Patient monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy: why, when, and how?

Advances in Analgosedation and Periprocedural Care for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The number and complexity of endoscopic gastrointestinal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is globally increasing. Procedural analgosedation during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has become the gold standard of gastrointestinal endoscopies. Patient satisfaction and safety are important for the quality of the technique. Currently there are no uniform sedation guidelines and protocols for specific gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and there are several challenges surrounding the choice of an appropriate analgosedation technique. These include categories of patients, choice of drug, appropriate monitoring, and medical staff providing the service. The ideal analgosedation technique should enable the satisfaction of the patient, their maximum safety and, at the same time, cost-effectiveness. Although propofol is the gold standard and the most used general anesthetic for endoscopies, its use is not without risks such as pain at the injection site, respiratory depression, and hypotension. New studies are looking for alternatives to propofol, and drugs like remimazolam and ciprofol are in the focus of researchers' interest. New monitoring techniques are also associated with them. The optimal technique of analgosedation should provide good analgesia and sedation, fast recovery, comfort for the endoscopist, patients' safety, and will have financial benefits. The future will show whether these new drugs have succeeded in these goals.

Cardiorespiratory complications of digestive endoscopy not related to sedation

Although digestive endoscopy is considered to be a safe procedure, both the growing complexity of the techniques and the underlying diseases of patients increase the risk of adverse events during the procedure. Cardiorespiratory events are the most frequent complications, and can occur in patients with or without sedation, although they appear more often when the patient is sedated. The body's physiological response to stress is what causes these adverse events, which are generally mild and transient, although they can be serious. They are more frequent in patients with cardiopulmonary diseases, which logically increase risk. The autonomic nervous system, through its sympathetic and parasympathetic branches, is primarily responsible for these alterations. Patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have a higher risk of hypoxemia, bronchospasm, and arrhythmia during the endoscopic procedure. Patients with arrhythmia and ischemic heart disease have a higher risk of myocardial ischemia and heart rhythm disturbances. The risk of adverse events during the procedure can be reduced by reviewing the patient's medical history along with a basic clinical examination before endoscopy. A brief interrogation about symptom control can also help the safety of endoscopy.

Safety and sedation-associated adverse event reporting among patients undergoing endoscopic cholangiopancreatography: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is wide variation in choice of sedation and airway management for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate safety outcomes of deep sedation with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) versus general endotracheal anesthesia (GETA).

METHODS

Individualized search strategies were performed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. This meta-analysis was performed by calculating pooled proportions using random effects models. Measured outcomes included procedure success, all-cause and anesthesia-associated adverse events, and post-procedure recovery time. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics and publication bias by funnel plot and Egger regression testing.

RESULTS

Five studies (MAC: n = 1284 vs GETA: n = 615) were included. Patients in the GETA group were younger, had higher body mass index (BMI), and higher mean ASA scores (all P < 0.001) with no difference in Mallampati scores (P = 0.923). Procedure success, all-cause adverse events, and anesthesia-associated events were similar between groups [OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.51-2.64); OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.29-4.70); OR 1.33 (95% CI 0.27-6.49), respectively]. MAC resulted in fewer hypotensive episodes [OR 0.32 (95% CI 0.12-0.87], increased hypoxemic events [OR 5.61 (95% CI 1.54-20.37)], and no difference in cardiac arrhythmias [OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.13-1.78)]. Procedure time was decreased for MAC [standard difference - 0.39 (95% CI - 0.78-0.00)] with no difference in recovery time [standard difference - 0.48 (95% CI - 1.04-0.07)].

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests MAC may be a safe alternative to GETA for ERCP; however, MAC may not be appropriate in all patients given an increased risk of hypoxemia.

Patient safety in an endoscopy unit: an observational retrospective analysis of reported incidents

Introduction

Patient safety is a serious public health with serious implications on morbidity, mortality, and quality of life of patients, in addition to negatively affecting the public image of healthcare institutions and professionals. It requires further investigation, especially in specialties lacking published data, such as endoscopy.

Objective

To analyze patient safety incidents reported in a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit of a tertiary hospital in southern Brazil.

Methods

This retrospective, cross-sectional study quantitatively described patient safety incidents related to endoscopic procedures. The sample consisted of reports of incidents that occurred from 2015 to 2017. The data were descriptively analysed, and the study was approved by the relevant research ethics committee.

Results

Overall, 42,863 endoscopic procedures were performed and 167 reports were submitted in the period, accounting for a prevalence of incidents of 0.38%. Most incidents did not result in unnecessary harm to patients (76.6%). The most prevalent incidents were those related to patient identification, followed by those related to pathology exams, exam reports, gastrointestinal perforations, skin lesions, falls and medication errors. The rate of adverse events (harm to patient) in patients undergoing any endoscopic procedure was 0.06%.

Conclusions

The incidence of unnecessary harm (adverse event) associated with any endoscopic procedure was relatively low in this study. However, the identification of reported incidents is crucial for evaluating and improving the quality of care provided to patients.

Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) position paper on the non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Propofol sedation by non-anesthesiologists in GI endoscopy, despite generally considered a safe procedure, is still a matter of debate. Benefits of propofol sedation include rapid onset of action, greater patient comfort and fast recovery with prompt discharge from the endoscopy unit. The use of propofol for sedation in GI endoscopy, preceded by dedicated training courses, has been approved by several anaesthesiologist and gastroenterologist societies but an Italian position paper taking into account the Italian law is lacking. In the present document, the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) Sedation Group, on behalf of the SIED, presents a series of updated position statements concerning propofol sedation in GI endoscopy. The paper summarizes the advantages of propofol, how it should be administered and how patients should be monitored. Moreover, details concerning proper training of non-anaesthesiologist personnel involved in its use are provided. Protocols concerning propofol use s must be shared with the hospital's anaesthesiology staff and approved by the hospital's Executive Director.

Extended Monitoring during Endoscopy

Gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation has improved procedural and patient outcomes but is associated with attendant risks of oversedation and hemodynamic compromise. Therefore, close monitoring during endoscopic procedures using sedation is critical. This monitoring begins with appropriate staff trained in visual assessment of patients and analysis of basic physiologic parameters. It also mandates an array of devices widely used in practice to evaluate hemodynamics, oxygenation, ventilation, and depth of sedation. The authors review the evidence behind monitoring practices and current society recommendations and discuss forthcoming technologies and techniques that are poised to improve noninvasive monitoring of patients under endoscopic sedation.

A comparison of propofol vs. dexmedetomidine for sedation, haemodynamic control and satisfaction, during esophagogastroduodenoscopy under conscious sedation

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a common diagnostic procedure which requires sedation for most patients. We undertook a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study to compare the effect of propofol vs. dexmedetomidine on the sedation of outpatients during EGD.

METHODS

Prior to the procedure, outpatients received either propofol at 0·6 mg/kg, with additional doses of 10-20 mg until the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAA/S) score reached 2-4, or dexmedetomidine at a loading dose of 1 μg/kg over a 10-min period followed by a 0·5 μg/kg/h infusion until the OAA/S score reached 2-4. Vital signs, sedation level, adverse events, patients' and endoscopist's satisfaction score, and an evaluation of the recovery time were assessed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Negligible haemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO2 ) and respiratory rate variations were observed in both groups, although respiratory depression occurred in two cases (5·9%) in the propofol group. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the propofol group decreased during the procedure compared with baseline (P < 0·05) and was also lower in comparison with the dexmedetomidine group (P < 0·05). Heart rate (HR) decreased after the loading dose in the dexmedetomidine group (P < 0·05). More patients in the propofol group underwent deeper sedation at the beginning of the procedure (P < 0·05), although the recovery time was comparable between the two groups (P > 0·05). Three cases (9·1%) in the dexmedetomidine group were delayed because of dizziness, bradycardia and nausea. There was a higher satisfaction score among patients in the propofol group (P < 0·05), although the endoscopist's satisfaction score was comparable between the two groups (P > 0·05).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Propofol and dexmedetomidine provide a relatively satisfactory level of sedation without clinically notable adverse effects during EGD. In addition, patients preferred propofol administration for the deeper sedation and rapid recovery, and dexmedetomidine exhibited minimal adverse effects on respiratory function.

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.

Deep sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens

AIM

To compare deep sedation with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

After obtaining approval of the research ethics committee and informed consent, 200 patients were evaluated and referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive propofol-fentanyl or midazolam-fentanyl (n = 100/group). We assessed the level of sedation using the observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score and bispectral index (BIS). We evaluated patient and physician satisfaction, as well as the recovery time and complication rates. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software and included the Mann-Whitney test, χ² test, measurement of analysis of variance, and the κ statistic.

RESULTS

The times to induction of sedation, recovery, and discharge were shorter in the propofol-fentanyl group than the midazolam-fentanyl group. According to the OAA/S score, deep sedation events occurred in 25% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 11% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.014). Additionally, deep sedation events occurred in 19% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 7% of the midazolam-fentanyl group according to the BIS scale (P = 0.039). There was good concordance between the OAA/S score and BIS for both groups (κ = 0.71 and κ = 0.63, respectively). Oxygen supplementation was required in 42% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 26% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.025). The mean time to recovery was 28.82 and 44.13 min in the propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl groups, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no severe complications in either group. Although patients were equally satisfied with both drug combinations, physicians were more satisfied with the propofol-fentanyl combination.

CONCLUSION

Deep sedation occurred with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl, but was more frequent in the former. Recovery was faster in the propofol-fentanyl group.

[Role of pulse oximetric monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Prospective multicenter study of the Gastroenterology Working Group of the Veszprém Regional Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (VEAB)]

INTRODUCTION

Recent guidelines recommend routine pulse oximetric monitoring during endoscopy, however, this has not been the common practice yet in the majority of the local endoscopic units.

AIMS

To draw attention to the importance of the routine use of pulse oximetric recording during endoscopy.

METHOD

A prospective multicenter study was performed with the participation of 11 gastrointestinal endoscopic units. Data of pulse oximetric monitoring of 1249 endoscopic investigations were evaluated, of which 1183 were carried out with and 66 without sedation.

RESULTS

Oxygen saturation less than 90% was observed in 239 cases corresponding to 19.1% of all cases. It occurred most often during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (31.2%) and proximal enteroscopy (20%). Procedure-related risk factors proved to be the long duration of the investigation, premedication with pethidine (31.3%), and combined sedoanalgesia with pethidine and midazolam (34.38%). The age over 60 years, obesity, consumption of hypnotics or sedatives, severe cardiopulmonary state, and risk factor scores III and IV of the American Society of Anestwere found as patient-related risk factors.

CONCLUSION

To increase the safety of patients undergoing endoscopic investigation, pulse oximeter and oxygen supplementation should be the standard requirement in all of the endoscopic investigation rooms. Pulse oximetric monitoring is advised routinely during endoscopy with special regard to the risk factors of hypoxemia.

Sedation and monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy

The safe sedation of patients for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures requires a combination of properly trained physicians and suitable facilities. Additionally, appropriate selection and preparation of patients, suitable sedative technique, application of drugs, adequate monitoring, and proper recovery of patients is essential. The goal of procedural sedation is the safe and effective control of pain and anxiety as well as to provide an appropriate degree of memory loss or decreased awareness. Sedation practices for gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) vary widely. The majority of GIE patients are ambulatory cases. Most of this procedure requires a short time. So, short acting, rapid onset drugs with little adverse effects and improved safety profiles are commonly used. The present review focuses on commonly used regimens and monitoring practices in GIE sedation. This article is to discuss the decision making process used to determine appropriate pre-sedation assessment, monitoring, drug selection, dose of sedative agents, sedation endpoint and post-sedation care. It also reviews the current status of sedation and monitoring for GIE procedures in Thailand.

Bispectral index monitoring as an adjunct to nurse-administered combined sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

AIM: To determine whether bispectral index (BIS) monitoring is useful for propofol administration for deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS: Fifty-nine consecutive patients with a variety of reasons for ERCP who underwent the procedure at least twice between 1 July 2010 and 30 November 2010. This was a randomized cross-over study, in which each patient underwent ERCP twice, once with BIS monitoring and once with control monitoring. Whether BIS monitoring was done during the first or second ERCP procedure was random. Patients were intermittently administered a mixed regimen including midazolam, pethidine, and propofol by trained nurses. The nurse used a routine practice to monitor sedation using the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale or the BIS monitoring. The total amount of midazolam and propofol used and serious side effects were compared between the BIS and control groups.

RESULTS: The mean total propofol dose administered was 53.1 ± 32.2 mg in the BIS group and 54.9 ± 30.8 mg in the control group (P = 0.673). The individual propofol dose received per minute during the ERCP procedure was 2.90 ± 1.83 mg/min in the BIS group and 3.44 ± 2.04 mg in the control group (P = 0.103). The median value of the MOAA/S score during the maintenance phase of sedation was comparable for the two groups. The mean BIS values throughout the procedure (from insertion to removal of the endoscope) were 76.5 ± 8.7 for all 59 patients in using the BIS monitor. No significant differences in the frequency of < 80% oxygen saturation, hypotension (< 80 mmHg), or bradycardia (< 50 beats/min) were observed between the two study groups. Four cases of poor cooperation occurred, in which the procedure should be stopped to add the propofol dose. After adding the propofol, the procedure could be conducted successfully (one case in the BIS group, three cases in the control group). The endoscopist rated patient sedation as excellent for all patients in both groups. All patients in both groups rated their level of satisfaction as high (no discomfort). During the post-procedural follow-up in the recovery area, no cases of clinically significant hypoxic episodes were recorded in either group. No other postoperative side effects related to sedation were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION: BIS monitoring trend to slighlty reduce the mean propofol dose. Nurse-administered propofol sedation under the supervision of a gastroenterologist may be considered an alternative under anesthesiologist.

STOP questionnaire to screen for hypoxemia in deep sedation for young and middle-aged colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hypoxemia is the most common unexpected cardiopulmonary complication that is used as a surrogate for severe complications in colonoscopy. The aim of the present study was to access the STOP Questionnaire to screen for hypoxemia in deep sedation for colonoscopy in young and middle-aged outpatients.

METHODS

Outpatients aged 18-65 with ASA class I or II who were to undergo elective colonoscopy with deep sedation were offered participation. Before sedation, the patients were given the STOP Questionnaire, a brief survey that stratifies patients into high or low risk of hypoxemia. Data on pulse oxygen saturation (SpO(2) ) were collected during sedation. Hypoxemia was defined as SpO(2)<95% anytime during the procedure, regardless of episode duration. We estimated the score of the STOP Questionnaire and the incidence of hypoxemia.

RESULTS

A total of 210 consecutive outpatients were offered enrollment. Thirteen (6.2%) patients had hypoxemia. Thirty-two (15.2%) patients were scored to be at high risk of hypoxemia, of whom 10 had hypoxemia. Results of analyzing the STOP Questionnaire for the incidence of hypoxemia were sensitivity 76.9%, specificity 88.8%, Youden's index 0.658, consistency rate 88%, kappa value 0.39, positive predictive value 31.3%, negative predictive value 98.3%, and area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve 0.935 (P<0.001, 95% CI 0.879-0.991).

CONCLUSIONS

STOP Questionnaire is a validated and easy-to-use screening tool for hypoxemia in outpatient colonoscopy. It has high sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value.

Conscious sedation for upper digestive endoscopy performed by endoscopists

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Conscious sedation in the ambulatory setting albeit common is not risk-free. The present study aimed at evaluating the blood pressure, heart rate and peripheral oxygen saturation in patients submitted to conscious sedation for upper digestive endoscopy performed by endoscopists.

METHODS

A total of 105 patients of both sexes were selected, aged 18 and older, physical status ASA I to III, submitted to upper digestive endoscopy under conscious sedation. The patients were monitored through noninvasive blood pressure measurements, pulse oximetry and heart rate recorded before, during and after the examination. The sedation was carried out with midazolam or meperidine.

RESULTS

The variations in oxygen saturation, blood pressure and heart rate throughout time were not statistically significant. However, an incidence of hypoxia of 41.9% was observed; 53.3% of the cases presented arterial hypotension and 25.6% presented tachycardia. Obese patients were more prone to hypoxia and hypotension than those non obese.

CONCLUSIONS

The occurrence of hypoxia and arterial hypotension is common in upper digestive endoscopic examinations under conscious sedation when midazolam and meperidine are associated. Obese patients demonstrated to be more susceptible to hypoxemia and arterial hypotension.

Current nursing models in endoscopy centers

Endoscopic examination and therapy as a special clinical approach can currently be performed in many large general hospitals. With the rapid development and wide utilization of endoscopic techniques in clinical practice, relevant nursing techniques and skills are becoming more complicated. In this article, we discuss the nursing models in endoscopy centers. It seems to be important to adopt centralized and integrated management system in endoscopy centers to protect the rights and interests of patients and guarantee their health and safety.

Optimal sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: review and recommendations

Sedation practices for endoscopy vary widely. The present review focuses on the commonly used regimens in endoscopic sedation and the associated risks and benefits together with the appropriate safety measures and monitoring practices. In addition, alternatives and additions to intravenous sedation are discussed. Personnel requirements for endoscopic sedation are reviewed; there is evidence presented to indicate that non-anesthetists can administer sedative drugs, including propofol, safely and efficaciously in selected cases. The development of endoscopic sedation as a multi-disciplinary field is highlighted with the formation of the Australian Tripartite Endoscopy Sedation Committee. This comprises representatives of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, the Gastroenterological Society of Australia and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Possible future directions in this area are also briefly summarized.