Is routinely given conscious sedation of benefit during colonoscopy?

Comparison of the Sedative Effect of Ketamine, Magnesium Sulfate, and Propofol in Patients Undergoing Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Double-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy provides valuable diagnostic information and intervention therapies for gastroenterologists. Therefore, various drugs have been used to induce sedation in patients undergoing endoscopy, whereas none have been considered preferred by endoscopists. In the current study, we decided to use the combination of magnesium sulfate, ketamine, and their synergistic effects for creating partial analgesia to increase the satisfaction of endoscopists and patients.

METHODS

This study is a Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial that investigates the sedative effect of ketamine, magnesium sulfate, and propofol in endoscopy. Patients were selected from individuals over 12 years old and with American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) physical status I or II. The study was performed on 210 patients classified as ASA (I have no underlying disease) or II (with underlying controlled disease). The whole group was relieved of pain through sedation according to Ramsay criteria, satisfaction with the operation, duration, recovery, nausea and vomiting, hypotension, and decreased oxygen saturation were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients were enrolled in our study, including 51 patients (midazolam and propofol), 55 patients (midazolam and ketamine), and 49 patients (midazolam and ketamine and magnesium). The results showed that preoperative heart rate, intraoperative systolic blood pressure, intraoperative diastolic blood pressure, postoperative heart rate, postoperative systolic blood pressure, and postoperative heart rate were significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The satisfaction of the endoscopic was achieved to a great extent, mainly in the group receiving midazolam and propofol and in the group receiving midazolam and ketamine. In most cases, the satisfaction of the endoscopic was acceptable, and the low satisfaction of the endoscopic was more in the group receiving midazolam. Ketamine and magnesium were observed. The two compounds midazolam-ketamine, and midazolam-propofol, have a more favorable effect than the combination of midazolam, ketamine, and magnesium.

Safety and efficacy of pentazocine–midazolam combination for pain and anxiety relief in radiofrequency ablation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Background and Aim

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) therapy is frequently used as first‐line treatment for small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). RFA is often associated with pain; however, no definitive solution has been established for its relief. We retrospectively analyzed the safety and efficacy of the combination of pentazocine and midazolam to relieve pain experienced by HCC patients undergoing RFA.

Methods

We studied 77 patients with 98 HCCs treated with RFA between January 2015 and August 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: the sedative‐free group, which included those who received pentazocine alone, and the pentazocine–midazolam group, which included those who received a combination of pentazocine and midazolam. The degrees of analgesia and sedation were evaluated using the numerical rating scale (NRS) and the Richmond Agitation‐Sedation Scale (RASS), respectively. Other parameters such as treatment time, awakening time, midazolam dosage, vital signs, local recurrence rate, and time to recurrence were also examined.

Results

The median NRS score and RASS score were significantly lower in the pentazocine–midazolam group. Ninety‐five percent of patients in the pentazocine–midazolam group had no memory of the RFA session. The treatment time and awakening time were prolonged for the pentazocine–midazolam group. No significant differences in oxygen saturation, recurrence rates, and time to local recurrence were observed between groups.

Conclusion

A combination of pentazocine and midazolam is safe and effective for pain and anxiety relief experienced by patients undergoing RFA for local treatment of HCC.

Colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines

The Colonoscopy Screening and Surveillance Guidelines were developed by the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society as basic guidelines based on the scientific methods. The importance of endoscopic screening and surveillance for both detection and post-treatment follow-up of colorectal cancer has been recognized as essential to reduce disease mortality. There is limited high-level evidence in this field; therefore, we had to focus on the consensus of experts. These clinical practice guidelines consist of 20 clinical questions and eight background knowledge topics that have been determined as the current guiding principles.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

Feasibility of a transmucosal sublingual fentanyl tablet as a procedural pain treatment in colonoscopy patients: a prospective placebo-controlled randomized study

Since patients often experience pain and unpleasantness during a colonoscopy, the present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sublingually administered fentanyl tablets for pain treatment. Furthermore, since the use of intravenous drugs significantly increases colonoscopy costs, sublingual tablets could be a cost-effective alternative to intravenous sedation. We conducted a prospective placebo-controlled randomized study of 158 patients to evaluate the analgesic effect of a 100 µg dose of sublingual fentanyl administered before a colonoscopy. Pain, sedation, nausea, and satisfaction were assessed during the colonoscopy by the patients as well as the endoscopists and nurses. Respiratory rate and peripheral arteriolar oxygen saturation were monitored throughout the procedure. There were no differences between the fentanyl and placebo groups in any of the measured variables. The median pain intensity values, as measured using a numerical rating scale, were 4.5 in the fentanyl group and 5 in the placebo group. The sedation and oxygen saturation levels and the respiratory rate did not differ between the groups. The majority of the colonoscopies were completed.Our results indicate that a 100 µg dose of sublingual fentanyl is not beneficial compared to the placebo in the treatment of procedural pain during a colonoscopy.

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

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

Colonoscopy quality with Entonox®vs intravenous conscious sedation: 18608 colonoscopy retrospective study

AIM

To compare colonoscopy quality with nitrous oxide gas (Entonox®) against intravenous conscious sedation using midazolam plus opioid.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospectively held database of 18608 colonoscopies carried out in Lothian health board hospitals between July 2013 and January 2016. The quality of colonoscopies performed with Entonox was compared to intravenous conscious sedation (abbreviated in this article as IVM). Furthermore, the quality of colonoscopies performed with an unmedicated group was compared to IVM. The study used the following key markers of colonoscopy quality: (1) patient comfort scores; (2) caecal intubation rates (CIRs); and (3) polyp detection rates (PDRs). We used binary logistic regression to model the data.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the rate of moderate-to-extreme discomfort between the Entonox and IVM groups (17.9% vs 18.8%; OR = 1.06, 95%CI: 0.95-1.18, P = 0.27). Patients in the unmedicated group were less likely to experience moderate-to-extreme discomfort than those in the IVM group (11.4% vs 18.8%; OR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.60-0.83, P < 0.001). There was no difference in caecal intubation between the Entonox and IVM groups (94.4% vs 93.7%; OR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.92-1.28, P = 0.34). There was no difference in caecal intubation between the unmedicated and IVM groups (94.2% vs 93.7%; OR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.79-1.22, P = 0.87). Polyp detection in the Entonox group was not different from IVM group (35.0% vs 33.1%; OR = 1.01, 95%CI: 0.93-1.10, P = 0.79). Polyp detection in the unmedicated group was not significantly different from the IVM group (37.4% vs 33.1%; OR = 0.97, 95%CI: 0.87-1.08, P = 0.60).

CONCLUSION

The use of Entonox was not associated with lower colonoscopy quality when compared to intravenous conscious sedation using midazolam plus opioid.

Midazolam for sedation before procedures

BACKGROUND

Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.

The role of routinely given hyoscine-N-butylbromide in colonoscopy: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Hyoscine-N-butylbromide (HBB) has been proposed to ease colonoscopy and improve mucosal visualization, yet the results from previous studies are conflicting. In our prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study we aimed at evaluating whether routine administration of HBB, before and during colonoscopy, ease the procedure or increase the detection rate for polyps.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred fifty outpatients scheduled for an elective colonoscopy were randomized to receive intravenous injections of either 10 mg hyoscine-N-butylbromide or saline before insertion and at cecum. Patient tolerance and technical ease of colonoscopy were evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS). Procedure times were recorded. Number of detected polyps per patient was evaluated as well. Heart rate was monitored with a pulse oximetry.

RESULTS

HBB did not improve patient tolerance or technically ease the procedure as evaluated by VAS. However, HBB led to faster ileal intubation (1.5 vs 2.0 min, p < 0.001) and shorter total procedure time (22.0 vs 24.0 min, p = 0.03). Patients who received HBB also needed less often external abdominal pressure (48.6 vs 66.7%, p = 0.03). HBB did not improve polyp detection rate (0.89 vs 0.91, p = 0.90). HBB induced a significant rise in heart rate (p < 0.001) and more often tachycardia (17.6 vs 0%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine administration of HBB before and during colonoscopy yields only limited improvement in the technical performance of the examination compromised by high incidence of tachycardia.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy

Recently, the need for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy has been increasing. However, the National Health Insurance Drug Price list in Japan does not include any drug specifically used for the sedation. Although benzodiazepines are the main medication, their use in cases of gastrointestinal endoscopy has not been approved. This has led the Japan Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Society to develop the first set of guidelines for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy on the basis of evidence-based medicine in collaboration with the Japanese Society for Anesthesiologists. The present guidelines comprise 14 statements, five of which were judged to be valid on the highest evidence level and three on the second highest level. The guidelines are not intended to strongly recommend the use of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but rather to indicate the policy as to the choice of appropriate procedures when such sedation is deemed necessary. In clinical practice, the final decision as to the use of sedation should be made by physicians considering patient willingness and physical condition.

Time trends in quality indicators of colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

There is considerable variation in the quality of colonoscopy performance. The Norwegian quality assurance programme Gastronet registers outpatient colonoscopies performed in Norwegian endoscopy centres. The aim of Gastronet is long-term improvement of endoscopist and centre performance by annual feedback of performance data.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to perform an analysis of trends of quality indicators for colonoscopy in Gastronet.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 73,522 outpatient colonoscopies from 73 endoscopists at 25 endoscopy centres from 2003 to 2012. We used multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for relevant variables to determine annual trends of three performance indicators: caecum intubation rate, pain during the procedure, and detection rate of polyps ≥5 mm.

RESULTS

The proportion of severely painful colonoscopies decreased from 14.8% to 9.2% (relative risk reduction of 38%; OR = 0.92 per year in Gastronet; 95% CI 0.86-1.00; p = 0.045). Caecal intubation (OR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.94-1.04; p = 0.6) and polyp detection (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.99-1.07; p = 0.15) remained unchanged during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain at colonoscopy showed a significant decrease during years of Gastronet participation while caecal intubation and polyp detection remained unchanged - independent of the use of sedation and/or analgesics and level of endoscopist experience. This may be due to the Gastronet audit, but effects of improved endoscopy technology cannot be excluded.

Effect of midazolam on cardiopulmonary function during colonoscopy with conscious sedation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Conscious sedation of patients with midazolam reduces anxiety and pain and improves colonoscopy success rates. However, it may lead to adverse effects such as hypoxia and hypotension. The present study investigated the effects of midazolam on cardiopulmonary function during colonoscopy with conscious sedation.

METHODS

Between January 2011 and September 2011, 126 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled and divided into two groups: (i) sedation with midazolam (midazolam group, n=65); and (ii) no sedation (control group, n=61). Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO(2) ), were recorded before, during and after the endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

In the midazolam group, SBP and DBP decreased more during colonoscopy than in the control group. However, the frequency of a significant change in SBP was similar in both groups. During colonoscopy, HR and SpO(2) decreased significantly in the midazolam group compared to those in the control group. SpO(2) levels returned to normal after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Midazolam induced decreases in SBP, DBP, HR and SpO(2) during colonoscopy. Clinically significant changes in SBP, HR, and SpO(2) , however, were similar in the midazolam and control groups. These results suggest that midazolam has a tolerable effect on cardiopulmonary function and may be safely used during colonoscopy.

Safety analysis of endoscopist-directed propofol sedation: a prospective, national multicenter study of 24 441 patients in German outpatient practices

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Since 2008, there exists a German S3-guideline allowing non-anesthesiological administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. In this prospective, national, multicenter study, we evaluated the safety of endoscopist-administered propofol sedation (EDP) in German outpatient practices of Gastroenterology.

METHODS

In this multicenter survey of 53 ambulatory practices of Gastroenterology, we prospectively evaluated 24 441 patients that had received EDP. We recorded adverse events during the endoscopic procedure and additionally retrieved questionnaires investigating subjective parameters 24 h after the endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

In 24 441 patients 13 793 colonoscopies, 6467 esophagogastroduodenoscopies, and 4181 double examinations were performed. In this study, 52.1% of the patients received propofol mono-sedation, and 47.9% received a combination of midazolam and propofol. Major adverse events occurred in four patients (0.016%) enrolled to this study (three mask ventilations and one laryngospasm). Minor adverse events were observed in 112 patients (0.46%) with hypoxemia being the most common minor event. All patients with adverse events recovered without persistent impairment. Minor adverse events occurred more frequently in patients sedated with propofol mono compared to propofol and midazolam (P < 0.0001) and correlated with increasing propofol dosages (P < 0.001; Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.044). Twenty-four hours after the endoscopy, patients sedated with propofol plus midazolam stated a significantly reduced sensation of pain (P < 0.01) and improved symptoms of dizziness, nausea and vomiting (P < 0.001) compared to patients having received propofol mono-sedation.

CONCLUSION

Four years after the implementation of a German S3-Guideline for endoscopic sedation, we demonstrated that EDP is a safe procedure.

[Colonoscopy quality control as a requirement of colorectal cancer screening]

The strategies used in population-based colorectal screening strategies culminate in colonoscopy and consequently the success of these programs largely depends on the quality of this diagnostic test. The main factors to consider when evaluating quality are scientific-technical quality, safety, patient satisfaction, and accessibility. Quality indicators allow variability among hospitals, endoscopy units and endoscopists to be determined and can identify those not achieving recommended standards. In Spain, the working group for colonoscopy quality of the Spanish Society of Gastroenterology and the Spanish Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy have recently drawn up a Clinical Practice Guideline that contains the available evidence on the quality of screening colonoscopy, as well as the basic requirements that must be met by endoscopy units and endoscopists carrying out this procedure. The implementation of training programs and screening colonoscopy quality controls are strongly recommended to guarantee the success of population-based colorectal cancer screening.

Analgesia without sedatives during colonoscopies: worth considering?

Colonoscopy is a proven method for bowel cancer screening and is often experienced as a painful procedure. Today, there are two main strategies to facilitate colonoscopy. First, deep sedation results in satisfied patients but increases sedation-associated risks and raises costs for healthcare providers. Second, there is the advocacy for colonoscopies without any form of sedation. This might be an option for a special group of patients, but does not hold true for everybody. Following Moerman’s hypothesis: “If pain is the crucial point, why do we need sedation?” this review shows the analgesic options for a painless procedure, increasing success rates without increasing risk of sedation. There are two agents, with the potential to be a nearly ideal analgesic agent for colonoscopy: alfentanil and nitrous oxide (N₂O). Administration of either substance causes the patient to be comfortable yet alert and facilitates a short turnover. Advantages of these drugs include rapid onset and offset of action, analgesic and anxiolytic effects, ease of titration to desired level, rapid recovery, and an excellent safety profile.

Randomized trial of standard versus magnetic endoscope imaging colonoscopes for unsedated colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Unsedated colonoscopy has potential benefits, including decreased costs and decreased risks.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether patient comfort during unsedated colonoscopy can be improved through the use of a magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI) colonoscope compared with a standard colonoscope.

DESIGN

Prospective, patient-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

PATIENTS

Veterans undergoing outpatient screening or surveillance colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Use of a standard or MEI colonoscope during unsedated colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

The primary outcome variable was patient perception of pain using a 7-point scale. The secondary endpoint was patient willingness to undergo a future unsedated colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Of the 160 patients enrolled, 140 completed an unsedated colonoscopy in the study protocol. In a per-protocol analysis, the mean and median pain score was 3.12 (standard deviation 1.22) and 4 (interquartile range 2-4) for the standard colonoscope group and 3.06 (standard deviation 1.13) and 3 (interquartile range 2-4) for the MEI group, where 3 was mild pain (P = not significant). Overall, 80% of subjects were willing to undergo a future unsedated colonoscopy for screening or surveillance. In an intention-to-treat analysis, 80% of subjects (64/80) in the standard colonoscope arm and 79% in the MEI arm (63/80) were willing to undergo a future unsedated colonoscopy (P = not significant).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study of mostly male veterans.

CONCLUSIONS

This patient-blinded, randomized, controlled trial did not demonstrate any difference in patient perception of pain or willingness to undergo unsedated examinations when using the MEI versus the conventional colonoscope. Unsedated colonoscopy is generally feasible and well tolerated and is associated with high patient satisfaction rates.

Nitrous oxide for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for large bowel disease. With the increase in demand, pressure is on clinics to shorten lengths of time per procedure in addition to maintaining high levels of patient safety. Analgesia has always been the mainstay of adequate pain relief, but it leads to prolonged recovery and lengths of hospital stay, in addition to increased risk of cardio-respiratory side effects. N2O/O2 mixtures have been used for its effective analgesic effect and short half life and provides an alternative method of sedation for colonoscopy procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to compare the overall effectiveness of nitrous oxide mixtures to other types of pain relief used during colonoscopy procedures to provide adequate pain/discomfort relief.The secondary objective was to compare between nitrous oxide and other types of pain relief with respect to hospitalisation/recovery time, side effects, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, and colonoscopy completion rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966- present), EMBASE (1980 - present), and the Internet (Google Scholar).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials which compared nitrous oxide to placebo or active comparators for patients undergoing elective colonoscopic procedures. Patients with known underlying causes of pain/discomfort were excluded. 

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Seven randomised trials were included. Each trial compared a nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture to a placebo or sedation +- other analgesic drugs on patients undergoing elective colonoscopic procedures. The results of these studies were analysed and discussed.

MAIN RESULTS

There were a total of 547 patients included.There were 257 patients randomised to receive the N2O/O2 mixture (7 studies), while 225 patients received some form of sedation with or without other analgesia (6 studies), and 65 patients received a placebo (3 studies).Four studies showed that N2O/O2 is as good in controlling pain/discomfort as conventional methods, while one showed sedation was better and another study showed N2O/O2 was better.Six of the studies showed that N2O/O2 groups had quicker recovery times and shorter lengths of hospital stays while one study showed that there was no difference between the two groups.Two studies showed that N2O/O2 was safer while one reported that sedation was safer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nitrous oxide is as efficient and safer than various pain relief methods used during colonoscopy procedures, but further trials are necessary.

Nitrous oxide for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for large bowel disease. With the increase in demand, pressure is on clinics to shorten lengths of time per procedure in addition to maintaining high levels of patient safety. Analgesia has always been the mainstay of adequate pain relief, but it leads to prolonged recovery and lengths of hospital stay, in addition to increased risk of cardio-respiratory side effects. N2O/O2 mixtures have been used for its effective analgesic effect and short half life and provides an alternative method of sedation for colonoscopy procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to compare the overall effectiveness of nitrous oxide mixtures to other types of pain relief used during colonoscopy procedures to provide adequate pain/discomfort relief.The secondary objective was to compare between nitrous oxide and other types of pain relief with respect to hospitalisation/recovery time, side effects, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, and colonoscopy completion rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966- present), EMBASE (1980 - present), and the Internet (Google Scholar).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials which compared nitrous oxide to placebo or active comparators for patients undergoing elective colonoscopic procedures. Patients with known underlying causes of pain/discomfort were excluded. 

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Seven randomised trials were included. Each trial compared a nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture to a placebo or sedation +- other analgesic drugs on patients undergoing elective colonoscopic procedures. The results of these studies were analysed and discussed.

MAIN RESULTS

There were a total of 547 patients included.There were 257 patients randomised to receive the N2O/O2 mixture (7 studies), while 225 patients received some form of sedation with or without other analgesia (6 studies), and 65 patients received a placebo (3 studies).Four studies showed that N2O/O2 is as good in controlling pain/discomfort as conventional methods, while one showed sedation was better and another study showed N2O/O2 was better.Six of the studies showed that N2O/O2 groups had quicker recovery times and shorter lengths of hospital stays while one study showed that there was no difference between the two groups.Two studies showed that N2O/O2 was safer while one reported that sedation was safer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nitrous oxide is as efficient and safer than various pain relief methods used during colonoscopy procedures, but further trials are necessary.

The water method significantly enhances proximal diminutive adenoma detection rate in unsedated patients

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy has been reported to fail to prevent some post screening colonoscopy incident cancers or minimize cancer mortality in the proximal colon. These reports question the effectiveness of colonoscopy in detecting all proximal adenomas. Diminutive ones which can be obscured by residual feces are particularly at risk. The water method provides salvage cleansing of sub-optimal preparations. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the water method enhances proximal diminutive adenoma detection rate (ADR). DESIGN: The data bases of two parallel RCT were combined and analyzed. SETTING: Two Veterans Affairs endoscopy units. PATIENT AND METHODS: The water and air methods were compared in these two parallel RCT examining unsedated patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The combined data on diminutive and overall ADR in the proximal colon, overall ADR, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time and global bowel cleanliness score. RESULTS: Data in the water (n=92) and the air (n=90) groups were assessed. The water method yielded a significantly higher proximal diminutive ADR, 28.3% vs. 14.4% (p=0.0298); cecal intubation rate, 99% vs. 90% (p=0.0091); mean withdrawal time 19 (10) vs. 15 (8) min (p=0.0065) and mean global bowel cleanliness score during withdrawal, 2.6 (0.7) vs. 2.3 (0.6) (p=0.0032). Increase in proximal overall ADR in the water group approached significance, 29.3% vs. 16.7% (p=0.0592). LIMITATION: Small number of predominantly male veterans. CONCLUSION: The significantly higher cecal intubation rate, longer mean withdrawal time and better mean global bowel cleanliness score favor the outcome of significantly enhanced proximal diminutive ADR in the water group.

Systematic review: the use of nitrous oxide gas for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Nitrous oxide gas (N(2)O) has been proposed as an alternative to intravenous (i.v.) analgesia in patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.

AIM

To perform a systematic review of randomized studies where N(2)O was compared against control in patients undergoing either flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched; reference lists were checked and letters were sent to authors requesting data. Methodological quality was assessed. Data were tabulated on the duration and difficulty of the procedure, quality of sedation and speed of patient recovery.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies were identified containing 623 patients. No differences were seen between groups for duration, difficulty of procedure or complications. Patient-reported pain was similar for N(2)O when undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy vs. no sedation and when undergoing colonoscopy vs. i.v. sedation. Differences in delivery of N(2)O were identified. In all studies, N(2)O was associated with a more rapid recovery than i.v. sedation.

CONCLUSION

For patients undergoing colonoscopy, N(2)O provides comparable analgesia to i.v. sedation. The rapid psychomotor recovery with N(2)O enables quicker patient discharge and removes the need for a patient to be chaperoned. Benefit was not seen from N(2)O in patients undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy possibly because it was delivered on demand rather than continuously.

Sedation-risk-free colonoscopy for minimizing the burden of colorectal cancer screening

Unsedated colonoscopy is available worldwide, but is not a routine option in the United States (US). We conducted a literature review supplemented by our experience and expert commentaries to provide data to support the use of unsedated colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Medline data from 1966 to 2009 were searched to identify relevant articles on the subject. Data were summarized and co-authors provided critiques as well as accounts of unsedated colonoscopy for screening and surveillance. Diagnostic colonoscopy was initially developed as an unsedated procedure. Procedure-related discomfort led to wide adoption of sedation in the US, although unsedated colonoscopy remains the usual practice elsewhere. The increased use of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in healthy, asymptomatic individuals suggests a reassessment of the burden of sedation in colonoscopy for screening is appropriate in the US for lowering costs and minimizing complications for patients. A water method developed to minimize discomfort has shown promise to enhance outcomes of unsedated colonoscopy. The use of scheduled, unsedated colonoscopy in the US appears to be feasible for colorectal cancer screening. Studies to assess its applicability in diverse practice settings deserve to be conducted and supported.

Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions

BACKGROUND

Placebo interventions are often claimed to substantially improve patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes in many clinical conditions, but most reports on effects of placebos are based on studies that have not randomised patients to placebo or no treatment. Two previous versions of this review from 2001 and 2004 found that placebo interventions in general did not have clinically important effects, but that there were possible beneficial effects on patient-reported outcomes, especially pain. Since then several relevant trials have been published.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary aims were to assess the effect of placebo interventions in general across all clinical conditions, and to investigate the effects of placebo interventions on specific clinical conditions. Our secondary aims were to assess whether the effect of placebo treatments differed for patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes, and to explore other reasons for variations in effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2008), EMBASE (1980 to March 2008), PsycINFO (1887 to March 2008) and Biological Abstracts (1986 to March 2008). We contacted experts on placebo research, and read references in the included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised placebo trials with a no-treatment control group investigating any health problem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Trials with binary data were summarised using relative risk (a value of less than 1 indicates a beneficial effect of placebo), and trials with continuous outcomes were summarised using standardised mean difference (a negative value indicates a beneficial effect of placebo).

MAIN RESULTS

Outcome data were available in 202 out of 234 included trials, investigating 60 clinical conditions. We regarded the risk of bias as low in only 16 trials (8%), five of which had binary outcomes.In 44 studies with binary outcomes (6041 patients), there was moderate heterogeneity (P < 0.001; I(2) 45%) but no clear difference in effects between small and large trials (symmetrical funnel plot). The overall pooled effect of placebo was a relative risk of 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.99). The pooled relative risk for patient-reported outcomes was 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.00) and for observer-reported outcomes 0.93 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.02). We found no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in four clinical conditions that had been investigated in three trials or more: pain, nausea, smoking, and depression, but confidence intervals were wide. The effect on pain varied considerably, even among trials with low risk of bias.In 158 trials with continuous outcomes (10,525 patients), there was moderate heterogeneity (P < 0.001; I(2) 42%), and considerable variation in effects between small and large trials (asymmetrical funnel plot). It is therefore a questionable procedure to pool all the trials, and we did so mainly as a basis for exploring causes for heterogeneity. We found an overall effect of placebo treatments, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.17). The SMD for patient-reported outcomes was -0.26 (95% CI -0.32 to -0.19), and for observer-reported outcomes, SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.24 to -0.02). We found an effect on pain, SMD -0.28 (95% CI -0.36 to -0.19)); nausea, SMD -0.25 (-0.46 to -0.04)), asthma (-0.35 (-0.70 to -0.01)), and phobia (SMD -0.63 (95% CI -1.17 to -0.08)). The effect on pain was very variable, also among trials with low risk of bias. Four similarly-designed acupuncture trials conducted by an overlapping group of authors reported large effects (SMD -0.68 (-0.85 to -0.50)) whereas three other pain trials reported low or no effect (SMD -0.13 (-0.28 to 0.03)). The pooled effect on nausea was small, but consistent. The effects on phobia and asthma were very uncertain due to high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in the seven other clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more: smoking, dementia, depression, obesity, hypertension, insomnia and anxiety, but confidence intervals were wide.Meta-regression analyses showed that larger effects of placebo interventions were associated with physical placebo interventions (e.g. sham acupuncture), patient-involved outcomes (patient-reported outcomes and observer-reported outcomes involving patient cooperation), small trials, and trials with the explicit purpose of studying placebo. Larger effects of placebo were also found in trials that did not inform patients about the possible placebo intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find that placebo interventions have important clinical effects in general. However, in certain settings placebo interventions can influence patient-reported outcomes, especially pain and nausea, though it is difficult to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting. The effect on pain varied, even among trials with low risk of bias, from negligible to clinically important. Variations in the effect of placebo were partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted and how patients were informed.

Medication-free colonoscopy--factors related to pain and its assessment

AIM

This paper is a report of a study conducted to determine the possibility of performing colonoscopy without medication, elucidate the factors related to a painful colonoscopy experience and compare colonoscopy patients' reported pain assessment to nurses' and endoscopists' observations.

BACKGROUND

Sedation and pain medication are routinely administered for colonoscopies in many countries. However, medication-free colonoscopies have attracted attention because the use of medication requires a time commitment from patients and increases complications. Earlier studies show that, for instance, gender, age and pelvic operations may increase the risk of painful colonoscopy and those healthcare professionals and patients appear to assess pain differently.

METHOD

A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted in a Finnish university hospital using questionnaires developed for this study and analysed statistically. The sample of 138 colonoscopy patients, 11 nurses and 11 endoscopists was recruited in 2006.

RESULTS

Over three-quarters of patients reported mild pain or no pain at all. Patients' nervousness is a risk factor for experiencing pain during colonoscopy. Both nurses and endoscopists slightly underestimated the intensity of pain experienced by patients.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to perform colonoscopy without medication with most patients and focus sedation and pain medication on at-risk patients, especially those who are nervous. Before the procedure, nurses must devote time to discovering which patients are nervous and at risk of having a painful colonoscopy to present them for sedation. To improve pain management for patients having colonoscopy, endoscopists and nurses should participate systematically in pain education and use pain scales.

Screening for colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer in the Nordic countries after breast and prostate cancer. About 15,000 new cancers are diagnosed and more than 7000 patients will die from CRC in 2005. CRC fulfils most of the criteria for applying screening; the natural history is well known compared with many other cancers. CRC may be cured by detection at an early stage and even prevented by removal of possible precursors like adenomas. Faecal occult blood test is the only CRC screening modality that has been subjected to adequately sized randomised controlled trials (RCT) with long-term follow-up results, using Hemoccult-II. Sensitivity for strictly asymptomatic CRC is less than 30% for a single screening round, but programme sensitivity has been estimated to be more. Biennial screening with un-rehydrated Hemoccult-II slides has shown a CRC mortality reduction of 15-18% after approximately 10 years of follow-up in those targeted for screening. For those attending, the mortality reduction has been estimated at 23%. Denmark has decided to do feasibility studies to try to evaluate whether a population-based screening run by the community will have the same effect as has been demonstrated in the randomised trials. In Norway the government has accepted no formal population-based screening. In Finland, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health made a recommendation in 2003 to the municipalities to run a randomised feasibility study with FOBT screening for colorectal cancer as a public health policy that is repeated every second year. In 2004 the first municipalities started. It has been claimed that today Sweden cannot afford CRC screening despite the potential mortality benefit. There is sufficient evidence for the efficacy of screening for colorectal cancer with fecal occult blood test every second year. There is, however, only little evidence on the effectiveness of screening when run as a public health service and there is insufficient knowledge of harmful effects and costs, even in RCTs.

Clinical trial: a randomized, study comparing meperidine (pethidine) and fentanyl in adult gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence to guide choice between meperidine (pethidine) and fentanyl for sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

AIM

To compare meperidine with fentanyl in terms of procedure time and analgesia.

METHODS

Single centre randomized controlled trial. Patients received narcotic doses and midazolam at the discretion of the attending endoscopist who was unaware of narcotic assignment. Endoscopy and recovery times were then recorded. The main outcome was total procedure time, defined as endoscopy time plus recovery time. Patient discomfort was assessed prior to discharge via visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

In total, 55 patients were randomized to meperidine [44 colonoscopy and 11 esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)] and 56 to fentanyl (45 colonoscopy and 11 EGD). Total procedure time was shorter for those receiving fentanyl (mean = 87.7 min) than for those receiving meperidine (mean = 102.9 min) (P = 0.05). The difference between the groups was explained by a shorter mean recovery time in the fentanyl group (63.0 min) than in the meperidine group (76.2 min) (P = 0.07). Based on post procedure pain scores, examinations with meperidine (mean = 1.99) were less painful when compared with those receiving fentanyl (mean = 2.86, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Fentanyl shortened total procedure time by reducing recovery time. A simple change in narcotic choice could increase endoscopy unit efficiency.

Effects of patients' anxiety, previous pain experience and non-drug interventions on the pain experience during colonoscopy

AIMS

This paper is a report of a study evaluating anxiety in patients prior to colonoscopy and identifying correlations between that anxiety, previous pain experience, non-drug interventions and pain intensity during colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND

Waiting for forthcoming procedures, such as colonoscopy, is stressful. However, a few studies have evaluated the influence of patients' anxiety, previous pain experience and non-drug interventions during colonoscopy.

DESIGN

A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was used. The data were collected from colonoscopy patients by using the Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory and a questionnaire developed for the study.

METHODS

We assigned one hundred and thirty patients scheduled for diagnostic colonoscopy in a Finnish university hospital during 2006. Patients completed the State Trait Anxiety Inventory before and a questionnaire developed for the study after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Most of the patients suffered from pain but they considered it to be tolerable. Women were more anxious before colonoscopy and experienced more pain and discomfort than men. Previous pain experiences and high state anxiety level decreased patients' perceptions of colonoscopy. Non-drug interventions, such as peaceful talk, explanation of the reason for pain and guidance helped both anxious and non-anxious patients to ease the pain.

CONCLUSION

Awareness and understanding of previous pain experiences and anxiety levels in patients are essential and must be taken into account.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Colonoscopy patients' clinical education should be developed so as to be more individual. Furthermore, nurses should be better aware of the positive effects of non-drug interventions and should use them as an element of pain management for colonoscopy patients.

Unsedated colonoscopy: patient characteristics and satisfaction in a community-based endoscopy unit

BACKGROUND

Patients who have a colonoscopy performed in the United States are usually given moderate to deep sedation.

OBJECTIVE

We report our prospective experience with patients willing to have colonoscopy performed without analgesia or sedation.

DESIGN

From June 6, 2006, to December 7, 2006, a total of 2091 patients underwent colonoscopy in our ambulatory endoscopy unit and were offered their procedure with sedation or no sedation.

SETTING

Single-center outpatient ambulatory surgery unit.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients who had colonoscopy in our outpatient unit, excluding those who had combined-procedure EGD and colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients who elected to start colonoscopy without medications could request medication at any point during the procedure. Those who requested medication received narcotics or benzodiazepines.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS

Time to cecum, extent of examination, pain level experienced, and willingness to have the procedure with the same, more, or less medication in the future were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 578 patients (27.6%) chose to start without sedation; 470 of those (81.1%, 95% CI, 77.9%-89.3%) completed the examination without medication, 353 men (85%, 95% CI, 84.0%-90.5%) and 117 women (67%, 95% CI, 59.6%-73.4%). Cecal intubation was 1501 of 1512 (99.3%, 95% CI, 98.7%-99.6%) for medicated, 467 of 470 (99.4%, 95% CI, 98.1%-99.8%) for unsedated, and 107 of 108 (99.1%, 95% CI, 93.5%-99.5%) for those who were medicated during the procedure. A total of 458 of the 470 unsedated patients (97.4%, 95% CI, 95.6%-98.5%) were satisfied with their comfort level during the procedure and are willing to have their next colonoscopies without sedation.

LIMITATIONS

The study is not randomized or blinded.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy without sedation is feasible, effective, and well tolerated in a typical U. S. population.

The pre- and postprocedure assessment of patients undergoing sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy

A thorough and efficient pre-procedure evaluation of the patient's readiness to undergo sedation for endoscopy is essential. This evaluation will allow the formulation of an appropriate sedation plan for the patient, resulting in a safe and effective examination. The post procedure assessment of the patient confirms readiness for discharge and allows for appropriate patient education and follow-up planning.

Methods of reducing discomfort during colonoscopy

In the United States sedation for colonoscopy is usual practice. Unsedated colonoscopy is limited to a small proportion of unescorted patients and those with a personal preference for no sedation. Over 80% of patients who accept the option of as-needed sedation can complete colonoscopy without sedation. Colonoscopy in these unsedated patients is performed with techniques similar to those used in the sedated patients. Uncontrolled observations indicate willingness to repeat colonoscopy amongst these patients was correlated significantly with low discomfort score during the examination. Methods reported to minimize patient discomfort or enhance cecal intubation during sedated or unsedated colonoscopy included use of pediatric colonoscope, variable stiffness colonoscope, gastroscope, and inhalation of nitrous oxide or insufflation of carbon dioxide, hypnosis, music, audio distraction, or simply allowing the patients to participate in administration of the medication. Research focusing on confirming the efficacy of a simple inexpensive nonmedication dependent method for minimizing discomfort will likely improve the outcome of care and more importantly will ensure compliance with future surveillance in patients accepting the unsedated option.

Involvement of trainees in routine unsedated colonoscopy: review of a pilot experience

BACKGROUND

Unsedated colonoscopy is not required by the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education in the curriculum of GI trainees.

OBJECTIVE

We describe our pilot experience with trainee participation in unsedated colonoscopy.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of a performance improvement program to provide access to colonoscopy.

SETTING

A Veteran's Affair ambulatory care facility that discontinued sedated colonoscopy because of a nursing shortage.

PATIENTS

A total of 145 of 483 patients who chose unsedated colonoscopy after both sedated and unsedated options were discussed.

INTERVENTIONS

GI fellows performed unsedated colonoscopy under the supervision of the attending physician.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Cecal intubation rate, patient assessment of the reasons for the choice, the unsedated experience, willingness to have another colonoscopy, and the rate of return for unsedated colonoscopy among eligible patients.

RESULTS

Cecal intubation was achieved in 112 of 145 patients. The adjusted success rate (excluding inadequate bowel preparation and an obstructing lesion) was 81%. The most frequently acknowledged reason for the choice was the ability to communicate with the colonoscopist. Eighty-six patients reported a good experience and were likely to accept another unsedated colonoscopy. To date, all 8 patients eligible for 3-year follow-up successfully completed another unsedated examination.

LIMITATION

An uncontrolled, nonrandomized review in predominantly male older veterans.

CONCLUSIONS

An unsedated colonoscopy might be acceptable to some populations, particularly when communication with clinicians and procedural convenience are highly valued. Involvement of trainees is feasible. Randomized controlled comparisons of sedated and unsedated options in terms of safety (eg, sedation and procedure-related complications) and cost in settings with and without a nursing shortage deserve to be considered.

Variations in colonoscopy practice in Europe: a multicentre descriptive study (EPAGE)

OBJECTIVE

The volume of colonoscopies performed is increasing and differences in colonoscopy practice over time and between centres have been reported. Examination of current practice is important for bench-marking quality. The objective of this study was to examine variations in colonoscopy practice in endoscopy centres internationally.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This observational study prospectively included consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy from 21 centres in 11 countries. Patient, procedure and centre characteristics were collected through questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were performed and the variation between centres while controlling for case-mix was examined.

RESULTS

A total of 6004 patients were included in the study. Most colonoscopies (93%; range between centres 70-100%) were performed for diagnostic purposes. The proportion of main indications for colonoscopy showed wide variations between centres, the two most common indications, surveillance and haematochezia, ranging between 7-24% and 5-38%, respectively. High-quality cleansing occurred in 74% (range 51-94%) of patients, and 30% (range 0-100%) of patients received deep sedation. Three-quarters (range 0-100%) of the patients were monitored during colonoscopy, and one-quarter (range 14-35%) underwent polypectomy. Colonoscopy was complete in 89% (range 69-98%) of patients and the median total duration was 20 min (range of centre medians 15-30 min). The variation between centres was not reduced when case-mix was controlled for.

CONCLUSIONS

This study documented wide variations in colonoscopy practice between centres. Controlling for case-mix did not remove these variations, indicating that centre and procedure characteristics play a role. Centres generally were within the existing guidelines, although there is still some work to be done to ensure that all centres attain the goal of providing high-quality colonoscopy.

Listening to Turkish classical music decreases patients’ anxiety, pain, dissatisfaction and the dose of sedative and analgesic drugs during colonoscopy: A prospective randomized controlled trial

AIM: To determine whether listening to music decreases the requirement for dosages of sedative drugs, patients’ anxiety, pain and dissatisfaction feelings during colonoscopy and makes the procedure more comfortable and acceptable.

METHODS: Patients undergoing elective colonoscopy between October 2005 and February 2006 were randomized into either listening to music (Group 1, n = 30) or not listening to music (Group 2, n = 30). Anxiolytic and analgesic drugs (intravenous midazolam and meperidine) were given according to the patients’ demand. Administered medications were monitored. We determined their levels of anxiety using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Test form. Patients’ satisfaction, pain, and willingness to undergo a repeated procedure were self-assessed using a visual analog scale.

RESULTS: The mean dose of sedative and analgesic drugs used in group 1 (midazolam: 2.1 ± 1.4, meperidine: 18.1 ± 11.7) was smaller than group 2 (midazolam: 2.4 ± 1.0, meperidine: 20.6 ± 11.5), but without a significant difference (P > 0.05). The mean anxiety level in group 1 was lower than group 2 (36.7 ± 2.2 vs 251.0 ± 1.9, P < 0.001). The mean satisfaction score was higher in group 1 compared to group 2 (87.8 ± 3.1 vs 58.1 ± 3.4, P < 0.001). The mean pain score in group 1 was lower than group 2 (74.1 ± 4.7 vs 39.0 ± 3.9, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: Listening to music during colonoscopy helps reduce the dose of sedative medications, as well as patients’ anxiety, pain, dissatisfaction during the procedure. Therefore, we believe that listening to music can play an adjunctive role to sedation in colonoscopy. It is a simple, inexpensive way to improve patients’ comfort during the procedure.

Fentanyl or tramadol, with midazolam, for outpatient colonoscopy: analgesia, sedation, and safety

The present study determined the acceptability of colonoscopy in outpatients treated with tramadol or fentanyl for analgesia and sedation. One hundred fifty patients were randomly assigned to receive midazolam, 0.05 mg/kg, and fentanyl, 2 microg/kg, intravenously (group 1), midazolam, 0.05 mg/kg, and tramadol, 1 mg/kg, per os (group 2), or midazolam, 0.05 mg/kg, and tramadol, 2 mg/kg, per os (group 3). Pain severity, level of sedation, cardiorespiratory parameters, and procedure-related side effects and complications were registered and analyzed. No significant cardiorespiratory disturbances were observed. Sedation level during the procedure was similar in all groups. Pain severity values measured during the procedure was significantly higher in groups 2 and 3 than in group 1 (P < 0.001). Both hospital and home adverse events occurred more frequently in groups 2 and 3 compared to group 1 (P < 0.03). The patients receiving fentanyl-based analgesia tolerated colonoscopy better than patients treated with tramadol.

Extended flexible sigmoidoscopy performed by colonoscopists for colorectal cancer screening: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Caecal intubation can be achieved by extended flexible sigmoidoscopy in 32% of patients.

AIM

To assess the feasibility of extended flexible sigmoidoscopy performed by colonoscopists for colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

We enrolled 41 patients referred for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. After purging, examination was performed with a colonoscope. All patients completed sigmoidoscopy (success in meeting referral goal); 93% and 71% had examination to the transverse or ascending colon, and caecum, respectively. Overall yield and right-sided polyps was 56% and 27%, respectively. Caecal intubation and complete examination with polypectomy took 6.0 +/- 2.5 and 18.3 +/- 5.1 min, respectively; with no complications. Twelve patients requested colonoscope withdrawal because of discomfort. Although 46% reported moderate to severe discomfort, 39% and 36%, respectively, were definitely or probably willing to repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy.

RESULTS

Unsedated colonoscopy introduced as extended flexible sigmoidoscopy emphasizes the benefits of added yield rather than the negative image of withholding of discomfort relief. The patient can choose to accept the equivalent of an unsedated colonoscopy or reject the option based on perceived discomfort during extended flexible sigmoidoscopy performed by the colonoscopist.

CONCLUSION

Extended flexible sigmoidoscopy is a feasible option in carefully selected patients, fully prepared and by an experienced colonoscopist.

The Norwegian Gastronet project: Continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres

OBJECTIVE

The burden on colonoscopy capacity is considerable and expected to increase further as colorectal cancer screening programmes gain a foothold in Europe. In this situation, it is particularly important to evaluate the quality of the service given. In this article we present our first year of experience with a quality network of endoscopy centres in Norway (Gastronet).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A questionnaire focusing on caecal intubation rate and pain was completed by the endoscopist (on site) and patient (on the day after the examination). Fourteen centres participated with registration of 7370 colonoscopies by 73 endoscopists.

RESULTS

There was 100% endoscopist participation, 87% coverage of colonoscopies and an estimated 76% questionnaire coverage of the patient population. Overall caecal intubation rate was 91%, range 83% to 97% between centres (p < 0.001). Patients reporting severe pain during colonoscopy differed from 2 to 24% between centres (p < 0.001). Variations could only partly be explained by differences in procedure practice (sedation, CO2 insufflation). For individual endoscopists, improvement after feedback on performance was restricted to the group of endoscopists having contributed with only 50-99 registered colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

In quality assurance programmes we recommend a limited number of variables for registration in order to secure high compliance by endoscopists and patients. One year of experience with Gastronet disclosed a satisfactory overall caecal intubation rate, but considerable variation between centres in practice and ability to offer painless colonoscopy. This suggests a need for formal, centralized training of colonoscopists or the development of quality standards for colonoscopy training and practice.

Significance of patient-controlled sedation during colonoscopy. Results from a prospective randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

In France, general anesthesia is given to more than 90% of patients undergoing colonoscopy although in several countries sedation is limited to intolerant patients. This study was carried out to determine whether Patient-Controlled Sedation (PCS) could provide a lighter sedation than general anesthesia adapted to the patient's individual requirement.

METHODS

Patients aged from 18 to 80 scheduled for elective colonoscopy were prospectively randomized to receive either standard sedation (control group) or patient-controlled-sedation (PCS). In the control group, patients received a continuous infusion of propofol. Patients in the PCS group were connected to an infusion pump containing propofol and self-administered 20-mg boluses as often as they required. An anesthetist was present throughout the procedure. Patient satisfaction measured on a visual analog scale four hours after colonoscopy was the main outcome criterion.

RESULTS

From December 2002 to September 2003, 402 patients underwent elective colonoscopy, 173 of them were eligible and were asked to participate in the study. Seventy-two gave their informed consent and were prospectively randomized. The patients' mean satisfaction scores were not statistically different between the two groups: 84.7 mm (PCS group) vs. 91.5 mm (control group); P = 0.24. Mean doses of propofol (60 mg vs. 248 mg; P <0.001), depth of sedation and time before discharge (1.75 hours vs. 4.45 hours) were significantly lower for patients in the PCS group; nine of them (25.7%) did not use the pump and had total colonoscopy without sedation. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding total duration of colonoscopy (19.4 min (PCS) vs. 18 min (control)) difficulty and therapeutic procedures (biopsy or polypectomy). Two weeks after the procedure, 96.5% of patients in the PCS group were willing to repeat the examination under the same conditions vs. 72.5% of patients in the control group (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that need of sedation is widely overestimated in France. A subset of our patients is willing to consider colonoscopy without general anesthesia. For them, PCS with propofol is an effective and very well accepted form of sedation.

Clinical analysis of propofol deep sedation for 1,104 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A three year prospective study

AIM: To analyze the hemodynamic and respiratory effects of propofol on patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy.

METHODS: In this prospective study, conducted over a period of three years, 1,104 patients referred for a same day GI endoscopy procedure were analyzed. All patients were given a propofol bolus (0.5-1.5 mg/kg). Arterial blood pressure (BP) was monitored at 3 min intervals and heart rate and oxygen saturation (SpO₂) were recorded continuously by pulse oximetry. Analyzed data acquisition was carried out before, during, and after the procedure.

RESULTS: A statistically significant reduction in mean arterial pressure was demonstrated (P <0.001) when compared to pre-intervention values, but severe hypotension, defined as a systolic blood pressure below 60 mmHg, was noted in only 5 patients (0.5%). Oxygen saturation decreased from 96.5% to 94.4 % (P<0.001). A critical decrease in oxygen saturation (<90%) was documented in 27 patients (2.4%).

CONCLUSION: Our results showed that propofol provided good sedation with excellent pain control, a short recovery time and no significant hemodynamic side effects if carefully titrated. All the patients (and especially ASA III group) require monitoring and care of an anesthesiologist.

Diphenhydramine as an adjunct to sedation for colonoscopy: a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous benzodiazepines in combination with opiates are used to achieve moderate sedation for colonoscopy. Although effective, these agents have potential adverse effects, such as respiratory depression and hypotension. Diphenhydramine hydrochloride possesses central nervous system depressant effects that theoretically could provide a synergistic effect for sedating patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess the efficacy of adding diphenhydramine hydrochloride as an adjunct to improve sedation and to reduce the amount of standard sedatives used during colonoscopy.

DESIGN

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

The study was conducted in a university hospital with an active GI fellowship training program.

PATIENTS

The study group comprised 270 patients undergoing screening/diagnostic/therapeutic colonoscopy were enrolled.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive either 50 mg of diphenhydramine or placebo, given intravenously 3 minutes before starting conscious sedation with intravenous midazolam and meperidine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The main outcome measure was anesthetic effect as assessed by the endoscopy team and by the patient; quantity of adjunctive sedatives to achieve adequate sedation.

RESULTS

Of 270 patients, data were analyzed for 258 patients, with 130 patients in the diphenhydramine group and 128 patients in the placebo group. There was a 10.1% reduction in meperidine usage and 13.7% reduction in midazolam usage in favor of the diphenhydramine group. The mean evaluation scores as judged by the faculty, the fellows, and the nurses were statistically significant in favor of the diphenhydramine group. In addition, patient scores for overall sedation and pain level favored the group that received diphenhydramine.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous diphenhydramine given before initiation of standard sedation offers a significant benefit to conscious sedation for patients undergoing colonoscopy.

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.

Unsedated endoscopy

Unsedated endoscopy will likely play an increasingly important role in the daily practice of GI endoscopy. Although there is adequate evidence that un-sedated endoscopy is technically feasible in selected patient populations, there area number of obstacles preventing its widespread adoption. Small-caliber endoscopy is not as accurate as conventional EGD. This may be remedied as improvements in endoscope technology emerge. Many patients refuse to consider an unsedated examination, and those who do participate report more symptoms of discomfort than patients undergoing conventional endoscopy. Whether patients will accept mild discomfort in exchange for substantial cost savings has not been evaluated. Finally, although unsedated endoscopy seems to have a low complication rate, its safety has not been formally addressed in large studies. Large, randomized, controlled studies are needed to better determine the role of un-sedated small-caliber endoscopy in daily practice. Unsedated colonoscopy may follow the footsteps of unsedated upper endoscopy with even more obstacles to overcome before its widespread application.

Patient-controlled analgesia and sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Variations in pain threshold, drug tolerance, and visceral sensitivity among patients make it difficult to anticipate the appropriate dose of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Propofol was recently introduced for sedation in endoscopy and has a rapid onset and offset of action, making it an ideal substance for patient-controlled administration. Several controlled trials have demonstrated that during colonoscopy, patient-controlled application of propofol alone or in combination with various opioids is effective,safe, and yields high patient satisfaction. Target-controlled infusion of propofol has shown encouraging results for prolonged upper endoscopy procedures like endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography.

Patient maintained sedation for colonoscopy using a target controlled infusion of propofol

In this study, we evaluated safety and recovery using a patient maintained, target controlled infusion of propofol for sedation in 20 patients undergoing colonoscopy. Using a handset with a two-minute lockout interval, patients could make 0.2 micro g.ml(-1) increments to an initial target plasma concentration of 1 micro g.ml(-1) up to a maximum 4.5 micro g.ml(-1). Four patients became oversedated but required no airway or circulatory interventions. Subjects had a significant reduction in mean (SD) heart rate: 78.7 (15) vs. 69.8 (13.5) (p < 0.001) and in systolic blood pressure 121.1 (13.2) mmHg vs. 96.5 (8.6) mmHg (p < 0.001). Choice reaction time testing 15 min after colonoscopy showed a significant median (IQR [range]) rise of 162 (- 16, 383.3 [-199-859]) ms (p < 0.05). Six patients had faster reaction times postcolonoscopy. All patients denied unpleasant recall and were satisfied with the system. Although oversedation was a problem in this model, we conclude that patient maintained propofol sedation could be possible for colonoscopy.

Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions

BACKGROUND

Placebo interventions are often claimed to improve patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes, but this belief is not based on evidence from randomised trials that compare placebo with no treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of placebo interventions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to 2002), EMBASE (1980 to 2002), Biological Abstracts (1986 to 2002), and PsycLIT (1887 to 2002). We contacted experts on placebo research, and read references in the included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised placebo trials with a no-treatment control group investigating any health problem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Outcome data were available in 156 out of 182 included trials, investigating 46 clinical conditions. We found no statistically significant pooled effect of placebo in 38 studies with binary outcomes (4284 patients), relative risk 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.01). The pooled relative risk for patient-reported outcomes was 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.03) and for observer-reported outcomes 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.03). There was heterogeneity (P=0.01) but the funnel plot was symmetrical. There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in the four clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more: pain, nausea, smoking, and depression, but confidence intervals were wide. We found an overall effect of placebo treatments in 118 trials with continuous outcomes (7453 patients), standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.24 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.17). The SMD for patient-reported outcomes was -0.30 (95% CI -0.38 to -0.21), whereas no statistically significant effect was found for observer-reported outcomes, SMD -0.10 (95% CI -0.20 to -0.01). There was heterogeneity (P<0.001) and large variability in funnel plot results even for big trials. There was an apparent effect of placebo interventions on pain (SMD -0.25 (95% CI -0.35 to-0.16)), and phobia (SMD -0.63 (95% CI -1.17 to -0.08)); but also a substantial risk of bias. There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in eight other clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more: nausea, smoking, depression, overweight, asthma, hypertension, insomnia and anxiety, but confidence intervals were wide.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence that placebo interventions in general have clinically important effects. A possible small effect on continuous patient-reported outcomes, especially pain, could not be clearly distinguished from bias.