Anesthesiology and gastroenterology

ARE OBESITY AND ADENOMA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED AS COLORECTAL CANCER PRECURSORS?

BACKGROUND

One of the most important concerns on health is the increased rates of obesity in population and the speed in which this number is increasing. This number translates a serious public health problem, since it also increases the risk of several other diseases associated with obesity resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Among them, it seems to be connected to several neoplasms, such as colorectal carcinoma.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of obesity as a risk factor for colorectal carcinoma through the detection of adenoma, and to discuss the mechanisms that could establish a link between obesity and neoplasm.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colonoscopy were included. Personal and anthropometric data, clinical history, and results of the tests were analyzed in order to verify the correlation of BMI and the presence of adenomatous polyps.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients were studied, which a mean age of 62 years. Of the patients, 74 (52.1%) were men and 68 (47.9%) were. Obesity was identified in 16.2% of the patients. Polyps were found in 61 (42.9%), mostly smaller than 1 cm. Obese individuals were 1.56 times more likely to present colorectal adenoma than patients with normal weight.

CONCLUSION

This study, although showing the greater presence of colorectal adenomas in obese individuals, did not show a significant difference in the occurrence of pre-malignant lesions.

Anesthesia for Routine and Advanced Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures

This article aims to detail the breadth and depth of advanced upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. It will focus on sedation and airway management concerns pertaining to this emerged and emerging class of minimally invasive interventions. The article will also cover endoscopic hemostasis, endoscopic resection, stenting and Barrett eradication therapy plus endoscopic ultrasound. It additionally will address the nuances of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and new natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery procedures including endoscopic cystgastrostomy and the per-oral endoscopic myotomy procedure.

High-flow nasal oxygen availability for sedation decreases the use of general anesthesia during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound

AIM

To examine whether high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) availability influences the use of general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and associated outcomes.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, patients were stratified into 3 eras between October 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014 based on HFNO availability for deep sedation at the time of their endoscopy. During the first and last 3-mo eras (era 1 and 3), no HFNO was available, whereas it was an option during the second 3-mo era (era 2). The primary outcome was the percent utilization of GA vs deep sedation in each period. Secondary outcomes included oxygen saturation nadir during sedation between periods, as well as procedure duration, and anesthesia-only time between periods and for GA vs sedation cases respectively.

RESULTS

During the study period 238 ERCP or EUS cases were identified for analysis. Statistical testing was employed and a P < 0.050 was significant unless the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was used. General anesthesia use was significantly lower in era 2 compared to era 1 with the same trend between era 2 and 3 (P = 0.012 and 0.045 respectively). The oxygen saturation nadir during sedation was significantly higher in era 2 compared to era 3 (P < 0.001) but not between eras 1 and 2 (P = 0.028) or 1 and 3 (P = 0.069). The procedure time within each era was significantly longer under GA compared to deep sedation (P≤ 0.007) as was the anesthesia-only time (P≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSION

High-flow nasal oxygen availability was associated with decreased GA utilization and improved oxygenation for ERCP and EUS during sedation.

Preprocedural Assessment for Sedation in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The role of the anesthesia service in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) has been steadily increasing. The goals of preprocedural assessment are determined by the specific details of the procedure, the issues related to the illness that requires the endoscopy, comorbidities, the goals for sedation, and the risk of complications from the sedation and the endoscopic procedure. Rather than consider these issues as separate entities, they should be considered as part of a continuum of preparation for GIE. This is told from the perspective of an anesthesiologist who regularly participates in the full range of sedation for GIE.

Minor Anesthesia-Related Events During Radiofrequency Ablation for Barrett's Esophagus Are Associated with an Increased Number of Treatment Sessions

BACKGROUND

There is limited data regarding the prevalence and clinical impact of sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) during radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE).

AIM

Our primary aim was to measure SRAE during RFA. Secondary aims were to identify risk factors for adverse events, and to determine whether SRAEs impacted the number of RFA treatments to achieve complete eradication of dysplasia (CE-D).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 120 consecutive patients undergoing initial RFA for dysplastic BE between 2008 and 2014. The main outcome measures were SRAEs and the number of RFA sessions required to achieve CE-D.

RESULTS

Of 120 initial RFA procedures, 83 % were performed with MAC and 17 % with GET. SRAEs occurred in 32 %, including 25 % of MAC patients (25/100) and 65 % (12/20) GET patients. The most frequent SRAE was hypotension (23 %, n = 27/120), followed by hypoxia (n = 9/120), arrhythmia (n = 4/120), and one unplanned intubation. There were no premature procedure terminations. After adjusting for length of BE mucosa and ASA score, the occurrence of a SRAE was associated with requiring more (>4) RFA sessions to achieve CE-D, OR 3.45 (95 % CI 1.49-7.99). Mean RFA sessions required to achieve CE-D was 5 ± 1 in patients with SRAE, compared to 3 ± 0.7 in patients without SRAE during the first treatment session (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SRAE during RFA for dysplastic BE occurs at a rate typical of other advanced endoscopic procedures. Patients who experience minor events related to anesthesia during the first RFA are likely to require more RFA treatment sessions to achieve CE-D.

Colonoscopy sedation: clinical trial comparing propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam

Colonoscopy is one of the most common procedures. Sedation and analgesia decrease anxiety and discomfort and minimize risks. Therefore, patients prefer to be sedated when undergoing examination, although the best combination of drugs has not been determined. The combination of opioids and benzodiazepines is used to relieve the patient's pain and discomfort. More recently, propofol has assumed a prominent position. This randomized prospective study is unique in medical literature that specifically compared the use of propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam for colonoscopy sedation performed by anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the side effects of sedation, discharge conditions, quality of sedation, and propofol consumption during colonoscopy, with or without midazolam as preanesthetic. The study involved 140 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the University Hospital of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I received intravenous midazolam as preanesthetic 5min before sedation, followed by fentanyl and propofol; Group II received intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol. Patients in Group II had a higher incidence of reaction (motor or verbal) to the colonoscope introduction, bradycardia, hypotension, and increased propofol consumption. Patient satisfaction was higher in Group I. According to the methodology used, the combination of midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy sedation reduces propofol consumption and provides greater patient satisfaction.

[Colonoscopy sedation: clinical trial comparing propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam]

Colonoscopy is one of the most common procedures. Sedation and analgesia decrease anxiety and discomfort and minimize risks. Therefore, patients prefer to be sedated when undergoing examination, although the best combination of drugs has not been determined. The combination of opioids and benzodiazepines is used to relieve the patient's pain and discomfort. More recently, propofol has assumed a prominent position. This randomized prospective study is unique in medical literature that specifically compared the use of propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam for colonoscopy sedation performed by anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the side effects of sedation, discharge conditions, quality of sedation, and propofol consumption during colonoscopy, with or without midazolam as preanesthetic. The study involved 140 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the University Hospital of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I received intravenous midazolam as preanesthetic five minutes before sedation, followed by fentanyl and propofol; Group II received intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol. Patients in Group II had a higher incidence of reaction (motor or verbal) to the colonoscope introduction, bradycardia, hypotension, and increased propofol consumption. Patient satisfaction was higher in Group I. According to the methodology used, the combination of midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy sedation reduces propofol consumption and provides greater patient satisfaction.

[Quality colonoscopy: assumptions and expectations]

Colonoscopy has become accepted as the most effective method of screening of the colon for neoplasia. Evidences prove that utilization of colonoscopy has increased dramatically in the past few years, largely because of increased rates of CRC screening. Effectiveness and safety of colonoscopy depend on the quality of examination, and growing body of evidence suggests that the quality of colonoscopy varies in clinical practice. Quality assurance of colonoscopy could be expected to contribute significantly to improved patient care. There is a clear need for evidence-based quality measures to ensure the quality of colonoscopy. In this review we present an overview of literature concerning criteria for best practice and important quality indicators for colonoscopy.