Sedación en la endoscopia digestiva. Resultados de una encuesta hospitalaria en Cataluña

A Bibliometric Analysis of Endoscopic Sedation Research: 2001-2020

Background and Aims: To evaluate endoscopic sedation research and predict research hot spots both quantitatively and qualitatively using bibliometric analysis. Methods: We extracted relevant publications from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) on 13 December 2020. We examined the retrieved data by bibliometric analysis (e.g., co-cited and cluster analysis, keyword co-occurrence) using the software CiteSpace and VOSviewer and the website of bibliometrics, the Online Analysis Platform of Literature Metrology (http://bibliometric.com/), to analyse and predict the trends and hot spots in this field. Main Results: We identified 2,879 articles and reviews on endoscopic sedation published between 2001 and 2020. Although the overall trend is increasing, with slight fluctuation in some years, there were significant increases in 2007 and 2012. In respect of the contributions on endoscopic sedation research, the United States (US) had the greatest number of publications, and it was followed by Japan and China. In addition, collaboration network analysis revealed that the most frequent collaboration was between the US and China. Six of the top ten most prolific research institutions were located in the US. The most publications on endoscopic sedation research in the past two decades were found primarily in journals on gastroenterology and hepatology. Keyword co-occurrence and co-citation cluster analysis revealed the most popular terms relating to endoscopic sedation in the manner of cluster labels; these included patient anxiety, tolerance, ketamine, propofol, hypoxia, nursing shortage, endoscopic ultrasonography, colorectal cancer, carbon dioxide insufflation, and water exchange (WE). Keyword burst detection suggested that propofol sedation, adverse event, adenoma detection rate (ADR), hypoxemia, and obesity were newly-emergent research hot spots. Conclusions: Our findings showed that hypoxia, adverse event, and ADR, along with conscious sedation and propofol sedation, have been foci of endoscopic sedation research over the past 20 years. The research focus has shifted from sedative drugs to sedative complications and endoscopy quality control, which means that there will be higher requirements and standards for sedative quality and endoscopy quality in the future.

The current situation of digestive endoscopy units in the Valencian Community

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

in view of the advances made over the past few years, digestive endoscopy units must adapt to an increased demand and the development of novel techniques. However, the actual status of these units is virtually unknown and is limited to few surveys from over a decade ago. Thus, a new survey was performed of the current situation of endoscopy units in the Valencian Community.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

a specific survey was designed to assess the status of endoscopy units within public hospitals and privately managed public hospitals in the Valencian Community. The survey included the following items: hospital data, unit architectural structure, equipment, human resources, functional structure, sedation, procedures performed, advanced therapies and ongoing care.

RESULTS

twenty-four of the 25 public hospitals or privately funded public hospitals in the Valencian Community responded to the survey, corresponding to a 96% participation. The number of physicians in gastroenterology services or sections ranged from 2 to 21. Endoscopist-controlled propofol sedation was used in 13 hospitals (54.2%). Most centers performed 1,000 to 3,000 gastroscopies per year. Fourteen units (58.3%) performed 2,000 to 3,000 colonoscopies and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was performed in 22 hospitals (91.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

the results of the survey revealed large differences in infrastructure and organization among public hospital endoscopy units in the Valencian Community. Organization is highly heterogeneous and independent of hospital size.

Comparison of Clinical Effects of Dexketoprofen and Paracetamol Used for Analgesia in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare 50 mg dexketoprofen vs. 1 g paracetamol that were parenterally administered before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) under sedoanalgesia with comparable anaesthesia depth regarding haemodynamic, pain, narcotic analgesic requirement, recovery and post-procedural cognitive functions.

METHODS

Overall, 80 ASA I-III patients aged 18-75 years who were undergoing scheduled ERCP were randomly assigned into three groups. In all patients, the mini-mental test (MMT) was conducted before the procedure. No drug was administered to controls (Group C; n=26); patients were transferred to ERCP unite 30 min after parenteral dexketoprofen (50 mg) in group D (n=27) and paracetamol (1 g) in group P (n=27). The standard monitoring was applied. After intravenously administering loading doses of midazolam (0.02 mgkg) and propofol (1 mg kg(-1)), propofol infusion was administered at a dose of 2-4 mg kg(-1) h(-1) to maintain a bispectral index value of 50-70. Fentanyl (0.05 μg kg(-1)) was intravenously administered when patients experienced pain. Haemodynamic effects, additional analgesic requirement, adverse effects during procedure, time to reach Aldrete score of 9 and satisfaction of an endoscopist and patient were recorded. MMT was repeated 3 h after completing the procedure.

RESULTS

Fentanyl requirement during the procedure was significantly low in group D (p<0.05). Apnoea during the procedure and nausea after the procedure were least common in group D while significantly lower than group C (p<0.05). There was no significant difference with respect to MMT scores and endoscopist's satisfaction, while patient satisfaction was greater in group P.

CONCLUSION

Parenterally administered dexketoprofen provided better haemodynamic effect and pain control, thereby decreasing incidence of adverse events by reducing the requirement for narcotic analgesics.

Fecal occult blood testing when colonoscopy capacity is limited

BACKGROUND

Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) can be adapted to a limited colonoscopy capacity by narrowing the age range or extending the screening interval, by using a more specific test or hemoglobin cutoff level for referral to colonoscopy, and by restricting surveillance colonoscopy. Which of these options is most clinically effective and cost-effective has yet to be established.

METHODS

We used the validated MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate the number of colonoscopies, costs, and health effects of different screening strategies using guaiac FOBT or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) at various hemoglobin cutoff levels between 50 and 200 ng hemoglobin per mL, different surveillance strategies, and various age ranges. We optimized the allocation of a limited number of colonoscopies on the basis of incremental cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

When colonoscopy capacity was unlimited, the optimal screening strategy was to administer an annual FIT with a 50 ng/mL hemoglobin cutoff level in individuals aged 45-80 years and to offer colonoscopy surveillance to all individuals with adenomas. When colonoscopy capacity was decreasing, the optimal screening adaptation was to first increase the FIT hemoglobin cutoff value to 200 ng hemoglobin per mL and narrow the age range to 50-75 years, to restrict colonoscopy surveillance, and finally to further decrease the number of screening rounds. FIT screening was always more cost-effective compared with guaiac FOBT. Doubling colonoscopy capacity increased the benefits of FIT screening up to 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT should be used at higher hemoglobin cutoff levels when colonoscopy capacity is limited compared with unlimited and is more effective in terms of health outcomes and cost compared with guaiac FOBT at all colonoscopy capacity levels. Increasing the colonoscopy capacity substantially increases the health benefits of FIT screening.

Use of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a nationwide survey in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal endoscopy causes discomfort and pain in patients. Sedation reduces anxiety and pain. Its use, however, continues to be a controversial issue and it varies greatly from one country to another. The use of sedation in Spanish gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) units is unknown.

AIM

To determine the use of sedation in Spanish GIE units.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 24-question survey on the use of sedation was distributed among 300 Spanish GIE units.

RESULTS

Surveys were answered by 197 GIE units (65%), which had performed 588,326 endoscopies over the past 12 months. Sedation was used in more than 20% of gastroscopies performed at 55% of the GIE units, and more than 20% of colonoscopies were sedated at 71% of the units; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is almost always performed under sedation. The most common drugs were midazolam for gastroscopy and midazolam and pethidine for colonoscopy and ERCP; propofol is used by anesthetists; pulse oximetry is used at 77% of GIE units; 42% of the GIE units fill in a nursing record; 52% of GIE units have recovery rooms and 91% have a cardiac arrest trolley.

CONCLUSION

The use of sedation in endoscopy varies greatly in Spain. It is seldom used in gastroscopy; it is more frequent in colonoscopy, and in ERCP it is the norm. In most GIE units sedation is controlled by the endoscopist with pulse oximetry. The most commonly used drugs are benzodiazepines, on their own for gastroscopy and combined with opioids for colonoscopy and ERCP.

Endoscopic requirements of colorectal cancer screening programs in average-risk population. Estimation according to a Markov model

BACKGROUND

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies are quite common in the United States, their systematic introduction in Europe has been delayed until the year 2008. To estimate endoscopic requirements of four different CRC screening strategies (annual and biennial fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years) in an average-risk population.

METHODS

A long-term Markov process model was designed combining three adherence rates for the four above-mentioned screening strategies in individuals aged from 50 to 74. Estimations included endoscopic procedures performed for both screening and surveillance purposes. Models were adjusted for age-related adenoma and CRC incidence rates, life expectancy, and cancer-related survival.

RESULTS

The mean number of annual colonoscopies per 100,000 individuals aged 50-74 ranged from 100 to 271 for annual FOBT, from 75 to 203 for biennial FOBT, from 222 to 601 for sigmoidoscopy, and from 903 to 2,449 for colonoscopy-based strategies, depending on the adherence rate. According to these estimations, annual and biennial FOBT strategies would generate a slight decrease of current endoscopic activity (1.4-3.8% and 2.7-7.2%, respectively), whereas sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy-based strategies would induce a 4.7-12.8% and 32-87% increase, respectively, with respect to a non-screening scenario. The model confirmed a 3-16% mean reduction of CRC incidence depending on the strategy and adherence rate.

CONCLUSION

Whereas endoscopic capacity exists for widespread CRC screening with annual or biennial FOBT, implementation of potentially more effective strategies, such as flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy, would result in a significant increase of current endoscopic resources.

Endoscopic sedation in developing and developed countries

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Data are scarce on endoscopic sedation practices outside the United States and Western Europe, particularly from developing nations. An Internet survey was used to assess endoscopic sedation practices in developing and developed countries.

METHODS

Responses to a Web-based survey of sedation practices from 165 expert endoscopists from 81 countries were analyzed. The most common sedation method was defined as that used for >50% of endoscopies within a country.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 84 endoscopists practicing in 46 countries (51% response rate; 32 responses from 22 developing countries and 52 responses from 24 developed countries). A combination of benzodiazepine and opioid was the most common method for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in 40% of the countries and for colonoscopy in 56% of the countries. For propofol and unsedated endoscopy, the corresponding figures were 8% and 19% for EGD and 18% and 10% for colonoscopy. No single sedation method accounted for >50% of EGD and colonoscopy cases in 32% and 17% of the countries, respectively. There were no significant differences in the proportions of developing and developed countries using combined benzodiazepine and opioid, propofol, or unsedated endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation is used for most endoscopic procedures worldwide, with sedation practice not differing significantly between developing and developed countries.

Anästhesie außerhalb des Zentral-OP

The number of diagnostic and surgical procedures being performed outside the core operating area is growing disproportionately. Due to the higher perioperative risk for such patients, anesthesia should only be provided by a very experienced anesthesiologist, even for supposedly small interventions. At these locations, timely and direct access to the anesthesia machine and/or the patient is often limited and if additional personnel or supplies are required, substantial time delays usually occur and should be allowed for. Standard operating procedures that are optimized to local requirements and providing a specially equipped anesthesia trolley for diagnostic and surgical procedures outside of the core operating area, may decrease the likelihood of complications induced by poorly equipped anesthesia workplaces. For electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), the standard drugs are methohexital in combination with short-acting opioids, such as remifentanil and succinylcholine. Significant variations in arterial blood pressure and heart rate are possible. Anesthesia induction in children with a known difficult airway or difficult intravascular access should initially be performed in a location with optimal infrastructure with subsequent transfer to the diagnostic or surgical suite outside the core operating area. Before entering the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) suite, personal ferromagnetic items (e.g. pens, credit cards, stethoscopes, keys, telephones, USB sticks) should be removed to prevent injury and data loss; a MRI-compatible anesthesia machine and equipment is compulsory. Patients with cardiac pacemakers, cochlea implants, aneurysm or other clips, metallic-based tattoos or make-up are not normally compatible with MRI. General anesthesia should be preferred over conscious sedation for magnetic resonance imaging and ear protection is necessary for anesthetized patients. Gastroscopy in children should be performed under general anesthesia; and when concluding the procedure, air insufflated into the gastrointestinal tract should be suctioned in all patients. For angiography, maximum monitoring needs to be available to provide hemodynamically unstable patients with adequate anesthesia care; comprehensive radiation protection for patients and staff as well as temperature monitoring for prolonged diagnostic procedures is also necessary. Monitoring oxygen saturation and end-tidal carbon dioxide as well as employing visual and audible alarms is an essential requirement even during conscious sedation. In summary, the number of diagnostic and surgical procedures performed outside the core operating area should be reduced to a minimum and, whenever possible, diagnostic or surgical procedures should be performed within the core operating area.

[Safety of propofol administration by the staff of a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit]

Deep sedation controlled by the staff of gastrointestinal endoscopy units is currently controversial. In the last few years, numerous studies have provided data supporting the safety of propofol use in these techniques. We present a large series of patients who underwent gastroscopy or colonoscopy under endoscopist-controlled deep sedation. A total of 875 procedures (297 gastroscopies and 578 colonoscopies) were included. In all procedures intravenous propofol with or without intravenous midazolam was administered. In gastroscopies, complications attributable to the sedation were found in only 6.7% of the patients, mostly due to desaturation, which was resolved without the need for intubation. In colonoscopies, complications were found in 11.2%, the most frequent being bradycardia and desaturation, none of which were serious. No association was found between the presence of complications and the propofol dose administered. In the group of patients undergoing colonoscopy, simultaneous midazolam administration allowed reduction of the propofol dose required to achieve deep sedation. In conclusion, propofol shows a good safety profile and excellent tolerance in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy and can be administrated by the endoscopy team. At least in the case of colonoscopy, the associated use of midazolam allows the propofol dose to be decreased, thus, theoretically, reducing the drug's adverse effects.