Sedation and Monitoring in the Pediatric Patient during Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Efficacy and safety comparison of esketamine-propofol with nalbuphine-propofol for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in children: a multi-center randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims

Anesthetics such as propofol, esketamine and nalbuphine are used during the upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to achieve and maintain the desired sedation level. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of propofol-nalbuphine and propofol-esketamine in children.

Methods

A multi-centered study was performed at three tertiary class-A hospitals. Children between 3 and 12 years old undergoing diagnostic painless upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were included and randomly divided into esketamine or nalbuphine group to estimate the primary outcome of successful endoscope insertion. The patients were given esketamine 0.5 mg/kg and propofol 2 mg/kg intravenously in esketamine group, with nalbuphine 0.2 mg/kg and propofol 2 mg/kg in the nalbuphine group. The primary outcome was success rate for the first attempt of endoscope insertion in each group. Secondary outcomes included the safety of both anesthesia regimens and gastroenterologist's satisfaction. We used the Face, Leg, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scale to evaluate the level of pain before and during the procedure and the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scale to assess the level of agitation and delirium after awakening from anesthesia.

Results

Among 246 patients, 200 were randomly included in the final intention-to-treat analysis, with 100 patients in each group. The success rate for the first attempt of endoscope insertion in the esketamine group was higher than the nalbuphine group (97% vs. 66%; P < 0.01). The heart rate and mean arterial pressure after intraoperative administration in the esketamine group were higher than those in the nalbuphine group, while the delirium incidence during awakening was higher in esketamine group (all P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The success rate for the first attempt of endoscope insertion of children undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in the esketamine group was higher than the nalbuphine group, propofol-related hemodynamic changes were reduced accordingly, while the incidence of esketamine-related adverse effects could be high.

Clinical Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000040500.

The Evolution of Sedation for Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Sedation for pediatric endoscopy has evolved from an endoscopist-administered component of procedures to an almost entirely anesthesiologist-supported endeavor. Nevertheless, there are no ideal endoscopist or anesthesiologist-administered sedation protocols, and wide practice variation exists in both models. Furthermore, sedation for pediatric endoscopy, whether administered by endoscopists or anesthesiologists, remains the highest risk to patient safety. This underscores the importance of both specialties identifying best sedation practices together that can safeguard patients while maximizing procedural efficiency and minimizing costs. In this review, the authors discuss specific levels of sedation for endoscopy and the risks and benefits of various regimens.

Sedative effect and safety of different doses of S-ketamine in combination with propofol during gastro-duodenoscopy in school-aged children: a prospective, randomized study

Background

Propofol combined with opioids can reduce the dosage of propofol and improve the safety of endoscopy. However, there are few studies on propofol combined with S-ketamine in children undergoing gastro-duodenoscopy. We aim to determine the sedative effect and safety of different doses of S-ketamine in combination with propofol in school-aged children undergoing gastro-duodenoscopy.

Methods

This is a prospective, randomized trial. Totally, 120 school-aged children who underwent gastro-duodenoscopy were randomly allocated into Group P, Group S0.3, Group S0.5 and Group S0.7. During induction, children in Group P, Group S0.3, Group S0.5 and Group S0.7 received 0, 0.3 mg.kg−1, 0.5 mg.kg−1 and 0.7 mg.kg−1 S-ketamine, respectively, following 3 mg.kg−1 propofol injection. During gastro-duodenoscopy, 1 mg.kg−1 of propofol was added according to the condition of the children and the BIS (bispectral index) value. The primary outcome was smooth placement rate of the first endoscope insertion. The secondary outcome was the times of additional propofol, the total amount of propofol, adverse events, recovery time, length of PACU (post anesthesia care unit) stay and endoscopist satisfaction.

Results

The smooth placement rate of the first endoscope insertion in Group P, Group S0.3 and Group S0.5 was significantly lower than that in Group S0.7 (16.70%, 34.50%, 50.00% vs. 83.30%, respectively, P < 0.001). The times of additional propofol in Group S0.3 (P = 0.018), Group S0.5 (P = 0.014) and Group S0.7 (P = 0.001) were significantly less than Group P. The total amount of propofol in Group S0.7 was significantly less than Group P (P < 0.001). The incidence of intraoperative hypotension in Group S0.5 and Group S0.7 was low. Group S0.7 had significantly higher incidence of postoperative dizziness (P = 0.003), longer PACU stay (P = 0.018) and higher endoscopist satisfaction (P = 0.001) than Group P. There was no difference in the recovery time among groups.

Conclusion

S-ketamine (0.7 mg.kg−1) in combination with propofol can provide satisfactory sedative effect and reduce the dosage of propofol in school-aged children undergoing gastro-duodenoscopy, but there are higher incidence of postoperative dizziness and longer PACU stay.

Effects of anxiety on sedation among pediatric patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy

We investigated whether the severity of anxiety among children undergoing endoscopy could affect sedation. We prospectively recruited patients under 18 years of age who were scheduled to undergo esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Baseline anxiety was evaluated using the Spence Children's Anxiety Scale (SCAS). Our analysis considered the type and dose of sedative drugs, degree of sedation, and complications associated with sedation according to the scale score. The mean total SCAS T-scores and each subscale score were significantly higher in the 6-12-year age group. The mean T-score among patients who exhibited irritability during EGD was higher than that among other patients, with significant differences in the Total, Obsessive Disorder, Panic Agoraphobia and General Anxiety subscales. The midazolam doses of children exhibiting irritability were more likely to need higher (p = 0.006). Other sedation-related complications were not associated with the T-scores in each subscale. Total sleep time was not associated with any T-score subscales. Anxiety levels were significantly higher among 6-12-year-olds and children exhibiting irritability. Anxiety was often associated with irritability, difficulties achieving adequate sedation during EGD, and additional sedative drug administration. We recommend higher doses or more potent drugs to facilitate endoscopy for children with high anxiety levels.

Variation in Pediatric Anesthesiologist Sedation Practices for Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Background: Despite a worldwide shift toward anesthesiologist-administered sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in children, ideal sedation regimens remain unclear and best practices undefined. Aim: The aim of our study was to document variation in anesthesiologist-administered sedation for pediatric endoscopy. Outcomes of interest included coefficients of variation, procedural efficiency, as well as adverse events. Methods: IRB approval was obtained to review electronic health records of children undergoing routine endoscopy at our medical center during a recent calendar year. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were used to examine predictors of sedation practices. Results: 258 healthy children [2-21 years (median 15, (Q1-Q3 = 10-17)] underwent either upper and/or lower endoscopies with sedation administered by anesthesiologists (n = 21), using different sedation regimens (29) that ranged from a single drug administered to 6 sedatives in combination. Most patients did not undergo endotracheal tube intubation for the procedure (208, 81%), and received propofol (255, 89%) either alone or in combination with other sedatives. A total of 10 (3.8%) adverse events (9 sedation related) were documented to occur. The coefficient of variation (CV) for sedation times was high at 64.2%, with regression analysis suggesting 8% was unexplained by procedure time. Multivariable model suggested that longer procedure time (p < 0.0001), younger age (p < 0.0001), and use of endotracheal tube intubation (p = 0.02) were associated with longer sedation time. Discussion: We found great variation in anesthesiologist administered regimens for pediatric endoscopy at our institution that may be unwarranted, presenting may opportunities for minimizing patient risk, as well as for optimizing procedural efficiency.

Use of Hypnosis in Paediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Pilot Study

Objectives: Experience of hypnosis in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is scarce in children. Our aims were to assess the rate of successful GI endoscopy performed using hypnosis alone or in combination with midazolam, with or without additional equimolar mixture of oxygen and nitrous oxide (EMONO), and to identify predictive factors of successful endoscopy in children. Methods: This prospective single-centre study included children older than 6 years requiring a diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or rectosigmoidoscopy. Ericksonian hypnosis was performed alone or in combination with midazolam, with or without additional EMONO. Successful endoscopy was defined by a complete and well-tolerated procedure. Levels of satisfaction of the endoscopist, nurse, and patient were assessed. Results: One hundred forty children [70 boys, median age: 12 years (Q1-Q3: 9-14)] were included over a 14-month period. They underwent EGD in 51.4% (n = 72) and rectosigmoidoscopy in 48.6% (n = 68) of cases. EMONO and midazolam were combined with hypnosis in 136 cases (97.1%). Successful endoscopy rate reached 82.9%. The procedure was interrupted due to poor tolerance and was rescheduled under general anaesthesia in 11 patients (7.9%). Predictive factors for successful endoscopy were older age (13 vs. 8 years, OR: 1.34, CI 95% [1.10-1.62], p = 0.003) and type of endoscopy (EGD vs. rectosigmoidoscopy, OR: 16.34 [2.14-124.68], p = 0.007). A good cooperation of the patient was reported by the endoscopist and the nurse in 88.4 and 86.9% of cases, respectively. Ninety-two per cent of patients mentioned that the procedure went well. Conclusions: Our study suggests that hypnosis combined with EMONO and/or midazolam is of additional value to perform diagnostic EGD or rectosigmoidoscopy in children older than 6 years without systematic need for general anaesthesia.

Pediatric Anesthesia Outside the Operating Room: Case Management

Anesthesiology teams care for children in diverse locations, including diagnostic and interventional radiology, gastroenterology and pulmonary endoscopy suites, radiation oncology units, and cardiac catheterization laboratories. To provide safe, high-quality care, anesthesiologists working in these environments must understand the unique environmental and perioperative considerations and risks involved with each remote location and patient population. Once these variables are addressed, anesthesia and procedural teams can coordinate to ensure that patients and families receive the same high-quality care that they have come to expect in the operating room. This article also describes some of the considerations for anesthetic care in outfield locations.

Effects of Sedation Performed by an Anesthesiologist on Pediatric Endoscopy: a Single-Center Retrospective Study in Korea

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy is used for diagnosing and treating various digestive diseases in children as well as in adults. However, in pediatric patients, it is recommended that sufficient sedation should be ensured before conducting endoscopy, since insufficient sedation may cause serious complications. However, in Korea, no studies have yet described the types of sedation drugs, effects of sedation, and efficiency of endoscopy with respect to the sedation instructor. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness of sedative procedures performed by anesthesiologists.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients aged < 18 years who underwent endoscopy during March 2014-July 2019. Data of sedation instructors, sedation drugs and their doses, complications, and the recovery after sedation were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 257 patients, 217 underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and 40 underwent colonoscopies. Before EGD, 29 patients (13.4%) underwent sedation by the pediatric endoscopist and 188 (86.6%) were sedated by the anesthesiologist. The anesthesiologist performed the sedation for all 40 patients who underwent colonoscopy. Endoscopic examinations performed by the anesthesiologist were relatively more time-consuming (401.0 ± 135.1 seconds vs. 274.9 ± 106.1 seconds, P < 0.001). We observed that in patients who underwent EGD, there was a difference in the dose of midazolam administered (P = 0.000). When comparing EGD and colonoscopy in patients undergoing sedation by the anesthesiologist, there were no significant differences in the doses of midazolam and ketamine, but the dose of propofol increased for colonoscopy (2.50 ± 0.95 mg/kg vs. 4.71 ± 1.66 mg/kg, P = 0.000). The cognitive recovery time according to drug dose was associated with propofol only in EGD with a shorter endoscopy time. The longer cognitive recovery time in colonoscopy and the discharge time of EGD and colonoscopies were not associated with propofol use.

CONCLUSION

When sedation is performed by an anesthesiologist, various drugs are used with sufficient doses and complications are reduced, but the discharge time does not change. For performing pediatric endoscopy in Korea, anesthesiologists should be considered for inducing anesthesia.

Outcomes of Non-anesthesiologist-Administered Propofol in Pediatric Gastroenterology Procedures

Background and Aims: Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) has been found to have an acceptable safety profile in adult endoscopy, but its use remains controversial and pediatric data is limited. Our aim was to examine the safety and efficacy of NAAP provided by pediatric hospitalists in pediatric endoscopy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 929 esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, and combined EGD/colonoscopy cases in children aged 5-20 years between April 2015 and December 2016 at a large children's hospital. We analyzed the data for adverse events in relation to demographics and anthropometrics, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical classification score, presence of a trainee, comorbid conditions, and procedure time. Results: A total of 929 cases were included of which 496 (53%) were completed with NAAP. Seventeen (3.4%) of NAAP cases had an adverse event including the following: 12 cases of hypoxia, 2 cardiac, and 3 gastrointestinal adverse events. General anesthesia cases had 62 (14.3%) adverse events including the following: 54 cases of hypoxia, 1 cardiac, 7 gastrointestinal, and 1 urologic adverse event. No adverse events in either group required major resuscitation. NAAP vs. general anesthesia had a lower overall adverse event rate (3.4 vs. 14.3%, p < 0.0004) and respiratory adverse event rate (2.4% vs. 12.5%, p < 0.0004). Overall, cardiac and gastrointestinal adverse event rates between the two groups were comparable. When accounting for all captured factors via logistic regression, both younger age (P < 0.001) and general anesthesia (P < 0.0001) remained risk factors for an adverse event. Conclusion: The overall adverse event rate of NAAP was low (3.4%) with none requiring major resuscitation or hospitalization. This is comparable to studies of NAAP in adult endoscopy and suggests that NAAP provided by pediatric hospitalists has an acceptable safety profile.

Incidence and risk factors for adverse events during monitored anaesthesia care for gastrointestinal endoscopy in children: A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Better understanding of risk factors for adverse events during monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) for paediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy may improve outcome in children.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the prevalence and predictors of adverse events during MAC for paediatric endoscopy.

DESIGN

An observational study.

SETTING

Tertiary university hospital, single-centre cohort, from January 2010 to August 2016.

PATIENTS

The prospectively collected electronic anaesthetic records of 3435 children aged up to 16 years who underwent diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy under MAC were analysed retrospectively. Children with an American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status at least 4, and those requiring mechanical ventilation and therapeutic or urgent endoscopy were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The prevalence and predictors of adverse events during MAC for paediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy, with particular reference to the use of different anaesthetic or sedative agents.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD age of the children was 8.5 ± 4.4 years. The incidences of adverse events and adverse respiratory events were 3.4 and 3.3%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified 12 independent predictors: age [odds ratio (OR) 0.92, P = 0.002], children's size for example underweight (OR 1.78, P = 0.039), overweight (OR 2.20, P = 0.039), (morbid) obesity (OR 4.25, P = 0.006), presence of respiratory comorbidities (OR 8.18, P < 0.001), recent respiratory infection (OR 23.55, P < 0.001) or both (OR 17.46, P < 0.001), neurological comorbidities (OR 2.18, P = 0.007), upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (OR 5.66, P < 0.001), propofol co-administration with ketamine (OR 10.34, P < 0. 001) or after sevoflurane induction (OR 44.95, P < 0.001), and propofol induction dose (OR 18.97, P < 0.001). Posthoc secondary analyses revealed a significantly higher risk of adverse events (OR 3.9, P < 0.0001) and also significantly more respiratory comorbidities and respiratory infections (P < 0.0001) in children aged less than 2 years when compared with children aged at least 2 years. No cardiovascular events were observed and outcome was uneventful.

CONCLUSION

The present cohort demonstrated the feasibility and safety of MAC for paediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy by an experienced team. Although adverse events occurred rarely, their predictive factors were clinically identifiable. Applying this information in risk assessment and modifying anaesthetic management accordingly could improve outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN70362666.

Pediatric Endoscopy and High-risk Patients: A Clinical Report From the NASPGHAN Endoscopy Committee

Pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy has been established as safe and effective for diagnosis and management of many pediatric gastrointestinal diseases. Nevertheless, certain patient and procedure factors should be recognized that increase the risk of intra- and/or postprocedural adverse events (AEs). AEs associated with endoscopic procedures can broadly be categorized as involving sedation-related physiological changes, bleeding, perforation, and infection. Factors which may increase patient risk for such AEs include but are not limited to, cardiopulmonary diseases, anatomical airway or craniofacial abnormalities, compromised intestinal luminal wall integrity, coagulopathies, and compromised immune systems. Examples of high-risk patients include patients with congenital heart disease, craniofacial abnormalities, connective tissues diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and children undergoing treatment for cancer. This clinical report is intended to help guide clinicians stratify patient risks and employ clinical practices that may minimize AEs during and after endoscopy. These include use of CO2 insufflation, endoscopic techniques for maneuvers such as biopsies, and endoscope loop-reduction to mitigate the risk of such complications such as bleeding and intestinal perforation. Endoscopic infection risk and guidance regarding periprocedural antibiotics are also discussed.

The Comparison of Midazolam and Propofol in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Midazolam and propofol are both used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of midazolam versus propofol on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy are included. Two investigators have independently searched for articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials involving 552 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with midazolam sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy, propofol sedation results in higher endoscopist satisfaction scores during gastrointestinal endoscopy than midazolam [standard mean difference (Std. MD)=-0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI)=-1.05 to -0.37; P<0.0001), but the comparison shows no remarkable influence on patient satisfaction scores between midazolam and propofol (Std. MD=-0.34; 95% CI=-0.88 to 0.20; P=0.21), procedure time (Std. MD=0.14; 95% CI=-0.13 to 0.42; P=0.31), hypoxia [risk ratio (RR)=0.86; 95% CI=0.53-1.38; P=0.53), and bradycardia (RR=1.05; 95% CI=0.54-2.06; P=0.89). In addition, propofol shows higher incidence of hypotension than midazolam (RR=0.58; 95% CI=0.34-0.99; P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with midazolam sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, propofol sedation results in higher endoscopist satisfaction scores, but may increase the incidence of hypotension.

Is the education available to anesthetists adequate to provide sedation in endoscopy units?

It is a letter that aims to emphasize the type of sedation that is sometimes used by anesthetists to perform a standard endoscopy and the excessive use of the operating room, which increases the cost of endoscopy and reduces the resources of surgical time.

Sedation in Pediatric Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Pediatric esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has become an established diagnostic and therapeutic modality in pediatric gastroenterology. Effective sedation strategies have been adopted to improve patient tolerance during pediatric EGD. For children, safety is a fundamental consideration during this procedure as they are at a higher risk of severe adverse events from procedural sedation compared to adults. Therefore, a detailed risk evaluation is required prior to the procedure, and practitioners should be aware of the benefits and risks associated with sedation regimens during pediatric EGD. In addition, pediatric advanced life support by endoscopists or immediate intervention by anesthesiologists should be available in the event that severe adverse events occur during pediatric EGD.