Deep sedation with propofol does not precipitate hepatic encephalopathy during elective upper endoscopy

Pre-procedural Preparation and Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease poses various challenges, a major one being procedural sedation and its associated considerations. While sedation during endoscopy can improve patient comfort, decrease anxiety, and facilitate procedural completion, in patients with advanced liver disease, it is also associated with substantial and unique risks due to alterations in drug metabolism and other factors. As such, the choice of sedative agent(s) and related logistics may require careful inter-disciplinary planning and individualized considerations. Furthermore, a large proportion of agents require dose reductions and particular monitoring of the vital signs, level of consciousness, and other indices. In the present review, we provide a contemporary overview of procedural sedation considerations, commonly used intravenous sedatives, and second-line as well as novel sedatives for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease.

Safety of treating acute liver injury and failure

INTRODUCTION

Acute liver injury and progression to acute liver failure can be life-threatening conditions that require prompt careful clinical assessment and therapeutic management.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this article is to review the safety and side effect profile of pharmacological therapies used in the treatment of acute liver injury with specific focus on hepatic toxicity. We performed an extensive literature search with the terms 'acute liver injury,' 'acute liver failure,' 'therapy,' 'safety,' 'adverse reactions' and 'drug induced liver injury.' A thorough discussion of the main drugs and devices used in patients with acute liver injury and acute liver failure, its safety profile and the management of complications associated to therapy of these conditions is presented.

EXPERT OPINION

Several pharmacological approaches are used in acute liver injury and acute liver failure in an empirical basis. Whilst steroids are frequently tried in serious drug-induced liver injury there is concern on a potential harmful effect of these agents because of the higher mortality in patients receiving the drug; hence, statistical approaches such as propensity score matching might help resolve this clinical dilemma. Likewise, properly designed clinical trials using old and new drugs for subjects with serious drug-induced liver injury are clearly needed.

Propofol vs midazolam sedation for elective endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, LILACS databases. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) were included. The outcomes studied were procedure time, recovery time, discharge time, and adverse events (bradycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3,576 records. Out of these, 8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients (302 in the propofol group and 294 in the midazolam group) were included for the final analysis. Procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups (MD: 0.25, 95%CI: -0.64 to 1.13, P = 0.59). Recovery time (MD: -8.19, 95%CI: -10.59 to -5.79, P < 0.00001). and discharge time were significantly less in the propofol group (MD: -12.98, 95%CI: -18.46 to -7.50, P < 0.00001). Adverse events were similar in both groups (RD: 0.02, 95%CI: 0-0.04, P = 0.58). Moreover, no significant difference was found for bradycardia (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.16), hypotension (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.17), and hypoxemia (RD: 0.00, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.04, P = 0.93). Five studies had low risk of bias, two demonstrated some concerns, and one presented high risk. The quality of the evidence was very low for procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events; while low for discharge time.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs show that propofol has shorter recovery and patient discharge time as compared to midazolam with a similar rate of adverse events. These results suggest that propofol should be the preferred agent for sedation in patients with cirrhosis.

Neurologic Safety of Etomidate-Based Sedation during Upper Endoscopy in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis Compared with Propofol: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

(1) Background: Although etomidate-based sedation is an effective and safe protocol in endoscopic procedures, there is a lack of evidence regarding the safety of etomidate in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC). This study aimed to compare the neurologic safety and efficacy of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation in patients with LC. (2) Methods: From December 2017 to December 2019, consecutive cirrhotic patients who underwent sedative endoscopy using either etomidate or propofol were randomly recruited. The primary endpoint was the number connection test (NCT), and the secondary endpoints included factors for the safety of sedatives during endoscopy. (3) Results: 63 patients were enrolled in each of the etomidate and propofol groups. The NCT times were significantly lower in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. Furthermore, severe or very severe degree of encephalopathy was higher in the propofol group but was not significantly different. Pharmacological properties and the overall incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between the groups. (4) Conclusion: Etomidate-based sedation exacerbates neither subclinical nor overt hepatic encephalopathy. It guarantees efficacies similar to those of propofol regarding rapid sedation, fast recovery, and early discharge, with no increased risk of adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events in patients with LC.

Conscious sedation using propofol versus midazolam in cirrhotic patients during upper GI endoscopy: A comparative study

AIM

We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of propofol versus midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy.

METHODS

Ninety compensated cirrhotic patients (all met class I-III criteria according to the American Society of Anesthesia) were enrolled in this comparative study. They were classified into three groups according to scheduled pre-endoscopy sedation drugs; the midazolam group, which included 30 patients who received IV weight-dependent midazolam (0.05 mg/kg with additional doses of 1 mg every 2 min when necessary, up to a maximum dose of 0.1 mg/kg or 10 mg); the propofol group, which included 30 patients who received a propofol bolus dose according to age and weight (0.25 mg/kg with additional doses of 20-30 mg every 30-60 s when necessary, up to a maximum dose of 400 mg); and the combined group, which included 30 patients who received half a dose of midazolam and of propofol.

RESULTS

Prolonged postendoscopy recovery times were reported in the midazolam group, while shorter recovery times were reported in the propofol and combined groups. All patients in the propofol and combined groups gained consciousness shortly postendoscopy; however, only half of the midazolam group's patients gained consciousness after the standard recovery time (10-30 min). Highly significant differences were found among the three groups regarding consciousness level according to the Glasgow coma scale, as well as regarding the occurrence of hypoxia during endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Considering safety and efficacy issues, propofol is better than midazolam in gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially in patients with liver cirrhosis.

Propofol is a more effective and safer sedative agent than midazolam in endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of sedation during endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) for esophageal varices (EVs) in patients with liver cirrhosis remains unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety between propofol- and midazolam-based sedation for EIS.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with EVs were prospectively and randomly assigned to midazolam-based (Midazolam group) or propofol-based (Propofol group) sedation. All patients underwent a number connection test (NCT) to evaluate minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) on the day before and at 2 and 24 hours following EIS. The primary endpoint was exacerbation of MHE after EIS, which was defined as deterioration of the NCT. The secondary endpoints were postoperative awareness, technical success rate, frequency of body movement, patient and operator satisfaction, cardiorespiratory dynamics during EIS, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Exacerbations of MHE at 2 hours after EIS compared with those before EIS were not significantly different between the two groups. In both groups, the deterioration of NCT scores before and 2 hours after EIS was observed (Propofol group: 60.0 vs. 70.0 s, P = 0.026; Midazolam group: 42.5 vs. 67.0 s, P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in awareness, technical success rate, or patient satisfaction. However, the frequency of body movement in the Propofol group was significantly lower than that in the Midazolam group (1 vs. 4, P = 0.045), and operator satisfaction in the Propofol group was significantly higher than that in the Midazolam group (P = 0.016). No adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol-based sedation exacerbated MHE after EIS similarly to midazolam-based sedation in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, propofol-based sedation provided stable sedation with a lower frequency of body movements and high operator satisfaction.

Hepatic encephalopathy: Diagnosis and management

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a peculiar kind of brain dysfunction caused by liver insufficiency and/or portal-systemic shunting. It is related to gut-derived substances. It is a relevant cause of morbidity and hospitalisation for patients with cirrhosis. The prognosis of HE is important in terms of survival and re-hospitalisation. It is related to impaired quality of life, falls and poor driving; presents a relevant burden for caregivers and health services; and may negatively impact on patient's job and income. Proper diagnosis and classification are expected to improve HE management. Once diagnosed, the management and therapeutic options for HE are generally clear. The improvement of knowledge in recent years has also clarified which are the further aims of research in this field of medicine. Prophylaxis of overt HE should always be performed, and this is generally secondary prophylaxis. Primary prophylaxis should be done immediately after upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Great advances in the detection and treatment of mild forms of HE are expected to lead to further improvement in patient management.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in the cirrhotic patient

As advances in liver disease continue, including the increasing use of liver transplantation, the endoscopist needs to be familiar with the standards of care and potential complications in the management of the cirrhotic population. This includes both elective endoscopic procedures, such as screening colonoscopies and variceal banding, as well as the acutely bleeding cirrhotic patient. Peri-procedural management and standards of care for acute gastrointestinal hemorrhaging of cirrhotic patients will be emphasized. This article will focus on the plethora of data available to highlight the benefits of endoscopic intervention in the care of patients with liver disease and outline the areas of future emphasis.

Intravenous hypnotic regimens in patients with liver disease; a review article

CONTEXT

The liver as an important organ in the body has many essential functions in physiological processes. One of the major activities of liver is drug metabolism. Hepatic dysfunction affecting hepatic physiological activities, especially drug metabolism can cause many problems during anesthesia and administration of different drugs to patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Studies on hepatic disorders and hypnotic anesthetics prescribed in hepatic disorders were included in this review. For this purpose, reliable databases were used.

RESULTS

Anesthesia should be performed with caution in patients with hepatic dysfunction and drugs with long half-life should be avoided in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A review of the literature on the use of hypnotic drugs in patients with liver dysfunction showed that some hypnotic drugs used during anesthesia could be safely used in patients with impaired liver function. In these patients, certain drugs should be used with caution.

The safety of combined sedation with propofol plus fentanyl for endoscopy screening and endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhotic patients

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the safety of combined sedation with propofol plus fentanyl in patients with liver cirrhosis during screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (SEGD) and a secondary prophylaxis for esophageal varices, endoscopic gastrointestinal ligation (EVL).

METHODS

A total of 309 patients with liver cirrhosis were enrolled and divided into the sedated SEGD group (n = 83), the sedated EVL group (n = 137) and the conscious EVL group (n = 89), respectively, and 100 participants with no liver diseases who underwent endoscopy for gastritis were regarded as the sedated control group. Patients in the sedated groups were administrated with propofol plus fentanyl during the endoscopic procedures and their minimal hepatic encephalopathy and sedation-related complications, including aspiration, hypoxia, hypotension and bradycardia, were evaluated and compared. The assessments of patient satisfaction and patient cooperation in the sedated and the conscious EVL groups were conducted.

RESULTS

The incidences of complications during the endoscopic procedures were not significantly different among the sedated groups (20.5% in the sedated SEGD group, 22.6% in the sedated EVL group and 19.0% in the sedated control group). No minimal hepatic encephalopathy was induced in the sedated groups. More patients in the sedated EVL group were satisfactory with the procedure compared with the conscious EVL group, as evaluated by both endoscopists and the cirrhotic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A combined sedation with propofol plus fentanyl is safe for EVL as well as for SEGD in cirrhotic patients. Sedation might make it easier for endoscopists to perform procedures and might be more acceptable for cirrhotic patients.

Is propofol safe when administered to cirrhotic patients during sedative endoscopy?

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In patients with liver cirrhosis, drugs acting on the central nervous system can lead to hepatic encephalopathy and the effects may be prolonged. Recently, misuse of propofol has been reported and the associated risk of death have become an issue. Propofol is commonly used during sedative endoscopy; therefore, its safety in high-risk groups must be further investigated. We performed a pilot study of the safety and efficacy of propofol during endoscopy in Korean patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed under sedation with propofol along with careful monitoring in 20 patients with liver cirrhosis and 20 control subjects. The presence or development of hepatic encephalopathy was assessed using the number connection test and neurologic examination.

RESULTS

Neither respiratory depression nor clinically significant hypotension were observed. Immediate postanesthetic recovery at 5 and 10 minutes after the procedure was delayed in the cirrhotic patients compared with the control group; however, at 30 minutes, the postanesthetic recovery was similar in both groups. Baseline psychomotor performance was more impaired in cirrhotic patients, but propofol was not associated with deteriorated psychomotor function even in cirrhotic patients with a minimal hepatic encephalopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation with propofol was well tolerated in cirrhotic patients. No newly developed hepatic encephalopathy was observed.

Impact of deep sedation on the accuracy of hepatic and portal venous pressure measurements in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) offers valuable prognostic information in patients with cirrhosis. In specific circumstances, (children, agitated patients, TIPS placement) deep sedation is required. This study aims to assess the impact of deep sedation on the accuracy of hepatic/portal pressure measurements.

METHODS

Forty-four patients were included. Measurements of baseline HVPG (n = 30), HVPG response to i.v. propranolol (n = 11), portal pressure gradient (PPG) after TIPS (n = 27) and of cardio-pulmonary pressures (n = 25) were obtained in awake conditions and under deep sedation with propofol and remifentanil.

RESULTS

During deep sedation, a marked oscillation within respiratory cycle was observed in abdominal pressures. End-expiratory sedated HVPG showed a better agreement with awake HVPG (intra-class correlation coefficient - ICC 0.864) than end-inspiratory HVPG (ICC 0.796). However, in almost half of the patients both values differed by more than 10%. Accuracy was not improved by using mean HVPG along the respiratory cycle. Similarly, changes in HVPG caused by propranolol while under sedation had a poor agreement to those obtained in awake conditions. Indeed, about a half of patients were misclassified according to the 10% HVPG reduction target. After TIPS, PPG values obtained under sedation were significantly different to awake PPG, usually underestimating the awake value. The systemic hemodynamic changes induced by sedation were not associated to a greater variability of PPG/HVPG measurements.

CONCLUSION

Deep sedation with propofol and remifentanil adds substantial variability and uncertainty to HVPG/PPG measurements. This must be considered when using these values to estimate prognosis, or targeting HVPG/PPG reductions.

Review article: prescribing medications in patients with cirrhosis - a practical guide

BACKGROUND

Most drugs have not been well studied in cirrhosis; recommendations on safe use are based largely on experience and/or expert opinion, with dosing recommendations often based on pharmacokinetic (PK) changes.

AIM

To provide a practical approach to prescribing medications for cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

An indexed MEDLINE search was conducted using keywords cirrhosis, drug-induced liver injury, pharmacodynamics (PDs), PKs, drug disposition and adverse drug reactions. Unpublished information from the Food and Drug Administration and industry was also reviewed.

RESULTS

Most medications have not been adequately studied in cirrhosis, and specific prescribing information is often lacking. Lower doses are generally recommended based on PK changes, but data are limited in terms of correlating PD effects with the degree of liver impairment. Very few drugs have been documented to have their hepatotoxicity potential enhanced by cirrhosis; most of these involve antituberculosis or antiretroviral agents used for HIV or viral hepatitis. Paracetamol can be used safely when prescribed in relatively small doses (2-3 g or less/day) for short durations, and is recommended as first-line treatment of pain. In contrast, NSAIDs should be used cautiously (or not at all) in advanced cirrhosis. Proton pump inhibitors have been linked to an increased risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in cirrhosis and should be used with care.

CONCLUSIONS

Most drugs can be used safely in cirrhosis, including those that are potentially hepatotoxic, but lower doses or reduced dosing frequency is often recommended, due to altered PKs. Drugs that can precipitate renal failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, SBP and encephalopathy should be identified and avoided.

Safety and effectiveness of low-dose propofol sedation during and after esophagogastroduodenoscopy in child A and B cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Effective and safe sedation for patients with liver cirrhosis is problematic.

AIM

To examine the safety and effectiveness of low-dose propofol sedation during and after esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Study 1 was a prospective study in cirrhotic patients who underwent diagnostic EGD under propofol sedation. Propofol was given by bolus injection with an age-adjusted standard protocol consisting of 40 mg for patients <70 years, 30 mg for patients aged 70-89 years; additional injections of 20 mg propofol were given up to a maximum of 120 mg. The principal parameter was the occurrence of adverse events within 24 h after EGD. Secondary parameters included successful procedures, complications, and full recovery within 60 min. In Study 2, the residual effects of propofol were evaluated using a driving simulator and blood propofol concentrations in a subset of cirrhotic patients undergoing EGD and compared with healthy individuals. The principal parameter was driving ability.

RESULTS

Study 1: Consecutive cirrhotic patients were entered and all 163 successfully completed EGD. The mean dose of propofol was 46 mg (range 30-120 mg). No complications occurred. Full recovery had occurred in 100 % 60 min after the procedure. No adverse events occurred within 24 h after EGD. Study 2: There were no significant differences in blood propofol levels between cirrhotic patients (n = 21) and healthy individuals (n = 20) after sedation. In cirrhotic patients, there was no deterioration in driving ability as compared with healthy individuals.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose propofol sedation provided safe and effective sedation for EGD in cirrhotic patients with rapid recovery.

GABAergic transmission in hepatic encephalopathy

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE)(1) is a neuropsychiatric disorder caused by chronic or acute liver failure. Nearly thirty years ago a hypothesis was formulated explaining the neuropathology of HE by increased GABAergic tone. Recent progress in the GABAA-receptor (GABAAR) molecular pharmacology and biochemistry as well as the physiology of GABAergic transmission provided better understanding of GABA's role in health and disease. A detailed analysis of neuronal populations and their GABAergic afferents affected in HE is still missing. The slow progress in understanding the pathology of GABAergic transmission in HE is due to the high complexity of brain circuitries controlled by multiple types of GABAergic interneurons and the large variety of GABAAR, which are differently affected by pathological conditions and not yet fully identified. The mechanisms of action of the GABAAR agonist taurine, allosteric positive modulators (inhibitory neurosteroids, anaesthetics, benzodiazepines and histamine) and inhibitors of the GABAAR (excitatory neurosteroids, Ro15-4513) are discussed with respect to HE pathophysiology. Perspectives for GABAergic drugs in the symptomatic treatment of HE are suggested.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

The influence of the severity of chronic virus-related liver disease on propofol requirements during propofol-remifentanil anesthesia

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of chronic virus- related liver disease severity on propofol requirements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, 48 male patients with chronic hepatitis B infection were divided into three groups according to Child-Turcotte-Pugh classification of liver function (groups A, B, and C with mild, moderate and severe liver disease, respectively). After intubation, propofol concentration was adjusted by ± 0.3 μg/mL increments to maintain bispectral index in the range of 40-60. Target propofol concentrations at anesthesia initiation, pre-intubation and pre-incision were recorded.

RESULTS

The initial concentration used in group C was significantly lower than that used in group A or B (p<0.05), whereas no difference was observed between groups A and B. At pre-intubation, the actual required concentration of propofol increased significantly (3.2 μg/mL) in group A (p<0.05), which lead to significant differences between the groups (p<0.05). At pre-incision, the requirements for propofol decreased significantly in both groups A and B (3.0 μg/mL and 2.7 μg/mL, respectively) compared with those at pre-intubation (p<0.05), and were significantly different for all three groups (p<0.05), with group C demonstrating the lowest requirement (2.2 μg/mL). The required concentrations of propofol at pre-incision were similar to those at induction.

CONCLUSION

In this study, propofol requirements administered by target-controlled infusion to maintain similar depths of hypnosis were shown to depend on the severity of chronic virus-related liver dysfunction. In other words, patients with the most severe liver dysfunction required the least amount of propofol.

Randomized controlled trial for endoscopy with propofol versus midazolam on psychometric tests and critical flicker frequency in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

People with cirrhosis are at increased risk of development of complications related to sedation. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) with propofol and midazolam on psychometric tests and critical flicker frequency (CFF) in people with cirrhosis.

METHODS

A total of 127 people with cirrhosis were randomized into three groups: propofol group (n = 40), midazolam group (n = 42) and no sedation (n = 45). All patients underwent CFF test and combination of psychometry (number connection test-A and B [NCT-A,B]; digit symbol test [DST], line tracing test [LTT] and serial dotting test [SDT]) at baseline and at 2 h post-endoscopy. CFF was done at 30 min and repeated every 30 min for 2 h.

RESULTS

In the propofol group there was no deterioration in psychometry (NCT-A [55.6 ± 18.7 vs 56.4 ± 19.0 s], NCT-B [98.2 ± 35.1 vs 97.8 ± 34.6 s], DST [26.7 ± 5.7 vs 26.3 ± 5.3], LTT [112.9 ± 35.7 vs 113.7 ± 36.6 s], SDT [94.6 ± 34.1 vs 95.2 ± 34.5 s]). Significant deterioration from baseline (39.8 ± 2.9 Hz) was seen in CFF at 30 min (38.8 ± 2.3 Hz) and 1 h (39.2 ± 2.4 Hz), P = 0.01 but no difference thereafter. In the midazolam group, significant deterioration was observed on psychometry (NCT-A [56.0 ± 18.5 vs 60.4 ± 19.8 s], NCT-B [99.9 ± 29.1 vs 105.9.6 ± 30.3 s], DST [26.1 ± 4.7 vs 25.2 ± 4.3], LTT [129.1 ± 34.5 vs 132.9 ± 35.4 s], SDT [95.6 ± 34.2]). No deterioration was observed in psychometry and CFF in people with cirrhosis without sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation for UGIE was associated with earlier recovery compared with midazolam, which causes deterioration of psychometric tests and CFF for a longer time in comparison with propofol.

Gastroenterologist-guided sedation with propofol for endoscopic ultrasonography in average-risk and high-risk patients: a prospective series

OBJECTIVE

Only a few reports have addressed non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), but none specifically in high-risk patients. Our aim was to study the application of a propofol sedation protocol for EUS in average-risk and high-risk patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study including 446 patients referred for EUS. We analyzed the induction time, procedure duration, recovery times, and patients' comfort and safety. Sedation was administered by a trained nurse, under the guidance of the endoscopist. We continuously monitored vital signs as well as patient cooperation and tolerance. Complications, patient, and endoscopist satisfaction were analyzed.

RESULTS

No major complications occurred. The rate of minor complications was 9%, the most frequent being hypoxemia (8%). One hundred and thirty-eight high-risk patients were included [American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) III-IV]. Average-risk patients received higher propofol doses (202.9 ± 84.8 vs. 164.8 ± 84.3; P=0.003). No differences were found in the rate of complications or procedure-related variables. Overall patient and endoscopist satisfaction was excellent. The logistic regression model identified propofol doses (P=0.02) as a risk factor and ASA-I classification (P=0.03) as a protective factor for the appearance of complications.

CONCLUSION

Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for upper EUS in high-risk and average-risk patients is safe and could be routinely offered to high-risk and elderly patients.

Safety of propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing colonoscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography: results of a prospective controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Safety of propofol sedation in patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing colonoscopy or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains to be studied. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of propofol is safe for endoscopic procedures more complex than gastroscopy in patients with liver cirrhosis in a prospective controlled study.

METHODS

Two hundred and fourteen consecutive patients, with or without cirrhosis, who underwent colonoscopy or ERCP with propofol sedation were recruited between January and June 2009. Administration of sedation was performed by anesthesiologists and outcome measures were recorded. Main outcomes were complication rates and recovery times.

RESULTS

Sixty-one (28.5%) cirrhotic patients and 153 (71.5%) noncirrhotic patients were included. The incidence of sedation-related complications did not significantly differ between the two populations (11.5 vs. 17.0%, respectively, P=0.31). The mean (±SD) dose of propofol administered (213±86 vs. 239±100 mg, P=0.07), the mean time to achieve adequate sedation (3.3±1.1 vs. 3.0±1.2 min, P=0.21), the mean total duration of the endoscopic procedure (24.5±10.6 vs. 27.4±11.8 min, P=0.08), the mean time to reach Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale 5 (17.2±4.4 vs. 18.4±5.6 min, P=0.15), the mean time from completion of the procedure to release (9.0±2.5 vs. 9.1±3.2 min, P=0.86), and the mean time to full recovery (42.2±7.3 vs. 42.3±7.8 min, P=0.88) were very similar between the two groups. The limitation of this study was lack of randomization, and a control group of cirrhotic patients using standard sedation with benzodiazepines and opioids.

CONCLUSION

Propofol deep sedation administered by an anesthesiologist with appropriate monitorings seems to be a safe procedure during colonoscopy or ERCP in cirrhotic patients.

How best to approach endoscopic sedation?

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

Sedation during upper GI endoscopy in cirrhotic outpatients: a randomized, controlled trial comparing propofol and fentanyl with midazolam and fentanyl

BACKGROUND

Patients with liver cirrhosis frequently undergo diagnostic or therapeutic upper GI endoscopy (UGIE), and the liver disease might impair the metabolism of drugs usually administered for sedation.

OBJECTIVE AND SETTING

To compare sedation with a combination of propofol plus fentanyl and midazolam plus fentanyl in cirrhotic outpatients undergoing UGIE.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted between February 2008 and February 2009.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS

Efficacy (proportion of complete procedures using the initial proposed sedation scheme), safety (occurrence of sedation-related complications), and recovery time were measured.

RESULTS

Two hundred ten cirrhotic patients referred for UGIE were randomized to 2 groups: midazolam group (0.05 mg/kg plus fentanyl 50 μg intravenously) or propofol group (0.25 mg/kg plus fentanyl 50 μg intravenously). There were no differences between groups regarding age, sex, weight, etiology of cirrhosis, and Child-Pugh or American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Sedation with propofol was more efficacious (100% vs 88.2%; P < .001) and had a shorter recovery time than sedation with midazolam (16.23 ± 6.84 minutes and 27.40 ± 17.19 minutes, respectively; P < .001). Complication rates were similar in both groups (14% vs 7.3%; P = .172).

LIMITATIONS

Single-blind study; sample size.

CONCLUSION

Both sedation schemes were safe in this setting. Sedation with propofol plus fentanyl was more efficacious with a shorter recovery time compared with midazolam plus fentanyl. Therefore, the former scheme is an alternative when sedating cirrhotic patients undergoing UGIE.

Endoscopic sedation of patients with chronic liver disease

Endoscopic procedures are often necessary in patients with chronic liver disease. The preprocedure evaluation of such patients should include an assessment of hepatic synthetic function and identification of neuropsychiatric findings suggestive of hepatic encephalopathy. It may be possible, in some cases, to perform diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy without administration of sedation; this is desirable to eliminate the risks of sedation, especially encephalopathy. Nonetheless, most patients undergoing upper and lower endoscopy require sedation. Currently, the use of propofol is preferred to benzodiazepines and opioids for endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and low risk of provoking hepatic encephalopathy. In appropriately selected patients, gastroenterologist-directed propofol administration seems safe.

Optimal sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: review and recommendations

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