Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

Safety of propofol sedation administered by interventional radiologists for radiofrequency ablation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety of propofol sedation administered by interventional radiologists during radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Propofol sedation was administered by interventional radiologists in 72 patients (85 procedures, 93 tumors) during RFA for HCC between August 2018 and December 2020. Interventional radiologists equipped with adequate knowledge and skills in sedation and respiratory management were responsible for sedation. Sedation was carefully assessed based on vital signs, including end-tidal carbon dioxide, consciousness status, and bispectral index. The primary endpoint was the incidence of sedation-related complications, which were evaluated separately as respiratory and cardiovascular complications. Secondary endpoints were technical success rate, ablation-related complications, and local tumor control rate. Technical success was defined as completion of ablation in the planned area. Complications were evaluated using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Sedation-related complications, technical success rate, and ablation-related complications were evaluated on a procedure basis, and local tumor control was evaluated on a tumor basis.

RESULTS

Respiratory and cardiovascular complications were observed in eight (8/85, 9.4%) and two (2/85, 2.4%) patients, respectively. Four patients required the jaw thrust maneuver due to glossoptosis, whereas a decrease in oxygen saturation to < 90% was recorded in the other four patients. However, these were temporary, and none required manual ventilation or endotracheal intubation. Bradycardia (< 50 bpm) was detected in two patients; one recovered immediately without treatment, whereas the other rapidly improved after atropine sulfate administration. No severe hypotension (< 80 mmHg) was observed. The technical success rate was 100% (85/85). Grade 3 ablation-related complications were identified in three patients (3/85, 3.5%). The local tumor control rate was 95.7% (89/93).

CONCLUSION

Propofol sedation can be safely administered by interventional radiologists during RFA for HCC. Although it requires special safety considerations, it may be a sedation option during hepatic RFA.

Thoracic impedance pneumography in propofol-sedated patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A prospective, randomized trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of an ECG-based method called thoracic impedance pneumography to reduce hypoxic events in endoscopy.

DESIGN

This was a single center, 1:1 randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

The trial was conducted during the placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).

PATIENTS

173 patients who underwent PEG placement were enrolled in the present trial. Indication was oncological in most patients (89%). 58% of patients were ASA class II and 42% of patients ASA class III.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized in the standard monitoring group (SM) with pulse oximetry and automatic blood pressure measurement or in the intervention group with additional thoracic impedance pneumography (TIM). Sedation was performed with propofol by gastroenterologists or trained nurses.

MEASUREMENTS

Hypoxic episodes defined as SpO2 < 90% for >15 s were the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were minimal SpO2, apnea >10s/>30s and incurred costs.

MAIN RESULTS

Additional use of thoracic impedance pneumography reduced hypoxic episodes (TIM: 31% vs SM: 49%; p = 0.016; OR 0.47; NNT 5.6) and elevated minimal SpO2 per procedure (TIM: 90.0% ± 8.9; SM: 84.0% ± 17.6; p = 0.007) significantly. Apnea events >10s and > 30s were significantly more often detected in TIM (43%; 7%) compared to SM (1%; 0%; p < 0.001; p = 0.014) resulting in a time advantage of 17 s before the occurrence of hypoxic events. As a result, adjustments of oxygen flow were significantly more often necessary in SM than in TIM (p = 0.034) and assisted ventilation was less often needed in TIM (2%) compared with SM (9%; p = 0.053). Calculated costs for the additional use of thoracic impedance pneumography were 0.13$ (0.12 €/0.11 £) per procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional thoracic impedance pneumography reduced the quantity and extent of hypoxic events with less need of assisted ventilation. Supplemental costs per procedure were negligible.

KEY WORDS

thoracic impedance pneumography, capnography, sedation, monitoring, gastrointestinal endoscopy, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Comparison of the effects of esketamine, sufentanil, or lidocaine combined with propofol on tussis reflection during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: study protocol for a randomised, two centre, three-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Tussis, which increases the incidence of airway spasm, aspiration, nausea, and vomiting, is a common complication faced during upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. However, sedatives and analgesics exhibit inhibitory actions against airway reflexes to different degrees. Our assumption is a combination of propofol and small doses of sufentanil, esketamine, or lidocaine, especially the combination of propofol and esketamine, might reduce tussis incidence.

METHOD

The study will be performed as a randomised controlled three-blind, two-centre trial. Patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy, ≥ 18 years old, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I-III will be randomised to four groups: P group (single administration of propofol), P + S group (administration of propofol and sufentanil in combination), P + K group (administration of propofol and esketamine in combination), and P + L group (administration of propofol and lidocaine in combination) (N = 100 per group). The primary endpoints include the frequency of tussis, nausea and vomiting, and/or body movements observed at the insertion of the endoscope into the pharyngeal cavity or within 5 min of endoscope insertion. Secondary outcomes are recovery assessment, patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction with the procedure, MMSE scores, MET scores, sleep condition, and the number of sedation-related events. Data on sedation-related events are collected by recording of vital signs. Satisfaction parameters and mental states are collected by means of questionnaires and evaluation scales before and after the procedure and on different following days.

DISCUSSION

Esketamine can reduce tussis occurrence with good tolerability and relax the bronchus and also provides high clearance rates and low possibility of adverse reactions. We aim to demonstrate that the combination of esketamine with propofol for sedation in patients subjected to upper GI procedure is nevertheless superior to only administration of propofol or a combination of propofol with other anaesthetics, such as opioids or lidocaine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT05497492 , Registered 09 August 2022.

Global Trends of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Anesthesia/Sedation: A Bibliometric Study (from 2001 to 2022)

Background

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy becomes more and more common now in order to diagnose and treat GI diseases, and anesthesia/sedation plays an important role. We aim to discuss the developmental trends and evaluate the research hotspots using bibliometric methods for GI endoscopy anesthesia/sedation in the past two decades.

Methods

The original and review articles published from 2001 to December 2022 related to GI endoscopy anesthesia/sedation were extracted from the Web of Science database. Four different softwares (CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Bibliometrix, Online Analysis Platform of Literature Metrology (Bibliometric)) were used for this comprehensive analysis.

Results

According to our retrieval strategy, we found a total of 3154 related literatures. Original research articles were 2855, and reviews were 299. There has been a substantial increase in the research on GI endoscopy anesthesia/sedation in recent 22 years. These publications have been cited 66,418 times, with a mean of 21.04 citations per publication. The US maintained a leading position in global research, with the largest number of publications (29.94%), and China ranked second (19.92%). Keyword burst and concurrence showed that conscious sedation, colonoscopy and midazolam were the most frequently occurring keywords.

Conclusion

Our research found that GI endoscopy anesthesia/sedation was in a period of rapid development and demonstrated the improvement of medical instruments and surgical options that had significantly contributed to the field of GI endoscopy anesthesia/sedation. The US dominates this field, and the selection and dosage of sedative regimens have always been the foci of disease research to improve comfort and safety, while adverse events and risks arouse attention gradually. In the past 20 years, hotspots mainly focus on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, gastroscopy, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy. These data would provide future directions for clinicians and researchers regarding GI endoscopy anesthesia/sedation.

Remimazolam versus propofol for procedural sedation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

To improve patient tolerability and satisfaction as well as minimize complications, procedural sedation has been widely used. Propofol is the most widely used agent for induction of anesthesia and sedation by anesthesiologists. With a different mechanism compared to propofol, remimazolam is a new short-acting GABA-A receptor agonist. It is an ester-based benzodiazepine. This meta-analysis aims to clarify the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol for procedure sedation.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy or safety of remimazolam versus propofol. Meta-analysis were conducted using RStudio with "metafor" package with random-effects model.

Results

A total of twelve RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results demonstrated that patients with remimazolam for procedural sedation had lower risk of bradycardia (OR 0.28, 95% CI [0.14-0.57]), hypotension (OR 0.26, 95% CI [0.22-0.32]), and respiratory depression (OR 0.22, 95% CI [0.14-0.36]). There was no difference in the risk of developing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (OR 0.65, 95% CI [0.15-2.79]) and dizziness (OR 0.93, 95% CI [0.53-1.61]) between the remimazolam and propofol groups. Using remimazolam for procedural sedation is significantly associated with less injection pain compared to propofol (OR 0.06, 95% CI [0.03-0.13]). Regarding the sedation efficacy, there was no difference in sedation success rate or time to loss of consciousness, recover and discharge between the remimazolam and the propofol groups.

Conclusions

Based on our meta-analysis, patients receiving procedural sedation with remimazolam had lower risk of bradycardia, hypotension, respiratory depression and injection pain compared with propofol. On the other hand, there was no difference in sedation success rate, risk of PONV, dizziness, time to LOC, recovery and discharge between these two sedatives.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42022362950.

Effect of modified ShengYangYiwei decoction on painless gastroscopy and gastrointestinal and immune function in gastric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Painless gastroenteroscopy is a widely developed diagnostic and treatment technology in clinical practice. It is of great significance in the clinical diagnosis, treatment, follow-up review and other aspects of gastric cancer patients. The application of anesthesia techniques during manipulation can be effective in reducing patient fear and discomfort. In clinical work, the adverse drug reactions of anesthesia regimens and the risk of serious adverse drug reactions are increased with the increase in propofol application dose application dose; the application of opioid drugs often causes gastrointestinal reactions, such as nausea, vomiting and delayed gastrointestinal function recovery, after examination. These adverse effects can seriously affect the quality of life of patients.

AIM

To observe the effect of modified ShengYangYiwei decoction on gastrointestinal function, related complications and immune function in patients with gastric cancer during and after painless gastroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 106 patients with gastric cancer, who were selected from January 2022 to September 2022 in Xiamen Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital for painless gastroscopy, were randomly divided into a treatment group (n = 56) and a control group (n = 50). Before the examination, all patients fasted for 8 h, provided their health education, and confirmed if there were contraindications to anesthesia and gastroscopy. During the examination, the patients were placed in the left decubitus position, the patients were given oxygen through a nasal catheter (6 L/min), the welling needle was opened for the venous channel, and a multifunction detector was connected for monitoring electrocardiogram, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, etc. Naporphl and propofol propofol protocols were used for routine anesthesia. Before anesthesia administration, the patients underwent several deep breathing exercises, received intravenous nalbuphine [0.nalbuphine (0.025 mg/kg)], followed by intravenous propofol [1.propofol (1.5 mg/kg)] until the palpebral reflex disappeared, and after no response, gastroscopy was performed. If palpebral reflex disappeared, and after no response, gastroscopy was performed. If any patient developed movement, frowning, or hemodynamic changes during the operation (heart rate changes during the operation (heart rate increased to > 20 beats/min, systolic blood pressure increased to > 20% of the base value), additional propofol [0.propofol (0.5 mg/kg)] was added until the patient was sedated again. The patients in the treatment group began to take the preventive intervention of Modified ShengYangYiwei decoction one week before the examination, while the patients in the control group received routine gastrointestinal endoscopy. The patients in the two groups were examined by conventional painless gastroscopy, and the characteristics of the painless gastroscopies of the patients in the two groups were recorded and compared. These characteristics included the total dosage of propofol during the examination, the incidence of complications during the operation, the time of patients' awakening, the time of independent activities, and the gastrointestinal function of the patients after examination, such as the incidence of reactions such as malignant vomiting, abdominal distension and abdominal pain, as well as the differences in the levels of various immunological indicators and inflammatory factors before anesthesia induction (T0), after conscious extubation (T1) and 24 h after surgery (T2).

RESULTS

There was no difference in the patients’ general information, American Society of Anesthesiologist classification or operation time between the two groups before treatment. In terms of painless gastroscopy, the total dosage of propofol in the treatment group was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05), and the time of awakening and autonomous activity was significantly faster than that in the control group (P < 0.05). During the examination, the incidence of hypoxemia, hypotension and hiccups in the treatment group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.01). In terms of gastrointestinal function, the incidences of nausea, vomiting, abdominal distension and abdominal pain in the treatment group after examination were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < 0.01). In terms of immune function, in both groups, the number of CD4+ and CD8+ cells decreased significantly (P < 0.05), and the number of natural killer cells increased significantly (P < 0.05) at T1 and T2, compared with T0. The number of CD4+ and CD8+ cells in the treatment group at the T1 and T2 time points was higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05), while the number of natural killer cells was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). In terms of inflammatory factors, compared with T0, the levels of interleukin (IL) -6 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha in patients in the two groups at T1 and T2 increased significantly and then decreased (P < 0.05). The level of IL-6 at T1 and T2 in the treatment group was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The preoperative use of modified ShengYangYiwei decoction can optimize the anesthesia program during painless gastroscopy, improve the gastrointestinal function of patients after the operation, reduce the occurrence of examination-related complications.

The Quality and Safety of Sedation and Monitoring in Adults Undergoing Nonoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography

Sedation is an essential component of the transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) procedure for patient comfort. The use and the clinical implications of cardiologist-supervised (CARD-Sed) versus anesthesiologist-supervised sedation (ANES-Sed) are unknown. We reviewed nonoperative TEE records from a single academic center over a 5-year period and identified CARD-Sed and ANES-Sed cases. We evaluated the impact of patient co-morbidities, cardiac abnormalities on transthoracic echocardiogram, and the indication for TEE on sedation practice. We analyzed the use of CARD-Sed versus ANES-Sed in light of institutional guidelines; the consistency in the documentation of preprocedural risk stratification; and the incidence of cardiopulmonary events, including hypotension, hypoxia, and hypercarbia. A total of 914 patients underwent TEE, with 475 patients (52%) receiving CARD-Sed and 439 patients (48%) receiving ANES-Sed. The presence of obstructive sleep apnea (p = 0.008), a body mass index of >45 kg/m2 (p <0.001), an ejection fraction of <30% (p <0.001), and pulmonary artery systolic pressure of more than 40 mm Hg (p = 0.015) were all associated with the use of ANES-Sed. Of the 178 patients (19.5%) with at least 1 caution to nonanesthesiologist-supervised sedation by the institutional screening guideline, 65 patients (36.5%) underwent CARD-Sed. In the ANES-Sed group, where intraprocedural vital signs and medications were documented in all cases, hypotension (n = 91, 20.7%), vasoactive medication use (n = 121, 27.6%), hypoxia (n = 35, 8.0%), and hypercarbia (n = 50, 11.4%) were noted. This single-center study revealed that 48% of the nonoperative TEE used ANES-Sed over 5 years. Sedation-related hemodynamic changes and respiratory events were not infrequently encountered during ANES-Sed.

Considerations for Satisfactory Sedation during Dental Implant Surgery

Implant surgery is a lengthy dental procedure, and sedation is often used to reduce discomfort. The effectiveness of sedation has traditionally been evaluated in terms of patient and surgeon satisfaction, but the most important goal is not to induce a deep sleep in the patient, but rather to ensure that the surgery is performed safely and as planned. Additionally, adequate pain control is a necessary requirement for patient and surgeon satisfaction. Most patients undergoing implant surgery are middle-aged or older, and a relatively large number of them have cardiovascular disease. Infiltration anesthesia using articaine or lidocaine in combination with adrenaline is widely used, but its use in patients with cardiovascular disease is limited because of adrenaline's effects on the cardiovascular system. The use of long-acting local anesthetics and the potential efficacy of ultrasound-guided jaw nerve block have been investigated to enhance analgesia without resorting to adrenaline. Midazolam and propofol are usually used for sedation, but dexmedetomidine, which causes less respiratory depression, and the ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine remimazolam are emerging as potential alternatives. Monitoring of anesthetic depth using electroencephalography is effective in maintaining a constant level of sedation. In addition, sedation promotes the stabilization of heart rate and blood pressure, reducing the risks associated with adrenaline and allowing for safer management.

Study of wrist-ankle acupuncture therapy for optimizing anaesthesia scheme of painless gastroscopy and improving painless gastroscopy related complications

BACKGROUND

Painless gastroscopy is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic technology in clinical practice. Propofol combined with opioids is a common drug for painless endoscopic sedation and anaesthesia. In clinical work, adverse drug reactions of anaesthesia schemes are often one of the important areas of concern for doctors and patients. With the increase in propofol dosage, the risk of serious adverse drug reactions, such as respiratory depression and hypotension, increases significantly; the use of opioids often causes gastrointestinal reactions in patients after examination, such as nausea, vomiting, delayed recovery of gastrointestinal function and other complications, which seriously affect their quality of life.

AIM

To observe the effect of wrist-ankle acupuncture therapy on the anaesthesia regimen and anaesthesia-related complications during and after painless gastroscopy examination.

METHODS

Two hundred patients were selected and randomly divided into a treatment group (n = 100) and a control group (n = 100). Both groups were routinely anaesthetized with the nalbuphine and propofol regimen, gastroscopy began after the patient lost consciousness, and given supportive treatment and vital sign monitoring. If the patient interrupted the surgery due to intraoperative torsion, intravenous propofol was used to relieve his or her discomfort. The treatment group received wrist-ankle acupuncture on this basis.

RESULTS

The general data before treatment, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) grade and operation time between the two groups was no significant difference. The Wakeup time, and the Self-ambulation time in the treatment group was significantly faster than that in the control group (P < 0.05). The total dose of propofol in the treatment group was 109 ± 8.17 mg, significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of respiratory depression and hypotension was not significantly different, but the incidence of hiccups was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). After the examination, the incidence of nausea, vomiting, abdominal distension, and abdominal pain was 11%, 8%, 6%, and 5%, respectively, which was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). In addition, both the operators and the patients were more satisfied with this examination, with no significant difference between the groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Wrist-ankle acupuncture treatment can optimize the painless gastroscopy and anaesthesia scheme, reduces propofol total dose; shortens patient Wakeup time and Self-ambulation time, improves patient compliance and tolerance, is beneficial to clinical application.

Feasibility of Continuous Monitoring of Endoscopy Performance and Adverse Events: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

We integrated a standardized questionnaire focusing on adverse events and performance measures in gastrointestinal endoscopy as a mandatory component of the electronical medical record.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted using prospectively collected data on quality parameters and adverse events (AEPM) for all diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic procedures at our center between 2018 and 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 7532 consecutive endoscopic procedures were performed in 5035 patients. The proportion of high-risk examinations and high-risk patients was 20% and 23%, respectively. Severe adverse events (AEs, n = 21) occurred in 0.3% of procedures and significantly more often in patients with an ASA score > II (0.6%, p < 0.01). We observed no long-term morbidity after severe AEs. Mortality was 0.03% (n = 2). Following screening colonoscopy (n = 242), four endoscopists documented AEPM in more than 98% of the examinations. The cecal intubation rate was 97%, and the mean adenoma detection rate 60%. The quality of lavage was documented in 97% (rated as good in 70% and moderate in 24%).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of adverse events is significantly increased in patients with an ASA score > II, which should be considered when choosing treatment methods and precautionary measures. Continuous recording of AEPM can be effectively integrated into the clinical reporting process, enabling analysis of the data and feedback to be provided to endoscopists.

Time and Motion at the Endoscopy Unit-A University Hospital Experience

Background/aims

An effective workflow at the endoscopy unit is important for optimal production. We conducted a time-and-motion study to identify the amount of time that patients spend during the different steps of a regular endoscopy procedure and compared propofol with midazolam sedation.

Methods

Data from 376 patients were prospectively collected. Durations of the different procedure steps were measured. Correlations between recovery times, age, and dose of sedative were calculated. Multiple regression analysis was performed to evaluate how various factors affect recovery time.

Results

The use of midazolam resulted in significantly shorter procedure duration for gastroscopy (5.1 vs 8.3 min), shorter endoscopist delay duration for either types of endoscopy (5.9 vs 8.3 min for gastroscopy and 6.7 vs 11.4 min for colonoscopy), shorter endoscopy room duration for gastroscopy (22.2 vs 30.0 min), shorter recovery time for colonoscopy (23.4 vs 27.4 min) and shorter Endoscopy Unit Duration for either type of endoscopy (77.1 vs 101.4 min for gastroscopy and 99.6 vs 123.2 min for colonoscopy). There was a weak correlation between dose of midazolam and recovery time.

Conclusions

In contrast to other studies, propofol administration leads to more time spent at different steps in the workflow at our unit. Implementing propofol sedation will not improve efficacy if other steps in the workflow are not taken into account.

Can intravenous lidocaine definitely attenuate propofol requirement and improve outcomes among colonoscopic patients under intravenous sedation?: A double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol-sparing effect of lidocaine has not been fully elucidated because propofol is usually mixed with many medications in anesthetic practice. Therefore, the study aimed to verify the additive effect of intravenous lidocaine to propofol without other sedative medications and control the depth of anesthesia using the bispectral index (BIS) during colonoscopy in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled trial.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients scheduled and undergoing colonoscopy were randomly allocated to receive intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg then 4 mg/kg/h) (Group L) or a similar volume of normal saline (Group C) with propofol administration guided by BIS monitoring. The primary outcome was total propofol requirements between group comparisons. The secondary outcomes included the number of hypoxemic periods, hemodynamic changes, duration in returning of BIS > 85, sedation scores, pain scores, postoperative opioid requirement, and patient satisfaction between group comparisons.

RESULTS

Intravenous lidocaine showed significantly reduced total propofol use (151.76 ± 50.78 mg vs 242.06 ± 50.86 mg, Group L vs Group C, respectively, P < .001). Duration in returning to BIS > 85, sedation scores, and patient satisfaction scores were significantly superior in Group L (P < .05). The number of hypoxemic episodes, changes of hemodynamic response, pain scores, and postoperative opioid requirement were similar in both groups. No adverse effects were detected in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous lidocaine produced a definitely effective reduced propofol requirement without other sedative agents and improved outcomes including patient satisfaction, duration in returning to BIS > 85, and sedation score during colonoscopy without adverse effects.

The effect of intravenous lidocaine on propofol dosage in painless bronchoscopy of patients with COPD

Background

We tested the hypothesis that intravenous (IV) lidocaine reduces propofol requirements in painless bronchoscopy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

A total of 93 patients who underwent bronchoscopy were included in this randomized placebo-controlled study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. After the IV doses of nalbuphine, patients were given a bolus of propofol, which was titrated if necessary until loss of consciousness. Then patients were given IV lidocaine (2 mg/kg then 4 mg/kg/h) or the same volume of saline. The primary endpoint was the propofol requirements. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of hypoxemia, the incidence of cough during glottis examination, the systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR) during bronchoscopy procedures, the bronchoscopist's comforts, and the time for wakefulness before recovery.

Results

Lidocaine infusion resulted in a significant reduction in propofol requirements (p &lt; .0001), and the incidence of hypoxemia (p = .001) and cough (p = .003) during examination decreased significantly in the lidocaine group. During the examination, the fluctuation of SBP and HR was significantly lower than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (p &lt; .05). Bronchoscopist's comforts were higher in the lidocaine group (p &lt; .001), and time for wakefulness (p &lt; .001) were significantly lower in the lidocaine group.

Conclusion

In painless bronchoscopy in patients with COPD, IV infusion of lidocaine resulted in a reduction in propofol dose requirements and reduce the incidence of adverse events.

Effect of wrist-ankle acupuncture on propofol dosage during painless colonoscopy: A randomized controlled prospective study

BACKGROUND

The clinical advantages of painless colonoscopy can reduce the fear and discomfort of patients and increase the detection rate of diseases. Propofol has the characteristics of fast effect and short action time. It is a common choice for painless endoscopic sedation and anesthetics. However, propofol can cause severe respiratory and circulatory depression. Therefore, it is important to find a way to reduce the dose of propofol.

AIM

To explore the effect of wrist-ankle acupuncture on propofol dose during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Two hundred patients who were going to receive selective painless colonoscopy in Hebei Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine were selected and divided into wrist-ankle acupuncture group (WAA group, n = 100) and control group (CON group, n = 100). After entering the operation room, patients were given 0.025 mg/kg nabufine intravenously and propofol at the initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg. In patients who did not fall asleep, propofol (10 mg/time) was given until loss of consciousness. Prior to anesthesia, patients in WAA group were punctured by specialist in the inferior 1, 2 and 3 regions according to the zoning principle of wrist-ankle acupuncture. The primary endpoint was required dose of propofol, and the secondary endpoints were the incidence of hypoxemia and hypotension. Furthermore, the following data were recorded: The operation time, wake-up time, incidence of nausea and vomiting, incidence of abdominal distention, post-colonoscopy pain, examiners' satisfaction, patients' satisfaction and Borg fatigue index. This study has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration Code: ChiCTR1900022177).

RESULTS

The induced dose of propofol and the total dose of propofol in WAA group were 80 mg and 110 mg, respectively, which were significantly lower than those in CON group (P < 0.05). The incidences of hypoxemia and hypotension in the WAA group were 2.2% and 3.3%, respectively, significantly lower than those in the CON group (P < 0.05). The incidence of abdominal distension in the WAA group was 8.8%, which was significantly lower than that in the CON group (P < 0.05, 28.9%). The waking time of WAA group was 3.26 ± 0.87 min, which was significantly lower than that of CON group (6.06 ± 0.88 min, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Wrist-ankle acupuncture can reduce the induction dose and total dose of propofol as well as the incidence of adverse reactions in painless colonoscopy without affecting the satisfaction of examiners and patients. This procedure is simple in operation and easy to promote in clinical practice.

Evaluation of anesthesia quality with three methods: "propofol + fentanyl" vs. "propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine" vs. "propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine + ketamine" in patients referred to the scoping ward

Introduction:

Toleration of the complexity and pain of interventions such as endoscopy and colonoscopy is highly difficult for patients. Considering the disagreement on the method of injection of propofol, this study was performed to evaluate the quality of anesthesia using the three methods of propofol + fentanyl, propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine, and propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine + ketamine.

Methods:

This one-way blind clinical trial study included 99 patients who were admitted in three groups by block randomization method. In a group of patients that were sedated with propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine + ketamine, the dose of all drugs is reduced by half the amount of the other groups. Variables included age, sex, frequency of cough, apnea, need for jaw thrust maneuver, O₂ saturation, duration of recovery, and procedural satisfaction. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20.0. P value of < 0.05 was considered to be significant.

Results:

The three groups were similar in terms of demographic characteristics. The effects of the three sedation protocols on the variables showed that patient’s apnea, cough, O₂ saturation, and also proceduralist satisfaction in the group of the patient that sedated with four drugs was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than other groups. But there was no significant difference between the three groups when comparing the recovery time and need for jaw thrust during the procedure.

Conclusion:

The findings of the present study showed that the use of combination of “propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine + ketamine” with lower doses, significantly results in higher quality sedation compared with higher doses of “propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine” or “propofol + fentanyl” for scoping procedures.

Academy of Medicine, Singapore clinical guideline on the use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting

INTRODUCTION

In Singapore, non-anaesthesiologists generally administer sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The drugs used for sedation in hospital endoscopy centres now include propofol in addition to benzodiazepines and opiates. The requirements for peri-procedural monitoring and discharge protocols have also evolved. There is a need to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline on the safe and effective use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting.

METHODS

The Academy of Medicine, Singapore appointed an expert workgroup comprising 18 gastroenterologists, general surgeons and anaesthesiologists to develop guidelines on the use of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The workgroup formulated clinical questions related to different aspects of endoscopic sedation, conducted a relevant literature search, adopted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and developed recommendations by consensus using a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

The workgroup made 16 recommendations encompassing 7 areas: (1) purpose of sedation, benefits and disadvantages of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (2) pre-procedural assessment, preparation and consent taking for sedation; (3) Efficacy and safety of drugs used in sedation; (4) the role of anaesthesiologist administered sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (5) performance of sedation; (6) post-sedation care and discharge after sedation; and (7) training in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy for non-anaesthesiologists.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations serve to guide clinical practice during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-anaesthesiologists in the hospital setting.

Safety of endoscopist-administered deep sedation with propofol in patients ASA III

INTRODUCTION

Deep sedation controlled by the endoscopist is safe in patients with low anesthetic risk (ASA I-II). However, scarce evidence is available in patients with intermediate risk (ASA III).

OBJETIVE

To evaluate the safety of deep sedation with propofol controlled by the usual endoscopy staff (endoscopist, nurse, assistant) in outpatients classified as ASA III and the risk factors for the occurrence of complications during deep sedation in these patients.

DESIGN

This observational and single-centre cross-sectional study includes consecutive patients undergoing non-complex procedures in which deep sedation is administered by the endoscopy staff. Patients were divided into group I (ASA=III) and group II (ASA<III).

RESULTS

A total of 562 patients were included, 80 (14.2%) group I. Complications related to deep sedation were more frequent in group I (23.8% vs 14.5%; p=0.036), mainly mild desaturations (13.8% vs 7.5%; p=0.058). Emergency intervention or exitus were not registered. The adjusted analysis identified age as the one independent baseline risk factor for developing global adverse events.

CONCLUSION

ASA III patients developed more sedation-related complications that ASA I-II patients. However these complications were mild and do not prevent to correctly perform the procedure.

Impact of intravenous and topical lidocaine on clinical outcomes in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of i.v. or topical lidocaine as an anaesthesia adjunct in improving clinical outcomes in patients receiving gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures under propofol sedation remains unclear.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) were searched for RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes with or without lidocaine application (i.v. or topical) in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 29 March 2021. The primary outcome was propofol dosage, while secondary outcomes included procedure time, recovery time, adverse events (e.g. oxygen desaturation), post-procedural pain, and levels of endoscopist and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Twelve trials (1707 patients) published between 2011 and 2020 demonstrated that addition of i.v. (n=7) or topical (n=5) lidocaine to propofol sedation decreased the level of post-procedural pain (standardised mean difference [SMD]=-0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.8 to -0.14), risks of gag events (risk ratio [RR]=0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.75), and involuntary movement (RR=0.4, 95% CI: 0.16-0.96). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that only i.v. lidocaine reduced propofol dosage required for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (SMD=-0.83, 95% CI: -1.19 to -0.47), increased endoscopist satisfaction (SMD=0.75, 95% CI: 0.21-1.29), and shortened the recovery time (SMD=-0.83, 95% CI: -1.45 to -0.21). Intravenous or topical lidocaine did not affect the incidence of oxygen desaturation (RR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.41-1.24) or arterial hypotension (RR=0.6, 95% CI: 0.22-1.65) and procedure time (SMD=0.21, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.51).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that i.v. or topical lidocaine appears safe to use and may be of benefit for improving propofol sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Further large-scale trials are warranted to support our findings.

Pain Intensity at Injection Site during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Using Long- and Medium-Chain versus Long-Chain Triglyceride Propofol: A Randomized Controlled Double-Blind Study

Background/Aims

The intensities of injection pain resulting from the use of long- and medium-chain triglyceride (LCT/MCT) propofol and conventional LCT propofol during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) have yet to be compared. We aimed to determine the pain intensity caused by different formulations of propofol and to evaluate the formulation that would be preferred by patients as a sedative agent during their next procedure.

Methods

This study was a single-center, randomized, controlled, and double-blind trial. Pain intensity was estimated 30 seconds after propofol injection by an examiner who was blinded to the group assignment using a numeric (0-10) pain rating scale (NPRS). After 1 week, the patients were asked whether they could recall the pain and were willing to receive the same agent for their next EGD.

Results

One hundred twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to LCT/MCT or LCT group. Although there was no significant difference in pain incidence between the LCT/MCT and LCT groups (52.9% vs 65.6%, p=0.156), the pain intensity was significantly lower in the LCT/MCT group (NPRS median [interquartile range]; 1 (0-2) vs 2 (0-5), p=0.005). After 1 week, fewer patients in the LCT/MCT group recalled the pain (19.1% vs 63.9%, p<0.001) and more patients in the LCT/MCT group were more willing to use the same agent for their next procedure (86.8% vs 72.1%, p=0.048) than in the LCT group.

Conclusions

LCT/MCT propofol significantly reduced injection pain intensity compared to LCT propofol during EGD and preferred by patients as a sedative agent during their next EGD.

Capability of processed EEG parameters to monitor conscious sedation in endoscopy is similar to general anaesthesia

Background

Reliable and safe sedation is a prerequisite for endoscopic interventions. The current standard is rather safe, yet, an objective device to measure sedation depth is missing. To date, anaesthesia monitors based on processed electroencephalogram (EEG) have not been utilised in conscious sedation.

Objective

To investigate EEG parameters to differentiate consciousness in endoscopic propofol sedation.

Methods

In total, 171 patients aged 21–83 years (ASA I–III) undergoing gastrointestinal and bronchial endoscopy were enrolled. Standard monitoring and a frontotemporal two‐channel EEG were recorded. The state of consciousness was identified by repeated requests to squeeze the investigator's hand.

Results

In total, 1132 state‐of‐consciousness (SOC) transitions were recorded in procedures ranging from 5 to 69 min. Thirty‐four EEG parameters from the frequency domain, time‐frequency domain and complexity measures were calculated. Area under the curve ranged from 0.51 to 0.82 with complexity and optimised frequency domain parameters yielding the best results.

Conclusion

Prediction of the SOC with processed EEG parameters is feasible, and the results for sedation in endoscopic procedures are similar to those reported from general anaesthesia. These results are insufficient for a clinical application, but prediction capability may be increased with optimisation and modelling.

Electroencephalogram (EEG)‐based anaesthesia monitors, like the Bispectral Index, have been investigated as an adjunct to monitor propofol sedation in the endoscopy ward. These studies showed very limited benefit.

Capability of processed EEG parameters to differentiate the state of consciousness (SOC) in endoscopy is similar to general anaesthesia.

However, artefacts arising from the less controlled endoscopy environment as compared to anaesthesia limit their use in sedation monitoring.

The Bispectral Index and its underlying parameters are ineffective in the determination of the SOC in sedation during endoscopic procedures.

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.

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of oxygenation using high flow nasal cannula vs. conventional nasal cannula during procedural sedation for endoscopic ultrasound: A pilot study

Background and Aims:

High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has numerous advantages against conventional oxygen therapy delivery systems. However, there is limited evidence supporting the use of HFNC in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) under procedural sedation. The aims of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of two different oxygen delivery devices, that is,HFNCand conventional nasal cannula on the oxygenation status of patients during procedural sedation for EUS.

Material and Methods:

Sixty adult patients undergoing EUS for various ailments were randomized to two groups group HFNC (n=30) and group nasal cannula [NC (n = 30)]. HFNC (AIRVO2, Fisher and Paykel Healthcare, New Zealand) was used on patients in the group HFNC. Respiratory status of the patients was assessed using pulse oximetry, respiratory rate, procedural airway complications, and oxygen therapy adjustments. The endoscopist assessed the ease of performing EUS at the end of the procedure and patient satisfaction score (PSS) was assessed by using a Likert score in the post-anesthesia care unit.

Results:

SpO2 measurements in the HFNC group during the procedure were marginally better compared to the NC group but this failed to reach statistical significance. Also, no significant association was found between both groups while comparing desaturation events (P = 0.499), patient satisfaction score (PSS) and endendoscopist’s satisfaction score (ESS) (P = 0.795). Both the groups were comparable in terms of airway manipulation, use of airway adjuncts, need to increase oxygen flow rate, endoscope removal, apneic episodes, hypotension, and bradycardia. No major complications were observed in either group.

Conclusion:

HFNC use in patients undergoing EUS is not superior when compared to conventional nasal cannula oxygen therapy. HFNC failed to show any significant impact on decreasing the risk of desaturation events and airway manipulation during the procedure.

Effects of transcutaneous electrical acupuncture point stimulation on peripheral capillary oxygen saturation in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy with sedation: a prospective randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

This study investigated whether transcutaneous electrical acupuncture point stimulation (TEAS) at PC6 can reduce the proportion of elderly patients experiencing a drop of ⩾4% in peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO₂) while undergoing colonoscopy under sedation.

METHODS

A total of 32 elderly patients (aged ⩾ 65 years) scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either real or sham TEAS (treatment or control groups, respectively). Each patient received oxygen (2 L/min) delivered routinely via nasal cannula. The treatment group was given TEAS at PC6 for 20 min at 2 Hz frequency and 6 mA intensity; the control group underwent the same procedures but with zero frequency/intensity. SpO₂ and other physiological parameters were measured prior to sedation and colonoscopy (baseline) and at seven other timepoints through departure from recovery. Depth of anesthesia was measured using a Narcotrend monitor.

RESULTS

Significantly fewer patients in the treatment group experienced a ⩾4% decrease from baseline SpO₂ (2/16) than patients in the control group (10/16; p = 0.004). The two groups were comparable with regard to respiratory rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate.

CONCLUSION

TEAS applied at PC6 with 2 Hz frequency was feasible and may be helpful in reducing the rate of hypoxia in elderly patients during colonoscopy.Trial registration number: NCT03775122 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

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

BACKGROUND/AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Esophagoduodenoscopy or colonoscopy: which should be done first?

OBJECTIVES

Esophagoduodenoscopy and colonoscopy can be done as bidirectional endoscopy in the same session. The aim of this study was to compare anesthetic requirements and hemodynamic effects in esophagoduodenoscopy or colonoscopy done first for bidirectional endoscopy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eighty patients, aged 18-70 years with an American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification (ASA) as I-III, were included randomly into this study. The patients were allocated into two groups: Group C: first colonoscopy followed by esophagoduodenoscopy. Group E: first esophagoduodenoscopy followed by colonoscopy. All patients received standard anesthesia with 1 µg/kg fentanyl and 1 mg/kg propofol. Demographical variables, Heart rate SpO2, Ramsey Sedation Score were recorded every 10 minutes. Total propofol consumption, retching during esophagoduodenoscopy and time to reach cecum were also recorded. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction were questioned.

RESULTS

Retching during esophagoduodenoscopy was not statistically significantly different in both groups. Total procedure duration and esophagoduodenoscopy duration were statistically significant longer in Group E. Complication frequency was higher in Group E. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction were lower in Group E. There was no difference in time to reach the cecum and the recovering period. Additional propofol dose was increased in Group E.

CONCLUSION

Regarding shorter procedural duration, lower consumption amount of propofol and fewer complications, it could be a better choice to start bidirectional procedure with colonoscopy first.

Propofol versus midazolam with or without short-acting opioids for sedation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in colonoscopy; however, its benefits over midazolam (± short-acting opioids) are not well quantified. The objective of this study was to compare safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes of propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids) in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library (to July 30, 2018) for randomized controlled trials of colonoscopies performed with propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids). We pooled odds ratios for cardiorespiratory outcomes using mixed-effects conditional logistic models. We pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) for patient and endoscopist satisfaction and efficiency outcomes using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Nine studies of 1427 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in cardiorespiratory outcomes (hypotension, hypoxia, bradycardia) between sedative groups. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups, with most patients reporting willingness to undergo a future colonoscopy with the same sedative regimen. In the meta-analysis, patients sedated with propofol had greater satisfaction than those sedated with midazolam (± short-acting opioids) (SMD, .54; 95% confidence interval [CI], .30-.79); however, there was considerable heterogeneity. Procedure time was similar between groups (SMD, .15; 95% CI, .04-.27), but recovery time was shorter in the propofol group (SMD, .41; 95% CI, .08-.74). The median difference in recovery time was 3 minutes, 6 seconds shorter in patients sedated with propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

Both propofol and midazolam (± short-acting opioids) result in high patient satisfaction and appear to be safe for use in colonoscopy. The marginal benefits to propofol are small improvements in satisfaction and recovery time.

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.

Effect of electroacupuncture on sedation requirements during colonoscopy: a prospective placebo-controlled randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

Propofol provides excellent sedation during colonoscopy. However, its application, namely when used together with an opioid, is associated with cardiopulmonary depression. Acupuncture is used nowadays for the treatment of pain and anxiety, and also to induce sedation. We hypothesised that electroacupuncture (EA) during colonoscopy would have sedative effects, thereby reducing propofol requirements to achieve an adequate level of sedation.

METHOD

The study was designed and conducted as a single centre, patient and observer blinded, sham- and placebo-controlled randomised trial. Patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy under deep propofol/alfentanil sedation were randomly assigned to receive unilateral EA, sham-acupuncture (SA) or placebo-acupuncture (PA) at ST36, PC6 and LI4. The primary outcome parameter was the total dosage of propofol. Secondary outcomes included the patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction levels evaluated by questionnaires.

RESULTS

The dosage of propofol required (median [IQR]) was not significantly different between the three groups (EA group 147 μg/kg/min [109-193] vs SA group 141 μg/kg/min [123- 180] vs PA group 141 μg/kg/min [112-182]; P=0.776). There was also no significant difference in alfentanil consumption (P=0.634). Global satisfaction (median [IQR]) among patients (EA group 6.6 [6.0-7.0] vs SA group 6.8 [6.0-7.0] vs PA group 6.5 [6.0-7.0]; P=0.481) and endoscopists (6.0 [5.0-6.0] for all groups; P=0.773) did not significantly differ between the three groups. There was no significant difference in the number of cardiorespiratory events.

CONCLUSION

For colonoscopy, the applied mode of EA did not show any propofol-sparing sedative effect compared with sham or placebo acupuncture.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered in the Netherland's Trial Registry (NTR4325).

Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol is commonly used for sedation during endoscopic procedures. Data suggests its superiority to traditional sedatives used in endoscopy including benzodiazepines and opioids with more rapid onset of action and improved post-procedure recovery times for patients. However, Propofol requires administration by trained healthcare providers, has a narrow therapeutic index, lacks an antidote and increases risks of cardio-pulmonary complications.

AIM

To compare, through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, sedation with propofol to traditional sedatives with or without propofol during endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, LILACS, BVS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. The last search in the literature was performed on March, 2019 with no restriction regarding the idiom or the year of publication. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. We divided sedation therapies to the following groups: (1) Propofol versus benzodiazepines and/or opiate sedatives; (2) Propofol versus Propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids; and (3) Propofol with adjunctive benzodiazepine and opioid versus benzodiazepine and opioid. The following outcomes were addressed: Adverse events, patient satisfaction with type of sedation, endoscopists satisfaction with sedation administered, dose of propofol administered and time to recovery post procedure. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5 software version 5.39.

RESULTS

A total of 23 clinical trials were included (n = 3854) from the initial search of 6410 articles. For Group I (Propofol vs benzodiazepine and/or opioids): The incidence of bradycardia was not statistically different between both sedation arms (RD: -0.01, 95%CI: −0.03–+0.01, I²: 22%). In 10 studies, the incidence of hypotension was not statistically difference between sedation arms (RD: 0.01, 95%CI: −0.02–+0.04, I²: 0%). Oxygen desaturation was higher in the propofol group but not statistically different between groups (RD: −0.03, 95%CI: −0.06–+0.00, I²: 25%). Patients were more satisfied with their sedation in the benzodiazepine + opioid group compared to those with monotherapy propofol sedation (MD: +0.89, 95%CI: +0.62–+1.17, I²: 39%). The recovery time after the procedure showed high heterogeneity even after outlier withdrawal, there was no statistical difference between both arms (MD: -15.15, 95%CI: −31.85–+1.56, I²: 99%). For Group II (Propofol vs propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids): Bradycardia had a tendency to occur in the Propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opioid-associated (RD: -0.08, 95%CI: −0.13–−0.02, I²: 59%). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of bradycardia (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: −0.08–+0.08, I²: 85%), desaturation (RD: −0.00, 95%CI: −0.03–+0.02, I²: 44%) or recovery time (MD: -2.04, 95%CI: −6.96–+2.88, I²: 97%) between sedation arms. The total dose of propofol was higher in the propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opiates but with high heterogeneity. (MD: 70.36, 95%CI: +53.11–+87.60, I²: 61%). For Group III (Propofol with benzodiazepine and opioid vs benzodiazepine and opioid): Bradycardia and hypotension was not statistically significant between groups (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: −0.002–+0.02, I²: 3%; RD: 0.04, 95%CI: −0.05–+0.13, I²: 77%). Desaturation was evaluated in two articles and was higher in the propofol + benzodiazepine + opioid group, but with high heterogeneity (RD: 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08–+0.22, I²: 95%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that the use of propofol alone or in combination with traditional adjunctive sedatives is safe and does not result in an increase in negative outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

A clinical trial comparing propofol versus propofol plus midazolam in diagnostic endoscopy of patients with a low anesthetic risk

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

propofol and midazolam are two of the most commonly used sedatives in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). The objective of this study was to evaluate these two sedation regimens administered to patients who underwent an UGE with regard to security, efficiency, quality of exploration and patient response.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

a prospective, randomized and double-blind study was performed which included 83 patients between 18 and 80 years of age of a low anesthetic risk (ASA - American Society of Anesthesiologists- I-II) who underwent a diagnostic UGE. Patients were randomized to receive sedation with either placebo plus propofol (group A) or midazolam plus propofol (group B).

RESULTS

in group A, 42 patients received a placebo bolus (saline solution) and on average up to 115 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. In group B, 41 patients received 3 mg of midazolam and an average of up to 83 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. There were no significant differences in the adverse effects observed in either group and all adverse events were treated conservatively. The patients in group B (midazolam plus propofol) entered the desired sedated state more quickly with no variation in the overall time of the exploration. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups and the patients were equally satisfied regardless of the sedatives they received.

CONCLUSIONS

the use of midazolam plus propofol as a sedative does not affect the overall exploration time, a lower dose of propofol can be used and it is as safe as administering propofol as a monotherapy while providing the same level of both exploration quality and patient approval.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy and hypoxia during gastroscopy with propofol sedation: a randomized multicenter clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hypoxia is one of the most frequent adverse events with sedated GI endoscopy and can lead to serious consequences. No modalities have been found previously to prevent hypoxia. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) supportive oxygen therapy provides heated and humidified oxygen up to 60 L/minute. Because of its ability to improve respiratory function and good tolerance, we aimed to evaluate the validity and safety of HFNC supportive oxygen therapy in preventing the incidence of hypoxia in patients undergoing gastroscopy with propofol sedation.

METHODS

In a multicenter, prospective randomized single-blinded study, 1994 outpatients undergoing routine gastroscopy with propofol sedation provided by an anesthesiologist were randomized into 2 groups: the nasal cannula group (O₂ [2 L/minute] was supplied via an HFNC) and the HFNC group (O₂ [30-60 L/minute] was supplied via an HFNC) at 3 centers from November 2017 to February 2018. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxia. Other adverse events were also recorded.

RESULTS

HFNC supportive oxygen therapy decreased the incidence of hypoxia (75% ≤ Spo₂ < 90% for <60 seconds) and severe hypoxia (Spo₂ < 75% for any duration or 75% ≤ Spo₂ < 90% for ≥60 seconds) from 8.4% to 0% (P < .001) and from 0.6% to 0% (P = .03), respectively. The only HFNC-related adverse event was xeromycteria/rhinalgia (1.7%), which was observed 1 minute after the procedure and disappeared after 30 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC supportive oxygen therapy can prevent the incidence of hypoxia and severe hypoxia in patients in America Society of Anesthesiologists class I-II undergoing elective gastroscopy under propofol sedation, with minimal related adverse events and good tolerance. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03332433.).

Safety and Effectiveness of Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation in Outpatients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy are common outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures that frequently use sedation. We aimed to identify a protocol that combines safety with cost effectiveness.

METHODS

We collected data from consecutive outpatients (age, 20-98 y) who underwent diagnostic EGD (n = 117,661) or colonoscopy (n = 32,550) with propofol sedation from January 2006 through December 2016. Propofol was administered by a nurse via bolus injection using an age-adjusted standard protocol, up to a total of 200 mg. The primary outcome measure was occurrence of adverse events within 24 hours. Secondary outcome measures included rates of procedure success, respiratory depression, and other procedure-related adverse events.

RESULTS

The median dose of propofol administered for EGD was 77 mg (range, 20-160 mg) and for colonoscopy was 99 mg (range, 40-200 mg). Among patients undergoing EGD, those younger than 41 years required 1.5-fold more propofol than patients 61-80 years old. The only adverse event was the transient need for supplemental oxygen supply, required by 1950 patients (1.3%): 1689 undergoing EGD (1.4%) and 261 undergoing colonoscopy (0.8%). Patients were discharged after 60 minutes and at least 66,250 patients (44%) drove themselves from the hospital. None experienced a traffic accident within 24 hours after receiving propofol sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse-administered propofol monosedation using an age-adjusted standard protocol up to a maximal of 200 mg is safe and practical for outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Previously published drug interaction models predict loss of response for transoesophageal echocardiography sedation well but not response to oesophageal instrumentation

Response surface models (RSMs) were used to predict effects of multiple drugs interactions. Our study was aimed to validate accuracy of the previous published volunteer models during transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE). This is a cross-sectional study with 20 patients scheduled for transesophageal echocardiography in Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan. Effect-site concentration pairs of alfentanil and propofol were recorded and converted to equivalent remifentanil and propofol effect-site concentrations. Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scores were assessed every 2 minutes. Using these data, previous published models of loss of response (LOR), intolerable ventilatory depression (IVD), and loss of response to esophageal instrumentation (LREI) were then estimated. Accuracy of prediction is assessed by calculating the difference between the true response and the model-predicted probability. Clinical events such as interruption of TEE were recorded. The average procedure time was 11 minutes. Accuracy for prediction of LOR and LREI is 63.6% and 38.5%, respectively. There were four patients experienced desaturation for less than 1 minute, which were not predicted by IVD model, and one interruption of TEE due to involuntary movement. The previous published drug-interaction RSMs predict LOR well but not LREI for TEE sedation. Further studies using response surface methodology are needed to improve quality for TEE sedation and clinical implementation.

Propofol administration by endoscopists versus anesthesiologists in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient safety outcomes

BACKGROUND

With a growing demand for endoscopic services, the role of anesthesiologists in endoscopy units must be reassessed. The aim of this study was to compare patient outcomes in non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) versus anesthesiologist-administered propofol (AAP) during routine endoscopy.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL and the grey literature for studies comparing NAAP and AAP. Primary outcomes included endoscopy- and sedation-related complications. Secondary outcomes included measures of endoscopy quality and of patient and endoscopist satisfaction. We reported treatment effects using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Of 602 articles identified, 5 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies included only patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of I or II. Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol did not result in increased rates of airway intervention (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29 to 3.95; 3443 patients) or hypotension (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.41; 17 978 patients) but did result in higher rates of bradycardia (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.65 to 8.17; 17 978 patients). Nonanesthesiologists administered lower propofol dosages than anesthesiologists (mean difference -61.79, 95% CI -114.46 to -9.12; 3443 patients), and their patients more commonly experienced awareness with recall (OR 19.99, 95% CI 7.88 to 50.76; 2090 patients). However, NAAP neither compromised patient willingness to repeat the procedure (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.83; 2367 patients) nor lengthened total procedure time (mean difference -0.08, 95% CI -3.51 to 3.34; 2367 patients).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopists may safely administer propofol without compromising procedural quality in patients classified as ASA I or II undergoing routine endoscopy. The results of this meta-analysis are limited by a lack of available high-quality studies. Further, large-scale studies are needed for definitive conclusions.

Acute sedation-associated complications in GI endoscopy (ProSed 2 Study): results from the prospective multicentre electronic registry of sedation-associated complications

OBJECTIVES

Sedation has been established for GI endoscopic procedures in most countries, but it is also associated with an added risk of complications. Reported complication rates are variable due to different study methodologies and often limited sample size.

DESIGNS

Acute sedation-associated complications were prospectively recorded in an electronic endoscopy documentation in 39 study centres between December 2011 and August 2014 (median inclusion period 24 months). The sedation regimen was decided by each study centre.

RESULTS

A total of 368 206 endoscopies was recorded; 11% without sedation. Propofol was the dominant drug used (62% only, 22.5% in combination with midazolam). Of the sedated patients, 38 (0.01%) suffered a major complication, and overall mortality was 0.005% (n=15); minor complications occurred in 0.3%. Multivariate analysis showed the following independent risk factors for all complications: American Society of Anesthesiologists class >2 (OR 2.29) and type and duration of endoscopy. Of the sedation regimens, propofol monosedation had the lowest rate (OR 0.75) compared with midazolam (reference) and combinations (OR 1.0-1.5). Compared with primary care hospitals, tertiary referral centres had higher complication rates (OR 1.61). Notably, compared with sedation by a two-person endoscopy team (endoscopist/assistant; 53.5% of all procedures), adding another person for sedation (nurse, physician) was associated with higher complication rates (ORs 1.40-4.46), probably due to higher complexity of procedures not evident in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicentre registry study confirmed that severe acute sedation-related complications are rare during GI endoscopy with a very low mortality. The data are useful for planning risk factor-adapted sedation management to further prevent sedation-associated complications in selected patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00007768; Pre-results.

Safety and Efficacy of Nonanesthesiologist-Administrated Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Gastric Epithelial Tumors

Objective

There is no consensus regarding administration of propofol for performing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in patients with comorbidities. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of propofol-induced sedation administered by nonanesthesiologists during ESD of gastric cancer in patients with comorbidities classified according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status.

Methods

Five hundred and twenty-two patients who underwent ESD for gastric epithelial tumors under sedation by nonanesthesiologist-administrated propofol between April 2011 and October 2017 at Dokkyo Medical University Hospital were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to the ASA physical status classification. Hypotension, desaturation, and bradycardia were evaluated as the adverse events associated with propofol. The safety of sedation by nonanesthesiologist-administrated propofol was measured as the primary outcome.

Results

The patients were classified according to the ASA physical status classification: 182 with no comorbidity (ASA 1), 273 with mild comorbidity (ASA 2), and 67 with severe comorbidity (ASA 3). The median age of the patients with ASA physical status of 2/3 was higher than the median age of those with ASA physical status of 1. There was no significant difference in tumor characteristics, total amount of propofol used, or ESD procedure time, among the 3 groups. Adverse events related to propofol in the 522 patients were as follows: hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg) in 113 patients (21.6%), respiratory depression (SpO₂ < 90%) in 265 patients (50.8%), and bradycardia (pulse rate < 50 bpm) in 39 patients (7.47%). There was no significant difference in the incidences of adverse events among the 3 groups during induction, maintenance, or recovery. No severe adverse event was reported. ASA 3 patients had a significantly longer mean length of hospital stay (8 days for ASA 1, 9 days for ASA 2, and 9 days for ASA 3, P = 0.003). However, the difference did not appear to be clinically significant.

Conclusions

Sedation by nonanesthesiologist-administrated propofol during ESD is safe and effective, even for at-risk patients according to the ASA physical status classification.

Propofol Sedation by Pediatric Gastroenterologists for Endoscopic Procedures: A Retrospective Analysis

Background: There is a substantial literature on the favorable outcome of propofol administration by non-anesthesiologists for endoscopy in adults; however, very few data are currently available on propofol sedation by pediatric gastroenterologists. Aims: to evaluate the safety of propofol sedation by pediatric gastroenterologists. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all children who were sedated by pediatric gastroenterologists in three Northern Israeli hospitals over a 4 years period Demographic and medical characteristics and any data regarding the procedure were extracted from patient's records. The main outcome measurements were procedure completion and reported adverse events. Results: Overall, 1,214 endoscopic procedures for were performed during this period. Complete data was available for 1,190 procedures. All children sedated by pediatric gastroenterologists were classified as ASA I or II. Propofol dosage (in mg/kg) inversely correlated with patient age. The younger the child the higher the dose needed to reach a satisfactory level of sedation (r = -0.397, p < 0.001). The addition of fentanyl significantly decreased propofol dosage needed to provide optimal sedation, p < 0.001. Nine (0.7%) reversible adverse events were reported. All the procedures were successfully completed and all patients were discharged home. Conclusions: We conclude that our approach is safe in children as it is in adults and can be implemented for children with ASA I, II.

Propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continues to be widely used, but propofol sedation is becoming more popular because its unique pharmacokinetic properties make endoscopy almost painless, with a very predictable and rapid recovery process. There is controversy as to whether propofol should be administered only by anesthesia professionals. According to published values, endoscopist-directed propofol has a lower mortality rate than endoscopist-delivered benzodiazepines and opioids, and a comparable rate to general anesthesia by anesthesiologists. Rapid recovery has a major impact on patient satisfaction, post-procedure education and the general flow of the endoscopy unit. According to estimates, the absolute economic benefit of endoscopist-directed propofol implementation in a screening setting is probably substantial, with 10-year savings of $3.2 billion in the USA. Guidelines concerning the use of propofol emphasize the need for adequate training and certification in sedation by non-anesthetists.

New and emerging techniques for endoscopic treatment of Zenker's diverticulum: State-of-the-art review

Zenker's diverticulum (ZD), or pharyngeal pouch, is an anatomical defect characterized by herniation of the posterior pharyngeal wall through Killian's dehiscence, and may result in dysphagia and regurgitation. Multiple therapeutic modalities including surgery, rigid and flexible endoscopy have been developed to manage ZD. Although surgical management with open and endoscopically assisted techniques have historically been the mainstay of ZD treatment, minimally invasive flexible endoscopic techniques, carried out under conscious sedation, are increasingly favored. Over the last two decades, the advent of new accessories and techniques have changed the landscape of endotherapy for ZD, with the current armamentarium including, but not limited to, endoscopic stapling, CO₂ laser, argon plasma coagulation, needle knife, bipolar forceps, hook knife, clutch cutter, stag beetle knife, and submucosal tunneling endoscopic septum division. We hereby review the latest evidence to support the endoscopic management of ZD.

Nonoperating room anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To assess the trends in nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) for gastrointestinal endoscopy over the past few years, and to describe alternative methods of delivering propofol sedation in selected low-risk patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of NORA for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has been rising steadily over the past decade in the United States, considerably increasing healthcare costs. Because of this, there have been attempts to develop nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation methods in low-risk patients. There is controversy as to whether properly trained nonanesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation SUMMARY: The deployment of nonanesthesia-administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall healthcare costs without sacrificing sedation quality. We also address the realm of anesthesia provider care for advanced endoscopic procedures including setup for administration of anesthesia, decision-making regarding placement of an endotracheal tube, and the potential need to move a challenging case to the operating room.

Effect of the midazolam added with propofol-based sedation in esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension may be a concern in the propofol-based sedation. We aimed to analyze whether administration of midazolam would improve safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in EGD.

METHODS

One hundred twenty patients who were scheduled to undergo diagnostic EGD were randomly assigned to either midazolam plus propofol (MP) or propofol alone groups. In the MP group, 2 mg of midazolam and 10 mg of propofol were given initially. In the propofol alone group, 40-60 mg of propofol was given initially. In both groups, 20 mg of propofol was given repeatedly to maintain moderate sedation as needed. Vital signs including oxygen saturation were monitored every 2 min. After the patients fully recovered, satisfaction score was investigated from endoscopists, nurses, and patients, respectively.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics did not differ between the MP and propofol alone groups. The mean required doses of propofol was (mean ± standard deviation) 0.3 ± 0.3 and 0.8 ± 0.2 mg/kg in the MP and propofol alone groups, respectively (P < 0.001). In addition, sedation-related adverse events and recovery time did not differ between the two groups. The proportion of satisfactory did not differ between the two groups (MP vs propofol alone; proportion; patient, 95.0% vs 93.3%, P > 0.999; endoscopist, 73.3% vs 80.0%, P = 0.064; nurse, 73.3% vs 76.7%, P = 0.551).

CONCLUSION

Adding midazolam to propofol did not reduced the safety and efficacy, and sedation using propofol alone could be suitable for sedation during diagnostic EGD.

No increased risk of perforation during colonoscopy in patients undergoing propofol versus traditional sedation: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The safety of propofol sedation during colonoscopy remains unclear, and we performed a meta-analysis to assess the risk of perforation in patients undergoing propofol vs. traditional sedation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CBM, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched up to December 2016. Two reviewers independently assessed abstract of those searched articles. Data about perforation condition in propofol and traditional sedation groups were extracted and combined using the random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies were included in the current meta-analysis. Compared to traditional sedation, propofol sedation did not increase the risk of perforation (RD = - 0.00, 95% CI - 0.00~0.00, p = 0.98; subgroup analysis: OR = 1.30, 95% CI 0.83~2.05, p = 0.25).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that propofol sedation did not increase the risk of perforation compared to traditional sedation during colonoscopy.