Minimizing complications: sedation and monitoring

Oxygenation before Endoscopic Sedation Reduces the Hypoxic Event during Endoscopy in Elderly Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Sedation endoscopy increases patient and examiner satisfaction but involves complications. The most serious complication is hypoxia, the risk factors for which are old age, obesity, and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of 3 or greater. However, clear evidence of oxygenation during sedation endoscopy for elderly people is lacking in US, European, and Korean guidelines. Method: This study was conducted for 1 year starting in August 2018 to evaluate whether pre-oxygenation use 1 min before sedation endoscopy could reduce the incidence of hypoxia in patients older than 65 years of age. A total of 70 patients were divided into the non-oxygenated group (n = 35; control group) and oxygen-treated group (n = 35; experimental group) during endoscopy. Result: The incidence of hypoxia was 28 (80%) in the control group versus 0 (0%) in the pre-oxygenated group. Factors related to hypoxia in the non-oxygenated group were a relatively high dose of midazolam and concomitant injection with narcotic analgesics such as pethidine. Conclusion: The incidence of hypoxia during sedation endoscopy is high in patients over 65 years, but oxygenation during endoscopic sedation in elderly people can significantly reduce the incidence of intraprocedural hypoxic events.

Reducing complications in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

This article reviews the principal aspects related to sedation in endoscopy and to the prevention of adverse events in some of the most frequently performed therapeutic upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures (esophageal dilation and stenting, endoscopic resection of upper GI early neoplasia, hemostasis of upper GI bleeding and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion). These procedures have an inherent risk of negative outcomes that cannot be entirely avoided. Endoscopic procedures are best performed by well-trained, competent and thoughtful endoscopists in facilities suited to provide for patient safety. Attention to clinical risk management may effectively reduce the frequency and intensity of adverse events, enhance recognition and early detection, and improve responsiveness.

Is it safe to use propofol in the emergency department? A randomized controlled trial to compare propofol and midazolam

BACKGROUND

This study examined the safety and effectiveness of the procedural sedation analgesia (PSA) technique carried out in the emergency department (ED) of a university hospital over a period of 1 year. The research was done to compare the effectiveness and efficacy of moderate sedation of fentanyl combined with either midazolam or propofol for any brief, intense procedure in the ED setting.

AIMS

The objectives were to observe the occurrence of adverse events in subjects undergoing PSA for intense and painful procedures in the emergency department and to implement the use of capnography as a method of monitoring the patients when they were under PSA.

METHODS

Forty patients were selected for this study. They were randomly divided into two equal groups using the computer-generated random permuted blocks of four patients. Twenty patients were grouped together as group A and the remaining 20 patients as group B. Drugs used were single blinded to prevent any bias. Drug A was propofol and fentanyl, while drug B was midazolam and fentanyl. The procedures involved included orthopedic manipulation such as reduction of fractures, reduction of dislocated joints, abscess drainage, wound debridement, laceration wound repair and cardioversion. All of the subjects were monitored for their vital signs and end tidal carbon dioxide level every 10 min till the PSA was completed. The duration of stay in the ED was documented when the subjects had completed the procedure and were released from the department.

RESULT

Of the study population, 75.6% were males. The mean age was 37.8 years (95% CI 33.2, 39.8). None of the patients developed any major complications while under PSA. The vital signs pre-, intra- and post-procedure were not significantly different in either the propofol or mizadolam groups (p value >0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study had proven that there was no difference in adverse event occurrence between the studied drugs during PSA. Propofol can be recommended for use in PSA if the operator is well trained and familiar with the drug.