Sedation and analgesia

Acupuncture for Rehabilitation After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: There is an increasing interest in acupuncture for promoting post-operative rehabilitation, but the effectiveness of acupuncture for rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial.

Objective: This study aims to investigate the effect of acupuncture on rehabilitation after TKA.

Methods: Database searches of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were conducted to obtain articles published until August 2020. All identified articles were screened, and data from each included study were extracted independently by two investigators. Meta-analysis was performed to examine the effects of acupuncture on pain, range of knee motion, function, and nausea/vomiting after TKA.

Results: A total of nine randomized clinical trials were included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria in this review. Compared with routine treatment, acupuncture combined with routine treatment showed a significantly greater pain reduction at 8, 12, 24, and 48 h post-operatively after TKA. Meanwhile, we found that the acupuncture groups showed a significant function improvement and a lower percentage of nausea/vomiting in comparison with the control groups after operation. However, acupuncture groups demonstrated no statistically significant improvement in post-operative pain at 4 h, 7 days, 14 days, and more than 21 days, and no significant difference in range of knee motion was observed between the acupuncture groups and control groups after surgery.

Conclusions: Acupuncture, as a supplementary treatment after TKA, could improve function and reduce nausea/vomiting. However, the effect of acupuncture on pain relief may be mainly achieved within post-operative 48 h, and it had no efficacy in improving range of knee motion. More large-scale and high-quality studies are warranted.

Utility of noninvasive ventilation in high-risk patients during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Background:

There is little evidence on noninvasive ventilation (NIV) preventing respiratory complications in high-risk patients undergoing endoscopy procedures.

Objectives:

The objective of this study is to demonstrate that the application of NIV through a nasal interface can prevent the appearance of ventilatory alterations during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with risk factors associated with the development of hypoventilation.

Patients and Methods:

A non-randomized interventional study was performed on 37 consecutive high-risk patients undergoing ERCP. During the procedure, 21 patients received oxygen by nasal cannula (3 L/minute) and sixteen received NIV through a nasal mask. Arterial blood gas analyses were conducted before and immediately after the ERCP. An Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) score pre-ERCP was recorded. The complications during the procedure were recorded.

Results:

The groups with and without NIV were comparable. A post-ERCP pH of <7.35 was found in eight patients, who did not receive ventilatory support (38.1%) compared to zero patients in the NIV group (P = 0.006). A post-ERCP pCO₂ >45 mmHg was found in one case (6.3%) in the NIV-group and in nine cases in the nasal cannula group (42.9%; P = 0.01). The median pCO₂ post-ERCP was lower (36.5 ± 6.2 vs. 44.5 ± 6.8 mmHg) (P = 0.001) and median pH post-ERCP was higher (7.41 ± 0.4 vs. 7.34 ± 0.5) (P = 0.001) in patients treated with NIV. In the multivariate analysis, after adjusting for gender, the APACHE score, pH and pCO₂ pre-ERCP, age, propofol doses, and procedure duration, the following differences were maintained (pCO₂ difference = 5.54, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) =2.3 – 8.7, pH difference = 0.047, and 95% CI = 0.013 – 0.081). Among the 37 procedures, four complications occurred: One in the NIV group and three in the nasal cannula group. None of them was related to NIV.

Conclusions:

Our preliminary results demonstrate that in high-risk patients undergoing ERCP, hypercapnia and respiratory acidosis are frequent. NIV prevents the appearance of these complications.

Administration of additional analgesics can decrease the incidence of paradoxical reactions in patients under benzodiazepine-induced sedation during endoscopic transpapillary procedures: prospective randomized controlled trial

AIM

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of giving pentazocine as an analgesic with benzodiazepine during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

The paradoxical reactions (PR) incidence was evaluated as an indicator of usefulness. Transcutaneous arterial carbon dioxide tension (PtcCO(2) ) was evaluated as an indicator of safety. A total of 160 patients were enrolled. Subjects were randomly divided into two groups; group 1 sedated with midazolam only and group 2 sedated both with midazolam and pentazocine (7.5 mg).

RESULTS

The initial dosage introduced sedation before procedure was significantly higher in group 1. The occurrence rate of PR's in group 1 was significantly higher compared to that in group 2 (P = 0.0108). Although maximum PtcCO(2) observed during sedation did not differ between the two groups (48.7 ± 7.2, 50.3 ± 7.6 mmHg, respectively),maximum PtcCO(2) during the first 15 min after the start of sedation was significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1 (P = 0.0294). In multivariate analysis, procedure duration (odds ratio [OR] = 1.048) and midazolam dose (OR = 1.221) were predictive factors for PR.

CONCLUSION

The administration of pentazocine is significantly reduced the incidence of PR's in patients under midazolam induced sedation during ERCP.

Computer-assisted personalized sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: a comparative, multicenter randomized study

BACKGROUND

The SEDASYS System is an investigational computer-assisted personalized sedation system integrating propofol delivery with patient monitoring to enable endoscopist/nurse teams to safely administer propofol.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of the SEDASYS System to the current standard of care for sedation during routine endoscopic procedures.

DESIGN

Nonblinded multicenter randomized comparative study.

SETTING

Four ambulatory surgery centers, 3 endoscopy centers, and 1 academic center in the United States.

PATIENTS

One thousand American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I to III adults undergoing routine colonoscopy or EGD.

INTERVENTIONS

Sedation with the SEDASYS System (SED) and sedation with each site's current standard of care (CSC; benzodiazepine/opioid combination).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Area under the curve of oxygen desaturation was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included patient satisfaction, clinician satisfaction, level of sedation, and patient recovery time.

RESULTS

Four hundred ninety-six patients were randomized to SED and 504 to CSC. Area under the curve of oxygen desaturation was significantly lower for SED (23.6 s·%) than for CSC (88.0 s·%; P = .028). Patients were predominately minimally to moderately sedated in both groups. SED patients were significantly more satisfied than CSC patients (P = .007). Clinician satisfaction was greater with SED than with CSC (P < .001). SED patients recovered faster than CSC patients (P < .001). The incidence of adverse events was 5.8% in the SED group and 8.7% in the CSC group.

LIMITATIONS

Nonblinded.

CONCLUSIONS

The SEDASYS System could provide endoscopist/nurse teams a safe and effective on-label means to administer propofol to effect minimal to moderate sedation during routine colonoscopy and EGD.

Safety evaluation of fospropofol for sedation during minor surgical procedures

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of intravenous (IV) fospropofol when used to provide minimal to moderate sedation in patients undergoing minor surgical procedures.

DESIGN

Phase 3, open-label, single-arm study.

SETTING

Multi-center.

PATIENTS

123 ASA physical status I, II, III, and IV patients, aged>or=18 years.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were pretreated with fentanyl 50 microg before receiving an initial dose of IV fospropofol 6.5 mg/kg. Patients could receive up to 5 supplemental doses of fospropofol 1.63 mg/kg to reach a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score<or=4 to allow the start of the procedure and to maintain adequate sedation levels during the procedure.

MEASUREMENTS

Study endpoints included measures of sedation depth, requirement for supplemental sedative doses, use of alternative sedatives, and the frequency and nature of treatment-emergent and sedative-related adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

A mean of 2.4 supplemental doses of fospropofol was administered, and in 60% of patients, two or fewer supplemental doses of fospropofol were sufficient to initiate and complete the procedure. Alternative sedative medication was administered in 6 of 123 patients (4.9%). Mean (SD) MOAA/S score during the procedure was 3.8 (0.5). Sixty-one percent (61%) of patients had a MOAA/S score of 5 (fully alert) within two minutes after the end of the procedure. Few patients (7 of 123; 5.7%) had MOAA/S scores of 0 to 1 (deep sedation) during the procedure, and all 7 were either ASA physical status I (n=1) or II (n=6). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were self-limited: paresthesias (62.6%) and pruritus (27.6%). Five patients experienced sedation-related adverse events, including hypotension (n=4), bradycardia (concurrently with hypotension and managed with atropine; n=1), or hypoxemia (less than one min and managed with chin lift and verbal stimulation; n=1). Twenty patients with previous or existing hepatic disease (ranging from minimal to severe) and 5 patients with severe renal impairment had adverse events similar to the overall population. No deaths were reported, and no patient discontinued the study due to adverse events.

CONCLUSION

An initial dose of IV fospropofol 6.5 mg/kg with supplemental doses was safe and well-tolerated as moderate sedation for use in minor surgical procedures.

Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) sedation: clinical utility of fospropofol

Fospropofol, a phosphorylated prodrug version of the popular induction agent propofol, is hydrolyzed in vivo to release active propofol, formaldehyde, and phosphate. Pharmacodynamic studies show fospropofol provides clinically useful sedation and EEG/bispectral index suppression while causing significantly less respiratory depression than propofol. Pain at the injection site, a common complaint with propofol, was not reported with fospropofol; the major patient complaint was transitory perianal itching during the drug's administration. Although many clinicians believe fospropofol can safely be given by a registered nurse, the FDA mandated that fospropofol, like propofol, must be used only in the presence of a trained anesthesia provider.

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.

Minor adverse events of colonoscopy on ambulatory patients: the impact of moderate sedation

BACKGROUND

Minor complications in colonoscopy, such as pain, distension, headache, dizziness, etc. are an important cause for the rejection of colonoscopy procedure. Their incidence, however, has not been established.

OBJECTIVE

To determine minor complication rates in outpatient colonoscopy procedures and the effect of sedation on these complications.

PATIENTS

A prospective randomized cohort study was performed on 1250 adults selected randomly among patients referred to our endoscopy unit. Complications and undesirable affects related to the colonoscopy were reordered during the patients' stay in the endoscopy unit (early complications) and 30 days postprocedure (late complications).

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred and twenty-six patients were enrolled (mean age 50.43+/-13.7 years; 54.5% female), of which 875 (78%) were sedated and 251 (22%) were not. No difference between groups was observed. Thirty-one percent of the patients had early minor complications (25% among sedated patients; 52% of nonsedated patients; P<0.001 chi2); 23% had late minor complications (16% of sedated patients vs. 51% nonsedated patients; P<0.001 chi2). The most common undesirable effects were pain and abdominal distension. The risk of experiencing complications - odds ratio - was 1.013 times higher per year of age [confidence interval (CI) 95%: 1.004-1.022]; 1.953 times higher per increase in American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (95% CI: 1.524-2.504); and 0.116 times lower when sedation was used (95% CI: 0.079-0.170).

CONCLUSION

Minor complications of colonoscopy are common. Their incidence increases with age and American Society of Anesthesiologists class and decreases with the use of sedation.

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.

Future directions in endoscopic sedation

The role of sedation in endoscopic procedures has increased and so has the demand for advances in its administration. The pursuit of new agents or administration techniques and their study specific to endoscopic nonsurgical procedures is necessary to improve patient comfort and safety.The science of moderate and deep sedation specific to endoscopy is fledgling but approaching new horizons.

An assessment of computer-assisted personalized sedation: a sedation delivery system to administer propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Demand for colonoscopy and EGD procedures is increasing. Impediments to performing these examinations persist. Patients perceive these procedures as unpleasant and painful. The use of suboptimal sedatives results in inefficiency in endoscopy practices. Improving sedation methods utilizing precise control of preferred sedatives may increase patient satisfaction and practice efficiency.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to demonstrate the feasibility of computer-assisted personalized sedation (CAPS) for facilitating the precise administration of propofol by endoscopist/nurse teams, achieving minimal to moderate sedation in subjects undergoing routine endoscopies.

DESIGN

Open label, single-center studies.

SETTING

Endoscopy clinics in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Gent, Belgium.

SUBJECTS

Twenty-four adults per center; 12 colonoscopies, 12 EGDs.

INTERVENTIONS

Propofol sedation with CAPS by endoscopist/registered nurse care teams.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sedation level measured by modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (MOAA/S), recovery time measured from endoscope removal until Aldrete >/= 12, dosage of propofol, oxygen saturation, and safety assessments.

RESULTS

Subjects responded to mild tactile and verbal stimuli MOAA/S = 5, 4, 3, or 2) 99% of the time. Mean propofol doses in the United States and Belgium were 65.4 and 72.1 mg, respectively. Mean recovery times were 29 and 10 seconds, respectively. Oxygen desaturation occurred in only 6% of subjects. No device-related adverse events occurred.

LIMITATION

Open-label design.

CONCLUSIONS

Using CAPS, the endoscopist/nurse teams precisely controlled the administration of propofol achieving minimal to moderate sedation in subjects undergoing colonoscopy and EGD procedures. Mean propofol dosage was low and post-procedure recovery times were rapid. The device performed well when operated by the endoscopist/nurse team, with no device-related adverse events.

Sedation for upper endoscopy: comparison of midazolam versus fentanyl plus midazolam

BACKGROUND

The benefit of using one or two drugs for conscious sedation in upper endoscopy remains unproven. This study evaluates the adequacy of conscious sedation during upper endoscopy using midazolam alone compared with midazolam plus fentanyl.

METHODS

Patients older than 18 years of age who underwent elective, outpatient upper endoscopy were included. They were randomized to receive either a combination of midazolam/fentanyl or midazolam alone. The adequacy of sedation obtained was assessed using a questionnaire answered by the physician at the end of the procedure, and by the patient 24 to 72 hours after endoscopy.

RESULTS

From the endoscopist's perspective, following an intention-to-treat analysis, patients had better tolerance in the combination group (78.3% excellent/good tolerance M/F group versus 55.8% M group) (P = 0.043) (Table 2). Per patient's assessment excellent/good tolerance was found in 93% of M group and 94% in F/M group (P = 1.0). No difference in duration of the procedure was found between the two groups. No complications during endoscopies were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In diagnostic upper endoscopy, an adequate level of sedation can be obtained safely either by midazolam or midazolam plus fentanyl. From an endoscopist's perspective, the combination is significantly better.

Understanding modes of moderate sedation during gastrointestinal procedures: a current review of the literature

Recommendations for routine screening for colorectal cancer with colonoscopy are likely to substantially increase the demand for provision of sedation for these procedures. Because of this burgeoning caseload and associated economic constraints, it is unlikely that anesthesiologists will be available for all such procedures, particularly those involving average-risk patients. Thus, sedative agents that can be safely administered by nonanesthesiologists, appropriately trained in monitoring and managing the patient's airway, are desperately needed. New concepts in sedation for colonoscopy include enhanced mechanisms for drug delivery such as patient-controlled sedation/analgesia and target-controlled infusion, along with the development of new drugs such as a modified cyclodextrin-based formulation of propofol and fospropofol disodium (Aquavan Injection), a water-soluble prodrug of propofol.

Utilidad en la práctica clínica habitual de la reversión tras sedación en colonoscopia ambulatoria

INTRODUCTION

Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of flumazenil in reducing recovery time in the endoscopy unit after conscious sedation with midazolam and meperidine. However, its effectiveness in routine clinical practice has not been proved and therefore its use is debated.

AIM

To determine the effectiveness of reversion with flumazenil after conscious sedation with midazolam and pethidine in outpatient colonoscopy and to evaluate its cost-effectiveness.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Two hundred consecutive outpatients scheduled for colonoscopy with conscious sedation with midazolam and pethidine in 2 endoscopy units were prospectively included. According to routine clinical practice in each unit, 100 patients were reverted with flumazenil and 100 were not. Medical and demographic data, indications for endoscopy, doses of the medications used and endoscopic findings were collected. Three weeks after the colonoscopy each patient was interviewed by telephone to determine discomfort and complications associated with the endoscopy and/or with the use of sedation. The cost-effectiveness of the use of flumazenil was analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the two groups in age (52.9 +/- 15.5 vs 52.7 +/- 18.3, p = NS), indications for colonoscopy, findings, percentage of full colonoscopies (93 vs 95%; p = NS) or in the doses of sedatives used. The recovery time in each endoscopy unit was similar (19.2 +/- 11.7 vs 15.5 +/- 10.1 minutes, p = NS). In the reversion group there were fewer patients with prolonged stays, defined as those > 20 minutes (23 vs 11%, p < 0.001). The number of patients who remembered discomfort during the colonoscopy was significantly greater in the reversion group (23 vs 13%; p < 0.05). There were no differences in the number of patients who reported discomfort in the days following the endoscopy. The best cost-effectiveness ratio was obtained for a mean stay of 25 min.

CONCLUSION

Routine use of reversion does not decrease the mean stay in the endoscopy unit but does decrease the number of prolonged stays. Unpleasant memories of the colonoscopy were more frequent in reverted patients. The effectiveness of the routine use of reversion with flumazenil after conscious sedation with midazolam and pethidine depends on the ratio between the number of daily colonoscopies and the capacity of the recovery room.

Pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of sedatives and analgesics

The agents used for sedation and analgesia during endoscopy have complex pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Knowledge of these characteristics is necessary for determining the proper agent and dose for specific patient needs. Short-acting agents, such as fentanyl, midazolam, and propofol, provide rapid sedation with a short duration of action that allows patients to return to normal functioning rapidly. When designing a dosing regimen with these agents, age and organ (liver, kidney) function of patients and concomitant medications that may interfere with metabolic and elimination pathways must be considered.