Unsedated endoscopy

Risk factors for emergency endoscopic variceal ligation treatment failure of acute variceal bleeding

OBJECTIVE

To determine the risk factors for emergency endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) failure in acute variceal bleeding (AVB).

METHODS

Data from 161 cirrhosis patients with oesophageal variceal bleeding who underwent emergency EVL treatment at the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University from January 2018 to May 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Enrolled patients were divided into a successful treatment group and a failed treatment group. The variables studied were demographic, clinical, imaging, laboratory, and endoscopic data from the enrolled patients.

RESULTS

Of the enrolled patients, 19 patients experienced emergency EVL failure. Of these patients, nine underwent emergency endoscopic treatment again, six patients were treated with a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube for haemostasis and endoscopic treatment, four patients received drug therapy. The presence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in the failure group was higher than that in the success group (p < .05). Active bleeding on endoscopy was associated with emergency EVL failure for patients with Child-Pugh class C (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Child-Pugh class C with active bleeding on endoscopy or the presence of PVT could increase the risk of emergency EVL failure. The patient's condition should be fully evaluated before emergency endoscopic treatment to reduce the risk of failure.

Comparative effectiveness of lidocaine sprays between sitting and supine position for patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia has improved esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) efficiency with smooth insertion, reducing pain and discomfort. Lidocaine spray is one of the safe and widely used methods. In practice, the patients walk, sit in a wheelchair, or lie on a trolley bed, and the lidocaine sprays are applied to those in sitting or supine positions for pre-endoscopic preparation. Although there is no current guidance technique, this study aims to compare the effects of lidocaine sprays between sitting (Group A; Gp A) and supine positions (Group B; Gp B) for patients undergoing unsedated EGD.

METHODS

This study was a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial. Unsedated EGD patients were randomly allocated the lidocaine spray in sitting or lidocaine spray in the supine position.

RESULTS

Lidocaine spray treatments were significantly different in the gag reflex (NRS; Gp A: 1.28 ± 0.67, Gp B: 1 ± 0.63, p = 0.0003), ease of esophageal instrumentation (NRS; Gp A: 7.68 ± 0.91, Gp B: 7.95 ± 0.66, p = 0.0042), and pain score (NRS; Gp A: 5.16 ± 2.08, Gp B: 4.53 ± 1.93, p = 0.0059). When considering modified Mallampati classification (MMC), MMC classes III and IV were significantly different in the same direction but MMC classes I and II were not.

CONCLUSION

The technique of spraying in the supine position was associated with less gagging, less pain, and easier esophageal instrumentation, especially in patients with MMC classes III and IV.

Comparison of Lidocaine Spray and Lidocaine Ice Popsicle in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A Single Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under topical pharyngeal anesthesia has the advantage of avoiding the unwanted cardiopulmonary adverse events experienced following intravenous sedation. Lidocaine spray is a common anesthetic option and is safe for unsedated EGD. Although several studies have compared different topical anesthetic agents, their formulations, and delivery techniques, questions still remain concerning the optimal mode of administration. We have designed a lidocaine formulation in the form of an ice popsicle and compared its effectiveness and tolerability with lidocaine spray in patients undergoing unsedated EGD.

Methods

This was a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial. Unsedated EGD patients were randomly allocated the lidocaine spray [Group (Gp) A] or lidocaine ice popsicle (Gp B) formulation.

Results

In total, 204 unsedated EGD patients were evaluated. Compared to the spray, the lidocaine ice popsicle group showed better scores for effects in terms of endoscopist satisfaction (Gp A, 7.28±1.44; Gp B, 7.8±0.89; p=0.0022), gag reflex (Gp A, 1.3±0.66; Gp B, 1.02±0.61; p=0.0016), patient satisfaction (Gp A, 7.74±0.82; Gp B, 8.08±0.82; p=0.0039), discomfort (Gp A, 6.54±1.34; Gp B, 5.95±1.21; p=0.0012), and pain (Gp A, 5.38±1.85; Gp B, 4.51±2.01; p=0.0015).

Conclusion

Both the lidocaine spray and ice popsicle formulations are safe, effective options for diagnostic EGD with the ice popsicle exhibiting better performance. We propose the lidocaine ice popsicle formulation for topical pharyngeal anesthesia in patients undergoing unsedated diagnostic EGD and suggest it may be a suitable option during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinical Trial Register

Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) number TCTR20190502001.

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.

Unsedated colonoscopy: A neverending story

Although sedation and analgesia for patients undergoing colonoscopy is the standard practice in Western countries, unsedated colonoscopy is still routinely provided in Europe and the Far East. This variation in sedation practice relies on the different cultural attitudes of both patients and endoscopists across these countries. Data from the literature consistently report that, in unsedated patients, the use of alternative techniques, such as warm water irrigation or carbon dioxide insufflation, can allow a high quality and well tolerated examination.

Posterior lingual lidocaine: A novel method to improve tolerance in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

AIM: To evaluate the effect of posterior lingual lidocaine swab on patient tolerance to esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the ease of performance of the procedure, and to determine if such use will reduce the need for intravenous sedation.

METHODS: Eighty patients undergoing diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy in a tertiary care medical center were randomized to either lidocaine swab or spray. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were given as needed during the procedure.

RESULTS: Patients in the lidocaine swab group (SWG) tolerated the procedure better than those in the spray group (SPG) with a median tolerability score of 2 (1, 4) compared to 4 (2, 5) (P < 0.01). The endoscopists encountered less difficulty performing the procedures in the SWG with lower median difficulty scores of 1 (1, 5) compared to 4 (1, 5) in the SPG (P < 0.01). In addition, the need for intravenous sedation was also lower in the SWG compared to the SPG with fewer patients requiring intravenous sedation (13/40 patients vs 38/40 patients, respectively, P < 0.01). The patients in the SWG were more satisfied with the mode of local anesthesia they received as compared to the SPG. In addition, the endoscopists were happier with the use of lidocaine swab.

CONCLUSION: The use of a posterior lingual lidocaine swab in esophagogastroduodenoscopy improves patient comfort and tolerance and endoscopist satisfaction and decreases the need for intravenous sedation.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE AND SETTING

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

DESIGN

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

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

Single-blind study; sample size.

CONCLUSION

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

Promoting informed choice of unsedated colonoscopy: patient-centered care for a subgroup of US Veterans

BACKGROUND

In the United States, colonoscopy is usually performed under sedation. In practice, 2.3-7% actually requested unsedated colonoscopy and 1.4% received it because of no escorts. Efforts to increase usage would likely require increased patient counseling and education.

AIM

We tested the hypothesis that knowledge conveyed by education-a key attribute of patient-centered care-is associated with acceptance of the "non-usual" option.

METHODS

After patients underwent discussions and expressed acceptance of sedated colonoscopy, the pros and cons of and local experience with unsedated colonoscopy were added. The patients who changed from accepting sedated to unsedated colonoscopy and outcomes of their examinations were recorded.

RESULTS

From January to November 2006, 49 of 176 consecutive patients (28%) changed their choice from sedated to unsedated colonoscopy after being informed of the latter. Forty-eight had satisfactory bowel preparation. Cecal intubation rate was 93.7% (45 of 48). Thirty-six reported good experience and 43, likely to repeat. Cecal intubation, withdrawal, and discharge times were 23.0 +/- 1.4 min, 15.0 +/- 1.0 min, and 5.0 +/- 0.5 min, respectively (n = 45). Ability to communicate with the colonoscopist during and after the examination was the most frequently ranked reason for choosing unsedated colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Our uncontrolled, non-randomized, single-site observational data revealed that for selected veterans, acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy coincides with knowledge of the option dispensed by patient counseling and education.

Unsedated colonoscopy introduced to ensure access is acceptable to a subgroup of veterans

BACKGROUND

Nurses for monitoring and recovery are required for sedated colonoscopy. A nursing shortage necessitated discontinuation of sedated colonoscopy at a VA academic training program.

AIM

Elements of a case series that documented acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy are reviewed to raise awareness of the feasibility of this option.

METHOD

The pros and cons of sedation and no sedation were summarized. After discussion, patients who chose the unsedated option were scheduled for examination locally while those who desired sedation were scheduled at another VA site. Colonoscopy was performed by supervised trainees.

RESULTS

From September 2002 to June 2005 scheduled unsedated colonoscopy was accepted by 145 of 483 veterans. Cecal intubation was achieved in 81%. Thus, of the cohort 30% had local access to and 24% completed unsedated colonoscopy. Implementation of unsedated colonoscopy obviated the need for two registered nurses previously required for sedated colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Unsedated colonoscopy offered as an option to ensure access was acceptable to a subgroup of our veteran patients. Implementation required less nursing resources. Techniques to enhance the cecal intubation rate of unsedated colonoscopy performed by supervised trainees deserves to be assessed in future studies.

Methods of reducing discomfort during colonoscopy

In the United States sedation for colonoscopy is usual practice. Unsedated colonoscopy is limited to a small proportion of unescorted patients and those with a personal preference for no sedation. Over 80% of patients who accept the option of as-needed sedation can complete colonoscopy without sedation. Colonoscopy in these unsedated patients is performed with techniques similar to those used in the sedated patients. Uncontrolled observations indicate willingness to repeat colonoscopy amongst these patients was correlated significantly with low discomfort score during the examination. Methods reported to minimize patient discomfort or enhance cecal intubation during sedated or unsedated colonoscopy included use of pediatric colonoscope, variable stiffness colonoscope, gastroscope, and inhalation of nitrous oxide or insufflation of carbon dioxide, hypnosis, music, audio distraction, or simply allowing the patients to participate in administration of the medication. Research focusing on confirming the efficacy of a simple inexpensive nonmedication dependent method for minimizing discomfort will likely improve the outcome of care and more importantly will ensure compliance with future surveillance in patients accepting the unsedated option.

Small caliber overtube-assisted colonoscopy

AIM: To combine the benefits of a new thin flexible scope with elimination of excessive looping through the use of an overtube.

METHODS: Three separate retrospective series. Series 1: 25 consecutive male patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopy using the new device at a Veteran’s hospital in the United States. Series 2: 75 male patients undergoing routine colonoscopy using an adult colonoscope, pediatric colonoscope, or the new device. Series 3: 35 patients who had incomplete colonoscopies using standard instruments.

RESULTS: Complete colonoscopy was achieved in all 25 patients in the unsedated series with a median cecal intubation time of 6 min and a median maximal pain score of 3 on a 0-10 scale. In the 75 routine cases, there was significantly less pain with the thin scope compared to standard adult and pediatric colonoscopes. Of the 35 patients in the previously incomplete colonoscopy series, 33 were completed with the new system.

CONCLUSION: Small caliber overtube-assisted colonoscopy is less painful than colonoscopy with standard adult and pediatric colonoscopes. Male patients could undergo unsedated colonoscopy with the new system with relatively little pain. The new device is also useful for most patients in whom colonoscopy cannot be completed with standard instruments.

Lidocaine lollipop as single-agent anesthesia in upper GI endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Conscious sedation is usually achieved during EGD by a combination of intravenous benzodiazepines and opiates; however, these have potential serious adverse effects. The addition of topical oropharyngeal anesthetics such as lidocaine may be useful. Recent data suggest that the administration of topical lidocaine by means of a lollipop is effective for endotracheal intubation and bronchoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a lidocaine lollipop as single-agent anesthesia for EGD and to determine whether its use reduces the need for intravenous sedatives and analgesics.

DESIGN

Single-blinded, randomized, prospective study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

50 patients undergoing diagnostic EGD.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to either lidocaine lollipop or lidocaine spray. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were administered during the procedure as needed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The success and safety of local anesthesia by lidocaine lollipop in addition to the need for intravenous sedation.

RESULTS

Patients were equally randomized between the lollipop and the spray groups. The lollipop group had less gag reflex, accommodated scope introduction more, and tolerated the procedure better. Thirty-two percent of patients receiving the lollipop required sedation compared with 96% of patients in the spray group (P < .001). The majority in the lollipop group were satisfied with their mode of anesthesia compared with the spray group.

CONCLUSIONS

Lidocaine lollipop is a promising form of local oropharyngeal anesthesia for EGD. Its use resulted in sparing the use of intravenous sedation. It is well tolerated and safe and may be particularly important in the elderly, patients with comorbidities, and office-based endoscopy.

Sedation, topical pharyngeal anesthesia and cardiorespiratory safety during gastroscopy

GOALS

In a prospective, double-blind study, we examined the effects of routine sedation and pharyngeal anesthesia on cardiorespiratory parameters during gastroscopy.

BACKGROUND

Intravenous sedation and topical pharyngeal anesthesia are used to alleviate the discomfort during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Cardiorespiratory changes during gastroscopy are common.

STUDY

Two hundred fifty two consecutive outpatients undergoing gastroscopy were assigned into 4 groups: (1) sedation with intravenous midazolam and placebo throat spray (midazolam group), (2) placebo sedation and pharyngeal anesthesia with lidocaine throat spray (lidocaine group), (3) placebo sedation and placebo throat spray (placebo group), and (4) no intravenous cannula nor throat spray (control group). Arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2), systolic and diastolic blood pressure and continuous electrocardiogram were recorded before, during, and after the endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

Gastroscopy increased heart rate in all study groups. Premedication with intravenous midazolam or lidocaine spray alleviated this rise (P<0.001, repeated measures analysis of variance) and decreased the incidence of tachycardia. Similarly, sedation with midazolam or topical pharyngeal anesthesia decreased the rise in systolic blood pressure (P<0.001). Midazolam produced lower SaO2 values during gastroscopy compared with lidocaine, placebo or control groups (P<0.001). However, episodes of desaturation (SaO2 </=92) were no more common in the midazolam group than in other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with midazolam alleviated the rise in heart rate and systolic blood pressure but induced a statistically significant decrease in arterial oxygen saturation. However, gastroscopy proved to be a safe procedure both with and without sedation.

Are patients' sedation preferences at gastroscopy influenced by preceding patients' decisions?

BACKGROUND

When patients choose sedation or no sedation for gastroscopy, it is unknown whether the decision and experience of preceding patients on the same endoscopy list influence such decisions.

AIM

To address this question in an endoscopy unit, where pre- and postprocedure patients are free to communicate.

METHODS

The order and sedation decisions of 503 out-patients attending diagnostic gastroscopy lists were analysed. One hundred patients completed a preprocedural questionnaire about sedation preferences.

RESULTS

Three hundred and fifteen (63%) patients chose no sedation. Men were more likely to be unsedated, 170 (72%), than women 158 (59%) (chi(2) = 9.1, P < 0.01). Age did not influence decisions. If the first patient on an endoscopy list requested sedation, 36% of subsequent patients were also sedated. This was similar to 38% of subsequently sedated patients on lists where the first patient was unsedated. Similar proportions of subsequent patients requested sedation when comparing lists where the first two patients were both sedated or both unsedated and when comparing lists where the first three patients were all sedated or all unsedated. Ninety per cent of the patients completing preprocedural questionnaires had made sedation choices before arrival; the remaining undecided patients had unsedated endoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' sedation decisions are not influenced by preceding patients' decisions. Most patients attending for out-patient gastroscopy have already decided about sedation.