Gastroenterologist-directed propofol: an update

Postpolypectomy fever in patients with serious infection: a report of two cases

BACKGROUND

Postpolypectomy fever (PPF) is a rare complication in patients after colonoscopy. Because of the absence of evidence of microperforation and abdominal tenderness, patients with PPF usually present mild clinical symptoms with a good prognosis.

CASE PRESENTATION

In this study, all patients who underwent colonoscopic examination in our hospital between January 2019 and December 2019 were enrolled. Of these, two patients developed PPF after polypectomy, exhibiting serious infection without definitive fever foci. One patient experienced rapidly aggravated type 1 respiratory failure and abnormal hepatic function, which were attributed to colonoscopy-associated infection. After active antibiotic therapy, both patients were discharged without any complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, our study provides novel insights into patients with PPF who develop serious infections with life-threatening complications.

Safety Profile of Endoscopist-directed Balanced Propofol Sedation for Procedural Sedation: An Experience at a Hospital-based Endoscopy Unit

BACKGROUND

Nurse-administered propofol sedation was restricted to anesthesiologists in 2009, a practice that has contributed to spiraling health care costs in the United States.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of endoscopist-directed balanced propofol sedation (EDBPS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients undergoing endoscopy with EDBPS from January 1, 2017, to June 20, 2017, and abstracted their medical records. Adverse events (AEs) included: hypoxia (oxygen saturation < 90%); hypotension [(a) systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg, (b) systolic blood pressure decline of >50 mm Hg, (c) decline in mean arterial pressure of >30%]; bradycardia (heart rate of < 40 beats/min). Logistic regression identified factors independently associated with AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 1897 patients received EDBPS during the study period [mean age: 55 y (SD=11.4 y); 56.4% women]. Patients received median doses of 50 µg fentanyl, 2 mg of midazolam, and a mean propofol dose of 160±99 mg. There were no major complications (upper 95% confidence interval, 0.19%). Overall, 334 patients (17.6%) experienced a clinically insignificant AE: 65 (3.4%) experienced transient hypoxia, 277 patients (14.6%) experienced hypotension, 2 had transient bradycardia. In bivariate analysis, older age was associated with risk for hypotension, propofol dose was associated with transient hypoxemia, and procedure duration was associated with both hypotension and transient hypoxia. In multivariate analysis, only procedure length was associated with AEs (odds ratio scale 10; odds ratio=1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.09, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EDBPS is safe for endoscopic sedation. Given the higher cost of anesthesia-administered propofol, endoscopists should reinstate EDBPS by revising institutional sedation policies.

Safety of Target-Controlled Propofol Infusion by Gastroenterologists in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Resection

BACKGROUND

A target-controlled infusion (TCI) of a propofol system uses a pharmacokinetic model to achieve and maintain a selected target blood propofol concentration. The aim of this study was to assess whether the propofol TCI system could be safely used by gastroenterologists in patients undergoing endoscopic resection including endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) compared with a manually controlled infusion (MCI) system.

METHODS

A total of 431 patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopy (178 ESD and 253 EMR) were consecutively included from November 2011 to August 2014. The patients were divided into the MCI (271) and TCI (160) propofol infusion groups. We compared adverse event rates in MCI and TCI groups and assessed independent risk factors for adverse events.

RESULTS

The total sedation-related adverse event rate was 5.8 % (25/431). Most of the events were minor, and the rate of major events was 0.5 % (2/431). There was no significant difference in adverse event rate between the MCI and TCI groups [5.5 % (15/271) vs. 6.3 % (10/160); P = 0.759]. In univariate analysis, the propofol infusion time was significantly associated with adverse events (94.88 vs. 59.45 min, P = 0.017). In the multivariate analysis, there were no significant factors associated with adverse events. TCI was not an independent risk factor for adverse events despite the fact that the TCI had a longer duration of infusion and higher total infusion dose (95 % CI, 0.343-2.216; P = 0.773).

CONCLUSIONS

TCI of propofol by gastroenterologists may provide safe sedation in patients undergoing ESD and EMR under careful respiratory monitoring.

Safety of Propofol Used as a Rescue Agent During Colonoscopy

GOAL

The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety of propofol when used by gastroenterologists in patients who have an inadequate response to standard sedation (narcotics and benzodiazepines).

BACKGROUND

Many patients fail to achieve adequate sedation from narcotics and benzodiazepines during colonoscopy. The administration of propofol for colonoscopy is increasing, although its use by gastroenterologists is controversial.

STUDY

We performed a retrospective review of our hospital's colonoscopy records from January 2006 to December 2009 to identify 403 subjects undergoing screening colonoscopies who required propofol (20 to 30 mg every 3 min as needed) because of inadequate response to standard sedation. We also randomly selected 403 controls undergoing screening colonoscopies from the same time period that only required standard sedation. The incidence of adverse effects was then compared.

RESULTS

There were no major adverse events in either group. The rates of minor adverse events in the propofol and control group were 0.02 and 0.01, respectively (P=0.56). Adverse effects in the propofol group included: transient hypotension (n=1), nausea/vomiting (n=3), agitation (n=2), and rash (n=1). Adverse effects seen with standard sedation included: transient hypotension (n=2), nausea/vomiting (n=1), and oversedation (n=2). Patients who received propofol were more likely to be younger, had a history of illicit drug use, and a longer procedure time (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive propofol administered by gastroenterologist for conscious sedation was not associated with increased incidence of adverse events. It may be of value in patients who do not respond to conventional sedation.

Quality Assurance in the Endoscopy Suite: Sedation and Monitoring

Recent development and expansion of endoscopy units has necessitated similar progress in the quality assurance of procedure sedation and monitoring. The large number of endoscopic procedures performed annually underlies the need for standardized quality initiatives focused on mitigating patient risk before, during, and immediately after endoscopic sedation, as well as improving procedure outcomes and patient satisfaction. Specific standards are needed for newer sedation modalities, including propofol administration. This article reviews the current guidelines and literature concerning quality assurance and endoscopic procedure sedation.

Minor Anesthesia-Related Events During Radiofrequency Ablation for Barrett's Esophagus Are Associated with an Increased Number of Treatment Sessions

BACKGROUND

There is limited data regarding the prevalence and clinical impact of sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) during radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE).

AIM

Our primary aim was to measure SRAE during RFA. Secondary aims were to identify risk factors for adverse events, and to determine whether SRAEs impacted the number of RFA treatments to achieve complete eradication of dysplasia (CE-D).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 120 consecutive patients undergoing initial RFA for dysplastic BE between 2008 and 2014. The main outcome measures were SRAEs and the number of RFA sessions required to achieve CE-D.

RESULTS

Of 120 initial RFA procedures, 83 % were performed with MAC and 17 % with GET. SRAEs occurred in 32 %, including 25 % of MAC patients (25/100) and 65 % (12/20) GET patients. The most frequent SRAE was hypotension (23 %, n = 27/120), followed by hypoxia (n = 9/120), arrhythmia (n = 4/120), and one unplanned intubation. There were no premature procedure terminations. After adjusting for length of BE mucosa and ASA score, the occurrence of a SRAE was associated with requiring more (>4) RFA sessions to achieve CE-D, OR 3.45 (95 % CI 1.49-7.99). Mean RFA sessions required to achieve CE-D was 5 ± 1 in patients with SRAE, compared to 3 ± 0.7 in patients without SRAE during the first treatment session (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SRAE during RFA for dysplastic BE occurs at a rate typical of other advanced endoscopic procedures. Patients who experience minor events related to anesthesia during the first RFA are likely to require more RFA treatment sessions to achieve CE-D.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective study comparing nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol and monitored anesthesia care

INTRODUCTION

Adequate sedation is one of the cornerstones of good quality gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE). Propofol sedation has increased significantly but there has been much debate over whether it can be administered by endoscopists. The aim of this prospective trial was to compare nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC).

METHODS

A total of 2000 outpatients undergoing GIE at Hospital Albert Einstein (São Paulo, Brazil), a tertiary-care private hospital, were divided into two matched groups: NAAP (n = 1000) and MAC (n = 1000). In NAAP, propofol doses were determined by the endoscopist. A second physician stayed in the room during the entire procedure, according to local regulations. In MAC, the anesthesiologist administered propofol.

RESULTS

In total, 1427 patients (71.3 %) were ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) class I and 573 were ASA class II. In NAAP, patients received more propofol + fentanyl (61.1 % vs. 50.5 %; P < 0.05) and there were fewer cases of deep sedation (44.7 % vs. 66.1 %; P < 0.05). Hypoxemia rates were similar (12.8 % for NAAP and 11.2 % for MAC; P = 0.3) but these reverted more rapidly in MAC (4.22 seconds vs. 7.26 seconds; P < 0.05). Agitation was more frequent in MAC (14.0 % vs. 5.6 %; P < 0.05). No later complications were observed. Patient satisfaction was very high and similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

In this setting, NAAP was as safe and effective as MAC for healthy patients undergoing GIE. Clinical trial ref. no.: U1111-1134-4430.

Endoscopist-directed propofol: pros and cons

Concerns about the safety of endoscopist-directed propofol (EDP) have been voiced that propofol should be given only by healthcare professionals trained in the administration of general anesthesia. Here we discuss the safety and drawbacks of EDP for routine endoscopic procedures. Currently, both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy are well tolerated and accepted by both patients and endoscopists due to the application of sedation in most clinics worldwide. Accordingly, propofol use is increasing in many countries. It is crucial for endoscopists to be very familiar with the use of propofol or a combination of drugs. However, the controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an anesthesiologist continues. Until now, there have been no randomized control trials comparing sedation induced by propofol administered by an endoscopist or by an anesthesiologist. It might be difficult to perform this kind of study. For the convenience and safety of sedative endoscopy, it would be important that EDP be generally applied to endoscopic procedures, and for more safety, an anesthesiologist may automatically take care of particular patients at high risk of suffering from propofol side effects.

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol versus midazolam and propofol, titrated to moderate sedation, for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) is controversial due to deep sedation concerns.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of moderate sedation with two different NAAP regimens for colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial allocating 135 consecutive outpatients to placebo (group P) or midazolam 2 mg (group M+P) before NAAP targeted to moderate sedation. Depth of sedation every 2 min throughout the procedure, propofol doses, recovery times, complications and patient and endoscopist satisfaction were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 84 % of assessments of the depth of sedation were moderate. Mean induction (76 [40-150] vs. 53 [30-90]) and total propofol doses (mg) (136 [60-270] vs. 104 [50-190]) were significantly higher for group P (p < 0.001). However, deep sedation was significantly more prevalent in group M+P in minutes 4 (16 vs. 1 %, p = 0.05), 6 (20 vs. 3.5 %, p = 0.046) and 8 (17 vs. 1.8 %, p = 0.06) of the procedure, coinciding with midazolam peak action. From minute 8 on, moderate sedation was significantly deeper for M+P (p = 0.002). Early recovery time (6.8 min vs. 5.2, p = 0.007), but not discharge time (10.4 min vs. 9.8, p = 0.5), was longer for M+P. Pain perception (P 1.03 vs. M+P 0.3, p = 0.009) and patient satisfaction scores (P 9.4 vs. M+P 9.8, p = 0.047) were better for M+P. No major complications occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation was feasible with both NAAP regimens. Drug synergy in the midazolam plus propofol sedation regimen promotes a deeper and longer moderate sedation, improving patient satisfaction rates but prolonging early recovery time (Clinical Trials gov NCT01428882).

Balanced propofol sedation versus propofol monosedation in therapeutic pancreaticobiliary endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Prolonged or complex endoscopic procedures are frequently performed under deep sedation. However, no studies of therapeutic ERCP have yet compared the use of balanced propofol sedation (BPS) to propofol alone, titrated to moderate levels of sedation.

AIM

This prospective, randomized, double-blind study was planned to compare the sedation efficacy and safety of BPS (propofol in combination with midazolam and fentanyl) and propofol monosedation in therapeutic ERCP and EUS.

METHODS

BPS, or propofol monosedation titrated to a moderate level of sedation, was performed by trained registered nurses under endoscopist supervision. The main outcome measurements included sedation efficacy focusing on recovery time, sedation safety, endoscopic procedure outcomes, and complications.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in sedation efficacy, safety, procedure outcomes, and complications, with the exception of recovery time. Mean recovery time (standard deviation) was 18.37 (7.86) min in BPS and 13.4 (6.24) min in propofol monosedation (P < 0.001). In a safety analysis, cardiopulmonary complication rates related to BPS and propofol monosedation were 7.8 % (8/102) and 9.6 % (10/104), respectively (P = 0.652). No patient required assisted ventilation or permanent termination of a procedure in either group. Technical success of the endoscopic procedures was 96.3 and 97.2 %, respectively (P = 0.701). Endoscopic procedure-related complications and outcomes did not differ depending on sedation procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol monosedation by trained, registered sedation nurses under supervision resulted in a more rapid recovery time than BPS. There were no differences in the sedation safety, endoscopic procedure outcomes, and complications between BPS and propofol monosedation.

Unsedated colonoscopy: an option for some but not for all

BACKGROUND

The increasing request for colonoscopy in clinical practice, coupled with the lack of time, has led to a renewed interest in unsedated procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the acceptability of unsedated colonoscopy and to characterize the subset of patients more likely to undergo and complete the procedure without sedation and/or analgesia.

DESIGN

Prospective, population study.

SETTING

Nonacademic community hospital, 6-month observation period.

PATIENTS

Adult outpatients referred for colonoscopy were offered unsedated procedure, with the possibility of on-demand sedation.

INTERVENTIONS

Demographics, clinical features, and endoscopy outcomes were recorded. Data were analyzed by stepwise logistic regression analysis, and odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) are given for significant variables.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Unsedated colonoscopy acceptance rate. Factors significantly associated with acceptance and completion of unsedated procedures.

RESULTS

The acceptance rate for unsedated colonoscopy was 56.2% of 964 consecutive evaluated patients. The cecal intubation rate in unsedated patients was 81.6% and increased to 97.3% with the option of on-demand sedation. At multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated with the acceptance were no previous colonoscopy (OR 1.52; 95% CI, 1.10-2.11), absent/low level of anxiety (OR 3.82; 95% CI, 2.71-5.38), and no concern about the examination (OR 1.80; 95% CI, 1.17-2.77). Fear of procedure-related pain was inversely associated with acceptance (OR 0.28; 95% CI, 0.17-0.35). Factors associated to drug-free colonoscopy completion were absence of preprocedure anxiety (OR 1.87; 95% CI, 1.08-3.21) and male sex (OR 3.59; 95% CI, 2.13-6.05).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study.

CONCLUSION

The acceptance rate of unsedated colonoscopy is clinically relevant, and the procedure can be completed without sedation in the majority of patients. Subject-related factors may help to identify patients willing to undergo and potentially complete unsedated procedures.

Propofol sedation alone or in combination with pharyngeal lidocaine anesthesia for routine upper GI endoscopy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

In patients undergoing routine upper EGD, propofol is increasingly used without pharyngeal anesthesia because of its excellent sedative properties. It is unclear whether this practice is non-inferior in regard to ease of endoscopic intubation and patient comfort.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relevance of local pharyngeal anesthesia regarding the ease of EGD performance in patients sedated with propofol as monotherapy.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

One community hospital and one university hospital in Switzerland.

PATIENTS

We enrolled 300 consecutive adult patients undergoing elective EGD.

INTERVENTION

Pharyngeal anesthesia with 4 squirts of lidocaine spray versus placebo spray immediately before propofol sedation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Number of gag reflexes (primary endpoint), number of intubation attempts, and degree of salivation during intubation (secondary endpoints) assessed by the endoscopists and staff.

RESULTS

In the lidocaine group, 122 patients (82%) had no gag events, and 25 patients had a total of 39 gag events, whereas in the placebo group 104 patients (71%) had no gag events, and 43 patients had a total of 111 gag events. The rate ratio of gagging with quasi-likelihood estimation of placebo compared with lidocaine was 2.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-6.19; P = .005). In adjusted logistic regression analysis, the odds ratio for gagging for placebo pharyngeal anesthesia compared with lidocaine was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.03-3.54). The number of intubation attempts and the degree of salivation were similar in both groups. Two patients in the placebo group experienced oxygen desaturation and needed short-term mask ventilation.

LIMITATIONS

The level of sedation and possible long-term side effects of pharyngeal anesthesia were not assessed.

CONCLUSION

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia reduces the gag reflex in patients sedated with propofol even though it does not seem to have an influence on the ease of the procedure and on patient or endoscopist satisfaction in adequately sedated patients.

Sedation, analgesia, and monitoring

Endoscopic procedures are common and sedation is frequently used to minimize anxiety and discomfort, reduce the potential for physical injury during the procedure, and improve overall patient tolerability and satisfaction. In this article, the authors review the variety of options for sedation and analgesia available to the gastroenterologist or surgical endoscopist.

[Sedation and analgesia during gastrointestinal endoscopy]

Sedative and analgesic premedication is frequently used during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Sedation improves patient's compliance, helping the examinations and their safe completion, but it lengthens the procedures, increases the costs, and complications can occur. Sedative drugs are applied during upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, and also at ERCP. The review summarizes the different forms of sedation, drugs, future techniques and possibilities of improvements. Moreover, sedation practice in Hungary is also described.

Balanced propofol sedation for therapeutic GI endoscopic procedures: a prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND

There are few controlled studies on balanced propofol sedation (BPS) for therapeutic endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of BPS (propofol in combination with midazolam and meperidine) with conventional sedation (midazolam and meperidine) in patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopic procedures.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, single-blinded study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care referral center.

PATIENTS

This study involved 222 consecutive patients undergoing therapeutic EGD or ERCP from July 2009 to March 2010.

INTERVENTION

Conventional sedation or BPS by trained registered nurses under endoscopist supervision.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Rates of sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications and interruption of the procedures, procedure-related times, and assessments of health care providers (endoscopists and sedation nurses) and patients.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the BPS and conventional groups in the rates of cardiopulmonary complications (8.8% [9/102] vs 5.8% [6/104], respectively) and transient interruption of procedures (2.9% [3/102] vs 0% [0/104], respectively). No patient required assisted ventilation or premature termination of a procedure. BPS provided significantly higher health care provider satisfaction (mean±SD 10-cm visual analog scale [VAS] score) compared with conventional sedation (endoscopists: 7.57±2.61 vs 6.55±2.99, respectively; P=.011; sedation nurses: 7.86±2.31 vs 6.67±2.90, respectively; P=.001). Patient cooperation was significantly better in the BPS group (VAS; endoscopists: 7.24±2.97 vs 6.27±3.09, P=.024; sedation nurses: 7.75±2.30 vs 6.54±2.99, P=.001).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center and single-blinded study.

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional sedation, BPS provides higher health care provider satisfaction, better patient cooperation, and similar adverse event profiles in patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopic procedures.

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.

Sedation and analgesia in gastrointestinal endoscopy: What’s new?

Various types of sedation and analgesia technique have been used during gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. The best methods for analgesia and sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy are still debated. Providing an adequate regimen of sedation/analgesia might be considered an art, influencing several aspects of endoscopic procedures: the quality of the examination, the patient’s cooperation and the patient’s and physician’s satisfaction with the sedation. The properties of a model sedative agent for endoscopy would include rapid onset and offset of action, analgesic and anxiolytic effects, ease of titration to desired level of sedation, rapid recovery and an excellent safety profile. Therefore there is an impulse for development of new approaches to endoscopic sedation. This article provides an update on the methods of sedation today available and future directions in endoscopic sedation.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in the elderly: current issues

Even though endoscopy is performed in patients of all ages, currently there is little literature on this topic in elderly patients. As a result of population demographics the use of endoscopy is expected to rise in this section of the population. Elderly patients represent a special group of patients, as they usually have a higher incidence of co-morbid diseases and may be more susceptible to endoscopic interventions. Due to the decreased physiologic reserve and associated diseases, complications in elderly patients can be more severe than in adult or young subjects. Moreover, ethical considerations play a special role in elderly frail patients with a potential poor prognosis. Thus, the endoscopist needs to pay special attention when considering or performing endoscopy in elderly patients. The aim of this article is to review the role of endoscopy in elderly patients, paying special emphasis on indications, special precautions and specific interventions.