A randomized controlled trial of endoscopist vs. anaesthetist-administered sedation for colonoscopy

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.

Pain Intensity at Injection Site during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Using Long- and Medium-Chain versus Long-Chain Triglyceride Propofol: A Randomized Controlled Double-Blind Study

Background/Aims

The intensities of injection pain resulting from the use of long- and medium-chain triglyceride (LCT/MCT) propofol and conventional LCT propofol during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) have yet to be compared. We aimed to determine the pain intensity caused by different formulations of propofol and to evaluate the formulation that would be preferred by patients as a sedative agent during their next procedure.

Methods

This study was a single-center, randomized, controlled, and double-blind trial. Pain intensity was estimated 30 seconds after propofol injection by an examiner who was blinded to the group assignment using a numeric (0-10) pain rating scale (NPRS). After 1 week, the patients were asked whether they could recall the pain and were willing to receive the same agent for their next EGD.

Results

One hundred twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to LCT/MCT or LCT group. Although there was no significant difference in pain incidence between the LCT/MCT and LCT groups (52.9% vs 65.6%, p=0.156), the pain intensity was significantly lower in the LCT/MCT group (NPRS median [interquartile range]; 1 (0-2) vs 2 (0-5), p=0.005). After 1 week, fewer patients in the LCT/MCT group recalled the pain (19.1% vs 63.9%, p<0.001) and more patients in the LCT/MCT group were more willing to use the same agent for their next procedure (86.8% vs 72.1%, p=0.048) than in the LCT group.

Conclusions

LCT/MCT propofol significantly reduced injection pain intensity compared to LCT propofol during EGD and preferred by patients as a sedative agent during their next EGD.

Autonomous Nervous Response During Sedation in Colonoscopy and the Relationship With Clinician Satisfaction

Background: Nurse assisted propofol sedation (NAPS) is a common method used for colonoscopies. It is safe and widely accepted by patients. Little is known, however, about the satisfaction of clinicians performing colonoscopies with NAPS and the factors that negatively influence this perception such as observer-reported pain events. In this study, we aimed to correlate observer-reported pain events with the clinicians' satisfaction with the procedure. Additionally, we aimed to identify patient biosignals from the autonomic nervous system (B-ANS) during an endoscopy that correlate with those pain events. Methods: Consecutive patients scheduled for a colonoscopy with NAPS were prospectively recruited. During the procedure, observer-reported pain events, which included movements and paralinguistic sounds, were simultaneously recorded with different B-ANS (facial electromyogram (EMG), skin conductance level, body temperature and electrocardiogram). After the procedure, the examiners filled out the Clinician Satisfaction with Sedation Instrument (CSSI). The primary endpoint was the correlation between CSSI and observer-reported pain events. The second primary endpoint was the identification of B-ANS that make it possible to predict those events. Secondary endpoints included the correlation between CSSI and sedation depth, the frequency and dose of sedative use, polyps resected, resection time, the duration of the procedure, the time it took to reach the coecum and the experience of the nurse performing the NAPS. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03860779. Results: 112 patients with 98 (88.5%) available B-ANS recordings were prospectively recruited. There was a significant correlation between an increased number of observer-reported pain events during an endoscopy with NAPS and a lower CSSI (r = -0.318, p = 0.001). Additionally, the EMG-signal from facial muscles correlated best with the event time points, and the signal significantly exceeded the baseline 30 s prior to the occurrence of paralinguistic sounds. The secondary endpoints showed that the propofol dose relative to the procedure time, the cecal intubation time, the time spent on polyp removal and the individual nurse performing the NAPS significantly correlated with CSSI. Conclusion: This study shows that movements and paralinguistic sounds during an endoscopy negatively correlate with the satisfaction of the examiner measured with the CSSI. Additionally, an EMG of the facial muscles makes it possible to identify such events and potentially predict their occurrence.

Identifying who best tolerates moderate sedation: Results from a national database of gastrointestinal endoscopic outcomes

BACKGROUND

With increasing volume and cost of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, the proper selection of patients for moderate sedation becomes increasingly relevant. The current literature lacks consistent findings that allow for appropriate selection of patients for moderate sedation.

AIM

To analyze a nationwide registry of patients to identify patient and procedural factors associated with lower sedation requirements for endoscopy.

METHODS

The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative National Endoscopic Database was queried to assess adult patients undergoing moderate sedation for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy from 2008 to 2014. Patients were stratified into two groups [low dose (LD) and high dose sedation] based on sedation requirements. Anthropometric, procedural, and anesthesia data were compared, and multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with LD sedation.

RESULTS

Of the 371102 patients included in the study, 63137 where stratified into the LD sedation group and 307965 were in the high dose group. Moderate sedation was managed primarily by endoscopists (50%) and anesthesia providers (47%). Patients undergoing EGDs and procedures performed in the inpatient setting, in ambulatory surgery centers, intensive care units or hospital wards, required less sedation than colonoscopies, outpatient procedures and procedures done in endoscopy suites, respectively (P < 0.0001 for all). On multivariable analysis, factors predictive of tolerance with lower sedation requirements for EGDs and colonoscopies were female gender, age ≥ 50, non-White race, Hispanic descent, body mass index ≤ 25 kg/m², and higher American Society of Anesthesia Class (P < 0.0001 for all).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians should consider these patient profiles in determining which patients will better tolerate moderate sedation vs those better suited for alternative sedation methods.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: An opinion review

Although endoscopy is a less invasive procedure than surgery, patients can experience pain without sedation. Patients expect reduced pain during endoscopies from effective and safe sedatives. Midazolam and propofol are used for endoscopic sedation in many countries and regions. Midazolam is a widely available benzodiazepine, and many clinical trials have shown it to be an effective sedative. However, patients who are sedated with midazolam require rest in the recovery room due to its relatively long half-life, and an antagonist such as flumazenil may need to be administered in cases of deep or prolonged sedation. Propofol is a short-acting sedative with a short half-life and a quick recovery time. Therefore, the use of propofol has been increasing. However, propofol has a narrow margin of safety and often induces adverse effects such as respiratory depression. Also, propofol has no specific antagonist, and should be administered by an anesthesiologist or an endoscopist familiar with anesthesia. Remimazolam, which is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, has recently gained attention. Remimazolam has a short half-life and an antagonist. Both effective and safe sedation is desired in accordance with the increasing need for sedative endoscopies. Therefore, in this review each sedative is summarized.

Propofol administration by endoscopists versus anesthesiologists in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient safety outcomes

BACKGROUND

With a growing demand for endoscopic services, the role of anesthesiologists in endoscopy units must be reassessed. The aim of this study was to compare patient outcomes in non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) versus anesthesiologist-administered propofol (AAP) during routine endoscopy.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL and the grey literature for studies comparing NAAP and AAP. Primary outcomes included endoscopy- and sedation-related complications. Secondary outcomes included measures of endoscopy quality and of patient and endoscopist satisfaction. We reported treatment effects using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Of 602 articles identified, 5 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies included only patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of I or II. Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol did not result in increased rates of airway intervention (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29 to 3.95; 3443 patients) or hypotension (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.41; 17 978 patients) but did result in higher rates of bradycardia (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.65 to 8.17; 17 978 patients). Nonanesthesiologists administered lower propofol dosages than anesthesiologists (mean difference -61.79, 95% CI -114.46 to -9.12; 3443 patients), and their patients more commonly experienced awareness with recall (OR 19.99, 95% CI 7.88 to 50.76; 2090 patients). However, NAAP neither compromised patient willingness to repeat the procedure (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.83; 2367 patients) nor lengthened total procedure time (mean difference -0.08, 95% CI -3.51 to 3.34; 2367 patients).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopists may safely administer propofol without compromising procedural quality in patients classified as ASA I or II undergoing routine endoscopy. The results of this meta-analysis are limited by a lack of available high-quality studies. Further, large-scale studies are needed for definitive conclusions.

Effectiveness and safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy during a specific sedation training program for non-anesthesiologists

INTRODUCTION

sedation is a key component for the improvement of sedation quality. A correct administration requires appropriate training. We performed a study to compare sedation effectiveness, safety and patient satisfaction when administered by gastroenterologists, with and without specific training.

METHODS

a training program enrolled a group of gastroenterologists (trained group, n = 4) and their results were compared to those from a non-trained group (n = 3). ASA 1-3 patients who had undergone sedation by a gastroenterologist using midazolam and fentanyl were included over a period of 30 months. Safety was assessed in terms of the complication rate, effectiveness was assessed via the rate of completed endoscopic procedures and patient satisfaction was evaluated via a phone interview the day after the procedure.

RESULTS

a total of 3,475 patients were sedated by gastroenterologists during the study period. Significant differences were found that favored the trained group for completed procedures (5.6% vs 8.9%). A lower rate of excessive sedation (1.3% vs 8.61%), hypoxemia (0.72% vs 2.49%) and post-procedural pain (1.8% vs 4.3%) were also achieved. Patient satisfaction surpassed 99.5% and there were no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

our sedation training program improved the effectiveness and safety outcomes when compared to sedation administered by gastroenterologists without this specific training.

Safety of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in a group of university-affiliated hospitals: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Service models for gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation must be safe, as endoscopy is the most common procedure performed under sedation in many countries. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to determine the patient risk profile, and incidence of and risk factors for significant unplanned events, in adult patients presenting for gastrointestinal endoscopy in a group of university-affiliated hospitals where most sedation is managed by anaesthetists.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 yr presenting for elective and emergency gastrointestinal endoscopy under anaesthetist-managed sedation at nine hospitals affiliated with the University of Melbourne, Australia, were included. Outcomes included significant airway obstruction, hypoxia, hypotension and bradycardia; unplanned tracheal intubation; abandoned procedure; advanced life support; prolonged post-procedure stay; unplanned over-night admission and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

2,132 patients were included. Fifty percent of patients were aged >60 yr, 50% had a BMI >27 kg m ^-2, 42% were ASA physical status III-V and 17% were emergency patients. The incidence of significant unplanned events was 23.0% (including significant hypotension 11.8%). Significant unplanned intraoperative events were associated with increasing age, BMI <18.5 kg m ^-2, ASA physical status III-V, colonoscopy and planned tracheal intubation. Thirty-day mortality was 1.2% (0.2% in electives and 6.0% in emergencies) and was associated with ASA physical status IV-V and emergency status.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting for gastrointestinal endoscopy at a group of public university-affiliated hospitals where most sedation is managed by anaesthetists, had a high risk profile and a substantial incidence of significant unplanned intraoperative events and 30-day mortality.

Propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continues to be widely used, but propofol sedation is becoming more popular because its unique pharmacokinetic properties make endoscopy almost painless, with a very predictable and rapid recovery process. There is controversy as to whether propofol should be administered only by anesthesia professionals. According to published values, endoscopist-directed propofol has a lower mortality rate than endoscopist-delivered benzodiazepines and opioids, and a comparable rate to general anesthesia by anesthesiologists. Rapid recovery has a major impact on patient satisfaction, post-procedure education and the general flow of the endoscopy unit. According to estimates, the absolute economic benefit of endoscopist-directed propofol implementation in a screening setting is probably substantial, with 10-year savings of $3.2 billion in the USA. Guidelines concerning the use of propofol emphasize the need for adequate training and certification in sedation by non-anesthetists.

Do we really need an anesthesiologist for routine colonoscopy in American Society of Anesthesiologist 1 and 2 patients?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In an era where healthcare costs are being heavily scrutinized, every expenditure is reviewed for medical necessity. Multiple national gastroenterology societies have issued statements regarding whether an anesthesiologist is necessary for routine colonoscopies in American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) 1 and 2 patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

A large percentage of patients are undergoing screening colonoscopy without any sedation at all, which would not require an independent practitioner to administer medications. Advances in technique and technology are making colonoscopies less stimulating. Advantages to administering sedation, including propofol, have been seen even when not administered under the direction of an anesthesiologist and complications seem to be rare. The additional cost of having monitored anesthesia care appears to be a driving factor in whether a patient receives it or not.

SUMMARY

A large multiinstitutional randomized control trial would be necessary to rule out potential confounders and to determine whether there is a safety benefit or detriment to having anesthesiologist-directed care in the setting of routine colonoscopies in ASA 1 and 2 patients. Further discussion would be necessary regarding what the monetary value of that effect is if a small difference were to be detected.

Nonoperating room anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To assess the trends in nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) for gastrointestinal endoscopy over the past few years, and to describe alternative methods of delivering propofol sedation in selected low-risk patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of NORA for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has been rising steadily over the past decade in the United States, considerably increasing healthcare costs. Because of this, there have been attempts to develop nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation methods in low-risk patients. There is controversy as to whether properly trained nonanesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation SUMMARY: The deployment of nonanesthesia-administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall healthcare costs without sacrificing sedation quality. We also address the realm of anesthesia provider care for advanced endoscopic procedures including setup for administration of anesthesia, decision-making regarding placement of an endotracheal tube, and the potential need to move a challenging case to the operating room.

Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction

Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used, but propofol sedation is becoming more popular because its unique pharmacokinetic properties make endoscopy almost painless, with a very predictable and rapid recovery process. There is controversy as to whether propofol should be administered only by anesthesia professionals (monitored anesthesia care) or whether properly trained non-anesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation. The deployment of non-anesthesia administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall health care costs without sacrificing sedation quality. This review will discuss efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction issues with various modes of sedation for non-advanced, non-emergent endoscopic procedures, mainly esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy.

[Safety of Non-anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) is a hypnotic drug with a very rapid onset and offset of action. It has increasingly been used in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Administration of propofol by nurses or endoscopists is commonly referred to as non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP). There have been a lot of studies on the safety of NAAP compared with those by anesthesiologists. Safety results of those studies are summarized in this review.

Anesthesia Service Use During Outpatient Gastroenterology Procedures Continued to Increase From 2010 to 2013 and Potentially Discretionary Spending Remained High

OBJECTIVES

Previous studies have identified an increasing number of gastroenterology (GI) procedures using anesthesia services to provide sedation, with a majority of these services delivered to low-risk patients. The aim of this study was to update these trends with the most recent years of data.

METHODS

We used Medicare and commercial claims data from 2010 to 2013 to identify GI procedures and anesthesia services based on CPT codes, which were linked together using patient identifiers and dates of service. We defined low-risk patients as those who were classified as ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status class I or II. For those patients without an ASA class listed on the claim, we used a prediction algorithm to impute an ASA physical status.

RESULTS

Over 6.6 million patients in our sample had a GI procedure between 2010 and 2013. GI procedures involving anesthesia service accounted for 33.7% in 2010 and 47.6% in 2013 in Medicare patients, and 38.3% in 2010 and 53.0% in 2013 in commercially insured patients. Overall, as more patients used anesthesia services, total anesthesia service use in low-risk patients increased 14%, from 27,191 to 33,181 per million Medicare enrollees. Similarly, we observed a nearly identical uptick in commercially insured patients from 15,871 to 22,247 per million, an increase of almost 15%. During 2010-2013, spending associated with anesthesia services in low-risk patients increased from US$3.14 million to US$3.45 million per million Medicare enrollees and from US$7.69 million to US$10.66 million per million commercially insured patients.

CONCLUSIONS

During 2010 to 2013, anesthesia service use in GI procedures continued to increase and the proportion of these services rendered for low-risk patients remained high.

Safety of non-anesthesia provider administered propofol sedation in non-advanced gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAPP) administered propofol sedation in patients undergoing non-advanced gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving non-advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 608 publications, 25 [colonoscopy (9), upper GI endoscopy (5), and combined procedures (11)] were identified to meet inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Data was analyzed for hypoxia rates, airway intervention rates, and airway complication rates.

RESULTS

A total of 137,087 patients were involved. A total of 2931 hypoxia episodes (defined as an oxygen saturation below 90%) were reported with a pooled hypoxia rate of 0.014 (95% CI being 0.008-0.023). Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates and pooled airway complication rates were 0.002 (95% CI being 0.006-0.001) and 0.001 (95% CI being 0.000-0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of adverse events in patients undergoing non-advanced GI endoscopic procedures with NAPP sedation are extremely small. Similar data for anesthesia providers is not available. It is prudent for anesthesia providers to demonstrate their superiority in prospective randomized controlled trials, if they like to retain exclusive ownership over propofol sedation in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

Computer-Assisted and Patient-Controlled Sedation Platforms

As the number and complexity of endoscopic procedures increase, the role of sedation has been integral in patient and physician satisfaction. This article discusses the advances of computer-assisted and patient-controlled platforms. These computer-assisted and patient-controlled platforms use different anesthetics and analgesics, all with the intent of achieving improved consistency in the level of sedation, appropriate to the needs of patients, while also improving patient safety. These systems have been around for decades; however, few are approved for use in the United States, and several still require further study before broad clinical application.

Brain measures of nociception using near-infrared spectroscopy in patients undergoing routine screening colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is an invaluable tool for the screening and diagnosis of many colonic diseases. For most colonoscopies, moderate sedation is used during the procedure. However, insufflation of the colon produces a nociceptive stimulus that is usually accompanied by facial grimacing/groaning while under sedation. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a nociceptive signal elicited by colonic insufflation could be measured from the brain. Seventeen otherwise healthy patients (age 54.8 ± 9.1; 6 female) undergoing routine colonoscopy (ie, no history of significant medical conditions) were monitored using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). Moderate sedation was produced using standard clinical protocols for midazolam and meperidine, titrated to effect. Near-infrared spectroscopy data captured during the procedure was analyzed offline to evaluate the brains' responses to nociceptive stimuli evoked by the insufflation events (defined by physician or observing patients' facial responses). Analysis of NIRS data revealed a specific, reproducible prefrontal cortex activity corresponding to times when patients grimaced. The pattern of the activation is similar to that previously observed during nociceptive stimuli in awake healthy individuals, suggesting that this approach may be used to evaluate brain activity evoked by nociceptive stimuli under sedation, when there is incomplete analgesia. Although some patients report recollection of procedural pain after the procedure, the effects of repeated nociceptive stimuli in surgical patients may contribute to postoperative changes including chronic pain. The results from this study indicate that NIRS may be a suitable technology for continuous nociceptive afferent monitoring in patients undergoing sedation and could have applications under sedation or anesthesia.

Effects of bispectral index monitoring as an adjunct to nurse-administered propofol combined sedation during colonoscopy: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The efficacy of bispectral index (BIS) monitoring during colonoscopic sedation is debated. We aimed to determine whether BIS monitoring was useful for propofol dose titration, and to evaluate differences in sedative administration between expert and inexperienced medical personnel during colonoscopy procedures that required moderate sedation.

METHODS

Between February 2012 and August 2013, 280 consecutive patients scheduled to undergo a screening colonoscopy participated in this study and were randomly allocated to the expert or inexperienced endoscopist group. Each group was further divided into either a BIS or a modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (MOAA/S) subgroup. Trained nurses administered combined propofol sedation and monitored sedation using either the BIS or MOAA/S scale.

RESULTS

The mean BIS value throughout the procedure was 74.3 ± 6.7 for all 141 patients in the BIS group. The mean total propofol dose administered in the BIS group was higher than that in the MOAA/S group, independently of the endoscopists' experience level (36.9 ± 29.6 and 11.3 ± 20.7, respectively; p < 0.001). The total dose of propofol administered was not significantly different between the inexperienced endoscopist group and the expert endoscopist group, both with and without the use of BIS (p = 0.430 and p = 0.640, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with monitoring using the MOAA/S score alone, BIS monitoring was not effective for titrating the dose of propofol during colonoscopy, irrespective of colonoscopist experience.

Factors influencing challenging colonoscopies during anesthesiologist-assisted deep sedation

BACKGROUND/AIM

Increased demand for colon cancer screening procedures can significantly impact on routine colonoscopy management at dedicated facilities, prompting a review of the factors that can negatively affect workflow. Although potential adverse effects and impact on costs of deep sedation have been documented elsewhere, this study focuses on variables that can influence performance of colonoscopy in deep sedation and interfere with normal procedure scheduling in settings where the presence of an anesthesiologist is mandatory.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of the activities of a colonoscopy screening unit, applying Bayesian Network (BN) analysis, designed to assess interdependencies among variables that can affect a process in complex, multidimensional systems. The study was performed at a teaching hospital where endoscopists and anesthesiologists of varying work experience operate on a rota basis. During a six-month period, we analyzed 1485 consecutive colonoscopies performed under deep propofol sedation, administered by an anesthesiologist via hand-controlled syringe. The BN was constructed with the variables: Gender, age, ASA status, bowel preparation, baseline blood pressure, endoscopist's experience, anesthesiologist's experience, presence of polypectomy, and the target node, "challenging procedure." This previously undefined category refers to any events disrupting the scheduled rota.

RESULT AND CONCLUSION

Two distinct networks were identified. One deals mainly with relationships among the variables, patients' demographic and clinical characteristics (procedures with polypectomy, ASA and baseline blood pressure). The other explains relationships among the variables, "challenging procedure," bowel preparation, and endoscopist's experience. The factors associated with the anesthesiologist's activity do not influence challenging colonoscopies.

Safety of Non-anesthesia Provider-Administered Propofol (NAAP) Sedation in Advanced Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures: Comparative Meta-Analysis of Pooled Results

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAAP)-administered propofol sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures with those of anesthesia provider (AAP).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 519 publications, 26 were identified to meet inclusion criteria (10 AAPs and 16 NAAPs) and were analyzed. Data were analyzed for hypoxia rate, airway intervention rates, endoscopist, and patient satisfaction scores and total propofol administered.

RESULTS

Total number of procedures in NAAP and AAP groups was 3018 and 2374, respectively. Pooled hypoxia (oxygen saturation less than 90 %) rates were 0.133 (95 % CI 0.117-0.152) and 0.143 (95 % CI 0.128-0.159) in NAAP and AAP, respectively. Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates were 0.035 (95 % CI 0.026-0.047) and 0.133 (95 % CI 0.118-0.150), respectively. Pooled patient satisfaction rate, pooled endoscopist satisfaction rate, and mean propofol administered dose for NAAP were 7.22 (95 % CI 7.17-7.27), 6.03 (95 % CI 5.94-6.11), and 251.44 mg (95 % CI 244.39-258.49) in that order compared with 9.82 (95 % CI 9.76-9.88), 9.06 (95 % CI 8.91-9.21), and 340.32 mg (95 % CI 327.30-353.33) for AAP.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety of NAAP sedation compared favorably with AAP sedation in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures. However, it came at the cost of decreased patient and endoscopist satisfaction.

Review on sedation for gastrointestinal tract endoscopy in children by non-anesthesiologists

AIM

To present evidence and formulate recommendations for sedation in pediatric gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy by non-anesthesiologists.

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE, Cochrane and EMBASE were searched for the following keywords "endoscopy, GI", "endoscopy, digestive system" AND "sedation", "conscious sedation", "moderate sedation", "deep sedation" and "hypnotics and sedatives" for publications in English restricted to the pediatric age. We searched additional information published between January 2011 and January 2014. Searches for (upper) GI endoscopy sedation in pediatrics and sedation guidelines by non-anesthesiologists for the adult population were performed.

RESULTS

From the available studies three sedation protocols are highlighted. Propofol, which seems to offer the best balance between efficacy and safety is rarely used by non-anesthesiologists mainly because of legal restrictions. Ketamine and a combination of a benzodiazepine and an opioid are more frequently used. Data regarding other sedatives, anesthetics and adjuvant medications used for pediatric GI endoscopy are also presented.

CONCLUSION

General anesthesia by a multidisciplinary team led by an anesthesiologist is preferred. The creation of sedation teams led by non-anesthesiologists and a careful selection of anesthetic drugs may offer an alternative, but should be in line with national legislation and institutional regulations.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective study comparing nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol and monitored anesthesia care

INTRODUCTION

Adequate sedation is one of the cornerstones of good quality gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE). Propofol sedation has increased significantly but there has been much debate over whether it can be administered by endoscopists. The aim of this prospective trial was to compare nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC).

METHODS

A total of 2000 outpatients undergoing GIE at Hospital Albert Einstein (São Paulo, Brazil), a tertiary-care private hospital, were divided into two matched groups: NAAP (n = 1000) and MAC (n = 1000). In NAAP, propofol doses were determined by the endoscopist. A second physician stayed in the room during the entire procedure, according to local regulations. In MAC, the anesthesiologist administered propofol.

RESULTS

In total, 1427 patients (71.3 %) were ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) class I and 573 were ASA class II. In NAAP, patients received more propofol + fentanyl (61.1 % vs. 50.5 %; P < 0.05) and there were fewer cases of deep sedation (44.7 % vs. 66.1 %; P < 0.05). Hypoxemia rates were similar (12.8 % for NAAP and 11.2 % for MAC; P = 0.3) but these reverted more rapidly in MAC (4.22 seconds vs. 7.26 seconds; P < 0.05). Agitation was more frequent in MAC (14.0 % vs. 5.6 %; P < 0.05). No later complications were observed. Patient satisfaction was very high and similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

In this setting, NAAP was as safe and effective as MAC for healthy patients undergoing GIE. Clinical trial ref. no.: U1111-1134-4430.

[Characteristics of deep sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed by intensivists]

OBJECTIVE

To determine tolerance, pain intensity, percentage of tests completed successfully and complications of deep sedation controlled by intensivists during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

DESIGN

A one-year, prospective observational study was carried out.

SETTING

Department of Intensive Care intervention in the Endoscopy Unit of Hospital Universitario del Tajo (Spain).

PATIENTS

Subjects over 15 years of age subjected to endoscopic procedures under deep sedation.

RESULTS

A total of 868 patients were sedated during the study period, with the conduction of 1010 endoscopic procedures. The degree of tolerance was considered adequate («Very good»/«Good») in 96.9% of the patients (95%CI: 95.7-98.1%), with a median score of 0 on the pain visual analog scale. A total of 988 endoscopic procedures were successfully completed (97.8%; 95%CI: 96.9-98.8%): 675 colonoscopies (97.1%) and 305 endoscopies (99.7%). Complications were recorded in 106 patients (12.2%; 95%CI: 10.0-14.5%). The most frequent being desaturation (6.1%), rhythm disturbances (5.1%) and hypotension (2.4%).

CONCLUSION

Gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures under sedation controlled by intensivists are well tolerated and satisfactory for the patient, and are successfully completed in a very large percentage of cases. The procedures are associated with frequent minor complications that are resolved successfully.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol versus midazolam and propofol, titrated to moderate sedation, for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) is controversial due to deep sedation concerns.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of moderate sedation with two different NAAP regimens for colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial allocating 135 consecutive outpatients to placebo (group P) or midazolam 2 mg (group M+P) before NAAP targeted to moderate sedation. Depth of sedation every 2 min throughout the procedure, propofol doses, recovery times, complications and patient and endoscopist satisfaction were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 84 % of assessments of the depth of sedation were moderate. Mean induction (76 [40-150] vs. 53 [30-90]) and total propofol doses (mg) (136 [60-270] vs. 104 [50-190]) were significantly higher for group P (p < 0.001). However, deep sedation was significantly more prevalent in group M+P in minutes 4 (16 vs. 1 %, p = 0.05), 6 (20 vs. 3.5 %, p = 0.046) and 8 (17 vs. 1.8 %, p = 0.06) of the procedure, coinciding with midazolam peak action. From minute 8 on, moderate sedation was significantly deeper for M+P (p = 0.002). Early recovery time (6.8 min vs. 5.2, p = 0.007), but not discharge time (10.4 min vs. 9.8, p = 0.5), was longer for M+P. Pain perception (P 1.03 vs. M+P 0.3, p = 0.009) and patient satisfaction scores (P 9.4 vs. M+P 9.8, p = 0.047) were better for M+P. No major complications occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation was feasible with both NAAP regimens. Drug synergy in the midazolam plus propofol sedation regimen promotes a deeper and longer moderate sedation, improving patient satisfaction rates but prolonging early recovery time (Clinical Trials gov NCT01428882).

Propofol, the preferred sedation for screening colonoscopy, is underused. Results of an international survey

BACKGROUND

The use of propofol during colonoscopy has become more widespread. To increase availability while maintaining quality and decreasing costs, European Guidelines have been issued for non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP). We aimed to assess the current use of propofol during screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

International survey.

RESULTS

Eighty-four questionnaires were collected from endoscopists practicing in 29 countries. Practices were most often located in high-volume community hospitals (Italy, Belgium, Spain, Netherlands in half cases). An anesthesiologist was regularly present in the Endoscopy Unit of 69.0% survey respondents. In low-risk (ASA classification, 1-2) patients, propofol, benzodiazepine+opioids and benzodiazepine alone were used in 45%, 31% and 14% of screening colonoscopies, respectively. Propofol was associated with the highest endoscopist satisfaction (score on a 10-point visual analogue scale, 9.2±1.2 vs. 5.5±1.9 and 4.7±2.0 for benzodiazepine+opioids and benzodiazepine alone, respectively; P<0.0001). NAAP was used by 29.9% of respondents in 9 countries and approximately two-thirds of other endoscopists would consider implementing NAAP. Main reasons for not considering NAAP implementation were medico-legal issues and cost.

CONCLUSION

Propofol provides the highest endoscopist satisfaction but it is used in less than half of screening colonoscopies. Propofol is administered by non-anesthesiologists in one-third of settings; its implementation is foreseen by a majority of endoscopists who do not currently use it.

[Oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy in a teenager and esophageal achalasia]

Oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy for diagnostic is daily performed in adults and in children during sedation with propofol. This is administrated in France by anaesthesiologists. Pulmonary or cardiovascular complications are rare. We report a case of massive inhalation during an EGD with a teenager. The assessment has revealed an oesophageal achalasia, a condition rare in children and atypical development. This case highlights the importance of systematic screening for risk of a full stomach during the anaesthesia consultation, and the difficulty in evaluation in case of medical migrant patient.