Etomidate versus propofol sedation for complex upper endoscopic procedures: a prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial

Comparison of ciprofol-alfentanil and propofol-alfentanil sedation during bidirectional endoscopy: A prospective, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although propofol is widely used for gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation, cardiopulmonary adverse events remain common. Ciprofol is a new intravenous anaesthetic agent demonstrating respiratory and hemodynamic stability.

AIMS

This study aimed to clarify the benefits of ciprofol combined with alfentanil in bidirectional endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by colonoscopy) to reduce adverse events and improve post-endoscopic recovery.

METHODS

A total of 185 patients scheduled to undergo bidirectional endoscopy were randomly divided into two groups: ciprofol combined with alfentanil or propofol combined with alfentanil. All patients received 7 µg/kg alfentanil intravenously before the study drugs were administered. The propofol group received a bolus of 1.2 mg/kg (0.12 ml/kg) propofol intravenously, whereas the ciprofol group received a bolus of 0.3 mg/kg (0.12 ml/kg) ciprofol intravenously. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with cardiopulmonary adverse events (i.e., any one of the airway obstruction, apnoea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia or arrhythmias).

RESULTS

Compared with propofol, ciprofol reduced cardiopulmonary adverse events by 43.51 % (34.4% vs. 60.9 %, P <0.001), mitigated respiratory adverse events by 54.74 % (17.2% vs. 38.0 %, P = 0.002) overall and by 59.05 % (12.9% vs. 31.5 %, P = 0.002) during the induction period.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol can significantly decrease respiratory depression events and provides a better sedative efficacy than propofol with higher recovery quality and satisfaction.

The need to monitor emerging issues in etomidate usage: the misuse or abuse potential

Since 2011, the misuse or abuse of etomidate has gradually increased when propofol was designated a controlled drug under the Narcotics Control Act in Korea. Accordingly, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety announced that etomidate would be under the 'Regulation on the designation of drugs that may cause concerns of misuse or abuse' rule in June 2020, which is less stringent than the Narcotics Control Act. Therefore, this review investigates potential misuse or abuse cases of etomidate to consider strengthening its management. A literature search was conducted to compare etomidate with other sedatives in their efficacy and side effects, as well as identify the adverse health outcomes, abuse cases, and analytical methods of etomidate. Etomidate has an equal or higher sedative efficacy and lower risk of adverse cardiopulmonary events than propofol. However, major adverse effects of etomidate include adrenocortical suppression and unproven associated deaths, as well as myoclonus requiring pre-treatment. Although the issue of abuse and misuse of etomidate is emerging in recent years, there are few academic reports on these issues and analytical methods in the forensic field. In order to effectively manage the misuse or abuse of etomidate, it is necessary to continuously monitor related cases with great interest and to be more intensively studied on its abuse potential.

The Modulation by Anesthetics and Analgesics of Respiratory Rhythm in the Nervous System

Rhythmic eupneic breathing in mammals depends on the coordinated activities of the neural system that sends cranial and spinal motor outputs to respiratory muscles. These outputs modulate lung ventilation and adjust respiratory airflow, which depends on the upper airway patency and ventilatory musculature. Anesthetics are widely used in clinical practice worldwide. In addition to clinically necessary pharmacological effects, respiratory depression is a critical side effect induced by most general anesthetics. Therefore, understanding how general anesthetics modulate the respiratory system is important for the development of safer general anesthetics. Currently used volatile anesthetics and most intravenous anesthetics induce inhibitory effects on respiratory outputs. Various general anesthetics produce differential effects on respiratory characteristics, including the respiratory rate, tidal volume, airway resistance, and ventilatory response. At the cellular and molecular levels, the mechanisms underlying anesthetic-induced breathing depression mainly include modulation of synaptic transmission of ligand-gated ionotropic receptors (e.g., γ-aminobutyric acid, N-methyl-D-aspartate, and nicotinic acetylcholine receptors) and ion channels (e.g., voltage-gated sodium, calcium, and potassium channels, two-pore domain potassium channels, and sodium leak channels), which affect neuronal firing in brainstem respiratory and peripheral chemoreceptor areas. The present review comprehensively summarizes the modulation of the respiratory system by clinically used general anesthetics, including the effects at the molecular, cellular, anatomic, and behavioral levels. Specifically, analgesics, such as opioids, which cause respiratory depression and the "opioid crisis", are discussed. Finally, underlying strategies of respiratory stimulation that target general anesthetics and/or analgesics are summarized.

Sedation with a 1:1 mixture of etomidate and propofol for gastroscopy in hypertensive elderly patients

We hypothesized that the combined use of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation in elderly hypertensive patients could reduce adverse reactions while providing ideal sedation. To validate our hypothesis, we conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blinded study. A total of 360 elderly hypertensive patients scheduled for gastroscopy at our hospital were enrolled in the study, of whom 328 completed the trial. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the propofol group (group P), the etomidate group (group E), or the propofol-etomidate combination group (mixed at a ratio of 1:1, group PE). We collected and analyzed the cardiopulmonary effects and side effects in each group. Regardless of the sedation drug used, the systolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure, and heart rate of involved patients were significantly affected. Oxygen desaturation and injection pain were more common in group P compared to groups E (33.6% vs. 14.8%, 31.8% vs. 2.7%, both P < 0.01) and group PE (33.6% vs. 13.6%, 31.8% vs. 6.4%, both P < 0.01). The incidence of myoclonus in the PE group was lower than that in the E group (10.9% vs. 61.2%, P < 0.01). Our results indeed demonstrated that the combined use of etomidate and propofol appeared to maintain cardiopulmonary stability with minimal side effects in older hypertensive patients scheduled for gastroscopy, which further implied that this sedation strategy could be a safe and pain-free option for managing patients undergoing gastroscopy, particularly those at a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events.

Etomidate Versus Propofol for Monitored Anesthesia Care During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and objectives Propofol-based sedation is one of the most commonly used methods for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The commonest complications during ERCP are in the form of adverse cardiopulmonary events as a result of sedation. Etomidate has a more stable cardiovascular and respiratory profile than propofol and has been used for sedation in simple gastrointestinal endoscopy but has not been studied for procedural sedation in ERCP. The objective of the present study was to compare the safety and feasibility of etomidate and propofol for sedation during ERCP procedures. Methods This single-center, randomized trial included 100 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status class I to II patients who were scheduled for ERCP. All patients received midazolam 0.02 mg/kg, lignocaine (2%) 1 mg/kg, and fentanyl 1 µg/kg intravenously, followed by etomidate or propofol according to the group allocation. The primary outcome was to compare the mean arterial pressure (MAP) at various timepoints between the two groups and secondary outcomes were to compare oxygen saturation, induction and recovery times, and adverse events. Transient hypotension was defined as any decrease in MAP below 60 mmHg or 20% below the baseline. Transient hypoxia was defined as desaturation (saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2) <92%) lasting for more than 10 seconds requiring airway intervention. Results Fifty patients were enrolled in each group (Group E: etomidate and Group P: propofol). Transient hypotension occurred in eight (16%) patients in Group P, and two (4%) patients in Group E (P= 0.045). Baseline MAP was comparable between the two groups but was significantly lower in Group P at three timepoints during the study. Nine (18 %) patients in Group P had a transient hypoxic episode, compared to none in Group E (p= 0.006). The induction and recovery times were similar in the two groups. Conclusions Etomidate offers better hemodynamic and respiratory stability than propofol and can be recommended for use during ERCP in ASA I/II patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosilate versus Etomidate-Propofol in Elderly Outpatients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial

Objective

The optimal sedation regime during endoscopy remains controversial, especially for elderly outpatients. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety between remimazolam tosilate (RT) and etomidate-propofol (EP) in elderly outpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

Methods

A total of 260 elderly outpatients undergoing sedative colonoscopy were randomized into two groups. Patients in the RT group received a 0.075-mg/kg maintenance dose of remimazolam following an initial dose of 0.15 mg/kg, whereas patients in the EP group (10 mL:20 mg etomidate plus 10 mL:100 mg propofol) received a 0.05-mL/kg maintenance dose following an initial dose of 0.1 mL/kg to maintain a Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score of ≤3 during the procedure. The primary endpoint was the success of the procedure. Secondary endpoints included time metrics, hemodynamics, consumption of fentanyl, etomidate, propofol, and remimazolam, intraoperative body movement, patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores, supplemental dose of sedative and fentanyl, and incidence and severity of adverse events.

Results

The procedure success rate was 96.52% in the RT group and 100% in the EP group. The difference in procedure success rate between the RT and EP groups was −3.48% (95% confidence interval: −6.81%, −0.15%). Four patients in the RT group required rescue midazolam. Compared with patients in the RT group, the onset time of the EP group was significantly lower (p < 0.05), whereas time to fully alert (p = 0.001), ready for discharge (p = 0.001), and hospital discharge (p = 0.002) were all significantly higher in the EP group. However, there were no significant differences in procedure time (p = 0.846) or cecal intubation time (p = 0.320) between the two groups. Although the frequency of intraoperative body movement was higher in the RT group, the difference was not significant (p = 0.508). There were no significant differences in patients’ demographic and baseline characteristics, supplemental doses of sedative and fentanyl, or patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores (p > 0.05). Muscular tremor and pain on injection were recorded more frequently in the EP group (p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in hypoxia, respiratory depression, or incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The severity of adverse events was all mild (grade 1) across both groups.

Conclusion

RT may have non-inferior efficacy and a higher safety profile than EP in elderly outpatients undergoing colonoscopy, which suggests that RT may be more suitable for elderly outpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

Standard reporting elements for the performance of EUS: Recommendations from the FOCUS working group

Background and Objectives

Quality indicators for the performance of EUS have been developed to monitor and improve service value and patient outcomes. To support the incorporation of these indicators and standardize EUS documentation, we propose standard EUS reporting elements for endosonographers and endoscopy units.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search and review was performed to identify EUS quality indicators and key components of high-quality standardized EUS reporting. Guidance statements regarding standard EUS reporting elements were developed and reviewed at the Forum for Canadian Endoscopic Ultrasound (FOCUS) 2019 Annual Meeting.

Results

EUS reporting elements can be divided into preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural items. Preprocedural components include the type, indication, and urgency of the procedure and patient clinical information and consent. Intraprocedural components include the adequacy and extent of examination, relevant landmarks, lesion characteristics, sampling method, specimen quality, and intraprocedural adverse events. Postprocedural components include a summary and synthesis of relevant findings as well as recommended management and follow-up.

Conclusions

Standardizing reporting elements may help improve the care of patients undergoing EUS procedures. Our review provides a practical guide and compilation of recommended reporting elements to ensure ongoing best practices and quality improvement in EUS.

Clinical outcomes of sedation during emergency endoscopic band ligation for variceal bleeding: Multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Few studies have directly compared the efficacy of sedated- and un-sedated endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for acute variceal bleeding. We aimed to determine whether sedation during EVL in patients with variceal bleeding is safe and effective.

METHODS

We analyzed data from patients who underwent EVL for acute variceal bleeding according to sedation in six hospitals of Hallym University Medical Center. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as a failure to control bleeding, death during EVL, or rebleeding within 5 days. Secondary endpoints included the procedure time, adverse events, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Of 1,300 patients who were included, only 430 (33.1%) received sedation during EVL. Propofol alone was used for sedation in 85% of sedated-EVLs. The mean procedure time in the sedation group was shorter than that of the non-sedation group (12.4 ± 9.5 min versus 13.8 ± 9.4 min, P = 0.010). The proportion of treatment failure did not differ between the groups (7.4% versus 9.1%, P = 0.374). In the multivariable analysis, an AIMS65 score ≥2 and blood transfusion within 72 hours were associated with treatment failure of EVL; however, the use of sedation was not (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.96 [0.60-1.51]). Adverse events during EVL and hepatic encephalopathy did not differ between the two groups. Sedation also did not affect the 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [95% CI] = 0.99 [0.66-1.47]).

CONCLUSION

Sedation reduced the procedure time of EVL. Sedation is safe to use during EVL for variceal bleeding 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.

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

Background/Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Efficacy and Safety of Etomidate in Comparison with Propofol or Midazolam as Sedative for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of etomidate with those of propofol or midazolam for the maintenance of sedation during endoscopy.

METHODS

The study enrolled patients who underwent sedative endoscopy in our hospital and divided them into three groups. Patients in each group were administered midazolam as induction therapy and were subsequently administered either midazolam (M + M group), propofol (M + P group), or etomidate (M + E group) as maintenance medication. The primary outcome was overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events.

RESULTS

In total, 105 patients who underwent sedative endoscopic examination were enrolled. The outcomes related to the procedure and sedation were not significantly different among the groups. Overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events were observed in 9 patients (25.7%) in the M + M group, 8 patients (23.5%) in the M + P group, and 10 patients (27.8%) in the M + E group. The logistic regression analysis revealed that etomidate use was not an independent risk factor for overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes following the use of etomidate for maintenance after induction with midazolam for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were not inferior to those following midazolam or propofol use from the perspectives of safety and efficacy.

The diagnostic performance of novel torque technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although several techniques for improved outcomes in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition have been reported, the reported diagnostic yield for pancreatic masses is not satisfactory. The effects of novel technique (torque method) on twisting the scope in the clockwise or counterclockwise direction during EUS-fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) are unknown. We compared the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB for pancreatic masses using the torque and standard techniques.

METHODS

From April 20, 2017, to March 16, 2018, 124 consecutive patients with solid pancreatic mass who underwent EUS-FNB using either the torque or standard technique were randomly assigned. Three passes were made with each technique, comprising 10 uniform to-and-fro movements on each pass with a 10-mL syringe suction. The primary outcome was procurement rates of histologic cores, and the secondary outcomes were the diagnostic performance and technical failure.

RESULTS

There were significant differences between the groups regarding the procurement rate of the histologic core and optimal quality core (standard vs torque: 87.1% [54/62] vs 98.4% [61/62], P = 0.038 and 79.0% [49/62] vs 93.5% [58/62], P = 0.037). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values of EUS-FNB were 85.45%, 100%, 100%, and 46.67%, respectively, for the standard technique and 96.49%, 100%, 100%, and 71.43%, respectively, for the torque technique. The diagnostic accuracies of the standard and torque techniques were 87.10% and 96.77%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The torque technique for EUS-FNB offered acceptable technical feasibility and superior diagnostic performance, including optimal histologic core procurement, compared with the standard technique.

Phospholipase C-related inactive protein type-1 deficiency affects anesthetic electroencephalogram activity induced by propofol and etomidate in mice

PURPOSE

The general anesthetics propofol and etomidate mainly exert their anesthetic actions via GABA A receptor (GABA_A-R). The GABA_A-R activity is influenced by phospholipase C-related inactive protein type-1 (PRIP-1), which is related to trafficking and subcellular localization of GABA_A-R. PRIP-1 deficiency attenuates the behavioral reactions to propofol but not etomidate. However, the effect of these anesthetics and of PRIP-1 deficiency on brain activity of CNS are still unclear. In this study, we examined the effects of propofol and etomidate on the electroencephalogram (EEG).

METHODS

The cortical EEG activity was recorded in wild-type (WT) and PRIP-1 knockout (PRIP-1 KO) mice. All recorded EEG data were offline analyzed, and the power spectral density and 95% spectral edge frequency of EEG signals were compared between genotypes before and after injections of anesthetics.

RESULTS

PRIP-1 deficiency induced increases in EEG absolute powers, but did not markedly change the relative spectral powers during waking and sleep states in the absence of anesthesia. Propofol administration induced increases in low-frequency relative EEG activity and decreases in SEF95 values in WT but not in PRIP-1 KO mice. Following etomidate injection, low-frequency EEG power was increased in both genotype groups. At high frequency, the relative power in PRIP-1 KO mice was smaller than that in WT mice.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of PRIP-1 disrupted the EEG power distribution, but did not affect the depth of anesthesia after etomidate administration. Our analyses suggest that PRIP-1 is differentially involved in anesthetic EEG activity with the regulation of GABA_A-R activity.

Efficacy of submucosal bupivacaine injection for pain relief after endoscopic submucosal dissection: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled, and double-blind trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although abdominal pain is a common adverse event related to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), it can be sometimes underestimated by endoscopists. There are some endoscopic interventions available for the prevention of post-ESD pain, but their efficacy has not been established. We investigated whether a submucosal injection of bupivacaine (BP) can reduce procedure-related abdominal pain compared with the standard method.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of 86 adult patients referred for ESD as treatment for gastric neoplasms. Patients were randomly assigned to either the BP submucosal or conventional solution group. Questionnaires were collected when the study began (baseline) and immediately after ESD, as well as at 6, 12, and 24 hours post-operatively. The primary outcome was indicated by the visual analog scale (VAS) evaluated at 6 hours after procedure.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in primary outcomes between groups and among all time points (immediately, 12, and 24 hours after ESD). The VAS and short-form McGill pain (SF-MP) scores were higher immediately after ESD than at 6, 12, or 24 hours post-operatively. The incidence of abdominal pain immediately after ESD was 94.0% (78/83) for all patients of both groups, and there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the rate of abdominal pain immediately after ESD (BP group 37/40 [92.5%] versus non-BP group 41/43 [95.3%], P = .934). In univariable and multivariable analyses, BP did not have protective effect on post-ESD abdominal pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Submucosal BP injection does not promote pain relief or mitigate the effects of post-ESD abdominal pain.

Etomidate Sedation for Advanced Endoscopic Procedures

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

Although propofol is widely used for sedation for endoscopic procedures, concerns remain regarding cardiopulmonary adverse events. Etomidate has little effect on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, but patient satisfaction analysis is lacking. We compared the efficacy and safety of balanced propofol and etomidate sedation during advanced endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

As a randomized noninferiority trial, balanced endoscopic sedation was achieved using midazolam and fentanyl, and patients were randomly assigned to receive propofol (BPS) or etomidate (BES) as add-on drug. The main outcomes were sedation efficacy measured on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and safety.

RESULTS

In total, 186 patients (94 in the BPS group and 92 in the BES group) were evaluated. BES did not show noninferiority in terms of overall patient satisfaction, with a difference in VAS score of -0.35 (97.5 % confidence interval -1.03 to ∞, p = 0.03). Among endoscopists and nurses, BES showed noninferiority to BPS, with differences in VAS scores of 0.06 and 0.08, respectively. Incidence of cardiopulmonary adverse events was lower in the BES group (27.7 versus 14.1 %, p = 0.023). Hypoxia occurred in 5.3 and 1.1 % of patients in the BPS and BES group (p = 0.211). Myoclonus occurred in 12.1 % (11/92) in the BES group. BES had lower risk of overall cardiopulmonary adverse events (odds ratio 0.401, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

BES was not noninferior to BPS in terms of patient satisfaction. However, BES showed better safety outcomes in terms of cardiopulmonary adverse events.

How to measure quality in endoscopic ultrasound

Quality is a key focus for gastrointestinal endoscopy and main international gastroenterology societies instituted specific task forces focused on this issue. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) represents one of the most fascinating fields to explore in gastrointestinal endoscopy due to its relatively limited availability out of high-volume centers. This leads to a particular need to define widely accepted quality indicators (QIs) and the ways to measure them. The current manuscript reviews these indicators in light of their impact on common clinical practice.

Efficacy and safety of etomidate-midazolam for screening colonoscopy in the elderly: A prospective double-blinded randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recent studies have shown that etomidate is associated with fewer serious adverse events than propofol and has a noninferior sedative effect. We investigated whether etomidate-midazolam is associated with fewer cardiopulmonary adverse events and has noninferior efficacy compared to propofol-midazolam for screening colonoscopy in the elderly.

METHODS

A prospective, single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial was performed. Patients aged over 65 years who were scheduled to undergo screening colonoscopy were randomized to receive either etomidate or propofol based on midazolam. The primary outcome was all cardiopulmonary adverse events. The secondary outcomes were vital sign fluctuation (VSF), adverse events disturbing the procedure, and sedation-related outcomes.

RESULTS

The incidence of cardiopulmonary adverse events was higher in the propofol group (72.6%) than in the etomidate group (54.8%) (P = .040). VSF was detected in 17 (27.4%) and 31 (50.0%) patients in the etomidate and propofol groups, respectively (P = .010). The incidence rate of adverse events disturbing the procedure was significantly higher in the etomidate group (25.8%) than in the propofol group (8.1%) (P = .008). Moreover, the incidence rate of myoclonus was significantly higher in the etomidate group (16.1%) than in the propofol group (1.6%) (P = .004). There was no statistical significance between the 2 groups with respect to sedation times and sedation-related outcomes including patients' and endoscopist's satisfaction. In the multivariate analysis, the etomidate group had significantly low odds ratio (OR) associated with VSF (OR: 0.407, confidence interval: 0.179-0.926, P = .032).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend using etomidate-midazolam in patients with high ASA score or vulnerable to risk factors; propofol-midazolam may be used as a guideline in patients with low ASA score.

Dimethoxy-etomidate: A Nonhypnotic Etomidate Analog that Potently Inhibits Steroidogenesis

Cushing's syndrome is characterized by the overproduction of adrenocortical steroids. Steroidogenesis inhibitors are mainstays of medical therapy for Cushing's syndrome; unfortunately, adverse side effects and treatment failures are common with currently available drugs. The general anesthetic induction agent etomidate is among the most potent inhibitors of adrenocortical steroidogenesis. However, its use as a treatment of Cushing's syndrome is complicated by its sedative-hypnotic activity and ability to produce myoclonus, central nervous system actions thought to be mediated by the GABA_A receptor. Here, we describe the pharmacology of the novel etomidate analog (R)-ethyl 1-(1-(3,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethyl)-1H-imidazole-5-carboxylate (dimethoxy-etomidate). In contrast to etomidate, dimethoxy-etomidate minimally enhanced GABA-evoked GABA_A receptor-mediated currents even at a near-saturating aqueous concentration. In Sprague-Dawley rats, dimethoxy-etomidate's potency for producing loss of righting reflexes-an animal model of sedation/hypnosis-was 2 orders of magnitude lower than that of etomidate, and it did not produce myoclonus. However, similar to etomidate, dimethoxy-etomidate potently suppressed adrenocortical steroid synthesis primarily by inhibiting 11β-hydroxylase. [³H]etomidate binding to rat adrenocortical membranes was inhibited by dimethoxy-etomidate in a biphasic manner with IC₅₀ values of 8.2 and 3970 nM, whereas that by etomidate was monophasic with an IC₅₀ of 22 nM. Our results demonstrate that, similar to etomidate, dimethoxy-etomidate potently and dose-dependently suppresses adrenocortical steroid synthesis by inhibiting 11β-hydroxylase. However, it is essentially devoid of etomidate's GABA_A receptor positive modulatory and sedative-hypnotic activities and produces no myoclonus, providing proof of concept for the design of etomidate analogs without important central nervous system actions for the pharmacologic treatment of Cushing's syndrome.