A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures

Safety of propofol sedation administered by interventional radiologists for radiofrequency ablation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety of propofol sedation administered by interventional radiologists during radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Propofol sedation was administered by interventional radiologists in 72 patients (85 procedures, 93 tumors) during RFA for HCC between August 2018 and December 2020. Interventional radiologists equipped with adequate knowledge and skills in sedation and respiratory management were responsible for sedation. Sedation was carefully assessed based on vital signs, including end-tidal carbon dioxide, consciousness status, and bispectral index. The primary endpoint was the incidence of sedation-related complications, which were evaluated separately as respiratory and cardiovascular complications. Secondary endpoints were technical success rate, ablation-related complications, and local tumor control rate. Technical success was defined as completion of ablation in the planned area. Complications were evaluated using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Sedation-related complications, technical success rate, and ablation-related complications were evaluated on a procedure basis, and local tumor control was evaluated on a tumor basis.

RESULTS

Respiratory and cardiovascular complications were observed in eight (8/85, 9.4%) and two (2/85, 2.4%) patients, respectively. Four patients required the jaw thrust maneuver due to glossoptosis, whereas a decrease in oxygen saturation to < 90% was recorded in the other four patients. However, these were temporary, and none required manual ventilation or endotracheal intubation. Bradycardia (< 50 bpm) was detected in two patients; one recovered immediately without treatment, whereas the other rapidly improved after atropine sulfate administration. No severe hypotension (< 80 mmHg) was observed. The technical success rate was 100% (85/85). Grade 3 ablation-related complications were identified in three patients (3/85, 3.5%). The local tumor control rate was 95.7% (89/93).

CONCLUSION

Propofol sedation can be safely administered by interventional radiologists during RFA for HCC. Although it requires special safety considerations, it may be a sedation option during hepatic RFA.

Risk factors of missed early gastric cancer in endoscopic resected population: a retrospective, case-control study

BACKGROUND

Missed early gastric cancer (MEGC) is prevalent during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), which is the first-line recommended strategy for detecting early gastric cancer (EGC). Hence, we explored the risk factors for MEGC and different types of MEGC, based on the endoscopic resected population.

METHODS

This retrospective, case-control study was conducted at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital (NJDTH). We included patients who were diagnosed with EGC during screening EGD, underwent endoscopic resection, and were confirmed by postoperative pathology at the NJDTH from January 2014 to December 2021, and classified them into different types according to the different root causes of misses. Univariable, multivariable, subgroup and propensity score analyses were used to explore the risk factors for MEGC and different types of MEGC.

RESULTS

A total of 447 patients, comprising 345 with initially detected early gastric cancer (IDEGC) and 102 with MEGC, were included in this study. Larger size (≥ 1 cm) (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27-0.74, P = 0.002) and invasion depth of submucosa (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10-0.69, P = 0.007) were negatively associated with MEGC. Use of sedation (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.20-0.52, P < 0.001) and longer observation time (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.96, P = 0.034) exhibited protective effect on MEGC.

CONCLUSIONS

Smaller and more superficial EGC lesions are more susceptible to misdiagnosis. The use of sedation and prolonged observation time during EGD could help reduce the occurrence of MEGC.

Thoracic impedance pneumography in propofol-sedated patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A prospective, randomized trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of an ECG-based method called thoracic impedance pneumography to reduce hypoxic events in endoscopy.

DESIGN

This was a single center, 1:1 randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

The trial was conducted during the placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).

PATIENTS

173 patients who underwent PEG placement were enrolled in the present trial. Indication was oncological in most patients (89%). 58% of patients were ASA class II and 42% of patients ASA class III.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized in the standard monitoring group (SM) with pulse oximetry and automatic blood pressure measurement or in the intervention group with additional thoracic impedance pneumography (TIM). Sedation was performed with propofol by gastroenterologists or trained nurses.

MEASUREMENTS

Hypoxic episodes defined as SpO2 < 90% for >15 s were the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were minimal SpO2, apnea >10s/>30s and incurred costs.

MAIN RESULTS

Additional use of thoracic impedance pneumography reduced hypoxic episodes (TIM: 31% vs SM: 49%; p = 0.016; OR 0.47; NNT 5.6) and elevated minimal SpO2 per procedure (TIM: 90.0% ± 8.9; SM: 84.0% ± 17.6; p = 0.007) significantly. Apnea events >10s and > 30s were significantly more often detected in TIM (43%; 7%) compared to SM (1%; 0%; p < 0.001; p = 0.014) resulting in a time advantage of 17 s before the occurrence of hypoxic events. As a result, adjustments of oxygen flow were significantly more often necessary in SM than in TIM (p = 0.034) and assisted ventilation was less often needed in TIM (2%) compared with SM (9%; p = 0.053). Calculated costs for the additional use of thoracic impedance pneumography were 0.13$ (0.12 €/0.11 £) per procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional thoracic impedance pneumography reduced the quantity and extent of hypoxic events with less need of assisted ventilation. Supplemental costs per procedure were negligible.

KEY WORDS

thoracic impedance pneumography, capnography, sedation, monitoring, gastrointestinal endoscopy, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

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 intramuscular diazepam infusion on herpes zoster-related pain in older patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the effectiveness, psychological effects, and sleep quality using intramuscular diazepam infusion compared with placebo in patients with herpes zoster (HZ)-related pain.

METHODS

The patients were randomized to either the diazepam or control group. The diazepam group received an intramuscular injection of diazepam for 3 consecutive days, while the control group received an intramuscular injection of 0.9% normal saline. The primary outcome was pain relief on posttreatment day 4, as measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Moreover, anxiety and depression were evaluated using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD7) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ9), respectively. Sleep quality was assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI).

RESULTS

In total, 78 patients were enrolled in the trial. The mean differences in VAS scores between the two groups were 0.62 (P = 0.049) on posttreatment day 3 and 0.66 (P = 0.037) on posttreatment day 4. The effective rates of pain management in the diazepam group ranged from 10.26 to 66.67%, which were higher than those in the control group on posttreatment days 3 and 4 (P < 0.05). The mean difference in PSQI scores between the diazepam and control groups was 1.36 (P = 0.034) on posttreatment day 7. No differences were found in the incidence of analgesia-adverse 1reactions between the diazepam and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The intramuscular injection of diazepam for 3 consecutive days provides effective pain management and improves the quality of life. Our study suggests that diazepam is more effective than the placebo in patients with HZ-related pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was prospectively registered at https://www.isrctn.com/trialist(Registration date: 24/01/2018; Trial ID: ISRCTN12682696).

Acceptance and Preference of Computed Tomographic Colonography and Colonoscopy: Results of a Nationwide Multicenter Comparative Questionnaire Survey in Japan

Objectives

To investigate patient acceptance and preference for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) over colonoscopy.

Methods

Participants were recruited from a nationwide multicenter trial in Japan to assess the accuracy of CTC detection. They were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy after CTC with common bowel preparation on the same day. Some were administered sedative drugs during colonoscopy, depending on the referring clinician and participant's preferences. The participants were requested to complete a questionnaire to evaluate the acceptability of bowel preparation, examinations, and preference for future examinations.

Results

Of the 1,257 enrolled participants, 1,180 (mean age: 60.6 years; women: 43.3%) completed the questionnaire. Sedative drugs were not administered in 687 participants (unsedated colonoscopy group) and were administered intravenously during colonoscopy in 493 participants (sedated colonoscopy group). Before propensity score matching, the mean participants' age, percentages of asymptomatic participants, insufflation of gas during colonoscopy, and number of participants with a history of abdominal/pelvic operation significantly differed between the groups. After propensity score matching, 912 participants from each group were included in the analysis. In the unsedated colonoscopy group, CTC was answered as significantly easier than colonoscopy (p<0.001). Conversely, CTC was significantly more difficult than colonoscopy in the sedated colonoscopy group (p<0.001). In the unsedated colonoscopy group, 48% preferred CTC and 22% preferred colonoscopy for future examinations, whereas in the sedated colonoscopy group, 26% preferred CTC and 38% preferred colonoscopy (p<0.001).

Conclusions

CTC has superior participant acceptability compared with unsedated colonoscopy. However, our study did not observe the advantages of CTC acceptance over sedative colonoscopy.

Chinese national clinical practice guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of early gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors in the digestive system in China. Few comprehensive practice guidelines for early gastric cancer in China are currently available. Therefore, we created the Chinese national clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of early gastric cancer.

METHODS

This clinical practice guideline (CPG) was developed in accordance with the World Health Organization's recommended process and with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) in assessing evidence quality. We used the Evidence to Decision framework to formulate clinical recommendations to minimize bias and increase transparency in the CPG development process. We used the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) as reporting and conduct guidelines to ensure completeness and transparency of the CPG.

RESULTS

This CPG contains 40 recommendations regarding the prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of early gastric cancer based on available clinical studies and guidelines. We provide recommendations for the timing of Helicobacter pylori eradication, screening populations for early gastric cancer, indications for endoscopic resection and surgical gastrectomy, follow-up interval after treatment, and other recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

This CPG can lead to optimum care for patients and populations by providing up-to-date medical information. We intend this CPG for widespread adoption to increase the standard of prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of early gastric cancer; thereby, contributing to improving national health care and patient quality of life.

Quality Standards in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Can Deep Sedation Influence It?

Introduction

According to the guideline published by ESGE/UEG, a high-quality esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) implies the application of some criteria that enable better healthcare outcomes. Although intra-procedural performance measures are dependent on patient factors, there is no reference to sedation practices in the guideline mentioned above.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate whether deep sedation influences EGD performance measures established by ESGE/UEG.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study, with a prospective enrollment, that considered for inclusion consecutive patients referred for EGD. Two questionnaires were used to assess performance measures and patient satisfaction after EGD.

Results

Sedation had a statistically significant impact on most quality indicators, including complete examination (77.2% without sedation vs. 97.8% with sedation), inspection time (6.17 ± 3.45 vs. 8.39 ± 2.67 min), photodocumentation (78% vs. 97.8%), biopsies (39.3% vs. 60.7%), and patient satisfaction (5.42 ± 2.93 vs. 9.1 ± 1.19). The main reason for an incomplete procedure was patient intolerance (82.6%).

Discussion

Deep sedation of patients submitted to EGD proved to be a determinant in the applicability of the ESGE/UEG quality indicators. Patient intolerance was eliminated in the group with sedation, enhancing procedure completeness, adequate pathology identification, management, and consequently, the effectiveness of the exam.

Conclusion

Sedation administration should be considered in patients undergoing EGD since it ensures a high-quality procedure.

The Impact of Sedation on Cardio-Cerebrovascular Adverse Events after Surveillance Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

Background/Aims

The impact of sedation on cardio-cerebrovascular (CCV) adverse events after esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients with gastric cancer (GC) is unclear. We investigated the incidence rate and impact of sedation on CCV adverse events after surveillance EGD in patients with GC.

Methods

We performed a nationwide population-based cohort study using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service databases from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. Using a propensity score-matched analysis, patients with GC were divided into two groups: sedative agent users and nonusers for surveillance EGD. We compared the occurrence of CCV adverse events within 14 days between the two groups.

Results

Of the 103,463 patients with GC, newly diagnosed CCV adverse events occurred in 2.57% of patients within 14 days after surveillance EGD. Sedative agents were used in 41.3% of the patients during EGD. The incidence rates of CCV adverse events with and without sedation were 173.6/10,000 and 315.4/10,000, respectively. Between sedative agent users and nonusers based on propensity score matching (28,008 pairs), there were no significant differences in the occurrence of 14-day CCV, cardiac, cerebral, and other vascular adverse events (2.28% vs 2.22%, p=0.69; 1.44% vs 1.31%, p=0.23; 0.74% vs 0.84%, p=0.20; 0.10% vs 0.07%, p=0.25, respectively).

Conclusions

Sedation during surveillance EGD was not associated with CCV adverse events in patients with GC. Therefore, the use of sedative agents may be considered in patients with GC during surveillance EGD without excessive concerns about CCV adverse events.

Impact of a simple non-invasive nasal mask device on intraprocedural hypoxemia in overweight individuals undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation provided by a non-anesthesiologist provider

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Hypoxemia is a common side effect of propofol sedation during endoscopy. Applying mild positive airway pressure (PAP) using a nasal mask may offer a simple way to reduce such events and optimize the conditions for diagnostic and therapeutic upper gastrointestinal endoscopies.

METHODS

We compared overweight patients (body mass index >25 kg/m2) with a nasal PAP mask or standard nasal cannula undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopies by non-anesthesiologists who provided propofol sedation. Outcome parameters included the frequency and severity of hypoxemic episodes.

RESULTS

We analyzed 102 procedures in 51 patients with nasal PAP masks and 51 controls. Episodes of hypoxemia (oxygen saturation [SpO2] <90% at any time during sedation) occurred in 25 (49.0%) controls compared to 8 (15.7%) patients with nasal PAP masks (p<0.001). Severe hypoxemia (SpO2 <80%) occurred in three individuals (5.9%) in both groups. The mean delta between baseline SpO2 and the lowest SpO2 recorded was significantly decreased among patients with nasal PAP mask compared to controls (3.7 and 8.2 percentage points difference, respectively). There were significantly fewer airway interventions performed in the nasal PAP mask group (15.7% vs. 41.2%, p=0.008).

CONCLUSION

Using a nasal PAP mask may be a simple means of increasing patient safety and ease of examination.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

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.

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.

Safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic solid mass in the elderly: A single-center retrospective study

AIM

There are few reports on the safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the elderly. In this study, we investigated the safety of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses in patients aged ≥80 years.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective study. A total of 600 patients with pancreatic solid masses who underwent EUS-FNA under midazolam-based sedation at our institution between September 2016 and December 2022 were enrolled in this study. Eligible patients were divided into two groups: an elderly group aged ≥80 (n = 84), as well as a nonelderly group aged ≤79 (n = 516). These two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The elderly group required significantly fewer midazolam doses for sedation (P < 0.001). Adverse events occurred in eight patients (1.3%), including one (1.2%) and seven (1.4%) in the elderly and nonelderly groups, respectively (P = 0.90). There were no cases of early adverse events in the elderly group and six cases (1.2%) in the nonelderly group (P = 0.32). There was one case of late adverse events in both the elderly and nonelderly groups (P = 0.14), and both were needle tract seeding. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the proportion of cases in which percutaneous oxygen saturation decreased to ≤90% during the EUS-FNA.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses can be safely performed in patients aged >80 years without increasing the adverse event rate compared to nonelderly patients aged <80 years. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2023; 23: 836-841.

A single-center prospective study on pain alleviation during peroral upper endoscopy with an ultrathin endoscope

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of transnasal endoscopy using an ultrathin endoscope has been reported in several studies. However, few studies regarding peroral endoscopy with ultrathin endoscopes with high resolution have been reported. This study investigates the pain alleviation of peroral endoscopy with an ultrathin endoscope.

METHODS

Patients with a history of peroral endoscopy using a conventional, normal-diameter scope with no sedation who underwent peroral esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) using a thin scope between April-July 2022 were included in this study. After the procedure, the patients completed a questionnaire evaluating pain during the examination and willingness to repeat the procedure. The physicians were surveyed regarding their level of satisfaction. The primary endpoint was patient satisfaction, which corresponded to the rate of patients who rated the thin endoscope as more comfortable or somewhat more comfortable than the previously-used, conventional endoscope.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-five patients were included in the analyses. Patient satisfaction was achieved in 86.2% (125/145) of patients. The median visual analog scale pain score was 3 (0-7) points in this study, which is significantly lower than the pain score after the previous endoscopy (5 (0-10) points; p < 0.001). In addition, 96% (24/25) of patients who underwent EGD by an expert and 95.8% (115/120) who underwent EGD by a non-expert were willing to repeat endoscopy using the thin scope (p = 0.69).

CONCLUSION

Peroral endoscopy using a thin scope reduces patient pain regardless of the endoscopist's experience.

Efficacy of different bowel preparation regimen volumes for colorectal cancer screening and compliance with European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures

BACKGROUND

Various volumes of bowel preparation are used in clinical practice. There is conflicting data on the effectiveness of individual regimens. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and compliance of currently used bowel preparations with the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures using data of the Dutch nationwide colorectal cancer screening (CRC) program.

METHODS

In a prospective, multicenter endoscopy database, we identified all CRC screening colonoscopies performed in 15 Dutch endoscopy centers from 2016 to 2020. We excluded procedures without documented bowel preparation or the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score. Bowel preparation regimens were categorized into three groups, that is, 4-L (polyethylene glycol (PEG)), 2-L (2-L PEG with ascorbic acid) and ≤1-L volumes (sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate, 1L-PEG with sodium sulfate and ascorbic acid or oral sulfate solution). European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures included adequate BBPS score (≥6) (>90%), cecal intubation rate (CIR, >90%), adenoma detection rate (ADR, >25%) and polyp detection rate (PDR, >40%). Logistic regression was performed to identify predictive factors for adequate BBPS and patient discomfort.

RESULTS

A total of 39,042 CRC screening colonoscopies were included. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores, CIR, ADR and PDR for 4L, 2L and ≤1L regimens all met the minimum ESGE performance measures standards. However, an adequate BBPS score was more frequently seen with 2L regimens (98.0%) as compared to 4L (97.1%) and ≤1L regimens (97.0%) (p < 0.001), respectively. In addition, CIR was higher for ≤1L (98.4%) versus 4L (97.7%) and 2L (97.9%) regimens (p = 0.001), ADR higher for lower volume (≤1L (60.0%) and 2L (61.2)) versus higher volume (4L (58.6%)) regimens (p < 0.001), and PDR higher for ≤1L (70.0%) and 2L (70.8%) versus 4L (67.2%) regimens (p < 0.001). Boston Bowel Preparation Scale for ≤1L regimens was higher when combined with bisacodyl (97.3%) than without (95.6%) (p < 0.001). Overall, bisacodyl use was independently associated with higher patient discomfort (odds ratios = 1.47, confidence intervals = 1.26-1.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite variations in bowel preparation volumes, all regimens meet the minimum ESGE performance measures for bowel preparation and other quality parameters. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale can be further improved if ultra low volume regimens are combined with bisacodyl. The choice for either bowel preparation volume can therefore be based on volume-tolerance and patient preference.

Effect of modified ShengYangYiwei decoction on painless gastroscopy and gastrointestinal and immune function in gastric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Painless gastroenteroscopy is a widely developed diagnostic and treatment technology in clinical practice. It is of great significance in the clinical diagnosis, treatment, follow-up review and other aspects of gastric cancer patients. The application of anesthesia techniques during manipulation can be effective in reducing patient fear and discomfort. In clinical work, the adverse drug reactions of anesthesia regimens and the risk of serious adverse drug reactions are increased with the increase in propofol application dose application dose; the application of opioid drugs often causes gastrointestinal reactions, such as nausea, vomiting and delayed gastrointestinal function recovery, after examination. These adverse effects can seriously affect the quality of life of patients.

AIM

To observe the effect of modified ShengYangYiwei decoction on gastrointestinal function, related complications and immune function in patients with gastric cancer during and after painless gastroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 106 patients with gastric cancer, who were selected from January 2022 to September 2022 in Xiamen Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital for painless gastroscopy, were randomly divided into a treatment group (n = 56) and a control group (n = 50). Before the examination, all patients fasted for 8 h, provided their health education, and confirmed if there were contraindications to anesthesia and gastroscopy. During the examination, the patients were placed in the left decubitus position, the patients were given oxygen through a nasal catheter (6 L/min), the welling needle was opened for the venous channel, and a multifunction detector was connected for monitoring electrocardiogram, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, etc. Naporphl and propofol propofol protocols were used for routine anesthesia. Before anesthesia administration, the patients underwent several deep breathing exercises, received intravenous nalbuphine [0.nalbuphine (0.025 mg/kg)], followed by intravenous propofol [1.propofol (1.5 mg/kg)] until the palpebral reflex disappeared, and after no response, gastroscopy was performed. If palpebral reflex disappeared, and after no response, gastroscopy was performed. If any patient developed movement, frowning, or hemodynamic changes during the operation (heart rate changes during the operation (heart rate increased to > 20 beats/min, systolic blood pressure increased to > 20% of the base value), additional propofol [0.propofol (0.5 mg/kg)] was added until the patient was sedated again. The patients in the treatment group began to take the preventive intervention of Modified ShengYangYiwei decoction one week before the examination, while the patients in the control group received routine gastrointestinal endoscopy. The patients in the two groups were examined by conventional painless gastroscopy, and the characteristics of the painless gastroscopies of the patients in the two groups were recorded and compared. These characteristics included the total dosage of propofol during the examination, the incidence of complications during the operation, the time of patients' awakening, the time of independent activities, and the gastrointestinal function of the patients after examination, such as the incidence of reactions such as malignant vomiting, abdominal distension and abdominal pain, as well as the differences in the levels of various immunological indicators and inflammatory factors before anesthesia induction (T0), after conscious extubation (T1) and 24 h after surgery (T2).

RESULTS

There was no difference in the patients’ general information, American Society of Anesthesiologist classification or operation time between the two groups before treatment. In terms of painless gastroscopy, the total dosage of propofol in the treatment group was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05), and the time of awakening and autonomous activity was significantly faster than that in the control group (P < 0.05). During the examination, the incidence of hypoxemia, hypotension and hiccups in the treatment group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.01). In terms of gastrointestinal function, the incidences of nausea, vomiting, abdominal distension and abdominal pain in the treatment group after examination were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < 0.01). In terms of immune function, in both groups, the number of CD4+ and CD8+ cells decreased significantly (P < 0.05), and the number of natural killer cells increased significantly (P < 0.05) at T1 and T2, compared with T0. The number of CD4+ and CD8+ cells in the treatment group at the T1 and T2 time points was higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05), while the number of natural killer cells was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). In terms of inflammatory factors, compared with T0, the levels of interleukin (IL) -6 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha in patients in the two groups at T1 and T2 increased significantly and then decreased (P < 0.05). The level of IL-6 at T1 and T2 in the treatment group was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The preoperative use of modified ShengYangYiwei decoction can optimize the anesthesia program during painless gastroscopy, improve the gastrointestinal function of patients after the operation, reduce the occurrence of examination-related complications.

Respiratory support with nasal high flow without supplemental oxygen in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography under moderate sedation: a prospective, randomized, single-center clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Nasal high flow (NHF) may reduce hypoxia and hypercapnia during an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure under sedation. The authors tested a hypothesis that NHF with room air during ERCP may prevent intraoperative hypercapnia and hypoxemia.

METHODS

In the prospective, open-label, single-center, clinical trial, 75 patients undergoing ERCP performed with moderate sedation were randomized to receive NHF with room air (40 to 60 L/min, n = 37) or low-flow O₂ via a nasal cannula (1 to 2 L/min, n = 38) during the procedure. Transcutaneous CO₂, peripheral arterial O₂ saturation, a dose of administered sedative and analgesics were measured.

RESULTS

The primary outcome was the incidence of marked hypercapnia during an ERCP procedure under sedation observed in 1 patient (2.7%) in the NHF group and in 7 patients (18.4%) in the LFO group; statistical significance was found in the risk difference (-15.7%, 95% CI -29.1 - -2.4, p = 0.021) but not in the risk ratio (0.15, 95% CI 0.02 - 1.13, p = 0.066). In secondary outcome analysis, the mean time-weighted total PtcCO₂ was 47.2 mmHg in the NHF group and 48.2 mmHg in the LFO group, with no significant difference (-0.97, 95% CI -3.35 - 1.41, p = 0.421). The duration of hypercapnia did not differ markedly between the two groups either [median (range) in the NHF group: 7 (0 - 99); median (range) in the LFO group: 14.5 (0 - 206); p = 0.313] and the occurrence of hypoxemia during an ERCP procedure under sedation was observed in 3 patients (8.1%) in the NHF group and 2 patients (5.3%) in the LFO group, with no significant difference (p = 0.674).

CONCLUSIONS

Respiratory support by NHF with room air did not reduce marked hypercapnia during ERCP under sedation relative to LFO. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of hypoxemia between the groups that may indicate an improvement of gas exchanges by NHF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

jRCTs072190021 . The full date of first registration on jRCT: August 26, 2019.

Quality indicators in the endoscopic detection of gastric cancer

Gastroscopy is the reference standard for the diagnosis of gastric cancer, but it is operator-dependent and associated with missed gastric cancer. The proliferation of gastroscopic examinations, increasingly for the screening and detection of subtle premalignant lesions, has motivated scrutiny of quality in gastroscopy. The concept of a high-quality endoscopic examination for the detection of superficial gastric neoplasia has been defined by expert guidelines to improve mucosal visualization, engender a systematic examination process and detect superficial neoplasia. This review discusses the evidence supporting the components of a high-quality diagnostic gastroscopic examination in relation to the detection of gastric cancer, and their potential role as procedural quality indicators to drive a structured improvement in clinically meaningful outcomes.

Study of wrist-ankle acupuncture therapy for optimizing anaesthesia scheme of painless gastroscopy and improving painless gastroscopy related complications

BACKGROUND

Painless gastroscopy is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic technology in clinical practice. Propofol combined with opioids is a common drug for painless endoscopic sedation and anaesthesia. In clinical work, adverse drug reactions of anaesthesia schemes are often one of the important areas of concern for doctors and patients. With the increase in propofol dosage, the risk of serious adverse drug reactions, such as respiratory depression and hypotension, increases significantly; the use of opioids often causes gastrointestinal reactions in patients after examination, such as nausea, vomiting, delayed recovery of gastrointestinal function and other complications, which seriously affect their quality of life.

AIM

To observe the effect of wrist-ankle acupuncture therapy on the anaesthesia regimen and anaesthesia-related complications during and after painless gastroscopy examination.

METHODS

Two hundred patients were selected and randomly divided into a treatment group (n = 100) and a control group (n = 100). Both groups were routinely anaesthetized with the nalbuphine and propofol regimen, gastroscopy began after the patient lost consciousness, and given supportive treatment and vital sign monitoring. If the patient interrupted the surgery due to intraoperative torsion, intravenous propofol was used to relieve his or her discomfort. The treatment group received wrist-ankle acupuncture on this basis.

RESULTS

The general data before treatment, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) grade and operation time between the two groups was no significant difference. The Wakeup time, and the Self-ambulation time in the treatment group was significantly faster than that in the control group (P < 0.05). The total dose of propofol in the treatment group was 109 ± 8.17 mg, significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of respiratory depression and hypotension was not significantly different, but the incidence of hiccups was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). After the examination, the incidence of nausea, vomiting, abdominal distension, and abdominal pain was 11%, 8%, 6%, and 5%, respectively, which was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). In addition, both the operators and the patients were more satisfied with this examination, with no significant difference between the groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Wrist-ankle acupuncture treatment can optimize the painless gastroscopy and anaesthesia scheme, reduces propofol total dose; shortens patient Wakeup time and Self-ambulation time, improves patient compliance and tolerance, is beneficial to clinical application.

Etomidate versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes

BACKGROUND

Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, owing to its side effects, an alternative drug is needed. We aimed to compare the safety, satisfaction, and efficacy outcomes of etomidate versus propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, including advanced endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL (via EBSCO), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Web of Science (1946-April 2020) databases for randomized controlled trials of gastrointestinal endoscopy (upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and advanced endoscopy) using etomidate or propofol as sedatives. We pooled odds ratios (ORs) for the safety profile and patient and anesthesiologist satisfaction using mixed-effects conditional logistic models and standardized mean differences for efficiency outcomes using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies involving 3875 patients were included. Compared with propofol, etomidate resulted in significantly reduced apnea (OR: 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.37; P < .001), hypoxemia (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.35-0.54; P < .001), hypotension (OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.11-0.36; P < .001), and bradycardia (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30-0.91; P = .02) but led to increased myoclonus (OR: 8.54; 95% CI: 5.20-14.01; P < .001) and lowered anesthesiologist satisfaction (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.39-0.91; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Etomidate may be a good alternative to propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially advanced endoscopy. Etomidate appears to be safe as an inducer for hemodynamically unstable patients or older adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Advances in Analgosedation and Periprocedural Care for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The number and complexity of endoscopic gastrointestinal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is globally increasing. Procedural analgosedation during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has become the gold standard of gastrointestinal endoscopies. Patient satisfaction and safety are important for the quality of the technique. Currently there are no uniform sedation guidelines and protocols for specific gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and there are several challenges surrounding the choice of an appropriate analgosedation technique. These include categories of patients, choice of drug, appropriate monitoring, and medical staff providing the service. The ideal analgosedation technique should enable the satisfaction of the patient, their maximum safety and, at the same time, cost-effectiveness. Although propofol is the gold standard and the most used general anesthetic for endoscopies, its use is not without risks such as pain at the injection site, respiratory depression, and hypotension. New studies are looking for alternatives to propofol, and drugs like remimazolam and ciprofol are in the focus of researchers' interest. New monitoring techniques are also associated with them. The optimal technique of analgosedation should provide good analgesia and sedation, fast recovery, comfort for the endoscopist, patients' safety, and will have financial benefits. The future will show whether these new drugs have succeeded in these goals.

Pharmacodynamic modeling of moderate sedation and rationale for dosing using midazolam, propofol and alfentanil

PURPOSE

Regulations have broadened to allow moderate sedation administration for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-anesthesia personnel. The line between moderate and deep sedation is ambiguous. Deep sedation offers patient comfort as well as greater safety concerns. Unintended deep sedation can occur if drug interactions are overlooked. We present a pharmacodynamic model for moderate sedation using midazolam, alfentanil and propofol. The model is suitable for training and devising rationales for appropriate dosing.

METHODS

The study consists of two parts: modeling and validation. In modeling, patients scheduled for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or colonoscopy sedation are enrolled. The modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (MOAA/S) score < 4 is defined as loss of response to represent moderate sedation. Two patient groups receiving bronchoscopy or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are used for validation. Model performance is assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC). Simulations are performed to demonstrate how the model is used to rationally determine drug regimen for moderate sedation.

RESULTS

Interaction between propofol and alfentanil is stronger than the other pairwise combinations. Additional synergy is observed with three drugs. ROC AUC is 0.83 for the modeling group, and 0.96 and 0.93 for ERCP and bronchoscopy groups respectively. Model simulation suggests that 1 mg midazolam, 250 µg alfentanil and propofol maximally benefits from drug interactions and suitable for moderate sedation.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate the accurate prediction of a three-drug response surface model for moderate sedation and simulation suggests a rational dosing strategy for moderate sedation with midazolam, alfentanil and propofol.

What Is Known about Midazolam? A Bibliometric Approach of the Literature

Midazolam is a drug with actions towards the central nervous system producing sedative and anticonvulsants effects, used for sedation and seizures treatments. A better understanding about its effects in the different scenarios presented in the literature could be helpful to gather information regarding its clinical indications, pharmacological interactions, and adverse events. From this perspective, the aim of this study was to analyze the global research about midazolam mapping, specifically the knowledge of the 100 most-cited papers about this research field. For this, a search was executed on the Web of Science-Core Collection database using bibliometric methodological tools. The search strategy retrieved 34,799 articles. A total of 170 articles were evaluated, with 70 articles being excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. The 100 most-cited articles rendered 42,480 citations on WoS-CC, ranging from 253 to 1744. Non-systematic review was the most published study type, mainly from North America, during the period of 1992 to 2002. The most frequent keywords were midazolam and pharmacokinetics. Regarding the authors, Thummel and Kunze were the ones with the greatest number of papers included. Our findings showed the global research trends about midazolam, mainly related to its different effects and uses throughout the time.

Supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation decreased hypoxemia during gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation at high altitudes: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Hypobaric hypoxia is common at high altitudes. Whether this exacerbates hypoxia during procedural sedation and whether hypoxia can be alleviated by the use of supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation (SJOV) are unknown. This study aimed to compare the incidence of hypoxia during gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation at high altitudes with oxygen supply techniques using either a nasal cannula or SJOV.

Methods

This study was conducted from April 2022 to July 2022 in a tertiary hospital located 3650 m above sea level. Adult patients scheduled for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy under sedation were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to receive SJOV or a nasal cannula during sedation. Moderate hypoxia was the primary outcome, defined as an SPO2 of 75–89% for < 60 s. The secondary outcomes were respiratory-, cardiovascular-, and SJOV-related complications. The influence of characteristics regarding acclimatization to high altitudes (Tibetan ethnic group and erythrocytosis) on the occurrence of hypoxia was analyzed.

Results

None of the patients were lost to follow-up. A total of 72 patients were included in the analysis (36 patients in each group). There were 20 (27.8%) patients who experienced moderate hypoxia events. Significantly fewer hypoxic events occurred in the SJOV group than in the nasal cannula group [3 (8.3%) vs. 17 (47.2%), absolute risk difference (95% CI): − 38.9 (− 57.5, − 20.2) %, risk ratio (RR, 95% CI): 0.18 (0.06, 0.55), P < 0.001]. Significantly fewer patients in the SJOV group experienced mild hypoxia (P < 0.001) and severe hypoxia (P = 0.002). No serious adverse events occurred in either of the groups. The Tibetan ethnic group (P = 0.086) and erythrocytosis (P = 0.287) were not associated with the occurrence of hypoxia events.

Conclusions

The incidence of hypoxia was lower with SJOV than with nasal cannula in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation at high altitudes. The Tibetan ethnic group and erythrocytosis did not influence the occurrence of hypoxia.

Trial registration

This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05304923) before enrollment by Dr. Yi Feng on 31/03/2022.

Cost comparison of oral, transnasal and magnet assisted capsule endoscopy in the examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract in patients with dyspepsia

Introduction

Conventional oral upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy can obe uncomfortable. By comparison, transnasal endoscopy (TNE) and magnet assisted capsule endoscopy (MACE) have superior tolerability. A cost comparison of competing upper GI endoscopic modalities have yet to be performed.

Methods

We performed a cost comparison study of oral, TNE and MACE by a combination of activity-based costing and averaging of fixed costs over 24 481 upper GI endoscopies performed for dyspepsia over a 10-year period.

Results

On average, 9.4 procedures were performed daily. TNE was cheapest at €125.90 per procedure, costing 30% less than oral endoscopy at €184.10 and threefold cheaper than MACE at €407.10. Flexible endoscope reprocessing cost €53.80. TNE was cheaper than oral endoscopy as sedation was not required. Oral endoscopies have a further rate of infectious complications, estimated to cost €16.20 per oral procedure in inpatient admissions. Oral and TNE equipment are more expensive to purchase and maintain than MACE costing €79 330 and €81 819, respectively compared with MACE at €15 420 per annum. However, capsule endoscopes cost significantly more per procedure at €369.00 than the consumables for flexible endoscopy (per oral €12.30, TNE €5.30).

Conclusions

TNE cost less to perform than conventional per oral endoscopy. The cost of capsule endoscopes will need to be reduced significantly if routine use is to be expected.

First dose-ranging study of remimazolam in Japanese patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: Phase II investigator-initiated clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Remimazolam, an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, has been used for procedural sedation in the United States. We conducted an investigator-initiated clinical trial to determine the appropriate dose of remimazolam required for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy in Japanese subjects.

METHODS

In this single-center, open-label, uncontrolled, phase II trial, a three-stage cohort investigated the appropriate initial and additional doses of remimazolam required for gastrointestinal endoscopy. This study was designed with advice from the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency. The initial and additional doses were 2 mg and 1 mg/dose, 3 mg and 1 mg/dose, and 5 mg and 2 mg/dose in cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Each cohort included 10 cases of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy. The primary end-point was the success rate of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

RESULTS

Sedation was successful in all gastrointestinal endoscopies in cohorts 1 and 2. In cohort 1, sedation was achieved in five (25.0%) and 10 (50.0%) participants with the initial dose and total dose (initial dose + additional dose ≤ the initial dose of the next cohort), respectively, before endoscopy. In cohort 2, sedation was achieved in 11 (55.0%) and 18 (90.0%) participants with the initial dose and total dose, respectively, before endoscopy. No patient in either cohort lost consciousness or required flumazenil or manual ventilation.

CONCLUSION

Initial and additional doses of 3 mg and 1 mg/dose of remimazolam, respectively, were shown to be effective and safe for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy in Japanese patients.

AGA White Paper: Challenges and Gaps in Innovation for the Performance of Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer

In 2018, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference, entitled "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer, considered recent improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.

Can intravenous lidocaine definitely attenuate propofol requirement and improve outcomes among colonoscopic patients under intravenous sedation?: A double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol-sparing effect of lidocaine has not been fully elucidated because propofol is usually mixed with many medications in anesthetic practice. Therefore, the study aimed to verify the additive effect of intravenous lidocaine to propofol without other sedative medications and control the depth of anesthesia using the bispectral index (BIS) during colonoscopy in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled trial.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients scheduled and undergoing colonoscopy were randomly allocated to receive intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg then 4 mg/kg/h) (Group L) or a similar volume of normal saline (Group C) with propofol administration guided by BIS monitoring. The primary outcome was total propofol requirements between group comparisons. The secondary outcomes included the number of hypoxemic periods, hemodynamic changes, duration in returning of BIS > 85, sedation scores, pain scores, postoperative opioid requirement, and patient satisfaction between group comparisons.

RESULTS

Intravenous lidocaine showed significantly reduced total propofol use (151.76 ± 50.78 mg vs 242.06 ± 50.86 mg, Group L vs Group C, respectively, P < .001). Duration in returning to BIS > 85, sedation scores, and patient satisfaction scores were significantly superior in Group L (P < .05). The number of hypoxemic episodes, changes of hemodynamic response, pain scores, and postoperative opioid requirement were similar in both groups. No adverse effects were detected in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous lidocaine produced a definitely effective reduced propofol requirement without other sedative agents and improved outcomes including patient satisfaction, duration in returning to BIS > 85, and sedation score during colonoscopy without adverse effects.

Simulation-Based Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Sedations: A Novel Validation to Multidrug Pharmacodynamic Modeling

Pharmacodynamic models have described the interactions between anesthetics. Applying the models to clinical practice is still problematic due to inherent limitations: 1. modeling conditions are different from practice. 2. One model can only describe one endpoint. To tackle these, we propose a new method of model validation for recovery and intraprocedural sedation adequacy with a three-drug pharmacodynamic model using six published clinical studies that contain midazolam, opioid, and propofol. Mean drug dose, intraprocedural sedation level, procedure, and recovery time are extracted from each study. Simulated drug regimens are designed to best approximate study conditions. A published deep sedation model is used for simulation. Model-predicted recovery time and intraprocedural sedation scores are compared with the original clinical study outcomes. The model successfully predicted recovery times in eight out of nine regimens. Lower doses of midazolam are associated with faster recovery. Model prediction of intraprocedural sedation level was compatible with the clinical studies in five out of seven regimens. The three-drug pharmacodynamic model describes the course of gastrointestinal endoscopy sedations from clinical studies well. Model predictions are consistent with the results from clinical studies. The approach implies that large scale validation can be performed repeatedly.

The effect of intravenous lidocaine on propofol dosage in painless bronchoscopy of patients with COPD

Background

We tested the hypothesis that intravenous (IV) lidocaine reduces propofol requirements in painless bronchoscopy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

A total of 93 patients who underwent bronchoscopy were included in this randomized placebo-controlled study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. After the IV doses of nalbuphine, patients were given a bolus of propofol, which was titrated if necessary until loss of consciousness. Then patients were given IV lidocaine (2 mg/kg then 4 mg/kg/h) or the same volume of saline. The primary endpoint was the propofol requirements. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of hypoxemia, the incidence of cough during glottis examination, the systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR) during bronchoscopy procedures, the bronchoscopist's comforts, and the time for wakefulness before recovery.

Results

Lidocaine infusion resulted in a significant reduction in propofol requirements (p &lt; .0001), and the incidence of hypoxemia (p = .001) and cough (p = .003) during examination decreased significantly in the lidocaine group. During the examination, the fluctuation of SBP and HR was significantly lower than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (p &lt; .05). Bronchoscopist's comforts were higher in the lidocaine group (p &lt; .001), and time for wakefulness (p &lt; .001) were significantly lower in the lidocaine group.

Conclusion

In painless bronchoscopy in patients with COPD, IV infusion of lidocaine resulted in a reduction in propofol dose requirements and reduce the incidence of adverse events.

Comparison of effectiveness, cost and safety between moderate sedation and deep sedation under esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Chinese population: a quasi-experimental study

OBJECTIVE

Most endoscopists routinely perform moderate or deep sedation for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Considering that there is no consensus on the optimal sedation depth and it varies from country to country, our study aims to compare the effectiveness, cost and safety of these two sedation methods in the Chinese population.

METHODS

This quasi-experimental study included a total of 556 eligible patients from July 2020 to June 2021, and they entered the moderate sedation group or deep sedation group based on their choices. Baseline information, scores of Patient Satisfaction with Sedation Instrument (PSSI) and Clinician Satisfaction with Sedation Instrument (CSSI), examination time, sedation time, recovery time, expenses before medicare reimbursement, hypoxaemia and hypotension were compared between the two groups. Propensity Score Matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the confounding factors.

RESULTS

After PSM, 470 patients were involved in the analysis, with 235 for each group. The moderate sedation was clearly superior to the deep sedation group in terms of PSSI score (98.00 ± 0.94 vs. 97.29 ± 1.26), CSSI score (98.00 ± 0.78 vs. 97.67 ± 1.30), sedation time (11.90 ± 2.04 min vs. 13.21 ± 2.75 min), recovery time (25.40 ± 3.77 min vs. 28.0 ± 4.85 min), expenses (433.04 ± 0.00 Yuan vs. 789.85 ± 0.21 Yuan), with all p < .001. Examination time was not significantly different between the two groups (p = .124). In addition, the moderate sedation group had a lower occurrence rate of hypoxaemia (0.36% vs. 3.27%, p = .010) and hypotension (17.44% vs. 44.00%, p < .001) compared to the deep sedation group.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation presented better effectiveness and safety and lower cost, and thereby it should be recommended as a widely used sedation method in clinical practice in China. Trial registration: This trial was registered on http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx (ChiCTR2000038050).

High flow nasal cannula for patients undergoing bronchoscopy and gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

High flow nasal cannula is gaining increasingly used in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. We undertook this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) could effectively minimize the risk of hypoxemia as compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT).

Methods

We performed a comprehensive search of Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and Web of Science. Studies involving the application of HFNC during endoscopic procedures were identified.

Results

We included 15 randomized controlled trials (7 bronchoscopy, 8 gastrointestinal endoscopy). Patients receiving HFNC during endoscopic procedures had a significantly lower risk of hypoxemia (defined as SpO2 &lt; 90%) versus COT group (risk ratio = 0.32; 95%CI (0.22–0.47), 13 studies, 4,093 patients, moderate-quality evidence, I2 = 48.82%, P &lt; 0.001). The lowest SpO2 was significantly higher in HFNC group (mean difference = 4.41; 95%CI (2.95–5.86), 9 studies, 1,449 patients, moderate-quality evidence, I2 = 81.17%, P &lt; 0.001) than those receiving COT. No significant difference was detected between groups in end-procedure partial pressure of CO2 (standard mean difference  =  −0.18; 95%CI (−0.52–0.15), 5 studies, 238 patients, moderate-quality evidence, I2 = 42.25%, P = 0.29). Patients receiving HFNC were associated a lower need for airway intervention (risk ratio = 0.45; 95%CI (0.24–0.84), 8 studies, 2,872 patients, moderate-quality evidence, I2 = 85.97%, P = 0.01) and less procedure interruption (risk ratio = 0.36; 95%CI (0.26–0.51), 6 studies, 1,562 patients, moderate-quality evidence, I2 = 0.00%, P &lt; 0.001). The overall intubation rate after endoscopy was 0.20% in both group, with no difference detected (risk ratio = 1.00; 95%CI (0.30–3.35), 7 studies, 2,943 patients, low-quality evidence, I2 = 0.00%, P = 1.00).

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis found moderate to low evidence that the application of HFNC was associated with improved oxygenation, decreased need for airway intervention, and reduced procedure interruption in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. Future larger sample and high-quality studies are warranted to confirm our result and further investigate the effectiveness of HFNC in patients at risk.

Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022298032.

The hemodynamic stability of remimazolam compared with propofol in patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection: A randomized trial

Objective

Hypotension is common in propofol anesthesia. Whether remimazolam could reduce intraoperative hypotension remains unknown. We therefore tested the primary hypothesis that remimazolam reduces the incidence of intraoperative hypotension compared with propofol in adult patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) surgery.

Materials and methods

We conducted a prospective trial to compare patients who received either remimazolam or propofol bolus induction and thereafter intravenous infusion. The hemodynamic parameters were measured using CNAP® Monitor 500 system. Our primary analysis was to compare the incidence of hypotension defined as systolic blood pressure below 90 mmHg between remimazolam and propofol during the whole anesthesia period.

Results

The incidence of hypotension decreased by 50%, from 67.9% in propofol group to 32.1% in remimazolam group (p &lt; 0.01). Patients received less amount of intraoperative phenylephrine in the remimazolam group than the propofol group (0 [0–40] μg vs. 80 [0–200] μg, p &lt; 0.01). Time-weighted average and cumulative time of hypotension was lower in remimazolam group compared with propofol group (p &lt; 0.05). Cardiac output continuously measured by CNAP was preserved much better in remimazolam group compared with propofol group (p = 0.01), while systemic vascular resistance did not differ between the groups. The median time from discontinuation until full alertness was 4 [3–11.8] min in the remimazolam group compared with 15 [12.0–19.8] min in the propofol group (p &lt; 0.01).

Conclusion

Remimazolam has better hemodynamic stability than propofol in adult patients undergoing ESD surgery. The benefits of remimazolam on hemodynamic stability and hypotension prevention may be partly contributed to its better preservation of cardiac output.

Clinical Trial Registration

[http://www.chictr.org.cn/com/25/showproj.aspx?proj=61104], identifier [ChiCTR2000037975].

Sedation-analgesia techniques for nonoperating room anesthesia: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There has been a substantial increase in nonoperating room anesthesia procedures over the years along with an increase in the complexity and severity of cases. These procedures pose unique challenges for anesthesia providers requiring meticulous planning and attention to detail. Advancements in the delivery of sedation and analgesia in this setting will help anesthesia providers navigate these challenges and improve patient safety and outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been a renewed interest in the development of newer sedative and analgesic drugs and delivery systems that can safely provide anesthesia care in challenging situations and circumstances.

SUMMARY

Delivery of anesthesia care in nonoperating room locations is associated with significant challenges. The advent of sedative and analgesic drugs that can be safely used in situations where monitoring capabilities are limited in conjunction with delivery systems, that can incorporate unique patient characteristics and ensure the safe delivery of these drugs, has the potential to improve patient safety and outcomes. Further research is needed in these areas to develop newer drugs and delivery systems.

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.

Capsule endoscopy - a non-invasive modality to investigate the GI tract: out with the old and in with the new?

INTRODUCTION

Capsule endoscopy has had significant development since it was introduced into the field of medicine in 2000. It is non-invasive, well tolerated, does not require sedation and is a first-line small bowel investigative modality. As it transits through the entire gastrointestinal (GI) tract, it has the potential to provide a pan-enteric examination.

AREAS COVERED

In this review we will discuss the new diagnostic modalities along with traditional methods which have been used for examination of the gastro intestinal (GI) tract. The main focus of this review will be on the use of capsule endoscopy for pan-enteric examination.

EXPERT OPINION

Capsule endoscopy is an accepted first-line investigation for the small bowel. Diagnostic sensitivity of the colon capsule is comparable to colonoscopy in controlled trials and is being evaluated in high-risk patients in routine clinical practice in national programs. Preliminary data suggest that a magnetic-controlled examination of the upper GI tract could be developed to enable a complete upper GI examination.

The risk of unexpected hospital admissions and primary care visits after an elective day-case gastroscopy: a cohort study within England

AIM

To determine the excess of acute medical contacts following a day-case diagnostic gastroscopy.

METHODS

Cohort study using English linked primary, secondary care and death registry electronic health data. We included 277,535 diagnostic day-case gastroscopies in 225,304 people between 1998 and 2016 and followed up for 30 days. 1,383,535 30-day periods without a gastroscopy within 991,249 people frequency matched on year, gender and decade of birth. Non-cancer deaths, emergency non-cancer admissions and cardio, vascular or respiratory (CVR) primary care consultations were identified and adjusted for each other as competing risks. Outcomes related to possible indications for gastroscopy were censored.

RESULTS

5.1% of day-case diagnostic gastroscopies were followed by emergency hospital admission, 0.4% for a CVR diagnosis. Adjusted for age, sex, morbidity, time trends, indications and competing risks, there was a 0.1% excess of CVR-related hospital admissions compared to controls. This reduced to 0.05% (95% confidence interval 0.04-0.06%) in people under 40 years without morbidity and increased to 1.1% (0.6%-1.6%) in people over 90 years with high comorbidity. Similarly, by 30 days, 3.8% had a primary care consultation for a CVR problem, with an excess after adjustment ranging from 0.13% (0.11%-0.16%) to 0.31% (0.14%-0.50%). Overall numbers needed to harm ranged from 1 in 294 gastroscopies to 1 in 67 gastroscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

There was an excess of vascular and respiratory events associated with a diagnostic gastroscopy. In younger patients, this risk manifested as an increase in primary care consultations while in older patients there was an increase in emergency hospital admissions.

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.

Comparison of patient tolerance and acceptability of magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy and flexible endoscopy in the investigation of dyspepsia

Background and study aims  Oropharyngeal intubation during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is uncomfortable, associated with aerosol generation and transmission of airborne microbes. Less-invasive alternatives may be better tolerated. In this study, patient tolerance and acceptability of EGD and transnasal endoscopy (TNE) have been compared with magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy (MACE). Patients and methods  A comparison of MACE with EGD and TNE in the investigation of dyspepsia was performed. Factors affecting patient tolerance and acceptability were examined using the Endoscopy Concerns Scale (ECS) and Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire (UPC-Q). Results  Patients were significantly more distressed (scoring least to most distress: 1-10) by gagging (6 vs 1), choking (5 vs 1), bloating (2 vs 1), instrumentation (4 vs 1), discomfort during (5 vs 1) and after (2 vs 1) EGD compared to MACE (all P  < 0.0001). Patients were more distressed by instrumentation (5 vs 1) and discomfort during (5 vs 1) TNE compared to MACE ( P  = 0.001). Patients were more accepting of MACE than EGD and TNE with a UPC-Q score (scoring least to most acceptable: 0-100) lower for EGD (50 vs 98, P  < 0.0001) and TNE (75 vs 88, P  = 0.007) than MACE, and a post-procedure ECS score (scoring most to least acceptable: 10-100) higher for EGD (34 vs 11, P  < 0.0001) and TNE (25 vs 10.5, P  = 0.001) than MACE. MACE would be preferred by 83 % and 64 % of patients even if EGD or TNE respectively was subsequently recommended to obtain biopsies in half of examinations. Conclusions  Gagging and choking during instrumentation, the main causes of patient distress during EGD, occurred less during TNE but tolerance, acceptability and patient experience favored MACE.

Quality indicators in esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has been used to diagnose a wide variety of upper gastrointestinal diseases. In particular, EGD is used to screen high-risk subjects of gastric cancer. Quality control of EGD is important because the diagnostic rate is examiner-dependent. However, there is still no representative quality indicator that can be uniformly applied in EGD. There has been growing awareness of the importance of quality control in improving EGD performance. Therefore, we aimed to review the available and emerging quality indicators for diagnostic EGD.

Gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal complication rates associated with diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy under sedation

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under sedation may result in gastrointestinal (GI) and non-GI complications. However, no previous studies have reported 30-day GI and non-GI complications after diagnostic EGD under sedation.We conducted a retrospective, observational study of 30-day GI and non-GI complication rates after outpatient diagnostic EGD under sedation in subjects ≥18 years between January 2012 and December 2017 based on a common data model database. Thirty-day complication rates were compared with EGD under sedation or not, type of sedation drugs (midazolam only vs midazolam/propofol) and age groups (18-64 year vs ≥65 year) for GI (bleeding and perforation) and non-GI complications (pneumonia, acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and cerebral stroke).In total, 39,910 were performed with sedation (midazolam only, n = 16,033 and midazolam/propofol, n = 23,864) and 22,894 were performed without sedation. Elderly patients significantly favored EGD without sedation (P < .01). GI and non-GI complication rates were similar between EGD under sedation and without sedation (all P > .1) except for acute myocardial infarction rate, which was significantly higher in EGD without sedation than EGD under sedation (1.7/10,000 vs 0.3/10,000 persons, P = .043). All GI and non-GI complications were also similar between the midazolam/propofol and midazolam only groups as well as between young and old patients (all P > .1).Outpatient diagnostic EGD under sedation has an excellent safety profile. In addition, it can be safely performed with midazolam only or midazolam/propofol and in young and old patients.

Evaluation of pharyngeal lidocaine anesthesia for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: Double-blind randomized control trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess whether the use of topical pharyngeal anesthesia improves endoscopist- and patient-reported tolerance and satisfaction, the total dose of propofol used and the rate of adverse effects associated with this procedure.

METHODS

This double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted in patients undergoing elective oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, who met the inclusion criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to receive five squirts of lidocaine 10% spray (50 mg, n = 268) or placebo (n = 271) 3 min before starting the procedure or sedation. The main outcome measures were patient- and endoscopist-reported tolerance, and additionally, satisfaction with the procedure, adverse events and supplementary propofol used.

RESULTS

In the lidocaine group, it was twice (odds ratio [OR] 2.136, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.228-3.715) or three times (OR 3.311, 95% CI 1.623-6.757) more likely that the endoscopist rated the procedure as well tolerated and easy to intubate than as well tolerated but the patient difficult to intubate or as poorly tolerated, respectively. Further, in these patients, less propofol was used (80 vs. 100 mg, P = 0.001). Controls were more likely to cough during the intubation (OR 2.172, 95% CI 1.378-3.423) and the procedure (OR 1.989, 95% CI 1.325-2.984), as well as more likely to retch (OR 3.582, 95% CI 1.667-7.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical lidocaine may improve the procedure as rated by the endoscopist, as well as reduce the requirement for propofol and rate of adverse events such as retching and coughing. No adverse events associated with lidocaine administration were observed. ClinicalTrials registration no. NCT02733471.

Effect of wrist-ankle acupuncture on propofol dosage during painless colonoscopy: A randomized controlled prospective study

BACKGROUND

The clinical advantages of painless colonoscopy can reduce the fear and discomfort of patients and increase the detection rate of diseases. Propofol has the characteristics of fast effect and short action time. It is a common choice for painless endoscopic sedation and anesthetics. However, propofol can cause severe respiratory and circulatory depression. Therefore, it is important to find a way to reduce the dose of propofol.

AIM

To explore the effect of wrist-ankle acupuncture on propofol dose during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Two hundred patients who were going to receive selective painless colonoscopy in Hebei Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine were selected and divided into wrist-ankle acupuncture group (WAA group, n = 100) and control group (CON group, n = 100). After entering the operation room, patients were given 0.025 mg/kg nabufine intravenously and propofol at the initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg. In patients who did not fall asleep, propofol (10 mg/time) was given until loss of consciousness. Prior to anesthesia, patients in WAA group were punctured by specialist in the inferior 1, 2 and 3 regions according to the zoning principle of wrist-ankle acupuncture. The primary endpoint was required dose of propofol, and the secondary endpoints were the incidence of hypoxemia and hypotension. Furthermore, the following data were recorded: The operation time, wake-up time, incidence of nausea and vomiting, incidence of abdominal distention, post-colonoscopy pain, examiners' satisfaction, patients' satisfaction and Borg fatigue index. This study has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration Code: ChiCTR1900022177).

RESULTS

The induced dose of propofol and the total dose of propofol in WAA group were 80 mg and 110 mg, respectively, which were significantly lower than those in CON group (P < 0.05). The incidences of hypoxemia and hypotension in the WAA group were 2.2% and 3.3%, respectively, significantly lower than those in the CON group (P < 0.05). The incidence of abdominal distension in the WAA group was 8.8%, which was significantly lower than that in the CON group (P < 0.05, 28.9%). The waking time of WAA group was 3.26 ± 0.87 min, which was significantly lower than that of CON group (6.06 ± 0.88 min, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Wrist-ankle acupuncture can reduce the induction dose and total dose of propofol as well as the incidence of adverse reactions in painless colonoscopy without affecting the satisfaction of examiners and patients. This procedure is simple in operation and easy to promote in clinical practice.

Improvement of acceptability in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy using auditory and visual stimulation

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has become an indispensable examination to discover upper gastrointestinal diseases, including cancer, and perform endoscopic treatment. However, many individuals who undergo the procedure have feelings of anxiety and fear regarding EGD. Although the use of medication for sedation during EGD is useful for reducing anxiety and the stability of hemodynamics, sedation may increase the likelihood of complications. Several noninvasive distractions have been introduced to decrease pain and anxiety during endoscopic examinations;however, most assessments of these distractions evaluated subjective items such as impression. We herein add the results of our studies using objective items and review the effectiveness of distractions for EGD. J. Med. Invest. 69 : 8-18, February, 2022.

Validity Analysis of Neck Circumference as a Screening Test for Hypoxia Occurrence in Patients Undergoing Sedative Endoscopy

This study was performed to check the validity of and propose a cutoff point for measuring the neck circumference for screening hypoxia occurrence in patients undergoing sedative endoscopy. Data were collected from 168 patients who visited the Endoscopy Center of G University Hospital between 27 April 2020 and 12 June 2020 to undergo sedative endoscopy. Hypoxia occurrences were measured using sleep questionnaires (STOP-BANG and Berlin questionnaires), and the neck circumference measurements of the patients were compared. Neck circumference as a predictor of hypoxia and its sensitivity and specificity according to the cutoff values were high; thus, it is a valid screening test for hypoxia in patients undergoing sedative endoscopy. The most appropriate cutoff values for sitting neck circumference and lying neck circumference in men were 40.5 and 40.3, respectively, and those for women were 35.3 and 35.8, respectively. Hypoxia can be predicted in patients undergoing sedative endoscopy by measuring their neck circumference.

Safety Profile of Endoscopist-directed Balanced Propofol Sedation for Procedural Sedation: An Experience at a Hospital-based Endoscopy Unit

BACKGROUND

Nurse-administered propofol sedation was restricted to anesthesiologists in 2009, a practice that has contributed to spiraling health care costs in the United States.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of endoscopist-directed balanced propofol sedation (EDBPS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients undergoing endoscopy with EDBPS from January 1, 2017, to June 20, 2017, and abstracted their medical records. Adverse events (AEs) included: hypoxia (oxygen saturation < 90%); hypotension [(a) systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg, (b) systolic blood pressure decline of >50 mm Hg, (c) decline in mean arterial pressure of >30%]; bradycardia (heart rate of < 40 beats/min). Logistic regression identified factors independently associated with AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 1897 patients received EDBPS during the study period [mean age: 55 y (SD=11.4 y); 56.4% women]. Patients received median doses of 50 µg fentanyl, 2 mg of midazolam, and a mean propofol dose of 160±99 mg. There were no major complications (upper 95% confidence interval, 0.19%). Overall, 334 patients (17.6%) experienced a clinically insignificant AE: 65 (3.4%) experienced transient hypoxia, 277 patients (14.6%) experienced hypotension, 2 had transient bradycardia. In bivariate analysis, older age was associated with risk for hypotension, propofol dose was associated with transient hypoxemia, and procedure duration was associated with both hypotension and transient hypoxia. In multivariate analysis, only procedure length was associated with AEs (odds ratio scale 10; odds ratio=1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.09, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EDBPS is safe for endoscopic sedation. Given the higher cost of anesthesia-administered propofol, endoscopists should reinstate EDBPS by revising institutional sedation policies.