Efficacy and safety of etomidate-based sedation compared with propofol-based sedation during ERCP in low-risk patients: a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Balanced propofol sedation is extensively used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) are common. In various clinical settings, the combination of dexmedetomidine with opioids and benzodiazepines has provided effective sedation with increased safety. The aim of this investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during ERCP.

METHODS

Forty-one patients were randomly divided into two groups: the dexmedetomidine (DEX) group and the propofol (PRO) group. Patients in the DEX group received an additional bolus of 0.6 μg kg-1 dexmedetomidine followed by a dexmedetomidine infusion at 1.2 μg kg-1 h-1, whereas the PRO group received 1-2 mg kg-1 of propofol bolus followed by a propofol infusion at 2-3 mg kg-1 h-1. During ERCP, the primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for > 10 s). Other intraoperative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes, including respiratory depression (respiratory rate of < 10 bpm min-1), hypotension (MAP < 65 mmHg), and bradycardia (HR < 45 beats min-1).

RESULTS

The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared to the PRO group (0% versus 28.6%, respectively; P = 0.032). Patients in the PRO group exhibited respiratory depression more frequently than patients in the DEX group (35% versus 81%, respectively; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in terms of hypotension and bradycardia episodes between groups. During the procedures, the satisfaction scores of endoscopists and patients, as well as the pain and procedure memory scores of patients were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with propofol, dexmedetomidine provided adequate sedation safety with no adverse effects on sedation efficacy during ERCP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200061468, 25/06/2022.

The 90% effective dose (ED90) of remimazolam for inhibiting responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope during ERCP

BACKGROUND

Compared to midazolam, remimazolam has a faster onset and offset of hypnotic effect, as well as cardiorespiratory stability, this study aims to determine the 90% effective dose (ED90) of remimazolam to inhibit responses to insertion of a duodenoscope during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

A dose-response study was carried out undergoing ERCP who received remimazolam-alfentanil anesthesia using 10 µg/kg of alfentanil between September 2021 and November 2021. The initial dose of remimazolam was 0.2 mg/kg. The dose was then decided based on the responses of earlier patients by exploiting the sequential ascend and descend according to a 9: 1 biased coin design. Upon failure, the dose of remimazolam was increased by 0.025 mg/kg in the next patient. When the insertion was successful, the succeeding patient was randomized to an identical dose or a dose that was lower by 0.025 mg/kg.The ED90 of remimazolam for inhibiting responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope during ERCP was calculated. Adverse events and complications of remimazolam were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 55 elderly patients (age > 65) were included in the study. 45 successfully anesthetized patients, and 10 unsuccessfully. The ED90 of remimazolam was 0.300 mg/kg (95% CI = 0.287-0.320). ED95 was 0.315 (95% CI = 0.312-0.323) and ED99 was 0.323 (95% CI = 0.323-0.325). Among the patients, 9 patients developed hypotension, 2 patients developed bradycardia and 1 patient developed tachycardia, and hypoxia occurred in 2 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A loading dose of 0.300 mg / kg of remimazolam for elderly patients undergoing ERCP can safely, effectively, and quickly induce patients to fall asleep and inhibit responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was registered at the website ClinicalTrials.gov on 22/09/2021(NCT05053763).

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of esketamine for sedation among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require propofol-based sedation combined with analgesics. At present, the efficacy and safety of esketamine as an adjunct to propofol for sedation during endoscopic procedures in patients remains controversial. Moreover, there is no universal agreement regarding the appropriate dose of esketamine supplementation. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of esketamine as an adjunct to propofol for sedation during endoscopic procedures in patients.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases and three clinical trial registry platforms were searched and the deadline was February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of esketamine for sedation were included by two reviewers. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate the pooled risk ratio or standardized mean difference.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with 1962 esketamine participants were included in the analysis. As an adjunct to propofol, the administration of esketamine reduced the recovery time compared to normal saline (NS). However, there was no significant difference between the opioids group and ketamine group. For propofol dosage, the administration of esketamine required a lower propofol dosage compared to the NS group and opioids group].For complications, the esketamine group had fewer complications compared to the NS group and opioid group in patients, but there were no significant differences between the esketamine group and ketamine group. Notably, the coadministration of esketamine was associated with a higher risk of visual disturbance compared to the NS group. In addition, we used subgroup analysis to investigate whether 0.2-0.5 mg/kg esketamine was effective and tolerable for patients.

CONCLUSION

Esketamine as an adjunct to propofol, is an appropriate effective alternative for sedation in participants undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, considering the possibility of its psychotomimetic effects, esketamine should be used with caution.

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.

Machine-Learning Model for the Prediction of Hypoxaemia during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography under Monitored Anaesthesia Care

PURPOSE

Hypoxaemia is a significant adverse event during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) under monitored anaesthesia care (MAC); however, no model has been developed to predict hypoxaemia. We aimed to develop and compare logistic regression (LR) and machine learning (ML) models to predict hypoxaemia during ERCP under MAC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We collected patient data from our institutional ERCP database. The study population was randomly divided into training and test sets (7:3). Models were fit to training data and evaluated on unseen test data. The training set was further split into k-fold (k=5) for tuning hyperparameters, such as feature selection and early stopping. Models were trained over k loops; the i-th fold was set aside as a validation set in the i-th loop. Model performance was measured using area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

We identified 6114 cases of ERCP under MAC, with a total hypoxaemia rate of 5.9%. The LR model was established by combining eight variables and had a test AUC of 0.693. The ML and LR models were evaluated on 30 independent data splits. The average test AUC for LR was 0.7230, which improved to 0.7336 by adding eight more variables with an l₁ regularisation-based selection technique and ensembling the LRs and gradient boosting algorithm (GBM). The high-risk group was discriminated using the GBM ensemble model, with a sensitivity and specificity of 63.6% and 72.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We established GBM ensemble model and LR model for risk prediction, which demonstrated good potential for preventing hypoxaemia during ERCP under MAC.

Long-term outcomes and predictors of adverse events of EUS-guided hepatico-gastrostomy for malignant biliary obstruction: Multicenter, retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided hepaticogastrostomy (HGS) may be a feasible and useful alternative in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). To date, the risk factors for adverse events (AEs) and long-term outcomes of EUS-HGS have not been fully explored according to stent type. Therefore, we evaluated potential risk factors for AEs and long-term outcomes of EUS-HGS.

METHODS

In total, 120 patients who underwent EUS-HGS were retrospectively reviewed. A multivariate analysis through Cox proportional hazard and logistic regression model was used to identify the risk factors for stent dysfunction and AEs, respectively. Stent patency and patient survival were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier plots with a log-rank test for each stent.

RESULTS

The technical and clinical success rates were 96.2% (102/106) and 83.0% (88/106). The median duration of stent patency was longer in self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) compared to plastic stents (PS) (158 vs. 108 days). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that the type of stent was not associated with stent patency (Hazard ratios [HR] 0.997, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.525-1.896]) or overall survival. In addition, multivariate analysis indicated that hilar MBO significantly associated with stent dysfunction (HR, 2.340; 95% CI, 1.028-5.326, p = 0.043) and late AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the lower incidence of AEs and better long-term outcomes of EUS-HGS, it can be considered a safe alternative to ERCP or percutaneous approaches regardless of which stent is used. Furthermore, hilar MBO was established as a potential risk factor for stent dysfunction and late AEs.

Effects of intravenous lidocaine on hypoxemia induced by propofol-based sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures: study protocol for a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

Background

Oxygen-desaturation episodes, blood pressure drops, and involuntary body movement are common problems that occur in propofol-based sedation in the procedure of painless gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. As a widely used analgesic adjuvant, intravenous lidocaine can reduce the consumption of propofol during ERCP or colonoscopy. However, it is still unknown how lidocaine affects the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes and cardiovascular events, and involuntary movement during painless GI endoscopy. Therefore, we aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of intravenous lidocaine in propofol-based sedation for GI endoscopy.

Methods

We will conduct a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, saline-controlled trial. A total number of 300 patients undergoing painless GI procedures will be enrolled and randomly divided into the lidocaine group (Group L) and the control group (Group C). After midazolam and sufentanil intravenous injection, a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine was immediately injected and followed by a continuous infusion of 4 mg/kg/h in the lidocaine group, whereas the same volumes of saline solution in the control group. Then, propofol was titrated to produce unconsciousness during the procedure. The primary outcome will be the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes. Secondary outcomes will be the incidence of involuntary body movement, discomfort symptoms, propofol consumption, endoscopist, and patient satisfaction.

Discussion

Propofol-based deep sedation without intubation is widely used in painless GI endoscopy. However, adverse events such as hypoxemia often occur clinically. We expect to assess the effect of lidocaine on reducing the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes, cardiovascular events, and involuntary body movement. We believe that the results of this trial will provide an effective and safe method for painless GI endoscopy.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100053818. Registered on 30 November 2021.

Effect of prophylactic endoscopic clipping for prevention of delayed bleeding after endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary neoplasm: a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND : Endoscopic clip placement is technically challenging using a duodenoscope, limiting their application for treatment of bleeding after endoscopic papillectomy. This study evaluated the efficacy of newly designed clips to prevent bleeding after endoscopic papillectomy. METHODS : Patients (n = 80) with suspected benign adenomas on the major papilla who were scheduled for endoscopic papillectomy with or without clipping were randomized. A new duodenoscope-compatible clip capable of being rotated, reopened, and repeatedly repositioned was used. The primary end point was incidence of delayed bleeding. RESULTS : The clipping procedure was successful in all patients. The incidence of delayed bleeding was nonsignificantly higher in the no-clipping group than in the clipping group (31.6 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 19.1-47.5] vs. 15.0 % [95 %CI 7.1-29.1]). The incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis did not differ significantly between the groups (clipping vs. no-clipping: 17.5 % [95 %CI 8.7-31.9] vs. 5.3 % [95 %CI 1.5-17.3]), and all cases were mild. CONCLUSIONS : Placement of the newly designed rotatable clip was technically feasible and tended to have a protective effect by preventing delayed bleeding after endoscopic papillectomy, although statistical significance was not reached.

Anesthesiology trainees performing flexible scope intubation in spontaneously breathing patients in the left lateral position and the supine position: a prospective randomized trial

Background

Flexible scope intubation is an important airway management skill that requires hands-on training in a real airway. We compared flexible scope intubation by trainees between patients in the left lateral and supine positions.

Methods

Forty patients aged 20 to 80 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I to III were scheduled for elective surgery under general endotracheal anesthesia in Ramathibodi Hospital from February 2020 to June 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to be intubated in one of two positions: supine (Group S) or left lateral (Group L). Trainees performed flexible scope intubation in sedated patients under the supervision of an attending anesthesiologist. Intubation success, time to successful intubation, number of attempts, airway adjustment maneuvers, and hemodynamic changes were compared between groups.

Results

Patient characteristics did not differ between groups except for Mallampati airway classification. The rate of successful intubation on the first attempt and intubation time did not significantly differ between groups. The proportion of patients who required a jaw thrust during intubation was significantly lower in Group L (10.5% vs. 85%; P < 0.01). Blood pressure and oxygen saturation declined in both groups after intubation. The relative risk of desaturation in patients in the left lateral position compared with the supine position was 0.44 (0.1649–1.1978).

Conclusion

The rate of successful flexible scope intubation on the first attempt and intubation time did not differ between the groups. The proportion of patients who required a jaw thrust maneuver was significantly lower in patients in the left lateral position.

Trial registration

https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/ (TCTR20200208001) on 08/02/2020.

Hypoxemia during procedural sedation in adult patients: a retrospective observational study

PURPOSE

Since 2010, new guidelines for procedural sedation and the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety have increased patient safety, comfort, and acceptance considerably. Nevertheless, the administration of sedatives and opioids during sedation procedures may put the patient at risk of hypoxemia. However, data on hypoxemia during procedural sedation are scarce. Here, we studied the incidence and severity of hypoxemia during procedural sedations in our hospital.

METHODS

A historical, single-centre cohort study was performed at the University Medical Centre Utrecht (UMCU), a tertiary centre in the Netherlands. Data from procedural sedation in our hospital between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2018 (3,459 males and 2,534 females; total, 5,993) were extracted from our Anesthesia Information Management System. Hypoxemia was defined as peripheral oxygen saturation < 90% lasting at least two consecutive minutes. The severity of hypoxemia was calculated as area under the curve. The relationship between the severity of hypoxemia and body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status classification, and duration of the procedure was investigated. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine percent of moderately to deeply sedated patients developed hypoxemia. A high incidence of hypoxemia was found in patients undergoing procedures in the heart catheterization room (54%) and in patients undergoing bronchoscopy procedures (56%). Hypoxemia primarily occurred in longer lasting procedures (> 120 min) and especially in the latter phases of the procedures. There was no relationship between severity of hypoxemia and BMI or ASA Physical Status.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that a considerable number of patients are at risk of hypoxemia during procedural sedation with a positive correlation shown with increasing duration of medical procedures. Additional prospective research is needed to investigate the clinical consequences of this cumulative hypoxemia.

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.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine in propofol-based sedation for ERCP procedures: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Propofol-based sedation is widely used in ERCP procedures, but adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events commonly occur. Intravenous injection of lidocaine has an analgesic effect and can reduce the requirements of fentanyl and propofol during abdominal surgery. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine on propofol requirements during ERCP procedures.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly divided into 2 groups, the lidocaine group and the control group. All patients received .02 mg/kg midazolam and .1 μg/kg sufentanil intravenously as premedication. A bolus of propofol was applied for induction of sedation, and perfusion of propofol was applied for maintenance. Patients in the lidocaine group received a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine intravenously followed by continuous infusion of 2 mg/kg/h, whereas the control group received the same volumes of saline solution. The primary outcome was the propofol requirement during ERCP.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, propofol requirements were reduced by 33.8% in the lidocaine group (212.0 ± 118.2 mg vs 320.0 ± 189.6 mg, P = .023). Involuntary movement was less common in the lidocaine group than in the control group (12.5% vs 41.7%, P = .049). In the lidocaine group, postprocedure pain and fatigue, as measured by the visual analog scale, were significantly reduced (0 [range, 0-4] vs 3 [range, 0-5], P = .005; 2 [range, 0-4] vs 5 [range, 2-8], P < .001).The incidence of oxygen desaturation, hypotension, and bradycardia tended to be lower in the lidocaine group.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous lidocaine can significantly decrease propofol requirements during ERCP, with higher sedation quality and endoscopist satisfaction. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03996577.).

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.

Safety and efficacy of combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sedation with etomidate or propofol alone during gastroscopy has many side effects. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Medline (via Ovid SP), Cochrane library databases, CINAHL (via EBSCO), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), Wanfang, VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were systematically searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the combined use of propofol and etomidate vs etomidate or propofol alone for sedation during gastroscopy. Data were pooled using the random-effects models or fixed-effect model based on heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies with 2973 participants were included in the analysis. Compared to propofol alone, the combined use of propofol and etomidate possibly increased recovery time (SMD = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.04-0.24; P = .005), and the risk for myoclonus (OR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.73-5.44; P < .001), injection pain, and nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, compared to propofol alone, the combination of propofol and etomidate produced an apparent beneficial effect for mean arterial pressure (MAP) after anesthesia (SMD = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.38-2.26; P = .006), SPO2 after anesthesia (SMD = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.43-1.55; P < .001), apnea or hypoxemia (OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.08-0.33; P < .001), injection pain, and body movement. Further, compared to etomidate alone, the combination of propofol and etomidate reduced the risk for myoclonus (OR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.11-0.22; P < .001), body movement, and nausea and vomiting.

CONCLUSION

The combination of propofol and etomidate might increase recovery time vs that associated with propofol, but it had fewer side effects on circulation and respiration in patients undergoing gastroscopy. The combined use of propofol and etomidate can improve and produce an apparent beneficial effect on the adverse effects of propofol or etomidate alone, and it was safer and more effective than propofol or etomidate alone.

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.

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.