Sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy

Sedation for GI Endoscopy in the Morbidly Obese: Challenges and Possible Solutions

With the increasing prevalence of obesity and morbid obesity, this subgroup's contribution to patients presenting for elective procedures requiring sedation is significant. Gastrointestinal (GI) procedures clearly form the largest group of such procedures. These procedures may be intended to treat obesity such as the insertion of an intragastric balloon or one or more unrelated procedures such as a screening colonoscopy and (or) diagnostic/therapeutic endoscopy. Regardless of the procedure, these patients pose significant challenges in terms of choice of sedatives, dosing, airway management, ventilation, and oxygenation. An understanding of dissimilarity in the handling of different groups of medications used by an anesthesia provider and alterations in airway anatomy is critical for providing safe sedation. Administration of sedative medications and conduct of anesthesia requires dose modifications and airway adjuncts. In this review, we discuss the above issues in detail, with a particular focus on GI endoscopy.

Remimazolam for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A comprehensive review

Worldwide, a majority of routine endoscopic procedures are performed under some form of sedation to maximize patient comfort. Propofol, benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used. However, in recent years, Remimazolam is gaining immense popularity for procedural sedation in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. It is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2020 for use in procedural sedation. Remimazolam has shown a favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile in terms of its non-specific metabolism by tissue esterase, volume of distribution, total body clearance, and negligible drug-drug interactions. It also has satisfactory efficacy and has achieved high rates of successful sedation in GI endoscopy. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that the efficacy of Remimazolam is non-inferior to Propofol, which is currently a gold standard for procedural sedation in most parts of the world. However, the use of Propofol is associated with hemodynamic instability and respiratory depression. In contrast, Remimazolam has lower incidence of these adverse effects intra-procedurally and hence, may provide a safer alternative to Propofol in procedural sedation. In this comprehensive narrative review, highlight the pharmacologic characteristics, efficacy, and safety of Remimazolam for procedural sedation. We also discuss the potential of Remimazolam as a suitable alternative and how it can shape the future of procedural sedation in gastroenterology.

Determination of ED50 and ED95 of remimazolam besylate combined with alfentanil for adult gastroscopy: a prospective dose-finding study

BACKGROUND

To explore the median effective dose (ED50) and 95% effective dose (ED95) of remimazolam besylate combined with alfentanil for adult gastroscopy.

METHODS

This prospective studyenrolled 31 patients scheduled to painless gastroscopy at Anhui No. 2 Provincial People's Hospital between April and May, 2022. 5 µg.kg-1 of alfentanil hydrochloride was used for pre-analgesia. The initial single loading dose of remimazolam besylate was 0.12 mg.kg-1, increased or reduced by 0.01 mg.kg-1 for the next patient with modified Dixon sequential method. The modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (MOAA/S) was used to assess sedation.

RESULTS

Combined with alfentanil, the ED50 of remimazolam besylate was 0.147 mg.kg-1 (95% CI: 0.138-0.160 mg.kg-1) and ED95 0.171 mg.kg-1 (95% CI: 0.159-0.245 mg.kg-1). The induction time after injection of remimazolam besylate was 70 ± 25 s, with the anesthesia recovery time and the observation time in resuscitation room 5.13 ± 2.13 min and 2.32 ± 1.6 min, respectively. Twenty nine patients' vital signs were within acceptable limits during gastroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The ED50 of remimazolam besylate combined with alfentanil for painless gastroscopy was 0.147 mg.kg-1, and the ED95 was 0.171 mg.kg-1.

Assessment of the application of double-modified nasopharyngeal airways versus the use of low-flow nasal cannula during pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A prospective, randomized, noninferiority, controlled trial

Background and Aims

Pediatric upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is commonly performed under deep sedation, which is frequently associated with respiratory complications. The study compared the respiratory benefits of applying bilateral modified nasopharyngeal airways (NPAs) to conventional low-flow nasal cannula (LFNC).

Material and Methods

Fifty patients scheduled for an upper GI endoscopy under deep sedation, with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II, were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomly divided into bilateral NPA group and the LFNC group. Fentanyl and propofol were administered to both groups to maintain deep sedation. After the application of NPA or LFNC, the hypoxic incidents (oxygen saturation [SpO2] <90%) and airway interventions during the procedure were noted and recorded. Other outcomes such as nasopharyngeal injuries, gastroenterologist satisfaction, the incidence of hypotension or bradycardia, and postoperative nausea and vomiting were also compared.

Results

No significant differences were noted in the demographic data. The incidence of hypoxemia was 16% (n = 4) in the NPA group versus 36% (n = 9) in the LFNC group (P = 0.634). Airway intervention was lower in the NPA group compared to the LFNC group, but the difference was not significant (P = 0.539). No significant differences were noted in the incidence of nasopharyngeal injuries, postoperative nausea and vomiting, bradycardia, and hypotension. The NPA group showed higher gastroenterologist's satisfaction (P = 0.003).

Conclusion

Double-modified NPA in pediatric endoscopy was noninferior to the standard LFNC for the incidence of hypoxemia and airway intervention rate, with greater gastroenterologist satisfaction.

Safety and efficacy of physician-administered balanced-sedation for the endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps

Background and study aims Because of concerns about peri-procedural adverse events (AEs), guidelines recommend anesthetist-managed sedation (AMS) for long and complex endoscopic procedures. The safety and efficacy of physician-administered balanced sedation (PA-BS) for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥20 mm is unknown. Patients and methods We compared PA-BS with AMS in a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients referred for management of LNPCPs (NCT01368289; NCT02000141). A per-patient propensity analysis was performed following a 1:2 nearest-neighbor (Greedy-type) match, based on age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, and lesion size. The primary outcome was any peri-procedural AE, which included hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypoxia, and new arrhythmia. Secondary outcomes were unplanned admissions, 28-day re-presentation, technical success, and recurrence. Results Between January 2016 and June 2020, 700 patients underwent EMR for LNPCPs, of whom 638 received PA-BS. Among them, the median age was 70 years (interquartile range [IQR] 62-76 years), size 35 mm (IQR 25-45 mm), and duration 35 minutes (IQR 25-60 minutes). Peri-procedural AEs occurred in 149 (23.4%), most commonly bradycardia (116; 18.2%). Only five (0.8%) required an unplanned sedation-related admission due to AEs (2 hypotension, 1 arrhythmia, 1 bradycardia, 1 hypoxia), with a median inpatient stay of 1 day (IQR 1-3 days). After propensity-score matching, there were no differences between PA-BS and AMS in peri-procedural AEs, unplanned admissions, 28-day re-presentation rates, technical success or recurrence. Conclusions Physician-administered balanced sedation for the EMR of LNPCPs is safe. Peri-procedural AEs are infrequent, transient, rarely require admission (<1%), and are experienced in similar frequencies to those receiving anesthetist-managed sedation.

Effectiveness and safety of an atropine/midazolam and target controlled infusion propofol-based moderate sedation protocol during percutaneous endoscopic transgastric jejunostomy procedures in Parkinson's disease: a real-life retrospective observational study

Patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), often elderly with various comorbidities, may require a continuous intestinal infusion of carbidopa/levodopa gel by the placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) with a jejunal tube (PEG-J) to improve their motor outcome and quality of life. However, it is unclear what is the best procedural sedation protocol for PEG-J procedures. Fifty patients with PD and indication for PEG-J procedure (implantation, replacement, removal) underwent, from 2017 to 2022, a sedation protocol characterized by premedication with atropine (0.01 mg/Kg i.v.), midazolam (0.015-0.03 mg/Kg i.v.) and induction with bolus propofol (0.5-1 mg/Kg i.v.) as well as, finally, sedation with continuous infusion propofol (2-5 mg/Kg/h i.v.) by Target Controlled Infusion (TCI) technique. Ninety-eight per cent of patients experienced no intraprocedural or peri-procedural adverse events. All the procedures were technically successful. A good discharge time was recorded. The vital parameters recorded during the procedure did not vary significantly. A PEG-J procedure conducted within 30 min showed a significant advantage over end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2). Indeed, the latter showed some predictive behavior (OR: 1.318, 95% CI 1.075-1.615, p = 0.008). In the real world, this sedation protocol showed a good safety and effectiveness profile, even with reduced doses of midazolam and a TCI propofol technique in moderate sedation.

Organizational Factors Driving Selection of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Sedation in Veterans Health Administration and Community Settings

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies suggest that unmeasured organizational factors drive variability in anesthesia-assisted sedation (AA) use.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study of 11 Veterans Health Administration and community gastrointestinal endoscopy sites; qualitative interviews of key sedation decision-makers.

RESULTS

Three key interview themes were identified: (i) Increased AA demand and changes in endoscopist sedation training in fellowship drove site-level AA capacity expansion; (ii) this expansion further influenced sedation decisions in favor of AA use; and (iii) additional organizational factors influencing AA use included site-level decision-making processes and differences between Veterans Health Administration and community practice economics/mission.

DISCUSSION

Key organizational factors drive variability in AA use across settings.

Automated electronic health record-based application for sedation triage in routine colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nearly all routine endoscopy procedures are performed using moderate sedation (MS) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). In this article, we describe how we improved decision-making and decreased practitioners' cognitive burden for choosing between MAC and MS by using patient data in an automated application within the electronic health record (EHR).

METHODS

In our practice, we choose between MS or MAC for routine GI procedures according to written anesthesia-use guidelines and practitioner preferences. To expedite our decision-making for MS versus MAC, we developed an Excel (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Wash, USA)-based tool from patient demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, and medication use extracted from the EHR. The data points from Excel were then implemented in the automated application in the EHR to predict the type of sedation for GI procedures.

RESULTS

Before use of the new application, nurses spent an average of 4 minutes and gastroenterology practitioners spent 5 minutes reviewing the EHR to determine the appropriate sedation (MS or MAC). After the application was implemented, the use of MS substantially increased. Time spent reviewing the EHR was reduced to 2 minutes. The rate of adverse events for MS (.5%) versus MAC (.6%) was comparable and low overall.

CONCLUSIONS

The EHR-based application, which automates and standardizes determination of sedation type, is a highly beneficial tool that eliminates subjectivity in decision-making, thus allowing for appropriate use of MAC. Adverse event rates and sedation failure did not increase with use of the application. With the increased use of MS over MAC, healthcare costs for the more-expensive MAC sedation should also decrease.

A Comparison of the Sedative Effect of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam on Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endosonography Outside the Operating Room

Background

Patients may experience anxiety, discomfort, and pain during endoscopy, which cannot be tolerated without sedative drugs.

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the sedative effects of dexmedetomidine and midazolam on patients undergoing endosonography outside the operating room.

Methods

This randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 126 patients aged 18 - 65 years old with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I - II undergoing elective endosonography. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. The dexmedetomidine group received dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) for 25 minutes with propofol (0.5 mg/kg) and fentanyl (1 μg/kg) at the start of the procedure. The midazolam group received midazolam (0.03 mg/kg) with propofol (0.5 mg/kg) and fentanyl (1 μg/kg). Heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded before and 5, 10, and 15 minutes after starting the procedure. The Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) and the need for an additional dose of propofol were recorded during the procedure. The Numeric Pain Rating scale (Ambesh score) scores were recorded at the beginning, immediately after, and 1 hour after the procedure. Nausea and vomiting were assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale in cooperation with the patient.

Results

The dexmedetomidine group had significantly higher SpO2 and RSS scores during sedation than the midazolam group (P = 0.02). Overall, specialist satisfaction was higher in the dexmedetomidine group than in the midazolam group. There was no clinically significant difference in pain score and nausea and vomiting frequencies between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine is more effective than midazolam for sedation during gastrointestinal endosonography.

Etomidate-ketamine versus dexmedetomidine-ketamine for entropy-guided procedural sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures: A randomized single blind study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The major challenge for the anesthetist in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures is to provide moderate to deep levels of sedation in prone position with preservation of spontaneous respiratory efforts in shared airway scenario with an endoscopist. These patients have other comorbidities, making them vulnerable to complications during the routinely used sedation with propofol. We compared the entropy-guided efficacy of combination of etomidate-ketamine to dexmedetomidine-ketamine in patients undergoing ERCP.

METHODS

This prospective single blind randomized entropy-guided trial was conducted on 60 patients with etomidate-ketamine in group I (n = 30) and dexmedetomidine-ketamine in group II (n = 30). The purpose was to compare etomidate-ketamine versus dexmedetomidine-ketamine for ERCP in terms of intraprocedural hemodynamics with desaturation, onset of sedation, recovery time and endoscopist's satisfaction.

RESULTS

Hypotension was observed only in six (20%) patients of group II (p < 0.009). Two patients of group I and three in group II desaturated (Spo2 < 90) briefly during the procedure, but none of the patient required intubation (p > 0.05). The mean time in minutes of onset of sedation was 1.15 in group I and 5.6 in group II (p < 0.001). Endoscopists' satisfaction was better in group I (p ≤ 0.001) and length of recovery room stay was shorter in group I as compared to that in group II (p ≤ 0.007).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that entropy-guided intravenous procedural sedation with etomidate-ketamine combination provides faster onset of sedation, stable periprocedural hemodynamics, rapid recovery and fair to excellent endoscopist satisfaction compared to dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination for ERCP.

Electroencephalographic and Cardiovascular Changes Associated with Propofol Constant Rate of Infusion Anesthesia in Young Healthy Dogs

This study aimed to evaluate electroencephalography (EEG) and cardiovascular changes associated with propofol constant rate of infusion (CRI) anesthesia in dogs. Six dogs were each given propofol CRI to induce different anesthetic phases including induction (1 mg/kg/min for 10 min), and decremental maintenance doses of 2.4 mg per kg per min, 1.6 mg per kg per min, and 0.8 mg per kg per minute over 45 min. Processed EEG indices including patient state index (PSI), (burst) suppression ratio (SR), and spectral edge frequency (95%) were obtained continuously until the dogs recovered to sternal recumbency. The dogs were intubated and ventilated. Cardiovascular and EEG index values were compared between anesthetic phases. The PSI, SR, mean arterial blood pressure, and subjective anesthetic depth scores were highly correlated throughout anesthetic depth changes. The PSI decreased from 85.0 ± 17.3 at awake to 66.0 ± 29.0 at induction, and then sharply reduced to 19.7 ± 23.6 during maintenance and returned to 61.5 ± 19.2 at extubation. The SR increased from 15.4 ± 30.9% at induction to 70.9 ± 39.8% during maintenance and decreased to 3.4 ± 8.9% at extubation. We concluded that EEG indices can be used to aid in tracking ongoing brain state changes during propofol anesthesia in dogs.

Challenges for interprofessional simulation-based sedation training courses: Mini review

Sedation for invasive procedures is given for various clinical purposes to patients of all ages worldwide. However, sedation is a continuum to general anesthesia and contains severe inherent risks leading to mortality. Providing a simulation-based sedation training course (SEDTC) to various medical staff could be an effective strategy to improve patient and medical safety associated with sedation. The SEDTC generally includes basic airway management such as upper airway obstruction release or rapid response action toward excessive sedation, utilizing problem-based learning or simulators. However, participation alone in the SEDTC can only achieve Level 1 (reaction) or 2 (learning) in the Kirkpatrick model. A patient safety improvement of Level 3 (transfer) or 4 (result) of the Kirkpatrick model can be achieved when all members related to sedation undergo experiential learning and reach a consensus. Accordingly, in-hospital interprofessional SEDTC focusing on a resilience approach is essential to achieve effective sedation patient safety in Level 3 or 4 of the Kirkpatrick model.

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.

Complications of diagnostic upper Gastrointestinal endoscopy: common and rare - recognition, assessment and management

A clear understanding of the potential complications or adverse events (AEs) of diagnostic endoscopy is an essential component of being an endoscopist. Creating a culture of safety and prevention of AEs should be part of routine endoscopy practice. Appropriate patient selection for procedures, informed consent, periprocedure risk assessments and a team approach, all contribute to reducing AEs. Early recognition, prompt management and transparent communication with patients are essential for the holistic and optimal management of AEs. In this review, we discuss the complications of diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, including their recognition, treatment and prevention.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Non-Invasive Prediction Models for Esophageal Varices and Red Signs in Patients With Hepatitis B Virus-Related Liver Cirrhosis

Background: Red signs are closely related to esophageal variceal bleeding, and, despite improvements in therapy, the mortality rate remains high. We aimed to identify non-invasive predictors of esophageal varices and red signs in patients with hepatitis B virus-related liver cirrhosis.

Methods: This retrospective study included 356 patients with hepatitis B virus-related liver cirrhosis after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria among 661 patients. All patients underwent endoscopy, ultrasonography, laboratory examinations, and computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed, and prediction models for esophageal varices and red signs were constructed.

Results: Multivariate analysis revealed that spleen diameter, splenic vein diameter, and lymphocyte ratio were independent risk factors for esophageal varices and red signs. On this basis, we proposed two models: i) a spleen diameter-splenic vein diameter-lymphocyte ratio-esophageal varices prediction model (SSL-EV model); and ii) a spleen diameter-splenic vein diameter-lymphocyte ratio-red sign prediction model (SSL-RS model). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the two prediction models were 0.843 and 0.783, respectively. With a cutoff value of 1.55, the first prediction model had 81.3% sensitivity and 76.1% specificity for esophageal varices prediction. With a cutoff value of −0.20, the second prediction model had 72.1% sensitivity and 70.7% specificity for the prediction of red signs.

Conclusions: We proposed a new statistical model, the spleen diameter-splenic vein diameter-lymphocyte ratio-red sign prediction model (SSL-RS model), to predict the presence of red signs non-invasively. Combined with the spleen diameter-splenic vein diameter-lymphocyte ratio-esophageal varices prediction model (SSL-EV model), these non-invasive prediction models will be helpful in guiding clinical decision-making and preventing the occurrence of esophageal variceal bleeding.

Differences in patient outcomes after outpatient GI endoscopy across settings: a statewide matched cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Outpatient GI endoscopy has been shifting from hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) in recent years. However, evidence on whether patient outcomes after endoscopic procedures are comparable across settings is limited. This study compares the incidence of unplanned hospital visits after GI endoscopy performed in ASCs versus HOPDs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study examining unplanned hospital visits after outpatient GI endoscopy performed in Massachusetts during 2014 to 2017 using Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database and Medicare fee-for-service claims. We identified screening colonoscopy, nonscreening colonoscopy, and esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) performed in ASCs or HOPDs and estimated unplanned hospital visit rates within 7 and 30 days after these procedures. To compare rates between ASCs and HOPDs, we constructed procedure-specific, propensity score-matched samples and used multilevel logistic regressions adjusting for patient, procedure, and facility characteristics.

RESULTS

Seven-day unplanned hospital visit rates were 10.6, 18.3, and 38.9 per 1000 procedures for screening colonoscopy, nonscreening colonoscopy, and EGD, respectively, with significant variation across facilities. ASC patients consistently had fewer postprocedure hospital encounters. The relative risk of having 7-day hospital visits after screening colonoscopy performed in ASCs was .88 (95% confidence interval [CI], .79-.98) compared with HOPDs. The estimates were .84 (95% CI, .75-.94) for nonscreening colonoscopy and .57 (95% CI, .50-.65) for EGD. Thirty-day visits showed similar patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Unplanned hospital visits after outpatient GI endoscopy were not uncommon. However, ASC patients consistently had less frequent hospital-based acute care encounters, indicating that GI endoscopy could be performed safely in ASCs for select patients.

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.

Comparison of propofol-nalbuphine and propofol-fentanyl sedation for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been increasingly used to treat patients with biliary/pancreatic duct obstruction or stricture outside the operating room. Effective and safe sedation techniques are needed because of painful stimuli and the long duration of the ERCP procedure.Nalbuphine has been shown to cause less respiratory depression during sedation than similar cases without nalbuphine. This study compared the effects of propofol-nalbuphine (PN) and propofol-fentanyl (PF) sedation in patients undergoing ERCP.

Methods

Four hundred patients scheduled for ERCP procedures were divided into two groups: the PF group (receiving PF sedation,n = 199) and the PN group (receiving PN sedation,n = 201). Vital signs, adverse events during surgery, patient movement scores, pain scores, and adverse events one day post-ERCP were recorded.

Results

Stable haemodynamics were observed in both groups.Compared to the PF group, the PN group showed significantly decreased respiratory depression (P < 0.0001) and surgical interruptions (P = 0.048).Nalbuphine decreased patient movement by reducing pain from ERCP.

Conclusion

Nalbuphine, instead of fentanyl, precipitated less respiratory depression while permitting adequate/equivalent sedation for ERCP and therefore provides more efficient and safer sedation.

Trial registration

ChiCTR, ChiCTR1800016018, Registered 7 May 2018, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=27085

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.

Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol in Combination with Fentanyl for Sedation-Analgesia in Colonoscopy Procedures: A Randomized Prospective Study

BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is an uncomfortable and short procedure needing brief sedation with fast emergence. METHODS This research is going to measure intravenous dexmedetomidine against propofol-fentanyl combination in terms of sedation-analgesia and hemodynamic changes in non-obligatory colonoscopy procedures. 70 colonoscopy candidates aged between 20 to 70 years were enrolled in this study while separated into two random equal-sized groups (p stands for propofol- & D stands for dexmedetomidine groups). All patients were premedicated with 0.03 mg/kg midazolam and 1 µ/kg fentanyl, 10 minutes and 5 minutes before the colonoscopy process, respectively. 0.5-1 mg/kg propofol for the P group and 1 µ/kg dexmedetomidine for the D group were infused in one minute before the initiation of the procedure following by normal saline as maintenance liquid and boluses of 25-50 µg fentanyl as needed. RESULTS These variables were entered into a datasheet: hemodynamic changes, sedation-analgesia level throughout the procedure, and patients' and physicians' contentment. The mean arterial pressure changes were similar and insignificant in the two groups (82.44±12.34 vs. 87.63±22.45 p=0.2). The D group had lower heart rates in comparison with the P group (72.51±16.7 vs. 81.56±15.71 p=0.001). The P group was deeply to moderately sedated and required a significantly lower doses of fentanyl rescue treatment (71.02±25.63 vs. 91.45±38.62 µg p=0.003). The P group was associated with a high incidence of apnea and was significantly superior to the D group in the matter of satisfaction (43% against 77%). CONCLUSION Colonoscopists' contentment rates were identical in both groups. Propofol infusion is more satisfactory yet having more respiratory depression possibility in comparison with dexmedetomidine infusion in colonoscopy candidates.

The median effective concentration of propofol with different doses of esketamine during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: A randomized controlled trial

AIMS

Propofol may result in hypotension, bradycardia and loss of protective reflexes, especially in elderly patients, while esketamine, a N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, has analgesic, anaesthetic and sympathomimetic properties and is known to cause less cardiorespiratory depression. We hypothesized that esketamine may reduce the median effective concentration (EC₅₀ ) of propofol and coadministration is less likely to produce hypotension during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients.

METHODS

Ninety elderly patients, aged 65-89 years, undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly assigned into 3 groups: SK0 (control) group (0 mg/kg esketamine); SK0.25 group (0.25 mg/kg esketamine); and SK0.5 group (0.5 mg/kg esketamine). Anaesthesia was achieved by plasma target-controlled infusion of propofol with different bolus doses of esketamine. The EC₅₀ of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy was determined by using the up-and-down method of Dixon. The initial plasma target concentration is 2.5 μg/mL and the adjacent concentration gradient is 0.5 μg/mL. Cardiovascular variables were also measured.

RESULTS

Propofol EC₅₀ s and its 95% confidence interval for gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients were 3.69 (2.59-4.78), 2.45 (1.85-3.05) and 1.71 (1.15-2.27) μg/mL in the SK0, SK0.25 and SK0.5 groups, respectively (P < .05). The average percent change from baseline mean arterial pressure was -19.7 (7.55), -15.2 (7.14) and -10.1 (6.73), in the SK0, SK0.25 and SK0.5 groups, respectively (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Combination medication of propofol with esketamine reduced the propofol EC₅₀ during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients compared with administration of propofol without esketamine. Increasing doses of SK with propofol are less likely to produce hypotension with shorter recovery time.

Tethered capsule en face optical coherence tomography for imaging Barrett's oesophagus in unsedated patients

Objective

Barrett’s oesophagus (BE) screening outside the endoscopy suite can identify patients for surveillance and reduce mortality. Tethered capsule optical coherence tomography (OCT) can volumetrically image oesophageal mucosa in unsedated patients and detect features of BE. We investigated ultrahigh-speed tethered capsule swept-source OCT (SS-OCT), improved device design, developed procedural techniques and measured capsule contact, longitudinal pullback non-uniformity and patient toleration.

Design

OCT was performed in 16 patients prior to endoscopic surveillance/treatment. Unsedated patients swallowed the capsule with sips of water and the tether was pulled back to image the oesophagus. SS-OCT at 1 000 000 A-scans/s enabled imaging 10 cm oesophageal lengths in 10 s with 30 µm transverse and 8 µm axial resolution. Capsule contact, longitudinal image coverage and patient toleration were assessed.

Results

Nine patients had non-dysplastic BE, three had ablative treatment-naïve neoplasia and four had prior ablation for dysplasia. Dry swallows facilitated capsule transit through the lower oesophageal sphincter (LES), and waiting 10 s before pullback reduced swallow induced LES relaxation. Slow nasal inhalation facilitated capsule retrieval and minimised gag reflex. The procedure was well tolerated. Ultrahigh-speed SS-OCT generated cross-sectional and subsurface en face images showing BE features, while subsurface en face images were required to assess the gastro-oesophageal junction. Candidate features of dysplasia were also identified which could inform follow-up endoscopy/biopsy. BE features were seen in all patients with histologically confirmed BE. Mean capsule contact over BE was 75%±27% for all patients and better in short segment BE. Mean longitudinal image coverage over BE was 59%±34% and better for long segment BE.

Conclusions

Ultrahigh-speed tethered capsule SS-OCT can image en face and cross-sectional mucosal features over wide areas. Device and procedure optimisation improved performance. BE features could be identified in all patients, but limited capsule contact and longitudinal coverage could cause sampling errors for focal pathologies.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety and sedation-associated adverse event reporting among patients undergoing endoscopic cholangiopancreatography: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is wide variation in choice of sedation and airway management for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate safety outcomes of deep sedation with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) versus general endotracheal anesthesia (GETA).

METHODS

Individualized search strategies were performed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. This meta-analysis was performed by calculating pooled proportions using random effects models. Measured outcomes included procedure success, all-cause and anesthesia-associated adverse events, and post-procedure recovery time. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics and publication bias by funnel plot and Egger regression testing.

RESULTS

Five studies (MAC: n = 1284 vs GETA: n = 615) were included. Patients in the GETA group were younger, had higher body mass index (BMI), and higher mean ASA scores (all P < 0.001) with no difference in Mallampati scores (P = 0.923). Procedure success, all-cause adverse events, and anesthesia-associated events were similar between groups [OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.51-2.64); OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.29-4.70); OR 1.33 (95% CI 0.27-6.49), respectively]. MAC resulted in fewer hypotensive episodes [OR 0.32 (95% CI 0.12-0.87], increased hypoxemic events [OR 5.61 (95% CI 1.54-20.37)], and no difference in cardiac arrhythmias [OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.13-1.78)]. Procedure time was decreased for MAC [standard difference - 0.39 (95% CI - 0.78-0.00)] with no difference in recovery time [standard difference - 0.48 (95% CI - 1.04-0.07)].

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests MAC may be a safe alternative to GETA for ERCP; however, MAC may not be appropriate in all patients given an increased risk of hypoxemia.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Impact of supine versus prone position on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography performance: a retrospective study

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is frequently performed in the prone or supine position. We compared the technical success and other outcomes between these positions.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study using the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative database. Demographics, procedure and fluoroscopy time, visualization of main structures, and technical success rates were compared between the supine and prone positions. Univariate and multivariate regressions were performed to adjust for age, sex, ethnicity and clinical setting.

Results

A total of 21,090 patients who underwent ERCP were included, of whom 1769 (8.4%) were supine and 19,321 (91.6%) were prone. The common bile duct (CBD) was visualized and cannulated in 89.1% of supine vs. 91.4% of prone positions (P=0.017), while the ampulla was visualized in 97.1% of supine vs. 97.7% of prone (P=0.414). The ERCP was incomplete in 10% of supine vs. 5% of prone cases (P<0.001). On multivariate analysis, supine position required shorter procedure times than prone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-0.98; P<0.001). The supine position also yielded lower odds of CBD visualization and cannulation (aOR 0.63, 95%CI 0.44-0.91; P=0.011) and higher odds of an incomplete examination (aOR 1.84, 95%CI 1.46-2.30; P<0.001) vs. prone.

Conclusions

The supine position leads to shorter procedures but is more likely to result in poorer visualization and cannulation of the CBD and an incomplete examination. This may reflect the technical difficulty of performing ERCP in the supine position for the endoscopist. Our study supports recommendations for an individualized ERCP approach.

Quality in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the detection and surveillance of gastric cancer precursor lesions: Position paper of AEG, SEED and SEAP

This position paper, sponsored by the Asociación Española de Gastroenterología [Spanish Association of Gastroenterology], the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva [Spanish Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Society] and the Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica [Spanish Anatomical Pathology Society], aims to establish recommendations for performing an high quality upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the screening of gastric cancer precursor lesions (GCPL) in low-incidence populations, such as the Spanish population. To establish the quality of the evidence and the levels of recommendation, we used the methodology based on the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We obtained a consensus among experts using a Delphi method. The document evaluates different measures to improve the quality of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in this setting and makes recommendations on how to evaluate and treat the identified lesions. We recommend that upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for surveillance of GCPL should be performed by endoscopists with adequate training, administering oral premedication and use of sedation. To improve the identification of GCPL, we recommend the use of high definition endoscopes and conventional or digital chromoendoscopy and, for biopsies, NBI should be used to target the most suspicious areas of intestinal metaplasia. Regarding the evaluation of visible lesions, the risk of submucosal invasion should be evaluated with magnifying endoscopes and endoscopic ultrasound should be reserved for those with suspected deep invasion. In lesions amenable to endoscopic resection, submucosal endoscopic dissection is considered the technique of choice.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients Who Are Difficult to Sedate

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients who chronically use alcohol, marijuana, or opioids, or suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), can be difficult to sedate with midazolam and fentanyl, and often are referred for monitored anesthesia care during endoscopy. Nurse-administered propofol continuous infusion sedation (NAPCIS), which confers the benefit of propofol-based sedation without the added expense of anesthesia, is effective and safe for sedation of healthy patients. We investigated whether NAPCIS also is effective for patients who are difficult to sedate.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent upper endoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at a single center from January 2018 through April 2018. We reviewed records from patients who were heavy users of alcohol (n = 105), daily users of marijuana (n = 267) or opioids (n = 178), had a diagnosis of PTSD (n = 91), or were none of these (controls, n = 786). We compared mean fentanyl and propofol doses (adjusted for body weight), procedure and recovery times, procedure success rates, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Compared with the controls, the marijuana group required higher mean adjusted sedative doses for colonoscopies (0.6 vs 0.4 mcg/kg fentanyl and 5.0 vs 4.7 mg/kg propofol; P ≤ .025 for both) and upper endoscopies (0.8 vs 0.3 mcg/kg fentanyl and 3.7 vs 3.2 mg/kg propofol; P ≤ .021 for both), the PTSD group required a higher dose of fentanyl for colonoscopies (0.6 vs 0.4 mcg/kg; P = .009), and the alcohol group required a higher dose of fentanyl for upper endoscopies (0.7 vs 0.3 mcg/kg; P < .001). Procedure success rates were high (95.1%-100%) and did not differ significantly between the difficult-to-sedate groups and controls; mean procedure times (7.0-9.0 minutes for upper endoscopies, 21.1-22.9 minutes for colonoscopies) and recovery times (22.5-29.6 minutes) also were similar among groups. Upper endoscopies were associated with lower sedative doses and shorter procedure and recovery times than colonoscopies. Sedation-related adverse events were rare in all groups (only 26 cases total), and there were no serious complications or deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

NAPCIS seems to be a safe and effective means of providing sedation for endoscopy to patients who may be difficult to sedate owing to alcohol, marijuana, or opioid use, or PTSD.

Propofol compared with bolus and titrated midazolam for sedation in outpatient colonoscopy: a prospective randomized double-blind study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The safest and most efficient method of sedation for outpatient colonoscopy remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficiency and safety of bolus administration of midazolam compared with titrated administration and propofol administration for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy.

METHODS

We randomly divided patients undergoing colonoscopy into the propofol group, bolus midazolam group, and titrated midazolam group. We compared total procedure time, induction time, recovery time, and discharge time among the 3 groups. We also compared patient satisfaction and the incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

In total, 267 patients (89 in each study group) were enrolled during the study period. Patients in the propofol group had a shorter total procedure time (39.5 vs 59.4 vs 58.1 minutes; P < .001), induction time (4.6 vs 6.3 vs 7.6 minutes; P < .001), recovery time (11.5 vs 29.5 vs 29.2 minutes; P < .001), and discharge time (20.6 vs 34.9 vs 34.7 minutes; P < .001) than patients in the bolus midazolam group and titrated midazolam group. Patients in the propofol group reported higher degrees of satisfaction than patients in the bolus or titrated midazolam plus meperidine groups (9.9 vs 9.6 vs 9.6 [P = .007] and 4.9 vs 4.7 vs 4.8 [P = .008], respectively). Adverse events were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized trial, propofol was superior to bolus or titrated midazolam in terms of endoscopy unit efficiency and patient satisfaction during outpatient colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0002805.).

Improving agreement of ASA physical status class between pre-anesthesia screening and day of surgery by adding institutional-specific and ASA-approved examples: a quality improvement project

BACKGROUND

A successful anesthesia pre-assessment clinic needs to identify patients who need further testing, evaluation, and optimization prior to the day of surgery to avoid delays and cancelations. Although the ASA Physical Status Classification system (ASA PS) has been used widely for over 50 years, it has poor interrater agreement when only using the definitions. In 2014, ASA-approved examples for each ASA physical status class (ASA PS). In this quality improvement study, we developed and evaluated the effectiveness of institutional-specific examples on interrater reliability between anesthesia pre-anesthesia clinic (APAC) and the day of surgery evaluation (DOS).

METHODS

A multi-step, multi-year quality improvement project was performed. Step 1, pre-intervention, was a retrospective review to determine the percentage agreement of ASA PS assignment between APAC and DOS for adult and pediatric patients. Step 2 was a retrospective review of the step 1 cases where the ASA PS assignment differed to determine which medical conditions were valued differently and then develop institutional-specific examples for medical conditions not addressed by ASA-approved examples. Step 3 was to educate clinicians about the newly implemented examples and how they should be used as a guide. Step 4, post-intervention, was a retrospective review to determine if the examples improved agreement between APAC and DOS ASA PS assignments. Weighted Kappa coefficient was used to measure of interrater agreement excluding chance agreement.

RESULTS

Having only ASA PS definitions available, APAC and DOS agreement was only 74% for adults (n = 737) and 63% for pediatric patients (n = 216). For adults, 20 medical co-morbidity categories and, for pediatric patients, 9 medical co-morbidity categories accounted for > 90% the differences in ASA PS. After development and implementation of institutional-specific examples with ASA-approved examples, the percentage agreement increased for adult patients (n = 795) to 91% and for pediatric patients (n = 239) to 84%. Weighted Kappa coefficients increased significantly for all patients (from 0.62 to 0.85, p < .0001), adult patients (from 0.62 to 0.86, p < .0001), and pediatric patients (from 0.48 to 0.78, p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

ASA-approved examples do not address all medical conditions that account for differences in the assignment of ASA PS between pre-anesthesia screening and day of anesthesia evaluation at our institution. The process of developing institutional-specific examples addressed the medical conditions that caused differences in assignment at one institution. The implementation of ASA PS examples improved consistency of assignment, and therefore communication of medical conditions of patients presenting for anesthesia care.

Role of non-invasive markers in prediction of esophageal varices and variceal bleeding in patients of alcoholic liver cirrhosis from central India

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Alcohol is the leading cause of liver cirrhosis, which results in portal hypertension and subsequently, culminates into esophageal varices and esophgeal variceal bleeding. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is gold standard for diagnosis of varices. Non-invasive markers based on clinical, laboratory - ultrasonographic parameters can be utilised for prediction of risk of esophageal varices - variceal bleed in alcoholic cirrhosis from central India.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a cross sectional observational study. Child Turcot Pugh scores, MELD, AST ALT Ratio(AAR), AST Platelet Ratio Index(APRI), FIB-4 index and Platelet count-Spleen diameter(PC/SD) ratio were calculated for all patients and correlated with esophagogastroduodenoscopy findings. Short term follow up was done for variceal bleeding.

RESULTS

Total 202 male patients were included with mean age of 43.77±9.95 years. 188(93%) patients had esophageal varices. 61(30.19%) patients had variceal bleeding. On univariate analysis platelet count, APRI, spleen bipolar diameter, and PC/SD ratio were significantly associated with varices. For prediction of esophageal varices, only PC/SD ratio was significant and showed area under the curve of 65.6% at cut-off of <997. CTP score, FIB-4, APRI, and PC/SD ratio were significant for variceal bleeding. At cut-off <985 PC/SD ratio had sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 63% with AUC of 78% for prediction of variceal bleeding. Also, FIB-4 and APRI had diagnostic accuracy of 64% and 61% with AUC of 74% and 72% respectively for bleed.

CONCLUSION

FIB-4 and PC/SD may be useful among armamentarium of non-invasive markers for predicting esophageal varices and risk of variceal bleeding in alcoholic liver cirrhosis.

Comparison of the effects of methadone and butorphanol combined with acepromazine for canine gastroduodenoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility of gastroduodenoscopy in dogs premedicated with acepromazine in combination with butorphanol or methadone.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial.

ANIMALS

A group of 40 client-owned dogs.

METHODS

Dogs were randomly allocated to one of two groups and give intramuscular acepromazine 0.02 mg kg^-1 combined with either butorphanol 0.3 mg kg^-1 (group ACEBUT) or methadone 0.2 mg kg^-1 (group ACEMET). General anaesthesia was induced with propofol and ketamine and maintained with sevoflurane (2.3%) in oxygen. Cardiopulmonary variables were recorded at 5 minute intervals during anaesthesia. Feasibility of the entire gastroduodenoscopy was evaluated with a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 (best) to 100 (worst) (primary outcome of the study). Lower oesophageal sphincter dilatation and duodenal intubation were scored. Pylorus diameter was measured with standard endoscopic inflatable balloons. Overall cardiovascular stability was assessed during anaesthesia, using a VAS (0-100), as was the presence of fluid in the oesophagus, regurgitation, need for mechanical ventilation, and intraoperative and postoperative rescue analgesia (secondary outcomes of the study). Differences between treatments were analysed with Mann-Whitney U, Student t test, Fisher exact test or mixed model analysis of variance as appropriate. Subsequently, feasibility VAS of the gastroduodenoscopy was assessed for noninferiority between groups. The noninferiority margin was set as -10.

RESULTS

All gastroduodenoscopies were successfully completed in both groups using an endoscope tip diameter of 12.8 mm in all but one dog. Feasibility of gastroduodenoscopy was evaluated as 2.9 ± 5.6 in group ACEBUT and 5.1 ± 5.8 in group ACEMET. No significant differences between groups were detected in any measured or assessed variables, and noninferiority was confirmed.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In our study population, the effects of methadone and butorphanol when combined with acepromazine were comparable.

Guidelines for endoscopic diagnosis of early gastric cancer

The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society developed the Guideline for Endoscopic Diagnosis of Early Gastric Cancer based on scientific methods. Endoscopy for the diagnosis of early gastric cancer has been acknowledged as a useful and highly precise examination, and its use has become increasingly more common in recent years. However, the level of evidence in this field is low, and it is often necessary to determine recommendations based on expert consensus only. This clinical practice guideline consists of the following sections to provide the current guideline: [I] Risk stratification of gastric cancer before endoscopic examination, [II] Detection of early gastric cancer, [III] Qualitative diagnosis of early gastric cancer, [IV] Diagnosis to choose the therapeutic strategy for gastric cancer, [V] Risk stratification after endoscopic examination, and [VI] Surveillance of early gastric cancer.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Evaluation of bispectral index monitoring efficacy in endoscopic patients who underwent retrograde cholangiopancreatography and received sedoanalgesia

INTRODUCTION

Bispectral index (BIS) monitoring provides an objective, non-invasive measurement of the level of consciousness in a sedated patient.

AIM

In this prospective study, we aimed to investigate the hypothesis that risk of respiratory depression could be reduced and the desired level of sedation with minimal doses of propofol could be achieved by using BIS monitoring in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty patients in the ASA 1-2 category, who were scheduled for an ERCP with sedation, were randomly divided into two groups. The procedure was performed, and sedation was administered so that the patient's Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS) would be 4-5 in the first group (group 1) and the patient's BIS value would be 65-75 in the second group (group 2). Cardiopulmonary complications, the total duration of the procedure, and the total amount of propofol administered were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean SpO2 measurements at the third minute, fifth minute, and 10th minute were higher in the BIS group (p < 0.001) (p < 0.05). The mean number of respirations during the third, fifth, 10th, and 15th minute of sedation was significantly higher in the RSS group than in the BIS group (p < 0.05). There was no difference between the groups in terms of recovery time, total propofol amount, and additional doses of bolus propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

BIS monitoring during sedation with propofol for ERCP did not reduce total propofol use, but it may be an efficient guide for the timing of additional dose administration, which could reduce the risk of respiratory depression, and it could be used safely as an objective method in the follow-up of level of sedation.

Efficacy of combination therapy with dexmedetomidine for benzodiazepines-induced disinhibition during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepines (BZDs) and analgesics are widely used for conscious sedation during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, endoscopic procedures are sometimes discontinued because of BZD-induced disinhibitory reactions such as excessive movement. We evaluated the usefulness of dexmedetomidine (DEX) for BZD-induced disinhibition in ERCP.

METHODS

Between February 2018 and August 2019, 22 patients who underwent EUS or ERCP were enrolled. All patients showed BZD-induced excessive movement at the first examination (BZD group) and received DEX at the second examination (DEX group). The initial DEX dose was 6 μg/kg/h for a 10-min loading, followed by 0.4 μg/kg/h during the procedure. BZDs and analgesics were administered before scope insertion. An additional sedative was administered to achieve a Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) of 4-5. Sedative effect, procedure completion rate, and changes in circulatory and respiratory dynamics were evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean RSS scores were significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the DEX (5.1 ± 0.5) compared with the BZD (4.0 ± 0.5) group. The movement score (p < 0.001) and number of additional sedatives required (p < 0.01) were lower in the DEX group. The procedure completion rate was significantly higher in the DEX (95.5%) compared with the BZD group (63.6%; p < 0.05). Significant differences in the frequency of hypotension (p = 1.00), bradycardia (p = 0.22), and respiratory depression (p = 0.68) were not noted between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of DEX to BZD therapy yielded better sedative efficacy, lower excessive movement, a reduction in BZDs used, and a higher procedure complete rate. DEX may be used as an alternative method for BZD-induced inhibition during ERCP.

Using Etomidate and Midazolam for Screening Colonoscopies Results in More Stable Hemodynamic Responses in Patients of All Ages

Background/Aims

Recent studies have demonstrated that etomidate is a safe sedative drug with noninferior sedative effects. In our recent study, we revealed that etomidate/midazolam was more hemodynamically stable than propofol/midazolam in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopies. We aimed to investigate whether compared with propofol/midazolam, etomidate/midazolam causes fewer cardiopulmonary adverse events with noninferior efficacy for screening colonoscopies in patients of all ages.

Methods

In this single-center, randomized, double-blind study, we prospectively enrolled 200 patients. The patients were divided into etomidate and propofol groups. The primary outcome was the occurrence of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with fluctuations in vital signs (oxygen desaturation and transient hypotension), adverse events interrupting the procedure, and sedation-related outcomes.

Results

Adverse cardiopulmonary events were more common in the propofol group than the etomidate group (65.0% vs 51.0%, respectively; p=0.045). Forty-six patients (46.0%) in the propofol group and 29 (29.0%) in the etomidate group experienced fluctuations in their vital signs (p=0.013). The proportions of patients experiencing adverse events that interrupted the procedure, including myoclonus, were not significantly different between the two groups (etomidate: 20.0% vs propofol: 11.0%; p=0.079). Both groups had similar sedation-related outcomes. Multivariate analysis revealed that compared with the propofol groups, the etomidate group had a significantly lower risk of fluctuations in vital signs (odds ratio, 0.427; 95% confidence interval, 0.230 to 0.792; p=0.007).

Conclusions

Compared with using propofol/midazolam, using etomidate/midazolam for screening colonoscopies results in more stable hemodynamic responses in patients of all ages; therefore, we recommend using etomidate/midazolam for colonoscopies in patients with cardiovascular risk factors.

Safety and Efficacy of Moderate Sedation in Super Obese Patients Undergoing Lower and Upper GI Endoscopy: a Case-Control Study

PURPOSE

Obesity is a disease of increasing prevalence. There is minimal research on the safety of sedation for general endoscopic procedures among super obese patients (BMI ≥ 50). The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety of moderate sedation and endoscopic procedural outcomes for super obese patients in a case-control study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We completed an age and sex-matched case-control study comparing 132 super obese patients with 132 non-obese controls. We assessed intra-procedure adverse events, delayed adverse events, doses of sedation medication used, and procedure duration at a tertiary care setting.

RESULTS

The mean BMI for the obese cohort was 55.6 compared with 22.5 for the controls (P < 0.001). The mean intra-procedure fentanyl and midazolam dose was higher for the obese patients compared with the controls, fentanyl 180 mcg, midazolam 7.7 mg vs fentanyl 148 mcg, midazolam 6.4 mg, respectively (P < 0.001). There was a significantly higher percentage of brief intra-procedure hypoxia (oxygen blood saturation < 90%) for the obese patients compared with the controls, 5% vs 0% (P = 0.02). There was no difference in delayed adverse events with 2% of the cases and 2% of the controls having delayed adverse events (P = 1.0). Procedure completion rates were 100% for both cases and controls.

CONCLUSION

General endoscopic procedures can be safely and effectively performed in super obese patients with moderate sedation. Brief intra-procedure hypoxia more commonly occurs in super obese patients, and higher medication doses are required.