Similar Risk of Cardiopulmonary Adverse Events Between Propofol and Traditional Anesthesia for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Development and validation of a predictive model for PACU hypotension in elderly patients undergoing sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Hypotension, characterized by abnormally low blood pressure, is a frequently observed adverse event in sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. Although the examination time is typically short, hypotension during and after gastroscopy procedures is frequently overlooked or remains undetected. This study aimed to construct a risk nomogram for post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) hypotension in elderly patients undergoing sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

This study involved 2919 elderly patients who underwent sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy. A preoperative questionnaire was used to collect data on patient characteristics; intraoperative medication use and adverse events were also recorded. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the risk of PACU hypotension in these patients. To achieve this, the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression analysis method was used to optimize variable selection, involving cyclic coordinate descent with tenfold cross-validation. Subsequently, multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied to build a predictive model using the selected predictors from the LASSO regression. A nomogram was visually developed based on these variables. To validate the model, a calibration plot, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used. Additionally, external validation was conducted to further assess the model's performance.

RESULTS

The LASSO regression analysis identified predictors associated with an increased risk of adverse events during surgery: age, duration of preoperative water abstinence, intraoperative mean arterial pressure (MAP) <65 mmHg, decreased systolic blood pressure (SBP), and use of norepinephrine (NE). The constructed model based on these predictors demonstrated moderate predictive ability, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.710 in the training set and 0.778 in the validation set. The DCA indicated that the nomogram had clinical applicability when the risk threshold ranged between 20 and 82%, which was subsequently confirmed in the external validation with a range of 18-92%.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating factors such as age, duration of preoperative water abstinence, intraoperative MAP <65 mmHg, decreased SBP, and use of NE in the risk nomogram increased its usefulness for predicting PACU hypotension risk in elderly patient undergoing sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy.

The Effects of Ketamine-Propofol and Remifentanil-Propofol Combinations on Integrated Pulmonary Index During Sedation in Gastrointestinal System Endoscopy

Objectives

Different sedo-analgesia and monitoring methods are used during endoscopic procedures. And yet, there is no consensus on optimal sedating agents. In this study, the main aim is to compare ketamine-propofol and remifentanil propofol sedo-analgesia protocols by monitoring integrated pulmonary index (IPI).

Methods

The study population is divided into two groups: Group ketamine received 0.25 mg/kg ketamine and 0.75 mg/kg propofol at the beginning of anesthesia. 1 mcg/kg of remifentanil and 0.75 mg/kg propofol were administered to group remifentanil patients at the induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia maintenance was provided by titration of drug doses according to the Ramsey sedation scale. Measurements were taken at four different points in time: just before anesthesia was induced, five minutes after sedation was induced, ten minutes later, and five minutes after the treatment was finished.

Results

There was no significant difference in respiratory parameters such as respiratory rate, SPO2, and EtCO2 measured in the T1 time period between the groups. In the T2 time period, a significant difference was found between the groups in the integrated pulmonary index (IPI), sPO2, respiratory rate, and systolic pressure parameters were found to be significantly higher in group ketamine. T3 time period results were higher in these three parameters: IPI, sPO2, and respiration rate. In the T2, T3, T4 time periods, there was a difference between the groups in the respiration count parameter and it was found to be higher in group ketamine.

Conclusion

Although it causes slight prolongation in recovery, ketamine is a safe and effective drug that can be used during endoscopic procedures.

Duration-Dependent Risk of Hypoxemia in Colonoscopy Procedures

Background and Aims: Colonoscopy is a critical diagnostic and therapeutic procedure in gastroenterology. However, it carries risks, including hypoxemia, which can impact patient safety. Understanding the factors that contribute to the incidence of severe hypoxemia, specifically the role of procedure duration, is essential for improving patient outcomes. This study aims to elucidate the relationship between the length of colonoscopy procedures and the occurrence of severe hypoxemia. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at Sheba Medical Center, Israel, including 21,524 adult patients who underwent colonoscopy from January 2020 to January 2024. The study focused on the incidence of severe hypoxemia, defined as a drop in oxygen saturation below 90%. Sedation protocols, involving a combination of Fentanyl, Midazolam, and Propofol were personalized based on the endoscopist's discretion. Data were collected from electronic health records, covering patient demographics, clinical scores, sedation and procedure details, and outcomes. Statistical analyses, including logistic regression, were used to examine the association between procedure duration and hypoxemia, adjusting for various patient and procedural factors. Results: We initially collected records of 26,569 patients who underwent colonoscopy, excluding 5045 due to incomplete data, resulting in a final cohort of 21,524 patients. Procedures under 20 min comprised 48.9% of the total, while those lasting 20-40 min made up 50.7%. Only 8.5% lasted 40-60 min, and 2.9% exceeded 60 min. Longer procedures correlated with higher hypoxemia risk: 17.3% for <20 min, 24.2% for 20-40 min, 32.4% for 40-60 min, and 36.1% for ≥60 min. Patients aged 60-80 and ≥80 had increased hypoxemia odds (aOR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0-1.2 and aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.4, respectively). Procedure durations of 20-40 min, 40-60 min, and over 60 min had aORs of 1.5 (95% CI 1.4-1.6), 2.1 (95% CI 1.9-2.4), and 2.4 (95% CI 2.0-3.0), respectively. Conclusions: The duration of colonoscopy procedures significantly impacts the risk of severe hypoxemia, with longer durations associated with higher risks. This study underscores the importance of optimizing procedural efficiency and tailoring sedation protocols to individual patient risk profiles to enhance the safety of colonoscopy. Further research is needed to develop strategies that minimize procedure duration without compromising the quality of care, thereby reducing the risk of hypoxemia and improving patient safety.

Safety and tolerability outcomes of nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol using target-controlled infusion in routine GI endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) is increasingly accepted, but data are limited on drug administration using target-controlled infusion (TCI) in clinical practice. TCI adjusts the drug infusion based on patient-specific parameters, maintaining a constant drug dose to reduce the risk of adverse events (AEs) because of drug overdosing and to enhance patient comfort. The aims of this study were to assess the rate of AEs and to evaluate patient satisfaction with NAAP using TCI in a retrospective cohort of 18,302 procedures.

METHODS

Low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists score I and II) undergoing outpatient GI endoscopic procedures, including EGDs and colonoscopies, were sequentially enrolled at IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) between May 2019 and November 2021.

RESULTS

Data from 7162 EGDs and 11,140 colonoscopies were analyzed. Mean patient age was 59.1 ± 14.8 years, and mean body mass index was 24.9 ± 3.7 kg/m2. The male-to-female ratio was equal at 8798 (48.1%):9486 (51.9%). AEs occurred in 240 procedures (1.3%) out of the total cohort, with no differences between EGDs and colonoscopies (100 [1.4%] and 140 [1.2%], respectively; P = .418). Most patients (15,875 [98.9%]) indicated they would likely repeat the procedure with the same sedation protocol. Age (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.03; P < .008) was the only independent factor associated with overall AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

NAAP using TCI is an effective and safe sedation method for routine endoscopy. The proper propofol dosage based on individual patients and the presence of trained operators are crucial for NAAP sedation management.

Efficacy and safety of esketamine for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Objective

The role of esketamine in pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy is still unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of esketamine for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

Clinical trials of esketamine for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy were searched in eight common databases, up to October 2023. These clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). The risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as the effect sizes for dichotomous variables and continuity variables, respectively. When the heterogeneity test showed I2 < 50%, the fixed effects model was used for the meta-analysis and TSA; Otherwise, the random effects model was used for them.

Results

In terms of efficacy endpoints, the meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo or blank, esketamine significantly decreased recovery time by 2.34 min (WMD -2.34; 95% Confidence interval [CI] -3.65, -1.02; p = 0.0005) and propofol consumption by 0.70 mg/kg (WMD -0.70; 95% CI -0.98, -0.43; p < 0.00001), and increased mean heart rate by 4.77 beats/min (WMD 4.77; 95% CI 2.67, 6.87; p < 0.00001) and mean arterial pressure by 3.10 mmHg (WMD 3.10; 95% CI 1.52, 4.67; p = 0.0001), while induction time and mean blood oxygen remained comparable. TSA indicated conclusive evidence for these benefits. In terms of safety endpoints, the meta-analysis revealed that esketamine significantly reduced involuntary movements by 59% (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.22, 0.76; p = 0.005) and choking by 51% (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.26, 0.92; p = 0.03), while significantly increasing dizziness by 98% (RR 1.98; 95% CI 1.11, 3.56; p = 0.02) and there were no significant differences in total adverse events, respiratory depression, and vomiting. TSA demonstrated conclusive evidence for involuntary movements and dizziness. Low-dose analysis showed that esketamine at ≤0.3 mg/kg significantly reduced recovery time, propofol consumption and involuntary movements, and significantly increasing mean heart rate, with no increase in dizziness. The Begg's test (p = 0.327) and the Egger's test (p = 0.413) indicated no significant publication bias, yet the funnel plot suggested potential publication bias.

Conclusion

Esketamine is an effective adjuvant anesthesia for children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, the general dose of esketamine may increase the risk of dizziness, which can be avoided by administering a low dose (≤0.3 mg/kg).

Quality Standards in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Can Deep Sedation Influence It?

Introduction

According to the guideline published by ESGE/UEG, a high-quality esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) implies the application of some criteria that enable better healthcare outcomes. Although intra-procedural performance measures are dependent on patient factors, there is no reference to sedation practices in the guideline mentioned above.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate whether deep sedation influences EGD performance measures established by ESGE/UEG.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study, with a prospective enrollment, that considered for inclusion consecutive patients referred for EGD. Two questionnaires were used to assess performance measures and patient satisfaction after EGD.

Results

Sedation had a statistically significant impact on most quality indicators, including complete examination (77.2% without sedation vs. 97.8% with sedation), inspection time (6.17 ± 3.45 vs. 8.39 ± 2.67 min), photodocumentation (78% vs. 97.8%), biopsies (39.3% vs. 60.7%), and patient satisfaction (5.42 ± 2.93 vs. 9.1 ± 1.19). The main reason for an incomplete procedure was patient intolerance (82.6%).

Discussion

Deep sedation of patients submitted to EGD proved to be a determinant in the applicability of the ESGE/UEG quality indicators. Patient intolerance was eliminated in the group with sedation, enhancing procedure completeness, adequate pathology identification, management, and consequently, the effectiveness of the exam.

Conclusion

Sedation administration should be considered in patients undergoing EGD since it ensures a high-quality procedure.

Efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for curative endoscopic resection in colorectum: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Curative endoscopic resection is widely used to treat colonic polyps and early stage cancers. The anesthetic strategy commonly involves the use of propofol combined with a small dose of opioids for sedation. Adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events such as hypotension often occur when attempting to achieve the necessary level of sedation. Several studies have suggested its advantages owing to the anesthetic, analgesic, and sympathomimetic properties of esketamine. However, there are no reports on curative colorectal endoscopic resection. We designed this randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for sedation in patients undergoing curative colorectal endoscopic resection.

METHODS

A total of 166 patients who underwent curative colorectal endoscopic resection were randomly assigned to groups A (propofol + fentanyl) or E (propofol + esketamine). Ideal sedation was assessed using the MOAA/S scale and was achieved using TCI-propofol with different doses of fentanyl and esketamine. The propofol consumption and vasoactive drug dosages were recorded. Sedation-related times, adverse events, and satisfaction were recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 160 patients, the total propofol consumption was significantly lower in group E (n = 81) (300 mg) than in group A (n = 79) (350 mg). Hypotension and bradycardia were significantly lower in Group E than in Group A. The groups showed no significant differences in other adverse events, induction time, recovery time, or patient or endoscopist satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Compared to fentanyl, esketamine helps decrease propofol consumption and increases cardiovascular stability during curative colorectal endoscopic resection in American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I-III patients without affecting anesthesia, patient and endoscopist satisfaction, or other adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was retrospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( www.chictr.org.cn ; registration number: ChiCTR2300069014 on 03/03/2023).

Effect of moderate versus deep sedation on recovery following outpatient gastroscopy in older patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation is increasingly performed in older patients, the optimal level of sedation remains open to debate. In this study, our objective was to compare the effects of moderate sedation (MS) and deep sedation (DS) on recovery following outpatient gastroscopy in elderly patients.

METHODS

In this randomized, partially blinded, controlled trial, we randomly divided 270 patients older than 60 years who were scheduled for elective outpatient gastroscopy into the MS or DS group based on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale. The primary outcome was the duration of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Secondary outcomes included the duration of the total hospital stay, frequency of retching, bucking, and body movements during the examination, endoscopist and patient satisfaction, and sedation-associated adverse events during the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 264 patients completed the study, of whom 131 received MS and 133 received DS. MS was associated with a shorter PACU stay [16.15 ± 9.01 min vs. 20.02 ± 11.13 min, P < 0.01] and total hospital stay [27.32 ± 9.86 min vs. 30.82 ± 12.37 min, P < 0.05], lesser hypoxemia [2.3% (3/131) vs. 12.8% (17/133), P < 0.01], use of fewer vasoactive drugs (P < 0.001), and more retching (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the incidence of bucking and body movements or endoscopist and patient satisfaction between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared to deep sedation, moderate sedation may be a preferable choice for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade I-III elderly patients undergoing outpatient gastroscopies, as demonstrated by shorter PACU stays and total hospital stays, lower sedation-associated adverse events, and similar levels of endoscopist and patient satisfaction.

Applications of artificial intelligence in gastroscopy: a narrative review

Gastroscopy, a critical tool for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal diseases, has recently incorporated artificial intelligence (AI) technology to alleviate the challenges involved in endoscopic diagnosis of some lesions, thereby enhancing diagnostic accuracy. This narrative review covers the current status of research concerning various applications of AI technology to gastroscopy, then discusses future research directions. By providing this review, we hope to promote the integration of gastroscopy and AI technology, with long-term clinical applications that can assist patients.

Efficacy of pretreatment with remimazolam on prevention of propofol-induced injection pain in patients undergoing gastroscopy

To evaluate the efficacy of remimazolam pretreatment in preventing propofol-induced injection pain (PIP) in patients undergoing gastroscopy. One hundred and forty patients (ASA I-II, aged 18-65 years, BMI 18-28 kg/m2) who were to undergo gastroscopy were randomized into either a saline group (group S) or a remimazolam group (group R) (n = 70 for each) on a computer-generated random number basis. The patients in group S received normal saline (0.1 ml/kg) and those in group R were administered remimazolam (0.1 mg/kg) via intravenous infusion for 60 s. 30 s after the injection of normal saline or remimazolam, patients received intravenously propofol (0.5 ml/s) until loss of consciousness. A different anesthesiologist who was unaware of the pretreatment was responsible for maintaining the outcome. The primary endpoint of our study was the incidence of PIP, which was measured using a 4-point scale. Secondary endpoints include the intensity of PIP, vital signs, characteristics of surgery and recovery, and adverse events. The incidence of PIP was significantly lower in group R than in group S (13 vs 51%, p < 0.001), and a lower percentage of patients presented with moderate PIP (3 vs 20%, p < 0.001). Moreover, lower consumption of propofol, shorter recovery time, and greater patient satisfaction were observed in group R than in group S. Pretreatment with remimazolam can effectively reduce the incidence and intensity of PIP in gastroscopy and shorten the recovery time without severe adverse effects.Clinical Trials Registration: Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (identifier: ChiCTR2200063793). Registry time: 16/09/2022. Registry name: Efficacy of Pre-Treatment with Remimazolam on Prevention of Propofol-Induced Injection Pain in Patients Undergoing Gastroscopy. The date of patient enrollment began from 2022-9-17 to 2022-10-10. The link to the registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=176004 .

Effects of intravenous administration of magnesium sulfate in propofol-based sedation for ERCP in elderly patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Propofol-based sedations are widely used in elderly patients for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure, but respiratory depression and cardiovascular adverse events commonly occur. Magnesium administered intravenously can alleviate pain and decrease propofol requirements during surgery. We hypothesized that intravenous magnesium was used as adjuvant to propofol might be beneficial in elderly patients undergoing ERCP procedures.

METHODS

Eighty patients aged from 65 to 79 years who were scheduled for ERCP were enrolled. All patients were intravenously administered 0.1 µg/kg sufentanil as premedication. The patients were randomized to receive either intravenous magnesium sulfate 40 mg/kg (group M, n = 40) or the same volume of normal saline (group N, n = 40) over 15 min before the start of sedation. Intraoperative sedation was provided by propofol. Total propofol requirement during ERCP was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The total propofol consumption were reduced by 21.4% in the group M compared with the group N (151.2 ± 53.3 mg vs. 192.3 ± 72.1 mg, P = 0.001). The incidences of respiratory depression episodes and involuntary movement were less in the group M than those in the group N (0/40 vs. 6/40, P = 0.011; 4/40 vs. 11/40, P = 0.045; respectively). In the group M, the patients experienced less pain than those in the group N at 30 min after the procedure (1 [0-1] vs. 2 [1-2], P < 0.001). Correspondingly, the patients' satisfaction was clearly higher in the group M (P = 0.005). There was a tendency towards lower intraoperative heart rate and mean arterial pressure in group M.

CONCLUSIONS

A single bolus of 40 mg/kg of intravenous magnesium can significantly reduce propofol consumption during ERCP, with higher sedation success and lower adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ID UMIN000044737. Registered 02/07/2021.

Consensus guidelines for the perioperative management of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Deep sedation without tracheal intubation (monitored anaesthesia care) and general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation are commonly used anaesthesia techniques for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There are distinct pathophysiological differences between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia that need to be considered depending on the nature and severity of the patient's underlying disease, comorbidities, and procedural risks. An international group of expert anaesthesiologists and gastroenterologists created clinically relevant questions regarding the merits and risks of monitored anaesthesia care vs general anaesthesia in specific clinical scenarios for planning optimal anaesthetic approaches for ERCP. Using a modified Delphi approach, the group created practical recommendations for anaesthesiologists, with the aim of reducing the incidence of perioperative adverse outcomes while maximising healthcare resource utilisation. In the majority of clinical scenarios analysed, our expert recommendations favour monitored anaesthesia care over general anaesthesia. Patients with increased risk of pulmonary aspiration and those undergoing prolonged procedures of high complexity were thought to benefit from general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation. Patient age and ASA physical status were not considered to be factors for choosing between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia. Monitored anaesthesia care is the favoured anaesthesia plan for ERCP. An individual risk-benefit analysis that takes into account provider and institutional experience, patient comorbidities, and procedural risks is also needed.

High-flow oxygen via oxygenating mouthguard in short upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Anaesthetic care during upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has the unique challenge of maintaining ventilation and oxygenation via a shared upper airway. Supplemental oxygen is recommended by international society guidelines, however, the optimal route or rate of oxygen delivery is not known. Various oxygen delivery devices have been investigated to improve oxygenation during upper GI endoscopy, however, these are limited by commercial availability, costs and in some cases, the expertise required for insertion. Anecdotally at our centre, higher flows of supplemental oxygen can safely be delivered via an oxygenating mouthguard routinely used during upper GI endoscopic procedures.

AIM

To assess the incidence of hypoxaemia (SpO₂ < 90%) in patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy receiving supplemental oxygen using an oxygenating mouthguard at 20 L/min flow compared to standard nasal cannula (SNC) at 2 L/min flow.

METHODS

A single centre, prospective, randomised clinical trial at two sites of an Australian tertiary hospital between October 2020 and September 2021 was conducted. Patients undergoing elective upper gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation were randomised to receive supplemental oxygen via high-flow via oxygenating mouthguard (HFMG) at 20 L/min flow or SNC at 2 L/min flow. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxaemia of any duration measured by pulse oximetry. Intraprocedural-related, procedural-related, and sedation-related adverse events and patient-reported outcomes were also recorded.

RESULTS

Three hundred patients were randomised. Eight patients were excluded after randomisation. 292 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The incidence of hypoxaemia was significantly reduced in those allocated HFMG. Six patients (4.4%) allocated to HFMG experienced an episode of hypoxaemia, compared to thirty-four (22.1%) patients allocated to SNC (P value < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in the rates of adverse events or patient-reported outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

The use of HFMG offers a novel approach to reducing the incidence of hypoxaemia during short upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in low-risk patients undergoing deep sedation.

Effects of intravenous lidocaine on hypoxemia induced by propofol-based sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures: study protocol for a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

Background

Oxygen-desaturation episodes, blood pressure drops, and involuntary body movement are common problems that occur in propofol-based sedation in the procedure of painless gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. As a widely used analgesic adjuvant, intravenous lidocaine can reduce the consumption of propofol during ERCP or colonoscopy. However, it is still unknown how lidocaine affects the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes and cardiovascular events, and involuntary movement during painless GI endoscopy. Therefore, we aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of intravenous lidocaine in propofol-based sedation for GI endoscopy.

Methods

We will conduct a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, saline-controlled trial. A total number of 300 patients undergoing painless GI procedures will be enrolled and randomly divided into the lidocaine group (Group L) and the control group (Group C). After midazolam and sufentanil intravenous injection, a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine was immediately injected and followed by a continuous infusion of 4 mg/kg/h in the lidocaine group, whereas the same volumes of saline solution in the control group. Then, propofol was titrated to produce unconsciousness during the procedure. The primary outcome will be the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes. Secondary outcomes will be the incidence of involuntary body movement, discomfort symptoms, propofol consumption, endoscopist, and patient satisfaction.

Discussion

Propofol-based deep sedation without intubation is widely used in painless GI endoscopy. However, adverse events such as hypoxemia often occur clinically. We expect to assess the effect of lidocaine on reducing the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes, cardiovascular events, and involuntary body movement. We believe that the results of this trial will provide an effective and safe method for painless GI endoscopy.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100053818. Registered on 30 November 2021.

Efficacy and safety of subanesthetic doses of esketamine combined with propofol in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Background

Painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is widely used for the diagnosis and treatment of digestive diseases. At present, propofol is commonly used to perform painless gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the high dose of propofol often leads to a higher incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory complications. Studies have shown that the application of propofol combined with ketamine in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is beneficial to reduce the dosage of propofol and the incidence of related complications. Esketamine is dextrorotatory structure of ketamine with a twice as great anesthetic effect as normal ketamine but fewer side effects. We hypothesized that esketamine may reduce the consumption of propofol and to investigate the safety of coadministration during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

A total of 260 patients undergoing painless gastrointestinal endoscopy (gastroscope and colonoscopy) were randomly divided into P group (propofol + saline), PK1 group (propofol + esketamine 0.05 mg/kg), PK2 group (propofol + esketamine 0.1 mg/kg), and PK3 group (propofol + esketamine 0.2 mg/kg). Anesthesia was achieved by 1.5 mg/kg propofol with different doses of esketamine. Propofol consumption per minute was recorded. Hemodynamic index, pulse oxygen saturation, operative time, induction time, awakening status, orientation recovery time, adverse events, and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were also recorded during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Results

Propofol consumption per minute was 11.78, 10.56, 10.14, and 9.57 (mg/min) in groups P, PK1, PK2, and PK3, respectively; compared with group P, groups PK2 and PK3 showed a decrease of 13.92% (P = 0.021) and 18.76% (P = 0.000), respectively. In all four groups, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), but not pulse oxygen saturation (SpO₂) significantly decreased (P = 0.000) immediately after administration of induction, but there were no significant differences between the groups. The induction time of groups P, PK1, PK2, and PK3 was 68.52 ± 18.394, 64.83 ± 13.543, 62.23 ± 15.197, and 61.35 ± 14.470 s, respectively (P = 0.041). Adverse events and psychotomimetic effects were observed but without significant differences between the groups.

Conclusions

The combination of 0.2 mg/kg esketamine and propofol was effective and safe in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy as evidenced by less propofol consumption per minute, shorter induction time, and lower incidence of cough and body movement relative to propofol alone. The lack of significant differences in hemodynamic results, anesthesia-related indices, adverse events, and MMSE results showed the safety to apply this combination for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Trial registration This study was registered with China Clinical Trial Registration on 07/11/2020 (registration website: chictr.org.cn; registration numbers: ChiCTR https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/2000039750).

Comparison of three sedation models for same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

We investigated the most beneficial propofol sedation model for same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy (BDE).

METHODS

Asymptomatic participants scheduled for same-day painless BDE examination from October 2020 to September 2021 were randomized to three groups: sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by unsedated colonoscopy (Group A); sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by sedated colonoscopy (Group B); and sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by sedated insertion colonoscopy (Group C). Patient discomfort, colonoscopy performance, doses of propofol, cardiovascular stress, anesthesia resuscitation, and sedation-related adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 3200 participants were analyzed. Baseline demographics, patient discomfort, cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate and sedation-related adverse events were similar in the three groups. Propofol dose was the lowest in Group A (137.65 ± 36.865 mg) compared with Group B (177.71 ± 40.112 mg, P < 0.05) and Group C (161.63 ± 31.789 mg, P < 0.05). Decline in vital signs was most obvious in Group B during the procedure (P < 0.05). Recovery time was the shortest in Group A (5.01 ± 1.404 min) compared with Group B (9.51 ± 2.870 min, P < 0.05) and Group C (5.83 ± 2.594 min, P < 0.05); discharge time was the shortest in Group A (3.53 ± 1.685 min) compared with Group B (11.29 ± 5.172 min, P < 0.05) and Group C (6.47 ± 2.338 min, P < 0.05). Adenomas per positive patient of Group A (2.29 ± 1.055) and Group C (2.28 ± 0.931) were more than that in Group B (2.11 ± 0.946, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by unsedated colonoscopy is the superior model for same-day painless BDE with the benefits of satisfactory patient comfort, reduced sedation dose, less cardiovascular stress, faster recovery, shorter discharge time and high colonoscopy quality.

Safety Profile of Endoscopist-directed Balanced Propofol Sedation for Procedural Sedation: An Experience at a Hospital-based Endoscopy Unit

BACKGROUND

Nurse-administered propofol sedation was restricted to anesthesiologists in 2009, a practice that has contributed to spiraling health care costs in the United States.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of endoscopist-directed balanced propofol sedation (EDBPS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients undergoing endoscopy with EDBPS from January 1, 2017, to June 20, 2017, and abstracted their medical records. Adverse events (AEs) included: hypoxia (oxygen saturation < 90%); hypotension [(a) systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg, (b) systolic blood pressure decline of >50 mm Hg, (c) decline in mean arterial pressure of >30%]; bradycardia (heart rate of < 40 beats/min). Logistic regression identified factors independently associated with AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 1897 patients received EDBPS during the study period [mean age: 55 y (SD=11.4 y); 56.4% women]. Patients received median doses of 50 µg fentanyl, 2 mg of midazolam, and a mean propofol dose of 160±99 mg. There were no major complications (upper 95% confidence interval, 0.19%). Overall, 334 patients (17.6%) experienced a clinically insignificant AE: 65 (3.4%) experienced transient hypoxia, 277 patients (14.6%) experienced hypotension, 2 had transient bradycardia. In bivariate analysis, older age was associated with risk for hypotension, propofol dose was associated with transient hypoxemia, and procedure duration was associated with both hypotension and transient hypoxia. In multivariate analysis, only procedure length was associated with AEs (odds ratio scale 10; odds ratio=1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.09, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EDBPS is safe for endoscopic sedation. Given the higher cost of anesthesia-administered propofol, endoscopists should reinstate EDBPS by revising institutional sedation policies.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Endoscopic Sedation Research: 2001-2020

Background and Aims: To evaluate endoscopic sedation research and predict research hot spots both quantitatively and qualitatively using bibliometric analysis. Methods: We extracted relevant publications from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) on 13 December 2020. We examined the retrieved data by bibliometric analysis (e.g., co-cited and cluster analysis, keyword co-occurrence) using the software CiteSpace and VOSviewer and the website of bibliometrics, the Online Analysis Platform of Literature Metrology (http://bibliometric.com/), to analyse and predict the trends and hot spots in this field. Main Results: We identified 2,879 articles and reviews on endoscopic sedation published between 2001 and 2020. Although the overall trend is increasing, with slight fluctuation in some years, there were significant increases in 2007 and 2012. In respect of the contributions on endoscopic sedation research, the United States (US) had the greatest number of publications, and it was followed by Japan and China. In addition, collaboration network analysis revealed that the most frequent collaboration was between the US and China. Six of the top ten most prolific research institutions were located in the US. The most publications on endoscopic sedation research in the past two decades were found primarily in journals on gastroenterology and hepatology. Keyword co-occurrence and co-citation cluster analysis revealed the most popular terms relating to endoscopic sedation in the manner of cluster labels; these included patient anxiety, tolerance, ketamine, propofol, hypoxia, nursing shortage, endoscopic ultrasonography, colorectal cancer, carbon dioxide insufflation, and water exchange (WE). Keyword burst detection suggested that propofol sedation, adverse event, adenoma detection rate (ADR), hypoxemia, and obesity were newly-emergent research hot spots. Conclusions: Our findings showed that hypoxia, adverse event, and ADR, along with conscious sedation and propofol sedation, have been foci of endoscopic sedation research over the past 20 years. The research focus has shifted from sedative drugs to sedative complications and endoscopy quality control, which means that there will be higher requirements and standards for sedative quality and endoscopy quality in the future.

Efficacy of high flow nasal oxygenation against hypoxemia in sedated patients receiving gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of high flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) on the risk of hypoxemia during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (GEPs) under sedation.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

SETTING

Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

INTERVENTION

HFNO.

PATIENTS

Adults patients undergoing GEPs under sedation.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was risk of hypoxemia, while the secondary outcomes included risks of severe hypoxemia, hypercapnia, need for jaw thrust or other airway interventions, and procedural interruption as well as procedure time, minimum SpO₂, and level of carbon dioxide (CO₂). Analyses based on age, gender, flow rate, risk status of patients were performed to investigate subgroup effects.

RESULTS

Medline, Google scholar, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to July 2021. Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 2998 patients published from 2019 to 2021 were included. All GEPs were performed under propofol sedation. Pooled results revealed significantly lower risks of hypoxemia [relative risk (RR) = 0.31, 95% CI:0.13-0.75; 2998 patients], severe hypoxemia (RR = 0.38, 95% CI:0.2-0.74; 2766 patients), other airway interventions (RR = 0.34, 95% CI:0.22-0.52; 2736 patients), procedural interruption (RR = 0.12, 95% CI:0.02-0.64, 451 patients) and a lower CO₂ level [standard mean difference (MD) = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.4 to -0.03; 458 patients] in HFNO group compared to control group. Subgroup analysis focusing on risk of hypoxemia showed no significant subgroup effects, indicating consistent benefits of HFNO in different clinical settings. There were no difference in minimum SpO₂ (p = 0.06; 262 patients), risk of hypercapnia (p = 0.09; 393 patients), need for jaw thrust (p = 0.28; 2256 patients), and procedure time (p = 0.41, 1004 patients) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated the efficacy of high flow nasal oxygenation for reducing the risk of hypoxemia in patients receiving elective gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures under sedation. Further studies are warranted to verify its cost-effectiveness in the gastrointestinal endoscopy setting.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Incidence of Adverse Effects of Propofol for Procedural Sedation/Anesthesia in the Pediatric Emergency Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

To investigate the incidence of adverse effects of propofol among pediatric population for sedation or anesthesia.

METHODS

We performed Cochrane Library, PubMed, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang databases to research relevant literature. We did sensitivity analysis to assess the incidence of adverse effects of propofol among pediatric population for sedation or anesthesia.

RESULTS

In 132 studies, eight RCTs were included in this analysis. The result showed that adverse events (bradypnea, hypotension, hypertension, and apnea) were significantly improved in the pediatric emergency population in the propofol group, but it had no effect on the incidence of cough attacks, desaturation, agitation, stridor, and laryngospasm. Furthermore, the subgroup analysis showed that those who received propofol for had decreased adverse effects compared with the patients who received ketamine treatment (SMD = 0.44, 95%CI = [0.28, 0.67], I 2 = 0%, and P = 0.0002), which demonstrated that propofol could decrease the incidence of adverse effects compared with ketamine and ketofol.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated that propofol may decrease the incidence of bradypnea, hypotension, hypertension, and apnea, but it had no effect on the incidence of cough attacks, desaturation, agitation, stridor, and laryngospasm. Furthermore, more large RCTs are needed to assess incidence of adverse effects of propofol among pediatric population.

Safety of endoscopist-administered deep sedation with propofol in patients ASA III

INTRODUCTION

Deep sedation controlled by the endoscopist is safe in patients with low anesthetic risk (ASA I-II). However, scarce evidence is available in patients with intermediate risk (ASA III).

OBJETIVE

To evaluate the safety of deep sedation with propofol controlled by the usual endoscopy staff (endoscopist, nurse, assistant) in outpatients classified as ASA III and the risk factors for the occurrence of complications during deep sedation in these patients.

DESIGN

This observational and single-centre cross-sectional study includes consecutive patients undergoing non-complex procedures in which deep sedation is administered by the endoscopy staff. Patients were divided into group I (ASA=III) and group II (ASA<III).

RESULTS

A total of 562 patients were included, 80 (14.2%) group I. Complications related to deep sedation were more frequent in group I (23.8% vs 14.5%; p=0.036), mainly mild desaturations (13.8% vs 7.5%; p=0.058). Emergency intervention or exitus were not registered. The adjusted analysis identified age as the one independent baseline risk factor for developing global adverse events.

CONCLUSION

ASA III patients developed more sedation-related complications that ASA I-II patients. However these complications were mild and do not prevent to correctly perform the procedure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the very elderly by using a combination of intravenous midazolam, ketamine and pethidine

AIM

The number of therapeutic endoscopic procedures in elderly individuals keeps increasing and this population has a high risk of adverse events related to sedation and general anesthesia. However, there is a paucity on data about the efficacy and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in this population.

METHODS

In total, 417 consecutive ERCP procedures were performed in 362 patients between September 2018 and January 2020. Of these, 59 patients (74 sessions) were aged ≥80 years (Group A) and 173 patients (193 procedures) were aged ≤65 years (Group B). We analyzed the prospectively collected data of patient- and procedure-related variables.

RESULTS

The procedure time was significantly longer in Group A (P < 0.05). The prevalence of comorbidities, use of anticoagulants and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification levels were significantly higher in Group A (P < 0.05). The incidence of periampullary diverticula, malignancy, rate of difficult cannulation, mean number of stones, use of biliary stents and stent dysfunction was also significantly higher in Group A (P < 0.05). The medication doses used were significantly higher and emergence symptoms were significantly more frequent in Group B (P < 0.05). The rates of bleeding, pancreatitis, perforation, cholangitis, hypoxia, hypotension and the length of hospital stay did not significantly differ between the two groups. The overall success rate of the procedure was comparable in the two groups (P = 0.874).

CONCLUSIONS

ERCP can be safely performed in elderly patients using a combination of midazolam and ketamine without propofol. The incidence of complications is comparable with that observed in younger patients. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2021; 21: 887-892.

Clinical Outcomes and Adverse Events of Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of the Mid to Upper Stomach under General Anesthesia and Monitored Anesthetic Care

Background/Aims

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of gastric tumors in the mid-to-upper stomach is a technically challenging procedure. This study compared the therapeutic outcomes and adverse events of ESD of tumors in the mid-to-upper stomach performed under general anesthesia (GA) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC).

Methods

Between 2012 and 2018, 674 patients underwent ESD for gastric tumors in the midbody, high body, fundus, or cardia (100 patients received GA; 574 received MAC). The outcomes of the propensity score (PS)-matched (1:1) patients receiving either GA or MAC were analyzed.

Results

The PS matching identified 94 patients who received GA and 94 patients who received MAC. Both groups showed high rates ofen bloc resection (GA, 95.7%; MAC, 97.9%; p=0.68) and complete resection (GA, 81.9%; MAC, 84.0%; p=0.14). There were no significant differences between the rates of adverse events (GA, 16.0%; MAC, 8.5%; p=0.18) in the anesthetic groups. Logistic regression analysis indicated that the method of anesthesia did not affect the rates of complete resection or adverse events.

Conclusions

ESD of tumors in the mid-to-upper stomach at our high-volume center had good outcomes, regardless of the method of anesthesia. Our results demonstrate no differences between the efficacies and safety of ESD performed under MAC and GA.

Efficacy and safety of supplemental intravenous lidocaine for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Some studies have shown that intravenous (IV) lidocaine reduces the dose requirement of propofol in GI endoscopic procedures. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of IV lidocaine and propofol compared with propofol alone in GI endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

We reviewed several databases from inception to October 13, 2020, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the role of IV propofol and lidocaine with IV propofol plus placebo for sedation in endoscopic procedures. Our outcomes of interest were the differences in total dose of propofol administered, procedure time, and intraoperative adverse events. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. Data were analyzed using a random effect model. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework to ascertain the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 5 randomized controlled trials with 318 patients. We found that the total dose of propofol administered was significantly lower in the lidocaine group than the control group (SMD, -0.76; 95% CI, -1.09 to -0.42). We found no significant difference in procedure time (SMD, 0.16; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.57) or adverse events (risk ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35-1.03) between the groups. There was moderate to substantial heterogeneity in the data. Quality of evidence based on the GRADE framework ranged from low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality of evidence suggests that IV lidocaine decreases the dose of propofol administered for GI endoscopic procedures.

Deceleration capacity of heart rate variability as a predictor of sedation related hypotension

High risk and geriatric patients are supposed to suffer higher risks of hypotension underwent painless endoscopic procedures. This study evaluated different biomarkers associated with hypotension in off-site patients and aimed to determine the most relevant risk factors in space and monitoring limited environment. The inclusions of this observational cohort study underwent complex endoscopic procedures were sedated with age-adjusted doses of target-controlled infusion of propofol. The following pre-sedative parameters were analysed: time domain, frequency domain, and Deceleration capacity (DC) of heart rate variability, estimated cardiac output data and the index of cardiac contractility from the cardiometer. Patients were divided into hypotension group (blood pressure < 90 mmHg or a > 35% decrease) and non-hypotension group according to peri-sedative blood pressure, regression analysis is used to examine the association between factors and hypotension. Total data from 178 patients (age range: 33–94 years) were analysed. Age was not significantly different between the hypotension and non-hypotension groups (p = 0.978). Among all the factors, DC was most associated with hypotension (p = 0.05), better than cardiometer, age, and ASA status. In conclusion, DC, which can be interpreted as the indicator of parasympathetic activity and was significantly and negatively correlated with sedation-related hypotension. Pre-sedative measuring DC from routine ECG monitoring is simple and cost-effective and should be added to haemodynamic monitoring in the endoscopic room.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

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

Complications Associated With Anesthesia Services in Endoscopic Procedures Among Patients With Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Anesthesia services for endoscopic procedures have proliferated with the promise of increased comfort and safety. Cirrhosis patients are higher risk for sedation, yet limited data are available describing anesthesia complications in this population.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

This cross-sectional study utilized the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry, a multicenter quality-improvement database from 2010 to 2015. Patients with cirrhosis undergoing an endoscopy were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)/Current Procedures Terminology (CPT) codes. The outcome of interest was serious anesthesia-related complication defined as cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, drug related, patient injury, death, or unexpected admission. A mixed-effects multivariate logistic regression model determined odds ratios (ORs) between variables and serious complications, adjusting for potential confounders. In total, 9,007 endoscopic procedures were performed among patients with cirrhosis; 92% were esophagogastroduodenoscopies. The majority (81%) were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥3, and 72% had a history of hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, varices, hepatorenal syndrome, or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis identified by ICD-9/CPT codes. In total, 87 complications were reported, 33 of which were serious. Frequency of serious complications was 0.4% or 378.6 per 100,000 procedures (95% confidence interval [CI], 260.8, 531.3). The majority of serious complications were cardiovascular (21 of 33), including 15 cardiac arrests. Serious complications were significantly associated with ASA 4/5 (OR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.09, 13.57) and general anesthesia (OR, 4.71; 95% CI, 1.20, 18.50), adjusting for age, sex, ASA class, anesthesia type, inpatient status, portal hypertension history, and variable complication reporting practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesia complications among endoscopic procedures in cirrhosis are rare overall. Serious complications were predominantly cardiac and associated with sicker patients undergoing general anesthesia. The complexity of end-stage liver disease may warrant more intensive care during endoscopic procedures, including anesthesia monitoring.

Safety of propofol sedation administered by an endoscopy team for outpatient colonoscopy

Sedation during colonoscopy increases comfort and reduces unexpected patient movement. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening colonoscopies performed under propofol sedation controlled by our endoscopy team (ET) were retrospectively studied for eight months.

Estimation of effective dose of propofol mono-sedation for successful insertion of upper gastrointestinal endoscope in healthy, non-obese Chinese adults

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol is effective in sedation for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy. However, the optimum dose is ill-defined. This study aimed to estimate the effective dose of propofol mono-sedation for successful endoscope insertion in healthy, non-obese Chinese adults undergoing single UGI endoscopy.

METHODS

Twenty-six adult patients undergoing elective single UGI endoscopy were enrolled in this study. A modified Dixon's up-and-down method was utilized to assess the effective dose of propofol for successful endoscope insertion. The initial dose of propofol administered, 1.6 mg/kg, was adjusted with 0.1 mg/kg as a step size. The patient's responses to endoscope insertion were classified as either 'movement' or 'no movement'. When patient's responses were changed from 'movement' to 'no movement' or from 'no movement' to 'movement', a crossover was defined. After eight crossovers had been obtained, patient recruitment was stopped. The mean of midpoints of all crossovers obtained by the modified Dixon's up-and-down method in all 26 patients was defined as calculated median effective dose (ED₅₀ ) of propofol for successful endoscope insertion. Furthermore, probit regression analysis was used to determine the dose of propofol where 50% (ED₅₀ ) and 95% (ED₉₅ ) of endoscope insertion attempts were successful.

RESULTS

The calculated ED₅₀ of propofol for successful endoscope insertion was 1.89 ± 0.12 mg/kg. The probit regression analysis showed that ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ of propofol for successful endoscope insertion were 1.90 mg/kg (95% CI, 1.78-2.10 mg/kg) and 2.15 mg/kg (95% CI, 2.01-3.56 mg/kg), respectively. No any patient had hypoxaemia and gag reflex during the UGI endoscopy with propofol mono-sedation.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

In healthy, non-obese Chinese adults, propofol mono-sedation can provide excellent conditions of UGI endoscopy and the estimated ED₅₀ of propofol for successful endoscope insertion is 1.89 ± 0.12 mg/kg.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Complications of Anesthesia Services in Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Despite the increased use of anesthesia services for endoscopic procedures in the United States, the risks of anesthesia-directed sedation (ADS) are unclear. We analyzed national data from multiple centers to determine patterns of use of anesthesia services and risk factors for serious complications.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study using the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry, a national quality improvement database. Univariable and bivariate analyses investigated frequencies and relationships between predefined variables and serious complications of anesthesia (cardiovascular, respiratory, neurologic, drug-related, patient injury, death, or unexpected admission). A multivariable mixed-effects model determined the odds ratios between these variables and serious complications, adjusting for confounders and varying reporting practices.

RESULTS

In total, 428,947 endoscopic procedures of adults were performed using ADS from 2010 to 2015. The population was 54.9% female with a mean age of 59.1 years, and predominantly American Society of Anesthesiologists classes 2 and 3 (74.4%). More than half of the procedures were colonoscopies (51.4%); 37.4% were esophagogastroduodenoscopies and 6.5% were endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies. A total of 4441 complications (1.09%) were reported; 1349 were serious complications (0.34%). In multivariable analysis, older age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classes 4 and 5, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, general anesthesia, cases performed on an overnight shift, and longer cases were associated independently and significantly with serious complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of data from the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry, we found ADS during endoscopy to be safe, with few serious complications (<1% of procedures). Risk of ADS complications increased with older age, more severe disease, procedure type, and case complexity.

[Effects of remifentanil on awakening of propofol sedated patients submitted to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized clinical trial]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sedation for endoscopic procedures aims to provide high quality sedation, lower risks, short recovery time, superior recovery quality and absence of side effects, seeking high patient level of satisfaction. The goal of the study was to assess administration of remifentanil combined with propofol regarding the effects of the drug association during sedation and recovery for patients submitted to upper GI diagnostic endoscopy.

METHOD

One hundred and five patients were assessed, randomly divided into three groups of 35 patients. The Control Group was sedated with propofol alone. Study Group 1 was sedated with a fixed dose of 0.2 μg.kg^-1 remifentanil combined with propofol. Study Group 2 was sedated with 0.3 μg.kg^-1 remifentanil combined with propofol. We assessed the quality of sedation, hemodynamic parameters, incidence of significant hypoxemia, time for spontaneous eye opening, post-anesthetic recovery time, quality of post-anesthetic recovery, presence of side effects and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Study Group 1 showed better quality of sedation. The groups in which remifentanil was administered combined with propofol showed shorter eye-opening time and shorter post-anesthetic recovery time compared to the control group. The three groups presented hemodynamic changes at some of the moments assessed. The incidence of significant hypoxemia, the quality of post-anesthetic recovery, the incidence of side effects and patient satisfaction were similar in the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of propofol with remifentanil at a dose of 0.2 μg.kg^-1 was effective in improving the quality of sedation, and at doses of 0.2 μg.kg^-1 and 0.3 μg.kg^-1 reduced the time to spontaneous eye opening and post-anesthetic recovery in comparison to sedation with propofol administered alone.

The propofol-sparing effect of intravenous lidocaine in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled study

Background

Propofol provides a prominent sedation effect in colonoscopy. However, anesthesia and sedation induced with propofol in the elderly might result in cardiopulmonary complications, especially when it is combined with opoids in the regimen. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation could decrease the overall propofol requirement in elderly patients during colonoscopy while the procedural sedation satisfaction and the hemodynamic stability were not compromised.

Methods

Ninety-two patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly enrolled into lidocaine+propofol (L + P) group or normal saline+propofol (NS + P) groups. Subjects received intravenous bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine followed by 4 mg kg^− 1 h^− 1 lidocaine continuous infusion in L + P group or equivalent volumes of normal saline for boluses and infusion in NS + P group. Anesthesia was induced with 2.5 μg sufentanil followed by injection of 1.2 mg kg^− 1 propofol in all patients. A single supplemental bolus of 0.6 mg kg^− 1 propofol was administered whenever MOAA/S score > 1 or had body movement during the colonoscopy. The recorded primary endpoints included: the total amount of propofol administered during entire procedure, the supplemental amount of propofol after induction, and the frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol.

Results

A total of 79 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with NS + P group, the total amounts of propofol (induction plus supplemental) were no significant differences in L + P group; however, the required supplemental propofol was less (69.9 ± 39.2 mg vs. 51.5 ± 38.6 mg) (P = 0.039); the average frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol given after induction were lower (2.1 ± 1.1 vs. 1.4 ± 0.9) (P = 0.003); the calculated “unit propofol” infusion rate was lower (0.18 ± 0.05 vs. 0.14 ± 0.04 mg kg^− 1 min^− 1) (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

The addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation resulted in a remarked reduction of supplemental propofol in the elderly during colonoscopy.

Trial registration

The present clinical trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn on 11th March 2019 (registration No. ChiCTR1900021818).

Endoscopist-Directed Propofol as an Adjunct to Standard Sedation: A Canadian Experience

Background

Sedation practices vary widely by region. In Canada, endoscopist-directed administration of a combination of fentanyl and midazolam is standard practice. A minority of cases are performed with propofol.

Aims

To describe the safety of nonanaesthetist administered low-dose propofol as an adjunct to standard sedation.

Methods

This was a single-centre retrospective study of patients having undergone endoscopic procedures with propofol sedation between 2004 and 2012 in a teaching hospital in Montreal. Procedures were performed by gastroenterologists trained in Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support. Sedation was administered by intravenous bolus by a registered nurse, under the direction of the endoscopist. Outcomes of procedures were collected in the context of a retrospective chart review using the hospital's endoscopy database.

Results

Of patients undergoing endoscopies at our centre, 4930 patients received propofol as an adjunct to standard sedation with fentanyl and midazolam. Cecal intubation rate for colonoscopies (n = 2921) was 92.0%. Gastroscopies (n = 1614), flexible sigmoidoscopies (n = 28), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n = 331) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion (n = 36) had success rates, defined as successful completion of the procedure within anatomical limits, of 99.0, 96.4, 94.0 and 91.7%, respectively. The average dose of propofol used for each procedure was 34.5 ± 20.8 mg. Fentanyl was used in 67.4% of procedures at an average dose of 94.3 ± 17.5 mcg. Midazolam was used in 92.7% of cases at an average dose of 3.0 ± 0.7 mg. Reversal agents (naloxone or flumazenil) were used in 0.43% of the cases (n = 21). Patients who received propofol were discharged uneventfully within the usual postprocedure recovery time. One patient required sedation-related hospitalization. For patients having received propofol in addition to standard sedation agents, 99.6% experienced no adverse events. There were no mortalities.

Conclusion

The use of low-dose propofol as an adjunct to fentanyl and midazolam, administered by a registered nurse under the direction of the endoscopist was safe and effective in patients at our centre.

Propofol versus midazolam with or without short-acting opioids for sedation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in colonoscopy; however, its benefits over midazolam (± short-acting opioids) are not well quantified. The objective of this study was to compare safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes of propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids) in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library (to July 30, 2018) for randomized controlled trials of colonoscopies performed with propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids). We pooled odds ratios for cardiorespiratory outcomes using mixed-effects conditional logistic models. We pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) for patient and endoscopist satisfaction and efficiency outcomes using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Nine studies of 1427 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in cardiorespiratory outcomes (hypotension, hypoxia, bradycardia) between sedative groups. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups, with most patients reporting willingness to undergo a future colonoscopy with the same sedative regimen. In the meta-analysis, patients sedated with propofol had greater satisfaction than those sedated with midazolam (± short-acting opioids) (SMD, .54; 95% confidence interval [CI], .30-.79); however, there was considerable heterogeneity. Procedure time was similar between groups (SMD, .15; 95% CI, .04-.27), but recovery time was shorter in the propofol group (SMD, .41; 95% CI, .08-.74). The median difference in recovery time was 3 minutes, 6 seconds shorter in patients sedated with propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

Both propofol and midazolam (± short-acting opioids) result in high patient satisfaction and appear to be safe for use in colonoscopy. The marginal benefits to propofol are small improvements in satisfaction and recovery time.

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.

Anesthesia-administered sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: monitored anesthesia care or general endotracheal anesthesia?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The decision to undertake monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or general endotracheal anesthesia (GEA) for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is influenced by many factors. These include locoregional practice preferences, procedure complexity, patient position, and comorbidities. We aim to review the data regarding anesthesia-administered sedation for ERCP and identify the impact of airway management on procedure success, adverse event rates and endoscopy unit efficiency.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies have consistently identified patients at high risk for sedation-related adverse events during ERCP. This group includes those with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class and (BMI). ERCP is commonly performed in the prone position, which can make the placement of an emergent advanced airway challenging. Although this may be alleviated by performing ERCP in the supine position, this technique is more technically cumbersome for the endoscopist. Data regarding the impact of routine GEA on endoscopy unit efficiency remain controversial.

SUMMARY

Pursuing MAC or GEA for patients undergoing ERCP is best-approached on an individual basis. Patients at high risk for sedation-related adverse events likely benefit from GEA. Larger, multicenter randomized controlled trials will aid significantly in better delineating which sedation approach is best for an individual patient.

Results from the Adverse Event Sedation Reporting Tool: A Global Anthology of 7952 Records Derived from >160,000 Procedural Sedation Encounters

Background: The incidence of sedation-related adverse events, inclusive of both adults and children, administered by multiple specialty providers from different countries and venues, using standardized definitions, has never been reported on an international level. We are reporting the outcome data of the adverse event sedation reporting tool as an important step toward a more complete risk assessment of sedation-related morbidity, mortality, and etiology. The analysis of the AE sedation reporting data include descriptive measures to evaluate the characteristics of the provider, the patient, sedations performed, adverse events, interventions, and outcomes. The primary outcome was the rate and nature of adverse events. Between 12/14/2010 and 12/11/2018 there were 7952 sedations, from an estimated total of 164,114 sedations administered, of which 622 were reported as adverse events. The mean age of the entire patient population is 33.0 years (0.02–98.7). The providers represented 39 countries across six continents. Oxygen desaturation (75%–90%) for <60 s is the most prevalent adverse event with a rate of 7.8 per 10,000, followed by airway obstruction at a rate of 5.42 per 10,000. Apnea occurred at a rate of 4.75 per 10,000. Significant predictors of adverse events are ≥ ASA score III (p = 0.0003), procedure time (6:00 pm–12:00 am: p < 0.0001, 12:00–6:00 am: p = 0.0003), and non-hospital location (p < 0.0001). The AE sedation reporting tool has demonstrated that the majority of adverse events in children and adults who receive procedural sedation from multi-specialists internationally required minor interventions and had outcomes of minor risk.

Doxapram alleviates low SpO2 induced by the combination of propofol and fentanyl during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Painless gastrointestinal endoscopy under intravenous propofol anesthesia is widely applied in the clinical scenario. Despite the good sedation and elimination of anxiety that propofol provides, low SpO2 may also result. Doxapram is a respiratory stimulant with a short half-life. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effects of doxapram on alleviating low SpO2 induced by the combination of propofol and fentanyl during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

In this prospective study, patients scheduled for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly assigned to group D or S with 55 patients per group. Initially, both groups received a combination of propofol and fentanyl. Patients in group D received 50 mg doxapram after propofol injection, while patients in group S received an equal volume of saline. Vital signs of the patients, propofol dose, examination duration, and incidences of low SpO2 were recorded.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences in propofol consumption and examination duration between the two groups. Twenty-six patients in group S experienced low SpO2 versus 10 in group D (P = 0.001). Nineteen patients in group S underwent oxygenation with a face mask in contrast to 8 in group D (P = 0.015). Eighteen patients in group S were treated with jaw lifting compared to 5 in group D (P = 0.002). Four patients in group S underwent assisted respiration compared to 2 in group D (without statistical difference). The average oxygen saturation in group S was significantly lower than that in group D at 1, 2 and 3 min after propofol injection (P < 0.001, P = 0.001 and P = 0.020, respectively). There were no statistical differences in oxygen saturation at other time points. There were no statistical differences in MAP and HR (except for the time point of 1 min after the induction) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Low dose of doxapram can effectively alleviate low SpO2 in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy with intravenous propofol, without affecting propofol consumption, examination duration, MAP, or HR.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Clinical and New Technology of Wuxi People's Hospital on 20th July, 2018 (KYLLH2018029) and registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Register on 16th August, 2018 (ChiCTR1800017832).

Comparison of ketamine-propofol mixture (ketofol) and midazolam-meperidine in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancretography (ERCP) for oldest old patients

Background and aim: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) requires moderate-to-deep conscious sedation. Combinations of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) and of midazolam and meperidine were analyzed using the bispectral index (BIS). There is no research on the use of ketofol on very elderly patients. The aim of this study is to use BIS and offer insight into the use and safety of ketofol sedation for oldest old patients undergoing ERCP.

Materials and methods: For the ERCP procedure, 168 patients aged 85+ years were enrolled in a 2-year retrospective single center study. Seventy-five patients received midazolam-meperidine (MM) sedation in 2016, while 75 patients received ketofol (KP) sedation in 2018.

The two groups were compared for patient data, procedure duration, Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS), heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), and pulse oximetry (SpO₂), BIS, facial pain score (FPS), time to achieve BIS, recovery time, and complications. The total amount of rescue medication was recorded.

Results: The two groups did not differ by patient data or procedure duration (p>0.05). Group KP had significantly higher systolic and diastolic BP, HR, and SpO₂ values and lower BIS scores than Group MM (p=0.0001). The two groups did not differ by time to achieve BIS scores (p>0.05). Group KP had significantly fewer complications and a shorter recovery time than Group MM (p<0.001).

Conclusion: Ketofol induced sedation results in more stable vital signs and fewer complications than the midazolam-meperidine sedation regimen during ERCP in oldest old patients, indicating that ketofol can be an alternative to midazolam-meperidine.