Recent Developments in Drugs for GI Endoscopy Sedation

The efficacy of ciprofol versus propofol on anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Ciprofol is a new intravenous anesthetic with a similar chemical structure to propofol. We aimed to compare the incidence of adverse actions like injection pain and time indexes of ciprofol versus propofol on anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy. We also compared anesthetists' satisfaction during the procedure.

METHODS

Two independent researchers (Liu and Zeng) searched the Cochrane Library, Embase databases, and PubMed for controlled clinical trials. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed with the Review Manager, Stata and the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool to evaluate methodological quality. Relative risks with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for outcomes.

RESULTS

Ten trials, including 1545 patients, were examined in the current meta-analysis. During anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy, the incidence of injection pain was significantly reduced in the research group. Compared with propofol, the pooled risk difference (RD) with the use of ciprofol for injection pain for all the procedures was - 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.48 to 0.19), and RR for hypotension was 0.73(95% CI:0.58 to 0.92). GRADE showed this meta-analysis has moderate or low confidence. Trial sequential analysis for mortality indicated insufficient sample size for a definitive judgment for lower incidence of hypotension.

CONCLUSION

In painless endoscopy, compared with propofol, ciprofol exhibited non-inferiority anesthesia/sedation in patients, and had a good safety profile with a lower incidence of pain on injection and may reduce the chance of hypotension. Trial sequential analysis suggested the need for more cases, and GRADE highlighted moderate certainty, emphasizing the necessity for further targeted RCTs.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42023433627.

Impact of different doses of esketamine on the incidence of hypotension in propofol-based sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Hypovolemia is common in colonoscopy due to fasting and bowel preparation, and propofol itself can reduce systemic vascular resistance, resulting in relative hypovolemia. Therefore, hypotension is not a rare event during propofol-based sedation for colonoscopy.

Objectives

Our objective was to explore the efficacy of esketamine as a sedative adjuvant in reducing the incidence of hypotension during colonoscopy.

Design

This was a prospective randomized trial. The trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ID: ChiCTR 2100047032).

Methods

We included 100 eligible patients who planned to receive a colonoscopy and randomly divided them into 4 groups with 25 patients in each group, which were propofol 2 mg/kg (Group P), propofol 1 mg/kg with esketamine 0.2 mg/kg (Group E1), propofol 1 mg/kg with esketamine 0.3 mg/kg (Group E2), and propofol 1 mg/kg with esketamine 0.4 mg/kg (Group E3). The hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were documented at various times during the procedure, including the patient's entry into the endoscopic room (T0), the induction of sedation (T1), the insertion of the colonoscope (T2), the removal of the colonoscope (T3), and the awakening of the patient (T4). The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular side effects other than hypotension, incidence of hypoxia, cumulative changes in cardiovascular and respiratory parameters, total propofol dosage, anesthesia recovery time, and satisfactory levels of both patients and endoscopists.

Results

The incidence of hypotension in Group E1 (16%), Group E2 (16%), and Group E3 (12%) was significantly lower than in Group P (60%), with p values 0.003, 0.003, and <0.001 respectively. The cumulative changes in diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure in Groups E1, E2, and E3 were significantly higher than in Group P (p = 0.024, p < 0.001, p = 0.006, respectively). Cumulative changes in systolic blood pressure in Group E3 were significantly higher than those in Group P (p = 0.012). The respiratory-related parameters were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

This study showed that the application of 0.4 mg/kg esketamine in propofol-based sedation reduced the incidence of hypotension during colonoscopy while providing satisfactory sedation.

The EC50 of propofol with different doses of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the dose-response relationship between dexmedetomidine and propofol in sedating patients and to determine the optimal dosage of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred fifty patients were divided into 5 groups, each receiving a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 µg/kg) or saline, with propofol for sedation. The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol was calculated using the modified Dixon up-and-down approach. Adverse effects, vital signs, procedure, and recovery times were recorded.

RESULTS

The EC50 of propofol in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, D0.8, and D1.0 were 3.02, 2.44, 1.97, 1.85, and 1.83 µg/mL, respectively. Heart rate in the dexmedetomidine groups decreased more than the NS group (P < .001). The mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the NS group experienced a decline compared to groups D0.8 and D1.0 when the plasma concentration and effect-site concentration reached equilibrium. Additionally, the respiratory rate was found to be lower in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, and D0.8 (P < .05). Recovery time in groups D0.8 and D1.0 was longer than the NS group (P < .05). Bruggemann comfort scales score was higher in group D1.0 (P < .05). No significant difference was found in the incidences of hypotension and bradycardia, and the dose of ephedrine and atropine. Respiratory depression was significantly reduced in groups D0.8 and D1.0 compared to the NS group.

CONCLUSION

A single dose of 0.6 to 0.8 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine should be recommended in combination with propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. And the EC50 of propofol is 1.97 to 1.85 µg/mL.

Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol has a favourable efficacy profile in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, however adverse events remain frequent. Emerging evidence supports remimazolam use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares remimazolam and propofol, both combined with a short-acting opioid, for sedation of adults in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy-, safety-, and satisfaction-related outcomes between remimazolam and propofol, both combined with short-acting opioids, for sedation of adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We performed sensitivity analyses, subgroup assessments by type of short-acting opioid used and age range, and meta-regression analysis using mean patient age as a covariate. We used R statistical software for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

We included 15 trials (4516 subjects). Remimazolam was associated with a significantly lower sedation success rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.991; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.984-0.998; high-quality evidence) and a slightly longer induction time (mean difference [MD] 9 s; 95% CI 4-13; moderate-quality evidence), whereas there was no significant difference between the sedatives in other time-related outcomes. Remimazolam was associated with significantly lower rates of respiratory depression (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.30-0.56; high-quality evidence), hypotension (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.35-0.51; moderate-quality evidence), hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.12-0.52; high-quality evidence), and bradycardia (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30-0.58; high-quality evidence). There was no difference in patient (MD 0.41; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence) and endoscopist satisfaction (MD -0.31; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.04; high-quality evidence) between both drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam has clinically similar efficacy and greater safety when compared with propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopies.

Effect of remimazolam vs propofol in high-risk patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Procedural sedation is essential for optimizing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in high-risk patients with multiple underlying diseases. Respiratory and circulatory complications present significant challenges for procedural sedation in this population. This non-inferiority randomized controlled trial aims to investigate the safety and comfort of remimazolam compared to propofol for procedural sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in high-risk patients.

METHODS

A total of 576 high-risk patients scheduled to undergo upper gastrointestinal endoscopy are planned to be enrolled in this study and randomly allocated to either the remimazolam or propofol group. The primary outcome measure is a composite endpoint, which includes (1) achieving a Modified Observer's Alertness/Sedation scale (MOAA/S) score ≤ 3 before endoscope insertion, (2) successful completion of the endoscopic procedure, (3) the absence of significant respiratory instability during the endoscopy and treatment, and (4) the absence of significant circulatory instability during the examination. The noninferiority margin was 10%. Any adverse events (AEs) that occur will be reported.

DISCUSSION

This trial aims to determine whether remimazolam is non-inferior to propofol for procedural sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in high-risk patients, regarding success rate, complication incidence, patient comfort, and satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION {2A AND 2B}: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ClinicalTrials.gov ChiCTR2200066527. Registered on 7 December 2022.

Safety and tolerability of esketamine in propofol based sedation for endoscopic variceal ligation with or without injection sclerotherapy: Randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Esketamine is an S (+) enantiomer of ketamine with greater potency and similar psychomimetic effects compared to racemic ketamine. We aimed to explore the safety of esketamine in different doses as an adjuvant to propofol in patients undergoing endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) with or without injection sclerotherapy.

METHODS

One hundred patients were randomized to receive sedation with propofol 1.5 mg/kg in combination with sufentanil 0.1 μg/kg (group S), esketamine 0.2 mg/kg (group E0.2), esketamine 0.3 mg/kg (group E0.3), or esketamine 0.4 mg/kg (group E0.4) for EVL (n = 25 each). Hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were recorded during the procedure. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension; secondary outcomes included the incidence of desaturation, positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) after the procedure, pain score after the procedure, and secretion volume.

RESULTS

The incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in groups E0.2 (36%), E0.3 (20%), and E0.4 (24%) than in group S (72%). The incidence of SpO2  ≤94% was significantly lower in group E0.4 (4%) than in group S (32%). No significant intergroup difference was found in the PANSS assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining 0.4 mg/kg esketamine with propofol sedation was optimal to facilitate EVL with stable hemodynamic status and better respiratory function during the procedure, without significant psychomimetic side-effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Trial ID: ChiCTR2100047033, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=127518).

A scale to measure the worry level in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy with sedation: Development, reliability, and validity

Objective

This study aims to develop a scale to measure the worry level of patients who will undergo gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy with deep sedation, and to provide scientific references to alleviate their worries.

Method

Based on literature review, panel discussion, patient interview and expert consultation, we developed the first version of the scale. After two pre-investigations, the formal version of the scale was formed, and the reliability and validity were tested on 1389 respondents. Reliability was assessed by Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was tested by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the Spearman correlations analysis.

Results

The scale was composed of four dimensions: financial and time costs, sedation, examination, and psychology. It has 15 items. Reliability and validity were acceptable. The Cronbach's alpha of the whole scale was 0.959 and all the factor loadings were > 0.50. The Spearman correlations of the inter-dimensions ranged from 0.614 to 0.836, and the correlation coefficients between the dimensions and the total score were 0.795 to 0.957. The correlation coefficient between the total scale score and the APAIS was 0.833.

Conclusions

This scale has good validity and reliability, which is useful for physicians and medical institutions to take appropriate measures to reduce patients' worries.

Safety and effectiveness of the combination of remimazolam tosilate and propofol in gastroscopy: a multicenter, randomized controlled, single-blind clinical trial

Remimazolam tosilate (RT) is a new short-acting γ-aminobutyric acid A (GABAA) receptors agonist. However, its optimal use mode and dosage still remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the safety and effectiveness of the combination of RT and propofol in gastroscopy. This was a prospective, single-blind, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group study. All eligible 256 patients were randomized into the following 3 groups. Patients were anesthetized with propofol (Group P), RT (Group R) or the combination of RT and propofol (Group RP). The primary efficacy endpoints were: body movement score; satisfaction of gastroscopy doctors; success rate of sedation and effects on sleep status. Sedation induction time, time to be fully alert and adverse events were also recorded. The probability of complete immobility was lower in group R (33.73%) than in group P (86.67%) and RP (83.13%). The rate of doctors' satisfaction was much lower in group R (28.92%) than in group P (77.78%) and RP (72.29%). The success rate of sedation and sleep outcome score has no difference in the three groups. The time to adequate sedation was longer in group RP (77.27 ± 18.63 s) than in group P (64.47 ± 24.36 s), but much shorter than that in group R (102.84 ± 46.43s). The time to be fully alert was shorter in group R (6.30 ± 1.52 min) and RP (6.54 ± 1.13 min) than in group P (7.87 ± 1.08 min). The proportion of sedative hypotension was significantly higher in group P (41.11%) than in group R (1.20%) and group RP (3.61%) (p < 0.001). The incidence of respiratory depression was much higher in group P (17.78%) than in group R (no patient) and group RP (1.2%). The incidence of adverse events was lower in groups R (4.82%) and RP (9.64%) than in group P (31.11%). The combination of RT and propofol takes effect quickly, makes patients alert quickly, provides a sufficient depth of sedation, reduces body movement, does not inhibit circulation and respiratory function, does not affect sleep, and is the preferred mode for gastroscopy doctors and anesthesiologists.

Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol for procedural sedation and anesthesia in non-operating room settings

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Ciprofol, a novel intravenous anesthetic, provides rapid recovery in patients undergoing colonoscopy. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in comparison with propofol for sedation or anesthesia in non-operating room settings including endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and flexible bronchoscopy (FB).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial.

SETTING

University-affiliated teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

We recruited 207 patients scheduled for an endoscopic procedure from October 2021 to December 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized into three groups according to the dose during induction (n = 69 each): 1) ciprofol 6 mg/kg/h, 2) ciprofol 8 mg/kg/h, or 3) propofol 40 mg/kg/h. Ciprofol or propofol was administered throughout the procedure.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation or anesthesia for the procedures. Secondary outcomes included induction time, endoscope insertion time, recovery time, discharge time, incidence of drug-related adverse events (AEs), neurological and inflammatory outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

The procedure success rates in the three groups were 100%. The induction time in the 6 (3.3 ± 1.0 min) and 8 mg/kg/h (2.9 ± 0.6 min) ciprofol groups was longer than that in the propofol group (2.5 ± 0.6 min) only in patients undergoing FB (p = 0.004). The time for patients to be fully alert and discharged from the post-anesthesia care unit was comparable across the three groups (p > 0.05). The incidence of drug-related AEs in the propofol and 6 and 8 mg/kg/h ciprofol groups was 84.1%, 76.8%, and 79.7%. No pain on injection was reported by ciprofol groups. Neurological outcomes and inflammatory responses were comparable among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol induced a level of sedation or anesthesia equivalent to that induced by propofol in non-operating room settings except for a prolonged induction time in patients undergoing FB. Ciprofol had a safety profile similar to that of propofol. No pain on injection was reported by ciprofol.

Perioperative management and drug selection for sedated/anesthetized patients undergoing MRI examination: A review

In recent years, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology has become an indispensable imaging tool owing to significant improvements in MRI that have opened up new diagnostic perspectives. Due to the closed environment, long imaging time, and need to remain still during the examination process, the examiner may cannot cooperate with the completion of the examination of the procedure, which increases the need for deep sedation or anesthesia. Achieving this can sometimes be challenging, especially in the special nontraditional environment of MRI equipment (unfamiliar and narrow spaces, away from patients, strong magnetic fields) and in special populations requiring sedation/anesthesia during examinations, which pose certain challenges for the perioperative anesthesia management of MRI. A simple "checklist" is necessary because it allows the anesthesiologist to become familiar with the particular environment and human and material resources as quickly as possible. For the choice of sedative/anesthetic, the traditional drugs, such as midazolam and ketamine, are still used due to the ease of administration despite their low sedation success rate, prolonged recovery, and significant adverse events. Currently, dexmedetomidine, with respiratory drive preservation, propofol, with high effectiveness and rapid recovery, and sevoflurane, which is mild and nonirritating, are preferred for sedation/anesthesia in children and adults undergoing MRI. Therefore, familiarity with the perioperative management of patient sedation and general anesthesia and drug selection in the MRI environment is critical for successful surgical completion and for the safe and rapid discharge of MRI patients receiving sedation/anesthesia.

Effect of butorphanol on visceral pain in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Butorphanol slightly influences the respiratory and circulatory systems, has a better effect on relieving the discomfort caused by mechanical traction, and has a low incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Combined butorphanol and propofol may suppress postoperative visceral pain, which is avoidable in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Thus, we hypothesized that butorphanol could decrease the incidence of postoperative visceral pain in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, and double-blinded trial. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomized to intravenously receive either butorphanol (Group I) or normal saline (Group II). The primary outcome was visceral pain after the procedure 10 min after recovery. The secondary outcomes included the rate of safety outcomes and adverse events. Postoperative visceral pain was defined as a visual analog scale (VAS) score ≥ 1.

RESULTS

A total of 206 patients were enrolled in the trial. Ultimately, 203 patients were randomly assigned to Group I (n = 102) or Group II (n = 101). In total, 194 patients were included in the analysis: 95 in Group I and 99 in Group II. The incidence of visceral pain at 10 min after recovery was found to be statistically lower with butorphanol than with the placebo (31.5% vs. 68.5%, respectively; RR: 2.738, 95% CI [1.409-5.319], P = 0.002), and the notable difference was in pain level or distribution of visceral pain (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The trial indicated that adding butorphanol to propofol results in a lower incidence of visceral pain after surgery without noticeable fluctuations in circulatory and respiratory functions for gastrointestinal endoscopy patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04477733 (PI: Ruquan Han; date of registration: 20/07/2020).

Advances in Analgosedation and Periprocedural Care for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The number and complexity of endoscopic gastrointestinal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is globally increasing. Procedural analgosedation during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has become the gold standard of gastrointestinal endoscopies. Patient satisfaction and safety are important for the quality of the technique. Currently there are no uniform sedation guidelines and protocols for specific gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and there are several challenges surrounding the choice of an appropriate analgosedation technique. These include categories of patients, choice of drug, appropriate monitoring, and medical staff providing the service. The ideal analgosedation technique should enable the satisfaction of the patient, their maximum safety and, at the same time, cost-effectiveness. Although propofol is the gold standard and the most used general anesthetic for endoscopies, its use is not without risks such as pain at the injection site, respiratory depression, and hypotension. New studies are looking for alternatives to propofol, and drugs like remimazolam and ciprofol are in the focus of researchers' interest. New monitoring techniques are also associated with them. The optimal technique of analgosedation should provide good analgesia and sedation, fast recovery, comfort for the endoscopist, patients' safety, and will have financial benefits. The future will show whether these new drugs have succeeded in these goals.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has been associated with difficult experiences and can leave patients with an unpleasant impression. Propofol and midazolam are the most commonly used intravenous anesthetics for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, cardiac and pulmonary adverse events are the primary concerns associated with the use of these sedatives. Remimazolam tosylate is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine drug with a mild inhibitory effect on the respiratory and circulatory systems. These properties qualify remimazolam tosylate to be used as a replacement for propofol or midazolam as a sedative during gastrointestinal endoscopy. This study aims to describe the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate as a sedative for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel-controlled, noninferiority clinical study will be conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate as a sedative during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Participants (n = 1800) will be randomized to receive remimazolam tosylate at 0.15 mg/kg (experimental group 1), remimazolam tosylate at 0.2 mg/kg (experimental group 2), or propofol at 1.5 mg/kg (control group). Procedure success will be assessed and defined as the completion of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy without the administration of a rescue sedative agent or more than two top-up doses of the trial drug in any 5-min period after initial administration. Sedation quality will be evaluated using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score. Adverse events will be recorded to evaluate safety.

DISCUSSION

This study will determine the optimal dosage of remimazolam tosylate during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and will describe its efficacy and safety. These findings may contribute to a more comfortable and safer experience for patients compared with that when the conventional sedative propofol is used.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04727034. Registered on February 18, 2021.

Remimazolam versus propofol for deep sedation/anaesthesia in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol is the most commonly used sedative in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, but is associated with cardiorespiratory suppression, particularly in elderly patients. Remimazolam is a new short-acting GABA(A) receptor agonist with minimal impact on cardiorespiratory suppression, and may be a viable alternative in elderly patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized controlled trial was conducted between September 2020 and September 2021. Elderly patients (65-85 years of age) scheduled to undergo upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive remimazolam tosilate (300 mg/h) or propofol (3 g/h) in addition to 50-μg fentanyl, until the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (MOAA/S) reached ≤1. MOAA/S was maintained at 0 or 1 throughout the procedure using 2.5 mg remimazolam or 0.5 mg/kg propofol boluses in the two groups, respectively. The primary outcome was the rate of hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure at ≤90 mmHg or > 30% decline vs. the baseline). Bradycardia was defined as heart rate ≤50 per minute; respiratory depression was defined as respiratory rate <8 per minute and/or SpO₂  < 90%.

RESULTS

A total of 400 patients (161 men and 239 women; 70.4 ± 4.6 years of age) were enrolled (200 patients per group). Average body mass index was 22.2 ± 2.4 kg/m² . The rate of hypotension was 36.5% in the remimazolam group and 69.6% in the propofol group (p < 0.001). The remimazolam group also had a lower rate of bradycardia (1.5% vs. 8.5%, p < 0.001), respiratory depression (4.5% vs. 10.0%, p < 0.05) and pain at the injection site (0% vs. 12.0%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam was associated with a lower rate of hypotension in elderly patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation/anaesthesia than propofol.

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.

Remimazolam: An Updated Review of a New Sedative and Anaesthetic

Remimazolam (CNS7056) is a novel benzodiazepine for intravenous sedation; it has an ultra-short duration of action and was recently approved for use in procedural sedation and general anaesthesia. It acts on γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptors and is rapidly converted into an inactive metabolite by tissue esterase enzymes. Remimazolam has been successfully used in endoscopic inspection or surgery and general anaesthesia induction and maintenance with fast and predictable onset and recovery times, high procedure success rates, and minor respiratory and hemodynamic fluctuations and without serious drug-related adverse reactions. If needed, the effects of remimazolam can be reversed by flumazenil, which allows prompt termination of sedation. Although remimazolam has great potential for sedation in patients admitted to intensive care units, future studies are needed to evaluate its efficacy and safety in patients requiring sedation for a long period, and numerous studies are warranted to explore the optimal dose in different application scenarios. The review aimed to provide an introduction to the process of remimazolam synthesis and its current clinical uses and future clinical developments.

Comparison Effects of Propofol-Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol-Remifentanil for Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial

Objective. To compare the effects of propofol-dexmedetomidine versus propofol-remifentanil for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). Design, Setting, and Participants. A single-center, randomized trial from August 20, 2020 to August 20, 2021, in patients undergoing EUS. Interventions. Propofol-dexmedetomidine (PD) versus propofol-remifentanil (PR). Outcome Measures. The primary outcome was the endoscopist satisfaction level. The secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, the incidence of adverse events, induction time, and time to achieve postanesthesia discharge score (PADS) ≥9. Methods. Total of 200 patients were enrolled and randomized into PD and PR groups. A bolus dose of 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine was injected intravenously for 5 min. Subsequently, a continuous infusion of 0.5 μg/kg/h for the PD group. Remifentanil was continuously infused at 1.5 μg/kg/h for the PR group. A bolus dose of 1 mg/kg propofol was administered to both groups and then continuously infused. Results. The endoscopist satisfaction level was higher in the PR group than in the PD group ( $P=0.009$ ). Patient satisfaction was not significantly different between the groups ( $P=0.738$ ). No patients required mask ventilation or tracheal intubation in both groups. All patients were relatively hemodynamically stable. The incidence of body movements during the procedure in the PD group was higher than in the PR group ( $P=0.035$ ). The induction time and time taken to achieve PADS ≥9 in the PD group were longer than in the PR group ( $P<0.05$ ). Conclusions. PR sedation can increase the satisfaction level of the endoscopist by providing faster induction time and lower body movement and that of the patient by achieving faster PADS than PD sedation. Trial registration number: http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000034987).

New sedatives and analgesic drugs for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Procedural sedation has become increasingly common in endoscopy. Sedatives and analgesics induce anxiolysis and amnesia. In addition, an appropriate level of sedation is necessary for safe procedures including therapeutic endoscopy. Midazolam and propofol are the most commonly used drugs in sedative endoscopy. In recent years, the need to ascertain the safety and effectiveness of sedation has increased in practice. Therefore, new sedatives and analgesic drugs for optimal sedative endoscopy, have recently emerged. This article reviews the characteristics of sedatives and analgesics, and describes their clinical use in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Sedative effect of remimazolam combined with alfentanil in colonoscopic polypectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial

Background

Remimazolam is a newer benzodiazepine with properties of rapid onset, short duration of action, and fast recovery. Our study was to evaluate the effects of different doses of remimazolam combined with alfentanil in colonoscopic polypectomy.

Methods

One hundred twenty patients were randomly divided into four groups: alfentanil and propofol (AP) group, alfentanil and remimazolam 0.1 mg/kg (AR1 group), 0.15 mg/kg (AR2 group), or 0.2 mg/kg (AR3 group). Patients in the four groups received alfentanil 10 μg/kg, followed by propofol 2 mg/kg and three dosages of remimazolam. Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) scale, heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO₂), respiratory rate (RR), bispectral index (BIS) values and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were collected at intervals of 5 min and analyzed at different time points: before anesthesia (T0), 5 min (T1), 10 min (T2), 15 min after anesthesia (T3) and at the end of surgery (T4). The average MAP was calculated utilizing the average of all MAP values. The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation. Secondary outcomes included time to full alert and adverse events.

Results

The success rate of sedation was 100% among the four groups. The incidence of hypotension was significantly decreased (all P < 0.05) and the average MAP was higher in AR1-AR3 groups than AP group (all P < 0.001). None of the patients developed bradycardia or hypertension during surgery in all study groups. BIS values were higher (all P < 0.001) and the time to full alert was statistically shorter in AR1-AR3 groups (all P < 0.05) compared with the AP group. The MOAA/S score in AR1 was higher than AR2 (P < 0.05) and the AR3 group (P < 0.05) at T1 and BIS values in the AR1 group were significantly higher than AR3 group (P < 0.05) at T4.

Conclusions

Remimazolam combined with alfentanil have a non-inferior sedative effect than propofol during the colonoscopic polypectomy. Moreover, this combination of two short-acting drugs might be a safer alternative.

Trial registration

The clinical trial was registered on (16/05/2021, ChiCTR2100046492).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01805-3.

Safety, Efficacy and High-Quality Standards of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Procedures in Personalized Sedoanalgesia Managed by the Gastroenterologist: A Retrospective Study

Performing GI endoscopy under sedoanalgesia improves the quality-indices of the examination, in particular for cecal intubation and adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy. The implementation of procedural sedoanalgesia in GI endoscopy is also strongly recommended by the guidelines of the major international scientific societies. Nevertheless, there are regional barriers that prevent the widespread adoption of this good practice. A retrospective monocentric analytic study was performed on a cohort of 529 patients who underwent EGDS/Colonoscopy in sedoanalgesia, with personalized dosage of Fentanyl and Midazolam. ASA class, age and weight were collected for each patient. The vital parameters were recorded during, pre- and post-procedure. The rates of cecal intubation and of procedure-related complications were entered. The VAS scale was used to evaluate the efficacy of sedoanalgesia, and the Aldrete score was used for patient discharge criteria. No clinically significant differences were found between vital signs pre- and post-procedure. Both anesthesia and endoscopic-related complications occurring were few and successfully managed. At the end of examination, both the mean Aldrete score (89.56), and the VAS score (<4 in 99.1%) were suitable for discharge. For the colonoscopies, the cumulative adenoma detection rate (25%) and the cecal intubation rate in the general group (98%) and in the colorectal cancer screening group (100%) were satisfying. Pain control management is an ethical and medical issue aimed at increasing both patient compliance and the quality of the procedures. The findings of this work underscore that in selected patients personalized sedoanalgesia in GI endoscopy can be safely managed by gastroenterologists.

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.

Effectiveness of single loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol for deep sedation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in elderly patients: a prospective randomized study

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an advanced endoscopic procedure and requires deep sedation. Deep sedation with dexmedetomidine for the respiratory drive preserved has become popular in recent years. However, the use of dexmedetomidine in elderly patients is controversial because its adverse events are more common. The objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of a single loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol for deep sedation of ERCP in elderly patients.

Methods

In this prospective randomized trial, 49 elderly patients undergoing ERCP were randomly allocated to the dexmedetomidine (DEX) or propofol (PRO) groups. The single loading dose of dexmedetomidine was set at 0.5 μg/kg at the start of anesthesia induction and loading for 10 min. The primary outcome was the cumulative dose of propofol. Secondary outcomes included time to awake, the frequency of airway interventions, and hemodynamics.

Results

The intraoperative cumulative dose of propofol was lower in the DEX group (111.0 ± 12.6 μg/kg/min) than the PRO group (143.7 ± 23.4 μg/kg/min) (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the time to awake between the two groups. The incidence of artificial airway interventions and hypotension in the PRO group (36%, 60%) were significantly higher than those in the DEX group (4.2%, 16.7%) (P = 0.011, P = 0.003, respectively). In addition, the occurrence of bradycardia increased significantly in the DEX group (58.3%) compared with the PRO group (12%) (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The single loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol can reduce propofol consumption and artificial airway intervention and provide better hemodynamic stability than propofol for deep sedation in elderly patients during ERCP.

Trial registration

www.chictr.org.cn (Registration number ChiCTR1900028069, Registration date 10/12/2019).

Ketamine as the main analgesic agent during analgesia-based sedation for elective colonoscopy – A randomised, double-blind, control study

Aim:

The aim of the study was to compare the analgesic effects of ketamine over fentanyl combined with propofol in analgesia-based elective colonoscopy with purpose of patient safety and satisfaction.

Methods:

This is a double-blinded prospective randomized controlled trial. Ninety patients were included and randomized to either fentanyl-propofol (Group FP, n: 30), ketamine-propofol (Group KP, n: 30) or propofol-control group (Group C, n: 30). Group FP patients received fentanyl and propofol, Group KP received ketamine and propofol and Group C, propofol. In all groups, incremental doses of propofol were used to maintain a Ramsay sedation score (RSS) of 5. Respiratory depression and hemodynamic parameters were monitored for the first minute and every 5 min during endoscopy. Fifteen minutes after the procedure, the degree of pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS), the quality of recovery according to the Aldrete score (ARS), complications during and after the procedure and additional doses of propofol were recorded.

Results:

Mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 5 and 30 min (p < 0.05), heart rate (HR) at 15, 25 and 30 min (p < 0.05) and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) at 30 min (p < 0.05) were statistically significant for Group FP. Desaturation (*p = 0.033), and weakness (*p = 0.004) was also significant for Group FP at 20, 25 and 30 min (p < 0.05). Pain was lower assessed for the Group KP according to the VAS (**p = 0.025).

Conclusion:

In analgesia-based colonoscopy, ketamine provides appropriate analgesia and less incidence of complications compared to fentanyl.

Oliceridine- Opioid of the 21st Century

Oliceridine (Olinvyk® Trevena, PA, USA) was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for clinical use on Aug 8, 2020. Even though, the indication of its approval is very restrictive (to manage moderate-to-severe acute pain in adults when the pain is severe enough), for such an innovative opioid, off-label indications are bound to abound. What could be described as the "opioid of the century," it aims to overcome some of the stubbornest barriers to opioid prescribing, namely addiction liability, respiratory depression, and gastrointestinal (GI) side effects, just to name a few. The novel opioid accomplishes this by a unique mechanism of action. By selectively acting on the G-protein sub-pathway in preference to the beta-arrestin, it aims to mitigate these unwanted µ-opioid receptors-associated opioid side effects, while preserving its analgesic activity. What remains to be seen, however, is if these observations seen in phases 2 and 3 trials will be borne in actual large-scale clinical use, both inside and outside the USA. Unfortunately, the field of anesthesia is rife with innovations that have shown enormous promise at the research stage, only to end up as damp squibs when released to the clinicians for general use. Rapcuronium and althesin are some such examples. We aim to present some of the contentious and emerging issues associated with this drug and some of the potential pitfalls of this new opioid.

Effect of remimazolam besylate compared with propofol on the incidence of delirium after cardiac surgery: study protocol for a randomized trial

Background

Delirium is an acute cognitive disorder that presents with fluctuation in cognition, apathy, and non-organized thinking, resulting in increased morbidity, mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and total healthcare costs. In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, delirium also increases the risk of postoperative complications, such as respiratory insufficiency, sternum instability, and need for re-operation of the sternum. This study aims to understand the incidence of delirium in patients after cardiac surgery in patients sedated with remimazolam besylate versus propofol.

Methods

In this prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial, we aim to recruit 200 patients undergoing cardiac surgery between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021, who will be randomized to receive either remimazolam besylate or propofol infusions postoperatively, until they are extubated. The primary outcome is the incidence of delirium within 5 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes include the time of delirium onset, duration of delirium, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and mechanical ventilation time.

Discussion

The key objective of this study is to assess whether remimazolam besylate reduces the incidence of delirium in patients after cardiac surgery compared to propofol sedation. In this preliminary randomized controlled clinical trial, we will test the hypothesis that the use of remimazolam besylate lowers the incidence of delirium when compared to propofol in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Trial registration

chictr.org.cn ChiCTR2000038976. Registered on October 11, 2020

Review of the Physiology and Anesthetic Considerations for Pleuroscopy/Medical Thoracoscopy

Pleuroscopy or medical thoracoscopy is the second most common utilized procedure after bronchoscopy in the promising field of interventional pulmonology. Its main application is for the diagnosis and management of benign or malignant pleural effusions. Entry into the hemithorax is associated with pain and patient discomfort, whereas concurrently, notable pathophysiologic alterations occur. Therefore, frequently procedural sedation and analgesia is needed, not only to alleviate the patient's emotional stress and discomfort by mitigating the anxiety and minimizing the pain but also for yielding better procedural conditions for the operator. The scope of this review is to present the physiologic derangements occurring in pleuroscopy and compare the various anesthetic techniques and sedative agents that are currently being used in this context.

Effect of remimazolam induction on hemodynamics in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

Background

The stability of hemodynamics during anesthesia induction in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery is particularly important. Remimazolam is a new type of benzodiazepine drug, with supposed advantages of rapid induction, rapid recovery, stable hemodynamics, and mild respiratory inhibition.

Aim

To evaluate the effect of remimazolam anesthesia induction on hemodynamics in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery.

Methods

This randomized, double‐blind, controlled trial enrolled consecutive patients undergoing mitral valve replacement (MVR)/aortic valve replacement (AVR)/double‐valve replacement (DVR) surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). The study was conducted according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either remimazolam or propofol induction of 30 patients each. All patients, data collectors, and data analyzers were blinded to the group allocation. The primary outcomes were the fluctuations in hemodynamic parameters (the difference of maximum or minimum heart rate to baseline, ▲HR, the difference of maximum or minimum mean arterial pressure to baseline, ▲MAP), the occurrence of cardiovascular events (hypotension, severe bradycardia), and the cumulative norepinephrine doses used per patient, averaged per group during induction. The secondary outcomes were hemodynamic parameters (heart rate, HR, mean arterial pressure, MAP, bispectral index, BIS, plasma lactic acid, Lac, and blood glucose, Glu values).

Results

A total of 60 patients with heart valve replacement were included in the final analysis, with 30 patients in each group. The ▲MAP was significantly lower in the remimazolam group than in the propofol group during induction (p < .05). The incidences of hypotension and the cumulative norepinephrine doses used per patient, averaged per group during induction were significantly lower in the remimazolam group than in the propofol group (p < .05).

Conclusion

Remimazolam may be safe and effective for induction and may as an alternative to propofol during anesthesia induction in patients undergoing valve replacement surgery.

Monitored Anesthesia Care with Dexmedetomidine Supplemented by Midazolam/Fentanyl versus Midazolam/Fentanyl Alone in Patients Undergoing Pleuroscopy: Effect on Oxygenation and Respiratory Function

Although pleuroscopy is considered a safe and well tolerated procedure with a low complication rate, it requires the administration of procedural sedation and analgesia. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of dexmedetomidine administration on oxygenation and respiratory function in patients undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic pleuroscopy. Through a prospective, single center, cohort study, we studied 55 patients receiving either a dexmedetomidine intravenous infusion supplemented by midazolam/fentanyl (Group DEX + MZ/F) or a conventional sedation protocol with midazolam/fentanyl (Group MZ/F). Our primary outcome was the changes in lung gas exchange (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio) obtained at baseline and at predetermined end points, while changes in respiratory mechanics (FEV1, FVC and the ratio FEV1/FVC) and PaCO₂ levels, drug consumption, time to recover from sedation and adverse events were our secondary endpoints (NCT03597828). We found a lower postoperative decrease in FEV1 volumes in Group DEX + MZ/F compared to Group MZ/F (p = 0.039), while FVC, FEV1/FVC and gas exchange values did not differ between groups. We also found a significant reduction in midazolam (p < 0.001) and fentanyl consumption (p < 0.001), along with a more rapid recovery of alertness postprocedure in Group DEX + MZ/F compared to Group MZ/F (p = 0.003), while pain scores during the postoperative period, favored the Group DEX + MZ/F (p = 0.020). In conclusion, the use of intravenous dexmedetomidine during pleuroscopy is associated with a smaller decrease in FEV1, reduction of the consumption of supplementary sedatives and analgesics and quicker awakening of patients postoperatively, when compared to midazolam/fentanyl. Therefore, dexmedetomidine administration may provide clinically significant benefits in terms of lung mechanics and faster recovery of patients undergoing pleuroscopy.

Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam in Endoscopic Sedation-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in clinical endoscopic procedure sedation.

Methods: The authors searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published until January 2, 2021, that reported remimazolam sedation for endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency and the incidence of adverse events were assessed as outcomes. Cochrane Review Manager Software 5.3 was used to perform the statistical analyses.

Results: Seven relevant studies involving a total of 1,996 patients were identified. We conducted a meta-analysis of the different controls used in the studies, that is, the placebo, midazolam, and propofol. The results demonstrated that remimazolam had a strong sedative effect, and its sedative efficiency was significantly higher than that of placebo [OR = 0.01, 95% CI: (0.00, 0.10), I² = 30%, p <0.00001]. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam [OR = 0.12, 95% CI: (0.08, 0.21), I² = 0%, p < 0.00001] but lesser than that of propofol [OR = 12.22, 95% CI: (1.58, 94.47), I² = 0%, p = 0.02]. Regarding the adverse events, remimazolam is associated with a lower incidence of hypotension than placebo and midazolam. Similarly, remimazolam was associated with a lower incidence of hypotension and hypoxemia than propofol.

Conclusions: Remimazolam is a safe and effective sedative for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam but slightly lower than that of propofol. However, the respiration and circulation inhibitory effects of remimazolam were weaker than those of midazolam and propofol.

Remimazolam: A Review in Procedural Sedation

Remimazolam (Byfavo™) is a benzodiazepine sedative that is indicated for the induction and maintenance of procedural sedation in adults. Remimazolam was efficacious in three phase III trials in patients requiring endoscopies. Significantly higher procedure success rates (composite of the completion of the procedure, top-up doses of study drug within predefined limits and no requirement for rescue therapy) were observed with remimazolam than with placebo, with the majority of placebo recipients requiring rescue midazolam. Furthermore, remimazolam significantly reduced times to onset of sedation and recovery in comparison with placebo (plus rescue). Remimazolam is generally well tolerated, with hypotension and hypertension the most common adverse drug reactions. Higher doses of concomitant fentanyl with remimazolam may increase the incidence of adverse drug reactions and deep sedation events. However, no correlation was observed between depth of sedation and vital signs. In summary, remimazolam is a useful option for the induction and maintenance of procedural sedation. Although pharmacoeconomic analyses for remimazolam are not yet available, the rapid induction of sedation and short recovery times with remimazolam may be beneficial in improving patient throughput in clinics.

Advanced endoscopic gastrointestinal techniques for the bariatric patient: implications for the anesthesia provider

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The incidence of obesity and the use of endoscopy have risen concurrently throughout the 21st century. Bariatric patients may present to the endoscopy suite for primary treatments as well as preoperatively and postoperatively from bariatric surgery. However, over the past 10 years, endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) have emerged as viable alternatives to more invasive surgical approaches for weight loss.

RECENT FINDINGS

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved several different gastric EBMTs including aspiration therapy, intragastric balloons, and endoscopic suturing. Other small intestine EBMTs including duodenal mucosal resurfacing, endoluminal magnetic partial jejunal diversion, and Duodenal-Jejunal Bypass Liner are not yet FDA approved, but are actively being investigated.

SUMMARY

Obesity causes anatomic and physiologic changes to every aspect of the human body. All EBMTs have specific nuances with important implications for the anesthesiologist. By considering both patient and procedural factors, the anesthesiologist will be able to perform a safe and effective anesthetic.

Induction and maintenance of procedural sedation in adults: focus on remimazolam injection

Introduction: Procedural sedation (PS) is a humane way to help patients get through painful medical procedures by the administration of sedative drugs combined with analgesics. However, each of the currently used medications has certain shortcomings, urging the search for a new drug. Remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, is an ultra-short-acting hypnotic agent invented out of the 'soft drug' development.Areas covered: This presented review provides an overview of the drugs used in clinical practice for the induction and maintenance of procedural sedation in adults, focusing on the newly investigated benzodiazepine remimazolam. Literature search was conducted using the MEDLINE and ClinicalTrial.gov databases from January 2007 to December 2020.Expert opinion: Based on the reported clinical trials so far, remimazolam has demonstrated its effectiveness and safety with promising properties including rapid onset, short duration of action, predictable and consistent recovery profile, metabolism almost unaffected by liver or renal function, with non or minimal cardiorespiratory depression, and availability with a reversal drug. With marketing approval received recently, remimazolam is expected to have a place in the practice for procedural sedation in the near future if its efficacy and safety are further confirmed by more clinical trials and post-market analyses.

Anesthesia for GI endoscopy in the era of COVID-19

As a result of COVID-19, the last few weeks have necessitated a reevaluation of the sedation paradigm for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. Routine screening and some surveillance procedures have taken a backseat and likely to remain so until a vaccine or effective treatment becomes available. Anesthesia providers and endoscopists are required to adapt to this new reality rapidly. The general aim of sedation remains the same-patient comfort, reduced hypoxia, prevention of aspiration along with rapid recovery, and discharge. The present review focuses on necessary modification to reduce the risk of virus contagion for both patients (from health-care providers) and vice versa. A preprocedure evaluation and consenting should be modified and provided remotely. Unsedated GI endoscopy, sedation with minimal respiratory depression, and modification of general anesthesia are explored. Challenges with supplemental oxygen administration and monitoring are addressed. Guidelines for appropriate use of personal protective equipment are discussed. Measures for limiting aerosolization are deliberated.

Sedation/Analgesia Administration Practice Varies according to Endoscopy Facility (Hospital- or Office-Based) Setting: Results from a Nationwide Survey in Greece

Objectives

To examine the impact of endoscopy setting (hospital-based vs. office-based) on sedation/analgesia administration and to provide nationwide data on monitoring practices among Greek gastroenterologists in real-world settings. Material and Methods. A web-based survey regarding sedation/analgesia rates and monitoring practices during endoscopy either in a hospital-based or in an office-based setting was disseminated to the members of the Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology and Professional Association of Gastroenterologists. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire, which consisted of 35 items, stratified into 4 sections: demographics, preprocedure (informed consent, initial patient evaluation), intraprocedure (monitoring practices, sedative agents' administration rate), and postprocedure practices (recovery).

Results

211 individuals responded (response rate: 40.3%). Propofol use was significantly higher in the private hospital compared to the public hospital and the office-based setting for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (85.8% vs. 19.5% vs. 10.5%, p < 0.0001) and colonoscopy (88.2% vs. 20.1% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.0001). This effect was not detected for midazolam, pethidine, and fentanyl use. Endoscopists themselves administered the medications in most cases. However, a significant contribution of anesthesiology sedation/analgesia provision was detected in private hospitals (14.7% vs. 2.8% vs. 2.4%, p < 0.001) compared to the other settings. Only 35.2% of the private offices have a separate recovery room, compared to 80.4% and 58.7% of the private hospital- and public hospital-based facilities, respectively, while the nursing personnel monitored patients' recovery in most of the cases. Participants were familiar with airway management techniques (83.9% with bag valve mask and 23.2% with endotracheal intubation), while 49.7% and 21.8% had received Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS) training, respectively.

Conclusion

The private hospital-based setting is associated with higher propofol sedation administration both for EGD and for colonoscopy. Greek endoscopists are adequately trained in airway management techniques.

Medical, Political, and Economic Considerations for the Use of MAC for Endoscopic Sedation: Big Price, Little Justification?

The last few decades of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy have seen phenomenal growth. In many aspects, GI endoscopy has led the field of nonsurgical interventional medicine. In many aspects, this growth is facilitated by advancements in sedation-both drugs and techniques. Unfortunately, the topic of GI endoscopy sedation is also mired in many controversies, mainly emanating from the cost of anesthesia providers. While no one debates their role in the majority of advanced endoscopic procedures, the practice of universal propofol sedation in the USA, delivered by anesthesia providers, needs a closer look. In this review, medical, political, and economic considerations of this important topic are discussed in a very frank and honest way. While such ubiquitous propofol use has increased satisfaction of both patients and gastroenterologists, there is little justification. More importantly, going by the evidence, there is even less justification for the mandated anesthesia providers use for such delivery. Unfortunately, the FDA could not be convinced otherwise. The new drug fospropofol met the same fate. Approval of SEDASYS^®, the first computer-assisted personalized sedation system, was a step in the right direction, nevertheless an insufficient step that failed to takeoff. As a result, in spite of years of research and efforts of many august societies, the logjam of balancing cost and justification of propofol sedation has continued. We hope that recent approval of remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, and potential approval of oliceridine, a novel short-acting opioid, might be able to contain the cost without compromising the quality of sedation.