Non-anesthesiologist-administered Propofol is not Related to an Increase in Transcutaneous CO2 Pressure During Flexible Bronchoscopy Compared to Guideline-based Sedation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Transcutaneous gas monitoring is a useful tool to detect respiratory depression during bronchoscopy performed under propofol sedation

BACKGROUND

Bronchoscopy is a relatively invasive procedure where patients are often sedated. However, adequate sedation is not always achieved. Propofol is often used for difficult-to-sedate patients undergoing bronchoscopy despite a potential risk of respiratory depression. Transcutaneous carbon dioxide (tcpCO2) monitoring, introduced recently, is recognized as a convenient surrogate method for continuous monitoring of the partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2). This study examined the safety of switching to propofol during bronchoscopy by using transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring.

METHODS

Patients in whom transcutaneous gas monitoring had been performed during bronchoscopy were included in this study. The participants were divided into two groups: 1) the midazolam + fentanyl group (MF group), and 2) the group in which midazolam was switched to propofol owing to inadequate sedation obtained with midazolam + fentanyl (MFP group). We retrospectively analyzed the transcutaneous gas measurement data collected in patients under propofol sedation for bronchoscopy.

RESULTS

This study included 61 (MF, n = 41; MFP, n = 20) patients. The duration of elevated tcpCO2 (>50 mm Hg) was greater in the MFP group (MF 8.5 min vs. MFP 22.1 min, p = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

Switching midazolam to propofol during bronchoscopy was significantly associated with a higher risk of elevated tcpCO2, which is indicative of respiratory depression. Therefore, continuous tcpCO2 monitoring is required to ensure the safety of patients under propofol sedation for bronchoscopy.

Pulmonologist-Administered Balanced Propofol Analgosedation during Interventional Procedures: An Italian Real-Life Study on Comfort and Safety

Propofol-based sedation provides faster recovery than midazolam-based regimens with similar safety and comfort during video flexible bronchoscope (VFB) procedures. Pulmonologist-administered propofol "balanced" analgosedation (PAP-BAS) is still debated in Italy. In this real-life study, PAP-BAS safety and comfort during VFB procedures were investigated. We analysed prospectively the subjects undergoing elective VFB procedures in the Pulmonology and RICU of Arezzo Hospital between February and July 2019. PAP-BAS combined low propofol and meperidine doses titrated to achieve an RASS score between 0 and -3. The primary end-point was the complications' rate. Secondary end-points were as follows: the relation between propofol's dose and a subject's comfort assessed with a VAS, recovery time according to a modified Aldrete score ≥9, RASS, and subjects' will of undergoing the procedure again. We collected postprocedure symptoms' intensity too. Our 158 study patients (67 years; SD ± 14; 64% males) incurred in 25% of complication, fully resolved with medical therapy. Neither recourse to ventilator support nor death was reported. Intraprocedural comfort was good (94% of VAS score ≤2). Among postprocedural symptoms, cough was the most frequently reported, in 36% of the cases. Although half of subjects remembered the procedure, 90% of them would have repeated it, if necessary. 85% of them recovered from procedures within 10 minutes. Complications, VAS, and recovery time were not correlated with propofol dose. To our knowledge, this is the first Italian study showing that PAP-BAS to perform a VFB procedure is safe, well tolerated with a quick recovery. Randomised controlled trials are warranted to confirm these preliminary results.

Research status and prospect on risk assessment of sedation and anesthesia in endoscopy

Digestive endoscopy plays an important role in the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal cancer. Although the safety of anesthesia for digestive endoscopy is very high, pre-anesthesia evaluation is still a key step to ensure the safety of the patients. Due to the lack of anesthesia risk assessment procedures and methods worldwide, we need to establish an anesthesia nurse training management system with Chinese characteristics to facilitate convenient and cost-effective anesthesia assessment on an outpatient basis or by telephone. Moreover, an anesthesia risk assessment system for digestive endoscopy should be established. With the wide use of digestive endoscopy, it is believed that China will construct a comprehensive assessment system as well as an assessment form for pre-anesthesia evaluation as soon as possible.