Guidelines for the use of deep sedation and anesthesia for GI endoscopy

Effects of adding low-dose esketamine to sufentanil and propofol sedation during cervical conization: a single-centre, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cervical conization is a brief but painful procedure that can be performed under sufficient sedation with propofol and opioids. However, this sedation approach comes with a high risk of sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs). Esketamine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, causes less cardiorespiratory depression than opioids. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of adding a low dose of esketamine to propofol and sufentanil sedation as an opioid-reduced regimen.

METHODS

A total of 122 consecutive patients with ASA I-II, body mass index < 30, and STOP-BANG score < 3 who underwent cervical conization were enrolled and randomly divided into Group S and Group ES. Using a closed-loop target-controlled infusion (TCI) pump with a target bispectral index (BIS) value of 60 ± 5, patients in Group S were sedated with 0.2 mcg·kg-1 sufentanil and propofol, while patients in Group ES were sedated with 0.15 mg·kg-1 esketamine, 0.1 mcg·kg-1 sufentanil and propofol. The primary outcome was the incidence and severity of SRAEs, while the secondary outcomes included effectiveness of sedation, awakening time, psychotomimetic side effects, postoperative pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and patient and gynaecologist satisfaction.

RESULTS

Data from 120 patients were analysed. The incidence of composite SRAEs was significantly higher in Group S than in Group ES (85.0% vs. 56.7%, P < 0.05). Furthermore, the severity of SRAEs was higher in Group S than in Group ES (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the effectiveness of sedation, awakening time, psychotomimetic side effects, postoperative pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, or patient and gynaecologist satisfaction between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Adding low-dose esketamine to propofol and sufentanil sedation reduces the incidence and severity of SRAEs in patients undergoing cervical conization, with equal sedation efficacy, recovery quality, and no additional psychomimetic side effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2000040457 , 28/11/2020.

Ultrasonographic Assessment of Gastric Volume in Fasted Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Under Sedation

Purpose

In this prospective observational study, an ultrasonographic measurement of antral cross-sectional area (ACSA) was conducted to evaluate the gastric content and volume as well as to identify high-risk stomach in non-pregnant adult surgical patients adhering to preanesthetic fasting guidelines.

Patients and Methods

Fasted patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy under sedation were included. Ultrasonographic measurements of ACSA were conducted in both semi-recumbent and right lateral decubitus positions before endoscopic procedures. Gastroscopy was employed to guide the measurement of suctioned gastric volume (GV). Ultrasonography was performed to assess gastric contents and identify patients with high-risk stomach. The relationship between ACSA and suctioned GV was also evaluated.

Results

ACSA was evaluated in 736 out of 782 patients. A significant positive correlation was discovered between ACSA in the right lateral decubitus position and suctioned GV, which was more reliable than in the semi-recumbent position. To analyze high-risk stomach with a GV > 100 mL, the cutoff value of ACSA in the right lateral decubitus was found to be 7.5 cm2, with the AUC, sensitivity and specificity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.82; P<0.001), 82.4% and 67.3%, respectively. A novel mathematical model based on ACSA to estimate GV in non-pregnant fasted adults was presented.

Conclusion

Ultrasonographic measurement of ACSA can assist anesthesiologists in estimating the risk of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents during general anesthesia and sedation.

Ketamine and dexmedetomidine (Keto-dex) or ketamine and propofol (Keto-fol) for procedural sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Which is safer? A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Optimum procedural sedation is very essential for conducting non-operating room procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The combination of ketamine and dexmedetomidine (KD) is expected to balance out the undesirable effects of either drug and provide smooth sedation. Together ketamine and propofol (KP) also provide synergistic sedation with stable hemodynamics. This prospective, single-blinded randomized study aimed to compare the effect of both the combinations during ERCP in terms of oxygen desaturation, respiratory depression, hemodynamic parameters, analgesia, recovery time, and ease with which the endoscopist could perform the endoscopy.

METHODS

This prospective, single-blinded randomized study (CTRI/2019/08/020625) was conducted on 84, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status I or II patients, of age 18-65 years presenting for ERCP in a tertiary care center. They were randomized to receive either KD (n=42) or KP (n=42) combination during ERCP. Mean SPO₂ at the end of the procedure was compared between the groups. Apart from these periprocedural hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, pain scores on arrival in the recovery room (t0), 15 minutes (t15), and 30 minutes (t30), recovery time, and endoscopist's satisfaction as per a Likert's scale were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean SpO₂ (SpO₂ recorded every minute during the procedure and averaged over procedure time in minutes) in group KP (97.7 [96.1-98.6]) was significantly lower than group KD (98.5 [98.1-98.8]) (p=0.005). The post-procedure pain scores measured at t0 and t15 were higher in group KP (p<0.001 and p=0.043), and comparable at t30 in both the groups (p=0.711). The time to achieve Modified Aldrete score (MAS) ≥ 9 was significantly more in group KD (p<0.001). The lowest mean arterial pressure and heart rate in group KD were significantly lower than in group KP (p<0.001, p=0.006, respectively). The overall endoscopist satisfaction was better in group KP compared to group KD (p= 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of ketamine-dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation during ERCP is a safe alternative to ketamine-propofol with a better respiratory profile.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER AND REGISTRY URL

CTRI/2019/08/020625 ( www.ctri.nic.in ).

Comparison Effects of Propofol-Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol-Remifentanil for Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial

Objective. To compare the effects of propofol-dexmedetomidine versus propofol-remifentanil for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). Design, Setting, and Participants. A single-center, randomized trial from August 20, 2020 to August 20, 2021, in patients undergoing EUS. Interventions. Propofol-dexmedetomidine (PD) versus propofol-remifentanil (PR). Outcome Measures. The primary outcome was the endoscopist satisfaction level. The secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, the incidence of adverse events, induction time, and time to achieve postanesthesia discharge score (PADS) ≥9. Methods. Total of 200 patients were enrolled and randomized into PD and PR groups. A bolus dose of 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine was injected intravenously for 5 min. Subsequently, a continuous infusion of 0.5 μg/kg/h for the PD group. Remifentanil was continuously infused at 1.5 μg/kg/h for the PR group. A bolus dose of 1 mg/kg propofol was administered to both groups and then continuously infused. Results. The endoscopist satisfaction level was higher in the PR group than in the PD group ( $P=0.009$ ). Patient satisfaction was not significantly different between the groups ( $P=0.738$ ). No patients required mask ventilation or tracheal intubation in both groups. All patients were relatively hemodynamically stable. The incidence of body movements during the procedure in the PD group was higher than in the PR group ( $P=0.035$ ). The induction time and time taken to achieve PADS ≥9 in the PD group were longer than in the PR group ( $P<0.05$ ). Conclusions. PR sedation can increase the satisfaction level of the endoscopist by providing faster induction time and lower body movement and that of the patient by achieving faster PADS than PD sedation. Trial registration number: http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000034987).

Multimodal treatments of “gallstone cholangiopancreatitis”

Gallstone cholangiopancreatitis is a potentially life-threatening pathology which requires quick intervention involving endoscopists, interventional radiologists, anesthesiologists and surgeons in relation to clinical conditions. Treatment possibilities are varied, especially with current progress in advanced endoscopy, interventional radiology, and minimally invasive surgery. The following treatments are available: endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) with stone extraction followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy; simultaneous endoscopic stone extraction with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (rendezvous technique); combined laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct (CBD) exploration; open CBD exploration; ES post-cholecystectomy; percutaneous placement of biliary drains for unstable patients, followed by percutaneous cholangioscopy; and lithotripsy with different approaches, including a laser and balloon dilation of the sphincter of Oddi. Each technique has its strengths and weaknesses, and there is great discussion in the literature on choosing the ideal approach based on the patient’s clinical conditions.

The median effective concentration of propofol with different doses of esketamine during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: A randomized controlled trial

AIMS

Propofol may result in hypotension, bradycardia and loss of protective reflexes, especially in elderly patients, while esketamine, a N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, has analgesic, anaesthetic and sympathomimetic properties and is known to cause less cardiorespiratory depression. We hypothesized that esketamine may reduce the median effective concentration (EC₅₀ ) of propofol and coadministration is less likely to produce hypotension during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients.

METHODS

Ninety elderly patients, aged 65-89 years, undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly assigned into 3 groups: SK0 (control) group (0 mg/kg esketamine); SK0.25 group (0.25 mg/kg esketamine); and SK0.5 group (0.5 mg/kg esketamine). Anaesthesia was achieved by plasma target-controlled infusion of propofol with different bolus doses of esketamine. The EC₅₀ of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy was determined by using the up-and-down method of Dixon. The initial plasma target concentration is 2.5 μg/mL and the adjacent concentration gradient is 0.5 μg/mL. Cardiovascular variables were also measured.

RESULTS

Propofol EC₅₀ s and its 95% confidence interval for gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients were 3.69 (2.59-4.78), 2.45 (1.85-3.05) and 1.71 (1.15-2.27) μg/mL in the SK0, SK0.25 and SK0.5 groups, respectively (P < .05). The average percent change from baseline mean arterial pressure was -19.7 (7.55), -15.2 (7.14) and -10.1 (6.73), in the SK0, SK0.25 and SK0.5 groups, respectively (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Combination medication of propofol with esketamine reduced the propofol EC₅₀ during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients compared with administration of propofol without esketamine. Increasing doses of SK with propofol are less likely to produce hypotension with shorter recovery time.

A plea for a unified approach to sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy in Romania: results from a prospective multicentric trial

Background. Adequate sedation is a prerequisite for quality endoscopic examination of the digestive tract. We aimed to evaluate the current practices and safety profile of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Romania and its impact on the technical success of the procedure and procedure-related adverse events.

Methods. We conducted a prospective, multicentric, observational study including all patients undergoing digestive endoscopic procedures under various degrees of sedation. We collected data regarding the endoscopic procedure, type and degree of sedation, drug regimens, personnel in charge of sedation, and relevant patient related information. The main study outcome was the rate of sedation-related adverse events; secondary study outcomes included procedure-related adverse events and the impact of sedation on procedure success.

Results. 1,043 consecutive endoscopic procedures from eight Romanian endoscopy units were included in our study. Sedation regimens were highly variable between participating centers, with 566 (54%) of procedures being performed under sedation provided by an anaesthesiologist. Sedation-related adverse events occurred in 40 cases (3.8%), most of them were mild respiratory and cardiovascular events and all reversed spontaneously.

On multivariate analysis, male gender, procedure type (endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) and deep sedation were risk factors for complications. The endoscopy unit, ASA status, age and type of sedative did not influence the complication rate.

Conclusion. In conclusion, sedation for endoscopic procedures is generally safe, despite a high variability in sedation practices between centers in Romania. Establishing a national guideline on sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy will ensure consistent and safe practice for these procedures.

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.

Neurologic Safety of Etomidate-Based Sedation during Upper Endoscopy in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis Compared with Propofol: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

(1) Background: Although etomidate-based sedation is an effective and safe protocol in endoscopic procedures, there is a lack of evidence regarding the safety of etomidate in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC). This study aimed to compare the neurologic safety and efficacy of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation in patients with LC. (2) Methods: From December 2017 to December 2019, consecutive cirrhotic patients who underwent sedative endoscopy using either etomidate or propofol were randomly recruited. The primary endpoint was the number connection test (NCT), and the secondary endpoints included factors for the safety of sedatives during endoscopy. (3) Results: 63 patients were enrolled in each of the etomidate and propofol groups. The NCT times were significantly lower in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. Furthermore, severe or very severe degree of encephalopathy was higher in the propofol group but was not significantly different. Pharmacological properties and the overall incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between the groups. (4) Conclusion: Etomidate-based sedation exacerbates neither subclinical nor overt hepatic encephalopathy. It guarantees efficacies similar to those of propofol regarding rapid sedation, fast recovery, and early discharge, with no increased risk of adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events in patients with LC.

Safety and Efficacy of Moderate Sedation in Super Obese Patients Undergoing Lower and Upper GI Endoscopy: a Case-Control Study

PURPOSE

Obesity is a disease of increasing prevalence. There is minimal research on the safety of sedation for general endoscopic procedures among super obese patients (BMI ≥ 50). The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety of moderate sedation and endoscopic procedural outcomes for super obese patients in a case-control study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We completed an age and sex-matched case-control study comparing 132 super obese patients with 132 non-obese controls. We assessed intra-procedure adverse events, delayed adverse events, doses of sedation medication used, and procedure duration at a tertiary care setting.

RESULTS

The mean BMI for the obese cohort was 55.6 compared with 22.5 for the controls (P < 0.001). The mean intra-procedure fentanyl and midazolam dose was higher for the obese patients compared with the controls, fentanyl 180 mcg, midazolam 7.7 mg vs fentanyl 148 mcg, midazolam 6.4 mg, respectively (P < 0.001). There was a significantly higher percentage of brief intra-procedure hypoxia (oxygen blood saturation < 90%) for the obese patients compared with the controls, 5% vs 0% (P = 0.02). There was no difference in delayed adverse events with 2% of the cases and 2% of the controls having delayed adverse events (P = 1.0). Procedure completion rates were 100% for both cases and controls.

CONCLUSION

General endoscopic procedures can be safely and effectively performed in super obese patients with moderate sedation. Brief intra-procedure hypoxia more commonly occurs in super obese patients, and higher medication doses are required.

Effectiveness and safety of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: An opinion review

Although endoscopy is a less invasive procedure than surgery, patients can experience pain without sedation. Patients expect reduced pain during endoscopies from effective and safe sedatives. Midazolam and propofol are used for endoscopic sedation in many countries and regions. Midazolam is a widely available benzodiazepine, and many clinical trials have shown it to be an effective sedative. However, patients who are sedated with midazolam require rest in the recovery room due to its relatively long half-life, and an antagonist such as flumazenil may need to be administered in cases of deep or prolonged sedation. Propofol is a short-acting sedative with a short half-life and a quick recovery time. Therefore, the use of propofol has been increasing. However, propofol has a narrow margin of safety and often induces adverse effects such as respiratory depression. Also, propofol has no specific antagonist, and should be administered by an anesthesiologist or an endoscopist familiar with anesthesia. Remimazolam, which is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, has recently gained attention. Remimazolam has a short half-life and an antagonist. Both effective and safe sedation is desired in accordance with the increasing need for sedative endoscopies. Therefore, in this review each sedative is summarized.

Evaluation of Different Sedatives for Colonoscopy

Background & Aims:

Sedation and analgesia are important elements of endoscopic examinations; sedation for colonoscopy aims to relieve patient discomfort and anxiety, improve the outcome of the examination, diminish the patient’s memory of the event and achieve comfortable and technically successful endoscopic procedure.

Methods:

Our prospective study was carried out on 150 patients who were referred for colonoscopy; they were divided into two groups based on the pre-endoscopic sedation given for them: propofol fentanyl or propofol ketamine. Detailed histories, thorough physical examinations, and routine laboratory investigations were performed for all patients, along with monitoring of their vital signs and oxygen saturation levels (before, during and after colonoscopy), to assess safety, efficacy, recovery times, complications of the sedative drugs, comfort of the patients and endoscopists.

Results:

There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, sex and Body Mass Indexes (BMI). With respect to their Mean Arterial Blood Pressures (MAPs) and heart rates, there was high hemodynamic stability in the propofol ketamine group, and both the groups were efficacious, although the propofol fentanyl group had shorter recovery times than the propofol ketamine group (3±1.7 minutes and 4±2.8 minutes, respectively). However, nausea, vomiting and hypoxia were common in the propofol fentanyl group, while hallucinations were common in the propofol ketamine group. In propofol fentanyl group; there was a significant decrease in the heart rate more common in females (with age range 39-58 years) during and after colonoscopy [p value 0.01].

Conclusion:

Sedation with propofol ketamine during colonoscopy was found to be safe and efficacious to achieve hemodynamic stability with fewer complications than propofol fentanyl.

Randomised Study Comparing the use of Propofol Versus Dexmedetomidine as a Sedative Agent for Patients Presenting for Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Objectives::

Dexmedetomidine, the alpha 2 agonist sedative and an analgesic agent may be beneficial in sedation for endoscopic intervention. Our aim was to compare the use of dexmedetomidine versus the traditional use of propofol as a sedative agent for colonoscopies.

Methods::

This study included 100 patients presenting for elective colonoscopy under sedation with random and equal allocation of patients into two groups; group P, in which patients received propofol in a loading dose of 1.5 mg/kg and maintenance dose of 0.5 mg/kg/hr, and group D, in which patients received dexmedetomidine at a loading dose of 1ug/kg and maintenance dose of 0.5 ug/kg/hr. In addition to the demographic data, time to recovery, time of discharge, and endoscopist rating were measured. Also, the hemodynamic parameters were recorded, and also the incidence of postoperative complications.

Results::

The basic patients' characteristics, time to recovery, and time of discharge were comparable between the two groups. Moreover, the endoscopist did not significantly report more convenient procedure with one group over the other. Also, there was no significant difference in hemodynamic parameters or in the incidence of complications between the two studied groups. However the use of dexmedetomidine decreased the incidence of hypoxemia.

Conclusion::

The use of dexmedetomidine seems to have a similar effect to the use of propofol as a sedative agent for lower GIT endoscopy with the positive effect of dexmedetomidine in decreasing the incidence of perioperative hypoxemia.

[Medical Dispute Related to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Complications: Prevention and Management]

Because gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy examinations are being performed increasingly frequently, the rate of detection of cancer and of precancerous lesions has increased. Moreover, development of more advanced endoscopic technologies has expanded the indications for, and thus frequency of, therapeutic endoscopic procedures. However, the incidence of complications associated with diagnostic or therapeutic GI endoscopy has also increased. The complications associated with GI endoscopy can be ameliorated by endoscopic or conservative treatment, but caution is needed as some of the more serious complications, such as perforation, can lead to death. In this chapter, we review the possible complications of GI endoscopy and discuss methods for their prevention and treatment.

The Influence of Adding Diphenhydramine Before Initiation of Moderate Sedation with Midazolam and Pethidine for Improving Quality of Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Combination of Intravenous benzodiazepines with opiates appears to be essential in order to guarantee high quality of moderate sedation during colonoscopy. Diphenhydramine is recommended for endoscopic procedures in difficult-to-sedate patients However, the studies supporting its use have yielded conflicting results.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the value of adding diphenhydramine hydrochloride before initiation of moderate sedation with midazolam and pethidine for Improving Quality of Sedation during colonoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 150 Patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. Of 150 patients, data were analyzed for 100 patients randomized into two groups: Diphenhydramine group (n = 53) received 50 mg of diphenhydramine intravenously before initiation of moderate sedation with pethidine and midazolam while in placebo group (n = 47) received placebo in addition to pethidine and midazolam. Amount of pethidine and midazolam used and Quality of sedation were assessed.

RESULTS

The mean doses of pethidine was significantly higher in placebo group as compared to diphenhydramine group (69.9 ± 35.4 mg vs 61.2 ± 21.0 mg, p < 0.01) However, no significant difference between the two groups regarding midazolam mean dose (4.9.±2.1 mg vs 4.8 ± 2.0 mg,p = 0.786). More patients in diphenhydramine group were being very satisfied with the procedure as compared to those in placebo group (88.67% vs 59.57%,p < 0.001).Furthermore more endoscopist in diphenhydramine group were being very satisfied with the procedure as compared to those in placebo group (77.35% vs 51.06%,p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous diphenhydramine hydrochloride given before initiation of midazolam and pethidine offers a significant Improvement of Quality of moderate Sedation during colonoscopy without increasing the number of sedation related complications.

Discharge Readiness after Propofol with or without Dexmedetomidine for Colonoscopy

Editor’s Perspective

What We Already Know about This Topic

What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Background

Enhanced recovery protocols employ various approaches to minimize detrimental side effects of anesthetizing agents. The authors tested the hypothesis that adding low-dose dexmedetomidine to propofol for anesthesia in ambulatory colonoscopies, compared with propofol alone, would lower the propofol requirement, improve the intra-procedure hemodynamic state, and not increase time-to-discharge.

Methods

In this noninferiority, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, patients having colonoscopies received total IV anesthesia either with propofol and placebo (n = 50), or propofol and a bolus dose of dexmedetomidine, 0.3 μg/kg (n = 51). Additional propofol was administered to maintain a Bispectral Index score of 60. Following the procedure, readiness for discharge was assessed regularly using the Modified Post Anesthetic Discharge Scoring System until discharge criteria were met. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients meeting discharge criteria within 30 min from procedure end-time.

Results

Twenty-six of 51 (51%) patients receiving propofol-dexmedetomidine were ready for discharge by 30 min from procedure end time, compared with 44 of 50 (88%) receiving propofol (P &lt; 0.001). Propofol consumption was lower in subjects receiving propofol–dexmedetomidine (140 μg · kg-1 · min-1) compared to those receiving propofol (180 μg · kg-1 · min-1) with P = 0.011. The lowest mean arterial pressure decreased further from baseline in those receiving propofol–dexmedetomidine (−30%; mean decrease −30 ±10.5 mmHg) compared to propofol (−21%; mean decrease, −22 ± 14.2 mmHg) with P = 0.003. There was no difference in incidence of bradycardia, with sustained bradycardia occurring in 3 of 51 (6%) patients receiving propofol–dexmedetomidine compared to 1 of 50 (2%) patients receiving propofol (P = 0.62). No apnea episodes requiring positive-pressure ventilation occurred in either group.

Conclusions

For anesthesia in ambulatory colonoscopy, combining low-dose dexmedetomidine with propofol delayed discharge readiness and provoked hypotension compared to propofol alone.

Feasibility of measuring memory response to increasing dexmedetomidine sedation in children

BACKGROUND

The memory effect of dexmedetomidine has not been prospectively evaluated in children. We evaluated the feasibility of measuring memory and sedation responses in children during dexmedetomidine sedation for non-painful radiological imaging studies. Secondarily, we quantified changes in memory in relation to the onset of sedation.

METHODS

A 10 min bolus of dexmedetomidine (2 mcg kg^-1) was given to children as they named simple line drawings every five s. The absence of sedation was identified as any verbal response, regardless of correctness. After recovery, recognition memory was tested with correct Yes/No recognitions (50% novel pictures) and was matched to sedation responses during the bolus period (subsequent memory paradigm).

RESULTS

Of 64 accruals, 30 children (mean [SD]6.1 (1.2) yr, eight male) received dexmedetomidine and completed all study tasks. Individual responses were able to be modelled successfully in the 30 children completing all the study tasks, demonstrating feasibility of this approach. Children had 50% probability of verbal response at five min 40 s after infusion start, whereas 50% probability of subsequent recognition memory occurred sooner at four min five s.

CONCLUSIONS

Quantifying memory and sedation effects during dexmedetomidine infusion in verbal children was possible and demonstrated that memory function was present until shortly before verbal unresponsiveness occurred. This is the first study to investigate the effect of dexmedetomidine on memory in children.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT 02354378.

Dexmedetomidine is safe and reduces the additional dose of midazolam for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in very elderly patients

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) often requires deep sedation. Dexmedetomidine, a highly selective α2-adrenoceptor agonist with sedative activity and minimal effects on respiration, has recently been widely used among patients in the intensive care unit. However, its use in endoscopic procedures in very elderly patients is unclear. In this study, we retrospectively investigated the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine sedation during ERCP.

Methods

The study included 62 very elderly patients (aged over 80 years) who underwent ERCP from January 2014, with sedation involving dexmedetomidine (i.v. infusion at 3.0 μg/kg/h over 10 min followed by continuous infusion at 0.4 μg/kg/h) along with midazolam. For comparison, the study included 78 patients who underwent ERCP before January 2014, with midazolam alone. We considered additional administration of midazolam as needed to maintain a sedation level of 3–4, according to the Ramsay sedation scale. The outcome measures were amount of midazolam, adverse events associated with sedation, and hemodynamics.

Results

The incidence of decreased SpO₂ and median dose of additional midazolam were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the conventional group. The minimum systolic blood pressure and minimum heart rate during and after examination was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the conventional group. However, serious acute heart failure or arrhythmia was not noted.

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine can decrease the incidence of respiratory complications and the total dose of other sedative agents. It can be used as an alternative to conventional methods with midazolam for adequate sedation during ERCP in very elderly patients.

Propofol is a more effective and safer sedative agent than midazolam in endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of sedation during endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) for esophageal varices (EVs) in patients with liver cirrhosis remains unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety between propofol- and midazolam-based sedation for EIS.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with EVs were prospectively and randomly assigned to midazolam-based (Midazolam group) or propofol-based (Propofol group) sedation. All patients underwent a number connection test (NCT) to evaluate minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) on the day before and at 2 and 24 hours following EIS. The primary endpoint was exacerbation of MHE after EIS, which was defined as deterioration of the NCT. The secondary endpoints were postoperative awareness, technical success rate, frequency of body movement, patient and operator satisfaction, cardiorespiratory dynamics during EIS, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Exacerbations of MHE at 2 hours after EIS compared with those before EIS were not significantly different between the two groups. In both groups, the deterioration of NCT scores before and 2 hours after EIS was observed (Propofol group: 60.0 vs. 70.0 s, P = 0.026; Midazolam group: 42.5 vs. 67.0 s, P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in awareness, technical success rate, or patient satisfaction. However, the frequency of body movement in the Propofol group was significantly lower than that in the Midazolam group (1 vs. 4, P = 0.045), and operator satisfaction in the Propofol group was significantly higher than that in the Midazolam group (P = 0.016). No adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol-based sedation exacerbated MHE after EIS similarly to midazolam-based sedation in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, propofol-based sedation provided stable sedation with a lower frequency of body movements and high operator satisfaction.

Moderate Sedation or Monitored Anesthesia Care for Colonoscopies: Is There a Difference?

To determine whether monitored anesthesia care (MAC) results in shorter colonoscopy time. A retrospective chart review from electronic medical records at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital was performed of all patients seen by the Eastern Virginia Medical School Department of Surgery who underwent a screening or diagnostic colonoscopy from December 2015 to July 2017. The primary end point is procedure time, with secondary end point of sedation time. There is a statistically significant difference in time to cecum between moderate sedation (MOD) and MAC (P = 0.002). Operator perceived difficulty is statistically associated with increased time to cecum (P < 0.0001). Time to cecum between MOD and MAC over the levels of difficulty was not significant (P = 0.403). A subanalysis looking at time to cecum between MOD and MAC for each level of difficulty showed a significant effect when difficulty was described as no difficulty. There is a statistically significant difference in time to scope insertion between MOD and MAC (P < 0.0001). Our data show that, taken as a conglomerate, the procedure and sedation time is shorter in MAC than in MOD. The use of MAC is associated with decrease time to scope insertion and overall time to cecum.

Assessment of the Berlin Questionnaire for evaluation of hypoxemia risk in subjects undergoing deep sedation for screening gastrointestinal endoscopy

Background

Subjects with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are vulnerable to sedation-related complications during endoscopic procedures. A significant portion of subjects undergoing routine endoscopy is at high risk of OSA, but most are undiagnosed. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of high risk for OSA among Chinese subjects undergoing deep sedation for screening gastrointestinal endoscopy and to evaluate the hypoxemia risk of these examinees stratified by Berlin Questionnaire (BQ).

Patients and methods

We performed a prospective cohort study in subjects undergoing deep sedation with monitored anesthesia care for combined esophagogastroduodenoscopy plus colonoscopy. Subjects who were Chinese were stratified into high- and low-risk groups for OSA by administration of BQ. Deep sedation was achieved via a propofol target-controlled infusion system. Hypoxemia was defined as pulse oximetry reading of less than 90%. The frequency of hypoxemia was compared between high- and low-risk groups for OSA.

Results

A total of 615 Chinese subjects were recruited during the study period, and 614 subjects were included for analysis. Two hundred eighteen (35.5%) subjected were classified to be at high risk of OSA, and 396 (64.5%) were stratified to be at low risk of OSA by BQ. Hypoxemia occurred in 83 (13.5%) subjects during endoscopy procedures. The risk of developing hypoxemia in the high-risk group was significantly higher when compared to that of the low-risk group subjects (24.8% vs 7.3%; relative risk, 3.37; 95% CI, 2.22–5.13).

Conclusion

About one-third Chinese subjects undergoing deep sedation for screening endoscopy were at high risk of OSA. Subjects at high risk of OSA are associated with an increased risk of hypoxemia in comparison to the low-risk group when undergoing deep sedation for screening gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Impact of anxiety on sedative medication dosage in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Introduction

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a diagnostic method used in the investigation of upper gastrointestinal system diseases. A high level of anxiety of patients who undergo EGD increases the duration of the procedure and the sedation and analgesic requirements. Sedation is used to increase patient comfort and tolerance by reducing the anxiety and pain associated with endoscopic procedures.

Aim

In this study, the effect of anxiety scores on medication doses was investigated in patients who underwent EGD under sedation.

Material and methods

A psychiatrist, an endoscopist and an anesthesiologist conducted a prospective observational study blindly to investigate the effect of pre-procedural (before EGD) anxiety level on medication doses for sedation. Patients were divided into two groups, with and without additional medication doses.

Results

The study included 210 consecutive patients who underwent EGD under sedation. The average STAI-S score was 40.28 and the average STAI-T score was 40.18. There was no relationship between anxiety scores and gender (p = 0.058, p = 0.869). Statistically significant results were obtained for anxiety scores with additional sedation dosing (p < 0.05). It was observed that an additional dose of medication was affected by age, body mass index and anxiety scores (p < 0.005). Patients who were young, had a low body mass index and had high anxiety scores had significantly higher additional dose requirements.

Conclusions

The medications used for sedation during EGD may be inadequate or an additional dose of medication may be needed for patients who have higher anxiety scores, younger age, and lower body mass index.

Efficacy and safety of etomidate-based sedation compared with propofol-based sedation during ERCP in low-risk patients: a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Etomidate is a short-acting intravenous hypnotic with a safety profile that is superior to alternative drugs such as propofol. However, there is a lack of evidence on the safety of etomidate in ERCP. The objective of this study was to compare efficacy and safety profiles of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation.

METHODS

This single-center, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial included patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I to II who had been scheduled for ERCP. All patients received .05 mg/kg midazolam intravenously as pretreatment before receiving etomidate or propofol. Either etomidate or propofol was then administered according to group allocation. The primary endpoint was an overall respiratory event. A noninferiority margin of 10% was assumed.

RESULTS

Sixty-three and 64 patients were enrolled in the etomidate and propofol groups, respectively. Respiratory events were identified in 10 patients (15.6%) in the etomidate group and 16 patients (25.4%) on the propofol group, with a rate difference of -9.8% (1-sided 97.5% confidence interval, -∞ to 4.2%). The overall incidence of cardiovascular events tended to be higher in the etomidate group (67.2% vs 50.8%, P = .060). In particular, tachycardia (heart rate > 100 beats/min) was more common in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (64.1% vs 34.9%, P = .001). Transient hypotension tended to be less common in the etomidate group (6.3 vs 15.9%, P = .084).

CONCLUSIONS

Etomidate-based sedation during ERCP was noninferior to propofol-based sedation in terms of the overall incidence of respiratory events in patients with ASA physical status I to II. (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform number: KCT0001926.).

Comparison of sedation between the endoscopy room and operation room during endoscopic submucosal dissection for neoplasms in the upper gastrointestinal tract

BACKGROUND

The present study was performed to compare the safety of sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the endoscopy room versus operation room.

METHODS

In total, 297 patients with gastrointestinal tumors who underwent ESD from January 2011 to December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent ESD in the endoscopy room without propofol (Group E) versus operation room with propofol (Group O). The patient, tumor, and procedure characteristics; adverse events; and treatment outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The patient and tumor characteristics, including age (73.6 ± 8.2 vs. 72.5 ± 9.1 years), comorbidities, and tumor size and histology, were not different between Groups E and O. The ESD procedure time was comparable between Groups E and O (105.4 ± 70.4 vs. 106.5 ± 64.4 min), and the anesthesia time was equivalent (138.3 ± 78.1 vs. 148.4 ± 68.8 min). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the two groups. During the ESD procedure, desaturation occurred significantly more often in Group E than O (12.9% vs. 4.0%, P = 0.021, odds ratio: 3.53, 95% CI: 1.17-14.4). The recovery time after ESD was significantly longer in Group E than O (180 (100-360) vs. 90 (0-180) min, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A decreased desaturation rate and shorter recovery time after ESD were the advantages of sedation in the operation room with propofol compared with sedation in the endoscopy room. These findings warrant further exploration of the advantages of safe and effective ESD for upper gastrointestinal neoplasms in the operation room.

Safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy with conscious sedation in obstructive sleep apnea

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety of conscious sedation in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed from inception until March 1, 2015. In an effort to include unpublished data, abstracts from prior gastroenterological society meetings as well as other reference sources were interrogated. After study selection, two authors utilizing a standardized data extraction form collected the data independently. Any disagreements between authors were resolved by consensus among four authors. The methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa tool for observational studies. The primary variables of interest included incidence of hypoxia, hypotension, tachycardia, and bradycardia. Continuous data were summarized as odds ratio (OR) and 95%CI and pooled using generic inverse variance under the random-effects model. Heterogeneity between pooled studies was assessed using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

Initial search of MEDLINE and EMBASE identified 357 citations. A search of meeting abstracts did not yield any relevant citations. After systematic review and exclusion consensus meetings, seven studies met the a priori determined inclusion criteria. The overall methodological quality of included studies ranged from moderate to low. No significant differences between OSA patients and controls were identified among any of the study variables: Incidence of hypoxia (7 studies, 3005 patients; OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.73-1.11; P = 0.47; I² = 0%), incidence of hypotension (4 studies, 2125 patients; OR = 1.10; 95%CI: 0.75-1.60; P = 0.63; I² = 0%), incidence of tachycardia (3 studies, 2030 patients; OR = 0.94; 95%CI: 0.53-1.65; P = 0.28; I² = 21%), and incidence of bradycardia (3 studies, 2030 patients; OR = 0.88; 95%CI: 0.63-1.22; P = 0.59; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSION

OSA is not a significant risk factor for cardiopulmonary complications in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures with conscious sedation.

Original article. Intravenous sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in very elderly patients of Thailand

Background: The use of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) procedures in elderly patients has been established as a safe and effective technique. However, it is still uncertain whether the situation is valid for Asians.

Objective: Evaluate the outcome of intravenous sedation (IVS) for GIE procedures in very elderly patients (>86 years old) in Thailand and compare the clinical efficacy of IVS between very elderly and those younger (<86 years old)

Methods: We undertook a retrospective review of the sedation service records of patients who underwent GIE procedures between 2007 and 2008 at Siriraj Hospital, Thailand. All sedations were administered by anesthetic personnel in the endoscopy room. The cohort was divided into three groups, <65 years old (group 1), 65-85 years old (group 2), and >86 years old (group 3).

Results: Sedation was provided for 1,779 patients (965, 687, and 127 patients in group 1, 2, and 3, respectively) in 2,061 GIE procedures. Fentanyl, midazolam and propofol were the most common IVS drugs used in all three groups. Patients in group 3 required lower mean doses of these intravenous sedatives than those in group 1 or 2 (p <0.001). Mean procedure time in group 3 was longer than in group 1 or 2 (p=0.010). Adverse events in group 3 occurred more frequently when compared to group 1 or 2 (p <0.001). Transient hypotension was the main complication across all aged groups.

Conclusion: IVS for GIE procedure in very elderly patients was associated with higher minor advance events but relatively safe and effective when carried out by trained anesthetic personnel with appropriate monitoring and dose adjustment.

Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Use of Propofol Plus Fentanyl versus Midazolam Plus Fentanyl as Sedation in Diagnostic Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of propofol plus fentanyl versus midazolam plus fentanyl as sedative for patients with advanced liver disease presented for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients with liver cirrhosis referred for upper endoscopy were enrolled and divided equally in two groups, midazolam plus fentanyl group and propofol plus fentanyl group. All patients were subjected to history taking, estimation of level of sedation, endoscopist rating, and hemodynamic parameters including oxygen saturation, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, incidence of side effect as (bradycardia, hypotension, hypoxia, nausea and vomiting, cough, shivering, or diplopia), time needed for complete recovery, and time needed for discharge.

RESULTS

There was no statistical significant difference between the studied groups regarding age, sex, weight, Child-Pugh classification score, type and duration of endoscopic intervention, time needed for complete recovery, or time needed for discharge. Complication rates were similar in both groups except for mean arterial blood pressure which was significantly lower in group of patients receiving propofol and fentanyl (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of either propofol or midazolam in combination to fentanyl is effective in sedation of patients with advanced liver diseases presented for upper GIT endoscope. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03063866.

Endoscopic Approaches to the Treatment of Variceal Hemorrhage in Hemodialysis-Dependent Patients

Background. Esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage leads to challenging situation in chronic kidney disease patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Aims. To determine the safety and efficacy of endoscopic approaches to patients with hemodialysis-dependent concomitant with esophagogastric varices. Methods. Medical records were reviewed from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2015, in our hospital. Five consecutive hemodialysis-dependent patients with variceal hemorrhage who underwent endoscopic treatments were retrospectively studied. Results. The median age of the patients was 54 years (range 34–67 years) and the median follow-up period was 21.3 months (range 7–134 months). All the patients received a total of three times heparin-free hemodialysis 24 hours before and no more than 24 hours and 72 hours after endoscopic treatment. They successfully had endoscopic variceal ligation, endoscopic injection sclerotherapy, and/or N-butyl cyanoacrylate injection. The short-term efficacy is satisfying and long-term follow-up showed episodes of rebleeding. Conclusions. Endoscopic approaches are the alternative options in the treatment of upper gastroenterology variceal hemorrhage in hemodialysis-dependent patients without severe complications.

Propofol sedation in children: sleep trumps amnesia

OBJECTIVE

Detailed assessments of the effects of propofol on memory in children are lacking. We assessed the feasibility of measuring memory during propofol infusion, as commonly performed in sedation for MRI scanning. In addition, we determined the onset of memory loss in relation to the onset of sedation measured by verbal responsiveness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Children scheduled for sedation for MRI received a 10-min infusion of propofol (3 mg/kg) as they viewed and named 100 simple line drawings, one shown every five seconds, until they were no longer responsive (encoding). A control group receiving no sedation for MRI underwent similar tasks. Sedation was measured as any verbal response, regardless of correctness. After recovery from sedation, recognition memory was tested, with correct yes/no recognitions matched to sedation responses during encoding (subsequent memory paradigm).

RESULTS

Of the 48 children who received propofol, 30 could complete all study tasks (6.2 ± 1.6 years, 16 males). Individual responses could be modeled in all 30 children. On average, there was a 50% probability of no verbal response 3.1 min after the start of infusion, with 50% memory loss at 2.7 min. Children receiving propofol recognized 65 ± 16% of the pictures seen, whereas the control group recognized 93 ± 5%.

CONCLUSION

Measurement of memory and sedation is possible in verbal children receiving propofol by infusion in a clinical setting. Despite propofol being an amnestic agent, there was little or no amnestic effect of propofol while the child was verbally responsive. It is important for sedation providers to realize that propofol sedation does not always produce amnesia while the child is responsive. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV NUMBER

NCT02278003.

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Short-Course Deep Sedation Therapy for the Treatment of Intracerebral Hemorrhage After Surgery: A Non-Randomized Control Study

Background

While mild and moderate sedation have been widely used to reduce sudden agitation in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients after surgery, agitation is still a frequent problem, which may cause postoperative blood pressure fluctuation. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of short-course deep sedation for the treatment of ICH after surgery.

Material/Methods

A total of 41 ICH patients who received surgery, including traditional craniotomy hematoma removal and decompressive craniectomy, were including in this non-randomized control study. Patients in the deep sedation group received continuous postoperative sedation with a target course for ≤12 hours and reached SAS scores of 1~2. Patients in the traditional sedition group received continuous light sedation and reached SAS scores of 3~4. Additional therapeutic interventions included antihypertensive treatment, mechanical ventilation, tracheotomy, and re-operation.

Results

Patients in the deep sedation group had deeper sedation degree, and lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Residual hematoma after surgery in patients in the deep sedation group were smaller on the second, seventh, and fourteenth day after surgery (p=0.023, 0.003, 0.004, respectively). The 3-month mortality and quality of life of patients in the deep sedation group were lower and better than that of patients in the traditional sedation group, respectively (p=0.044, p<0.01). No significant difference in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and ICU days were observed between the two groups.

Conclusions

Short-course deep sedation therapy in ICH patients after surgery is efficient in controlling postoperative blood pressure, reducing re-bleeding, and improving clinical prognosis.

Sedation Challenges: Obesity and Sleep Apnea

This article reviews the data for diagnostic and uncomplicated therapeutic upper endoscopy, which show it is safe and effective to perform the procedure under moderate sedation with a combination of benzodiazepine and opioids. For more complex procedures or for superobese patients anesthesia support is recommended. Performing endoscopy in this population should alert providers to plan carefully and individualize sedation plans because there is no objective way to quantify this risk pre-endoscopically.

Clinical analysis of moderate-to-deep-sedation by nonmedical sedation practitioners in 597 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether moderate-to-deep sedation with propofol and alfentanil can be administered safely by nonmedical sedation practitioners, and the outcomes of this practice in the Netherlands. We retrospectively analyzed the occurrence of sedation-related complications in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this study, 597 adult patients consecutively underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. The health status of the patients was screened according to a standardized protocol, and the patients were sedated by trained nonmedical sedation practitioners. Their vital signs were continuously monitored and recorded. All patients received oxygen, and the depth of sedation was continuously assessed and recorded. Mild and severe complications were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

All patients recovered uneventfully, and no mortality occurred. Overall, of the 597 sedated patients, 85 had mild and 4 had severe complications. Hypoxemia and upper airway obstruction, which were easily managed by trained nonmedical sedation practitioners, were the most common events. Hypotension was rare. No signs or symptoms suggestive of aspiration were reported.

CONCLUSION

Moderate-to-deep sedation has been and continues to be a risky medical procedure. Serious complications of propofol/opioid-based sedation, especially respiratory and cardiovascular adverse events, may occur. These complications need to be recognized rapidly and appropriately managed. Our study shows that well-trained nonmedical sedation practitioners can be entrusted to take responsibility for the safe administration of moderate-to-deep sedation.

Application of clip traction in endoscopic submucosal dissection to the treatment of early esophageal carcinoma and precancerous lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

It is usually difficult to obtain a good view of the dissection plane during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of clip traction in ESD for the treatment of early esophageal carcinoma (EEC) or precancerous lesions.

METHODS

This is a case-matched comparative study. We selected 100 EEC patients who had undergone ESD. Fifty cases underwent ESD without clip traction (non-clip group), and 50 cases underwent ESD with clip traction (clip group). The patient-related variables, dissection time, data regarding muscularis propria injury, etc. were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

ESD was successful in all cases without complication. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to age, gender, the longitudinal diameter of the lesions, etc. Wide visual field exposure of the submucosal tissue below the lesion was obtained by applying clip traction. The dissection time of ESD was shorter in the clip group than in the non-clip group [22.02 (6.77) min vs 26.48 (12.56); P = 0.018] when the extent of lesion was less than half of the circumference of the esophagus; otherwise, there was no difference between the two groups (P = 0.252). Moreover, the muscularis propria injuries in the clip group were obviously less than the non-clip group (10 vs 30 %, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Clip traction can decrease the rate of muscularis propria injury and shorten the dissection time. It is recommended as a safe and effective auxiliary procedure for the treatment of esophageal ESD.

Effects of midazolam or tramadol premedication on early cognitive function in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): A randomized, controlled, double-blind study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the sedative efficacy and effects on early period cognitive function of premedication in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

Forty patients (18-70 years; American Society of Anesthesiology risk category I-III) undergoing elective ERCP were randomized to receive oral premedication with 0.15 mg/kg midazolam or 1 mg/kg tramadol. Cognitive function was determined by mini-mental test (MMT). Target scores for effective sedation were determined as a Bispectral index score of 70-90 and modified Ramsay Sedation Scale score (mRSS) of 2-4.

RESULTS

Global MMT score was not significantly different between treatment groups at 60 min post-ERCP. A significant deterioration in the MMT subcategory of recall was determined in with midazolam versus tramadol. Level of sedation (mRSS) was higher in with midazolam compared with tramadol reaching statistical significance at 30 min after drug administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Although more effective sedation was obtained with midazolam in patients undergoing ERCP, there was a dysfunction in memory recall. It was concluded, however, that early cognitive functions were generally preserved with both drugs.

Safety of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy With Conscious Sedation in Patients With and Without Obstructive Sleep Apnea

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) undergoing endoscopy with sedation are considered by practitioners to be at a higher risk for cardiopulmonary complications. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety of conscious sedation in patients with OSA undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is an IRB-approved prospective cohort study performed at the James A. Haley VA. A total of 248 patients with confirmed moderate or severe OSA by polysomnography and 252 patients without OSA were enrolled. Cardiopulmonary variables such as heart rate, blood pressure, and level of blood oxygen saturation were recorded at 3-minute intervals throughout the endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

In total, 302 colonoscopies, 119 esophagogastroduodenoscopies, 6 flexible sigmoidoscopies, and 60 esophagogastroduodenoscopy/colonoscopies were performed. None of the patients in the study required endotracheal intubation, pharmacologic reversal, or experienced an adverse outcome as a result of changes in blood pressure, heart rate, or blood oxygen saturation. There were no significant differences in the rate of tachycardia (P=0.749), bradycardia (P=0.438), hypotension (systolic/diastolic, P=0.460; mean arterial pressure, P=0.571), or hypoxia (P=0.787) between groups. The average length of time spent in each procedure and the average dose of sedation administered also did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the presumed increased risk of cardiopulmonary complications, patients with OSA who undergo endoscopy with conscious sedation have clinically insignificant variations in cardiopulmonary parameters that do not differ from those without OSA. Costly preventative measures in patients with OSA are not warranted.

Outcomes of Propofol Sedation During Emergency Endoscopy Performed for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

Although propofol-based sedation can be used during emergency endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), there is a potential risk of sedation-related adverse events, especially in patients with variceal bleeding.

AIM

We compared adverse events related to propofol-based sedation during emergency endoscopy between patients with non-variceal and variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Clinical records of patients who underwent emergency endoscopy for UGIB under sedation were reviewed. Adverse events, including shock, hypoxia, and paradoxical reaction, were compared between the non-variceal and variceal bleeding groups.

RESULTS

Of 703 endoscopies, 539 and 164 were performed for non-variceal and variceal bleeding, respectively. Shock was more common in patients with variceal bleeding compared to those with non-variceal bleeding (12.2 vs. 3.5%, P < 0.001). All patients except one recovered from shock after normal saline hydration, and emergency endoscopy could be finished without interruption in most cases. The incidence of hypoxia and paradoxical reaction did not differ based on the source of bleeding (non-variceal bleeding vs. variceal bleeding: hypoxia, 3.5 vs. 1.8%, P = 0.275; paradoxical reaction interfering with the procedure, 4.1 vs. 5.5%, P = 0.442).

CONCLUSIONS

Although shock was more common in patients with variceal bleeding compared to those with non-variceal bleeding, most cases could be controlled without procedure interruption. Paradoxical reaction, rather than shock or hypoxia, was the most common cause of procedure interruption in patients with variceal bleeding, but the rate did not differ between patients with non-variceal and variceal bleeding.

A study on total intravenous anesthesia in orthognathic surgical procedures

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

To assess the use of propofol for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia among patients undergoing various combinations of orthognathic surgical procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following Preoperative evaluation, patients were given Fentanyl (2 micrograms/kg) intravenously. Induction (2 mg/kg) and maintenance (10 mg/kg/hr) of anaesthesia was achieved by Propofol infusion. Blood Pressure and heart rate were maintained at >70 or 80 mm Hg and >50 respectively and were monitored continuously. Infusion was stopped approximately 30 to 40 minutes before the end of surgery. Immediate recovery recorded and was assessed.

RESULTS

The average duration of anaesthesia and surgery were found to be 4 hrs 28 min (SD= 1 hr. 35 min) and 4 hrs 3 min (SD=1 hr 38 min). None of the patients experienced pain on injection of induction agent. No significant change was observed in the mean heart rate and mean BP at different time intervals from baseline value to 30 minutes after the recovery. The average time taken to obey simple commands after stopping Propofol infusion was 42.60 ± 9.09 min. Time taken for spontaneous eye opening, full orientation and to count backwards was 43.45 ± 9.11, 47.85 ± 8.18 and 50.9 ± 9.14 respectively. Face-Hand test performed at 15 min after extubation was positive in all the patients. The mean Aldrete score at 15 min after extubation was 11.65 ± 0.75. The mean value of unaided sitting time for at least 2 min was after 119.00 ± 20.56 min. The average score of picture card test, time taken in "picking up matches" test, Ball bearing test, time taken to walk and to void urine were 5.80 ± 1.47, 67.95 ± 5.72, 9.80 ± 2.57, 172.75 ± 39.25 and 163.75 ± 55.96 respectively. Ninety percent of the patients were amenable for a repeat of this anaesthetic using the same regime but 10% of them did not answer anything. Seven patients (35%) had chills post-operatively.

CONCLUSION

Propofol is an excellent anaesthetic for day care procedures.

Optimization of Deep Sedation with Spontaneous Respiration for Therapeutic Endoscopy Combining Propofol and Bispectral Index Monitoring

Background/Aims. This study aimed to establish optimal propofol anesthesia for therapeutic endoscopy, which has not been established. Methodology. We retrospectively investigated data on 89 patients who underwent upper-GI endoscopic submucosal dissection or endoscopic mucosal resection under anesthesia with propofol. Examined doses of propofol were changed according to efficacy and/or adverse events and classified into 5 periods. A bispectral index (BIS) monitor was used at Period 5 to decrease the incidence of adverse events caused by oversedation. The initial dose of propofol was administered after bolus injection of pethidine hydrochloride (0.5 mg/kg), and 1.0 mL of propofol was added every minute until the patients fell asleep. Continuous and bolus infusion were performed to maintain sedation. When the patient moved or an adverse event occurred, the maintenance dose examined was increased or decreased by 5 mL/h regardless of body weight. Results. Dose combinations (introduction : maintenance) and patient numbers for each period were as follows: Period 1 (n = 27), 0.5 mg/kg : 5 mg/kg/h; Period 2 (n = 11), 0.33 mg/kg : 3.3 mg/kg/h; Period 3 (n = 7), 0.5 mg/kg : 3.3 mg/kg/h; Period 4 (n = 14), 0.5 mg/kg : 2.5 mg/kg/h; Period 5 (n = 30), 0.5 mg/kg : 2.5 mg/kg/h, using BIS monitor. During Period 5, an adverse event occurred in 10.0% of patients, which was lower than that for Periods 1–4. Conclusions. Period 5 propofol anesthesia with BIS protocol could be safe and useful for therapeutic endoscopy under deep sedation with spontaneous respiration.

Etomidate Anesthesia during ERCP Caused More Stable Haemodynamic Responses Compared with Propofol: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol may result in hypotension and respiratory depression, while etomidate is considered to be a safe induction agent for haemodynamically unstable patients because of its low risk of hypotension. We hypothesized that etomidate anesthesia during ERCP caused more stable haemodynamic responses compared with propofol. The primary endpoint was to compare the haemodynamic effects of etomidate vs. propofol in ERCP cases. The secondary endpoint was overall survival.

METHODS

A total of 80 patients undergoing ERCP were randomly assigned to an etomidate or propofol group. Patients in the etomidate group received etomidate induction and maintenance during ERCP, and patients in the propofol group received propofol induction and maintenance. Cardiovascular parameters and procedure-related time were measured and recorded during ERCP.

RESULTS

The average percent change to baseline in MBP was -8.4±7.8 and -14.4±9.4 with P = 0.002, and in HR was 1.8±16.6 and 2.4±16.3 with P = 0.874 in the etomidate group and the propofol group, respectively. MBP values in the etomidate group decreased significantly less than those in the propofol group (P<0.05). The ERCP duration and recovery time in both groups was similar. There was no significant difference in the survival rates between groups ( p = 0.942).

CONCLUSIONS

Etomidate anesthesia during ERCP caused more stable haemodynamic responses compared with propofol.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in the cirrhotic patient

As advances in liver disease continue, including the increasing use of liver transplantation, the endoscopist needs to be familiar with the standards of care and potential complications in the management of the cirrhotic population. This includes both elective endoscopic procedures, such as screening colonoscopies and variceal banding, as well as the acutely bleeding cirrhotic patient. Peri-procedural management and standards of care for acute gastrointestinal hemorrhaging of cirrhotic patients will be emphasized. This article will focus on the plethora of data available to highlight the benefits of endoscopic intervention in the care of patients with liver disease and outline the areas of future emphasis.

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.

Usefulness of the thread-traction method in esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection: randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To assess the usefulness of the thread-traction method (TT method) in esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

METHODS

A total of 40 lesions that were scheduled to be treated by esophageal ESD were included in the study. The TT method was used for 20 lesions (group TT) and conventional ESD was used for 20 lesions (group C) after randomization. The hook-knife method was used in all cases. In group TT, after circumferential mucosal incision, a clip with thread was attached to the oral edge of the lesion.

RESULTS

ESD was carried out in all cases. Effective countertraction was created by the TT method, and it was possible to carry out an efficient dissection operation. Significant shortening of dissection time was achieved in group TT compared with group C (19.8 min vs 31.8 min, P = 0.044). Mean number of local injections during dissection was significantly less in group TT compared with that in group C (0.6 times vs 2.2 times, P < 0.001). As for the amount of local injection, group TT required significantly less compared with group C (2.6 mL vs 7.5 mL, P < 0.01). No complications were encountered.

CONCLUSION

The TT method in esophageal ESD was safe and contributed to shortening of dissection time. The TT method is expected to become widespread as a safe and useful procedure.

Prescribing patterns of the four most commonly used sedatives in endoscopic examination in Korea: propofol, midazolam, diazepam, and lorazepam

As the sedative use increases due to the effectiveness and relatively safe profile, the abuse potential is also increasing. This study was conducted to examine the usage of four sedative agents in endoscopic examination and to compare the propofol use with the other three sedatives. Using National Health Insurance claims data from 2008 to 2012, we identified the number of cases of conscious sedation during endoscopy using one or more of the following agents: propofol, midazolam, diazepam, and lorazepam. The general characteristics of patients and medical service providers were analyzed, and the regional and annual distributions of frequency of use were compared. We also identified patient cases with excessive number of endoscopic examinations. Among the total of 3,156,231 sedatives users, midazolam was the most commonly used agent (n=2,845,250, 90.1%). However, the largest increase in patient number, which increased from 11,410 in 2008 to 28,170 in 2012, was observed with propofol. While the majority of patients received an annual endoscopy, we identified several suspected abuse cases of patients receiving endoscopies repetitively as many as 114 times in five years. The rise of sedative use in endoscopic examinations and several patient cases of repeated sedative administration suggest a potential risk for abuse. Medical service providers should be cautious when using sedatives and carefully review each patient's medical history prior to the procedure.

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.