Projected increased growth rate of anesthesia professional-delivered sedation for colonoscopy and EGD in the United States: 2009 to 2015

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.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Ketamine and Moderate Sedation for Outpatient Endoscopy in Adults

INTRODUCTION

Ketamine is an effective sedative agent in a variety of settings due to its desirable properties including preservation of laryngeal reflexes and lack of cardiovascular depression. We hypothesized that ketamine is an effective alternative to standard moderate sedation (SMS) regimens for patients undergoing endoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing ketamine to SMS for outpatient colonoscopy or esophagogastroduodenoscopy at Brooke Army Medical Center. The ketamine group received a 1-mg dose of midazolam along with ketamine, whereas the SMS group received midazolam/fentanyl. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction measured using the Patient Satisfaction in Sedation Instrument, and secondary outcomes included changes in hemodynamics, time to sedation onset and recovery, and total medication doses.

RESULTS

Thirty-three subjects were enrolled in each group. Baseline characteristics were similar. Endoscopies were performed for both diagnostic and screening purposes. Ketamine was superior in the overall sedation experience and in all analyzed categories compared to the SMS group (P = .0096). Sedation onset times and procedure times were similar among groups. The median ketamine dose was 75 mg. The median fentanyl and midazolam doses were 150 mcg and 5 mg, respectively, in SMS. Vital signs remained significantly closer to the physiological baseline in the ketamine group (P = .004). Recovery times were no different between the groups, and no adverse reactions were encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine is preferred by patients, preserves hemodynamics better than SMS, and can be safely administered by endoscopists. Data suggest that ketamine is a safe and effective sedation option for patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03461718).

Supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation improves oxygenation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE

Hypoxia is one of the most frequent adverse events under deep sedation in the semiprone position. We hypothesized that supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation (SJOV) via Wei nasal jet tube (WNJ) can reduce the incidence of hypoxia in patients under deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

A total of 171 patients were divided into three groups: N group, supplementary oxygen via a nasopharyngeal airway (4-6 L/min); W group, supplementary oxygen via WNJ (4-6 L/min); WS group, SJOV via WNJ. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse events, including sedation-related adverse events [SRAEs, hypoxemia (SpO2 = 75-89% lasted less than 60 s); severe hypoxemia (SpO2 < 75% at any time or SpO2 < 90% lasted more than 60 s] and subclinical respiratory depression (SpO2 = 90-95%). Other intraoperative and post-operative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Compared with the N group, the incidence of hypoxemia and subclinical respiratory depression in the WS group was significantly lower (21% vs. 4%, P = 0.005; 27% vs. 6%, P = 0.002). Compared with Group W, the incidence of hypoxemia and subclinical respiratory depression in Group WS was also significantly less frequent (20% vs. 4%, P = 0.009; 21% vs. 6%, P = 0.014). No severe hypoxia occurred in the group WS, while four and one instances were observed in the group N and group W respectively. There were no significant differences in other adverse events among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

SJOV can effectively improve oxygenation during ERCP in deeply sedated semiprone patients.

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.

Feasibility and safety of deep sedation with propofol and remifentanil in spontaneous breathing during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: an observational prospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an interventional procedure that requires deep sedation or general anaesthesia. The purpose of this prospective observational study was to assess the feasibility and safety of deep sedation in ERCP to maintain spontaneous breathing.

METHODS

This is a single-centre observational prospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary referral university hospital. All consecutive patients who needed sedation or general anaesthesia for ERCP were included from January 2021 to June 2021. Deep sedation was achieved and maintained by continuous infusion of an association of propofol and remifentanil. The primary endpoint was to assess the prevalence of major anaesthesia-related complications, such as arrhythmias, hypotension, gas exchange dysfunction, and vomiting (safety endpoint). Secondary endpoints were: (a) to assess the prevalence of signs of an insufficient level of sedation, such as movement, cough, and hiccups (feasibility endpoint): (b) time needed to achieve the target level of sedation and for recovery from anaesthesia. In order to do so we collect the following parameters: peripheral oxygen saturation, fraction of inspired oxygen, noninvasive systemic blood pressure, heart rate, number of breaths per minute, neurological functions with the use of the bispectral index to determine depth of anaesthesia, and partially exhaustive CO2 end pressure to continuously assess the ventilatory status. The collected data were analysed by several tests: Shapiro-Wilk, Student's t, Tuckey post-hoc, Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskall-Wallis ran. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata/BE 17.0 (StataCorp LLC).

RESULTS

114 patients were enroled. Eight patients were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. We found that all patients were hemodynamically stable: intraoperative mean systolic blood pressure was 139,23 mmHg, mean arterial pressure was on average 106,66 mmHg, mean heart rate was 74,471 bpm. The mean time to achieve the target level of sedation was 63 s, while the mean time for the awakening after having stopped drug infusion was 92 s.

CONCLUSIONS

During ERCP, deep sedation and analgesia using the association of propofol and remifentanil and maintaining spontaneous breathing are safe and feasible, allowing for a safe and quick recovery from anaesthesia.

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.

The Quality and Safety of Sedation and Monitoring in Adults Undergoing Nonoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography

Sedation is an essential component of the transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) procedure for patient comfort. The use and the clinical implications of cardiologist-supervised (CARD-Sed) versus anesthesiologist-supervised sedation (ANES-Sed) are unknown. We reviewed nonoperative TEE records from a single academic center over a 5-year period and identified CARD-Sed and ANES-Sed cases. We evaluated the impact of patient co-morbidities, cardiac abnormalities on transthoracic echocardiogram, and the indication for TEE on sedation practice. We analyzed the use of CARD-Sed versus ANES-Sed in light of institutional guidelines; the consistency in the documentation of preprocedural risk stratification; and the incidence of cardiopulmonary events, including hypotension, hypoxia, and hypercarbia. A total of 914 patients underwent TEE, with 475 patients (52%) receiving CARD-Sed and 439 patients (48%) receiving ANES-Sed. The presence of obstructive sleep apnea (p = 0.008), a body mass index of >45 kg/m2 (p <0.001), an ejection fraction of <30% (p <0.001), and pulmonary artery systolic pressure of more than 40 mm Hg (p = 0.015) were all associated with the use of ANES-Sed. Of the 178 patients (19.5%) with at least 1 caution to nonanesthesiologist-supervised sedation by the institutional screening guideline, 65 patients (36.5%) underwent CARD-Sed. In the ANES-Sed group, where intraprocedural vital signs and medications were documented in all cases, hypotension (n = 91, 20.7%), vasoactive medication use (n = 121, 27.6%), hypoxia (n = 35, 8.0%), and hypercarbia (n = 50, 11.4%) were noted. This single-center study revealed that 48% of the nonoperative TEE used ANES-Sed over 5 years. Sedation-related hemodynamic changes and respiratory events were not infrequently encountered during ANES-Sed.

Utility of the gastro-laryngeal tube during transesophageal echocardiography: A prospective randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

To validate the utility and performance of the gastro-laryngeal tube (GLT) in terms of cardiologist and patient satisfaction levels, incidence of and attempts at successful transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) probe placement, perioperative and postoperative hemodynamics, and adverse events related to the TEE procedure.

METHODS

In this randomized prospective clinical study, forty-four patients undergoing TEE and aged 20 to 80 years old scheduled for TEE were randomly allocated to two study groups: Group SA (sedation and analgesia) and Group GLT. Cardiologist and patient satisfaction levels, TEE probe placement performance, hemodynamics, adverse events related to the TEE procedure, demographic characteristics, and TEE procedure data were recorded.

RESULTS

The cardiologist satisfaction level was significantly higher in Group GLT (P = .011). The TEE probe was successfully placed at the first attempt in all the patients in Group GLT and at the first attempt in 11 patients, at the second attempt in 8 patients, and at the third attempt in 3 patients in Group SA. The TEE probe placement success was significantly higher in Group GLT (P < .001), and TEE probe placement was significantly easier in Group GLT (P < .001). There were no significant differences in patient satisfaction, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, oxygen saturation, adverse events related to the TEE procedure between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study revealed that GLT use elicited a higher cardiologist satisfaction level and resulted in more successful and easier TEE probe placement. We thus conclude that the use of the recently developed GLT may ensure airway management safety and a comfortable TEE experience.

In vitro and in vivo evaluation of a novel wired transmission magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy system for upper gastrointestinal examination

BACKGROUND

Magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (MCCE) has recently increasingly been used for gastric examination. However, the image quality and esophageal observation is suboptimal. We developed a novel wired transmission magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (WT-MCCE) system and evaluated its feasibility through in vitro and in vivo experiments.

METHODS

A plastic stomach model and a pathological upper gastrointestinal model were used to evaluate the performance of WT-MCCE in vitro experiments. Twice of examination in the two in vitro models by WT-MCCE were performed by 5 endoscopists who were experienced in performing wireless capsule endoscopy. The examination of traditional gastroscopy (Olympus, GIF-HQ290) in the pathological upper gastrointestinal model was set as the control. In vivo experiments were performed in a live canine model by 3 endoscopists, in which WT-MCCE was inserted with the assistance of gastroscopy. Measurements included maneuverability, examination time, visualization of gastric mucosa, image quality and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

WT-MCCE showed good performance in both in vitro and in vivo experiments with excellent visualization of mucosa (75-100%). The mean operation time is 17.6 ± 2.7 min, 22.3 ± 1.9 min and 29.3 ± 3.4 min in three models, respectively. In pathological upper gastrointestinal model, all lesions, including esophageal varices, one polyp, one foreign body, two gastric ulcers and one duodenal ulcer, were detected by both WT-MCCE and traditional gastroscopy by all endoscopists. For the observation of esophagus and stomach in the canine model, WT-MCCE also showed excellent maneuverability and good image quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel WT-MCCE system performed well in evaluating upper gastrointestinal landmarks and lesions in two in vitro models, and showed good performance in a canine model. WT-MCCE may be potentially useful for diagnosis of esophageal and gastric diseases.

Feasibility of Novel Magnetically Controlled Cable Capsule Endoscopy System In Vitro Experiments for Gastric Examination

Background

Magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy has been shown to be feasible for the examination of gastric diseases. However, there may be problems, such as low image quality, incomplete esophageal observation, and capsule retention. We developed a novel magnetically controlled cable capsule endoscopy (MCCCE) system and evaluated its feasibility through in vitro experiments.

Methods

Three experienced endoscopists performed MCCCE on the plastic stomach model and the excised porcine stomach model 5 times, respectively. Outcomes included handle ability, examination time, examination completion, and image quality. The examination completion was accessed by other two blinded endoscopists, and the image quality was compared with conventional gastroscopy (Olympus, GIF-290).

Results

The performance of MCCCE in vitro experiments is excellent, with a mean operation time of 18.5 minutes in the plastic stomach model and 17.3 minutes in the excised porcine stomach model. The visualization rate of the gastric mucosa is >90% in the plastic stomach model and 75–90% in the excised porcine stomach model. The images of MCCCE are very clear, with good color resolution and no image distortion, which seem to be comparable to conventional gastroscopy.

Conclusions

MCCCE system is feasible for gastric examination in vitro experiments, living animal experiments and human trials need to be further conducted.

Safety and efficacy of remimazolam besylate in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A multicentre, single-blind, randomized, controlled, phase Ⅲ trial

Study objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of remimazolam besylate versus propofol injection in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Design: A multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority, single-blind, parallel-controlled clinical trial.

Setting: Operating room.

Patients: Patients aged 18–65 years (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] classification I-III) undergoing a diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopy.

Interventions: Patients were administered intravenous injection of remimazolam besylate or propofol (active comparator) for sedation.

Measurements: Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation [MOAA/S] scores of the included patients were assessed before dosing, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3 min after the start of dosing, and then every 1 min until the MOAA/S score reached 5 on three consecutive occasions.

Main Results: A total of 360 patients received remimazolam and 120 patients received propofol. The incidence of adverse events (67.8% vs. 84.2%, p = 0.001) was significantly lower in patients administered remimazolam compared to propofol. There was no significant difference in sedation success rates (full analysis set [FAS]: 98.9% vs. 99.2%; remimazolam vs. propofol). Remimazolam had a significantly longer onset of action, but the difference was not considered clinically significant (1.45 min vs. 1.24 min, remimazolam vs. propofol). Propofol achieved a deeper level of sedation (mean MOAA/S score 0.5 vs. 0.2; remimazolam vs. propofol). Mean time to discharge after the end of the last administration of study drug (20.3 vs. 21.8 min, p = 0.020) and incidence of injection pain was significantly lower in patients administered remimazolam (2.3% vs. 35.3%, p < 0.0001). Incidence of oxygen desaturation was significantly higher in patients administered propofol compared to patients administered remimazolam (6.7% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.001). Similarly, incidence of hypotension was more frequent in patients administered propofol compared to patients administered remimazolam (29.2% vs. 10.6%, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: Remimazolam besylate had a better safety and tolerability profile and similar sedative efficacy to propofol in patients undergoing a diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopy in China, suggesting that remimazolam besylate has potential as a sedative agent for colonoscopy.

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

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

Procedural analgesic interventions in China: a national survey of 2198 hospitals

Background

Humane treatment requires the provision of appropriate sedation and analgesia during medical diagnosis and treatment. However, limited information is available about the status of procedural analgesic interventions in Chinese hospitals. Therefore, a nationwide survey was established to identify challenges and propose potential improvement strategies.

Methods

Forty-three members of the Pain Group of Chinese Society of Anesthesiology established and reviewed the questionnaire, which included (1) general information on the hospitals, (2) the sedation/analgesia rate in gastrointestinal endoscopy, labor, flexible bronchoscopy, hysteroscopy in China, (3) staff assignments, (4) drug use for procedural analgesic interventions, and (5) difficulties in procedural analgesic interventions. The data were obtained using an online questionnaire sent to the chief anesthesiologists of Chinese hospitals above Grade II or members of the Pain Group of Chinese Society of Anesthesiology.

Results

Valid and complete questionnaires were received from 2198 (44.0%) hospitals, of which 64.5% were Grade III. The overall sedation/analgesia rates were as follows: gastroscopy (50.6%), colonoscopy (53.7%), ERCP (65.9%), induced abortion (67.5%), labor (42.3%), hysteroscopy (67.0%) and fiber bronchoscopy (52.6%). Compared with Grade II hospitals, Grade III hospitals had a higher proportion of procedural analgesic interventions services except for induced abortion. On average (median [IQR]), each anesthesiologist performed 5.7 [2.3—11.4] cases per day, with 7.3 [3.2—13.6] performed in Grade III hospitals and 3.4 [1.8—6.8] performed in Grade II hospitals (z = -7.065, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Chinese anesthesiologists have made great efforts to achieve procedural analgesic interventions, as evidenced by the increased rate. The uneven health care provided by hospitals at different levels and in different regions and the lack of anesthesiologists are the main barriers to optimal procedural analgesic interventions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01783-6.

Development and Application of Magnetically Controlled Capsule Endoscopy in Detecting Gastric Lesions

In the past 20 years, several magnetically controlled capsule endoscopes (MCCE) have been developed for the evaluation of gastric lesions, including NaviCam (ANKON), MiroCam-Navi (Intromedic), Endocapsule MGCE (Olympus and Siemens), SMCE (JIFU), and FAMCE (Jinshan). Although limited to observing esophageal and duodenal lesions and lacking the ability of biopsy, MCCE has the advantages of comfort, safety, no anesthesia, no risk of cross-infection, and high acceptability. Several high-quality RCTs showed that the diagnostic accuracy of MCCE is comparable to the traditional gastroscopy. Due to the nonnecessity of anesthesia, MCCE may be more suitable for the elderly with obvious comorbidities as well as children. With more evidences accumulated and more innovative technologies developed, MCCE is expected to be an important tool for screening of early gastric cancer or the diagnosis of gastric diseases.

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.

Comparison of a Nasal Mask and Traditional Nasal Cannula During Intravenous Anesthesia for Gastroscopy Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND:

Hypoxemia can occur during gastroscopy under intravenous anesthesia. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate whether oxygenation using a nasal mask can reduce the incidence of hypoxemia during gastroscopy under intravenous anesthesia compared with a traditional nasal cannula.

METHODS:

A total of 574 patients scheduled for gastroscopy under intravenous anesthesia were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either a nasal mask or a traditional nasal cannula for oxygenation. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of severe hypoxemia, duration of hypoxemia, minimum oxygen saturation, the proportion of emergency airway management, length of procedure, recovery time, and the satisfaction of the anesthetist and gastroenterologists as well as other adverse events (including cough, hiccups, nausea and vomiting, reflux, aspiration, and laryngospasm).

RESULTS:

A total of 565 patients were included in the analysis: 282 patients in the nasal cannula group and 283 patients in the nasal mask group. The incidence of hypoxemia was lower in the nasal mask group (18.0%) than in the nasal cannula group (27.7%; relative risk [RR] = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48–0.89; P = .006), and the hypoxemia lasted a median of 18.0 seconds (interquartile range, 10.0–38.8) in the nasal mask group and 32.5 seconds (20.0–53.5) in the nasal cannula group (median difference –14.50; 95% CI, −22.82 to −1.34; P = .047). The proportion of patients requiring emergency airway management was significantly lower in the nasal mask group (8.8%) than in the nasal cannula group (19.1%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30–0.73; P < .001). No difference was found in the overall incidence of other adverse events between the 2 groups (nasal mask 20.8%; nasal cannula 17.0%; RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.87–1.73; P = .25). Satisfaction was higher with the nasal mask than with the nasal cannula from the perspective of anesthetists (96.1% for nasal mask versus 84.4% for nasal cannula; RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.08–1.20; P < .001) and gastroenterologists (95.4% for mask versus 81.9% for cannula; RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10–1.24; P < .001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of severe hypoxemia, minimum oxygen saturation, length of procedure, or recovery time between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

Nasal mask oxygenation reduced the incidence of hypoxemia during anesthesia for gastroscopy under intravenous anesthesia.

Patient characteristics and procedural outcomes of moderate sedation for endoscopic procedures in patients with obesity: A retrospective, propensity score-matched study

Background  Endoscopic procedures are performed commonly with moderate sedation. Obesity can pose a challenge in its safe administration. This study was aimed at assessing outcomes of endoscopy procedures performed with moderate sedation in obese patients. Patients and methods  This was a retrospective study of patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and/or colonoscopy with moderate sedation from July 17, 2017 to December 31, 2019. Demographics, comorbidities, outpatient medications and procedure-related outcomes (procedure time, recovery time, cardiopulmonary adverse events, 7-day post-procedure hospitalization, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, tolerance of moderate sedation and sedation medications administered) were compared for patient with and without obesity after propensity score matching. Standard statistical methods were used for analysis. Results  A total of 7601 procedures were performed with moderate sedation for 5746 patients. Propensity score matching identified 1360 and 1740 pairs of EGDs and colonoscopies with moderate sedation for patients with and without obesity. Recovery time was found to be shorter for obese patients undergoing EGD (OR: 0.989, 95 % CI: 0.981-.998; P  = 0.01). Obese patients did not differ from non-obese patients in any other procedure-related outcomes for EGDs or colonoscopies. Conclusions  Outcomes for endoscopy procedures performed with moderate sedation were noted to be similar between obese and non-obese patients. These findings suggest that moderate sedation can be used safely for endoscopic procedures in patients with obesity.

The Future of the Private Gastroenterology Practice

The future private gastroenterology practice will be a large multidisciplinary practice including a clinic, AEC, pathology services, infusion services, anesthesia services, pharmacy services, and imaging centers. Delivery of gastrointestinal (GI) services will be a team-based clinic with AEC access and improved quality of care. Competing technologies will drive practices to promote the value of colonoscopy as the best screening test for colon cancer. Artificial intelligence (AI) may significantly alter our approach to clinic and endoscopic services. The creative and intellectual capital of practice leaders will continue to define the private GI practice of the future.

Impact of sedation on the Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation

BACKGROUND

The Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation (PICI) is a new measure of high-quality colonic intubation. Adequate PICI was defined as cecal intubation without significant discomfort and use of minimal sedation. This study assessed achievement of PICI within the Dutch colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program, and determined the association between PICI and adenoma detection rate (ADR). PICI achievement when using the Dutch median midazolam dose was also assessed.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted within the Dutch fecal immunochemical test-based CRC screening program. Colonoscopy and pathology data were prospectively collected in a national database. Data between January 2016 through January 2018 were analyzed. Adequate PICI was defined as successful cecal intubation, Gloucester Comfort Scale (GCS) of 1 - 3, and use of ≤ 2.5 mg midazolam.

RESULTS

107 328 colonoscopies were performed during the study period. Adequate PICI was achieved in 49 500 colonoscopies (46.1 %). In colonoscopies with inadequate PICI, inadequacy was due to higher sedation doses in 87.8 %. Adequate PICI was associated with higher ADR (odds ratio 1.16, 95 % confidence interval 1.12 - 1.20). When using a cutoff of 5 mg midazolam, median dose in this Dutch population, adequate PICI was achieved in 95 410 colonoscopies (88.9  %).

CONCLUSION

PICI appeared to be heavily dependent on sedation practice. Because of wide variation in sedation practice between individual endoscopists and countries, the benefit of PICI as a quality indicator is limited.

Prospective Comparison of Moderate Conscious Sedation and Anesthesia Assistance for the Performance of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)

OBJECTIVES

Recent trends have favored the use of anesthesia personnel more frequently for advanced endoscopic procedures. We hypothesize a selective sedation approach based on patient and procedural factors using either moderate conscious sedation (MCS) or general anesthesia (GA) will result in similar outcomes and safety with significant cost savings.

METHODS

A 12-month prospective study of all adult endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCPs) performed at a tertiary medical center was enrolled. Technical success, cannulation rates, procedural related complications, procedure time, and cost were compared between MCS and GA.

RESULTS

A total of 876 ERCPs were included in the study with 74% performed with MCS versus 26% with GA. The intended intervention was completed successfully in 95% of cases with MCS versus 96% cases with GA (p = 0.59). Cannulation success rates with MCS were 97.5 versus 97.8% with GA (p = 0.81). Overall, adverse event rates were similar in both groups (MCS: 6.6% vs. GA: 9.2%, p = 0.21). Mean procedure time was less for MCS versus GA, 18.3 and 26 minutes, respectively (p < 0.0001). Selective use of MCS vs. universal sedation with GA resulted in estimated savings of $8,190 per case and $4,735,202 per annum.

CONCLUSIONS

Preselection of ERCP sedation of moderate conscious sedation versus general anesthesia based upon patient risk factors and planned therapeutic intervention allows for the majority of ERCPs to be completed with MCS with similar rates of technical success and improvement in resource utilization and cost savings compared to performing ERCPs universally with anesthesia assistance.

An algorithm for the sedation of patients with obstructive sleep apnea by non-anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are at risk for adverse events when moderate sedation is administered by nurse protocols (NAMS) under the guidance of non-anesthesiologists. An algorithm was applied for the appropriate section of patients to receive NAMS and the application of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP).

METHODS

An algorithm was developed for patients with OSA who were scheduled for gastroenterology, radiology, and cardiology procedures using NAMS. Those with normal airways and without contraindications for NAMS were classified as CPAP-independent (CPAP-I; not routinely used) or CPAP-dependent (CPAP-D; always used). CPAP machines were brought in by CPAP-D patients or supplied by the hospital and set at a patient's routine setting or 10 cm H₂O if not known. CPAP-D patients for procedures for which CPAP could not be applied were done under anesthesia care. We retrospectively examined this program for the 2008-2018 period.

RESULTS

Since the inception of this protocol in 2008, 803 patients with OSA safely underwent procedures using either personal CPAP or CPAP provided by the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with OSA can safely have NAMS for procedures when CPAP is applied based on a protocol that considers airway evaluation, the procedure, and whether there is dependence upon CPAP.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation: A New Paradigm for Gastrointestinal Procedural Sedation

INTRODUCTION

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation (NAPCIS) is a new nonanesthesia propofol delivery method for gastrointestinal endoscopy. NAPCIS is adopted from the computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) protocol. We evaluated the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of NAPCIS in low-risk subjects.

METHODS

Between December 2016 and July 2017, patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at our center were compared against 2 historical control groups of similar patients who had undergone procedures with CAPS or midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation.

RESULTS

The mean age of the NAPCIS cohort (N = 3,331) was 55.2 years (45.8% male) for 945 esophagogastroduodenoscopies and 57.8 years (48.7% male) for 2,386 colonoscopies. The procedural success rates with NAPCIS were high (99.1%-99.2%) and similar to those seen in 3,603 CAPS (98.8%-99.0%) and 3,809 MF (99.0%-99.3%) controls. NAPCIS recovery times were shorter than both CAPS and MF (24.8 vs 31.7 and 52.4 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). On arrival at the recovery unit, 86.6% of NAPCIS subjects were recorded as "Awake" compared with 82.8% of CAPS and 40.8% of MF controls (P < 0.001). Validated clinician and patient satisfaction scores were generally higher for NAPCIS compared with CAPS and MF subjects. For NAPCIS, there were only 4 cases of oxygen desaturation requiring transient mask ventilation and no serious sedation-related complications. These low complication rates were similar to those seen with CAPS (8 cases of mask ventilation) and MF (3 cases).

DISCUSSION

NAPCIS seems to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy in low-risk patients.

[The Guideline "Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy"]

The guideline "Sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy" (AWMF-register-no. 021/014) was published initially in 2008. Because of new and developing evidence, the guideline was updated in 2015. The aim of the guideline is to define the necessary structural, equipment and personnel requirements that contribute to minimizing the risk of sedation for endoscopy. In view of the high and increasing significance of gastrointestinal endoscopy, the guideline will remain highly relevant in the future. Essential aspects are the selection of sedatives/hypnotics, structural requirements, personnel requirements with regard to number, availability and training, management of complications and quality assurance. In this article, the development and evaluation of the evidence and its influence on the practical implementation, in particular for anaesthesia, are highlighted.

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.

Complications Associated With Anesthesia Services in Endoscopic Procedures Among Patients With Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Anesthesia services for endoscopic procedures have proliferated with the promise of increased comfort and safety. Cirrhosis patients are higher risk for sedation, yet limited data are available describing anesthesia complications in this population.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

This cross-sectional study utilized the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry, a multicenter quality-improvement database from 2010 to 2015. Patients with cirrhosis undergoing an endoscopy were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)/Current Procedures Terminology (CPT) codes. The outcome of interest was serious anesthesia-related complication defined as cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, drug related, patient injury, death, or unexpected admission. A mixed-effects multivariate logistic regression model determined odds ratios (ORs) between variables and serious complications, adjusting for potential confounders. In total, 9,007 endoscopic procedures were performed among patients with cirrhosis; 92% were esophagogastroduodenoscopies. The majority (81%) were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥3, and 72% had a history of hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, varices, hepatorenal syndrome, or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis identified by ICD-9/CPT codes. In total, 87 complications were reported, 33 of which were serious. Frequency of serious complications was 0.4% or 378.6 per 100,000 procedures (95% confidence interval [CI], 260.8, 531.3). The majority of serious complications were cardiovascular (21 of 33), including 15 cardiac arrests. Serious complications were significantly associated with ASA 4/5 (OR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.09, 13.57) and general anesthesia (OR, 4.71; 95% CI, 1.20, 18.50), adjusting for age, sex, ASA class, anesthesia type, inpatient status, portal hypertension history, and variable complication reporting practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesia complications among endoscopic procedures in cirrhosis are rare overall. Serious complications were predominantly cardiac and associated with sicker patients undergoing general anesthesia. The complexity of end-stage liver disease may warrant more intensive care during endoscopic procedures, including anesthesia monitoring.

Complications of Anesthesia Services in Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Despite the increased use of anesthesia services for endoscopic procedures in the United States, the risks of anesthesia-directed sedation (ADS) are unclear. We analyzed national data from multiple centers to determine patterns of use of anesthesia services and risk factors for serious complications.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study using the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry, a national quality improvement database. Univariable and bivariate analyses investigated frequencies and relationships between predefined variables and serious complications of anesthesia (cardiovascular, respiratory, neurologic, drug-related, patient injury, death, or unexpected admission). A multivariable mixed-effects model determined the odds ratios between these variables and serious complications, adjusting for confounders and varying reporting practices.

RESULTS

In total, 428,947 endoscopic procedures of adults were performed using ADS from 2010 to 2015. The population was 54.9% female with a mean age of 59.1 years, and predominantly American Society of Anesthesiologists classes 2 and 3 (74.4%). More than half of the procedures were colonoscopies (51.4%); 37.4% were esophagogastroduodenoscopies and 6.5% were endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies. A total of 4441 complications (1.09%) were reported; 1349 were serious complications (0.34%). In multivariable analysis, older age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classes 4 and 5, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, general anesthesia, cases performed on an overnight shift, and longer cases were associated independently and significantly with serious complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of data from the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry, we found ADS during endoscopy to be safe, with few serious complications (<1% of procedures). Risk of ADS complications increased with older age, more severe disease, procedure type, and case complexity.

Standing-type magnetically guided capsule endoscopy versus gastroscopy for gastric examination: multicenter blinded comparative trial

AIM

To compare feasibility and safety after gastrointestinal checkup by standing-type magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (SMCE) and conventional gastroscopy.

METHODS

This was a prospective multicenter, blinded study that compared SMCE with gastroscopy in patients from April 2018 to July 2018. All patients first underwent SMCE and then subsequently had gastroscopy with i.v. anesthesia. We calculated the compliance rates of gastric lesion detection by SMCE using gastroscopy as the standard. Capsule retention rate, incidence of adverse events, and patient satisfaction were documented throughout the study.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-one patients who completed SMCE and gastroscopy were included in the analysis. Positive compliance rate among SMCE and gastroscopy was 92.0% (95% CI: 80.77%-97.78%). Negative compliance rate was 95.5% (89.80%, 98.52%). Moreover, overall compliance rate was 94.41% (89.65%, 97.41%). Sixty-four pathological outcomes were identified. Of these 64 outcomes, 50 were detected by both procedures. The gastroscopy method neglected seven findings (such as five erosions, one polyp, and one ulcer). Furthermore, SMCE also overlooked seven lesions (i.e. one erosion, two polyps, one atrophy, and three submucosal tumors). Capsule retention or related adverse events were not reported.

CONCLUSION

Standing-type magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy provides equivalent agreement with gastroscopy and may be useful for screening of gastric illnesses without any anesthesia.

Sedation During Endoscopy in Patients with Cirrhosis: Safety and Predictors of Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

Sedation during endoscopy in cirrhotic patients is typically via moderate sedation, most commonly using a combination of a benzodiazepine (i.e., midazolam) and narcotic (i.e., fentanyl) or with propofol using monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Here, we examined the safety of moderate sedation and MAC in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy from a large academic medical center between 2010 and 2014 examined extensive clinical data including the following: past history, physical findings, laboratory results, and procedural adverse events. Adverse events were defined a priori and included hypoxia, hypotension, bleeding, and death.

RESULTS

We identified 2618 patients with cirrhosis who underwent endoscopic procedures; the mean age was 56 years, 36% were female, the mean Child-Pugh score was 9.3 (IQR: 8, 11), and Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 3.2 (IQR: 1, 4); 1157 had MAC; and 1461 had moderate sedation. There was no difference in the frequency of adverse events in MAC and moderate sedation groups, with a total of 15 adverse events (7/1157 MAC and 8/1461 moderate sedation). The most common procedure performed was esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD, n = 1667) and was associated with 10 adverse events. Overall, adverse events included bradycardia (1), hypoxia (7), bleeding (5), laryngospasm (1), and perforation (1). The frequency was similar for EGD, ERCP, and colonoscopy-each at a rate of 0.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy appeared to be similar with moderate sedation or MAC, and the frequency was the same for different types of procedures.

Anesthesia Assistance in Screening Colonoscopy and Adenoma Detection Rate Among Trainees

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of anesthesia assistance (AA) for screening colonoscopy has been increasing substantially over the past decade, raising concerns about procedure safety and cost without demonstrating a proven improvement in overall quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate (ADR). The effect of AA on ADR has not been extensively studied among trainees learning colonoscopy. We aimed to determine whether type of sedation used during screening colonoscopy affects trainee ADR.

METHODS

Using the electronic endoscopy databases of two hospitals in our medical center, we identified colonoscopies performed by 15 trainees from 2014 through 2018, including all screening examinations in which the cecum was reached. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with adenoma detection.

RESULTS

We identified 1420 unique patients who underwent screening colonoscopy by a trainee meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these, 459 (32.3%) were performed with AA. Overall trainee ADR was 39.6%, with ADR increasing from 35.0% in year one of training to 42.8% in year three (p = 0.047). ADR for cases with AA was 37.9%, while ADR for conscious sedation cases was 32.0% (p = 0.374). Despite this 5.9% absolute difference, the use of AA was not associated with finding an adenoma on multivariable analysis when controlling for patient age, sex, smoking status, body mass index, trainee year of training, mean withdrawal time, supervising attending ADR, and bowel preparation quality (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.67-1.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite providing the ability to more consistently sedate patients, the use of AA did not affect trainee ADR. These results on trainee ADR and sedation type suggest that the overall lack of association between AA use and ADR is applicable to the trainee setting.

Patient-controlled sedation with propofol for endoscopic procedures-A cost analysis

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol accompanied by a bedside nurse anaesthetist is an alternative sedation method for endoscopic procedures compared with midazolam administered by a nurse or endoscopist. Increasing costs in health care demands an economic perspective when introducing alternative methods. We applied a hospital perspective on a cost analysis comparing different methods of sedation and the resource use that were expected to affect cost differences related to the sedation.

METHODS

Based on two randomised previous studies, the direct costs were determined for different sedation methods during two advanced endoscopic procedures: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and flexible bronchoscopy including endobronchial ultrasound. ERCP comparisons were made between midazolam sedation by the endoscopic team, PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist and propofol sedation administered by a nurse anaesthetist. Bronchoscopy comparisons were made between midazolam sedation by the endoscopic team and PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist, categorised by premedication morphine-scopolamine or glycopyrronium.

RESULTS

Propofol PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist resulted in lower costs per patient for sedation for both ERCP (233 USD) and bronchoscopy (premedication morphine-scopolamine 267 USD, premedication glycopyrronium 269 USD) compared with midazolam (ERCP 425 USD, bronchoscopy 337 USD). Aborted procedures that needed to be repeated and prolonged hospital stays significantly increased the cost for the midazolam groups.

CONCLUSION

Propofol PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist reduces the direct sedation costs for ERCP and bronchoscopy procedures compared with midazolam sedation.

Effects of Bispectral Index-controlled Use of Magnesium on Propofol Consumption and Sedation Level in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy

Objective

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of bispectral index-controlled use of magnesium on propofol consumption, periprocedural hemodynamic response and patient comfort.

Material

A total of 60 patients were enrolled in the study. In Group 1 (magnesium), a single dose 50 mg/kg magnesium sulfate diluted with 100 mL 0.9% NaCl was administered 10 minutes before the beginning of the procedure. Initially bolus dose of 0.5 mg/kg propofol was applied. The maintenance dose of propofol was 60 mcg/kg/min. During the procedure, the propofol infusion was increased by titration until the bispectral index (BIS) value of 70 was achieved. In Group 2 (saline), 100 ml 0.9% NaCl was administered 10 minutes before the beginning of the procedure. The bolus and maintenance doses of propofol, and target BIS values were the same as those in Group 1.

Results

When BIS values were compared between the groups, the initial BIS values in the magnesium group (Group 1) were significantly higher than those of the saline group (Group 2) (p<0.05). The time to reach BIS 70 was significantly shorter in the magnesium group (p<0.05). Propofol consumption was greater in Group 2 than in Group 1 (p<0.05). The time to reach BIS 70 was significantly shorter in Group 1 (p<0.05). No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of patient- and endoscopist-satisfaction (p<0.05).

Conclusion

The use of magnesium in addition to propofol may be an efficient and reliable option to reduce the drug consumption during colonoscopic interventions.

Adverse events associated with colonoscopy; an examination of online concerns

Background

Colonoscopy as a screening and diagnostic tool is generally safe and well-tolerated, and significant complications are rare. The rate of more mild adverse effects is difficult to estimate, particularly when such effects do not result in hospital admission. We aimed to identify the rate and timing of adverse effects as reported by users querying symptoms on an internet search engine.

Methods

We identified queries made to Bing originating from users in the United States containing the word “colonoscopy” during a 12-month period and identified those queries in which the timing of colonoscopy could be estimated. We then identified queries from those same users for medical symptoms during the time span from 5 days before through 30 days after the colonoscopy date.

Results

Of 641,223 users mentioning colonoscopy, 7013 (1.1%) had a query that enabled identification of their colonoscopy date. The majority of queries about colonoscopy preceded the procedure, and concerned diet. 28% of colonoscopy-related queries were made afterwards, and included queries about diarrhea and cramps, with 2.6% of users querying respiratory symptoms after the procedure, including cough (1.2%) and pneumonia (0.6%). Respiratory symptoms rose significantly at days 7–10 after the colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Internet search queries for respiratory symptoms rose approximately one week after queries relating to colonoscopy, raising the possibility that such symptoms are an under-reported late adverse effect of the procedure. Given the widespread use of colonoscopy as a screening modality and the rise of anesthesia-assisted colonoscopy in the United States in recent years, this signal is of potential public health concern.

Computer-Assisted Propofol Sedation for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Is Effective, Efficient, and Safe

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) allows non-anesthesiologists to administer propofol for gastrointestinal procedures in relatively healthy patients. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use, we report our 1-year experience with CAPS for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

METHODS

Between September 2014 and August 2015, 926 outpatients underwent elective EGDs with CAPS at our center. All EGDs were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of CAPS. Procedural success rates, procedure times, and recovery times were compared against corresponding historical controls done with midazolam and fentanyl sedation from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in CAPS patients were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 56.7 years (45% male); 16.2% of the EGDs were for variceal screening or Barrett's surveillance and 83.8% for symptoms. The procedural success rates were similar to that of historical controls (99.0% vs. 99.3%; p = 0.532); procedure times were also similar (6.6 vs. 7.4 min; p = 0.280), but recovery time was markedly shorter (31.7 vs. 52.4 min; p < 0.001). There were 11 (1.2%) cases of mild transient oxygen desaturation (< 90%), 15 (1.6%) cases of marked agitation due to undersedation, and 1 case of asymptomatic hypotension. In addition, there were six (0.6%) patients with more pronounced desaturation episodes that required brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no other serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

CAPS appears to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing sedation for EGD in healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical controls.

Substantial Increase in Anesthesia Assistance for Outpatient Colonoscopy and Associated Cost Nationwide

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of anesthesia assistance (AA) for outpatient colonoscopy has been increasing over the past decade, raising concern over its effects on procedure safety, quality, and cost. We performed a nationwide claims-based study to determine regional, patient-related, and facility-related patterns of anesthesia use as well as cost implications of AA for payers.

METHODS

We analyzed the Premier Perspective database to identify patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy at over 600 acute-care hospitals throughout the United States from 2006 through 2015, with or without AA. We used multivariable analysis to identify factors associated with AA and cost.

RESULTS

We identified 4,623,218 patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy. Of these, 1,671,755 (36.2%) had AA; the proportion increased from 16.7% in 2006 to 58.1% in 2015 (P < .001). Factors associated with AA included younger age (odds ratios [ORs], compared to patients 18-39 years old: 0.94, 0.82, 0.77, 0.72, and 0.77 for age groups 40-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years, 70-79 years, and ≥80 years, respectively); and female sex (OR, 0.96 for male patients compared to female patients; 95% CI, 0.95-0.96). Black patients were less likely to receive AA than white patients (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.81-0.82), although this difference decreased with time. The median cost of outpatient colonoscopy with AA was higher among all payers, ranging from $182.43 (95% CI, $180.80-$184.06) higher for patients with commercial insurance to $232.62 (95% CI, $222.58-$242.67) higher for uninsured patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of a database of patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy throughout the United States, we found that the use of AA during outpatient colonoscopy increased significantly from 2006 through 2015, associated with increased cost for all payers. The increase in anesthesia use mandates evaluation of its safety and effectiveness in colorectal cancer screening programs.

Factors Associated With Adenoma Detection in Propofol-sedated Patients

GOALS

To assess the factors associated with adenoma detection in propofol-sedated patients.

BACKGROUNDS

Low adenoma detection rate (ADR) are linked to increased risk of interval cancer and related deaths. Compared with air insufflation (AI) colonoscopy, the method of water exchange (WE) significantly decreased insertion pain and increased ADR in unsedated patients. Deep sedation with propofol has been increasingly used in colonoscopy. One report suggested that WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients, but the factors associated with adenoma detection were not analyzed.

STUDY

Post hoc multiple logistic regression analyses were performed based on pooled data from 2 randomized controlled trials to assess the factors associated with adenoma detection in propofol-sedated patients.

RESULTS

Propofol-sedated patients (n=510) were randomized to AI and WE. The baseline characteristics were comparable. Multiple logistic regression analyses show that age, withdrawal time, indications (screening vs. diagnostic), and WE were significantly and independently associated with higher ADR. WE had fewer patients with inadequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of <6. Despite a significantly shorter inspection time, WE had significantly higher overall ADR than AI, especially in those with adequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale of ≥6. Right colon ADR (17.5% vs. 10.5%), flat ADR (32.3% vs. 19.4%), combined advanced and sessile serrated ADR (13.1% vs. 7.4%) of WE were significantly higher than those of AI.

CONCLUSIONS

WE enhanced quality of colonoscopy in propofol-sedated patients by significantly improving colon cleanliness and overall ADR. Colonoscopists with patients under propofol sedation might consider evaluating WE method for performance improvement.

Factors related to paradoxical reactions during propofol-induced sedated endoscopy

Objective: The factors related to paradoxical excitement during propofol-induced sedation remain unclear. We aimed to investigate this issue during sedated upper endoscopy. Material and methods: Among the health examinees scheduled for sedated upper endoscopy from June 2017 to December 2017, 421 participated in the study. Endoscopists were blinded to the information about the examinees and evaluated the development of paradoxical reactions. Propofol was exclusively used as the sedative agent via intermittent bolus injection. A multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate the factors associated with paradoxical reactions. Results: The incidence of paradoxical reactions was 16.1%. Anxiety (adjusted odds ratio: 2.76; 95% confidence interval: 1.46 - 5.27; p = .002) and age (odds ratio: 0.92; 95% confidence interval: 0.89 - 0.96; p < .001) were significantly associated with paradoxical reactions. Of the nine items of the anxiety questionnaire, four had independent and significant associations with paradoxical reactions (i.e., excess worry, sleeping problems, somatic symptoms, and health concerns; odds ratios: 2.38, 2.71, 2.27 and 2.39, respectively). Conclusion: Propofol-induced paradoxical reactions tend to occur when an individual has anxiety and is of a young age. Further large population-based studies should be performed to confirm this phenomenon.

Analysis of Anesthesia Administration in the Endoscopy Unit in Terms of Patient Profile and Complications: Retrospective Study

Objective:

This study aimed to analyze patients undergoing endoscopic interventions in terms of comorbid diseases, preoperative anesthesia management predictions, intraoperative-postoperative complications and requirements for intensive care.

Method:

Records of patients who underwent procedures under anesthesia in the endoscopy unit were retrospectively screened. The patients’ preoperative anesthesia evaluation, intraoperative anesthesia, and postoperative recovery data and intensive care monitoring requirements were recorded. The data obtained were analyzed statistically.

Results:

It was identified that the preoperative risk prediction of patients was statistically significant for intraoperative and postoperative monitoring. Comorbid disease and high age were determined to increase the requirements for intensive care after the procedure. Increased need for qualified admission was determined in patients with desaturation and hypotension.

Conclusion:

A prerequisite for reliable administration of anesthesia is having detailed information about the patient and being prepared for possible complications. When examined from this aspect, analysis of the patient profile undergoing procedures in the endoscopy unit is important. In our study, we revealed the presence of elderly patients and comorbid disease(s) in the patient group who underwent procedures in this unit. The need for detailed preliminary evaluation of the patients undergoing these types of procedure and requirements for intensive care after the procedure, if necessary, should definitely be considered.

Dual-Continuum Design Approach for Intuitive and Low-Cost Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

OBJECTIVE

This paper introduces a methodology to design intuitive, low-cost, and portable devices for visual inspection of the upper gastrointestinal tract.

METHODS

The proposed approach mechanically couples a multi-backbone continuum structure, as the user interface, and a parallel bellows actuator, as the endoscopic tip. Analytical modeling techniques derived from continuum robotics were adopted to describe the endoscopic tip motion from user input, accounting for variations in component size and pneumatic compressibility. The modeling framework was used to improve intuitiveness of user-to-task mapping. This was assessed against a 1:1 target, while ease-of-use was validated using landmark identification tasks performed in a stomach simulator by one expert and ten non-expert users; benchmarked against conventional flexible endoscopy. Pre-clinical validation consisted of comparative trials in in-vivo porcine and human cadaver models.

RESULTS

Target mapping was achieved with an average error of 5° in bending angle. Simulated endoscopies were performed by an expert user successfully, within a time comparable to conventional endoscopy (<1 minute difference). Non-experts using the proposed device achieved visualization of the stomach in a shorter time (9s faster on average) than with a conventional endoscope. The estimated cost is <10 USD and <30 USD for disposable and reusable parts, respectively. Significance and Conclusions: Flexible endoscopes are complex and expensive devices, actuated via non-intuitive cable-driven mechanisms. They frequently break, requiring costly repair, and necessitate a dedicated reprocessing facility to prevent cross contamination. The proposed solution is portable, inexpensive, and easy to use, thus lending itself to disposable use by personnel without formal training in flexible endoscopy.

Day case 'treat and transfer' ERCP service under general anaesthesia

OBJECTIVE

General anaesthesia (GA) has been increasingly used for advanced endoscopic procedures in particular endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Given the increasing pressure on many hospitals, the delivery of such service on a regular basis may not always be possible. We established a new day case 'GA ERCP' service. We describe our experience in evaluating the safety and overall feasibility of this new service.

DESIGN

Prospective database has been interrogated for the period from March 2015 to December 2016. We documented patients' demographics, ERCP indications, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, Cotton grade and complications.

RESULTS

67 patients were referred to endoscopy unit at King's College Hospital (KCH), for urgent day case GA ERCP from nine referring hospitals. The main indications were failed ERCP under sedation 47.8% (32/67), and unavailability of ERCP locally 41.8% (28/67). A total of 64 patients were actually transferred to KCH; 57.8% (37/64) women with a median age 55.8 years (range 23-90). 78.1% (50/64) of patients had a virgin papilla, with 39% (25/64) were ASA ≥3. The Cotton grade was ≥ 3 in 50% (32/64) patients. ERCP was completed successfully in 87.5% (56/64). For patients with previous failed ERCP, repeat ERCP under GA was successful in 75% (24/32). All patients were safely discharged back to their referring hospitals after the short observation period post-ERCP.

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent inpatient transfers between hospitals for performing ERCP under GA as a day case is safe and feasible. The new GA ERCP pathway can be replicated by other UK centres.

A phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of remimazolam (CNS 7056) compared with placebo and midazolam in patients undergoing colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Remimazolam is an ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine.

METHODS

We performed a randomized double-blind comparison of remimazolam to placebo for outpatient colonoscopy. This study design was a requirement of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. An additional group was randomized to open-label midazolam administered according to its package insert instructions (the randomization ratio for remimazolam:placebo:midazolam was 30:6:10). Study medications were administered under the supervision of the endoscopist, without any involvement of an anesthesia specialist. Patients were given 50 to 75 μg of fentanyl before receiving study medications. Patients who failed to achieve adequate sedation in any arm were rescued with midazolam dosed at the investigator's discretion. The primary endpoint was a composite that required 3 criteria be met: completion of the colonoscopy, no need for rescue medication, and ≤5 doses of remimazolam or placebo in any 15-minute interval (≤3 doses of midazolam in any 12-minute interval in the open-label midazolam arm).

RESULTS

There were 461 randomized patients in 12 U.S. sites. The primary endpoint was met for remimazolam, placebo, and midazolam in 91.3%, 1.7%, and 25.2% of patients, respectively (P < .0001 for remimazolam vs placebo). Patients administered remimazolam received less fentanyl, had faster recovery of neuropsychiatric function, were ready for discharge earlier, and felt back to normal sooner than patients with both placebo and midazolam. Hypotension was less frequent with remimazolam, and hypoxia occurred in 1% of patients with remimazolam or midazolam. There were no treatment-emergent serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam can be administered safely under the supervision of endoscopists for outpatient colonoscopy, and it allows faster recovery of neuropsychiatric function compared with placebo (midazolam rescue) and midazolam. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02290873.).

Impact of fellowship training level on colonoscopy quality and efficiency metrics

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous studies have described variable effects of fellow involvement on the adenoma detection rate (ADR), but few have stratified this effect by level of training. We aimed to evaluate the "fellow effect" on multiple procedural metrics including a newly defined adenoma management efficiency index, which may have a role in documenting colonoscopy proficiency for trainees. We also describe the impact of level of training on moderate sedation use.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 2024 patients (mean age, 60.9 ± 10 years; 94% men) who underwent outpatient colonoscopy between June 2012 and December 2014 at our Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Colonoscopies were divided into 5 groups. The first 2 groups were first-year fellows in the first 6 months and last 6 months of the training year. Second- and third-year fellows and attending-only procedures accounted for 1 group each. We collected data on doses of sedatives used, frequency of adjunctive agent use, procedural times, and location, size, and histology of polyps. We defined the adenoma management efficiency index as average time required per adenoma resected during withdrawal.

RESULTS

Of the colonoscopies performed, 1675 involved a fellow and 349 were performed by the attending alone. There was no difference in ADR between fellows according to level of training (P = .8) or between fellows compared with attending-only procedures (P = .67). Procedural times decreased consistently during training and declined further for attending-only procedures. This translated into improvement in the adenoma management efficiency index (fellow groups by ascending level of training: 23.5 minutes vs 18.3 minutes vs 13.7 minutes vs 13.4 minutes vs attending group 11.7 minutes; P < .001). There was no difference in the average doses of midazolam and fentanyl used among fellow groups (P = .16 and P = .1, respectively). Compared with attending-only procedures, fellow involvement was associated with higher doses of fentanyl and midazolam and more frequent use of diphenhydramine and glucagon (P < .0001, P = .0002, P < .0001, and P = .01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

ADR was similar at different stages of fellowship training and comparable with the attending group. Efficiency of detecting and resecting polyps improved throughout training without reaching the attending level. Fellow involvement led to a greater use of moderate sedation, which may relate to a longer procedure duration and an evolving experience in endoscopic technique.

Nonoperating room anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To assess the trends in nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) for gastrointestinal endoscopy over the past few years, and to describe alternative methods of delivering propofol sedation in selected low-risk patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of NORA for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has been rising steadily over the past decade in the United States, considerably increasing healthcare costs. Because of this, there have been attempts to develop nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation methods in low-risk patients. There is controversy as to whether properly trained nonanesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation SUMMARY: The deployment of nonanesthesia-administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall healthcare costs without sacrificing sedation quality. We also address the realm of anesthesia provider care for advanced endoscopic procedures including setup for administration of anesthesia, decision-making regarding placement of an endotracheal tube, and the potential need to move a challenging case to the operating room.

Optimal procedural sequence for same-day bidirectional endoscopy with moderate sedation: A prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Same-day bidirectional endoscopy (BDE) is a commonly performed procedure, but the optimal sequence for the procedure with moderate conscious sedation is not well established. This study investigated the optimal sequence for same-day BDE under moderate conscious sedation and carbon dioxide insufflation in terms of sedation doses, patient discomfort, and colonoscopy performance.

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled study of 120 patients who were scheduled for BDE examination was performed. Colonoscopy followed by esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) examination was performed in 60 patients (colonoscopy-EGD group), and EGD followed by colonoscopy examination was performed in another 60 patients (EGD-colonoscopy group). Endoscopists and patients completed a questionnaire to assess objective and subjective discomfort.

RESULTS

Baseline demographics, procedure indications, bowel preparation quality, cecal intubation rate/time, colonoscopy withdrawal time, endoscopic interventions, BDE procedure time, colon polyp/adenoma detection rates, patient discomfort, and adverse events were similar between the two study groups. The total doses of fentanyl and midazolam were significantly higher for the colonoscopy-EGD group than for the EGD-colonoscopy group (83.4 ± 17.7 vs 68.7 ± 18.6 μg and 6.3 ± 1.4 vs 5.2 ± 1.3 mg, P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001, respectively). The recovery time to discharge was significantly longer for the colonoscopy-EGD group than for the EGD-colonoscopy group (43.5 ± 16.2 vs 34.5 ± 8.9 min, P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by colonoscopy is the optimal sequence for same-day BDE under moderate conscious sedation and carbon dioxide insufflation. Following this order allows for a reduction of sedation doses and for shorter recovery times.

Impact of anxiety on sedative medication dosage in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Introduction

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a diagnostic method used in the investigation of upper gastrointestinal system diseases. A high level of anxiety of patients who undergo EGD increases the duration of the procedure and the sedation and analgesic requirements. Sedation is used to increase patient comfort and tolerance by reducing the anxiety and pain associated with endoscopic procedures.

Aim

In this study, the effect of anxiety scores on medication doses was investigated in patients who underwent EGD under sedation.

Material and methods

A psychiatrist, an endoscopist and an anesthesiologist conducted a prospective observational study blindly to investigate the effect of pre-procedural (before EGD) anxiety level on medication doses for sedation. Patients were divided into two groups, with and without additional medication doses.

Results

The study included 210 consecutive patients who underwent EGD under sedation. The average STAI-S score was 40.28 and the average STAI-T score was 40.18. There was no relationship between anxiety scores and gender (p = 0.058, p = 0.869). Statistically significant results were obtained for anxiety scores with additional sedation dosing (p < 0.05). It was observed that an additional dose of medication was affected by age, body mass index and anxiety scores (p < 0.005). Patients who were young, had a low body mass index and had high anxiety scores had significantly higher additional dose requirements.

Conclusions

The medications used for sedation during EGD may be inadequate or an additional dose of medication may be needed for patients who have higher anxiety scores, younger age, and lower body mass index.

Association between patient characteristics and magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy findings

BACKGROUND/AIM

Magnetically-controlled capsule endoscopy (MCE) is a potential option for the evaluation of gastric diseases in cases that are unsuited for conventional endoscopy, avoiding discomfort, sedation, and related complications. This retrospective study investigated associations between MCE findings and patient gender, age, and inpatient/outpatient status.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The data of 580 consecutive patients who underwent MCE from 2015 to 2016 were analyzed. Data included age, gender, indication for MCE, inpatient/outpatient status, overall coverage of gastric anatomical landmarks, and comorbid conditions.

RESULTS

Compared with outpatients, inpatients had a higher rate of overall significant MCE findings (P = 0.014), polyp (P = 0.03), and ulceration (P = 0.003). MCE findings of the inpatient men and women were similar. Considering all patients, the percentage with ulceration was significantly higher in men than in women (P = 0.004), and men were younger (P < 0.001). Compared with younger patients, those aged ≥60 years had significantly higher rates of overall significant findings, mainly polyp and angiodysplasia.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with outpatients, the inpatients showed higher overall significant findings. Men undergoing MCE were younger than the women, and more likely to have ulcerations. Older patients, whether outpatient or inpatient, had higher rates of significant findings, mainly polyp and angiodysplasia.

Predictors of Use of Monitored Anesthesia Care for Outpatient Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in a Capitated Payment System

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Use of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) for gastrointestinal endoscopy has increased in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as in fee-for-service environments, despite the absence of financial incentives. We investigated factors associated with use of MAC in an integrated health care delivery system with a capitated payment model.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using multilevel logistic regression, with MAC use modeled as a function of procedure year, patient- and provider-level factors, and facility effects. We collected data from 2,091,590 veterans who underwent outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy during fiscal years 2000-2013 at 133 facilities.

RESULTS

The adjusted rate of MAC use in the VHA increased 17% per year (odds ratio for increase, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.27) from fiscal year 2000 through 2013. The most rapid increase occurred starting in 2011. VHA use of MAC was associated with patient-level factors that included obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, higher comorbidity, and use of prescription opioids and/or benzodiazepines, although the magnitude of these effects was small. Provider-level and facility factors were also associated with use of MAC, although again the magnitude of these associations was small. Unmeasured facility-level effects had the greatest effect on the trend of MAC use.

CONCLUSIONS

In a retrospective study of veterans who underwent outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy from fiscal year 2000 through 2013, we found that even in a capitated system, patient factors are only weakly associated with use of MAC. Facility-level effects are the most prominent factor influencing increasing use of MAC. Future studies should focus on better defining the role of MAC and facility and organizational factors that affect choice of endoscopic sedation. It will also be important to align resources and incentives to promote appropriate allocation of MAC based on clinically meaningful patient factors.

Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction

Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used, but propofol sedation is becoming more popular because its unique pharmacokinetic properties make endoscopy almost painless, with a very predictable and rapid recovery process. There is controversy as to whether propofol should be administered only by anesthesia professionals (monitored anesthesia care) or whether properly trained non-anesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation. The deployment of non-anesthesia administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall health care costs without sacrificing sedation quality. This review will discuss efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction issues with various modes of sedation for non-advanced, non-emergent endoscopic procedures, mainly esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy.