Sedation and monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A nationwide web survey in Italy

Mobile health technology in pediatric EGD quality indicators assessment: results from a national program of the Italian Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Upper endoscopy (UE) procedures (EGD and ERCP) are an established standard of care in pediatric gastroenterology. The Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) recently published its pediatric-specific endoscopy quality guidelines. This study, initiated by the Italian Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, aims to evaluate the adherence of Italian pediatric endoscopy centers (PECs) to these established quality standards.

METHODS

Conducted between April 2019 and March 2021, this nationwide study used a smartphone-based app approach. Data encompassing pediatric endoscopy facilities, patient profiles, endoscopy indications, 17 procedure-related PEnQuIN indicators, and a patient satisfaction questionnaire (Group Health Association of America-9) were systematically collected.

RESULTS

A comprehensive analysis of 3582 procedures from 24 centers revealed that 2654 (76%) were UEs. The majority of centers (75%) involved >1 operator, with 9 centers incorporating adult endoscopists, responsible for 5% of UEs. Overall, adherence to quality standards was good; however, areas of improvement include suboptimal reporting of sedation details, adherence to disease-specific guidelines, and patient satisfaction questionnaire completeness (56%). The adverse event rate aligned with literature standards (1%), and patient satisfaction was generally high. A noteworthy observation was a 30% decreased monthly reporting rate and a shift in disease-specific patterns after the COVID-19 outbreak.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric UE practices in Italy adhere well to established quality standards. Emphasizing the adoption of disease-specific guidelines is crucial for optimizing resources, enhancing diagnostic accuracy, and minimizing unnecessary procedures. Prioritizing patient satisfaction is important for immediate enhancements in practice as well as for future research endeavors.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation Training Curricula and Propofol Administration in Digestive Endoscopy Procedures: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Although efficacy and safety of nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol and nurse-administered propofol sedation practices have been amply demonstrated in patients at low American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status risk, they are still severely limited. To date, it is quite difficult to find a protocol or a shared training program. The aim of the study was to verify requirements, types of training, and operating methods described in the literature for the administration of propofol by a nurse. A scoping review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and in line with Arksey and O'Malley's framework, within four main databases of biomedical interest: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. We selected studies published during the last 20 years, including only nurses not trained in anesthesia. Seventeen articles were eligible. Despite the differences between the training and administration methods, efficacy and safety of deep sedation managed by trained nurses were comparable, just like when sedation was administered by certified registered nurse anesthetists. Training programs have been investigated in detail by only a small number of studies, although its efficacy and safety have been widely demonstrated. It is important, then, to collect evidence that allows developing of unified international guidelines for training methods to offer safe and cost-effective quality sedation.

Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy: a universal optical sensing technique with auspicious application prospects in the diagnosis and management of autoimmune diseases

Autoimmune diseases (AIDs) are poorly understood clinical syndromes due to breakdown of immune tolerance towards specific types of self-antigens. They are generally associated with an inflammatory response mediated by lymphocytes T, autoantibodies or both. Ultimately, chronic inflammation culminates in tissue damages and clinical manifestations. AIDs affect 5% of the world population, and they represent the main cause of fatality in young to middle-aged females. In addition, the chronic nature of AIDs has a devastating impact on the patient's quality of life. It also places a heavy burden on the health care system. Establishing a rapid and accurate diagnosis is considered vital for an ideal medical management of these autoimmune disorders. However, for some AIDs, this task might be challenging. Vibrational spectroscopies, and more particularly Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, have emerged as universal analytical techniques with promising applications in the diagnosis of various types of malignancies and metabolic and infectious diseases. The high sensitivity of these optical sensing techniques and their minimal requirements for test reagents qualify them to be ideal analytical techniques. The aim of the current review is to explore the potential applications of FTIR spectroscopy in the diagnosis and management of most common AIDs. It also aims to demonstrate how this technique has contributed to deciphering the biochemical and physiopathological aspects of these chronic inflammatory diseases. The advantages that can be offered by this optical sensing technique over the traditional and gold standard methods used in the diagnosis of these autoimmune disorders have also been extensively discussed.

Differential dosing of oxycodone in combination with propofol in diagnostic painless gastroscopy in elderly patients: A prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to investigate the safety and efficacy of different doses of oxycodone in combination with propofol during painless gastroscopy.

METHODS

120 patients underwent painless gastroscopy under general anesthesia. According to the different doses of oxycodone, patients were divided into 4 groups, group A (oxycodone 0.025 mg/kg + propofol), group B (oxycodone 0.05 mg/kg + propofol) and group C (oxycodone 0.1 mg/kg + propofol), control group (propofol alone), with 30 cases in each group. The general characteristics of all patients were then evaluated. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded at different time points, including the time before anesthesia (T0), failure of the lash reflex (T1), successful placement of the mirror (T2), removal of the mirror (T3) and waking up (T4). The intraoperative propofol dosage and the operative time of gastroscopy were recorded. The occurrence of adverse effects in the 4 groups was also compared.

RESULTS

General characteristics, gastroscopy operative time and SpO2 did not differ significantly between the 4 groups (P > .05). However, group C had the lowest amount of propofol during gastroscopy (P < .05). At T1, groups A, B, and C had a faster HR than the control group (P < .05). At T2, groups A, B, and C had a lower MAP than the control group (P < .05). Groups B and C had fewer adverse effects than groups A and the control group (P < .05). Importantly, groups B and C had a shorter recovery time than groups A and the control group (P < .05), but no statistically significant differences were found between groups B and C.

CONCLUSION

0.05 mg/kg oxycodone in combination with propofol can be used safely and effectively for painless gastroscopy, with the advantages of a low propofol dose, maintenance of hemodynamic stability and few adverse effects.

Safety, Efficacy and High-Quality Standards of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Procedures in Personalized Sedoanalgesia Managed by the Gastroenterologist: A Retrospective Study

Performing GI endoscopy under sedoanalgesia improves the quality-indices of the examination, in particular for cecal intubation and adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy. The implementation of procedural sedoanalgesia in GI endoscopy is also strongly recommended by the guidelines of the major international scientific societies. Nevertheless, there are regional barriers that prevent the widespread adoption of this good practice. A retrospective monocentric analytic study was performed on a cohort of 529 patients who underwent EGDS/Colonoscopy in sedoanalgesia, with personalized dosage of Fentanyl and Midazolam. ASA class, age and weight were collected for each patient. The vital parameters were recorded during, pre- and post-procedure. The rates of cecal intubation and of procedure-related complications were entered. The VAS scale was used to evaluate the efficacy of sedoanalgesia, and the Aldrete score was used for patient discharge criteria. No clinically significant differences were found between vital signs pre- and post-procedure. Both anesthesia and endoscopic-related complications occurring were few and successfully managed. At the end of examination, both the mean Aldrete score (89.56), and the VAS score (<4 in 99.1%) were suitable for discharge. For the colonoscopies, the cumulative adenoma detection rate (25%) and the cecal intubation rate in the general group (98%) and in the colorectal cancer screening group (100%) were satisfying. Pain control management is an ethical and medical issue aimed at increasing both patient compliance and the quality of the procedures. The findings of this work underscore that in selected patients personalized sedoanalgesia in GI endoscopy can be safely managed by gastroenterologists.

Infection Control Practices and Outcomes of Endoscopy Units in the Lombardy Region of Italy: A Survey From the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy During COVID-19 Spread

GOALS

The present survey from the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED-Società Italiana di Endoscopia Digestiva) was aimed at reporting infection control practice and outcomes at Digestive Endoscopy Units in a high-incidence area.

BACKGROUND

Lombardy was the Italian region with the highest coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) prevalence, at the end of March 2020 accounting for 20% of all worldwide deaths. Joint Gastro-Intestinal societies released recommendations for Endoscopy Units to reduce the risk of the contagion. However, there are few data from high-prevalence areas on adherence to these recommendations and on their efficacy.

METHODS

A survey was designed by the Lombardy section of SIED to analyze (a) changes in activity and organization, (b) adherence to recommendations, (c) rate of health care professionals' (HCP) infection during the COVID-19 outbreak.

RESULTS

In total, 35/61 invited centers (57.4%) participated; most modified activities were according to recommendations and had filtering face piece 2/filtering face piece 3 and water-repellent gowns available, but few had negative-pressure rooms or provided telephonic follow-up; 15% of HCPs called in sick and 6% had confirmed COVID-19. There was a trend (P=0.07) toward different confirmed COVID-19 rates among endoscopists (7.9%), nurses (6.6%), intermediate-care technicians (3.4%), and administrative personnel (2.2%). There was no correlation between the rate of sick HCPs and COVID-19 incidence in the provinces and personal protective equipment availability and use, whereas an inverse correlation with hospital volume was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to recommendations was rather good, though a minority were able to follow all recommendations. Confirmed COVID-19 seemed higher among endoscopists and nurses, suggesting that activities in the endoscopy rooms are at considerable viral spread risk.

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of oxygenation using high flow nasal cannula vs. conventional nasal cannula during procedural sedation for endoscopic ultrasound: A pilot study

Background and Aims:

High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has numerous advantages against conventional oxygen therapy delivery systems. However, there is limited evidence supporting the use of HFNC in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) under procedural sedation. The aims of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of two different oxygen delivery devices, that is,HFNCand conventional nasal cannula on the oxygenation status of patients during procedural sedation for EUS.

Material and Methods:

Sixty adult patients undergoing EUS for various ailments were randomized to two groups group HFNC (n=30) and group nasal cannula [NC (n = 30)]. HFNC (AIRVO2, Fisher and Paykel Healthcare, New Zealand) was used on patients in the group HFNC. Respiratory status of the patients was assessed using pulse oximetry, respiratory rate, procedural airway complications, and oxygen therapy adjustments. The endoscopist assessed the ease of performing EUS at the end of the procedure and patient satisfaction score (PSS) was assessed by using a Likert score in the post-anesthesia care unit.

Results:

SpO2 measurements in the HFNC group during the procedure were marginally better compared to the NC group but this failed to reach statistical significance. Also, no significant association was found between both groups while comparing desaturation events (P = 0.499), patient satisfaction score (PSS) and endendoscopist’s satisfaction score (ESS) (P = 0.795). Both the groups were comparable in terms of airway manipulation, use of airway adjuncts, need to increase oxygen flow rate, endoscope removal, apneic episodes, hypotension, and bradycardia. No major complications were observed in either group.

Conclusion:

HFNC use in patients undergoing EUS is not superior when compared to conventional nasal cannula oxygen therapy. HFNC failed to show any significant impact on decreasing the risk of desaturation events and airway manipulation during the procedure.

Endoscopic sedation practices of Greek gastroenterologists: a nationwide survey

Background:

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy is rapidly evolving worldwide. However, this has led to significant disagreements, especially regarding the use of propofol by non-anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to document the practices of Greek gastroenterologists regarding sedation and compare them to previous surveys.

Methods:

The study was conducted in 2 periods, December 2015 and June 2018. In each period, the same online questionnaire regarding endoscopic sedation practices was sent to all registered Greek gastroenterologists (509 and 547 gastroenterologists, respectively).

Results:

The response rates were 38.3% and 47.1%, respectively. In each period, 25.1% and 16.7% of physicians did not use sedation. Most gastroenterologists (approx. 70% in both instances) answered that they “almost never” collaborate with an anesthesiologist during endoscopy. Midazolam was by far the most popular sedation agent, used by almost 90% of physicians in both periods. Propofol was used by 30.8% and 27% of physicians, respectively. Physicians using propofol were significantly more satisfied with the sedation than other physicians, while propofol was the agent selected by most physicians if they were to undergo endoscopy themselves. Most physicians cited medicolegal reasons and inadequate training as chief reasons for not using propofol.

Conclusions:

Sedation use is widespread among Greek gastroenterologists. Although midazolam is the most commonly used agent, propofol is preferred (theoretically) by most physicians and achieves the best satisfaction. The introduction of a strict training curriculum for endoscopic sedation can effectively eliminate the barriers preventing gastroenterologists from administering propofol, while at the same time ensuring optimal patient safety during endoscopy.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in early diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal tumors

Objective

To explore the value of gastrointestinal endoscopy in the early diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal tumors and lay a foundation for the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal tumors.

Methods

One hundred and eight patients with gastrointestinal tumors who were admitted to our hospital from August 2016 to April 2018 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into observation group and control group according to different diagnostic methods, 54 cases in each group. The control group was treated with traditional endoscopy (white light imaging) and traditional surgery, while the observation group underwent narrow band imaging (NBI) based on endoscopic examination and endoscopic mucosal resection. The image quality scores (morphological image, gastric pit image and capillary image), diagnostic accuracy, surgery related clinical indicators (operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, hospitalization days) and complications were observed and compared between the two groups.

Results

The morphological image, gastric pit image and capillary image scores of the observation group were higher than those of the control group (P<0.05). The diagnostic accuracy rate of the observation group was 96.30%, which was significantly higher than 75.93% (P<0.05). The operation time and hospitalization days of the observation group were shorter than those of the control group, and the intraoperative bleeding volume of the observation group was less than that of the control group; the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The incidence of complications of the observation group was lower than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Gastrointestinal endoscopy can accurately identify the pathological changes of tumors in the early diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal tumors, improve the diagnostic accuracy rate, and guide the implementation of treatment measures to improve clinical indicators. Moreover the incidence of postoperative complications is low. It is worth clinical promotion.

Use of diphenhydramine as an adjunctive sedative for colonoscopy in patients on chronic opioid therapy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Chronic opioid use increases tolerance to sedatives. Diphenhydramine is recommended for difficult-to-sedate patients during endoscopic procedures. We hypothesized that the addition of diphenhydramine to midazolam and fentanyl would improve objective and subjective measures of procedural sedation.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included patients on chronic opioids undergoing colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive 50 mg of diphenhydramine intravenously (n = 61) or placebo (n = 58), in addition to fentanyl and midazolam. Baseline characteristics, amount of fentanyl and midazolam, procedure times, and adverse events were recorded. Quality of sedation was assessed by the physician and nurse. Patients rated pain and amnesia on a 10-point scale.

RESULTS

There was no difference in amounts of fentanyl (125.4 ± 56.2 μg vs 126.9 ± 53.5 μg, P = .88) and midazolam (4.9 ± 2.1 mg vs 5 ± 1.9 mg, P = .79) used. The mean sedation scores from the physician (6.2 ± 1.1 vs 5.3 ± 1.2, P =.0002) and nurses (5.6 ± 1.5 vs 5.1 ± 1.4, P =.04) were statistically significant in favor of the diphenhydramine arm. Patient scores for pain (2.05 ± 2.17 vs 3.09 ± 3.95, P =.047) and amnesia (7.8 ± 3.4 vs 6.5 ± 3.8, P =.047) favored the group that received diphenhydramine. Qualitative assessment showed no significant difference between the groups. There was no difference in induction time (P = .86), procedure duration (P = .98), or recovery time (P = .16). Hypotensive episodes were more common in the placebo group (P = .027).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients on chronic opioid therapy, administration of diphenhydramine does not allow for lower doses of procedural sedatives but improves quality of sedation without increasing the number of adverse events. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT T01967433.).

Sedation practices in gastrointestinal endoscopy-A survey from southern India

Gastrointestinal endoscopies can cause an unpleasant experience for the patient. In India, most endoscopists follow a common institutional policy for sedation. The aim of this study was to analyze the sedation practices in various endoscopy centers across southern India. Data were collected with the help of a structured questionnaire given to a senior endoscopist of the center. Data from the completed questionnaire were later analyzed. Data were obtained from 19 centers across southern India. All endoscopy suites had central oxygen supply and emergency cart. A defibrillator was available in 12 centers (63.2%). Common criteria followed for administering sedation included therapeutic procedures (84.2%), patients who requested sedation (63.2%), children (63.2%), high-risk procedures (57.9%), and uncooperative patients (57.9%). Monitoring methods included pulse oximetry alone in six centers (31.6%), pulse oximetry with blood pressure monitoring in five centers (26.3%), and pulse oximetry, blood pressure, and electrocardiography (ECG) monitoring in eight centers (42.1%). For advanced procedures like endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), sedation was universally used. An anesthesiologist was available in the endoscopy suite in eight centers (42.1%). Five endoscopists administered propofol sedation without anesthesiologist's presence (26.3%). Thirteen centers had a written protocol for pre-procedure risk assessment (68.4%). A dedicated post-procedure observation area was available in seventeen centers (89.5%). Seven centers followed a written post-sedation discharge protocol (36.8%). Significant variations exist in the practice of sedation among endoscopists in southern India. There is an urgent need to formulate guidelines by endoscopy societies for ensuring better patient outcomes in endoscopy.

Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) position paper on the non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Propofol sedation by non-anesthesiologists in GI endoscopy, despite generally considered a safe procedure, is still a matter of debate. Benefits of propofol sedation include rapid onset of action, greater patient comfort and fast recovery with prompt discharge from the endoscopy unit. The use of propofol for sedation in GI endoscopy, preceded by dedicated training courses, has been approved by several anaesthesiologist and gastroenterologist societies but an Italian position paper taking into account the Italian law is lacking. In the present document, the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) Sedation Group, on behalf of the SIED, presents a series of updated position statements concerning propofol sedation in GI endoscopy. The paper summarizes the advantages of propofol, how it should be administered and how patients should be monitored. Moreover, details concerning proper training of non-anaesthesiologist personnel involved in its use are provided. Protocols concerning propofol use s must be shared with the hospital's anaesthesiology staff and approved by the hospital's Executive Director.

Effect of propofol combined with opioids on cough reflex suppression in gastroscopy: study protocol for a double-blind randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The best methods for inducing analgesia and sedation for gastroscopy are still debated but finding an adequate regimen of sedation/analgesia is important. Stimulation of the larynx under sedation can cause reflex responses. Propofol with opioids has been recommended for gastroscopy sedation but the effects on cough reflex suppression remain unclear. This trial will evaluate the effects of propofol combined with small doses of dezocine, oxycodone, sufentanil or fentanyl for gastroscopy. We hypothesise that better performance may be obtained with a combination of propofol and oxycodone. We will observe the incidence and degree of reflex coughing and gagging under sedation when using propofol combined with one of the above drugs or propofol alone.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This will be a prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. ASA I-II level patients aged 18-65 years and scheduled for gastroscopy will be included. It is planned that 500 subjects will be randomised to intravenously receive 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.5-0.8 μg/kg fentanyl (fentanyl group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.05-0.08 μg/kg sufentanil (sufentanil group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.04-0.05 mg/kg dezocine (dezocine group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.04-0.05 mg/kg oxycodone (oxycodone group), or 2.4-3 mg/kg propofol plus 2-2.5 mL saline (control group) for sedation. The primary endpoint is the incidence and degree of reflex coughing and gagging. The secondary endpoints include the occurrence of discomfort or side effects, the use of jaw thrust, assisted ventilation or additional propofol, recovery time, duration of procedure and Steward score.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee for Clinical Research of Zhongda Hospital, Affiliated to Southeast University (No. 2015ZDSYLL033.0). The results of the trial will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Register (No. ChiCTR-ICR-15006952).

TRIAL STATUS

At the time of manuscript submission, the study was in the recruitment phase.

Room for Quality Improvement in Endoscopist-Directed Sedation: Results from the First Nationwide Survey in Korea

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study sought to characterize the current sedation practices of Korean endoscopists in real-world settings.

METHODS

All active members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy were invited to complete an anonymous 35-item questionnaire.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 22.7% (1,332/5,860). Propofol-based sedation was the dominant method used in both elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy (55.6%) and colonoscopy (52.6%). The mean satisfaction score for propofol-based sedation was significantly higher than that for standard sedation in both examinations (all p<0.001). The use of propofol was supervised exclusively by endoscopists (98.6%). Endoscopists practicing in nonacademic settings, gastroenterologists, or endoscopists with.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopist-directed propofol administration is the predominant sedation method used in Korea. This survey strongly suggests that there is much room for quality improvement regarding sedation training and patient vigilance in endoscopist-directed sedation.

Survey of Anaesthetists' Practice of Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

We conducted a survey of Australian specialist anaesthetists about their practice of sedation for elective and emergency gastroscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and colonoscopy. A 24-item survey was emailed to 1,000 anaesthetists in August 2015. Responses were received from 409 anaesthetists (response rate = 41%) with responses from 395 anaesthetists analysed. Pulse oximetry and oxygen administration were routine for all procedures for all respondents. Blood pressure was routinely measured by most respondents during gastroscopy (elective = 88%; emergency = 97%), ERCP (elective = 99%; emergency = 99%) and colonoscopy (elective = 91%; emergency = 98%). The airway was routinely managed with jaw lift or oral or nasal airway by 99%, 76% and 97% of respondents during gastroscopy, ERCP and colonoscopy, whereas in emergency procedures endotracheal intubation was routine in 49%, 64% and 17% of procedures. Propofol was routinely administered by 99% of respondents for gastroscopy and 100% of respondents for ERCP and colonoscopy. A maximum depth of sedation in which patients were unresponsive to painful stimulation was targeted by the majority of respondents for all procedures except for elective gastroscopy. These results may be used to facilitate comparison of practice in Australia and overseas, and give an indication of compliance by Australian anaesthetists with the relevant Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists guideline.

Practice patterns of sedation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Sedative and analgesic medications have been used routinely for decades to provide patient comfort, reduce procedure time, and improve examination quality during colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate trends of sedation during colonoscopy in the United States.

SETTING

Endoscopic data repository of U.S. gastroenterology practices (Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, CORI database from 2000 until 2013).

PATIENTS

The study population was made up of patients undergoing a total of 1,385,436 colonoscopies.

INTERVENTIONS

Colonoscopy without any intervention or with mucosal biopsy, polypectomy, various means of hemostasis, luminal dilation, stent placement, or ablation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Dose of midazolam, diazepam, fentanyl, meperidine, diphenhydramine, promethazine, and propofol used for sedation during colonoscopy.

RESULTS

During the past 14 years, midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol have become the most commonly used sedatives for colonoscopy. Except for benzodiazepines, which were dosed higher in women than men, equal doses of sedation were given to female and male patients. White patients were given higher doses than other ethnic groups undergoing sedation for colonoscopy. Except for histamine-1 receptor antagonists, all sedative medications were given at lower doses to patients with increasing age. The dose of sedatives was higher in colonoscopies associated with procedural interventions or of long duration.

LIMITATIONS

Potential for incomplete or incorrect documentation in the database.

CONCLUSION

The findings reflect on colonoscopy practice in the United States during the last 14 years and provide an incentive for future research on how sex and ethnicity influence sedation practices.

Endoscopic sedation and monitoring practices in Portugal: a nationwide web-based survey

BACKGROUND

National surveys have been used to obtain information on sedation and monitoring practices in endoscopy in several countries.

AIMS

To provide data from Portugal and query the Portuguese endoscopists on nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 31-item web survey was sent to all 490 members of the Portuguese Society of Gastroenterology.

RESULTS

A total of 129 members (26%) completed the questionnaire; 57% worked in both public and private practice. Most performed esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation (public - 70%; private - 57%) and colonoscopies with sedation (public - 64%; private - 69%). Propofol was the most commonly used agent for colonoscopy, especially in private practice (52 vs. 33%), and it provided the best satisfaction (mean 9.6/10). A total of 94% chose propofol as the preferred sedation for routine colonoscopy. Nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol was performed only by four respondents; however, 71% reported that they would consider its use, given adequate training. Pulse oximetry is monitored routinely (99%); oxygen supplementation is administered by 81% with propofol and 42% with traditional sedation. Most (82%) believed that propofol sedation may increase the uptake of endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

The use of sedation is routine practice in colonoscopy, but not esophagogastroduodenoscopy. The preferred agent is propofol and it is used almost exclusively by anesthesiologists.

Sedation-analgesia in elective colonoscopy: propofol-fentanyl versus propofol-alfentanil

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sedation-analgesia is recommended for comfortable colonoscopy procedures, which are invasive and can be painful. This study aimed to compare the combinations of propofol-alfentanil and propofol-fentanyl for sedation-analgesia in elective colonoscopy patients.

METHODS

This prospective and randomized study was planned in ASA I-II groups and included 80 patients between the ages of 18 and 65 years. Sedation-analgesia induction was performed as 1 μg.kg-1 fentanyl, 1 mg.kg-1 propofol in the propofol-fentanyl group (Group PF) and 10 μg.kg-1 alfentanil, 1 mg.kg-1 propofol in the propofol-alfentanil group (Group PA). Patients’ scores were limited to 3-4 values on the Ramsey Sedation Scale (RSS) by 0.5 mg.kg-1 bolus additional doses of propofol in sedation-analgesia maintenance. We recorded demographical data, heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation of hemoglobin (SpO2), RSS value, colonoscopy time, total dose of propofol, complications, recovery time, and discharge time, as well as colonoscopist and patient satisfaction scores.

RESULTS

MAP at the 15th minute in Group PA was signifi cantly higher than in Group PF (p = 0.037). Group PA’s beginning mean heart rate was higher than the mean heart rate at subsequent readings (p = 0.012, p = 0.002). The mean total propofol dose of Group PA was signifi cantly higher than the total dose of Group PF (p = 0.028). The mean recovery time of Group PA was signifi cantly longer than that of Group PF (p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Fentanyl provides better operative conditions and reduces the need for additional propofol doses. These advantages cause a shorter recovery time. Therefore, propofol-fentanyl is superior to the propofol-alfentanil for sedation-analgesia in colonoscopy.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Patients with ASA physical status I-II undergoing elective upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly allocated to receive dexmedetomidine or midazolam for conscious sedation. Continuous peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) and numeric rating scale pain scores were recorded before, during and after the procedure. Patients completed a post-procedure satisfaction questionnaire.

RESULTS

Patients in the midazolam group (n = 30) experienced a significant decrease in MAP during sedation compared with pre-sedation values. Patients in the dexmedetomidine group (n = 30) had significantly higher SpO2 and RSS scores during sedation than those in the midazolam group. Overall satisfaction was higher in the dexmedetomidine group than the midazolam group. There were no clinically significant complications in either group.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine has a good safety profile and is an effective sedative for use in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Midazolam for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy in obese patients

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of different doses of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy in obese patients.

METHODS: One hundred and twenty-six patients who underwent painless gastroscopy were randomly divided into four groups: A, B, C and D. Groups A, B, and C were intravenously given 0.01, 0.02, and 0.03 mg/kg of midazolam before the examination, respectively, while group D was not given midazolam. All patients were intravenously given fentanyl 1 μg/kg and propofol 1.0-2.0 mg/kg 3 min later. If the patient had somatic reaction, an additional propofol 0.3-0.5 mg/kg was given. The blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), SpO₂, the initial and total doses of propofol, side effects, as well as the patient's and doctor's satisfaction were recorded.

RESULTS: The initial dose of propofol in groups A, B and C (95.62 mg ± 16.59 mg, 87.50 mg ± 13.81 mg, 79.09 mg ± 16.74 mg) were significantly less than that in group D (126.67 mg ± 20.48 mg) (P < 0.05 for all), while the total dose of propofol were less in groups B and C than in group D (P < 0.05 for both), but had no statistical difference between groups A and D. The rates of hyoxemia and assisted ventilation in groups A, B and C (3.03%, 3.33%, 12.12%) were lower than that in group D (26.67%) (P < 0.05 for all), but the incidence of dizziness and sleepiness in group C (51.51%) was significantly higher than those in ther groups (P < 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSION: In obese patients, application of midazolam in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is simple, safe and effective.

Patient-controlled analgesia with inhaled methoxyflurane versus conventional endoscopist-provided sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized multicenter trial

OBJECTIVE

Inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox, Medical Device International, Melbourne, Australia) has been used extensively in Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) to manage trauma-related pain. The aim is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and outcome of Penthrox for colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized study.

SETTING

Three tertiary endoscopic centers.

PATIENTS

Two hundred fifty-one patients were randomized to receive either Penthrox (n = 125, 70 men, 51.4 ± 1.1 years old) or intravenous midazolam and fentanyl (M&F; n = 126, 72 men, 54.9 ± 1.1 years old) during colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

Discomfort (visual analogue scale [VAS] pain score), anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y [STAI-Y] anxiety score), colonoscopy performance, adverse events, and recovery time.

RESULTS

Precolonoscopy VAS pain and STAI-Y scores were comparable between the 2 groups. There were no differences between groups in (1) pain VAS or STAI Y-1 anxiety scores during or immediately after colonoscopy, (2) procedural success rate (Penthrox: 121/125 vs M&F: 124/126), (3) hypotension during colonoscopy (7/125 vs 8/126), (4) tachycardia (5/125 vs 3/126), (5) cecal arrival time (8 ± 1 vs 8 ± 1 minutes), or (6) polyp detection rate (30/125 vs 43/126). Additional intravenous sedation was required in 10 patients (8%) who received Penthrox. Patients receiving Penthrox alone had no desaturation (oxygen saturation [SaO(2)] < 90%) events (0/115 vs 5/126; P = .03), awoke quicker (3 ± 0 vs 19 ± 1 minutes; P < .001) and were ready for discharge earlier (37 ± 1 vs 66 ± 2 minutes; P < .001) than those receiving intravenous M&F.

LIMITATIONS

Inhaled Penthrox is not yet available in the United States and Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-controlled analgesia with inhaled Penthrox is feasible and as effective as conventional sedation for colonoscopy with shorter recovery time, is not associated with respiratory depression, and does not influence the procedural success and polyp detection.

Sedation-analgesia in elective colonoscopy: propofol-fentanyl versus propofol-alfentanil

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sedation-analgesia is recommended for comfortable colonoscopy procedures, which are invasive and can be painful. This study aimed to compare the combinations of propofol-alfentanil and propofol-fentanyl for sedation-analgesia in elective colonoscopy patients.

METHODS

This prospective and randomized study was planned in ASA I-II groups and included 80 patients between the ages of 18 and 65 years. Sedation-analgesia induction was performed as 1 μg.kg(-1) fentanyl, 1mg.kg(-1) propofol in the propofol-fentanyl group (Group PF) and 10 μg.kg(-1) alfentanil, 1mg.kg(-1) propofol in the propofol-alfentanil group (Group PA). Patients' scores were limited to 3-4 values on the Ramsey Sedation Scale (RSS) by 0.5mg.kg(-1) bolus additional doses of propofol in sedation-analgesia maintenance. We recorded demographical data, heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation of hemoglobin (SpO2), RSS value, colonoscopy time, total dose of propofol, complications, recovery time, and discharge time, as well as colonoscopist and patient satisfaction scores.

RESULTS

MAP at the 15(th) minute in Group PA was significantly higher than in Group PF (p = 0.037). Group PA's beginning mean heart rate was higher than the mean heart rate at subsequent readings (p = 0.012, p = 0.002). The mean total propofol dose of Group PA was significantly higher than the total dose of Group PF (p = 0.028). The mean recovery time of Group PA was significantly longer than that of Group PF (p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Fentanyl provides better operative conditions and reduces the need for additional propofol doses. These advantages cause a shorter recovery time. Therefore, propofol-fentanyl is superior to the propofol-alfentanil for sedation-analgesia in colonoscopy.

[Pain in connection with colonoscopy in Norway]

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopies are common examinations at Norwegian hospitals. In contrast to many other countries, the majority of colonoscopies in Norway are conducted without routine sedation or analgesia. We wanted to investigate whether current Norwegian practice offers adequate pain relief.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The material consists of prospectively recorded outpatient colonoscopies in the period January 2003-December 2011 performed at Norwegian hospitals in the quality assurance network for gastrointestinal endoscopy (Gastronet). We analysed demographic patient data and data from colonoscopies. Patients' experience of pain (none, slight, moderate or severe pain) in connection with the examination was established with the aid of a validated questionnaire.

RESULTS

Data from 61,749 colonoscopies (55% on women) performed at 29 different hospitals were analysed. Colonoscopies were perceived as moderately or very painful by 33% of the patients (41% of the women, 24% of the men, p < 0.001). There were substantial differences between hospitals as to the percentage of colonoscopies that were perceived as moderately or very painful (from 9% to 43%, p < 0.001) and the use of sedatives and analgesics for the colonoscopies (from 1% to 92% of the examinations, p < 0.001). Only 23% of those who found the colonoscopy painful received analgesics. Pethidine was used in 95% of the cases in which analgesics were used during the examination.

INTERPRETATION

Many patients find colonoscopies painful. Pain relief practice varies substantially between hospitals. Pethidine is an analgesic with a slow onset of action, and should perhaps be replaced with more rapidly acting opiates.

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.

Use of anesthesia on the rise in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Conscious sedation has been the standard of care for many years for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. As procedures have become more complex and lengthy, additional medications became essential for adequate sedation. Often time's deep sedation is required for procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiography which necessitates higher doses of narcotics and benzodiazepines or even use of other medications such as ketamine. Given its pharmacologic properties, propofol was rapidly adopted worldwide to gastrointestinal endoscopy for complex procedures and more recently to routine upper and lower endoscopy. Many studies have shown superiority for both the physician and patient compared to standard sedation. Nevertheless, its use remains highly controversial. A number of studies worldwide show that propofol can be given safely by endoscopists or nurses when well trained. Despite this wealth of data, at many centers its use has been prohibited unless administered by anesthesiology. In this commentary, we review the use of anesthesia support for endoscopy in the United States based on recent data and its implications for gastroenterologists worldwide.

Evaluation of a new anaesthetist-led propofol sedation service for endoscopy within a UK day-case setting

INTRODUCTION

The use of propofol in endoscopy is becoming more prevalent both in Europe and North America. Potential advantages over conscious sedation include controlled deep sedation for therapeutic endoscopy and improved patient satisfaction. A new anaesthetist-led propofol-based day-case sedation service was introduced within the endoscopy unit at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital in April 2011.

AIMS

To evaluate this new service of anaesthetist-led propofol-based sedation for safety, compliance with current guidelines and satisfaction (patient, anaesthetist and endoscopist).

DESIGN

A prospective, service evaluation audit of a new, weekly, anaesthetist-led propofol-based sedation service. Administrative records, anaesthetic notes and satisfaction scores (1=very dissatisfied; 5=very satisfied; patients, anaesthetists, endoscopists) and the 'patient journey' were evaluated for 40 consecutive patients treated over 18 weeks. Outcomes were measured against current British Society of Gastroenterology/Royal College of Anaesthetists guidelines.

RESULTS

All procedures were completed (100% intention-to-treat rate), all patients were discharged on the day of the procedure and none were readmitted within 7 days. Adverse events were minor (10%) and there were no deaths within 30 days. The median satisfaction score was 5 for patients, anaesthetists and endoscopists. The additional cost for provision of such a service included the services of the anaesthetist (one programmed activity) and operating department personnel and for drugs (propofol). The demand for the service rapidly increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Anaesthetist-led propofol-assisted endoscopy is safe in a day-case endoscopy unit and is associated with high satisfaction scores for patients, anaesthetists and endoscopists. There is a high demand for this service in this UK endoscopy day-case unit.

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.

Unsedated colonoscopy: an option for some but not for all

BACKGROUND

The increasing request for colonoscopy in clinical practice, coupled with the lack of time, has led to a renewed interest in unsedated procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the acceptability of unsedated colonoscopy and to characterize the subset of patients more likely to undergo and complete the procedure without sedation and/or analgesia.

DESIGN

Prospective, population study.

SETTING

Nonacademic community hospital, 6-month observation period.

PATIENTS

Adult outpatients referred for colonoscopy were offered unsedated procedure, with the possibility of on-demand sedation.

INTERVENTIONS

Demographics, clinical features, and endoscopy outcomes were recorded. Data were analyzed by stepwise logistic regression analysis, and odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) are given for significant variables.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Unsedated colonoscopy acceptance rate. Factors significantly associated with acceptance and completion of unsedated procedures.

RESULTS

The acceptance rate for unsedated colonoscopy was 56.2% of 964 consecutive evaluated patients. The cecal intubation rate in unsedated patients was 81.6% and increased to 97.3% with the option of on-demand sedation. At multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated with the acceptance were no previous colonoscopy (OR 1.52; 95% CI, 1.10-2.11), absent/low level of anxiety (OR 3.82; 95% CI, 2.71-5.38), and no concern about the examination (OR 1.80; 95% CI, 1.17-2.77). Fear of procedure-related pain was inversely associated with acceptance (OR 0.28; 95% CI, 0.17-0.35). Factors associated to drug-free colonoscopy completion were absence of preprocedure anxiety (OR 1.87; 95% CI, 1.08-3.21) and male sex (OR 3.59; 95% CI, 2.13-6.05).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study.

CONCLUSION

The acceptance rate of unsedated colonoscopy is clinically relevant, and the procedure can be completed without sedation in the majority of patients. Subject-related factors may help to identify patients willing to undergo and potentially complete unsedated procedures.