Safety and Effectiveness of Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation in Outpatients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Comparison of propofol-based sedation and midazolam sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy conducted by pediatric gastroenterologists

Objectives

The effectiveness and safety of propofol-based sedation and midazolam sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy were compared.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the cases of pediatric patients (≤15 years old) who had undergone bidirectional endoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and colonoscopy by pediatric gastroenterologists. Demographic data, indications, sedatives/dosages, clinical outcomes, endoscopic findings, adverse events, and total patient time requirements (total time in which patients stay in our hospital) were compared in the two sedation groups.

Results

Ninety-one children (51 boys, 40 girls, mean age 13 years, range 9-15) treated at our hospital were enrolled. Propofol alone or in combination with midazolam and/or pentazocine was administered to 51 patients (propofol-based sedation group). Midazolam alone or in combination with pentazocine was administered to the other 40 patients (midazolam sedation group). In the propofol group, the following mean doses were used: propofol, 96 mg (range 40-145 mg); midazolam, 4.9 mg (range 3-5 mg); and pentazocine, 7.5 mg. In the midazolam group, the mean doses of midazolam and pentazocine were 6.2 mg (range 4-10 mg) and 15 mg, respectively. All procedures were successfully completed by pediatric gastroenterologists. The total procedure times and endoscopic findings were similar in the two groups, but the median patient time requirement in the propofol group was significantly shorter versus the midazolam group (7.3 h vs. 8.4 h, p < 0.001). No adverse events occurred in either group.

Conclusions

Propofol-based sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy was safely and effectively performed by pediatric gastroenterologists, and its patient time requirement was shorter than that for midazolam sedation.

Cap-assisted colonoscopy can increase the rate of sessile serrated lesion detection at the left lateral decubitus position: A retrospective case-control study

We investigated the effectiveness of cap-assisted colonoscopy conducted with the patient in the left lateral decubitus position at both the colonoscope's insertion and withdrawal timepoints compared to the effectiveness of colonoscopy without a cap conducted in the supine position at withdrawal. This was a case-control study, based on historical comparisons of patients over 2 time periods. The first group of patients underwent colonoscopies with a transparent cap and the patient was in the left lateral decubitus position at both the insertion and withdrawal timepoints from April to June 2019. The subsequent group underwent colonoscopies without a cap and with the patient in the supine position at withdrawal from July to September 2019. The rates of successful intubation, cecal intubation time, and number, size, shape, and location of the detected adenomas and sessile serrated lesions were compared between the 2 groups. Data from 644 colonoscopies (cap-assisted colonoscopy + left lateral decubitus position, n=320; other colonoscopies, n=324) were analyzed. The demographic characteristics and technical performances were similar. The SSL detection rate was significantly higher with cap-assisted colonoscopy and the left lateral decubitus position than with other colonoscopies (3.4% vs 0.93%, P=.029). The adenoma detection rates in the 2 groups were similar (31% and 28%, respectively, P=.43).Cap-assisted colonoscopy in the left lateral decubitus position may increase the detection rate of sessile serrated lesions compared to colonoscopy without a cap and supine position at withdrawal.

Comparative analysis of the effect of electromyogram to bispectral index and 95% spectral edge frequency under remimazolam and propofol anesthesia: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial

Background

Bispectral index (BIS), an index used to monitor the depth of anesthesia, can be interfered with by the electromyogram (EMG) signal. The 95% spectral edge frequency (SEF95) also can reflect the sedation depth. Remimazolam in monitored anesthesia care results in higher BIS values than propofol, though in the same sedation level assessed by Modified Observers Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S). Our study aims to illustrate whether EMG is involved in remimazolam causing higher BIS value than propofol preliminarily and to explore the correlations among BIS, EMG, and SEF95 under propofol and remimazolam anesthesia.

Patients and methods

Twenty-eight patients were randomly divided into propofol (P) and remimazolam (RM) groups. Patients in the two groups received alfentanil 10 μg/kg, followed by propofol 2 mg/kg and remimazolam 0.15 mg/kg. Blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and oxygen saturation (SpO2) were routinely monitored. The BIS, EMG, and SEF95 were obtained through BIS VISTATM. The primary outcomes were BIS, EMG, and the correlation between BIS and EMG in both groups. Other outcomes were SEF95, the correlation between BIS and SEF95, and the correlation between EMG and SEF95. And all the statistical and comparative analysis between these signals was conducted with SPSS 26.0 and GraphPad Prism 8.

Results

BIS values, EMG, and SEF95 were significantly higher in the RM group than in the P group (all p < 0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between BIS and EMG in the RM group (r = 0.416). Nevertheless, the BIS in the P group showed a weak negative correlation with EMG (r = -0.219). Both P (r = 0.787) and RM group (r = 0.559) had a reasonably significant correlation coefficient between BIS and SEF95. SEF95 almost did not correlate with EMG in the RM group (r = 0.101).

Conclusion

Bispectral index can be interfered with high EMG intensity under remimazolam anesthesia. However, EMG can hardly affect the accuracy of BIS under propofol anesthesia due to low EMG intensity and a weak negative correlation between EMG and BIS. Moreover, SEF95 may have a great application prospect in predicting the sedation condition of remimazolam.

Application of topical pharyngeal anesthesia to reduce adverse reactions during painless gastroscopy: A prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Studies have reported that certain adverse reactions can occur during painless gastroscopy examination. Knowing how to decrease the risks and incidence of adverse reactions is of great importance.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia combined with intravenous anesthesia is superior to intravenous anesthesia alone in patients undergoing painless gastroscopy and to determine whether this combined approach had any additional benefits.

METHODS

Three hundred patients undergoing painless gastroscopy were randomly assigned to either the control group or the experimental group. In the control group, patients were anesthetized with propofol, while patients in the experimental group received propofol combined with 2% lidocaine spray for topical pharyngeal anesthesia. Hemodynamic parameters before and after the procedure, including the heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and pulse oxygen saturation (SPO2) were recorded. Any adverse reactions experienced by the patient, including choking and respiratory depression, and the total dosage of propofol required during each procedure were also documented.

RESULTS

Compared with pre-anesthetic data, the HR, MAP, and SPO2 were reduced after the completion of the painless gastroscopy procedure in both groups. However, the HR, MAP, and SPO2 measurements taken after the gastroscopy were significantly lower in the control group than those of the experimental group (P< 0.05); thus, the hemodynamic parameters of the experimental group were more stable. Compared with the control group, there was significant reduction in the total amount of propofol administered in the experimental group (P< 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions, including choking and respiratory depression, was significantly lower in the experimental group (P< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrated that the application of topical pharyngeal anesthesia in painless gastroscopy can significantly reduce the incidence of adverse reactions. Thus, the combination of topical pharyngeal and intravenous anesthesia is worthy of clinical application and promotion.

A 2-week intensive gastrointestinal endoscopy training program for pediatricians

BACKGROUND

In Japan there are limited opportunities for pediatricians to learn gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. This study investigated whether a short-term intensive training for 2 weeks in an adult GI setting enabled pediatricians to acquire basic technical competence for pediatric GI endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case series of pediatricians who underwent 2 weeks of intensive endoscopy training at an adult endoscopy unit in a community hospital. The numbers of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and ileocolonoscopy procedures each pediatrician performed were evaluated. All enrolled pediatricians were asked to answer questionnaires regarding the 2 week intensive GI endoscopy training program.

RESULTS

There were 17 enrolled pediatricians, of whom 13 were men; average age 32 years (range 27-54). The median (range) numbers of EGDs and ileocolonoscopies performed by each pediatrician during the 2-week training period were 102 (66-144) and 14 (1-48), respectively. Fifteen out of 17 pediatricians experienced more than 100 GI endoscopies during the 2 weeks. All pediatricians performed biopsies as part of some EGD procedures. All 17 pediatricians found this program satisfactory. All pediatricians became cable of performing pediatric EGD (i.e., for children ≤15 years) after this training program. Sixteen pediatricians have continued to perform pediatric GI endoscopy since this training program.

CONCLUSIONS

A short-term intensive training program for 2 weeks in an adult GI setting enabled pediatricians to acquire basic technical competence for pediatric endoscopic procedures.

Effect of visual distraction on pain in adults undergoing colonoscopy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pain is a contributing factor to the low compliance rate for performing a colonoscopy on screening for colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of visual distraction on adults undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library Database from their inception to February 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing visual distraction with non-visual distraction were considered for inclusion. The fixed-effects and random-effects models were used to pool the data from individual studies and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to determine the methodology quality.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included four studies (N = 301) for pain level and total procedure time, three studies (N = 181) for satisfaction score, three studies (N = 196) for anxiety level, and four studie (N = 402) for willingness to repeat the procedure. The pooled analysis shown that significantly lower pain levels (SMD, - 0.25; 95% CI - 0.47 to - 0.02; P = 0.03), higher satisfaction score with the procedure (SMD, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.93; P < 0.0001), and higher willingness to repeat the procedure (OR, 2.66; 95% CI 1.70 to 4.17; P < 0.0001) in the visual distraction group than those in the non-visual distraction group, with no significant differences in total procedure time (SMD,- 0.07; 95% CI - 0.30 to 0.15; P = 0.53) or anxiety level (SMD,- 0.27; 95% CI - 0.55 to 0.01; P = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Visual distraction improved the patient's pain, satisfaction, and willingness to repeat the procedure. Thus, visual stimulation is an effective way to reduce pain during colonoscopy and should be recommended.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Trial registration

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

Supplementary Information

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

Managing bleeding risk after cold snare polypectomy in patients receiving direct-acting oral anticoagulants

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The best strategy to manage direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients undergoing cold snare polypectomy remains unclear. This study compared the effect of continuing versus stopping DOACs only on the day of the procedure on bleeding after cold snare polypectomy.

METHODS

This prospective, observational, single-center cohort study enrolled consecutive patients receiving antithrombotic agents and undergoing cold snare polypectomy of colorectal polyps ≤10 mm in diameter. During period 1 (2017 and 2018) antithrombotic agents including DOACs were not discontinued (DOAC continued group). In period 2 (2019 and 2020) DOACs were withheld only on the day of the procedure (DOAC withheld group) and restarted the next day after the procedure. The primary outcome was delayed bleeding requiring endoscopic treatment occurring within 2 weeks after cold snare polypectomy. Secondary outcomes were immediate bleeding and the number of hemostatic clips used.

RESULTS

For the 2 groups, 204 (DOAC continued group; 34% women; mean age, 75 years) and 264 (DOAC withheld group; 36% women; mean age, 74 years) patients were enrolled. Clinical features were similar between the 2 groups. Delayed bleeding after cold snare polypectomy occurred in 4 of 47 patients (8.5%) in the DOAC continued group versus 0 of 66 (0%) in the DOAC withheld group (P < .001). Immediate postpolypectomy bleeding occurred in 12 of 47 patients (25.5%) in the DOAC continued group versus 4 of 66 (6.1%) in the DOAC withheld group (P < .008).

CONCLUSIONS

Cold snare polypectomy may be safely preformed if DOACs are withheld only on the day of the procedure. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02594813.).

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.

When to Discharge a Patient After Endoscopy: A Narrative Review

Video endoscopy is an important modality for the diagnosis and treatment of various gastrointestinal diseases. Most endoscopic procedures are performed as outpatient basis, sometimes requiring sedation and deeper levels of anesthesia. Moreover, advances in endoscopic techniques have allowed invasion into the third space and the performance of technically difficult procedures that require the utmost precision. Hence, formulating strategies for the discharge of patients requiring endoscopy is clinically and legally challenging. In this review, we have discussed the various criteria and scores for the discharge of patients who have undergone endoscopic procedures with and without anesthesia.

Short-term intensive gastrointestinal endoscopy training program

BACKGROUND

In Japan there are limited opportunities for pediatric gastrointestinal (GI) trainees to learn GI endoscopy. This study investigated whether a short-term intensive training for 3 months in an adult GI unit enabled pediatric GI trainees to acquire the required number of cases and the technical competence to perform pediatric GI endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case series of pediatric GI trainees who underwent 3 months of intensive endoscopy training, which also included direct observation and a questionnaire. The numbers of esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD), ileocolonoscopies, and snare polypectomies each trainee performed as well as cecal intubation rates were collected with the goal of meeting the standards of overseas educational guidelines. The trainees were also asked about continuing experience with pediatric endoscopic procedures after the intensive training.

RESULTS

There were 10 enrolled trainees, 9 men, average age, 34 (range, 29-41). The average number (range) of EGD and ileocolonoscopies that the 10 trainees had done before this training period was 52 (0-200) and 15 (0-20), respectively. The average number (range) of EGD, ileocolonoscopies and snare polypectomies per each trainee was 651.7 (485-814), 159.2 (130-195) and 25.8 (10-55), respectively, over 3 months: all trainees thus fulfilled all of the criteria of the minimal training requirements. All trainees also reached the required threshold in the cecal intubation rate (>90%). In addition, all trainees were able to perform pediatric endoscopic procedures alone after the intensive training period.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term intensive training for 3 months in an adult GI setting enabled pediatric GI trainees to acquire technical competence for pediatric endoscopic procedures.

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.

Discharging select patients without an escort after ambulatory anesthesia: identifying return to baseline function

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current standard of care requires ambulatory surgical patients to have an escort for discharge. Recent studies have started to challenge this dogma. Modern ultrashort acting anesthetics have minimal psychomotor effects after a couple of hours. Driving simulator performance and psychomotor testing return to baseline as soon as 1 h following propofol sedation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two recent reports of actual experience with thousands of patients found no increase in complications in patients who were discharged without escort or drove themselves from a sedation center. These studies suggest discharge without escort may be safe in select patients but a method to identify appropriate patients remains undefined.

SUMMARY

A reliable test to document return of function might allow safe discharge without an escort. Currently, there is intense interest in developing reliable, inexpensive, easy to administer psychomotor function testing to improve workplace safety and legally define the effects of drugs on driving impairment. Future studies may be able to adapt this technology and develop a validated test for residual anesthetic impairment.

Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Relevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

Seven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.95-7.88, I2 = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = -2.72-8.19, I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25-1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46-2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11-0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38-6.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Pedunculated colorectal polyps with heads ≤ 1 cm in diameter can be resected using cold snare polypectomy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is not recommended for the resection of pedunculated colorectal polyp. The aim of this study was to examine the adequacy of CSP compared to hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for the complete resection of pedunculated polyps with heads ≤ 1 cm in diameter.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of a cohort of consecutive outpatients who had resection of pedunculated polyps with heads 6-10 mm in diameter using either dedicated CSP or HSP from 2014 through 2019. The primary outcome measure was occurrence of delayed bleeding. Secondary outcome measures included total procedure time, en bloc resection rate, immediate bleeding, and number of clips used.

RESULTS

415 patients with 444 eligible polyps were enrolled; the CSP group (363 patients; 386 polyps) and HSP group (52 patients; 58 polyps). Patient characteristics, polyp characteristics and en bloc resection rate were similar between groups. The mean total procedure time and mean number (range) of hemostatic clips/ patient used were significantly lower with CSP than with HSP (18± 8 min vs. 25± 9 min, P<0.001; 1.1 ± 0.6 (1-3) vs.3.1 ± 1.6 (1-5), respectively, P<0.001). Delayed bleeding occurred significantly less frequently in the CSP, 0% (0/363 vs.3.8% (2/52) in the HSP group (P<0.001), although immediate bleeding was significantly higher in CSP than HSP (84% (325/386) vs. 12% (7/58), P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Pedunculated colorectal polyps with heads ≤ 1 cm can be removed using CSP, which has several advantages over HSP.

Safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered balanced propofol sedation in patients with severe systemic disease (ASA class III)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) has been demonstrated in low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] class I and II). There are limited data regarding the safety of EDNAPS for endoscopic procedures in ASA class III patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of EDNAPS for routine outpatient endoscopy in this population.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all outpatient EGDs and colonoscopies performed with EDNAPS at the University of Utah from January 2015 to November 2018. Exclusion criteria were inpatient procedures, combined procedures, ASA IV or higher, use of continuous or bilevel positive airway pressure at the start of the procedure, or procedures performed by a nongastroenterologist. Major adverse events were defined as intubation or death. Minor adverse events were defined as hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, or need for airway interventions. Patients were stratified by procedure type and ASA I/II status and were compared with patients with ASA III status and matched according to age, gender, and the involvement of a fellow in a 3 to 1 fashion.

RESULTS

The final sample size was 18,910 colonoscopy procedures (17,205 patients) and 9178 EGD procedures (6827 patients). In both colonoscopy and EGD procedures, there were no major adverse events such as intubation, need for resuscitation, or death. The rates of any airway intervention, jaw thrust, oral nasal airway, or use of positive pressure ventilation were low in both procedure types and not different between ASA I/II and ASA III patients.

CONCLUSION

EDNAPS is safe in both ASA I/II and ASA class III patients undergoing routine outpatient endoscopy.

Linked colour imaging versus white-light colonoscopy for the detection of flat colorectal lesions: A randomized controlled trial

AIM

Linked colour imaging is an image-enhanced endoscopy system that emphasizes the red portion of the mucosa's colour. Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of linked colour imaging with white-light colonoscopy for the detection of flat-type colorectal polyps.

METHOD

This was a single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Enrolled patients were those aged ≥50 years undergoing cap-assisted colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio for observation using linked colour imaging or white-light colonoscopy. All colorectal polyps detected were removed or biopsied. The primary outcome was the number of flat-type polyps per patient in patients in whom flat polyps were detected. Secondary outcomes included adenoma and polyp detection rates.

RESULTS

There were 302 subjects randomized: 152 to linked colour imaging and 150 to white-light colonoscopy. There were no differences in the clinical features between the two arms. The number of flat polyps detected per patient using linked colour imaging was approximately twice that with white light (2.9 ± 3.0 vs 1.2 ± 1.6, p = 0.045). Linked colour imaging also proved superior to white-light colonoscopy in terms of adenoma and polyp detection rates [adenomas 66% (101/152) vs 49% (73/150), p = 0.0024; polyps 69% (105/152) vs 55% (82/150), p = 0.013]. The ratio of polyps detected in the right colon compared with those detected in the left colon was significantly greater using linked colour than white-light imaging (168/64 vs 93/84; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with white-light colonoscopy, linked colour imaging improved adenoma and polyp detection rates, including detection of flat-type colorectal polyps.

Risk of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedure-Related Bleeding in Patients With or Without Continued Antithrombotic Therapy

BACKGROUND

Prospective studies on bleeding risk during/after gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are rare.

AIM

We investigated the risk of endoscopic procedure-related bleeding in patients with biopsy and/or cold snare polypectomy (CSP) in relation to antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS

This prospective, observational single-center cohort study (NCT02594813) enrolled consecutive patients who underwent diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or colonoscopy. The primary outcome measure was delayed bleeding in patients with biopsy and/or CSP who required endoscopic treatment within 2 weeks post-procedure. The secondary outcomes were immediate bleeding and the number of hemostatic clips used during the procedure.

RESULTS

From November 2015 to October 2018 at our institution, 3069 (mean age, 66 years) and 37,887 (57 years) patients underwent EGD with and without antithrombotic therapy, respectively. In addition, 1116 (72 years) and 11,901 (65 years) patients had colonoscopy with and without antithrombotic therapy, respectively. In the 3069 EGD patients receiving antithrombotic therapy, no delayed bleeding occurred, whereas immediate bleeding occurred in 9 of 141 patients (6.4%) with biopsy. Of the 1116 colonoscopy patients receiving antithrombotic therapy, delayed bleeding occurred in three of 228 (1.3%) following CSP. Immediate bleeding occurred in nine of 225 (4%) following biopsy and in 32 of 228 (14%) following CSP. Multivariate analysis following univariate analysis identified chronic kidney disease and CSP as factors significantly associated with procedure-related bleeding in patients taking antithrombotic agents.

CONCLUSION

The risk of delayed bleeding in diagnostic EGD with biopsy or in colonoscopy with biopsy and/or CSP was low despite continuation of antithrombotic therapy.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation: A New Paradigm for Gastrointestinal Procedural Sedation

INTRODUCTION

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation (NAPCIS) is a new nonanesthesia propofol delivery method for gastrointestinal endoscopy. NAPCIS is adopted from the computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) protocol. We evaluated the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of NAPCIS in low-risk subjects.

METHODS

Between December 2016 and July 2017, patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at our center were compared against 2 historical control groups of similar patients who had undergone procedures with CAPS or midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation.

RESULTS

The mean age of the NAPCIS cohort (N = 3,331) was 55.2 years (45.8% male) for 945 esophagogastroduodenoscopies and 57.8 years (48.7% male) for 2,386 colonoscopies. The procedural success rates with NAPCIS were high (99.1%-99.2%) and similar to those seen in 3,603 CAPS (98.8%-99.0%) and 3,809 MF (99.0%-99.3%) controls. NAPCIS recovery times were shorter than both CAPS and MF (24.8 vs 31.7 and 52.4 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). On arrival at the recovery unit, 86.6% of NAPCIS subjects were recorded as "Awake" compared with 82.8% of CAPS and 40.8% of MF controls (P < 0.001). Validated clinician and patient satisfaction scores were generally higher for NAPCIS compared with CAPS and MF subjects. For NAPCIS, there were only 4 cases of oxygen desaturation requiring transient mask ventilation and no serious sedation-related complications. These low complication rates were similar to those seen with CAPS (8 cases of mask ventilation) and MF (3 cases).

DISCUSSION

NAPCIS seems to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy in low-risk patients.

National survey on sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in 2758 Chinese hospitals

BACKGROUND

Although sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is widely used in China, the characteristics of sedation use, including regional distribution, personnel composition, equipment used, and drug selection, remain unclear. The present study aimed to provide insights into the current practice and regional distribution of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in China.

METHODS

A questionnaire consisting of 19 items was distributed to directors of anaesthesiology departments and anaesthesiologists in charge of endoscopic sedation units in mainland China through WeChat.

RESULTS

The results from 2758 participating hospitals (36.7% of the total) showed that 9 808 182 gastroscopies (69.3%) and 4 353 950 colonoscopies (30.7%), with a gastroscopy-to-colonoscopy ratio of 2.3, were conducted from January to December 2016. Sedation was used with 4 696 648 gastroscopies (47.9%) and 2 148 316 colonoscopies (49.3%), for a ratio of 2.2. The most commonly used sedative was propofol (61.0% for gastroscopies and 60.4% for colonoscopies). Haemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO₂) was monitored in most patients (96.1%). Supplemental oxygen was routinely administered, but the availability of other equipment was variable (anaesthesia machine in 64.9%, physiological monitor in 84.4%, suction device in 72.3%, airway equipment in 75.5%, defibrillator in 32.7%, emergency kit in 57.0%, and difficult airway kit in 20.8% of centres responding).

CONCLUSIONS

The sedation rate for gastrointestinal endoscopy is much lower in China than in the USA and in Europe. The most commonly used combination of sedatives was propofol plus an opioid (either fentanyl or sufentanil). Emergency support devices, such as difficult airway devices and defibrillators, were not usually available.

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.

Propofol compared with bolus and titrated midazolam for sedation in outpatient colonoscopy: a prospective randomized double-blind study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The safest and most efficient method of sedation for outpatient colonoscopy remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficiency and safety of bolus administration of midazolam compared with titrated administration and propofol administration for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy.

METHODS

We randomly divided patients undergoing colonoscopy into the propofol group, bolus midazolam group, and titrated midazolam group. We compared total procedure time, induction time, recovery time, and discharge time among the 3 groups. We also compared patient satisfaction and the incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

In total, 267 patients (89 in each study group) were enrolled during the study period. Patients in the propofol group had a shorter total procedure time (39.5 vs 59.4 vs 58.1 minutes; P < .001), induction time (4.6 vs 6.3 vs 7.6 minutes; P < .001), recovery time (11.5 vs 29.5 vs 29.2 minutes; P < .001), and discharge time (20.6 vs 34.9 vs 34.7 minutes; P < .001) than patients in the bolus midazolam group and titrated midazolam group. Patients in the propofol group reported higher degrees of satisfaction than patients in the bolus or titrated midazolam plus meperidine groups (9.9 vs 9.6 vs 9.6 [P = .007] and 4.9 vs 4.7 vs 4.8 [P = .008], respectively). Adverse events were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized trial, propofol was superior to bolus or titrated midazolam in terms of endoscopy unit efficiency and patient satisfaction during outpatient colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0002805.).

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.

Neurologic Safety of Etomidate-Based Sedation during Upper Endoscopy in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis Compared with Propofol: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

(1) Background: Although etomidate-based sedation is an effective and safe protocol in endoscopic procedures, there is a lack of evidence regarding the safety of etomidate in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC). This study aimed to compare the neurologic safety and efficacy of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation in patients with LC. (2) Methods: From December 2017 to December 2019, consecutive cirrhotic patients who underwent sedative endoscopy using either etomidate or propofol were randomly recruited. The primary endpoint was the number connection test (NCT), and the secondary endpoints included factors for the safety of sedatives during endoscopy. (3) Results: 63 patients were enrolled in each of the etomidate and propofol groups. The NCT times were significantly lower in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. Furthermore, severe or very severe degree of encephalopathy was higher in the propofol group but was not significantly different. Pharmacological properties and the overall incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between the groups. (4) Conclusion: Etomidate-based sedation exacerbates neither subclinical nor overt hepatic encephalopathy. It guarantees efficacies similar to those of propofol regarding rapid sedation, fast recovery, and early discharge, with no increased risk of adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events in patients with LC.

Feasibility of sedation on demand in Taiwan using water exchange and air insufflation: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Completion of colonoscopy without sedation eliminates sedation cost and complications. Reported in the United States and Europe, on-demand sedation is not routine practice in Taiwan. Water exchange (WE), characterized by infusion and nearly complete removal of infused water during insertion, reduces insertion pain compared to air insufflation (AI) during colonoscopy. We evaluated the feasibility of on-demand sedation in Taiwan. In a randomized controlled trial of WE vs AI colonoscopy, we also aimed to determine if WE augmented the implementation by reducing insertion pain and decreasing sedation requirement.

METHODS

This prospective patient-blinded study randomized patients to AI or WE (75 patients/group) to aid insertion. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients completing without sedation.

RESULTS

In the AI and WE groups, 76.0% and 93.3% (P = 0.006) completed without need for sedation, respectively. The WE group had lower insertion pain score (mean [SD]) (4.0 [2.9] vs 2.1 [2.6], P < 0.001), lower doses of propofol (25.7 [52.7] mg vs 9.1 [35.6] mg, P = 0.012), and less time in the recovery room (3.4 [7.4] vs 1.5 [5.5], P = 0.027) than the AI group. Patient satisfaction scores and willingness to repeat if needed in the future were similar.

CONCLUSION

On-demand sedation was feasible in Taiwan. The completion rate without sedation was high in patients (76.0% with standard AI) open to the option (no prior intent to receive the standard of full or minimal sedation). WE augmented the implementation by reducing insertion pain and decreasing sedation requirement without adversely affecting patient satisfaction or willingness to repeat.

Computer-Assisted Propofol Sedation for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Is Effective, Efficient, and Safe

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) allows non-anesthesiologists to administer propofol for gastrointestinal procedures in relatively healthy patients. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use, we report our 1-year experience with CAPS for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

METHODS

Between September 2014 and August 2015, 926 outpatients underwent elective EGDs with CAPS at our center. All EGDs were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of CAPS. Procedural success rates, procedure times, and recovery times were compared against corresponding historical controls done with midazolam and fentanyl sedation from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in CAPS patients were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 56.7 years (45% male); 16.2% of the EGDs were for variceal screening or Barrett's surveillance and 83.8% for symptoms. The procedural success rates were similar to that of historical controls (99.0% vs. 99.3%; p = 0.532); procedure times were also similar (6.6 vs. 7.4 min; p = 0.280), but recovery time was markedly shorter (31.7 vs. 52.4 min; p < 0.001). There were 11 (1.2%) cases of mild transient oxygen desaturation (< 90%), 15 (1.6%) cases of marked agitation due to undersedation, and 1 case of asymptomatic hypotension. In addition, there were six (0.6%) patients with more pronounced desaturation episodes that required brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no other serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

CAPS appears to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing sedation for EGD in healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical controls.