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

Safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered sedation in an Italian referral hospital: An audit of 2 years and 19,407 procedures

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Balanced propofol sedation (BPS) administered by adequately trained non-anaesthesiologist personnel has gained popularity in GI endoscopy because of its shorter procedure and recovery time, high patient satisfaction, and low rate of adverse events (AEs), despite being considered controversial. We report data from an audit of endoscopist-directed (ED) nurse-administered sedation in an Italian referral hospital.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive endoscopic procedures performed between 2020 and 2022 were considered. Under the guidance of the endoscopist, the nurse administered midazolam/fentanyl, followed by a progressive top-up dosage of a 10-20 mg bolus of propofol to achieve moderate to deep sedation. The endoscopists and nurses were all certified in our hospital with a continuous and scheduled training from 2006.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 19,407 examinations (7,803 EGDS, 10,439 colonoscopies, 77 PEG, 697 EUS, and 365 ERCP) and 14,415 patients were included. Of these, 29.4 % of patients were classified as ASA I, 66.5 % as ASA II, and 5.1 % as ASA III. Hypotension was recorded in 1,293 (6 %) examinations and bradycardia in 176 (0.9 %) patients. Eleven patients (0.06 %) had minor respiratory adverse events. Two patients (0.01 %) had major AEs requiring orotracheal intubation.

CONCLUSIONS

ED-BPS is safe in low-risk patients. Major AEs occurred in 0.01 % of procedures.

Anesthesiologist-directed care for elective gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of an Italian multicentric prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Sedation, ranging from minimal, moderate and deep sedation to general anesthesia, improves patient comfort and procedure quality in gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE). There are currently no comprehensive recommendations on sedation practice in diagnostic and therapeutic GIE. We aimed to investigate real-life sedation practice in elective GIE.

METHODS

We performed a multicentric observational study across 14 Endoscopy Units in Italy. We recorded consecutive data on all diagnostic procedures performed with Anesthesiologist-directed care (ADC) and all therapeutic procedures performed with ADC or non-Anesthesiologist sedation (NAS) over a three-month period.

RESULTS

Dedicated ADC is available five days/week in 28.6% (4/14), four days/week in 21.5% (3/14), three days/week in 35.7% (5/14), two days/week in 7.1% (1/14) and one day/week in 7.1% (1/14) of participating Centers. ADC use for elective diagnostic GIE varied from 15.4% to 75.1% of the total number of procedures performed with ADC among different Centers. ADC use for elective therapeutic GIE varied from 10.8% to 98.9% of the total number of elective therapeutic procedures performed among different Centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the lack of standardization and consequent great variability in sedation practice for elective GIE, with ADC being potentially overused for diagnostic procedures and underused for complex therapeutic procedures. A collaborative effort involving Endoscopists, Anesthesiologist and Institutions is needed to optimize sedation practice in GIE.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effect of remimazolam tosilate on the incidence of hypoxemia in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: A bi-center, prospective, randomized controlled study

Background: Remimazolam tosilate is a new ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative medicine. In this study, we evaluated the effect of remimazolam tosilate on the incidence of hypoxemia during sedation in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: Patients in the remimazolam group received an initial dose of 0.1 mg/kg and a bolus dose of 2.5 mg of remimazolam tosilate, whereas patients in the propofol group received an initial dose of 1.5 mg/kg and a bolus dose of 0.5 mg/kg of propofol. Patients received ASA standard monitoring (heart-rate, non-invasive blood pressure, and pulse oxygen saturation) during the entire examination process. The primary outcome was the incidence of moderate hypoxemia (defined as 85%≤ SpO₂< 90%, >15s) during the gastrointestinal endoscopy. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of mild hypoxemia (defined as SpO₂ 90%-94%) and severe hypoxemia (defined as SpO₂< 85%, >15s), the lowest pulse oxygen saturation, airway maneuvers used to correct hypoxemia, patient's hemodynamic as well as other adverse events. Results: 107 elderly patients (67.6 ± 5.7 years old) in the remimazolam group and 109 elderly patients (67.5 ± 4.9 years old) in the propofol group were analyzed. The incidence of moderate hypoxemia was 2.8% in the remimazolam group and 17.4% in the propofol group (relative risk [RR] = 0.161; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.049 to 0.528; p < 0.001). The frequency of mild hypoxemia was less in the remimazolam group, but not statistically significant (9.3% vs. 14.7%; RR = 0.637; 95% CI, 0.303 to 1.339; p = 0.228). There was no significant difference in the incidence of severe hypoxemia between the two groups (4.7% vs. 5.5%; RR = 0.849; 95% CI, 0.267 to 2.698; p = 0.781). The median lowest SpO₂ during the examination was 98% (IQR, 96.0%-99.0%) in patients in the remimazolam group, which was significantly higher than in patients in the propofol group (96%, IQR, 92.0%-99.0%, p < 0.001). Patients in the remimazolam group received more drug supplementation during endoscopy than patients in the propofol group (p = 0.014). There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of hypotension between the two groups (2.8% vs. 12.8%; RR = 0.218; 95% CI, 0.065 to 0.738; p = 0.006). No significant differences were found in the incidence of adverse events such as nausea and vomiting, dizziness, and prolonged sedation. Conclusion: This study explored the safety of remimazolam compared with propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients. Despite the increased supplemental doses during sedation, remimazolam improved risk of moderate hypoxemia (i.e., 85%≤ SpO₂ < 90%) and hypotension in elderly patients.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has been associated with difficult experiences and can leave patients with an unpleasant impression. Propofol and midazolam are the most commonly used intravenous anesthetics for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, cardiac and pulmonary adverse events are the primary concerns associated with the use of these sedatives. Remimazolam tosylate is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine drug with a mild inhibitory effect on the respiratory and circulatory systems. These properties qualify remimazolam tosylate to be used as a replacement for propofol or midazolam as a sedative during gastrointestinal endoscopy. This study aims to describe the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate as a sedative for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel-controlled, noninferiority clinical study will be conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate as a sedative during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Participants (n = 1800) will be randomized to receive remimazolam tosylate at 0.15 mg/kg (experimental group 1), remimazolam tosylate at 0.2 mg/kg (experimental group 2), or propofol at 1.5 mg/kg (control group). Procedure success will be assessed and defined as the completion of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy without the administration of a rescue sedative agent or more than two top-up doses of the trial drug in any 5-min period after initial administration. Sedation quality will be evaluated using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score. Adverse events will be recorded to evaluate safety.

DISCUSSION

This study will determine the optimal dosage of remimazolam tosylate during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and will describe its efficacy and safety. These findings may contribute to a more comfortable and safer experience for patients compared with that when the conventional sedative propofol is used.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04727034. Registered on February 18, 2021.

Efficacy and Safety of Deep Sedation and Anaesthesia for Complex Endoscopic Procedures—A Narrative Review

Propofol sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures is a widespread technique at present, which generates controversy worldwide when anaesthetic or non-anaesthetic personnel administer this form of sedation. There is some evidence for safe administered propofol sedation by non-anaesthetic personnel in patients undergoing endoscopy procedures, but there are only few randomised trials addressing the safety and efficacy of propofol in patients undergoing advanced procedures. A serious possible consequence of propofol sedation is the rapid and unpredictable progression from deep sedation to general anaesthesia mostly when elderly and frail patients are involved in the diagnosis or treatment of various neoplasia. This situation requires rescue measures with skilled airway management. The aim of this paper is to review the safety and efficacy aspects of sedation techniques, with special reference to propofol administration covering the whole patient journey, including preassessment, sedation options and discharge when advanced endoscopic procedures are performed.

High flow nasal oxygen, procedural sedation, and clinical governance

Procedural sedation for therapeutic and diagnostic procedures can now be achieved through deep sedation techniques that guarantee procedural success. Deep sedation techniques are delivered in a variety of non-theatre environments where the usual levels of anaesthetic equipment are not practical or economical. Hypoxic events are particularly frequent, and challenge sedation providers. Traditional low flow nasal or facial oxygen therapy techniques are often insufficient to maintain acceptable oxygen levels and prevent peri-procedural hypoxia. High flow nasal oxygen delivers warm humidified oxygen up to 70l/min, at oxygen concentrations between 21 - 100%, and reduces the incidence of hypoxic events. The provision of deep sedation is a complex process, fraught with risk, which can challenge even the skilled anaesthetist. Therefore, regulatory authorities previously stipulated that anaesthesia personnel be present during deep sedation. Changing attitudes by regulatory authorities and practical challenges providing anaesthesia specialists have led to the acknowledgement that appropriately trained non-anaesthetic staff can safely provide deep sedation. Deep sedation services are increasingly applied to subjects with complex comorbidities, sometimes excluded for safety reasons from surgery under general anaesthesia. The development of deep sedation services, delivered by non-anaesthesia personnel, to patients with complex co-morbidities requires that services implement appropriate clinical governance tools to prevent deep sedation being the wild west of anaesthesia services. Therefore, whilst high flow nasal oxygen may reduce the incidence of peri-procedural hypoxia, the introduction of clinical governance tools and the systematic introduction of initiatives to improve quality, will maintain the safety of deep sedation services.

Risk of adverse events in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Zero-inflated Poisson regression mixture model for count data and multinomial logit model for the type of event

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We analyze the possible predictive variables for Adverse Events (AEs) during sedation for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy.

METHODS

We consider 23,788 GI endoscopies under sedation on adults between 2012 and 2019. A Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression Mixture (ZIPRM) model for count data with concomitant variables is applied, accounting for unobserved heterogeneity and evaluating the risks of multi-drug sedation. A multinomial logit model is also estimated to evaluate cardiovascular, respiratory, hemorrhagic, other AEs and stopping the procedure risk factors.

RESULTS

In 7.55% of cases, one or more AEs occurred, most frequently cardiovascular (3.26%) or respiratory (2.77%). Our ZIPRM model identifies one population for non-zero counts. The AE-group reveals that age >75 years yields 46% more AEs than age <66 years; Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥27 27% more AEs than BMI <21; emergency 11% more AEs than routine. Any one-point increment in the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and the Mallampati score determines respectively a 42% and a 16% increment in AEs; every hour prolonging endoscopy increases AEs by 41%. Regarding sedation with propofol alone (the sedative of choice), adding opioids to propofol increases AEs by 43% and adding benzodiazepines by 51%. Cardiovascular AEs are increased by age, ASA score, smoke, in-hospital, procedure duration, midazolam/fentanyl associated with propofol. Respiratory AEs are increased by BMI, ASA and Mallampati scores, emergency, in-hospital, procedure duration, midazolam/fentanyl associated with propofol. Hemorrhagic AEs are increased by age, in-hospital, procedure duration, midazolam/fentanyl associated with propofol. The risk of suspension of the endoscopic procedure before accomplishment is increased by female gender, ASA and Mallampati scores, and in-hospital, and it is reduced by emergency and procedure duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, BMI, ASA score, Mallampati score, in-hospital, procedure duration, other sedatives with propofol increase the risk for AEs during sedation for GI endoscopy.

Anesthetic strategy for obese patients during gastroscopy: deep sedation or conscious sedation? A prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to compare the incidence of SpO₂ values < 95% and < 90% of the obese patients between conscious sedation and deep sedation and whether conscious sedation was superior to the deep sedation for obese patients during diagnostic gastroscopy.

METHODS

Obese patients undergoing diagnostic gastroscopy were randomly assigned to two different intervention groups: group CS (conscious sedation) or group DS (deep sedation). Group CS patients were managed by conscious sedation [Modified Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) at 4-5] protocol, and group DS patients were managed by deep sedation (MOAA/S at ≤ 2) protocol. Propofol and sufentanil (0.1 and 0.05 mg/kg) were, respectively, infused for sedation and analgesia in CS and DS protocols. The primary endpoints were to compare the incidence of SpO₂ values < 95% and < 90% of the patients between the two groups. The incidence of successful sedation, satisfaction scores of patients and endoscopist were assessed as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

115 obese patients (59 in group CS and 56 in group DS) were enrolled in this study. The incidences of SpO₂ < 95% and < 90% in group CS (42.4% and 6.8%) were significantly lower than those in group DS (69.6% and 19.6%, with P = 0.003 and 0.041, respectively). The incidence of successful sedation was similar between groups (86.4% vs 89.3%, P = 0.641). Patient satisfaction scores and endoscopist satisfaction scores were both similar between groups (P = 0.548 and 0.171).

CONCLUSION

Conscious sedation with propofol and sufentanil (0.1 mg/kg) reduced the incidence of hypoxic events without affecting gastroscopy procedure and satisfaction compared with the deep sedation for obese patients during diagnostic gastroscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR-1900024894; registration date, July 31, 2019. http://www.chictr.org.cn .

Sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review of recommendations

BACKGROUND

Sedation is commonly used in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, considerable variability in sedation practices has been reported. The objective of this review was to identify and synthesize existing recommendations on sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed guidelines and position statements identified through a search of PubMed, guidelines databases, and websites of relevant professional associations from January 1, 2005 to May 10, 2019. We included English-language guidelines/position statements with recommendations relating to sedation for adults undergoing routine gastrointestinal endoscopy. Documents with guidance only for complex endoscopic procedures were excluded. We extracted and synthesized recommendations relating to: 1) choice of sedatives, 2) sedation administration, 3) personnel responsible for monitoring sedated patients, 4) skills and training of individuals involved in sedation, and 5) equipment required for monitoring sedated patients. We assessed the quality of included documents using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.

RESULTS

We identified 19 guidelines and 7 position statements meeting inclusion criteria. Documents generally agreed that a single, trained registered nurse can administer moderate sedation, monitor the patient, and assist with brief, interruptible tasks. Documents also agreed on the routine use of pulse oximetry and blood pressure monitoring during endoscopy. However, recommendations relating to the drugs to be used for sedation, the healthcare personnel capable of administering propofol and monitoring patients sedated with propofol, and the need for capnography when monitoring sedated patients varied. Only 9 documents provided a grade or level of evidence in support of their recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations for sedation practices in routine gastrointestinal endoscopy differ across guidelines/position statements and often lack supporting evidence with potential implications for patient safety and procedural efficiency.

Implementation of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) sedation training course in a regular endoscopy unit

BACKGROUND

 Several scientific societies have endorsed non-anesthesiologist sedation (NAS) during gastrointestinal endoscopy, considering it a safe procedure when administered by adequately trained personnel. This study aimed to evaluate the occurrence of adverse events after implementation of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) sedation training program.

METHODS

 From January 2017 to August 2018, data from all consecutive endoscopic procedures in adults (≥ 18 years) performed at our endoscopy unit were collected using an electronic reporting system.

RESULTS

 All staff (physicians and nurses) completed the ESGE-ESGENA sedation course. In total, 12 132 patients underwent endoscopic procedures, 10 755 (88.6 %) of which were performed in a non-anesthesiological setting. Of these, about 20 % used moderate sedation with midazolam + fentanyl and 80 % used deep sedation with additional propofol. No sentinel, 5 (0.05 %) moderate risk, and 18 (0.17 %) minor risk adverse events occurred, all during moderate or deep sedation, and all managed by endoscopy staff without the need for anesthesiologist assistance.

CONCLUSIONS

 After completing the ESGE-ESGENA sedation training program, the rate of adverse events was very low in our institution. The findings support implementation of the program in all digestive endoscopy units and inclusion in the curriculum for physicians and nurses to ensure safe endoscopic procedures.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol Sedation in Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Propensity Score Analysis

In spite of promising preliminary results, evidence supporting the use of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation (NAAP) in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures is still limited. The aim of this manuscript was to examine the safety and efficacy of NAAP as compared to anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in EUS procedures performed in a referral center. Out of 832 patients referred to our center between 2016 and 2019, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 305 treated with NAAP and 305 controls who underwent anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation. The primary outcome was the rate of major complications. The median age was 67 years and the proportion of patients with comorbidities was 31.8% in both groups. One patient in each group (0.3%) experienced a major complication, whereas minor complications were observed in 13 patients in the NAAP group (4.2%) and 10 patients in the control group (3.2%; p = 0.52). Overall pain during the procedure was 2.3 ± 1 in group 1 and 1.8 ± 1 in group 2 (p = 0.67), whereas pain/discomfort upon awakening was rated as 1 ± 0.5 in both groups (p = 0.72). NAAP is safe and effective even in advanced EUS procedures. Further randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to confirm these findings.

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.