nuanced peri-endoscopic management. The rising demand for endoscopy services has resulted in the development of endoscopy referral centers that offer these invasive procedures as directly booked referrals for regional and rural patients. This further necessitates specialized programs to ensure appropriate evaluation, risk stratification, and optimization for safe sedation and general anesthesia if needed. This landscape is conducive to the organic evolution of endo-anesthesia to meet the needs of these focused and evolving practices. In this primer, we delineate important aspects of endo-anesthesia care and provide relevant clinical and logistical considerations pertaining to the breadth of procedures.

Efficacy and safety of midazolam combined with dezocine for sedation and analgesia in digestive endoscopy: A prospective open single-center study

Objective: Digestive endoscopy is an important means of diagnosing and treating gastrointestinal diseases and a tool for screening and monitoring early gastrointestinal tumors. Digestive endoscopy can be performed using midazolam combined with dezocine for sedation and analgesia. This study explored the efficacy and safety of midazolam combined with dezocine. Methods: A total of 135 patients undergoing digestive endoscopy in the Department of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, from June 2021 to September 2021, were enrolled and non-blindly and non-randomly divided into a sedation-endoscopy-group (SEG, n = 45), anesthesia-endoscopy-group (AEG, n = 44), and ordinary-endoscopy-group (OEG, n = 46). Vital signs, levels of sedation and analgesia, the degree of pain during colonoscopy, satisfaction, and the incidence of complications were compared among the three groups. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in vital signs (blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and blood oxygen saturation) among the three groups before endoscopy (p > 0.05). The AEG reported no pain during colonoscopy, and the pain score during colonoscopy for the SEG was lower than that for the OEG (1.11 ± 1.21 vs. 3.00 ± 1.16, p < 0.001). The scores for satisfaction were 8.84 ± 1.30 points in the SEG, 8.95 ± 1.10 points in the AEG, and 6.37 ± 0.90 points in the OEG; the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The total incidence of complications in the AEG was 38.64% (17/44), which was significantly higher than that in the SEG [13.33% (6/45)] and OEG [13.04% (6/46)] (p < 0.001). In the SEG, the overall incidence of complications in women was significantly higher than that in men (p = 0.027). Conclusion: Digestive endoscopy using midazolam combined with dezocine for sedation makes patients more comfortable, more satisfied and more compliant than the ordinary endoscopy. Additionally, it is comparable to endoscopy under general anesthesia with propofol with regard to comfort, satisfaction, and patient compliance and comparable to the ordinary endoscopy with regard to safety. Considering the shortage of anesthesiologists, the application of midazolam combined with dezocine in digestive endoscopy is worthy of clinical popularization. This study has been registered in the Hospital Ethics Committee of the Sun Yat-sen University Sixth Affiliated Hospital (Ethical Number: 2021ZSLYEC-182).

The median effective doses of propofol combined with two different doses of nalbuphine for adult patients during painless gastroscopy

Objective: Propofol is the most widely administered intravenous anesthetic to induce deep sedation for gastroscopy procedures. Coadministration of nalbuphine can provide analgesia and sedation to patients experiencing visceral pain, thereby decreasing the amount of propofol needed and reducing the risk of propofol-induced adverse events. We carried out this study to determine the median effective dose (ED50) of propofol in combination with different dosages of nalbuphine and the optimal dosage of nalbuphine during painless gastroscopy.

Methods: We recruited sixty-five patients aged 18–60 years who underwent elective painless gastroscopy. A total of sixty-one patients were allocated randomly to the N1 group (nalbuphine 0.1 mg/kg) or N2 group (nalbuphine 0.15 mg/kg). Three minutes after administration of nalbuphine, patients received a preset dose of propofol at 2.0 mg/kg with a dose gradient of 0.2 mg/kg according to Dixon’s “up-and-down” method. The primary outcome was the ED50 of propofol in combination with nalbuphine. Hemodynamic parameters, recovery time, pain score, and adverse events were recorded as secondary outcomes.

Results: The ED50 of propofol in the N2 group was significantly lower than that observed in the N1 group (p < 0.01). Using probit analysis, the ED50 and ED95 of propofol were 1.632 mg/kg and 2.759 mg/kg in the N1 group and 1.111 mg/kg and 2.243 mg/kg in the N2 group, respectively. The incidence of hypotension in the N2 group was lower than that in the N1 group (p < 0.05), and the recovery time was shorter than that of the N1 group (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: In adult patients, 0.15 mg/kg nalbuphine led to a significant reduction in the ED50 and ED95 of propofol during gastroscopy. This dose of nalbuphine also reduced the incidence of hypotension and shortened the recovery time. Therefore, nalbuphine (0.15 mg/kg) combined with propofol is a safe option for enhancing recovery after painless gastroscopy in adult patients.

Clinical Trial Registration: [https://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=126699&htm=4], identifier [ChiCTR2100053204].

Efficient Initial Eradication of Large Esophageal Varices by Balloon-compression Endoscopic Injection Sclerotherapy

BACKGROUND

The management of large esophageal varices (EVs) remains challenging because of the difficulty of endoscopic variceal ligation and fatal post-endoscopic variceal ligation bleeding ulcers. The current study evaluated the efficacy and safety of balloon-compression endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (bc-EIS) in the treatment of large EVs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 105 patients with cirrhosis exhibiting large EVs (64 in the bc-EIS group and 41 in the EIS group). Primary outcomes included the initial rate of variceal eradication and intraoperative bleeding signs. Secondary outcomes included incidences of rebleeding, mortality, complications, and optimal time of balloon-compression (bc).

RESULTS

The initial rate of variceal eradication in the bc-EIS group was significantly higher than that in the EIS group (46.9 vs. 24.4%; P=0.021). The incidence of intraoperative bleeding, which was represented as oozing and spurting, in the bc-EIS group was markedly lower than that in the EIS group (43.8 vs. 61.0% and 9.4 vs. 39.0%, respectively; P=0.043). Patients in the bc-EIS group showed a significantly lower incidence of rebleeding (0.0 vs. 17.1%; P=0.001). However, no significant difference in mortality rate was observed between different groups. Chest pain or discomfort tended to be more common in the EIS group than in the bc-EIS group (58.5 vs. 17.2%; P=0.001). The cut-off value of 11.5-minutes appeared to have a maximum combined sensitivity and specificity of 80.0% and 58.8%, respectively. The area under the curve was 0.708 (95% confidence interval =0.576-0.839; P=0.004).

CONCLUSION

bc-EIS could achieve a higher variceal eradication rate and milder intraoperative bleeding signs in large EVs. Furthermore, 11.5-minutes appeared to be the optimal compression time in bc-EIS.

Pre-procedural Preparation and Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease poses various challenges, a major one being procedural sedation and its associated considerations. While sedation during endoscopy can improve patient comfort, decrease anxiety, and facilitate procedural completion, in patients with advanced liver disease, it is also associated with substantial and unique risks due to alterations in drug metabolism and other factors. As such, the choice of sedative agent(s) and related logistics may require careful inter-disciplinary planning and individualized considerations. Furthermore, a large proportion of agents require dose reductions and particular monitoring of the vital signs, level of consciousness, and other indices. In the present review, we provide a contemporary overview of procedural sedation considerations, commonly used intravenous sedatives, and second-line as well as novel sedatives for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease.

Detachable string magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy for detecting high-risk varices in compensated advanced chronic liver disease (CHESS1801): A prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal varices is a serious complication of compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD). Primary prophylaxis to reduce the risk of variceal hemorrhage is recommended if high-risk varices (HRV) are detected. We performed this study to compare the accuracy, patients' satisfaction and safety of detection of HRV by detachable string magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (DS-MCCE) with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) as the reference.

METHODS

We prospectively recruited participants with cACLD from 12 university hospitals (11 in China and one in the United Kingdom) between November 2018 and December 2019 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03749954). All participants underwent DS-MCCE, followed by EGD within a week in a blinded fashion. Following endoscopy, and on the same day, participants were asked to fill in a satisfaction questionnaire regarding their experience.

FINDINGS

A total of 105 eligible participants were enrolled. With EGD as the reference standard, the concordance index, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of DS-MCCE in diagnosis of HRV were 0•90 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0•83-0•95), 92% (95% CI: 78-98%), 88% (95% CI: 78-95%), 80% (95% CI: 70-92%), 95% (95% CI: 90-100%), 7•91 (95% CI: 4•10-15•30), and 0•09 (95% CI: 0•03-0•30), respectively. The kappa score of 0•78 (95% CI: 0•65-0•90) suggested substantial agreement between DS-MCCE and EGD. Moreover, in participants undergoing EGD without sedation, the satisfaction of DS-MCCE was significantly better than that of EGD (p < 0•0001, d = 1•15 [95%CI: 0•88-1•42]). All participants confirmed the excretion of the capsule, and no adverse events occurred.

INTERPRETATION

DS-MCCE is an accurate alternative to EGD for detecting HRV in cACLD, which is safe and associated with better satisfaction.

FUNDING

A full list of funding can be found in the Funding Support section.

Propofol vs midazolam sedation for elective endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, LILACS databases. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) were included. The outcomes studied were procedure time, recovery time, discharge time, and adverse events (bradycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3,576 records. Out of these, 8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients (302 in the propofol group and 294 in the midazolam group) were included for the final analysis. Procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups (MD: 0.25, 95%CI: -0.64 to 1.13, P = 0.59). Recovery time (MD: -8.19, 95%CI: -10.59 to -5.79, P < 0.00001). and discharge time were significantly less in the propofol group (MD: -12.98, 95%CI: -18.46 to -7.50, P < 0.00001). Adverse events were similar in both groups (RD: 0.02, 95%CI: 0-0.04, P = 0.58). Moreover, no significant difference was found for bradycardia (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.16), hypotension (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.17), and hypoxemia (RD: 0.00, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.04, P = 0.93). Five studies had low risk of bias, two demonstrated some concerns, and one presented high risk. The quality of the evidence was very low for procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events; while low for discharge time.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs show that propofol has shorter recovery and patient discharge time as compared to midazolam with a similar rate of adverse events. These results suggest that propofol should be the preferred agent for sedation in patients with cirrhosis.