Editorial: Endoscopic Sedation: Who, Which, When?

Association between anesthesia assistance and precancerous lesions and early cancer detection during diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a propensity score-matched retrospective study

Background

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a fundamental procedure for early detection of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer. However, limited research has been conducted on the impact of sedation during EGD on the identification of precancerous lesions and early cancer (EC). This retrospective study aims to evaluate whether sedation during EGD can improve the detection rates of precancerous lesions and EC.

Methods

In this propensity score-matched retrospective study, we examined medical records from outpatients who underwent diagnostic EGD at a large tertiary center between January 2023 and December 2023. Data on endoscopic findings and histology biopsies were obtained from an endoscopy quality-control system. The primary objective was to compare the rates of detecting precancerous lesions and EC in patients who received sedation during EGD vs. those who did not receive sedation. Additionally, we aimed to identify factors influencing these detection rates using binary logistic regression analysis.

Results

Following propensity score matching, a total of 17,862 patients who underwent diagnostic EGD with or without propofol sedation were identified. The group that received sedation exhibited a higher detection rate of precancerous lesions and EC in comparison to the non-sedated group (1.04 vs. 0.75%; p = 0.039). Additionally, within the sedated group, there was an increased likelihood of identifying precancerous lesions and EC specifically at the gastric antrum (0.60 vs. 0.32%, p = 0.006). Binary logistic regression analysis demonstrated that independent risk factors influencing the detection rates included age, gender, observation time, and number of biopsies conducted during the procedure.

Conclusion

Anesthesia assistance during EGD screening proved advantageous in detecting EC as well as precancerous lesions. It is crucial for endoscopists to consider these factors when performing EGD screening procedures.

Comparison of effectiveness, cost and safety between moderate sedation and deep sedation under esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Chinese population: a quasi-experimental study

OBJECTIVE

Most endoscopists routinely perform moderate or deep sedation for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Considering that there is no consensus on the optimal sedation depth and it varies from country to country, our study aims to compare the effectiveness, cost and safety of these two sedation methods in the Chinese population.

METHODS

This quasi-experimental study included a total of 556 eligible patients from July 2020 to June 2021, and they entered the moderate sedation group or deep sedation group based on their choices. Baseline information, scores of Patient Satisfaction with Sedation Instrument (PSSI) and Clinician Satisfaction with Sedation Instrument (CSSI), examination time, sedation time, recovery time, expenses before medicare reimbursement, hypoxaemia and hypotension were compared between the two groups. Propensity Score Matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the confounding factors.

RESULTS

After PSM, 470 patients were involved in the analysis, with 235 for each group. The moderate sedation was clearly superior to the deep sedation group in terms of PSSI score (98.00 ± 0.94 vs. 97.29 ± 1.26), CSSI score (98.00 ± 0.78 vs. 97.67 ± 1.30), sedation time (11.90 ± 2.04 min vs. 13.21 ± 2.75 min), recovery time (25.40 ± 3.77 min vs. 28.0 ± 4.85 min), expenses (433.04 ± 0.00 Yuan vs. 789.85 ± 0.21 Yuan), with all p < .001. Examination time was not significantly different between the two groups (p = .124). In addition, the moderate sedation group had a lower occurrence rate of hypoxaemia (0.36% vs. 3.27%, p = .010) and hypotension (17.44% vs. 44.00%, p < .001) compared to the deep sedation group.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation presented better effectiveness and safety and lower cost, and thereby it should be recommended as a widely used sedation method in clinical practice in China. Trial registration: This trial was registered on http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx (ChiCTR2000038050).

Efficacy of an Oxycodone-Propofol Combination versus a Fentanyl-Propofol Combination in Conscious Sedation during Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Elderly Patients

BACKGROUND

With a rapidly aging population, the need for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is increasing. The commonly used sedation anesthesia in ERCP is a combination of propofol and fentanyl, even though fentanyl may cause some adverse reactions such as respiratory depression.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of oxycodone combined with propofol versus fentanyl combined with propofol for sedation anesthesia during ERCP.

METHODS

A total of 193 patients aged from 65 to 80 years undergoing ERCP were enrolled and randomized into two groups: an "oxycodone combined with propofol" group (group OP, n = 97) and a "fentanyl combined with propofol" group (group FP, n = 96). The rate of perioperative adverse events as well as the recovery time, patients' satisfaction, and endoscopists' satisfaction were noted.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the frequency of hypotension or bradycardia between the two groups, but there were more episodes of desaturation (SpO2 <90% for >10 s in 8.3%), postoperative nausea (7.3%), and vomiting (5.2%) in group FP than in group OP. Patients' satisfaction in group FP was lower than that in group OP. The recovery time was longer in group FP than in group OP.

CONCLUSIONS

Oxycodone combined with propofol was effective in ERCP, with a low incidence of perioperative adverse events.

Sedation During Endoscopy in Patients with Cirrhosis: Safety and Predictors of Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

Sedation during endoscopy in cirrhotic patients is typically via moderate sedation, most commonly using a combination of a benzodiazepine (i.e., midazolam) and narcotic (i.e., fentanyl) or with propofol using monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Here, we examined the safety of moderate sedation and MAC in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy from a large academic medical center between 2010 and 2014 examined extensive clinical data including the following: past history, physical findings, laboratory results, and procedural adverse events. Adverse events were defined a priori and included hypoxia, hypotension, bleeding, and death.

RESULTS

We identified 2618 patients with cirrhosis who underwent endoscopic procedures; the mean age was 56 years, 36% were female, the mean Child-Pugh score was 9.3 (IQR: 8, 11), and Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 3.2 (IQR: 1, 4); 1157 had MAC; and 1461 had moderate sedation. There was no difference in the frequency of adverse events in MAC and moderate sedation groups, with a total of 15 adverse events (7/1157 MAC and 8/1461 moderate sedation). The most common procedure performed was esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD, n = 1667) and was associated with 10 adverse events. Overall, adverse events included bradycardia (1), hypoxia (7), bleeding (5), laryngospasm (1), and perforation (1). The frequency was similar for EGD, ERCP, and colonoscopy-each at a rate of 0.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy appeared to be similar with moderate sedation or MAC, and the frequency was the same for different types of procedures.

Creation of a score to predict risk of high conscious sedation requirements in patients undergoing endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The administration of intravenous conscious sedation to patients undergoing GI endoscopy carries a risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events. Our study aim was to create a score that stratifies the risk of occurrence of either high-dose conscious sedation requirements or a failed procedure.

METHODS

Patients receiving endoscopy via endoscopist-directed conscious sedation were included. The primary outcome was occurrence of sedation failure, which was defined as one of the following: (1) high-dose sedation, (2) the need for benzodiazepine/narcotic reversal agents, (3) nurse-documented poor patient tolerance to the procedure, or (4) aborted procedure. High-dose sedation was defined as >10 mg of midazolam and/or >200 μg of fentanyl or the meperidine equivalent. Patients with sedation failure (n = 488) were matched to controls (n = 976) without a sedation failure by endoscopist and endoscopy date.

RESULTS

Significant associations with sedation failure were identified for age, sex, nonclonazepam benzodiazepine use, opioid use, and procedure type (EGD, colonoscopy, or both). Based on these 5 variables, we created the high conscious sedation requirements (HCSR) score, which predicted the risk of sedation failure with an area under the curve of 0.70. Compared with the patients with a risk score of 0, risk of a sedation failure was highest for patients with a score ≥3.5 (odds ratio, 17.31; P = 2 × 10^-14). Estimated area under the curve of the HCSR score was 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.72) in a validation series of 250 cases and 250 controls.

CONCLUSIONS

The HCSR risk score, based on 5 key patient and procedure characteristics, can function as a useful tool for physicians when discussing sedation options with patients before endoscopy.

Effects of Bispectral Index-controlled Use of Magnesium on Propofol Consumption and Sedation Level in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy

Objective

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of bispectral index-controlled use of magnesium on propofol consumption, periprocedural hemodynamic response and patient comfort.

Material

A total of 60 patients were enrolled in the study. In Group 1 (magnesium), a single dose 50 mg/kg magnesium sulfate diluted with 100 mL 0.9% NaCl was administered 10 minutes before the beginning of the procedure. Initially bolus dose of 0.5 mg/kg propofol was applied. The maintenance dose of propofol was 60 mcg/kg/min. During the procedure, the propofol infusion was increased by titration until the bispectral index (BIS) value of 70 was achieved. In Group 2 (saline), 100 ml 0.9% NaCl was administered 10 minutes before the beginning of the procedure. The bolus and maintenance doses of propofol, and target BIS values were the same as those in Group 1.

Results

When BIS values were compared between the groups, the initial BIS values in the magnesium group (Group 1) were significantly higher than those of the saline group (Group 2) (p<0.05). The time to reach BIS 70 was significantly shorter in the magnesium group (p<0.05). Propofol consumption was greater in Group 2 than in Group 1 (p<0.05). The time to reach BIS 70 was significantly shorter in Group 1 (p<0.05). No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of patient- and endoscopist-satisfaction (p<0.05).

Conclusion

The use of magnesium in addition to propofol may be an efficient and reliable option to reduce the drug consumption during colonoscopic interventions.

Prospective evaluation of ERCP performance in an Italian regional database study

BACKGROUND

Prospective studies about endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) in a community setting are rare.

AIM

To assess success and complication rates of routinely-performed ERCP in a regional setting, and the priority quality indicators for ERCP practice.

METHODS

Prospective region wide observational study on consecutive patients undergoing ERCP during a 6-month period. A centralized online ERCP questionnaire was built and used for data storage. Primary quality indicators provided by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) were considered.

RESULTS

38 endoscopists from 18 centers performed a total of 2388 ERCP. The most common indication for ERCP was choledocholitiasis (54.8%) followed by malignant jaundice (22.6%). Cannulation of the desired duct was obtained in 2293 cases (96%) and ERCP was successful in 2176 cases (91.1%). Success and ERCP difficulty were significantly related to the experience of the operator (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). ERCP difficulty was also significantly related to volume centers (p < 0.01). The overall complication rate was 8.4%: post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) occurred in 4.1% of procedures, bleeding in 2.9%, infection in 0.8%, perforation in 0.4%. Mortality rate was 0.4%. All the ASGE priority quality indicators for ERCP were confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

The procedural questionnaire proved to be an important tool to assess and verify the quality of routinely-performed ERCP performance in a community setting.

Do we really need an anesthesiologist for routine colonoscopy in American Society of Anesthesiologist 1 and 2 patients?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In an era where healthcare costs are being heavily scrutinized, every expenditure is reviewed for medical necessity. Multiple national gastroenterology societies have issued statements regarding whether an anesthesiologist is necessary for routine colonoscopies in American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) 1 and 2 patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

A large percentage of patients are undergoing screening colonoscopy without any sedation at all, which would not require an independent practitioner to administer medications. Advances in technique and technology are making colonoscopies less stimulating. Advantages to administering sedation, including propofol, have been seen even when not administered under the direction of an anesthesiologist and complications seem to be rare. The additional cost of having monitored anesthesia care appears to be a driving factor in whether a patient receives it or not.

SUMMARY

A large multiinstitutional randomized control trial would be necessary to rule out potential confounders and to determine whether there is a safety benefit or detriment to having anesthesiologist-directed care in the setting of routine colonoscopies in ASA 1 and 2 patients. Further discussion would be necessary regarding what the monetary value of that effect is if a small difference were to be detected.

Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction

Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continue 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 (monitored anesthesia care) or whether properly trained non-anesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation. The deployment of non-anesthesia 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 health care costs without sacrificing sedation quality. This review will discuss efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction issues with various modes of sedation for non-advanced, non-emergent endoscopic procedures, mainly esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy.