Propofol sedation during endoscopic procedures: how much staff and monitoring are necessary?

Safety of endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk collective

INTRODUCTION

 Worldwide, gastrointestinal endoscopies are predominantly performed under sedation. National and international guidelines and recommendations contain very different specifications for the use of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. These differences come from specific requirements for staffing during endoscopy.

AIM

 The aim of the study is to evaluate whether endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance is not inferior to endoscopist-guided sedation with additional sedation assistance with respect to the rate of sedation-associated complications in a defined low-risk population (low-risk procedure and low-risk patient).

METHODS

 Prospective, multicenter, randomized study.

RESULTS

 27 German study centers participated in the study. A total of 30 569 endoscopies were recorded during the study period from 1.8.2015 to 10.3.2020. The final data analysis included 28 673 examinations (64.1 % esophagosgastroduodenoscopies and 35.9 % colonoscopies). In 307 (1.1 %) examinations, 322 sedation-associated complications occurred. Of these, 321 (1.1 %) were minor complications and one (0.003 %) was a major complication. There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of sedation-associated complications between endoscopist-guided sedation with versus without additional sedation assistance. Within the legal framework, a "shadow" sedation assistant was present in the study group without sedation assistance. This assistant intervened because of sedation-associated complications in 101 (0.7 %) of the endoscopies.

CONCLUSION

 The study documents the safety of propofol-based endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk population. In 98.9 % of all endoscopies, no sedation-associated complication occurred or it was so minimal that no intervention (e. g., increase of oxygen supply) was necessary. The study cannot answer to what extent a serious complication was avoided by the active intervention of the "shadow" sedation assistance in the group without sedation assistance.The study proves in a randomized, prospective design that sedation in low-risk endoscopy (low-risk patient, low-risk procedure) can be performed as endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance, without demonstrably accepting a reduction in safety.

2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Such cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary, and most patients recover without sequelae. However, these events may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

[2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation]

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary. Most patients recover without sequelae. However, they may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary. Most patients recover without sequelae. However, they may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

Impact of endoscopist experience, patient age and comorbidities on dose of sedation and sedation-related complications by endoscopic ultrasound

AIM

The aim of the study is to investigate the influence of endosonographer experience and patient-related factors on the dose of sedation and sedation-related complications during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

METHODS

Our retrospective analysis included EUS investigations performed between 2015 and 2018 at our institution. Sedation-related complications were defined as cardiorespiratory instability with oxygen saturation drop below 90% or prolonged low blood pressure or bradycardia.

RESULTS

In total, 537 EUS examinations were analyzed (37.3% interventional). The median dose of propofol and midazolam were: 140 (30-570) and 3(1-7) mg, respectively. Sedation-related complications were documented in 1.8% of cases. All patients had transient, nonfatal respiratory insufficiency. Totally, 60% of the patients who developed complications were >75 years and 70% were male. The presence of cardiac and/or pulmonary comorbidities was associated with an OR = 8.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-41.7] and American Society of Anesthesiologists class III with an OR = 7.64 (95% CI, 1.60-36.3) for the occurrence of sedation-related complications. Endosonographer experience did not influence the rate of sedation-related complications. In both diagnostic and interventional EUS, patients with comorbidities and older age received significantly less sedation. Experienced endosonographers used less sedation than trainees.

CONCLUSION

Endosonographer experience, patient age and the presence of comorbidities had a significant influence on sedation dose. Sedation-related complications occurred only in 1.8% of cases.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

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

Enteroscopy in the Elderly: Review of Procedural Aspects, Indications, Yield, and Safety

Background

As human longevity continues to increase, age-related diseases are more common, which leads to a higher use of gastroenterology services. Endoscopic procedures are generally considered to be of higher risk in the elderly with multiple comorbidities. However, some endoscopic techniques have already been proved to be well tolerated in the elderly.

Summary

<underline></underline>Enteroscopy enables the nonsurgical diagnosis and therapeutic management of a wide variety of small bowel diseases. Although it has been shown to be safe and effective, with high diagnostic yield and therapeutic success rate in the general population, its safety and efficacy in the elderly is largely unknown, and there are still some concerns about its use in these patients.

Key Messages

This review will focus on enteroscopy in elderly people, taking into account patient and procedure characteristics, indications, findings, yield, and complication rate.

Acute sedation-associated complications in GI endoscopy (ProSed 2 Study): results from the prospective multicentre electronic registry of sedation-associated complications

OBJECTIVES

Sedation has been established for GI endoscopic procedures in most countries, but it is also associated with an added risk of complications. Reported complication rates are variable due to different study methodologies and often limited sample size.

DESIGNS

Acute sedation-associated complications were prospectively recorded in an electronic endoscopy documentation in 39 study centres between December 2011 and August 2014 (median inclusion period 24 months). The sedation regimen was decided by each study centre.

RESULTS

A total of 368 206 endoscopies was recorded; 11% without sedation. Propofol was the dominant drug used (62% only, 22.5% in combination with midazolam). Of the sedated patients, 38 (0.01%) suffered a major complication, and overall mortality was 0.005% (n=15); minor complications occurred in 0.3%. Multivariate analysis showed the following independent risk factors for all complications: American Society of Anesthesiologists class >2 (OR 2.29) and type and duration of endoscopy. Of the sedation regimens, propofol monosedation had the lowest rate (OR 0.75) compared with midazolam (reference) and combinations (OR 1.0-1.5). Compared with primary care hospitals, tertiary referral centres had higher complication rates (OR 1.61). Notably, compared with sedation by a two-person endoscopy team (endoscopist/assistant; 53.5% of all procedures), adding another person for sedation (nurse, physician) was associated with higher complication rates (ORs 1.40-4.46), probably due to higher complexity of procedures not evident in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicentre registry study confirmed that severe acute sedation-related complications are rare during GI endoscopy with a very low mortality. The data are useful for planning risk factor-adapted sedation management to further prevent sedation-associated complications in selected patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00007768; Pre-results.

Sedation with propofol in digestive endoscopy administered by gastroenterologists. Experience in a Venezuelan hospital

OBJECTIVES

propofol is a rapid acting hypnotic that is becoming the drug of choice for sedation in digestive endoscopy worldwide. There is some controversy with regard to the use of propofol by physicians who are not anesthesiologists. We present our experience of the administration of propofol by endoscopist and nursing personnel.

METHODS

this was a retrospective study of sedation in endoscopy. Propofol was exclusively used and administered by the endoscopist who performed the procedure and the nursing staff. All patients included were of a low and moderate surgical risk (ASA I, II and III). No complementary medication was used such as benzodiazepines or opiates.

RESULTS

a total of 70,696 digestive endoscopy procedures performed between 2002 and 2017 were included in the study. Propofol was administered in an induction bolus of 10 to 50 mg, continuing with intermittent boluses of 10 to 20 mg, according to the patients' response. The incidence of complications was very low, assisted ventilation with a mask was required on 78 (0.11%) occasions. Only one case required endotracheal intubation and two patients had significant hypotension that required the administration of ephedrine. The average recovery time of all neuropsychomotor functions after the procedure was 15 minutes; 98% of patients reported a good or excellent level of tolerance and clearly remembered the details of the interview one hour after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

the use of propofol as a sedative in digestive endoscopy is a safe and effective technique, provided that it is administered and controlled by the endoscopist and nursing staff in properly selected patients. This allows gastroenterologists to achieve adequate sedation.

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.

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.

Comparison of procedural sequences in same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy: Single-center, prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)-colonoscopy and colonoscopy-EGD sequences for patients subjected to same-day bidirectional endoscopy under remifentanil and propofol sedation.

METHODS

A total of 209 eligible outpatients scheduled for diagnostic same-day bidirectional endoscopy between 16 February 2016 and 30 April 2016 were randomly assigned to the EGD-colonoscopy (n = 106) and colonoscopy-EGD (n = 103) sequence groups. Primary endpoint was total dose of propofol required for the procedure. Secondary endpoints included duration of endoscopy, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, endoscopy findings, and cardiopulmonary responses of the patients.

RESULTS

Patients in the two groups were similar in terms of demographic and clinical data (P > 0.05). EGD-colonoscopy sequence group had lesser requirement of propofol for sedation (P < 0.05), faster recovery (P < 0.001), and lesser influence on mean arterial pressure (MAP) during the endoscopy (P < 0.05). Duration of EGD and colonoscopy, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, and pathological findings did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The EGD-colonoscopy sequence may be considered the preferred sequence for same-day bidirectional endoscopy as a result of less cardiovascular stress, lessened need for sedation with propofol, and faster recovery.

SEDATION IN COLONOSCOPY BY USING THREE DIFFERENT PROPOFOL INFUSION METHODS AND ANALYSIS OF PLASMA CONCENTRATION LEVELS: A PROSPECTIVE COMPARATIVE STUDY

Background

The propofolemia becomes directly linked to the clinical effects of this anesthetic and is the focus for studies comparing propofol clinical use, in different administration methods routinely used in endoscopy units where sedation is widely administered to patients.

Aim

To evaluate the effects of three different regimens of intravenous propofol infusion in colonoscopies.

Methods

A total of 50 patients that underwent colonoscopies were consecutively assigned to three groups: 1) intermittent bolus infusion; 2) continuous manually controlled infusion; 3) continuous automatic infusion. Patients were monitored with Bispectral IndexTM (BIS) and propofol serum levels were collected at three different timepoints. The development of an original dilution of propofol and an inventive capnography catheter were necessary.

Results

Regarding clinical outcomes, statistical differences in agitation (higher in group 1, p=0.001) and initial blood pressure (p=0.008) were found. As for propofol serum levels, findings were similar in consumption per minute (p=0.748) and over time (p=0.830). In terms of cost analysis, group 1 cost was R$7.00 (approximately US$2,25); group2, R$17.50 (approximately US$5,64); and group 3, R$112.70 (approximately US$36,35, p<0.001). Capnography was able to predict 100% of the oxygen saturation drop (below 90%).

Conclusion

The use of propofol bolus administration for colonoscopies, through continuous manually controlled infusion or automatic infusion are similar regarding propofolemia and the clinical outcomes evaluated. The use of an innovative capnography catheter is liable and low-cost solution for the early detection of airway obstruction.

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.

Training and Competency in Sedation Practice in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The practice of endoscopic sedation requires a thorough understanding of preprocedural assessment, sedation pharmacology, intraprocedure monitoring, adverse event management, and postprocedural care. The training process has become increasingly standardized and entails knowledge and practice-based components. The use of propofol in particular requires a higher level of structured training owing to its narrow therapeutic window. Simulation has increased opportunities for practice-based training in a controlled environment. After completion of training, the endoscopist must demonstrate competence in theoretical understanding and technical ability to administer sedation. Although individual institutions have certification processes, there is a lack of validated, standardized methods to confirm competence.

Minor Anesthesia-Related Events During Radiofrequency Ablation for Barrett's Esophagus Are Associated with an Increased Number of Treatment Sessions

BACKGROUND

There is limited data regarding the prevalence and clinical impact of sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) during radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE).

AIM

Our primary aim was to measure SRAE during RFA. Secondary aims were to identify risk factors for adverse events, and to determine whether SRAEs impacted the number of RFA treatments to achieve complete eradication of dysplasia (CE-D).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 120 consecutive patients undergoing initial RFA for dysplastic BE between 2008 and 2014. The main outcome measures were SRAEs and the number of RFA sessions required to achieve CE-D.

RESULTS

Of 120 initial RFA procedures, 83 % were performed with MAC and 17 % with GET. SRAEs occurred in 32 %, including 25 % of MAC patients (25/100) and 65 % (12/20) GET patients. The most frequent SRAE was hypotension (23 %, n = 27/120), followed by hypoxia (n = 9/120), arrhythmia (n = 4/120), and one unplanned intubation. There were no premature procedure terminations. After adjusting for length of BE mucosa and ASA score, the occurrence of a SRAE was associated with requiring more (>4) RFA sessions to achieve CE-D, OR 3.45 (95 % CI 1.49-7.99). Mean RFA sessions required to achieve CE-D was 5 ± 1 in patients with SRAE, compared to 3 ± 0.7 in patients without SRAE during the first treatment session (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SRAE during RFA for dysplastic BE occurs at a rate typical of other advanced endoscopic procedures. Patients who experience minor events related to anesthesia during the first RFA are likely to require more RFA treatment sessions to achieve CE-D.

Clinical analysis of moderate-to-deep-sedation by nonmedical sedation practitioners in 597 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether moderate-to-deep sedation with propofol and alfentanil can be administered safely by nonmedical sedation practitioners, and the outcomes of this practice in the Netherlands. We retrospectively analyzed the occurrence of sedation-related complications in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this study, 597 adult patients consecutively underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. The health status of the patients was screened according to a standardized protocol, and the patients were sedated by trained nonmedical sedation practitioners. Their vital signs were continuously monitored and recorded. All patients received oxygen, and the depth of sedation was continuously assessed and recorded. Mild and severe complications were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

All patients recovered uneventfully, and no mortality occurred. Overall, of the 597 sedated patients, 85 had mild and 4 had severe complications. Hypoxemia and upper airway obstruction, which were easily managed by trained nonmedical sedation practitioners, were the most common events. Hypotension was rare. No signs or symptoms suggestive of aspiration were reported.

CONCLUSION

Moderate-to-deep sedation has been and continues to be a risky medical procedure. Serious complications of propofol/opioid-based sedation, especially respiratory and cardiovascular adverse events, may occur. These complications need to be recognized rapidly and appropriately managed. Our study shows that well-trained nonmedical sedation practitioners can be entrusted to take responsibility for the safe administration of moderate-to-deep sedation.

Considerable Variability of Procedural Sedation and Analgesia Practices for Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures in Europe

Background/Aims:

The use of moderate to deep sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has increased in Europe considerably. Because this level of sedation is a risky medical procedure, a number of international guidelines have been developed. This survey aims to review if, and if so which, quality aspects have been included in new sedation practices when compared to traditional uncontrolled sedation practices.

Methods:

A questionnaire was sent to the National Associations of Nurse Anesthetists in Europe and the National Delegates of the European Section and Board of Anaesthesiology from January 2012 to August 2012.

Results:

Huge variation in practices for moderate to deep sedation were identified between and within European countries in terms of safety, type of practitioners, responsibilities, monitoring, informed consent, patient satisfaction, complication registration, and training requirements. Seventy-five percent of respondents were not familiar with international sedation guidelines. Safe sedation practices (mainly propofol-based moderate to deep sedation) are rapidly gaining popularity.

Conclusions:

The risky medical procedure of moderate to deep sedation has become common practice for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Safe sedation practices requiring adequate selection of patients, adequate monitoring, training of sedation practitioners, and adequate after-care, are gaining attention in a field that is in transition from uncontrolled sedation care to controlled sedation care.

High efficacy with deep nurse-administered propofol sedation for advanced gastroenterologic endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Whereas data on moderate nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) efficacy and safety for standard endoscopy is abundant, few reports on the use of deep sedation by endoscopy nurses during advanced endoscopy, such as Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) are available and potential benefits or hazards remain unclear. The aims of this study were to investigate the efficacy of intermittent deep sedation with propofol for a large cohort of advanced endoscopies and to provide data on the safety.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All available data from patients sedated with intermittent deep NAPS for ERCP, EUS or double balloon enteroscopy (DBE, since the method was implemented in May 2007 through December 2012 were included for evaluation in a retrospective case-control design.

RESULTS

Data from 1899 patients undergoing 1899 procedures were included for evaluation. All but one procedure were completed with intermittent deep NAPS. The mean propofol dose was 397 mg (SD: 232.4) and the infusion rate was 23.9 mg/kg. The frequency of hypoxia was 4.3 % and 20 patients needed assisted ventilation (1.1 %). Anesthesiologic support was requested eight times (0.4 %). One patient was intubated due to suspected aspiration.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermittent deep NAPS for advanced endoscopies in selected patients provided an almost 100 % success rate. However, the rate of hypoxia, hypotension and respiratory support was high compared with previously published data, but the method was still assessed as safe.

Morbidity and mortality of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) in a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopist-Directed Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation (EDNAPS) has been evaluated in community settings rather than tertiary referral centers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A hospital-wide prospectively collected database of Medical Emergency Team Calls (METCALL), emergency responses triggered by medically unstable patients, was reviewed. Responses that followed EDNAPS were extracted and compared with a prospectively entered database of all endoscopies performed using EDNAPS over the same period.

RESULTS

A total of 33,539 endoscopic procedures (16,393 gastroscopies, 17,146 colonoscopies) were performed on 27,989 patients using EDNAPS. Intravenous drugs included midazolam (0 - 5 mg), fentanyl (0 - 100 mcg), and propofol (10 - 420 mg). Of 23 METCALLs (18 gastroscopies and 5 colonoscopies), there were 16 with ASA scores of III or higher. Indications for gastroscopy were gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage (n = 11; 8 variceal, 3 nonvariceal), dysphagia (n = 5), PEG removal (n = 1), and dyspepsia (n = 1). Fifteen of 22 patients, including all of those who had a colonoscopy, made a full recovery and returned to the ward or were discharged home. In the gastroscopy group, seven were intubated and admitted to Intensive Care, of whom six were emergency cases for gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 4 variceal, n = 2 non variceal) and one in which the indication was PEG removal. Two deaths occurred in the intubated group.

CONCLUSIONS

In a tertiary referral center, EDNAPS for low-to-moderate risk (ASA ≤ 2) patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy is very safe. Gastroscopy is associated with greater anesthetic risk than colonoscopy and those with high ASA scores needing urgent endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage are at particular risk of cardiorespiratory decompensation.

Registered nurse-administered sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedure

The rising use of nonanesthesiologist-administered sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy has clinical significances. Most endoscopic patients require some forms of sedation and/or anesthesia. The goals of this sedation are to guard the patient's safety, minimize physical discomfort, to control behavior and to diminish psychological responses. Generally, moderate sedation for these procedures has been offered by the non-anesthesiologist by using benzodiazepines and/or opioids. Anesthesiologists and non-anesthesiologist personnel will need to work together for these challenges and for safety of the patients. The sedation training courses including clinical skills and knowledge are necessary for the registered nurses to facilitate the patient safety and the successful procedure. However, appropriate patient selection and preparation, adequate monitoring and regular training will ensure that the use of nurse-administered sedation is a feasible and safe technique for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

Clinical impact of gastroenterologist-administered propofol during esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized comparison at a single medical clinic

BACKGROUND

Although midazolam is widely used during endoscopic procedures by endoscopists, propofol has been recently favored for its rapid action and metabolism. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical advantages between propofol and midazolam use during screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for gastric cancer and post-procedure management at a medical clinic.

METHODS

One hundred six healthy patients aged 20-69 years requesting sedation for screening EGD from October 2012 to May 2013 at a single clinic in Japan were randomly assigned to propofol (n = 54) or midazolam (n = 52). Medications were given by bolus injection, and the dose was adjusted by body weight. Sedation level and tolerability during EGD and recovery time were assessed. Sedation level and tolerability were evaluated by American Society of Anesthesiologists responsiveness levels and four levels of the gag reflex, respectively. For safety purposes, endoscopists and nurses were trained in administering propofol and an anesthesiologist was on call at all times.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in sedation level and patient tolerability. Full recovery time in the propofol group (4.7 min) was significantly shorter than that in the midazolam group (24 min, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding post-procedure management of patients in a medical clinic, propofol use might not necessitate a recovery room and excessive assessment tasks because of rapid recovery time without any prolonged reaction, which causes patient compliance. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000009142.).

Assessing the stability and safety of procedure during endoscopic submucosal dissection according to sedation methods: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is routinely performed under sedation, the difference in ESD performance according to sedation method is not well known. This study attempted to prospectively assess and compare the satisfaction of the endoscopists and patient stability during ESD between two sedation methods.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-four adult patients scheduled for ESD were sedated by either the IMIE (intermittent midazolam/propofol injection by endoscopist) or CPIA (continuous propofol infusion by anesthesiologist) method. The primary endpoint of this study was to compare the level of satisfaction of the endoscopists between the two groups. The secondary endpoints included level of satisfaction of the patients, patient's pain scores, events interfering with the procedure, incidence of unintended deep sedation, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

Level of satisfaction of the endoscopists was significantly higher in the CPIA Group compared to the IMIE group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 63.2% vs. 87.2%, P=0.001). The incidence of unintended deep sedation was significantly higher in the IMIE Group compared to the CPIA Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; 17.1% vs. 5.1%, P=0.018) as well as the number of patients showing spontaneous movement or those requiring physical restraint (IMIE vs. CPIA; spontaneous movement; 60.5% vs. 42.3%, P=0.024, physical restraint; 27.6% vs. 10.3%, P=0.006, respectively). In contrast, level of satisfaction of the patients were found to be significantly higher in the IMIE Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 85.5% vs. 67.9%, P=0.027). Pain scores of the patients, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Continuous propofol and remifentanil infusion by an anesthesiologist during ESD can increase the satisfaction levels of the endoscopists by providing a more stable state of sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01806753.

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.

Myths, fallacies and practical pearls in GI lab

Many prevalent practices and guidelines related to Gastrointestinal endoscopy and procedural sedation are at odds with the widely available scientific-physiological and clinical outcome data. In many institutions, strict policy of pre-procedural extended fasting is still rigorously enforced, despite no evidence of increased incidence of aspiration after recent oral intake prior to sedation. Supplemental oxygen administration in the setting of GI procedural sedation has been increasingly adopted as reported in the medical journals, despite clear evidence that supplemental oxygen blunts the usefulness of pulse oximetry in timely detection of sedation induced hypoventilation, leading to increased number of adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes. Use of Propofol by Gastroenterologist-Nurse team is erroneously considered dangerous and often prohibited in various institutions, at the same time worldwide reports of remarkable safety and patient satisfaction continue to be published, dating back more than a decade. Of patient monitoring practices that have been advocated to be standard, many merely add cost, not value. Advances in the technology often are not incorporated in a timely manner in guidelines or clinical practices, e.g., Capsule endoscopy or electrocautery during GI procedures do not interfere with proper functioning of the current pacemakers or defibrillators. Orthopedic surgeons have continued to recommend prophylactic antibiotics for joint replacement patients prior to GI procedures, without any evidence of need. These myths are explored for a succint review to prompt a change in clinical practices and institutional policies.

[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.

Endoscopist-directed propofol: pros and cons

Concerns about the safety of endoscopist-directed propofol (EDP) have been voiced that propofol should be given only by healthcare professionals trained in the administration of general anesthesia. Here we discuss the safety and drawbacks of EDP for routine endoscopic procedures. Currently, both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy are well tolerated and accepted by both patients and endoscopists due to the application of sedation in most clinics worldwide. Accordingly, propofol use is increasing in many countries. It is crucial for endoscopists to be very familiar with the use of propofol or a combination of drugs. However, the controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an anesthesiologist continues. Until now, there have been no randomized control trials comparing sedation induced by propofol administered by an endoscopist or by an anesthesiologist. It might be difficult to perform this kind of study. For the convenience and safety of sedative endoscopy, it would be important that EDP be generally applied to endoscopic procedures, and for more safety, an anesthesiologist may automatically take care of particular patients at high risk of suffering from propofol side effects.

Endoscopic sedation: from training to performance

Adequate sedation and analgesia are considered essential requirements to relieve patient discomfort and pain and ultimately to improve the outcomes of modern gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. The willingness of patients to undergo sedation during endoscopy has increased steadily in recent years and standard sedation practices are needed for both patient safety and successful procedural outcomes. Therefore, regular training and education of healthcare providers is warranted. However, training curricula and guidelines for endoscopic sedation may have conflicts according to varying legal frameworks and/or social security systems of each country, and well-recognized endoscopic sedation training systems are not currently available in all endoscopy units. Although European and American curricula for endoscopic sedation have been extensively developed, general curricula and guidelines for each country and institution are also needed. In this review, an overview of recent curricula and guidelines for training and basic performance of endoscopic sedation is presented based on the current literature.

Valsalva retinopathy following esophagogastroduodenoscopy under propofol sedation: A case report

We report a case of Valsalva retinopathy associated with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under propofol sedation. A 43-year-old woman who had no previous history of systemic or ocular disease presented with a complaint of decreased vision in her left eye, which developed one day after EGD under propofol sedation. According to the referring physician, the patient had experienced multiple sustained Valsalva maneuvers during EGD. The fundus examination of the left eye showed a large preretinal hemorrhage surrounded by multiple small retinal hemorrhages in the posterior pole. One month later, fundus examination revealed a floating organized vitreous hemorrhage. The pars plana vitrectomy was performed to treat persistent vitreous hemorrhage. One month after vitrectomy, fundus examination showed normal retina and the patient’s vision recovered to 20/20. Valsalva maneuver can occur during EGD under sedation, and Valsalva retinopathy should be considered as a possible cause. Valsalva retinopathy should be included in the differential diagnosis when a patient complains of blurred vision following EGD.

The role of capnography in endoscopy patients undergoing nurse-administered propofol sedation: a randomized study

OBJECTIVE. Standard benzodiazepine/opioid cocktail has proven inferior to propofol sedation during complicated endoscopic procedures and in low-tolerance patients. Propofol is a short-acting hypnotic with a potential risk of respiratory depression at levels of moderate to deep sedation. The existing literature on capnography for endoscopy patients sedated with nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) is limited. Can the addition of capnography to standard monitoring during endoscopy with NAPS reduce the number, duration, and level of hypoxia. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This study was a randomized controlled trial with an intervention group (capnography) and a control group (without capnography). Eligible subjects were consecutive patients for endoscopy at Gentofte Hospital compliant with the criteria of NAPS. RESULTS. Five hundred and forty patients, 263 with capnography and 277 without capnography, were included in the analysis. The number and total duration of hypoxia was reduced by 39.3% and 21.1% in the intervention group compared to the control group (p > 0.05). No differences in actions taken against insufficient respiration were found. Changes in end-tidal carbon dioxide (R = 0.177, p-value < 0.001) and respiratory rate (R = 0.092, p-value < 0.001) were correlated to oxygen saturation (SpO2) up to 36 s prior to changes in SpO2. CONCLUSIONS. Capnography seems to reduce the number and duration of hypoxia in NAPS patients (p > 0.05). Capnography is able to detect insufficient respiration that may lead to hypoxia prior to changes in pulse oximetry. However, due to a limited clinical benefit and additional costs associated with capnography, we do not find capnography necessary during the use of NAPS.

Double balloon enteroscopy can be safely done in elderly patients with significant co-morbidities

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Performance of double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) on older patients with comorbidities is a matter of safety. We aimed to investigate the utility and safety of DBE in older patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients 75 years or older who underwent DBE in our open-access endoscopy unit in a tertiary center. We analyzed the diagnostic yield, therapeutic intervention, and safety including complications of DBE.

RESULTS

Four scheduled DBEs were canceled because of poor conditions. Two hundred and fourteen DBEs were performed in 167 elderly patients. All DBEs were performed under monitored anesthesia care using intravenous propofol administered by anesthesiologists. One half of the patients were male (female : male = 80:87). The mean age of patients was 80.1 ± 3.7 years. Co-morbidity of significant chronic diseases was noted in 208 (97.2%) DBEs. Fifty-one (23.8%) DBEs were performed in patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II, 151 (70.6%) DBEs with ASA class III, and 12 (5.6%) DBEs with ASA class IV. The most common indication was obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. The mean DBE procedure time was 131 ± 51 min. Abnormalities were detected in 129 (60.3%) DBEs with therapeutic interventions performed in 83 (38.8%) cases. Pancreatitis, hypoxia, and aspiration pneumonia developed after three (1.4%), three (1.4%), and two (0.9%) DBEs, respectively, all of which resolved with conservative care.

CONCLUSIONS

Double balloon enteroscopy can be done with acceptable safety in the elderly with high ASA class. DBE shows a high diagnostic yield and can deliver many therapeutic applications.

Nurse-administered propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: first Nordic results from implementation of a structured training program

INTRODUCTION

Proper training to improve safety of NAPS (nurse-administered propofol sedation) is essential.

OBJECTIVE

To communicate our experience with a training program of NAPS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2007, a training program was introduced for endoscopists and endoscopy nurses in collaboration with the Department of Anaesthesiology. During a 2.5-year period, eight nurses were trained. Propofol was given as monotherapy. The training program for nurses consisted of a 6-week course including theoretical and practical training whereas the training program for endoscopists consisted of 2.5 h of theory. Patients were selected based on strict criteria including patients in ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) group I-III.

RESULTS

2527 patients undergoing 2.656 gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures were included. The patients were ASA group I, II and III in 34.7%, 56% and 9,3%, respectively. Median dose of propofol was 300 mg. No mortality was noted. 119 of 2527 patients developed short lasting hypoxia (4.7%); 61 (2.4%) needed suction; 22 (0.9%) required bag-mask ventilation and 8 (0.3%) procedures had to be discontinued. In 11 patients (0.4%), anesthetic assistance was called due to short lasting desaturation. 34 patients (1.3%) experienced a change in blood pressure greater than 30%.

CONCLUSION

NAPS provided by properly trained nurses according to the present protocol is safe and only associated with a minor risk (short lasting hypoxia 4.7%). National or international structured training programs are at present few or non-existing. The present training program has documented its value and is suggested as the basis for the current development of guidelines.

Which should go first during same-day bidirectional endosocopy with propofol sedation?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Same-day bidirectional endoscopy, including esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy, is frequently performed to screen for cancer and gastrointestinal bleeding. However, the optimal sequence for the procedures is unclear thus far. The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal sequence for same-day bidirectional endoscopy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing same-day bidirectional endoscopy under propofol sedation were randomized to either the colonoscopy-first group (colonoscopy followed by EGD, n = 87) or the EGD-first group (EGD followed by colonoscopy, n = 89). We evaluated the propofol dose, procedure duration, patient tolerance and recovery, adverse events, and endoscopic findings. The patient tolerance was assessed with a 0-10 visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Total procedure times, patients' tolerance and recovery, adverse events, and endoscopic findings were similar between the two groups. The total propofol dose was significantly higher for the colonoscopy-first group than for the EGD-first group (mean 95% credibility limit: 135.7 [70-201.4] mg vs 124.7 [64.1-185.3] mg, respectively, P = 0.024). Patients in the colonoscopy-first group moved significantly more during colonoscopy than those in the EGD-first group: 1.1 (0-3.8) versus 0.6 (0-2.9) scores, respectively (P = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

The optimal sequence for same-day bidirectional endoscopy is EGD followed by colonoscopy. In this order, the procedure is better tolerated, and patients require a lower overall dose of propofol.

How best to approach endoscopic sedation?

Sedation is the drug-induced reduction of a patient's consciousness. The aim of sedation in endoscopic procedures is to increase the patient's comfort and to improve endoscopic performance, especially in therapeutic procedures. The most commonly used sedation regimen for conscious sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy is still the combination of benzodiazepines with opioids. However, the use of propofol has increased enormously in the past decade and several studies show advantages of propofol over the traditional regimes in terms of faster recovery time. It is important to be aware that the complication rate of endoscopies increases when sedation is used; therefore, a thorough risk evaluation before the procedure and monitoring during the procedure must be performed. In addition, properly trained staff and emergency equipment should be available. The best approach to sedation in endoscopy is to choose a sedation regimen for the individual patient, tailored according to the clinical risk assessment and the anxiety level of the patient, as well as to the type of planned endoscopic procedure.

A survey of sedation practices for colonoscopy in Canada

BACKGROUND

There are limited data regarding the use of sedation for colonoscopy and concomitant monitoring practices in different countries.

METHODS

A survey was mailed to 445 clinician members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and 80 members of the Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons in May and June 2009.

RESULTS

Sixty-five per cent of Canadian Association of Gastroenterology members and 69% of Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons members responded with the full survey. Most endoscopists reported using sedation for more than 90% of colonoscopies. The most common sedation regimen was a combination of midazolam and fentanyl. Propofol, either alone or with another drug, was used in 12% of cases. A higher proportion (94%) of adult gastroenterologists who routinely used propofol were highly satisfied compared with those using other sedative agents (45%; P<0.001). Fifty per cent of adult gastroenterologists and 29% of surgeons who were not currently using propofol expressed interest in starting to use it for routine colonoscopies. Only a single nurse was present in the endoscopy room during colonoscopy performed by two-thirds of the endoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of the present survey suggest that gastroenterologists in Canada use sedation for colonoscopy in more than 90% of their patients. There was higher satisfaction among gastroenterologists who used propofol routinely for all colonoscopies. Most endoscopy rooms were staffed by a single nurse, which may limit further increases in the use of propofol. Further studies are needed to determine optimal staffing of endoscopy units with and without the use of propofol. Sedation practices of general surgery endoscopists need to be evaluated.

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy

Propofol sedation by non-anaesthesiologists is an upcoming sedation regimen in several countries throughout Europe. Numerous studies have shown the efficacy and safety of this sedation regimen in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Nevertheless, this issue remains highly controversial. The aim of this evidence- and consensus-based set of guideline is to provide non-anaesthesiologists with a comprehensive framework for propofol sedation during digestive endoscopy. This guideline results from a collaborative effort from representatives of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). These three societies have endorsed the present guideline.The guideline is published simultaneously in the Journals Endoscopy and European Journal of Anaesthesiology.

Efficacy of propofol sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD): assessment with prospective data collection

OBJECTIVE

The indications for endoscopic treatment in early stage cancer of the digestive tract are expanding with the emergence and technical development of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). ESD requires longer term stable sedation than conventional endoscopic procedures due to the necessity of meticulous control of the devices during the procedure. Propofol has a very short half-life and can be administered continuously, which is advantageous for long-term sedation. Propofol, thus, is likely to be useful for sedation during ESD.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients who underwent ESD for early gastric cancer with propofol sedation (Group P) and those with midazolam sedation (Group M) were included in this study. Cardiorespiratory suppression rate and the condition of arousal were compared between the groups. A questionnaire survey on the satisfaction of endoscopists, anesthesiologists, endoscopy nurses, and ward nurses with the use of propofol was also carried out.

RESULTS

Respiratory suppression was observed in 50% in Group M and in 20% in Group P (p<0.05). Hypotension was seen in 14% and 36% in Groups M and P, respectively (p<0.05). No sedation-related complications were encountered in either of the groups. Arousal rates 1 hour and 3 hours after the procedure were 23% and 60% in group M and 86% and 100% in Group P (p<0.05). As for the questionnaire survey, most respondents, in particular the ward nurses, supported the use of propofol.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that propofol is safe and useful during ESD as compared with midazolam.

Optimal sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: review and recommendations

Sedation practices for endoscopy vary widely. The present review focuses on the commonly used regimens in endoscopic sedation and the associated risks and benefits together with the appropriate safety measures and monitoring practices. In addition, alternatives and additions to intravenous sedation are discussed. Personnel requirements for endoscopic sedation are reviewed; there is evidence presented to indicate that non-anesthetists can administer sedative drugs, including propofol, safely and efficaciously in selected cases. The development of endoscopic sedation as a multi-disciplinary field is highlighted with the formation of the Australian Tripartite Endoscopy Sedation Committee. This comprises representatives of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, the Gastroenterological Society of Australia and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Possible future directions in this area are also briefly summarized.

Avaliação da lidocaína tópica como pré-medicação para a endoscopia digestiva alta em crianças

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a eficácia da lidocaína spray tópica como droga adjuvante na sedação e analgesia de crianças e adolescentes para endoscopia digestiva. MÉTODOS: Foram incluídos 80 pacientes (49 femininos e 31 masculinos, idade média 12±3 anos), 40 no grupo placebo e 40 no grupo lidocaína. Os pacientes foram alocados aleatoriamente e um paciente de cada grupo foi excluído. Lidocaína a 10% ou placebo (ácido tânico 0,5%) aerossol (dois jatos) foram aplicados na orofaringe antes da infusão de propofol. Os pacientes foram monitorizados durante o procedimento e após, sendo respondido questionário para avaliar odinofagia e a pré-medicação. O desfecho primário foi a dose de propofol empregada, enquanto os desfechos secundários foram incidência de complicações, tempo de sala e duração do procedimento. RESULTADOS: Não houve diferenças entre os grupos quanto à idade, sexo e indicação da endoscopia. A dose de propofol empregada não foi diferente nos dois grupos (grupo placebo 3,1±1,1 e grupo lidocaína 2,9±1,3mg/kg; p=0,69), mesmo quando considerada a dose bruta (p=0,33). No entanto, o tempo de sala médio foi maior no grupo placebo do que no lidocaína (23±7 versus 20±5 minutos; IC95% da diferença: 0,47-5,89 minutos, p=0,02). Não houve diferenças entre os grupos quanto à duração do procedimento, incidência de complicações e aceitação pelo paciente. CONCLUSÕES: O emprego de medicação tópica anestésica em endoscopia reduz o tempo de sala sem aumentar a incidência de efeitos adversos (NCT00521703).