Overall Cost Comparison of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures With Endoscopist- or Anesthesia-Supported Sedation by Activity-Based Costing Techniques

A thin cryobiopsy device compatible with transnasal endoscopy for the gastrointestinal tract

Luminal organ biopsies are critical for disease diagnosis and are obtained using single-bite forceps inserted through the working channel of large endoscopes. Procedures using these endoscopes frequently require patient sedation or anesthesia and may not be feasible for use in pediatric patients. Additionally, forceps-derived biopsies can suffer from difficulty maintaining tissue orientation, crush artifacts, and lack of precise control of biopsy depth. The high cost and risks of anesthesia and sedation have driven the development of smaller endoscopes for unsedated procedures. However, reduced endoscope size limits working-channel dimensions, restricting biopsy forceps to sizes that may yield insufficient or nondiagnostic samples. To address these limitations, we developed an image-guided, depth-controlled, ultrasmall-diameter (1.2-millimeters) cryobiopsy device (μCryoProbe). We optimized the coolant flow profile into the device to enhance tissue freezing, optimizing device-tissue contact time and freezing depth. We tested the device for gastrointestinal biopsy collection in ex vivo preclinical tissues, in an in vivo porcine model, and in sedated human participants. Dimensions and quality of mucosal cryobiopsies from esophagus, stomach, and duodenum were compared with those of forceps-derived biopsies, and it was found that the μCryoProbe device consistently produced high-quality biopsies with optimal tissue orientation and no evidence of crush artifacts. We also demonstrated the ability to capture gastrointestinal biopsies from sedated human participants. By capturing large, well-oriented samples using a small-diameter biopsy tool, this technology has the potential to shift procedures from large to small endoscopes, reducing the need for sedation and improving patient diagnosis through the acquisition of tissue samples with better quality.

Adverse events, success, and tolerability of biliary endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with conscious sedation vs anaesthesia: a multi-centre prospective study

Background and Aims

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is performed using anaesthesia or conscious sedation, though the effectiveness, adverse events (AEs), and tolerability of each approach remain unclear. Thus, we compared these approaches prospectively.

Methods

We performed a multi-centre prospective cohort study including patients with native papillae undergoing ERCP for biliary indications between 2018 and 2023. The primary outcome was sedation-related AEs, defined as sustained hypoxaemia or hypotension, unplanned mask ventilation or intubation, vasopressor or reversal agent use, cardiorespiratory arrest, or death. Secondary outcomes included other AEs, technical success measures, and patient-reported tolerability using a validated scale. Multivariable logistic regression was performed in addition to propensity score-matched analyses.

Results

At 8 centres, a total of 3174 first-time biliary ERCPs were performed, 433 (13.6%) employing anaesthesia. Nine sedation-related AEs occurred with conscious sedation (0.3%), while 2 (0.5%) occurred with anaesthesia (odds ratio, OR, 0.35, 0.07-2.37). Only 25 (0.9%) conscious sedation-supported ERCPs were aborted due to the inability to appropriately sedate patients. There were no significant differences in other AE rates, cannulation success, time, or attempts, use of pre-cut or needle-knife access methods, or inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation. Odds of significant patient-reported intra-procedural awareness and discomfort were both higher with conscious sedation (ORs 16.19, 4.81-54.53, and 21.25, 4.44-101.61, respectively). Propensity score-matched analyses yielded no differences in any outcome compared with primary analyses.

Conclusions

Routine biliary ERCP is equally safe and effective with conscious sedation (vs anaesthesia). Given regional resource limitations, conscious sedation is justified as a primary option for routine biliary ERCP.

Outcomes of anesthesia-supported versus endoscopist-driven sedation modalities: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of anesthesia has become commonplace in many procedural settings. The goal of this study is to compare sedation modalities used by endoscopists and anesthesiologists in the endoscopy suite, particularly with respect to recovery time and adverse events.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study including adults (≥18 years of age) undergoing outpatient EGD and/or colonoscopy at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida between October 1st, 2018 and December 31st, 2022. Cases were classified as using propofol only, propofol ± adjuvants (PA; including dexmedetomidine, ketamine, fentanyl, and midazolam), general anesthesia (GA) with endotracheal tube, or fentanyl/midazolam (FM) only. The primary outcome was length of stay (LOS) in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), hypoxemia (Spo2 risk 90%), bradycardia (heart rate <60 bpm), and escalation of care (hospital admission).

RESULTS

The analysis included 56,361 cases. Among patients who received FM sedation, the mean PACU LOS was 52.01, 49.68, and 53.24 minutes for EGD, colonoscopy, and combined procedures, respectively. This was significantly higher than the mean PACU LOS for GA (44.65, 41.41, and 41.92 minutes, respectively), for PA (32.35, 35.75, and 33.42 minutes, respectively), and for propofol (31.63, 32.61, and 33.29 minutes, respectively; P < .0001). Of patients receiving FM, 8.39% experienced bradycardia, 6.12% experienced hypoxia, 0.24% experienced PONV, and 0.05% were hospitalized. These were substantially lower than the rates for other sedation groups, and odds ratios were significantly lower than 1.00 (P < .05) in 30 of 36 comparisons across procedural, sedative, and outcome categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation achieved with FM correlated with a lower rate of adverse events but a significantly longer PACU LOS compared with propofol, PA, or GA.

Deep Learning and Minimally Invasive Endoscopy: Panendoscopic Detection of Pleomorphic Lesions

Introduction

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is a minimally invasive exam suitable of panendoscopic evaluation of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Nevertheless, CE is time-consuming with suboptimal diagnostic yield in the upper GI tract. Convolutional neural networks (CNN) are human brain architecture-based models suitable for image analysis. However, there is no study about their role in capsule panendoscopy.

Methods

Our group developed an artificial intelligence (AI) model for panendoscopic automatic detection of pleomorphic lesions (namely vascular lesions, protuberant lesions, hematic residues, ulcers, and erosions). 355,110 images (6,977 esophageal, 12,918 gastric, 258,443 small bowel, 76,772 colonic) from eight different CE and colon CE (CCE) devices were divided into a training and validation dataset in a patient split design. The model classification was compared to three CE experts' classification. The model's performance was evaluated by its sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the precision-recall curve.

Results

The binary esophagus CNN had a diagnostic accuracy for pleomorphic lesions of 83.6%. The binary gastric CNN identified pleomorphic lesions with a 96.6% accuracy. The undenary small bowel CNN distinguished pleomorphic lesions with different hemorrhagic potentials with 97.6% accuracy. The trinary colonic CNN (detection and differentiation of normal mucosa, pleomorphic lesions, and hematic residues) had 94.9% global accuracy.

Discussion/Conclusion

We developed the first AI model for panendoscopic automatic detection of pleomorphic lesions in both CE and CCE from multiple brands, solving a critical interoperability technological challenge. Deep learning-based tools may change the landscape of minimally invasive capsule panendoscopy.

Baseline Cannabinoid Use Is Associated with Increased Sedation Requirements for Outpatient Endoscopy

Background and Aims: Given the underlying properties of cannabinoids, we aimed to assess associations between cannabinoid use and sedation requirements for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted at three endoscopy units. Adult outpatients undergoing EGD or colonoscopy with endoscopist-directed conscious sedation (EDCS) were given questionnaires on cannabinoid use and relevant parameters. Outcomes included intraprocedural midazolam, fentanyl, and diphenhydramine use, procedural tolerability, and adverse events. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to yield adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of outcomes. Results: A total of 419 patients were included. Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with high midazolam use, defined as ≥5 mg, during EGD (AOR 2.89, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.19-7.50), but not during colonoscopy (AOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41-1.91). Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with the administration of any diphenhydramine during EGD (AOR 3.04, 95% CI: 1.29-7.30) with a similar nonsignificant trend for colonoscopy (AOR 2.36, 95% CI: 0.81-7.04). Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with increased odds of requiring high total sedation, defined as any of midazolam ≥5 mg, fentanyl ≥100 mcg, or any diphenhydramine during EGD (AOR 3.72, 95% CI: 1.35-11.68). Cannabinoid use was not independently associated with fentanyl use, intraprocedural awareness, discomfort, or adverse events. Conclusions: Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with higher sedation use during endoscopy with EDCS, particularly with midazolam and diphenhydramine. Given increasingly widespread cannabinoid use, endoscopists should be equipped with optimal sedation strategies for this population. As part of the informed consent process, cannabis users should be counseled that they may require higher sedation doses to achieve the same effect.

The Future of Minimally Invasive Capsule Panendoscopy: Robotic Precision, Wireless Imaging and AI-Driven Insights

In the early 2000s, the introduction of single-camera wireless capsule endoscopy (CE) redefined small bowel study. Progress continued with the development of double-camera devices, first for the colon and rectum, and then, for panenteric assessment. Advancements continued with magnetic capsule endoscopy (MCE), particularly when assisted by a robotic arm, designed to enhance gastric evaluation. Indeed, as CE provides full visualization of the entire gastrointestinal (GI) tract, a minimally invasive capsule panendoscopy (CPE) could be a feasible alternative, despite its time-consuming nature and learning curve, assuming appropriate bowel cleansing has been carried out. Recent progress in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in the development of convolutional neural networks (CNN) for CE auxiliary reading (detecting and diagnosing), may provide the missing link in fulfilling the goal of establishing the use of panendoscopy, although prospective studies are still needed to validate these models in actual clinical scenarios. Recent CE advancements will be discussed, focusing on the current evidence on CNN developments, and their real-life implementation potential and associated ethical challenges.

Deep Learning and Minimally Invasive Endoscopy: Automatic Classification of Pleomorphic Gastric Lesions in Capsule Endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is a minimally invasive examination for evaluating the gastrointestinal tract. However, its diagnostic yield for detecting gastric lesions is suboptimal. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are artificial intelligence models with great performance for image analysis. Nonetheless, their role in gastric evaluation by wireless CE (WCE) has not been explored.

METHODS

Our group developed a CNN-based algorithm for the automatic classification of pleomorphic gastric lesions, including vascular lesions (angiectasia, varices, and red spots), protruding lesions, ulcers, and erosions. A total of 12,918 gastric images from 3 different CE devices (PillCam Crohn's; PillCam SB3; OMOM HD CE system) were used from the construction of the CNN: 1,407 from protruding lesions; 994 from ulcers and erosions; 822 from vascular lesions; and 2,851 from hematic residues and the remaining images from normal mucosa. The images were divided into a training (split for three-fold cross-validation) and validation data set. The model's output was compared with a consensus classification by 2 WCE-experienced gastroenterologists. The network's performance was evaluated by its sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value, and area under the precision-recall curve.

RESULTS

The trained CNN had a 97.4% sensitivity; 95.9% specificity; and positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 95.0% and 97.8%, respectively, for gastric lesions, with 96.6% overall accuracy. The CNN had an image processing time of 115 images per second.

DISCUSSION

Our group developed, for the first time, a CNN capable of automatically detecting pleomorphic gastric lesions in both small bowel and colon CE devices.

Automated electronic health record-based application for sedation triage in routine colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nearly all routine endoscopy procedures are performed using moderate sedation (MS) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). In this article, we describe how we improved decision-making and decreased practitioners' cognitive burden for choosing between MAC and MS by using patient data in an automated application within the electronic health record (EHR).

METHODS

In our practice, we choose between MS or MAC for routine GI procedures according to written anesthesia-use guidelines and practitioner preferences. To expedite our decision-making for MS versus MAC, we developed an Excel (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Wash, USA)-based tool from patient demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, and medication use extracted from the EHR. The data points from Excel were then implemented in the automated application in the EHR to predict the type of sedation for GI procedures.

RESULTS

Before use of the new application, nurses spent an average of 4 minutes and gastroenterology practitioners spent 5 minutes reviewing the EHR to determine the appropriate sedation (MS or MAC). After the application was implemented, the use of MS substantially increased. Time spent reviewing the EHR was reduced to 2 minutes. The rate of adverse events for MS (.5%) versus MAC (.6%) was comparable and low overall.

CONCLUSIONS

The EHR-based application, which automates and standardizes determination of sedation type, is a highly beneficial tool that eliminates subjectivity in decision-making, thus allowing for appropriate use of MAC. Adverse event rates and sedation failure did not increase with use of the application. With the increased use of MS over MAC, healthcare costs for the more-expensive MAC sedation should also decrease.

Can Remimazolam Be a New Sedative Option for Outpatients Undergoing Ambulatory Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery?

PURPOSE

Midazolam is a classic sedative drug. The sedative effect of remimazolam has not been demonstrated in ambulatory oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS). This study aimed to measure whether remimazolam can achieve the same sedation effects compared with midazolam, but with a faster recovery and fewer adverse reactions in outpatients undergoing ambulatory OMS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center study of 40 patients who underwent ambulatory OMS at Peking University Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China, between April 2021 and June 2021. The patients were randomly divided into a midazolam group (Group M) and a remimazolam group (Group R). The success rate of sedation, which was defined as completion of the operation with no rescue sedative medication, was the primary outcome. In this study, bispectral index and modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation value, intraoperative adverse events, time to discharge, and the number of additional doses of sedative were compared. Descriptive, comparative analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Forty patients were eligible for this study, and the final sample size was 40 (including 25 males, average age was 29). The success rate of sedation in Group R was statistically significantly higher than that in Group M (Group R vs Group M: 95% [19/20] vs 70% [14/20], P = .037, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.681 to 0.913). The median number of additional doses of the medications per 5 minutes in Group R was lower than that in Group M (0.51 [0.19, 0.71] vs 0.82 [0.51, 1.25], P = .006, 95% CI: 0.013 to 0.583). Group R showed a higher bispectral index number (93.9 ± 4.6 vs 86.6 ± 7.2, P = .001, 95% CI: 3.451 to 11.149) at the end of the surgery and a higher modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score (4.70 ± 0.47 vs 4.05 ± 0.68, P = .001, 95% CI: 0.273 to 1.027) after 5 minutes at the recovery room compared with Group M.

CONCLUSIONS

The success rate of remimazolam is higher than that of midazolam. The use of remimazolam is effective for sedation of patients undergoing ambulatory OMS.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam for procedural sedation during ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block and rectus sheath block in patients undergoing abdominal tumor surgery: a single-center randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To explore the efficacy and safety of remimazolam for procedural sedation during ultrasound-guided nerve block administration in patients undergoing abdominal tumor surgery, in order to improve and optimize remimazolam use in procedural sedation and clinical anesthesia.

METHODS

The enrolled patients were randomly divided into three groups: 50 patients in the remimazolam group (R group), 50 patients in the dexmedetomidine group (D group), and 50 patients in the midazolam group (M group). Before administering an ultrasound-guided nerve block, all patients received sufentanil AND remimazolam or midazolam or dexmedetomidine. Remimazolam 5 mg was administered intravenously in group R, dexmedetomidine 0.6 µg/kg was administered intravenously in group D, and midazolam 0.025 mg/kg was administered intravenously in group M. Sedation was evaluated by the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scale.When the Modified Observer's Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score was ≤ 2, block operation was started. If the target sedation level was not reached, rescue sedatives of remimazolam 2.5 mg may be intravenously given in group R, dexmedetomidine 0.4 µg/kg be intravenously given in group D, 0.01 mg/kg midazolam may be intravenously given in Group M. Hemodynamic indicators (systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate), pulse oxygen saturation, depth of anesthesia (Narcotrend), MOAA/S,and the incidences of hypoxemia, injection pain, bradycardia and requirement for rescue sedatives were monitored and recorded.

RESULTS

Compared with the control groups (midazolam and dexmedetomidine groups), the Narcotrend index and MOAA/S decreased more in the remimazolam group (P < 0.01). Compared with the control groups, the incidence of hypoxemia and injection pain was slightly higher in the remimazolam group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Compared with the dexmedetomidine group, the incidence of bradycardia was significantly lower in the remimazolam group.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam can be used safely for procedural sedation during ultrasound-guided nerve block administration in patients undergoing abdominal tumor surgery. The sedation effect is better than that with either midazolam or dexmedetomidine, and sedation can be achieved quickly without obvious hemodynamic fluctuations. Remimazolam is associated with better heart rate stability, and slightly higher incidences of hypoxemia and injection pain than are midazolam and dexmedetomidine (no statistically significant difference). The higher incidence of hypoxemia with remimazolam may be related to enhanced sufentanil opioid analgesia, and the mechanism of injection pain with remimazolam must be studied further and clarified.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Anhui Provincial Cancer Hospital (Ethical Review 2021, No. 23) and registered at https://www.chictr.org.cn  (ChiCTR2000035388). The pre-registration time of this experiment is 09/08/2020, due to ethical committee of the hospital met irregularly,the ethical approval time is 21/06/2021. The recruitment of patients began after the ethical approval (21/06/2021) and registration update (06/07/2021).The study protocol followed the CONSORT guidelines. The study protocol was performed in the relevant guidelines.

Remimazolam: A Review in Procedural Sedation

Remimazolam (Byfavo™) is a benzodiazepine sedative that is indicated for the induction and maintenance of procedural sedation in adults. Remimazolam was efficacious in three phase III trials in patients requiring endoscopies. Significantly higher procedure success rates (composite of the completion of the procedure, top-up doses of study drug within predefined limits and no requirement for rescue therapy) were observed with remimazolam than with placebo, with the majority of placebo recipients requiring rescue midazolam. Furthermore, remimazolam significantly reduced times to onset of sedation and recovery in comparison with placebo (plus rescue). Remimazolam is generally well tolerated, with hypotension and hypertension the most common adverse drug reactions. Higher doses of concomitant fentanyl with remimazolam may increase the incidence of adverse drug reactions and deep sedation events. However, no correlation was observed between depth of sedation and vital signs. In summary, remimazolam is a useful option for the induction and maintenance of procedural sedation. Although pharmacoeconomic analyses for remimazolam are not yet available, the rapid induction of sedation and short recovery times with remimazolam may be beneficial in improving patient throughput in clinics.

Value of biopsy in a cohort of children with high-titer celiac serologies: observation of dynamic policy differences between Europe and North America

Background

Healthcare systems implement change at different rates because of differences in incentives, organizational processes, key influencers, and management styles. A comparable set of forces may play out at the national and international levels as demonstrated in significant differences in the diagnostic management of pediatric Celiac Disease (CD) between European and North American practitioners.

Methods

We use retrospective clinical cohorts of 27,868 serum tissue transglutaminase (tTG) immunoglobulin A levels and 7907 upper gastrointestinal endoscopy pathology reports to create a dataset of 793 pathology reports with matching tTG results between July 1 of 2014 and July 1 of 2018. We use this dataset to characterize histopathological findings in the duodenum, stomach and esophagus of patients as a function of serum tTG levels. In addition, we use the dataset to estimate the local and national cost of endoscopies performed in patients with serum tTG levels greater than 10 times the upper limit of normal.

Results

Using evidence from a US tertiary care center, we show that in the cohort of pediatric patients with high pre-test probability of CD as determined by serum tTG levels, biopsy provides no additional diagnostic value for CD, and that it counter-intuitively introduces diagnostic uncertainty in a number of patients. We estimate that using the European diagnostic algorithms could avoid between 4891 and 7738 pediatric endoscopies per year in the US for evaluation of CD.

Conclusions

This study considers the North American and European management guidelines for the diagnosis of pediatric CD and highlights the slow adoption in North America of evidence-based algorithms developed and applied in Europe for triage of endoscopy and biopsy. We suggest that system dynamics influences that help maintain the status quo in North America include a variety of social and economic factors in addition to medical evidence. This work contributes to the growing body of evidence that the dynamics that largely favor maintaining status quo management policies in a variety of systems extend to clinical medicine and potentially influence clinical decisions at the level of individual patients and the population.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12913-020-05815-0.

Process Mapping and Activity-Based Costing of the Intravitreal Injection Procedure

PURPOSE/AIM OF THE STUDY

To quantify the cost of performing an intravitreal injection (IVI) utilizing activity-based costing (ABC), which allocates a cost to each resource involved in a manufacturing process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, observational cohort study was performed at an urban, multi-specialty ophthalmology practice affiliated with an academic institution. Fourteen patients scheduled for an IVI-only visit with a retina ophthalmologist were observed from clinic entry to exit to create a process map of time and resource utilization. Indirect costs were allocated with ABC and direct costs were estimated based on process map observations, internal accounting records, employee interviews, and nationally-reported metrics. The primary outcome measure was the cost of an IVI procedure in United States dollars. Secondary outcomes included operating income (cost subtracted from revenue) of an IVI and patient-centric time utilization for an IVI.

RESULTS

The total cost of performing an IVI was $128.28; average direct material, direct labor, and overhead costs were $2.14, $97.88, and $28.26, respectively. Compared to the $104.40 reimbursement set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for Current Procedural Terminology code 67028, this results in a negative operating income of -$23.88 (-22.87%). The median clinic resource-utilizing time to complete an IVI was 32:58 minutes (range [19:24-1:28:37]); the greatest bottleneck was physician-driven electronic health record documentation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides an objective and accurate cost estimate of the IVI procedure and illustrates how ABC may be applied in a clinical context. Our findings suggest that IVIs may currently be undervalued by payors.

Colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy for follow-up of patients with left-sided diverticulitis

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of diverticular disease has been increasing in the western world over the last few decades, causing a growing burden on health care systems. This study compared the uses of flexible sigmoidoscopy with colonoscopy as a follow-up investigation for patients diagnosed with acute left-sided diverticulitis and to evaluate the need for using either procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of 327 patients diagnosed with acute diverticulitis was carried out. Of this total, 240 patients with left-sided diverticulitis diagnosed via computed tomography were included. These patients were categorised into two equal groups: the first 120 patients underwent colonoscopy and the second 120 patients underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy.

RESULTS

All colonoscopes and flexible sigmoidoscopes confirmed the computed tomography diagnosis of sigmoid diverticular disease with no major new findings. All colonoscopes and flexible sigmoidoscopes were reported as having no complications, with nine colonoscopes reported as being difficult compared with only three flexible sigmoidoscopes. All biopsies were reported as no malignancy. Full bowel preparation was required in all colonoscopes, compared with no preparation required for flexible sigmoidoscopes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support the routine use of endoscopic evaluation after an episode of left-sided diverticulitis diagnosed on computed tomography if no worrying radiological findings have been reported. This study supports similar findings from other studies and therefore we disagree with The Royal College of Surgeons of England (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland recommendations) commissioning guide, which advocates routine surveillance of the colon.

Deep sedation and anaesthesia in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy: a joint position statement endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Advisory Group (JAG) and Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA)

In the UK, more than 2.5 million endoscopic procedures are carried out each year. Most are performed under conscious sedation with benzodiazepines and opioids administered by the endoscopist. However, in prolonged and complex procedures, this form of sedation may provide inadequate patient comfort or result in oversedation. As a result, this may have a negative impact on procedural success and patient outcome. In addition, there have been safety concerns on the high doses of benzodiazepines and opioids used particularly in prolonged and complex procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy has evolved rapidly over the past 5 years with advances in technical skills and equipment allowing interventions and procedural capabilities that are moving closer to minimally invasive endoscopic surgery. It is vital that safe and appropriate sedation practices follow the inevitable expansion of this portfolio to accommodate safe and high-quality clinical outcomes. This position statement outlines the current use of sedation in the UK and highlights the role for anaesthetist-led deep sedation practice with a focus on propofol sedation although the choice of sedative or anaesthetic agent is ultimately the choice of the anaesthetist. It outlines the indication for deep sedation and anaesthesia, patient selection and assessment and procedural details. It considers the setup for a deep sedation and anaesthesia list, including the equipment required, the environment, staffing and monitoring requirements. Considerations for different endoscopic procedures in both emergency and elective setting are also detailed. The role for training, audit, compliance and future developments are discussed.