AGA Institute review of endoscopic sedation

Sedation reversal trends at outpatient ambulatory endoscopic center vs in-hospital ambulatory procedure center using a triage protocol

BACKGROUND

Routine outpatient endoscopy is performed across a variety of outpatient settings. A known risk of performing endoscopy under moderate sedation is the potential for over-sedation, requiring the use of reversal agents. More needs to be reported on rates of reversal across different outpatient settings. Our academic tertiary care center utilizes a triage tool that directs higher-risk patients to the in-hospital ambulatory procedure center (APC) for their procedure. Here, we report data on outpatient sedation reversal rates for endoscopy performed at an in-hospital APC vs at a free-standing ambulatory endoscopy digestive health center (AEC-DHC) following risk stratification with a triage tool.

AIM

To observe the effect of risk stratification using a triage tool on patient outcomes, primarily sedation reversal events.

METHODS

We observed all outpatient endoscopy procedures performed at AEC-DHC and APC from April 2013 to September 2019. Procedures were stratified to their respective sites using a triage tool. We evaluated each procedure for which sedation reversal with flumazenil and naloxone was recorded. Demographics and characteristics recorded include patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, procedure type, and reason for sedation reversal.

RESULTS

There were 97366 endoscopic procedures performed at AEC-DHC and 22494 at the APC during the study period. Of these, 17 patients at AEC-DHC and 9 at the APC underwent sedation reversals (0.017% vs 0.04%; P = 0.06). Demographics recorded for those requiring reversal at AEC-DHC vs APC included mean age (53.5 ± 21 vs 60.4 ± 17.42 years; P = 0.23), ASA class (1.66 ± 0.48 vs 2.22 ± 0.83; P = 0.20), BMI (27.7 ± 6.7 kg/m2 vs 23.7 ± 4.03 kg/m2; P = 0.06), and female gender (64.7% vs 22%; P = 0.04). The mean doses of sedative agents and reversal drugs used at AEC-DHC vs APC were midazolam (5.9 ± 1.7 mg vs 8.9 ± 3.5 mg; P = 0.01), fentanyl (147.1 ± 49.9 μg vs 188.9 ± 74.1 μg; P = 0.10), flumazenil (0.3 ± 0.18 μg vs 0.17 ± 0.17 μg; P = 0.13) and naloxone (0.32 ± 0.10 mg vs 0.28 ± 0.12 mg; P = 0.35). Procedures at AEC-DHC requiring sedation reversal included colonoscopies (n = 6), esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (n = 9) and EGD/colonoscopies (n = 2), whereas APC procedures included EGDs (n = 2), EGD with gastrostomy tube placement (n = 1), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n = 2) and endoscopic ultrasound's (n = 4). The indications for sedation reversal at AEC-DHC included hypoxia (n = 13; 76%), excessive somnolence (n = 3; 18%), and hypotension (n = 1; 6%), whereas, at APC, these included hypoxia (n = 7; 78%) and hypotension (n = 2; 22%). No sedation-related deaths or long-term post-sedation reversal adverse outcomes occurred at either site.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the effectiveness of a triage tool used at our tertiary care hospital for risk stratification in minimizing sedation reversal events during outpatient endoscopy procedures. Using a triage tool for risk stratification, low rates of sedation reversal can be achieved in the ambulatory settings for EGD and colonoscopy.

Development of a predictive model for hypoxia due to sedatives in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective clinical study in Korea

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Sedation has become a standard practice for patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. However, considering the serious cardiopulmonary adverse events associated with sedatives, it is important to identify patients at high risk. Machine learning can generate reasonable prediction for a wide range of medical conditions. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors associated with sedation during GI endoscopy and develop a predictive model for hypoxia during endoscopy under sedation.

METHODS

This prospective observational study enrolled 446 patients who underwent sedative endoscopy at the Korea University Ansan Hospital. Clinical data were used as predictor variables to construct predictive models using the random forest method that is a machine learning algorithm.

RESULTS

Seventy-two of the 446 patients (16.1%) experienced life-threatening hypoxia requiring immediate medical intervention. Patients who developed hypoxia had higher body weight, body mass index (BMI), neck circumference, and Mallampati scores. Propofol alone and higher initial and total dose of propofol were significantly associated with hypoxia during sedative endoscopy. Among these variables, high BMI, neck circumference, and Mallampati score were independent risk factors for hypoxia. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the random forest-based predictive model for hypoxia during sedative endoscopy was 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.86) and displayed a moderate discriminatory power.

CONCLUSIONS

High BMI, neck circumference, and Mallampati score were independently associated with hypoxia during sedative endoscopy. We constructed a model with acceptable performance for predicting hypoxia during sedative endoscopy.

Optimizing sedation in gastroscopy: a study on the etomidate/propofol mixture ratio

Objective

Propofol and etomidate are the most commonly used sedative agents in procedural sedation, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. However, there remains considerable controversy regarding the optimal ratio for the mixture of these two drugs, warranting further investigation. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the optimal ratio for combining propofol and etomidate during gastroscopy.

Methods

This study is a prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial. One hundred and sixty-two patients from July 2019 to December 2022 were evenly classified into three groups using a random number table as follows: (1) P group (propofol); (2) EP1 group (5 mL etomidate +10 mL propofol); (3) EP2 group (10 mL etomidate +10 mL), 54 patients per group. The medications, including a pre-sedation dose of 50 μg/kg dezocine followed by sedatives, ceasing when the patient's eyelash reflex vanished, indicating adequate sedation. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) measurements taken before anesthesia (T1), immediately after the administration of sedatives (T2), immediately gastroscopic insertion (T3) and immediately recovery (T4) were determined. Additional, perioperative related outcomes and adverse events were also recorded.

Results

The EP2 group exhibited a higher MAP at T2 compared to the P and EP1 groups (p < 0.05). Calculated decreases in MAP revealed values of 19.1, 18.8, and 13.8% for the P, EP1, and EP2 groups at T2, respectively. Adverse events: Group EP2 exhibited a significantly lower hypotension incidence (11.1%) compared to the Propofol group (50%) and EP1 (31.5%). Concerning injection pain, Group EP2 also showing a significant decrease in comparison to P and EP1 groups (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The use of a mixture of 10 mL etomidate and 10 mL propofol (at a 1:1 ratio) combined with dezocine for painless gastroscopy demonstrates hemodynamic stability, a low incidence of adverse reactions.

Clinical Trial Registration

https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=39874.

Anesthesia choice and its potential impact on endoluminal functional lumen imaging probe measurements in esophageal motility disorders

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The widespread use of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has revolutionized the management of esophageal motility disorders (EMDs). The introduction of an endoluminal functional lumen imaging probe (EndoFLIP, Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) can serve as a complementary diagnostic tool to assess the mechanical properties (ie, pressure, diameter, distensibility, topography) of the esophagus. During EndoFLIP measurements, different anesthesia techniques may induce variable degrees of neuromuscular blockade, potentially affecting esophageal motility and altering the results of EndoFLIP metrics. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of using total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) versus general anesthesia with inhalational anesthetics (GAIA) on diagnostic EndoFLIP measurements.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing EndoFlip during the POEM procedure at our institution between February 2017 and February 2022. Differences in pressure, diameter, and distensibility index were obtained by using propofol-based TIVA versus sevoflurane-based GAIA with a 30 mL and a 60 mL balloon. The differences were divided into terciles and compared between diagnoses by using univariate comparisons and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 49 patients were included (39% type I achalasia, 43% type II or III achalasia, and 18% jackhammer esophagus [JE]). Compared with spastic disorders (types II and III achalasia and JE), type I had lower values of pressure differences at 60 mL in univariate (3.75 vs 15.20, P = .001) and multivariate (adjusted odds ratio, .89; 95% confidence interval, .82-.978) analyses. Compared with type I, types II and III achalasia had higher rates of pressure differences at 60 mL in the univariate (9.85 vs 3.75, P = .04) analysis and nearly reached significance in the multivariate analysis (1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1-1.20). Compared with type I achalasia, JE exhibited higher values in pressure differences at 60 mL (27.7 vs 3.75, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal pressure, as measured by EndoFLIP, was significantly reduced when patients were sedated with sevoflurane-based GAIA. The use of sevoflurane-based GAIA for diagnostic EndoFLIP may potentially lead to the misclassification of spastic disorders as type I achalasia. Propofol-based TIVA should therefore be considered over sevoflurane-based GAIA for sedation during the diagnostic test.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on the ED50 of propofol induction dose in elderly patients undergoing painless gastroscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous lidocaine could be a potential alternative adjuvant to propofol-based sedation for gastroscopy in elderly patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on the median effective dose (ED50) of propofol induction dose in elderly patients undergoing painless gastroscopy.

METHODS

The study included 70 patients aged ≥ 60 years undergoing painless gastroscopy with 64 randomly assigned to either group L (2% lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg, n = 31) or group N (equal volume normal saline, n = 33). All patients received propofol induction following 0.1 μg/kg intravenous sufentanil. The Dixon "up-and-down" sequential method was used, with a 1.5 mg/kg initial induction dose of propofol followed by a 0.1 mg/kg sequential variable dose. The primary endpoint was the ED50 of the propofol induction dose. The total propofol dose, recovery time, adverse events, and local anesthetic intoxication reactions were also recorded.

RESULTS

The ED50 of propofol induction dose was 0.670 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.216-0.827) mg/kg in group L and 1.118 (95% CI 0.803-1.232) mg/kg in group N. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.001). The incidence of hypotension and propofol injection pain were lower in group L than in group N (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the orientation recovery time in group L was shorter compared to group N (p < 0.05). None of the participants in group L observed local anesthetic intoxication reactions after receiving lidocaine.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of intravenous lidocaine to elderly patients undergoing painless gastroscopy resulted in a significant 40% reduction in the ED50 of propofol induction dose, which may be related to the decreased incidence of hypotension and injection pain, as well as the improved post-gastroscopy orientation recovery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR, ChiCTR2200065530. Registered on 08 November 2022.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Ketamine and Moderate Sedation for Outpatient Endoscopy in Adults

INTRODUCTION

Ketamine is an effective sedative agent in a variety of settings due to its desirable properties including preservation of laryngeal reflexes and lack of cardiovascular depression. We hypothesized that ketamine is an effective alternative to standard moderate sedation (SMS) regimens for patients undergoing endoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing ketamine to SMS for outpatient colonoscopy or esophagogastroduodenoscopy at Brooke Army Medical Center. The ketamine group received a 1-mg dose of midazolam along with ketamine, whereas the SMS group received midazolam/fentanyl. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction measured using the Patient Satisfaction in Sedation Instrument, and secondary outcomes included changes in hemodynamics, time to sedation onset and recovery, and total medication doses.

RESULTS

Thirty-three subjects were enrolled in each group. Baseline characteristics were similar. Endoscopies were performed for both diagnostic and screening purposes. Ketamine was superior in the overall sedation experience and in all analyzed categories compared to the SMS group (P = .0096). Sedation onset times and procedure times were similar among groups. The median ketamine dose was 75 mg. The median fentanyl and midazolam doses were 150 mcg and 5 mg, respectively, in SMS. Vital signs remained significantly closer to the physiological baseline in the ketamine group (P = .004). Recovery times were no different between the groups, and no adverse reactions were encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine is preferred by patients, preserves hemodynamics better than SMS, and can be safely administered by endoscopists. Data suggest that ketamine is a safe and effective sedation option for patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03461718).

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.

Safety of endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk collective

INTRODUCTION

 Worldwide, gastrointestinal endoscopies are predominantly performed under sedation. National and international guidelines and recommendations contain very different specifications for the use of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. These differences come from specific requirements for staffing during endoscopy.

AIM

 The aim of the study is to evaluate whether endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance is not inferior to endoscopist-guided sedation with additional sedation assistance with respect to the rate of sedation-associated complications in a defined low-risk population (low-risk procedure and low-risk patient).

METHODS

 Prospective, multicenter, randomized study.

RESULTS

 27 German study centers participated in the study. A total of 30 569 endoscopies were recorded during the study period from 1.8.2015 to 10.3.2020. The final data analysis included 28 673 examinations (64.1 % esophagosgastroduodenoscopies and 35.9 % colonoscopies). In 307 (1.1 %) examinations, 322 sedation-associated complications occurred. Of these, 321 (1.1 %) were minor complications and one (0.003 %) was a major complication. There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of sedation-associated complications between endoscopist-guided sedation with versus without additional sedation assistance. Within the legal framework, a "shadow" sedation assistant was present in the study group without sedation assistance. This assistant intervened because of sedation-associated complications in 101 (0.7 %) of the endoscopies.

CONCLUSION

 The study documents the safety of propofol-based endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk population. In 98.9 % of all endoscopies, no sedation-associated complication occurred or it was so minimal that no intervention (e. g., increase of oxygen supply) was necessary. The study cannot answer to what extent a serious complication was avoided by the active intervention of the "shadow" sedation assistance in the group without sedation assistance.The study proves in a randomized, prospective design that sedation in low-risk endoscopy (low-risk patient, low-risk procedure) can be performed as endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance, without demonstrably accepting a reduction in safety.

Transcutaneous gas monitoring is a useful tool to detect respiratory depression during bronchoscopy performed under propofol sedation

BACKGROUND

Bronchoscopy is a relatively invasive procedure where patients are often sedated. However, adequate sedation is not always achieved. Propofol is often used for difficult-to-sedate patients undergoing bronchoscopy despite a potential risk of respiratory depression. Transcutaneous carbon dioxide (tcpCO2) monitoring, introduced recently, is recognized as a convenient surrogate method for continuous monitoring of the partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2). This study examined the safety of switching to propofol during bronchoscopy by using transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring.

METHODS

Patients in whom transcutaneous gas monitoring had been performed during bronchoscopy were included in this study. The participants were divided into two groups: 1) the midazolam + fentanyl group (MF group), and 2) the group in which midazolam was switched to propofol owing to inadequate sedation obtained with midazolam + fentanyl (MFP group). We retrospectively analyzed the transcutaneous gas measurement data collected in patients under propofol sedation for bronchoscopy.

RESULTS

This study included 61 (MF, n = 41; MFP, n = 20) patients. The duration of elevated tcpCO2 (>50 mm Hg) was greater in the MFP group (MF 8.5 min vs. MFP 22.1 min, p = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

Switching midazolam to propofol during bronchoscopy was significantly associated with a higher risk of elevated tcpCO2, which is indicative of respiratory depression. Therefore, continuous tcpCO2 monitoring is required to ensure the safety of patients under propofol sedation for bronchoscopy.

Safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic solid mass in the elderly: A single-center retrospective study

AIM

There are few reports on the safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the elderly. In this study, we investigated the safety of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses in patients aged ≥80 years.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective study. A total of 600 patients with pancreatic solid masses who underwent EUS-FNA under midazolam-based sedation at our institution between September 2016 and December 2022 were enrolled in this study. Eligible patients were divided into two groups: an elderly group aged ≥80 (n = 84), as well as a nonelderly group aged ≤79 (n = 516). These two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The elderly group required significantly fewer midazolam doses for sedation (P < 0.001). Adverse events occurred in eight patients (1.3%), including one (1.2%) and seven (1.4%) in the elderly and nonelderly groups, respectively (P = 0.90). There were no cases of early adverse events in the elderly group and six cases (1.2%) in the nonelderly group (P = 0.32). There was one case of late adverse events in both the elderly and nonelderly groups (P = 0.14), and both were needle tract seeding. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the proportion of cases in which percutaneous oxygen saturation decreased to ≤90% during the EUS-FNA.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses can be safely performed in patients aged >80 years without increasing the adverse event rate compared to nonelderly patients aged <80 years. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2023; 23: 836-841.

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.

Recovery of driving skills after endoscopy under propofol sedation: a prospective pilot study to assess the driving skills after endoscopic sedation using driving simulation

BACKGROUND

Patients are recommended not to drive for at least the first 24 h after endoscopy with propofol sedation. However, the evidence underlying these recommendations is scarce. We hypothesized that after endoscopic procedures performed under propofol sedation, the subject's driving ability was restored in less than 24 h.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled thirty patients between 20 and 70 years possessing a legitimate driver's license scheduled for endoscopy at our hospital. The sample chosen was a convenience sample. Gastroscopy or colonoscopy was performed with propofol sedation. Before and after endoscopy, the investigator drove the subjects to the laboratory to assess their driving skills using a driving simulation system, which employs 3 driving scenarios designed by professional transportation researchers. The blood propofol concentration was estimated before endoscopy, and 2 and 4 h after endoscopy. The primary outcome was the time required for subjects to recover their driving ability after propofol sedation. The secondary outcome was the blood propofol concentration before and after endoscopic procedures under propofol anesthesia.

RESULTS

Thirty volunteers participated in the study and 18 of them completed all the interventions. In the low-risk S-curve scene, the mean acceleration, lane deviation, and number of deviations from the path at baseline (0.016 cm/s2, 42.50 cm, and 0.83, respectively) were significantly less than that at post-2 h (0.029 cm/s2, P = 0.001; 53.80 cm, P = 0.014; 2.06, P = 0.022). In the moderate-(overtaking) and high-risk (emergency collision avoidance) scenes, the tested parameters at baseline and post-2 h were statistically comparable. In the low-, moderate-, and high-risk scenes the tested parameters at baseline and post-4 h were statistically comparable. The total range of propofol was 120-280 mg.The mean blood concentration of propofol at post-2 h was 0.81 ± 0.40 µg/mL, and at post-4 h was below the limit of detection.

CONCLUSION

After endoscopy performed under propofol sedation, subjects' driving abilities were completely restored at 4 h when tested on a simulator.

Efficacy and safety of esketamine for sedation among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require propofol-based sedation combined with analgesics. At present, the efficacy and safety of esketamine as an adjunct to propofol for sedation during endoscopic procedures in patients remains controversial. Moreover, there is no universal agreement regarding the appropriate dose of esketamine supplementation. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of esketamine as an adjunct to propofol for sedation during endoscopic procedures in patients.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases and three clinical trial registry platforms were searched and the deadline was February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of esketamine for sedation were included by two reviewers. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate the pooled risk ratio or standardized mean difference.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with 1962 esketamine participants were included in the analysis. As an adjunct to propofol, the administration of esketamine reduced the recovery time compared to normal saline (NS). However, there was no significant difference between the opioids group and ketamine group. For propofol dosage, the administration of esketamine required a lower propofol dosage compared to the NS group and opioids group].For complications, the esketamine group had fewer complications compared to the NS group and opioid group in patients, but there were no significant differences between the esketamine group and ketamine group. Notably, the coadministration of esketamine was associated with a higher risk of visual disturbance compared to the NS group. In addition, we used subgroup analysis to investigate whether 0.2-0.5 mg/kg esketamine was effective and tolerable for patients.

CONCLUSION

Esketamine as an adjunct to propofol, is an appropriate effective alternative for sedation in participants undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, considering the possibility of its psychotomimetic effects, esketamine should be used with caution.

Impact of adding pethidine on disinhibition during bronchoscopy with midazolam: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

We sometimes experience disinhibition during bronchoscopy with sedation. However, the impact of adding pethidine on disinhibition has not yet been investigated. This study aimed to examine the additive impact of pethidine on disinhibition during bronchoscopy with midazolam.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved consecutive patients who underwent bronchoscopy between November 2019 and December 2020 (sedated with midazolam: Midazolam group) and between December 2020 and December 2021 (sedated with midazolam plus pethidine: Combination group). The severity of disinhibition was defined as follows: moderate, disinhibition that always needed restraints by assistants; and severe, disinhibition that needed antagonization of sedation by flumazenil to continue bronchoscopy. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to match baseline characteristics between both groups.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching with depression, the type of bronchoscopic procedure, and the dose of midazolam, 142 patients matched in each group. The prevalence of moderate-to-severe disinhibition significantly decreased from 16.2% to 7.8% (P = 0.028) in the Combination group. The Combination group had significantly better scores for sensation after bronchoscopy and feelings toward bronchoscopy duration than did the Midazolam group. Although the minimum SpO₂ during bronchoscopy was significantly lower (88.0 ± 6.2 mmHg vs. 86.7 ± 5.0 mmHg, P = 0.047) and the percentage of oxygen supplementation significantly increased (71.1% vs. 86.6%, P = 0.001) in the Combination group, no fatal complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding pethidine could reduce disinhibition occurrence in patients undergoing bronchoscopy with midazolam, with better subjective patient outcomes during and after bronchoscopy. However, whether more patients may need oxygen supplementation and whether hypoxia occurs during bronchoscopy should be considered.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000042635.

Study on different sequences of painless gastroenteroscopy in patients with difficult airway

The selection of different examination sequences of painless gastroscopy in patients with difficult airway risk was explored in this study. A total of 45 patients undergoing painless gastroscopy with Mallampati airway score of III-IV were randomly assigned into two groups (A group and B group) according to the sequence of colonoscopy and gastroscopy. Group A was first examined by gastroscopy after anesthesia, and then by colonoscopy. Group B was examined in the opposite order, first by colonoscopy, and then by gastroscopy. Ramsay Sedation scores were evaluated every five minutes when gastroscopy was performed in the two groups. The dosage of propofol, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, recovery time, hospital leaving time, and adverse reactions after induction and endoscopy were recorded. The dosage of propofol and change of vital signs in B group was less than that in A group. Operation time, recovery time, hospital leaving time and postoperative adverse reactions have no significant difference between two groups. For patients at risk of difficult airway, colonoscopy followed by gastroscopy has more stable intraoperative vital signs and less propofol consumption.

Application of topical pharyngeal anesthesia to reduce adverse reactions during painless gastroscopy: A prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Studies have reported that certain adverse reactions can occur during painless gastroscopy examination. Knowing how to decrease the risks and incidence of adverse reactions is of great importance.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia combined with intravenous anesthesia is superior to intravenous anesthesia alone in patients undergoing painless gastroscopy and to determine whether this combined approach had any additional benefits.

METHODS

Three hundred patients undergoing painless gastroscopy were randomly assigned to either the control group or the experimental group. In the control group, patients were anesthetized with propofol, while patients in the experimental group received propofol combined with 2% lidocaine spray for topical pharyngeal anesthesia. Hemodynamic parameters before and after the procedure, including the heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and pulse oxygen saturation (SPO2) were recorded. Any adverse reactions experienced by the patient, including choking and respiratory depression, and the total dosage of propofol required during each procedure were also documented.

RESULTS

Compared with pre-anesthetic data, the HR, MAP, and SPO2 were reduced after the completion of the painless gastroscopy procedure in both groups. However, the HR, MAP, and SPO2 measurements taken after the gastroscopy were significantly lower in the control group than those of the experimental group (P< 0.05); thus, the hemodynamic parameters of the experimental group were more stable. Compared with the control group, there was significant reduction in the total amount of propofol administered in the experimental group (P< 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions, including choking and respiratory depression, was significantly lower in the experimental group (P< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrated that the application of topical pharyngeal anesthesia in painless gastroscopy can significantly reduce the incidence of adverse reactions. Thus, the combination of topical pharyngeal and intravenous anesthesia is worthy of clinical application and promotion.

Chinese integrated guideline on the management of gastric precancerous conditions and lesions

The standardized diagnosis and management of gastric precancerous conditions and lesions are important to prevent gastric cancer. This guideline, created by 5 traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine associations, based on the current morbidity and diagnosis and treatment of gastric precancerous conditions and lesions, provides specific key points and strategies for diagnosis and treatment in the following five aspects: definition and epidemiology, diagnosis and stage, surveillance, treatment and efficacy evaluation. It is hoped that these aspects, assessed by integrating Western medicine and traditional Chinese medicine and involving multidisciplinary participation, will play a guiding role in clinical diagnosis and treatment and achieve effective secondary prevention of gastric cancer.

Ketamine and dexmedetomidine (Keto-dex) or ketamine and propofol (Keto-fol) for procedural sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Which is safer? A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Optimum procedural sedation is very essential for conducting non-operating room procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The combination of ketamine and dexmedetomidine (KD) is expected to balance out the undesirable effects of either drug and provide smooth sedation. Together ketamine and propofol (KP) also provide synergistic sedation with stable hemodynamics. This prospective, single-blinded randomized study aimed to compare the effect of both the combinations during ERCP in terms of oxygen desaturation, respiratory depression, hemodynamic parameters, analgesia, recovery time, and ease with which the endoscopist could perform the endoscopy.

METHODS

This prospective, single-blinded randomized study (CTRI/2019/08/020625) was conducted on 84, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status I or II patients, of age 18-65 years presenting for ERCP in a tertiary care center. They were randomized to receive either KD (n=42) or KP (n=42) combination during ERCP. Mean SPO₂ at the end of the procedure was compared between the groups. Apart from these periprocedural hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, pain scores on arrival in the recovery room (t0), 15 minutes (t15), and 30 minutes (t30), recovery time, and endoscopist's satisfaction as per a Likert's scale were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean SpO₂ (SpO₂ recorded every minute during the procedure and averaged over procedure time in minutes) in group KP (97.7 [96.1-98.6]) was significantly lower than group KD (98.5 [98.1-98.8]) (p=0.005). The post-procedure pain scores measured at t0 and t15 were higher in group KP (p<0.001 and p=0.043), and comparable at t30 in both the groups (p=0.711). The time to achieve Modified Aldrete score (MAS) ≥ 9 was significantly more in group KD (p<0.001). The lowest mean arterial pressure and heart rate in group KD were significantly lower than in group KP (p<0.001, p=0.006, respectively). The overall endoscopist satisfaction was better in group KP compared to group KD (p= 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of ketamine-dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation during ERCP is a safe alternative to ketamine-propofol with a better respiratory profile.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER AND REGISTRY URL

CTRI/2019/08/020625 ( www.ctri.nic.in ).

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).

New sedatives and analgesic drugs for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Procedural sedation has become increasingly common in endoscopy. Sedatives and analgesics induce anxiolysis and amnesia. In addition, an appropriate level of sedation is necessary for safe procedures including therapeutic endoscopy. Midazolam and propofol are the most commonly used drugs in sedative endoscopy. In recent years, the need to ascertain the safety and effectiveness of sedation has increased in practice. Therefore, new sedatives and analgesic drugs for optimal sedative endoscopy, have recently emerged. This article reviews the characteristics of sedatives and analgesics, and describes their clinical use in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Efficacy and safety of subanesthetic doses of esketamine combined with propofol in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Background

Painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is widely used for the diagnosis and treatment of digestive diseases. At present, propofol is commonly used to perform painless gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the high dose of propofol often leads to a higher incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory complications. Studies have shown that the application of propofol combined with ketamine in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is beneficial to reduce the dosage of propofol and the incidence of related complications. Esketamine is dextrorotatory structure of ketamine with a twice as great anesthetic effect as normal ketamine but fewer side effects. We hypothesized that esketamine may reduce the consumption of propofol and to investigate the safety of coadministration during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

A total of 260 patients undergoing painless gastrointestinal endoscopy (gastroscope and colonoscopy) were randomly divided into P group (propofol + saline), PK1 group (propofol + esketamine 0.05 mg/kg), PK2 group (propofol + esketamine 0.1 mg/kg), and PK3 group (propofol + esketamine 0.2 mg/kg). Anesthesia was achieved by 1.5 mg/kg propofol with different doses of esketamine. Propofol consumption per minute was recorded. Hemodynamic index, pulse oxygen saturation, operative time, induction time, awakening status, orientation recovery time, adverse events, and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were also recorded during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Results

Propofol consumption per minute was 11.78, 10.56, 10.14, and 9.57 (mg/min) in groups P, PK1, PK2, and PK3, respectively; compared with group P, groups PK2 and PK3 showed a decrease of 13.92% (P = 0.021) and 18.76% (P = 0.000), respectively. In all four groups, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), but not pulse oxygen saturation (SpO₂) significantly decreased (P = 0.000) immediately after administration of induction, but there were no significant differences between the groups. The induction time of groups P, PK1, PK2, and PK3 was 68.52 ± 18.394, 64.83 ± 13.543, 62.23 ± 15.197, and 61.35 ± 14.470 s, respectively (P = 0.041). Adverse events and psychotomimetic effects were observed but without significant differences between the groups.

Conclusions

The combination of 0.2 mg/kg esketamine and propofol was effective and safe in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy as evidenced by less propofol consumption per minute, shorter induction time, and lower incidence of cough and body movement relative to propofol alone. The lack of significant differences in hemodynamic results, anesthesia-related indices, adverse events, and MMSE results showed the safety to apply this combination for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Trial registration This study was registered with China Clinical Trial Registration on 07/11/2020 (registration website: chictr.org.cn; registration numbers: ChiCTR https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/2000039750).

Intravenous Lidocaine Significantly Reduces the Propofol Dose in Elderly Patients Undergoing Gastroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

Propofol-based sedation has been widely used for gastroscopy, but the risk of respiratory suppression in elderly patients should not be overlooked. Intravenous (IV) lidocaine during surgery can reduce the demand for propofol and the incidence of cardiopulmonary complications. We examined whether IV lidocaine reduces the dose of propofol and the occurrence of adverse events during gastroscopy in elderly patients.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, single-center, double-blind randomized controlled trial in elderly patients aged ≥65 years with ASA I-II. Subjects were randomly assigned to the lidocaine group (Group L, n=70), who received IV 1.5 mg kg⁻¹ lidocaine followed by a continuous infusion of 4 mg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹ lidocaine, or the normal saline group (Group N, n=70), who received an equal volume of saline in the same way.

Results

IV lidocaine reduced the total and maintenance propofol dose in Group L (p<0.001), with no significant effect on the induction dose. The incidence of intraoperative hypoxia (p=0.035), emergency airway management events (p=0.005), duration of gastroscopy (p<0.05), consciousness recovery time (p<0.001), and postoperative pain (p=0.009) were all reduced in Group L. Patient (p=0.025) and gastroscopist (p=0.031) satisfaction was higher in Group L. Intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, the respiratory rate, the incidence of sedation-related events and anesthesiologist satisfaction were similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

IV lidocaine can significantly reduce the amount of propofol, the incidence of hypoxia and postoperative pain during gastroscopy in elderly patients, with a higher patient and gastroscopist satisfaction.

Pre-procedural Preparation and Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease poses various challenges, a major one being procedural sedation and its associated considerations. While sedation during endoscopy can improve patient comfort, decrease anxiety, and facilitate procedural completion, in patients with advanced liver disease, it is also associated with substantial and unique risks due to alterations in drug metabolism and other factors. As such, the choice of sedative agent(s) and related logistics may require careful inter-disciplinary planning and individualized considerations. Furthermore, a large proportion of agents require dose reductions and particular monitoring of the vital signs, level of consciousness, and other indices. In the present review, we provide a contemporary overview of procedural sedation considerations, commonly used intravenous sedatives, and second-line as well as novel sedatives for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease.

Guidelines in Practice: Moderate Sedation and Analgesia

Moderate sedation and analgesia (MSA) can help patients experience less anxiety and discomfort, tolerate procedures that do not require general anesthesia, and maintain the ability to respond to verbal commands. Nurses administer MSA in a variety of clinical areas, and facility leaders may have difficulty creating a single standard of care for this task. Completion of a presedation assessment that includes the patient in the decision-making process is an important aspect of care. When administering MSA, nurses should have immediate unrestricted patient access and no competing responsibilities that could distract them from monitoring and assessing the patient. Nurses should complete education and competency verification activities before administering MSA. AORN recently revised the "Guideline for care of the patient receiving moderate sedation/analgesia," and this article addresses the standard of care, the presedation assessment, patient monitoring, and competency; it also includes scenarios describing specific concerns in two patient care areas.

Gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal complication rates associated with diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy under sedation

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under sedation may result in gastrointestinal (GI) and non-GI complications. However, no previous studies have reported 30-day GI and non-GI complications after diagnostic EGD under sedation.We conducted a retrospective, observational study of 30-day GI and non-GI complication rates after outpatient diagnostic EGD under sedation in subjects ≥18 years between January 2012 and December 2017 based on a common data model database. Thirty-day complication rates were compared with EGD under sedation or not, type of sedation drugs (midazolam only vs midazolam/propofol) and age groups (18-64 year vs ≥65 year) for GI (bleeding and perforation) and non-GI complications (pneumonia, acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and cerebral stroke).In total, 39,910 were performed with sedation (midazolam only, n = 16,033 and midazolam/propofol, n = 23,864) and 22,894 were performed without sedation. Elderly patients significantly favored EGD without sedation (P < .01). GI and non-GI complication rates were similar between EGD under sedation and without sedation (all P > .1) except for acute myocardial infarction rate, which was significantly higher in EGD without sedation than EGD under sedation (1.7/10,000 vs 0.3/10,000 persons, P = .043). All GI and non-GI complications were also similar between the midazolam/propofol and midazolam only groups as well as between young and old patients (all P > .1).Outpatient diagnostic EGD under sedation has an excellent safety profile. In addition, it can be safely performed with midazolam only or midazolam/propofol and in young and old patients.

Randomized single-blind comparative study of the midazolam/pethidine combination and midazolam alone during bronchoscopy

Background

Bronchoscopy can be a distress for the patient. There have been few studies on the combination of sedatives and opioids. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the usefulness and safety of administration of the combination of midazolam and pethidine during bronchoscopy.

Methods

In this prospective randomized single (patient)-blind study, we randomly assigned 100 patients who were scheduled to undergo bronchoscopy biopsy to receive treatment with either the midazolam/pethidine combination (combination group) or midazolam alone (midazolam group) during examinations. After the end of bronchoscopy, patients completed a questionnaire and the visual analogue scale was measured. The primary outcome was the patients’ acceptance of re-examination assessed by visual analogue scale. We also assessed pain levels, vital signs, midazolam use, xylocaine use, and adverse events. Univariate analyses were performed using Fisher’s exact test for categorical data, and the t-test or Mann-Whitney test was carried out for analysis of numeric data. All P-values were two-sided, and values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

We analyzed 47 patients in the combination group and 49 patients in the midazolam group. The primary outcome was a good trend in the combination group, but not significantly different (3.82 ± 2.3 in combination group versus 4.17 ± 2.75 in midazolam alone, P = 0.400). In the combination group, the visual analog scale score for pain during bronchoscopy was significantly lower (1.10 ± 1.88 versus 2.13 ± 2.42, P = 0.022), and the sedation level score per the modified observer’s assessment of alertness/sedation scale was significantly deeper (3.49 ± 0.98 versus 3.94 ± 1.03, P = 0.031). Maximal systolic blood pressure during testing was significantly lower (162.39 ± 23.45 mmHg versus 178.24 ± 30.24 mmHg, P = 0.005), and the number of additional administrations of midazolam was significantly lower (2.06 ± 1.45 versus 2.63 ± 1.35, P = 0.049). There were also significantly fewer adverse events (30 versus 41, P = 0.036).

Conclusions

The combination uses of midazolam and pethidine for sedation resulted in significant improvements in the pain, blood pressure, additional use of midazolam, and safety during bronchoscopy among patients.

Trial registration

This study was registered in the University Medical Hospital Information Network in Japan (UMINCTR Registration number: UMIN000032230, Registered: 13/April/2018).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09640-y.

2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Such cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary, and most patients recover without sequelae. However, these events may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

Association between sedation and small neoplasm detection during diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a propensity score-matched retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is fundamental for detecting upper gastrointestinal (GI) neoplasms. However, the impact of sedation on small neoplasm detection during EGD has not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to investigate whether EGD with sedation could improve small upper GI neoplasm detection.

METHODS

This propensity score-matched retrospective study analyzed the medical records of outpatients undergoing diagnostic EGD at a large tertiary center between January 2013 and December 2018. The primary outcome was the detection rate of small upper GI neoplasms (≤10 mm). The secondary outcomes were biopsy rate and small neoplasms in different anatomic subsites.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 20,052 patients undergoing diagnostic EGD with or without propofol sedation were identified. A higher detection rate of small upper GI neoplasms was observed in the sedation group (2.80% vs. 2.02%; p < .001). In particular, the detection rate of small cancers in the sedation group was 3-fold higher than that in the no-sedation group (0.16% vs. 0.05%; p = .023). Small neoplasms were more likely identified at the gastric antrum (1.60% vs. 1.09%; p = .002) and angulus (0.66% vs. 0.45%; p = .044) in the sedation group. In addition, endoscopists were more likely to take biopsies when performing sedated EGD (41.4% vs. 36.4%, p < .001), and a higher biopsy rate was associated with an increased detection rate of small neoplasms.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation was significantly associated with a higher detection rate of small upper GI neoplasms and might be recommended for improving the quality of EGD.

Evaluation of pharyngeal lidocaine anesthesia for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: Double-blind randomized control trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess whether the use of topical pharyngeal anesthesia improves endoscopist- and patient-reported tolerance and satisfaction, the total dose of propofol used and the rate of adverse effects associated with this procedure.

METHODS

This double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted in patients undergoing elective oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, who met the inclusion criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to receive five squirts of lidocaine 10% spray (50 mg, n = 268) or placebo (n = 271) 3 min before starting the procedure or sedation. The main outcome measures were patient- and endoscopist-reported tolerance, and additionally, satisfaction with the procedure, adverse events and supplementary propofol used.

RESULTS

In the lidocaine group, it was twice (odds ratio [OR] 2.136, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.228-3.715) or three times (OR 3.311, 95% CI 1.623-6.757) more likely that the endoscopist rated the procedure as well tolerated and easy to intubate than as well tolerated but the patient difficult to intubate or as poorly tolerated, respectively. Further, in these patients, less propofol was used (80 vs. 100 mg, P = 0.001). Controls were more likely to cough during the intubation (OR 2.172, 95% CI 1.378-3.423) and the procedure (OR 1.989, 95% CI 1.325-2.984), as well as more likely to retch (OR 3.582, 95% CI 1.667-7.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical lidocaine may improve the procedure as rated by the endoscopist, as well as reduce the requirement for propofol and rate of adverse events such as retching and coughing. No adverse events associated with lidocaine administration were observed. ClinicalTrials registration no. NCT02733471.

Virtual reality distraction during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Virtual reality (VR) is an established and effective tool in reducing autonomic and somatic pain. We aimed to examine the analgesic effects of VR distraction during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial and enrolled patients who had indication for unsedated EGD with topical anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to use Oculus GO with three-dimensional specific software content (standalone VR headset), sham VR or without VR during EGD. The primary outcome was patient pain scores during EGD.

RESULTS

A total of 96 patients undergoing diagnostic EGD were randomized to receive VR (n = 32), sham VR (n = 32), and no VR defined as the control group (n = 32). Patients in all groups reported no statistically different pain during esophageal intubation. The mean pain score was 2.7 ± 2.4 in the VR group, 2.7 ± 2.5 in the sham VR and 2.3 ± 2.3 in the control group, (P value = 0.751). No significant difference was observed in heart rate and blood pressure, and the endoscopists reported higher overall satisfaction scores in VR (4.3 ± 0.5) compared with the control group (4 ± 0.8) but without significance (P value = 0.156).

CONCLUSION

Virtual reality-assisted anesthesia during EGD did not significantly reduce patient pain during esophageal intubation. There was no superiority in using VR distraction regarding patient's and endoscopist's satisfaction compared with standard EGD without VR Further studies are required to detect any true clinical advantage of VR distraction during EGD.

Improvement of acceptability in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy using auditory and visual stimulation

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has become an indispensable examination to discover upper gastrointestinal diseases, including cancer, and perform endoscopic treatment. However, many individuals who undergo the procedure have feelings of anxiety and fear regarding EGD. Although the use of medication for sedation during EGD is useful for reducing anxiety and the stability of hemodynamics, sedation may increase the likelihood of complications. Several noninvasive distractions have been introduced to decrease pain and anxiety during endoscopic examinations;however, most assessments of these distractions evaluated subjective items such as impression. We herein add the results of our studies using objective items and review the effectiveness of distractions for EGD. J. Med. Invest. 69 : 8-18, February, 2022.

[2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation]

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary. Most patients recover without sequelae. However, they may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

Efficacy of Remimazolam for Procedural Sedation in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I to IV Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Remimazolam is made by combining midazolam and remifentanil as an alternative to conventional sedatives. To evaluate the efficacy of remimazolam for sedation in patients undergoing colonoscopy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing remimazolam and midazolam. A search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrial.gov from inception till December 26, 2021, for RCTs that investigated the efficacy of remimazolam during the above-mentioned procedure. There was no restriction of language. A quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. The data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was completed. The systemic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline statement. Three randomized controlled trials involving 539 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with midazolam during colonoscopy, remimazolam results in reduced need for top-up doses (RR= 3.45, 95% CI=1.07 to 11.14; P=0.04, I²=84%). The need for rescue medication was reduced with remimazolam as compared to midazolam (RR=2.42, 95%CI=1.04 to 5.61; P=0.04, I²=96%). There was no significant difference observed between the two drugs on completion of colonoscopy and the overall procedural sedation, but the sensitivity analysis favored remimazolam over midazolam for procedural sedation (RR=4.08, 95%CI=2.35 to 7.09; P<0.00001, I²=39%). This analysis demonstrates the advantages of remimazolam over other agents and sets a platform for relevant future studies.

2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary. Most patients recover without sequelae. However, they may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

When to Discharge a Patient After Endoscopy: A Narrative Review

Video endoscopy is an important modality for the diagnosis and treatment of various gastrointestinal diseases. Most endoscopic procedures are performed as outpatient basis, sometimes requiring sedation and deeper levels of anesthesia. Moreover, advances in endoscopic techniques have allowed invasion into the third space and the performance of technically difficult procedures that require the utmost precision. Hence, formulating strategies for the discharge of patients requiring endoscopy is clinically and legally challenging. In this review, we have discussed the various criteria and scores for the discharge of patients who have undergone endoscopic procedures with and without anesthesia.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Endoscopic Sedation Research: 2001-2020

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

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.

The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosilate versus Etomidate-Propofol in Elderly Outpatients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial

Objective

The optimal sedation regime during endoscopy remains controversial, especially for elderly outpatients. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety between remimazolam tosilate (RT) and etomidate-propofol (EP) in elderly outpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

Methods

A total of 260 elderly outpatients undergoing sedative colonoscopy were randomized into two groups. Patients in the RT group received a 0.075-mg/kg maintenance dose of remimazolam following an initial dose of 0.15 mg/kg, whereas patients in the EP group (10 mL:20 mg etomidate plus 10 mL:100 mg propofol) received a 0.05-mL/kg maintenance dose following an initial dose of 0.1 mL/kg to maintain a Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score of ≤3 during the procedure. The primary endpoint was the success of the procedure. Secondary endpoints included time metrics, hemodynamics, consumption of fentanyl, etomidate, propofol, and remimazolam, intraoperative body movement, patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores, supplemental dose of sedative and fentanyl, and incidence and severity of adverse events.

Results

The procedure success rate was 96.52% in the RT group and 100% in the EP group. The difference in procedure success rate between the RT and EP groups was −3.48% (95% confidence interval: −6.81%, −0.15%). Four patients in the RT group required rescue midazolam. Compared with patients in the RT group, the onset time of the EP group was significantly lower (p < 0.05), whereas time to fully alert (p = 0.001), ready for discharge (p = 0.001), and hospital discharge (p = 0.002) were all significantly higher in the EP group. However, there were no significant differences in procedure time (p = 0.846) or cecal intubation time (p = 0.320) between the two groups. Although the frequency of intraoperative body movement was higher in the RT group, the difference was not significant (p = 0.508). There were no significant differences in patients’ demographic and baseline characteristics, supplemental doses of sedative and fentanyl, or patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores (p > 0.05). Muscular tremor and pain on injection were recorded more frequently in the EP group (p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in hypoxia, respiratory depression, or incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The severity of adverse events was all mild (grade 1) across both groups.

Conclusion

RT may have non-inferior efficacy and a higher safety profile than EP in elderly outpatients undergoing colonoscopy, which suggests that RT may be more suitable for elderly outpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

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.

Efficacy of sedation with dexmedetomidine plus propofol during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

During endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal cancer, patient body movement can sometimes occur, which may cause discontinuation of the procedure. Propofol and dexmedetomidine have recently been found to be useful sedatives for endoscopic submucosal dissection. This study investigated whether sedation using propofol plus dexmedetomidine can suppress the patient's body movements during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection and compared this combination with sedation using propofol alone.

METHODS

This was a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial. Patients with superficial esophageal cancers who underwent esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection at Yokohama City University Hospital were prospectively enrolled and were randomly assigned to the propofol and the propofol plus dexmedetomidine groups. The primary endpoint was the incidence of restlessness. The secondary endpoints were the satisfaction score, maintenance dose of propofol, and number of rescue propofol injections.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients (propofol group: n = 33; combination group: n = 33) were included. The combination group had a significantly lower incidence of restlessness than the propofol group (3.0% vs 27.3%, P = 0.02). In the combination group, the satisfaction scores of the endoscopists were significantly higher, the maintenance dose of propofol was significantly lower, and the number of rescue propofol injections was lower than those in the propofol group (3.0% vs 18.2%, P < 0.001). Although the incidence of bradycardia was significantly higher in the combination group (30.3% vs 3.0%, P < 0.01), no serious adverse effects occurred.

CONCLUSION

The propofol plus dexmedetomidine combination provided excellent sedation that effectively suppressed the patient's body movements during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection.