Target-controlled propofol infusion during monitored anesthesia in patients undergoing ERCP

The efficacy of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation with a target-controlled infusion system during double-balloon endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

The sedation method used during double-balloon endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (DB-ERCP) differs among countries and/or facilities, and there is no established method. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) sedation using a target-controlled infusion (TCI) system during DB-ERCP.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted between May 2017 and December 2020 at an academic center. One hundred and fifty-six consecutive patients who underwent DB-ERCP were sedated by gastroenterologists using diazepam (n = 77) or propofol with a TCI system (n = 79), depending on the period. The primary endpoint was a comparison of poor sedation rates between the two groups. Poor sedation was defined as a condition requiring the use of other sedative agents or discontinuation of the procedure. Secondary endpoints were sedation-related adverse events and risk factors for poor sedation.

RESULTS

Poor sedation occurred significantly more often in the diazepam sedation group (diazepam sedation, n = 12 [16%] vs. propofol sedation, n = 1 [1%]; P = 0.001). Vigorous body movements (3 or 4) (diazepam sedation, n = 40 [52%] vs. propofol sedation, n = 28 [35%]; P = 0.038) and hypoxemia (< 85%) (diazepam sedation, n = 7 [9%] vs. propofol sedation, n = 1 [1%]; P = 0.027) occurred significantly more often in the diazepam sedation group. In the multivariate analysis, age < 70 years old (OR, 10.26; 95% CI, 1.57-66.98; P = 0.015), BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (OR, 11.96; 95% CI, 1.67-85.69; P = 0.014), and propofol sedation (OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01-0.58; P = 0.015) were associated factors for poor sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

NAAP sedation with the TCI system during DB-ERCP was safer and more effective than diazepam sedation.

Efficacy and Safety of Deep Sedation and Anaesthesia for Complex Endoscopic Procedures—A Narrative Review

Propofol sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures is a widespread technique at present, which generates controversy worldwide when anaesthetic or non-anaesthetic personnel administer this form of sedation. There is some evidence for safe administered propofol sedation by non-anaesthetic personnel in patients undergoing endoscopy procedures, but there are only few randomised trials addressing the safety and efficacy of propofol in patients undergoing advanced procedures. A serious possible consequence of propofol sedation is the rapid and unpredictable progression from deep sedation to general anaesthesia mostly when elderly and frail patients are involved in the diagnosis or treatment of various neoplasia. This situation requires rescue measures with skilled airway management. The aim of this paper is to review the safety and efficacy aspects of sedation techniques, with special reference to propofol administration covering the whole patient journey, including preassessment, sedation options and discharge when advanced endoscopic procedures are performed.

Choice of sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: is monitored anesthesia care as safe as general anesthesia? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) are the 2 most common methods of sedation used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the overall safety between MAC vs. GA in ERCP.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases to identify studies reporting the use of MAC or GA as a choice of sedation for ERCP. The primary outcome was to compare the overall rate of sedation-related adverse events in MAC vs. GA groups. The secondary endpoint was to investigate the total duration of the procedure, recovery time, ERCP cannulation rates, and conversion rate of MAC to GA. The meta-analysis was performed using a Der Simonian and Laird random-effects model.

Results

A total of 21 studies reporting on 11,592 patients were included. The overall sedation-related side-effects were similar in the GA (12.76%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.80-21.73; I²=95%) and MAC (12.08%, 95%CI 5.38-20.89; I²=99%) groups (P=0.956). Hypoxia, arrhythmias, hypotension, aspiration and other sedation-related side-effects were similar between the 2 groups. The mean duration of the procedure was longer in the MAC group, but the mean recovery time was shorter. Significant heterogeneity was noted in our meta-analysis.

Conclusions

In our meta-analysis, the overall sedation-related side-effects were similar between the MAC and GA groups. MAC could be used as a safer alternative to GA when performing ERCP. However, large multicenter randomized control trials are needed to further validate our findings.

Continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus injection of propofol during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND/AIMS

It is unclear whether continuous infusion or intermittent bolus injection of propofol is better for achieving adequate sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of continuous infusion and intermittent bolus injection of propofol during therapeutic ERCP.

METHODS

In this prospective study, we randomly assigned 232 patients undergoing therapeutic ERCP to either continuous infusion (CI group, n = 113) or intermittent bolus injection (BI group, n = 119) of propofol. The primary outcome was the quality of sedation as assessed by the endoscopist. Other sedation-related parameters included sedation induction time, total dose of propofol, recovery time, involuntary patient movement, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Overall satisfaction with sedation by the endoscopist and monitoring nurse were significantly higher in the CI group than the BI group (mean satisfaction score, 9.66 vs. 8.0 and 9.47 vs. 7.96, respectively, p < 0.01 for both). However, patients in the CI group had a significantly longer sedation induction time (5.28 minutes vs. 4.34 minutes, p < 0.01) and received a higher dose of propofol than patients in the BI group (4.22 mg/kg vs. 2.08 mg/kg, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Continuous infusion of propofol during therapeutic ERCP had the advantage over intermittent bolus injection of maintaining a constant level of sedation without increasing adverse events. However, it was associated with an increased total dose of propofol and prolonged sedation induction time.

A novel algorithm to predict oxygen desaturation in sedated patients with obstructive sleep apnea utilizing polysomnography: A STROBE-compliant article

This retrospective study aimed at identifying the predictors of oxygen desaturation (OD) (i.e., SpO2 < 95%) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) requiring deep sedation and developing an algorithm to predict OD.We studied 66 OSA patients undergoing propofol-induced deep sedation for drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE). The patients were divided into prediction (n = 35) and validation (n = 31) groups. Patient characteristics and polysomnographic parameters were analyzed with receiver operating characteristic curve and Chi-squared test to identify significant predictors of OD for developing an algorithm in the prediction group. The predictive accuracy, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the algorithm were determined in the validation group.Six polysomnographic predictors of OD were identified, including Apnea-Hypopnea Index of total sleep time (AHI-TST), AHI at the stage of rapid eye movement (AHI-REM), percentage of time with oxygen saturation <90% (mO2 < 90%), average SpO2, lowest SpO2, and desaturation index. Stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that low average SpO2 (<95.05%) and high AHI-REM (>16.5 events/h) were independent predictors of OD. The algorithm thus developed showed that patients with an average SpO2 < 95.05% and those with an average SpO2 ≥ 95.05% together with an AHI-REM > 16.5 events/h would be at risk of OD under sedation. The predictive accuracy, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 84%, 100%, 83%, 100%, respectively.For patients with OSA, average SpO2 and AHI-REM may enable clinicians to predict the occurrence of oxygen desaturation under deep sedation. Future large-scale studies are needed to validate the findings.

Target-controlled propofol infusion with or without bispectral index monitoring of sedation during advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Target-controlled infusion (TCI) uses averaged pharmacokinetic datasets derived from population samples to automatically control the infusion rate. Bispectral index (BIS) technology non-invasively measures levels of consciousness during surgical procedures. We compared the efficacy and safety of propofol TCI with or without BIS monitoring for sedation during advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled 200 patients who were premedicated with midazolam 2 mg and alfentanil 0.4 mg before undergoing advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy. The initial target blood concentration of propofol was set at 1.0 μg/mL, and adjustments of 0.2 μg/mL were made as necessary to maintain moderate-to-deep sedation. Patients were randomized to either the BIS-blind group and evaluated for depth of anesthesia by monitoring scores of 1-2 on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale (n = 100) or to the BIS-open group and monitored by BIS scores of 60-80 (n = 100). The primary outcome was the total amount of propofol required to maintain anesthesia. Secondary outcomes were sedation-induced adverse events, recovery, and quality of sedation (endoscopist and patient satisfaction).

RESULTS

The mean propofol infusion rate was significantly higher in patients not monitored by BIS scores than in those who were (5.44 ± 2.12 vs 4.76 ± 1.84 mg/kg/h; P = 0.016). Levels of satisfaction were higher for endoscopists who used BIS monitoring than in those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Mean infusion rates were higher in propofol TCI without BIS monitoring compared with propofol TCI with BIS during advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopists expressed satisfaction with BIS monitoring.

Prospective evaluation of ERCP performance in an Italian regional database study

BACKGROUND

Prospective studies about endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) in a community setting are rare.

AIM

To assess success and complication rates of routinely-performed ERCP in a regional setting, and the priority quality indicators for ERCP practice.

METHODS

Prospective region wide observational study on consecutive patients undergoing ERCP during a 6-month period. A centralized online ERCP questionnaire was built and used for data storage. Primary quality indicators provided by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) were considered.

RESULTS

38 endoscopists from 18 centers performed a total of 2388 ERCP. The most common indication for ERCP was choledocholitiasis (54.8%) followed by malignant jaundice (22.6%). Cannulation of the desired duct was obtained in 2293 cases (96%) and ERCP was successful in 2176 cases (91.1%). Success and ERCP difficulty were significantly related to the experience of the operator (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). ERCP difficulty was also significantly related to volume centers (p < 0.01). The overall complication rate was 8.4%: post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) occurred in 4.1% of procedures, bleeding in 2.9%, infection in 0.8%, perforation in 0.4%. Mortality rate was 0.4%. All the ASGE priority quality indicators for ERCP were confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

The procedural questionnaire proved to be an important tool to assess and verify the quality of routinely-performed ERCP performance in a community setting.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Anesthesia for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: target-controlled infusion versus standard volatile anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a technique used both for diagnosis and for the treatment of biliary and pancreatic diseases. ERCP has some anesthetic implications and specific complications. The primary outcome aim was to compare two protocols in terms of time of extubation. We also compared anesthetic protocols in terms of hemodynamic and respiratory instability, antispasmodics needs, endoscopist satisfaction, and recovery room stay.

METHODS

Patients were randomized into two groups standard anesthesia group (Gr: SA) in whom induction was done by propofol, fentanyl and cisatracurium and maintenance was done by a mixture of oxygen, nitrousoxide (50%:50%) and sevoflurane; and intravenous anesthesia group to target concentration (Gr: TCI) in whom induction and maintenance of anesthesia were done with propofol with a target 0.5-2 μg/mL, and remifentanil with a target of 0.75-2 ng/mL.

RESULTS

90 patients were included. Extubation time was shorter in Gr: TCI, 15±2.6 vs. 27.4±7.1 min in Gr: SA (P<0.001). The incidence of hypotension was higher in GrL: SA (P=0.009). Satisfaction was better in Gr: TCI (P=0.003). Antispasmodic need was higher in Gr: SA (P=0.023). Six patients in Gr: SA group had desaturation in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) versus one patient from Gr: TCI (P=0.049). Patients in Gr: TCI had shorter PACU stay 40.2±7.3 vs. 58.7±12.4 min (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of TCI mode allows better optimization of general anesthesia technique during ERCP.

Monitored anesthesia care in and outside the operating room

Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is an anesthesia technique combining local anesthesia with parenteral drugs for sedation and analgesia. The use of MAC is increasing for a variety of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in and outside of the operating room due to the rapid postoperative recovery with the use of relatively small amounts of sedatives and analgesics compared to general anesthesia. The purposes of MAC are providing patients with safe sedation, comfort, pain control and satisfaction. Preoperative evaluation for patients with MAC is similar to those of general or regional anesthesia in that patients should be comprehensively assessed. Additionally, patient cooperation with comprehension of the procedure is an essential component during MAC. In addition to local anesthesia by operators or anesthesiologists, systemic sedatives and analgesics are administered to provide patients with comfort during procedures performed with MAC. The discretion and judgment of an experienced anesthesiologist are required for the safety and efficacy profiles because the airway of the patients is not secured. The infusion of sedatives and analgesics should be individualized during MAC. Many procedures in and outside of the operating room, including eye surgery, otolaryngologic surgery, cardiovascular procedures, pain procedures, and endoscopy are performed with MAC to increase patient and operator satisfaction.

Sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized controlled study of patient-controlled propofol sedation and that given by a nurse anesthetist

OBJECTIVE

Different regimens are used for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Our objectives were to compare safety, ease of treatment, recovery, and patients' experiences using patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol, nurse anesthetist-controlled sedation (ACS), or the department's standard of care, midazolam given by the procedure team (control group).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 281 adults in 301 procedures. The PCS group (n = 101) delivered bolus doses of 5 mg of propofol according to their need for sedation. The ACS group (n = 100) had 2-8 mg/kg/h of propofol infused, with the target for sedation being level 3 of the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scale. The control group was given 2-3 mg of midazolam for induction and additional 1 mg if required.

RESULTS

PCS and ACS increased the ease of the procedure and reduced the number of sedation failures compared to midazolam sedation (ACS n = 0; PCS n = 4; midazolam n = 20). The ACS group had more deeply sedated patients (OAA/S level 2), desaturation, and obstructed airways than the PCS and midazolam groups. Time to full recovery (Aldrete score ≥9) was shortest following PCS. PCS resulted in the least fatigue and pain after the procedure. Patients' preference for PCS and ACS was the same.

CONCLUSION

PCS with propofol is superior to midazolam and comparable to ACS. PCS resulted in a rapid recovery, fewer respiratory events, and was almost as effective as ACS in ensuring a successful examination.

Propofol sedation with a target-controlled infusion pump and bispectral index monitoring system in elderly patients during a complex upper endoscopy procedure

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although the usefulness of propofol sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric neoplasms was reported previously, information is limited on its use in elderly patients. We investigated the safety and efficacy of propofol sedation with a target-controlled infusion (TCI) pump and bispectral index (BIS) monitoring system (TCI/BIS system) in elderly patients during gastric ESD.

METHODS

Included were 413 consecutive gastric ESD procedures involving 455 lesions (379 patients) performed in patients under propofol sedation with a TCI/BIS system between October 2009 and September 2013. Patients were divided into 3 groups: group A, age <70 years (n = 162); group B, age ≥70 and <80 years (n = 171); and group C, age ≥80 years (n = 80). We compared the propofol dose and adverse events (eg, hypotension and hypoxemia) during ESD.

RESULTS

Older groups required a lower target concentration of propofol (group A: median 2.1 μg/mL [interquartile range (IQR), 1.9-2.3]; group B: median 1.6 μg/mL [IQR, 1.3-1.8]; and group C: median 1.4 μg/mL [IQR, 1.2-1.6]; P < .0001). Hypotension tended to occur in the younger group, and hypoxemia occurred at a significantly higher rate in the older groups, although the number of cases was small. Low preoperative systolic blood pressure (≤125 mm Hg) was associated with hypotension (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-2.70; P = .013) and abnormal pulmonary function was associated with hypoxemia in groups B and C (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 1.01-31.5; P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients required lower doses of propofol with the TCI/BIS system than younger patients. Attention to hypoxemia is necessary in elderly patients, particularly patients with abnormal pulmonary function.

Age correlates with hypotension during propofol-based anesthesia for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a procedure used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Most of the patients may feel pain, anxiety, and discomfort during this procedure, so conscious sedation is usually used during ERCP. General anesthesia would be considered if conscious sedation fails to achieve the requirement of the endoscopists. Several studies showed that propofol-based sedation could provide a better recovery profile. However, propofol has a narrow therapeutic window and complications may occur beyond this window. The present study aimed to find out the complications and the associated risk factors during ERCP procedure under propofol-based deep sedation.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from anesthetic and procedure records of the patients who underwent ERCP under propofol-based deep sedation from January 2006 to July 2010 at Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. All propofol-based deep sedations were conducted by anesthesiologists. The incidence of complications was determined and the independent risk factors identified by the multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULT

Propofol-based deep sedation was provided for 552 patients who received ERCP procedure. The majority of the patients were male, the mean age was 60 ± 16 years and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status II-III. Almost 30% of patients experienced hypotension during the procedure, although no mortality or morbidity was associated with this complication. Sex, age, anesthetic time, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, hypertension, and arrhythmia were significantly different (p < 0.05) between patients with hypotension and without hypotension during the procedure. Multivariable logistic regression identified sex and age to be the independent predictors of hypotension.

CONCLUSION

Hypotension was the most frequent anesthetic complication during procedure under propofol-based deep sedation, but this method was safe and effective under appropriate monitoring. Age is the strongest predictor of hypotension and therefore propofol-based deep sedation should be conducted with caution in the elderly.

An effective and safe sedation technique combining target-controlled infusion pump with propofol, intravenous pentazocine, and bispectral index monitoring for peroral double-balloon endoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Because peroral double-balloon endoscopy (DBE) is a time-consuming, painful procedure, sedation with analgesics, and/or anesthetics is generally required. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of our sedation protocol for peroral DBE, which consisted of target-controlled infusion (TCI) anesthesia with propofol, an intravenous bolus of pentazocine, and bispectral index (BIS) monitoring.

METHODS

A total of 34 consecutive patients who underwent DBE by the oral approach were enrolled. Patients were primarily sedated with a continuous infusion of propofol and adjusted in accordance with the BIS levels. The bolus infusion of pentazocine was performed when the propofol infusion was insufficient. The primary outcome measure of this study was to ensure the safety and efficacy of this sedation technique. The secondary purpose was to identify the characteristics of the patient who required the bolus infusion of pentazocine.

RESULTS

Five patients (14.7%) required a reduction in the dose of propofol. However, no patient experienced any serious adverse events. All patients (100%) and 80.6% (25/31) of endoscopists answered that the sedation protocol was 'excellent' or 'enough' for peroral DBE. Eleven patients (32.3%) required a bolus injection of pentazocine. Age <60 years and a total procedure time of >70 min were significant risk-factors for pentazocine use.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of propofol via TCI pump, bolus injection of pentazocine as needed, and BIS monitoring was a safe and effective procedure for peroral DBE. Reasonable satisfaction indices were obtained from both patients and endoscopists. Pentazocine was required for young patients and in cases with longer procedure times.

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.

Target Controlled Infusion for non-anaesthesiologist propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: The first double blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Target Controlled Infusion is a sophisticated tool for providing optimal sedation regimen avoiding under or oversedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

AIMS

To compare standard moderate sedation vs. non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trial of 70 consecutive colonoscopies and 70 consecutive esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD). Standard group (n=70), received fentanyl (1 μg/kg)+midazolam (0.03-0.04 mg/kg) or midazolam only; propofol group (n=70), received fentanyl (1 μg/kg)+propofol Target Controlled Infusion (1.2-1.6 μg/ml) or propofol Target Controlled Infusion only. Discharge time, endoscopist satisfaction and patient satisfaction were recorded in all endoscopies.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy: discharge time was significantly shorter in the propofol than the standard group (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 5 ± 10.2 min, respectively; P=0.03). Endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher (98.3 ± 11.4/100 vs. 87.2±12/100; P=0.001); patient satisfaction was significantly higher (95 ± 9.3/100 vs. 85.5 ± 14.4/100; P=0.002) in the propofol compared to the standard group. EGD: discharge time was not significantly different in the propofol and standard groups (1.1 ± 0.7 vs. 3.9 ± 9.2 min, respectively; P=0.146). Endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher (92.7 ± 14.3/100 vs. 82.8 ± 21.2/100; P=0.03); patient satisfaction was significantly higher (93.8 ± 18.2/100 vs. 76.5 ± 25.2/100; P=0.003). In the propofol group 94.3% of patients vs. 71.4% of patients in standard group asked to receive the same sedation in the future (P=0.021).

CONCLUSION

Target Controlled Infusion is a promising method for non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation.

A target-controlled infusion system with bispectral index monitoring of propofol sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Propofol administration via a target-controlled infusion system with bispectral index monitoring (BIS/TCI system) is expected to prevent complications from sedation during complex and long endoscopic procedures. We evaluated the feasibility of setting the BIS/TCI system for non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From May 2009 to February 2013, 250 patients with esophagogastric neoplasms were treated with ESD using the BIS/TCI system with NAAP. In the TCI system, the initial target blood concentration of propofol was set at 1.2 μg/mL. The titration speed of propofol was adjusted according to the BIS score and the movement of the patient. The BIS target level ranged from moderate to deep sedation, at which a stable BIS score between 60 and 80 was obtained.

RESULTS

In 80.4 % of patients, it was possible to maintain stable sedation with a blood concentration of propofol of less than 1.6 µg/mL using TCI throughout the ESD procedure. The default setting for ideal blood concentration of propofol was 1.2 μg/mL, because the medians of the lower and upper bounds of blood concentration were 1.2 μg/mL (range 0.6 - 1.8 μg/mL) and 1.4 μg/mL (range 1.0 - 3.8 μg/mL), respectively. Although hypotension occurred in 27 patients (10.8 %), oxygen desaturation occurred in only nine patients (3.6 %), and severe desaturation in only two patients (0.8 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Using our settings, it is possible for a non-anesthesiologist to maintain stable sedation during a lengthy endoscopic procedure through propofol sedation with a BIS/TCI system.

Comparison between Midazolam Used Alone and in Combination with Propofol for Sedation during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Background/Aims

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an uncomfortable procedure that requires adequate sedation for its successful conduction. We investigated the efficacy and safety of the combined use of intravenous midazolam and propofol for sedation during ERCP.

Methods

A retrospective review of patient records from a single tertiary care hospital was performed. Ninety-four patients undergoing ERCP received one of the two medication regimens, which was administered by a nurse under the supervision of a gastroenterologist. Patients in the midazolam (M) group (n=44) received only intravenous midazolam, which was titrated to achieve deep sedation. Patients in the midazolam pulse propofol (MP) group (n=50) initially received an intravenous combination of midazolam and propofol, and then propofol was titrated to achieve deep sedation.

Results

The time to the initial sedation was shorter in the MP group than in the M group (1.13 minutes vs. 1.84 minutes, respectively; p<0.001). The recovery time was faster in the MP group than in the M group (p=0.031). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to frequency of adverse events, pain experienced by the patient, patient discomfort, degree of amnesia, and gag reflex. Patient cooperation, rated by the endoscopist as excellent, was greater in the MP group than in the M group (p=0.046).

Conclusions

The combined use of intravenous midazolam and propofol for sedation during ERCP is more effective than midazolam alone. There is no difference in the safety of the procedure.

Target-controlled infusion of propofol versus intermittent bolus of a sedative cocktail regimen in deep sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: comparison of cardiovascular and respiratory parameters

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether target-controlled infusion (TCI) with propofol, a method that has theoretically better control of drug concentration, produces less cardiovascular and respiratory suppression than an intermittent bolus of a sedative cocktail regimen in deep sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

In total 100 participants who had undergone esophagoduodenoscopy (EGD) and 120 who had undergone colonoscopy were prospectively and randomly enrolled to receive TCI with propofol or intermittent bolus of cocktail regimen containing midazolam, alfentanil and propofol until they were unresponsive to verbal commands. The target concentration was adjusted and the bolus of the cocktail regimen was added based on their responses. The nadir values of heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation during and after the procedure were recorded.

RESULTS

The nadir systolic blood pressure during the endoscopy in the cocktail regimen group was significantly lower than that in the TCI with propofol group. In the cocktail regimen group, the incidence of hypotension during colonoscopy and that of bradycardia during EGD were higher than those in the TCI with propofol group. No participants in the TCI with propofol group experienced hypoxia during endoscopy. In the cocktail regimen group, six participants who had undergone EGD and six who had undergone colonoscopy showed transient hypoxic episodes during or after endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

TCI with propofol produced less cardiovascular and respiratory suppression than intermittent bolus of a sedative cocktail regimen in deep sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

The potential regimen of target-controlled infusion of propofol in flexible bronchoscopy sedation: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Target-controlled infusion (TCI) provides precise pharmacokinetic control of propofol concentration in the effect-site (Ce), eg. brain. This pilot study aims to evaluate the feasibility and optimal TCI regimen for flexible bronchoscopy (FB) sedation.

METHODS

After alfentanil bolus, initial induction Ce of propofol was targeted at 2 μg/ml. Patients were randomized into three titration groups (i.e., by 0.5, 0.2 and 0.1 μg/ml, respectively) to maintain stable sedation levels and vital signs. Adverse events, frequency of adjustments, drug doses, and induction and recovery times were recorded.

RESULTS

The study was closed early due to significantly severe hypoxemia events (oxyhemoglobin saturation <70%) in the group titrated at 0.5 μg/ml. Forty-nine, 49 and 46 patients were enrolled into the 3 respective groups before study closure. The proportion of patients with hypoxemia events differed significantly between groups (67.3 vs. 46.9 vs. 41.3%, p = 0.027). Hypotension events, induction and recovery time and propofol doses were not different. The Ce of induction differed significantly between groups (2.4±0.5 vs. 2.1±0.4 vs. 2.1±0.3 μg/ml, p = 0.005) and the Ce of procedures was higher at 0.5 μg/ml titration (2.4±0.5 vs. 2.1±0.4 vs. 2.2±0.3 μg/ml, p = 0.006). The adjustment frequency tended to be higher for titration at 0.1 μg/ml but was not statistically significant (2 (0∼6) vs. 3 (0∼6) vs. 3 (0∼11)). Subgroup analysis revealed 14% of all patients required no further adjustment during the whole sedation. Comparing patients requiring at least one adjustment with those who did not, they were observed to have a shorter induction time (87.6±34.9 vs. 226.9±147.9 sec, p<0.001), a smaller induction dose and Ce (32.5±4.1 vs. 56.8±22.7 mg, p<0.001; 1.76±0.17 vs. 2.28 ±0.41, p<0.001, respectively), and less hypoxemia and hypotension (15.8 vs.56.9%, p = 0.001; 0 vs. 24.1%, p = 0.008, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Titration at 0.5 μg/ml is risky for FB sedation. A subgroup of patients required no more TCI adjustment with fewer complications. Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal regimen of TCI for FB sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01101477.

Low effect-site concentration of propofol target-controlled infusion reduces the risk of hypotension during endoscopy in a Taiwanese population

OBJECTIVE

Target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol is an effective way of delivering propofol during endoscopy. However, the ideal effect-site concentration (Ce) of propofol has not yet been defined in an Asian population. This study aimed to determine the ideal Ce of propofol in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy in a Taiwanese population.

METHODS

A total of 121 consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic endoscopy were recruited for this study. The endoscopic procedure was carried out within 1 h. TCI of propofol was utilized during the procedure. All patients received the same regimen to induce conscious sedation, including a bolus of midazolam (0.04 mg/kg) and fentanyl (0.5 μg/kg). The Ce of propofol was calculated using the Schneider model. Patients were randomly assigned to either the low Ce group (1.5-2.5 μg/mL) or high Ce group (3.0-4.0 μg/mL). Their cardiovascular and respiratory events were monitored during the procedure and the patients' post-procedure satisfaction was evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean requirement for propofol was 232.02 mg in the low Ce group and 329.56 mg in the high Ce group, respectively (P < 0.0001). No unexpected event was observed in either group. However, more episodes of hypotension were observed in the high Ce group (P = 0.026). The post-procedure satisfaction rate between the two groups was comparable.

CONCLUSION

A low Ce of propofol TCI (1.5-2.5 μg/mL) achieved adequate anesthesia, reduced the risk of hypotension, and attained a high satisfaction rate in a Taiwanese population undergoing diagnostic painless endoscopy.

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

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

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

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

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

Intermittent manually controlled versus continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation during interventional endoscopy: a prospective randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

Beside the traditional, intermittent bolus application of propofol, continuous propofol infusion via infusion pump is an alternative procedure for deep sedation during long-lasting interventional endoscopy. However, up to now, there are no randomized comparisons for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred patients (ERCP: n = 60, EUS: n = 40) were randomly assigned to receive intermittent bolus application ("bolus group") or continuous infusion ("perfusor group") of propofol sedation after induction with 3 mg midazolam for deep sedation. Patients in the bolus group received an initial propofol dose according to body weight (bw <70 kg: 40 mg; bw ≥ 70 kg 60 mg). In the perfusor group, bw-adapted, continuous propofol infusion (6 mg/kg) via the Injectomat 2000 MC (Fresenius-Kabi) was administered after an initial bolus of 1 mg/kg. Vital signs, dose of propofol, patient cooperation (VAS 1-10), sedation depth, and the recovery time as well as the quality of recovery were evaluated.

RESULTS

Total propofol dose in the bolus group 305 ± 155 mg (100-570 mg) and in the perfusor group 343 ± 123 mg (126-590 mg, p = 0.5) were comparable. Oxygen saturation below 90% was seen in four patients of each group, with no need for assisted ventilation. Arterial blood pressure <90 mmHg was documented in two patients in the bolus group and seven patients in the perfusor group (p = 0.16). Patients' cooperation was rated as good in both groups (bolus group, 9.1 ± 0.9; perfusor group, 8.9 ± 1; p = 0.17). Recovery time was significantly shorter in the bolus group compared with the perfusor group (19 ± 5 versus 23 ± 6 min, p < 0.001) whereas the quality of recovery was nearly identical in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Both sedation regimens allow nearly identical good controllability of propofol sedation. However, recovery time was significantly slower and hypotension was tended to occur more often in the perfusor group.

Balanced propofol sedation versus propofol monosedation in therapeutic pancreaticobiliary endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Sedative techniques for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an uncomfortable therapeutic procedure that cannot be performed without adequate sedation or general anaesthesia. A considerable number of ERCPs are performed annually in the UK (at least 48,000) and many more worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of our review was to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of sedative or anaesthetic techniques used to facilitate the procedure of ERCP in adult (age > 18 years) patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 8); MEDLINE (1950 to September 2011); EMBASE (1950 to September 2011); CINAHL, Web of Science and LILACS (all to September 2011). We searched for additional studies drawn from reference lists of retrieved trial materials and review articles and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled studies where the main procedures performed were ERCPs. The three interventions we searched for were (1) conscious sedation (using midazolam plus opioid) versus deep sedation (using propofol); (2) conscious sedation versus general anaesthesia; and (3) deep sedation versus general anaesthesia. We considered all studies regardless of which healthcare professional administered the sedation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reviewed 124 papers and identified four randomized trials (with a total of 510 participants) that compared the use of conscious sedation using midazolam and meperidine with deep sedation using propofol in patients undergoing ERCP procedures. All sedation was administered by non-anaesthetic personnel. Due to the clinical heterogeneity of the studies we decided to review the papers from a narrative perspective as opposed to a full meta-analysis. Our primary outcome measures included mortality, major complications and inability to complete the procedure due to sedation-related problems. Secondary outcomes encompassed sedation efficacy and recovery.

MAIN RESULTS

No immediate mortality was reported. There was no significant difference in serious cardio-respiratory complications suffered by patients in either sedation group. Failure to complete the procedure due to sedation-related problems was reported in one study. Three studies found faster and better recovery in patients receiving propofol for their ERCP procedures. Study protocols regarding use of supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid administration and capnography monitoring varied considerably. The studies showed either moderate or high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results from individual studies suggested that patients have a better recovery profile after propofol sedation for ERCP procedures than after midazolam and meperidine sedation. As there was no difference between the two sedation techniques as regards safety, propofol sedation is probably preferred for patients undergoing ERCP procedures. However, in all of the studies that were identified only non-anaesthesia personnel were involved in administering the sedation. It would be helpful if further research was conducted where anaesthesia personnel were involved in the administration of sedation for ERCP procedures. This would clarify the extent to which anaesthesia personnel should be involved in the administration of propofol sedation.

Sedative techniques for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an uncomfortable therapeutic procedure that cannot be performed without adequate sedation or general anaesthesia. A considerable number of ERCPs are performed annually in the UK (at least 48,000) and many more worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of our review was to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of sedative or anaesthetic techniques used to facilitate the procedure of ERCP in adult (age > 18 years) patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 8); MEDLINE (1950 to September 2011); EMBASE (1950 to September 2011); CINAHL, Web of Science and LILACS (all to September 2011). We searched for additional studies drawn from reference lists of retrieved trial materials and review articles and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled studies where the main procedures performed were ERCPs. The three interventions we searched for were (1) conscious sedation (using midazolam plus opioid) versus deep sedation (using propofol); (2) conscious sedation versus general anaesthesia; and (3) deep sedation versus general anaesthesia. We considered all studies regardless of which healthcare professional administered the sedation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reviewed 124 papers and identified four randomized trials (with a total of 510 participants) that compared the use of conscious sedation using midazolam and meperidine with deep sedation using propofol in patients undergoing ERCP procedures. All sedation was administered by non-anaesthetic personnel. Due to the clinical heterogeneity of the studies we decided to review the papers from a narrative perspective as opposed to a full meta-analysis. Our primary outcome measures included mortality, major complications and inability to complete the procedure due to sedation-related problems. Secondary outcomes encompassed sedation efficacy and recovery.

MAIN RESULTS

No immediate mortality was reported. There was no significant difference in serious cardio-respiratory complications suffered by patients in either sedation group. Failure to complete the procedure due to sedation-related problems was reported in one study. Three studies found faster and better recovery in patients receiving propofol for their ERCP procedures. Study protocols regarding use of supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid administration and capnography monitoring varied considerably. The studies showed either moderate or high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results from individual studies suggested that patients have a better recovery profile after propofol sedation for ERCP procedures than after midazolam and meperidine sedation. As there was no difference between the two sedation techniques as regards safety, propofol sedation is probably preferred for patients undergoing ERCP procedures. However, in all of the studies that were identified only non-anaesthesia personnel were involved in administering the sedation. It would be helpful if further research was conducted where anaesthesia personnel were involved in the administration of sedation for ERCP procedures. This would clarify the extent to which anaesthesia personnel should be involved in the administration of propofol sedation.

Anaesthesia for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography is used for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. It is relatively more complex than routine endoscopies and requires adequate patient sedation. Furthermore the patients often have co-morbidities. This article provides an overview of various anaesthetic drugs and the type of anaesthesiological support.

Adverse events during monitored anesthesia care for GI endoscopy: an 8-year experience

BACKGROUND

The importance of sedation during endoscopy is well established. There is no consensus about the best techniques for sedation, which specialist should perform it, and in which location.

OBJECTIVE

To provide data on the epidemiology of adverse events during sedation for endoscopy.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of a prospective database.

SETTING

Endoscopy unit of a university hospital.

PROCEDURES

A total of 17,999 procedures performed over 8 years.

INTERVENTIONS

Sedation for GI endoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

We recorded the following information: sex, age, body mass index, smoking habits, American Society of Anesthesiologists and Mallampati scores, duration of the procedure, type of sedative drug administered, whether the procedure was performed emergently, and endoscopic interventions during the maneuver. Adverse events were defined as occurrences that warranted intervention and were classified as hypotension, desaturation, bradycardia, hypertension, arrhythmia, aspiration, respiratory depression, vomiting, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, angina, hypoglycemia, and/or allergic reaction.

RESULTS

Deep sedation with intravenous propofol target controlled infusion pump was the most frequently used means of administering sedation. Adverse events were rare in both the adult (4.5%) and pediatric (2.6%) populations. Six complications occurred in more than 0.1% of adult cases: arterial hypotension, desaturation, bradycardia, arterial hypertension, arrhythmia, and aspiration. Only bradycardia (2.1%) and hypotension (0.44%) occurred in children. Three adult patients (0.017%) died, and no pediatric patients died. Some predictive models for the occurrence of complications are proposed.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective analysis, single-center data collection.

CONCLUSIONS

Deep sedation during endoscopic procedures is safe in both adults and children. Our data may be useful for the future planning of new clinical strategies in this setting.

Balanced Propofol Sedation in Patients Undergoing EUS-FNA: A Pilot Study to Assess Feasibility and Safety

Introduction and aims. Balanced propofol sedation (BPS) administered by gastroenterologists has gained popularity in endoscopic procedures. Few studies exist about the safety of this approach during endosonography with fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). We assessed the safety of BPS in EUS-FNA. Materials and methods. 112 consecutive patients, referred to our unit to perform EUS-FNA, from February 2008 to December 2009, were sedated with BPS. A second gastroenterologist administered the drugs and monitorized the patient. Results. All the 112 patients (62 males, mean age 58.35) completed the examination. The mean dose of midazolam and propofol was, respectively, of 2.1 mg (range 1–4 mg) and 350 mg (range 180–400). All patients received oxygen with a mean flux of 4 liter/minute (range 2–6 liters/minute). The mean recovery time after procedure was 25 minutes (range 18–45 minutes). No major complications related to sedation were registered during all procedures. The oxygen saturation of all patients never reduced to less than 85%. Blood systolic pressure during and after the procedure never reduced to less than 100 mmHg. Conclusions. In our experience BPS administered by non-anaesthesiologists provided safe and successful sedation in patients undergoing EUS-FNA.

National incidence of use of monitored anesthesia care

BACKGROUND

Sedation or monitored anesthesia care (MAC), alone or after peripheral regional nerve block, is currently administered by anesthesiologists and/or certified registered nurse anesthetists. Some of this care may be at risk for substitution by other providers or by reductions in reimbursement.

METHODS

Data from the 2006 United States of America National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery were analyzed to determine national rates for the percentage of total ambulatory anesthesia operating room (OR) time that was either (1) sedation and/or MAC, or (2) peripheral regional nerve block with/without sedation or MAC.

RESULTS

MAC cases alone comprised 29%± 2% of OR time with an anesthesiologist and/or certified registered nurse anesthetist. MAC and/or peripheral block comprised 34% ± 2% of OR time. Percentages by cases were larger than by OR time (P < 0.0001). Among cases with anesthesia, 42% ± 3% were MAC and 47% ± 2% were MAC with/without peripheral block. Percentages of American Society of Anesthesiologists' Relative Value Guide units for MAC would be intermediate between the 29% and 42%, and for MAC and/or peripheral block between the 34% and 47%.

CONCLUSIONS

MAC alone or after peripheral nerve block accounts for a relatively high percentage of ambulatory anesthetics nationwide.

Sedation in the bariatric patient

Obesity is a significant health problem that has assumed epidemic proportions. A durable reduction in weight and improved morbidity and mortality have been realized with the introduction of various bariatric surgical procedures. It is unknown how safe the current practices of sedation for endoscopic procedures are in bariatric patients. Morbid obesity can result in pulmonary hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and restrictive lung disease. This article explores these issues and how they may impact the risk profile of current standards for endoscopic sedation.

Deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography

Sedation and analgesia comprise an important element of unpleasant and often prolonged endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography (ERCP), contributing, however, to better patient tolerance and compliance and to the reduction of injuries during the procedure due to inappropriate co-operation. Although most of the studies used a moderate level of sedation, the literature has revealed the superiority of deep sedation and general anesthesia in performing ERCP. The anesthesiologist’s presence is mandatory in these cases. A moderate sedation level for ERCP seems to be adequate for octogenarians. The sedative agent of choice for sedation in ERCP seems to be propofol due to its fast distribution and fast elimination time without a cumulative effect after infusion, resulting in shorter recovery time. Its therapeutic spectrum, however, is much narrower and therefore careful monitoring is much more demanding in order to differentiate between moderate, deep sedation and general anesthesia. Apart from conventional monitoring, capnography and Bispectral index or Narcotrend monitoring of the level of sedation seem to be useful in titrating sedatives in ERCP.

Efficacy of propofol sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD): assessment with prospective data collection

OBJECTIVE

The indications for endoscopic treatment in early stage cancer of the digestive tract are expanding with the emergence and technical development of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). ESD requires longer term stable sedation than conventional endoscopic procedures due to the necessity of meticulous control of the devices during the procedure. Propofol has a very short half-life and can be administered continuously, which is advantageous for long-term sedation. Propofol, thus, is likely to be useful for sedation during ESD.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients who underwent ESD for early gastric cancer with propofol sedation (Group P) and those with midazolam sedation (Group M) were included in this study. Cardiorespiratory suppression rate and the condition of arousal were compared between the groups. A questionnaire survey on the satisfaction of endoscopists, anesthesiologists, endoscopy nurses, and ward nurses with the use of propofol was also carried out.

RESULTS

Respiratory suppression was observed in 50% in Group M and in 20% in Group P (p<0.05). Hypotension was seen in 14% and 36% in Groups M and P, respectively (p<0.05). No sedation-related complications were encountered in either of the groups. Arousal rates 1 hour and 3 hours after the procedure were 23% and 60% in group M and 86% and 100% in Group P (p<0.05). As for the questionnaire survey, most respondents, in particular the ward nurses, supported the use of propofol.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that propofol is safe and useful during ESD as compared with midazolam.

Sedation in digestive endoscopy: the Athens international position statements

BACKGROUND

Guidelines and practice standards for sedation in endoscopy have been developed by various national professional societies. No attempt has been made to assess consensus among internationally recognized experts in this field.

AIM

To identify areas of consensus and dissent among international experts on a broad range of issues pertaining to the practice of sedation in digestive endoscopy.

METHODS

Thirty-two position statements were reviewed during a 1 (1/2)-day meeting. Thirty-two individuals from 12 countries and four continents, representing the fields of gastroenterology, anaesthesiology and medical jurisprudence heard evidence-based presentations on each statement. Level of agreement among the experts for each statement was determined by an open poll.

RESULTS

The principle recommendations included the following: (i) sedation improves patient tolerance and compliance for endoscopy, (ii) whenever possible, patients undergoing endoscopy should be offered the option of having the procedure either with or without sedation, (iii) monitoring of vital signs as well as the levels of consciousness and pain/discomfort should be performed routinely during endoscopy, and (iv) endoscopists and nurses with appropriate training can safely and effectively administer propofol to low-risk patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

While the standards of practice vary from country to country, there was broad agreement among participants regarding most issues pertaining to sedation during endoscopy.

Safe and effective sedation in endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a randomized comparison between propofol continuous infusion and intermittent midazolam injection

PURPOSE

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) generally takes longer to perform than conventional endoscopy and usually requires moderate/deep sedation with close surveillance for patient safety. The aim of this study was to compare the safety profiles and recovery scores propofol continuous infusion and intermittent midazolam (MDZ) injection as sedation for ESD.

METHODS

Sixty EGC patients scheduled for ESDs between August and November 2008 were included in this prospective study and randomly divided into a propofol (P-group, 28 patients) and an MDZ (M-group, 32 patients) group using an odd-even system. The P-group received a 0.8 mg/kg induction dose and a 3 mg/kg/h maintenance dose of 1% propofol using an infusion pump. All patients received 15 mg pentazocine at the start of the ESD and at 60-min intervals thereafter. We recorded and analyzed blood pressure, oxygen saturation and heart rate during and following the procedure and evaluated post-anesthetic recovery scores (PARS) and subsequent alertness scores.

RESULTS

The propofol maintenance and total dose amounts were (mean +/- standard deviation) 3.7 +/- 0.6 mg/kg/h and 395 +/- 202 mg, respectively. The mean total dose of MDZ was 10.3 +/- 4.5 mg. There were no cases of de-saturation <90% or hypotension <80 mmHg in either group. Alertness scores 15 and 60 min after the procedures were significantly higher in the P-group (4.9/4.9) than in the M-group (4.6/4.5; p < 0.05). The mean PARS 15 and 30 min after the ESDs were significantly higher in the P-group (9.6/9.9) than in the M-group (8.6/9.2; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Based on our results, the ESDs for EGC performed under sedation using propofol continuous infusion were as safe as those performed using intermittent MDZ injection. Propofol-treated patients had a quicker recovery profile than those treated with MDZ. We therefore recommend the use of continuous propofol sedation for ESD, but sedation guidelines for the use of propofol are necessary.

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

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

Incidence of sedation-related complications with propofol use during advanced endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Propofol is an effective sedative in advanced endoscopy. However, the incidence of sedation-related complications is unclear. We sought to define the frequency of sedation-related adverse events, particularly the rate of airway modifications (AMs), with propofol use during advanced endoscopy. We also evaluated independent predictors of AMs.

METHODS

Patients undergoing sedation with propofol for advanced endoscopic procedures, including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound, and small-bowel enteroscopy, were studied prospectively. Sedative dosing was determined by a certified registered nurse anesthetist with the goal of achieving deep sedation. Sedation-related complications included AMs, hypoxemia (pulse oximetry [SpO(2)] < 90%), hypotension requiring vasopressors, and early procedure termination. AMs were defined as chin lift, modified face mask ventilation, and nasal airway. We performed a regression analysis to compare characteristics of patients requiring AMs (AM+) with those who did not (AM-).

RESULTS

A total of 799 patients were enrolled over 7 months. Procedures included endoscopic ultrasound (423), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (336), and small-bowel enteroscopy (40). A total of 87.2% of patients showed no response to endoscopic intubation. Hypoxemia occurred in 12.8%, hypotension in 0.5%, and premature termination in 0.6% of the patients. No patients required bag-mask ventilation or endotracheal intubation. There were 154 AMs performed in 115 (14.4%) patients, including chin lift (12.1%), modified face mask ventilation (3.6%), and nasal airway (3.5%). Body mass index, male sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class of 3 or higher were independent predictors of AMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol can be used safely for advanced endoscopic procedures when administered by a trained professional. Independent predictors of AMs included male sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists class of 3 or higher, and increased body mass index.

Procedural sedation and obesity: waters left uncharted

BACKGROUND

Moderate sedation during endoscopy may pose increased risks among obese patients.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature that considers aspects of sedation within the obese population and to identify gaps in our knowledge.

DESIGN

Literature-based review.

RESULTS

There may be increased risks among obese patients undergoing moderate sedation. In particular, the presence of obstructive sleep apnea may identify a subset of patients at higher risk for complications.

LIMITATIONS

English language literature only.

CONCLUSIONS

Although obesity may be associated with increased risks of procedural sedation, future studies should better clarify such risks to better inform clinical decision making.

Anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Traditionally, sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures was provided by the gastroenterologist. Increasingly, however, complex procedures are being performed on seriously ill patients. As a result, anesthesiologists now are providing anesthesia and sedation in the gastrointestinal endoscopy suite for many of these patients. This article reviews the challenges encountered in this environment and anesthetic techniques that can be used successfully for these procedures.

Anesthesiology and gastroenterology

A successful population-based colorectal cancer screening requires efficient colonoscopy practices that incorporate high throughput, safety, and patient satisfaction. There are several different modalities of nonanesthesiologist-administered sedation currently available and in development that may fulfill these requirements. Modern-day gastroenterology endoscopic procedures are complex and demand the full attention of the attending gastroenterologist and the complete cooperation of the patient. Many of these procedures will also require the anesthesiologist's knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience to ensure optimal procedure results and good patient outcomes. The goal of this review is (1) to provide a gastroenterology perspective on the use of propofol in gastroenterology endoscopic practice, and (2) to describe newer GI endoscopy procedures that gastroenterologists perform that might involve anesthesiologists.