Premedication with meperidine and diazepam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy precludes the need for topical anesthesia

Quality standards in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a position statement of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)

This document represents the first position statement produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, setting out the minimum expected standards in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The need for this statement has arisen from the recognition that while technical competence can be rapidly acquired, in practice the performance of a high-quality examination is variable, with an unacceptably high rate of failure to diagnose cancer at endoscopy. The importance of detecting early neoplasia has taken on greater significance in this era of minimally invasive, organ-preserving endoscopic therapy. In this position statement we describe 38 recommendations to improve diagnostic endoscopy quality. Our goal is to emphasise practices that encourage mucosal inspection and lesion recognition, with the aim of optimising the early diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal disease and improving patient outcomes.

Flavored anesthetic lozenge versus Xylocaine spray used as topical pharyngeal anesthesia for unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The use of Xylocaine spray has been the common practice in many endoscopy centers, but scientific evidence is not conclusive on its superiority over other forms of topical anesthesia. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Xylocaine spray as a topical pharyngeal anesthesia for upper endoscopy and that of anesthetic lozenges with a characteristic flavor.

METHODS

A randomized placebo-controlled trial was performed in a single endoscopy center. For this study, 191 consecutive patients ages 18 to 70 undergoing outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy were randomized before the procedure into either a spray group (10% Xylocaine pump spray plus plain Strepsils) or a lozenge group (Strepsils Dual Action anesthetic lozenge plus distilled water spray). The primary outcome was the patient tolerance score, calculated according to the taste of the anesthetic agent, the intensity of numbness, the amount of cough or gag, and the degree of discomfort at esophageal intubation. The secondary outcomes included difficulty of esophageal intubation and the patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction score for the procedure.

RESULTS

Randomization assigned 97 patients to the lozenge group and 94 patients to the spray group. The demographic data were similar in the two groups. The spray group had a significantly higher patient tolerance score, a greater intensity of numbness, less gag reflex, and less discomfort than the lozenge group. The lozenge group had a better taste than the spray group. The difficulty of esophageal intubation and the patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical Xylocaine spray is superior to the flavored anesthetic lozenge as a topical pharyngeal anesthesia in unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

Propofol sedation alone or in combination with pharyngeal lidocaine anesthesia for routine upper GI endoscopy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

In patients undergoing routine upper EGD, propofol is increasingly used without pharyngeal anesthesia because of its excellent sedative properties. It is unclear whether this practice is non-inferior in regard to ease of endoscopic intubation and patient comfort.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relevance of local pharyngeal anesthesia regarding the ease of EGD performance in patients sedated with propofol as monotherapy.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

One community hospital and one university hospital in Switzerland.

PATIENTS

We enrolled 300 consecutive adult patients undergoing elective EGD.

INTERVENTION

Pharyngeal anesthesia with 4 squirts of lidocaine spray versus placebo spray immediately before propofol sedation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Number of gag reflexes (primary endpoint), number of intubation attempts, and degree of salivation during intubation (secondary endpoints) assessed by the endoscopists and staff.

RESULTS

In the lidocaine group, 122 patients (82%) had no gag events, and 25 patients had a total of 39 gag events, whereas in the placebo group 104 patients (71%) had no gag events, and 43 patients had a total of 111 gag events. The rate ratio of gagging with quasi-likelihood estimation of placebo compared with lidocaine was 2.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-6.19; P = .005). In adjusted logistic regression analysis, the odds ratio for gagging for placebo pharyngeal anesthesia compared with lidocaine was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.03-3.54). The number of intubation attempts and the degree of salivation were similar in both groups. Two patients in the placebo group experienced oxygen desaturation and needed short-term mask ventilation.

LIMITATIONS

The level of sedation and possible long-term side effects of pharyngeal anesthesia were not assessed.

CONCLUSION

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia reduces the gag reflex in patients sedated with propofol even though it does not seem to have an influence on the ease of the procedure and on patient or endoscopist satisfaction in adequately sedated patients.

Evaluation of topical pharyngeal anaesthesia by benzocaine lozenge for upper endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Among the randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of pharyngeal anaesthesia only some suggest benefit. Spray is irritating for some people and leaves bitter taste in the throat. We hypothesized that delivering the local anaesthetic as a sucking lozenge would benefit the patients in terms of decreasing anxiety and will improve procedure performance and patient tolerance.

AIM

To determine whether benzocaine/tyrothricin sucking lozenges with conscious sedation is superior to conscious sedation alone, with respect to procedure performance and tolerance in patients undergoing upper endoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred and seventy-four adult patients undergoing upper endoscopy with conscious sedation completed the study. They were randomized to receive sucking lozenge containing benzocaine or placebo before the procedure. Patients were asked to rate prestudy anxiety, tolerance for topical pharyngeal anaesthesia, comfort during endoscopy, degree of difficulty of intubation, postprocedure throat discomfort and willingness to undergo subsequent examinations using a 10-cm visual analogue scale. Endoscopists were asked to estimate the ease of oesophageal intubation and procedure performance.

RESULTS

No significant statistical differences regarding all the points studied were found between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical pharyngeal anaesthesia with benzocaine/tyrothricin lozenges with conscious sedation has no advantages over conscious sedation alone in patients undergoing upper endoscopy.

Pharyngeal anesthesia during sedated EGDs: is "the spray" beneficial? A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pharyngeal anesthesia is widely used as an adjunct to sedation during upper endoscopy. Methemoglobinemia and anaphylactic reactions are rare but serious complications of topical anesthetic agents. Individual studies produce variable results about the effectiveness of pharyngeal anesthesia in improving patient tolerance.

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of pharyngeal anesthesia in improving patient tolerance and ease of endoscopy during sedated upper endoscopy.

DESIGN

A MEDLINE search, an EMBASE search, and manual searches were performed to identify pertinent English language articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the efficacy of pharyngeal anesthesia to placebo or no treatment were identified. Duplicate data extraction about patient tolerance of the procedure and endoscopist assessment regarding the ease of endoscopy was performed.

RESULTS

From a pool of 53 studies, 5 RCTs evaluated a total of 491 patients and provided interpretable data. Patients who rated their discomfort during the sedated procedure as none/minimal were more likely to have received pharyngeal anesthesia (odds ratio [OR] 1.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-3.12). Endoscopists were more likely to rate the procedure as "not difficult" for patients who received pharyngeal anesthesia (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.63-4.17).

LIMITATIONS

Lack of standardized outcome measurements and standardized sedation strategies led to heterogeneity in the patient-tolerance portion of the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharyngeal anesthesia before upper endoscopy improves ease of endoscopy and also improves patient tolerance.

Is routine sedation or topical pharyngeal anesthesia beneficial during upper endoscopy?

BACKGROUND

Upper endoscopy is an invasive procedure. However, the benefits of routinely administered sedative medication or topical pharyngeal anesthesic are controversial. The aim of this study was to clarify their effects on patient tolerance and difficulty of upper endoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 252 patients scheduled for diagnostic upper endoscopy were randomly assigned to 4 groups: (1) sedation with midazolam and placebo pharyngeal spray (midazolam group), (2) placebo sedation and lidocaine pharyngeal spray (lidocaine group), (3) placebo sedation and placebo pharyngeal spray (placebo group), and (4) no intravenous cannula/pharyngeal spray (control group). The endoscopist and the patient assessed the procedure immediately after the examination. Another questionnaire was sent to the patients 2 weeks later.

RESULTS

Patients in the midazolam group rated the examination easier and less uncomfortable compared with those in the other groups. The differences were especially evident in the questionnaires completed 2 weeks after the examination ( p < 0.001). Lidocaine did not significantly improve patient tolerance. However, endoscopists found the procedure easier in patients in the lidocaine group compared with the midazolam ( p < 0.01) and control groups ( p < 0.01) but not the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine administration of midazolam for sedation increased patient tolerance for upper endoscopy. However, endoscopists found intubation to be more difficult in sedated vs. non-sedated patients. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia did not enhance patient tolerance, but it did make upper endoscopy technically easier compared with endoscopy in patients sedated with midazolam without topical pharyngeal anesthesia, and in patients who had no sedation or pharyngeal anesthesia, but not in patients who received placebo sedation and placebo pharyngeal anesthesia.

Efficacy, safety, and limitations in current practice of sedation and analgesia

The ease and availability of endoscopy as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality for gastrointestinal disorders has greatly increased the number of procedures performed in the United States. One of the main factors in achieving a flawless procedure is the use of sedation and analgesia in endoscopy. This article examines the efficacy, safety, and limitations inherent in the current practice of sedation and analgesia.

Guidelines for conscious sedation and monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.

Midazolam-induced sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: assessment of endoscopist and patient satisfaction

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy can be performed without intravenous sedation but the evidence suggests most patients and endoscopists prefer some form of premedication. Intravenous diazepam or midazolam are used by the majority of endoscopists in the United States, though it is not common practice in Turkey where this study was conducted. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of midazolam in performing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. A total of 352 patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were sedated with midazolam given as a bolus injection over 5 seconds. Ages of the patients ranged between 16 and 79 years (average: 41.6 +/- 12.7 years). The course of endoscopy, anterograde memory, degree of cooperation, degree of sedation, side effects, and acceptability of further intervention were evaluated by a questionnaire given to the patients and endoscopists.

Importance of psychiatric intervention in intolerances in endoscopic procedures

Despite the fact that pre-medication, in a number of different drug combinations, has been used for a long time in endoscopy units, and has been subject to extended clinical studies, it is still not possible to claim that it has attained an ideal state with regard to patient tolerance to endoscopy procedures. In this clinical study, we have investigated the effects of psychological intervention in addition to medication, which we used on patients with intolerance to endoscopy. Intolerance was very high in all endoscopic procedures (15.8% total). It was observed that average midazolam doses were significantly higher in intolerant than in tolerant patients. It was found that in patients who had received psychiatric intervention, the decrease in midazolam dose was statistically significant in a subsequent endoscopy procedure.

The comparison of midazolam and topical lidocaine spray versus the combination of midazolam, meperidine, and topical lidocaine spray to sedate patients for upper endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Whether an opiate-benzodiazepine combination is superior to benzodiazepine alone for sedation in upper endoscopy is controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of intravenous midazolam alone versus the combination of intravenous midazolam and intravenous meperidine for the sedation of patients undergoing upper endoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred seven patients scheduled for outpatient diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy were randomly assigned to receive 50 mg intravenous meperidine (53 of 107) or placebo (54 of 107). All patients received topical lidocaine spray and as much midazolam as the endoscopist thought the patient needed. Patients and endoscopists were blinded as to assignment. Data collected included intubation time (seconds), procedure time (minutes), pulse, blood pressure, complications, and the need for reversal agents. The endoscopist evaluated the quality of sedation immediately after the procedure (1 = excellent, 2 = good, 3 = fair, and 4 = poor). The patient evaluated the procedure the next day by phone (1 = no discomfort or did not remember, 2 = slightly uncomfortable, 3 = extremely uncomfortable, and 4 = unacceptable). Patients were also asked whether they would agree to another esophagogastroduodenoscopy if their doctor thought it was medically necessary.

RESULTS

The intubation time, procedure time and blood pressure were not significantly different between the 2 groups. In comparing the meperidine group versus placebo group, the highest pulse (82.3 vs. 93.7, p = 0.0010), lowest pulse (67.2 vs. 72.3, p = 0.0194) and amount of midazolam used (4.0 vs. 4.8 mg, p = 0.0185 or 0.53 vs. 0.67 mg/kg, p = 0.0083) were significantly different by using a t test analysis. Patient evaluations comparing meperidine versus placebo showed responses of 1 (52 vs. 49), 2 (1 vs. 3), 3 (0 vs. 2) and 4 (0 vs. 0), which were not significantly different. The endoscopists'evaluation comparing meperidine versus placebo gave responses of excellent (44 vs. 27), good (6 vs. 22), fair (3 vs. 5) and poor (0 vs. 0), which were highly significantly different (p < 0.001) by using chi-square statistical techniques.

CONCLUSION

The addition of meperidine to midazolam in sedating patients undergoing upper endoscopy adds no benefit from the patient viewpoint, whereas endoscopists favored the use of both medications.

Evaluation of topical pharyngeal anesthesia for upper endoscopy including factors associated with patient tolerance

BACKGROUND

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia is generally used as a pretreatment for upper endoscopy. However its efficacy has not been established.

METHODS

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study was undertaken. Subjects were 201 patients who underwent upper endoscopy and gave informed consent. Relative risks (RR) of patient discomfort were calculated for pharyngeal anesthesia, anxiety, and other potential confounding factors by using logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The RR of patient discomfort on intubation was 0.56 for the anesthesia versus the placebo group (95% CI, 0.31-1.01). RR was higher in patients aged 39 or younger than in those 40 or over (RR = 2.22, 95% CI, 1.04-4.74). With subgroup analysis in those examinees less than 40 years old, the RR of patient discomfort was 0.21 for the topical anesthesia (95% CI, 0.04-0.99) versus the placebo group and 4.93 for patients undergoing upper endoscopy for the first time (95% CI, 1.13-21.60). In the first-time patients, the RR was lower in the topical anesthesia than in the placebo group (RR = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-0.93); it was higher in patients with a trait-anxiety score higher by 10 points than in those with a lower score (RR = 3.35, 95% CI, 1.01-11.15). With the Bonferroni correction for multiple testing of data, statistical significance is indicated by a CI of 97.5% in the subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia appears to be effective in patients less than 40 years old and in those undergoing the procedure for the first time. A high trait-anxiety score could be a predictor of discomfort in first-time examinees.

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia does not improve upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in conscious sedated patients

OBJECTIVE

We undertook this study to determine whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia with conscious sedation is superior to conscious sedation alone, with respect to procedure performance or tolerance in patients undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Ninety-five patients undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy with conscious sedation were randomized to receive either topical pharyngeal anesthesia with 2% tetracaine/14% benzocaine spray or no pharyngeal anesthesia. Conscious sedation was achieved in all patients using intravenous midazolam and meperidine. Patients were asked to rate their pretest anxiety, comfort during endoscopy, recollection of the procedure, and willingness to undergo subsequent examinations using a 100-mm visual analog scale. Additionally, they were asked to estimate procedure duration and rate their tolerance for topical pharyngeal anesthesia. All examinations were performed by two endoscopists who were blinded to whether or not patients had received pharyngeal anesthesia. Endoscopists were asked to determine whether they believed that patients had received topical pharyngeal anesthesia and to estimate ease of esophageal intubation and procedure performance using a 100-mm visual analog scale. Procedure duration and doses of midazolam and meperidine were measured.

RESULTS

The two groups did not differ with respect to age, gender, and previous endoscopic history. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to pretest anxiety, procedural comfort, and willingness to undergo subsequent examinations. Patients receiving topical pharyngeal anesthesia rated it as moderately unpleasant. Endoscopists were able to discriminate patients who received pharyngeal anesthesia from those who did not with a sensitivity of 0.73 and a specificity of 0.59. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to ease of intubation, procedure performance, procedure duration, and dosing of midazolam or meperidine.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy using intravenous midazolam and meperidine, the use of topical pharyngeal anesthesia does not improve patient tolerance or procedure performance. Elimination of this agent in the performance of diagnostic upper endoscopy will save time and money without adversely affecting patient care or outcomes.

Prospective analysis of complications 30 days after outpatient upper endoscopy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare complication rates reported by patients 30 days after outpatient upper endoscopy with those discussed at our monthly morbidity and mortality conference. We also intended to establish which complications were reported most frequently 30 days after upper endoscopy, and which patients or procedures involved the highest risk.

METHODS

Trained interviewers performed standardized telephone interviews on consecutive outpatients undergoing upper endoscopy over a 1-yr period. Patients were queried regarding potential events related to their upper endoscopy in the 30 days subsequent, including symptoms, emergency room (ER) and/or physician visits, and hospitalizations. The indications, findings, and therapies were reviewed from endoscopic reports.

RESULTS

A total of 473 patients were contacted 30 days after outpatient upper endoscopy and agreed to participate in our study. The most common complications reported by patients at 30 days were sore throat (9.5%) and abdominal discomfort (5.3%). Twelve patients (2.5%) required an ER/physician visit and five patients (1.1%) required hospitalization. The minority of both ER/physician visits (16.7%) and hospitalizations (40%) were discussed at our monthly morbidity and mortality conferences.

CONCLUSIONS

More complications were reported by patients 30 days after outpatient upper endoscopy than were discussed at our monthly morbidity and mortality conferences. The most frequent complications reported by patients were sore throat and abdominal pain. The minority of ER/physician visits and hospitalizations were discussed at our morbidity and mortality conferences.

Conscious sedation for gastroscopy: patient tolerance and cardiorespiratory parameters

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Most patients receive conscious sedation for gastroscopy. However, the benefit of the most often used combination of low-dose intravenous midazolam and topical lidocaine on patient tolerance remains poorly defined and has not been shown to outweigh cardiorespiratory risks. To respond to these issues, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective study was performed.

METHODS

Two hundred outpatients undergoing diagnostic gastroscopy were assigned to receive either (1) midazolam (35 micrograms/kg) and lidocaine spray (100 mg), (2) midazolam and placebo lidocaine, (3) placebo midazolam and lidocaine, or (4) placebo midazolam and placebo lidocaine.

RESULTS

Tolerance (visual analogue scale, 0-100 points; 0, excellent; 100, unbearable) improved as compared with placebo midazolam and placebo lidocaine by 23 points (95% confidence interval, 15-32) in group 1, 15 points (95% confidence interval, 7-24) in group 2, and 10 points (95% confidence interval, 2-18) in group 3. Increasing age (P < 0.001), low anxiety (P < 0.001), and male sex (P < 0.03), but not amnesia, were associated with better patient tolerance. Oxygen desaturation (< 1 minute) occurred in 8.2% and was not more frequent after midazolam treatment. Hypotension was rare (2.1%), and no adverse outcome occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Both low-dose midazolam (35 micrograms/kg) and lidocaine spray have an additive beneficial effect on patients tolerance and rarely induce significant alterations in cardiorespiratory monitoring parameters, thus supporting the widespread use of conscious sedation.

Topical anesthesia with 50 mg of lidocaine spray facilitates upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

To investigate the value of 50 mg of topical lidocaine spray in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study was undertaken with 50 mg of lidocaine spray as the active treatment. All patients were sedated with diazepam after administration of the spray. Included in the study were 158 consecutive patients aged 18 years or older being treated at the endoscopy unit of Scunthorpe district general hospital. Tolerance to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy as assessed by endoscopists and patients was evaluated. Of the 158 patients, 85 received the placebo spray and 73 the lidocaine spray. Patient acceptability for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was significantly greater in the lidocaine group than in the placebo group (p = 0.001), and tolerance to the procedure as assessed by the endoscopist was also significantly greater in the lidocaine group than in the placebo group (p = 0.008). We conclude that topical anesthesia with 50 mg of lidocaine spray facilitates upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the endoscopist and increases patient tolerance for the procedure.

Is oropharyngeal anaesthesia with topical lignocaine useful in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy?

The aim of this study was to determine whether patients' tolerance of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is related to the dose of lignocaine spray used for oropharyngeal anaesthesia and to measure plasma concentrations at these doses. Sixty consecutive patients undergoing routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation were randomized to receive lignocaine spray 50 mg (Group A), 100 mg (Group B) or 200 mg (Group C). Patient, endoscopist and endoscopy nurse were unaware of the variation in dose used. Each patient's tolerance of the intubation and of the remainder of the gastroscopy was assessed independently by the patient, endoscopy nurse, and endoscopist using a visual analogue scale. Plasma lignocaine concentration was measured at 20, 40, 60 and 80 min after administration of the spray. Fifty (83%) patients were unable to recall either the intubation, or the procedure. On the endoscopy nurse's assessment, the patients in Group B tolerated the intubation better than those in Group A, and Groups B and C tolerated the remainder of the gastroscopy better than those in Group A. On the endoscopist's assessment, Groups B and C tolerated the remainder of the gastroscopy better than Group A. There were fewer gags per min in Groups B and C compared to Group A. Mean plasma lignocaine concentrations showed a dose-dependent absorption of the spray, but none exceeded the potentially toxic level of 5 mg/L.

Evaluation of safe, effective intravenous sedation for utilization in endoscopic procedures

The prevention of anesthetic mishaps during endoscopic procedures is of great importance to physicians in training. With the large number of such procedures performed each year, even infrequent adverse anesthetic reactions may result in a significant number of problems. To establish the safety and efficacy of an anesthetic regimen using intravenous meperidine and diazepam, all endoscopic procedures performed at one teaching institution in a 4-month period were retrospectively analyzed with regard to: (1) type and dosage of sedation/anesthesia, (2) endoscopic procedure involved, (3) effect of any underlying disease state, (4) side effects, (5) endoscopic complications, and (6) overall patient acceptance. A total of 716 patients underwent 913 endoscopic procedures with 876 separate anesthetic/intravenous sedations. General anesthesia was utilized in 44% of the 155 pediatric procedures. In the adult patients, intravenous sedation was administered by a physician-in-training under supervision except in 9% of cases (66 patients) when intravenous sedation utilizing alternative agents was given by the anesthesia department. The dose of sedation used (per body weight) declined with increasing age in the pediatric group (0-19 years). The adult dose remained constant for the next eight decades of life (meperidine 0.76 +/- 0.33 mg/kg: diazepam 0.12 +/- 0.08 mg/kg). In the adult group, 758 procedures were performed: 371 patients underwent esophago-gastroduodenoscopy, 258 colonoscopy, 36 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, 40 flexible sigmoidoscopy, and 51 percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Anesthetic-related complications (transient apnea and itching), were noted in two patients, and naloxone was utilized to reverse oversedation in a further 17 (2.56%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Premedication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Premedication is not essential to endoscopy but patient tolerance is clearly improved and, thus, ease of examination. Although comparable results can be achieved through nonpharmacologic means, the time and effort involved precludes their widespread use. Despite near universal utilization of premedication in endoscopy, the associated risk is difficult to determine from the available literature. The reported data reveal nominal risk yet must be viewed as minimums. The ideal drug with predictable clinical effects, minimal postprocedure impairment, little respiratory compromise, and proven antagonist is not yet available. Although midazolam seems to represent an advance, recent emphasis on respiratory depression is particularly troublesome. Studies evaluating various agents have suffered from lack of quantitation of such parameters as patient tolerance, ease of examination, and postprocedure impairment. Development of proven standards for these parameters would have to occur before a definitive double-blind randomized trial could be undertaken. Suggested means of assessing these parameters are listed in Table I. Improvement in major morbidity would be difficult in light of its low incidence. As the search for the ideal drug continues, endoscopists must continue to use drugs whose full effects are incompletely understood. The ability to increase patient comfort must be balanced with the small, but ever present, risk of morbidity and mortality.