Position statement: Nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy

Virtually Augmented Self-Hypnosis applied to endovascular interventions (VA-HYPO): Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol

Endovascular interventions (EVI) are increasingly performed as minimally-invasive alternatives to surgery and have many advantages, including a decreased need for general anesthesia. However, EVI can be stressful for patients and often lead to anxiety and pain related to the procedure. The use of local anesthetics, anxiolytics, and analgesic drugs can help avoid general anesthesia. Nevertheless, these drugs have potential side effects. Alternative nonpharmacological therapies can improve patients’ experience during conscious interventions and reduce the need for additional medications. The added value of virtually augmented self-hypnosis (VA-HYPO) and its potential to reduce pain and anxiety during peripheral and visceral arterial and venous EVI is unknown. This is a prospective two-arm trial designed to randomize 100 patients in two groups according to the use or not of VA-HYPO during peripheral EVI as a complementary nonpharmacological technique to improve patient comfort. The main objective is to compare per-procedural anxiety, and the secondary aim is to compare the rated per-procedural pain in both groups. The potential significance is that VA-HYPO may improve patients’ experience during peripheral and visceral arterial and venous EVI and other minimally invasive interventions performed under local anesthesia.

Trial registration: Our study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov, with trial registration number: NCT04561596.

Is endoscopist-directed sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with balanced propofol solution (BPS) practical and safe? A prospective study from a tertiary care centre in India

Introduction

Endoscopist-directed, nurse-administered sedation using propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is being utilized worldwide. However, this is not usually employed in India by endoscopists.

Aim

To assess the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of this sedation in low to moderate risk patients undergoing ERCP.

Material and methods

This was a prospective study involving 500 patients with any indication for ERCP. The sedation was given by trained nurses.

Results

The sedative dosages per patient were as follows: propofol = 90 ±20 mg, fentanyl 0.75 ±0.25 mg (range: 0.25-1.00 mg), and midazolam 2 ±0.5 mg (range: 1-3 mg). Ninety-seven percent of patients achieved Richmond agitation sedation score of ≥ -3, and 96.8% achieved Gloucester comfort score of ≤ 2. 4.22% of the patients had mild adverse events (AE), and 2.11% had moderate AE. Two (0.4%) patients required intubation and intensive care unit admission. Mean recovery time was 15.3 min. 98.3% of the endoscopists were satisfied with the sedation achieved. 31.2% of the patients remembered the procedure. 93% of the patients were satisfied with the type of sedation. 92.75% of ERCPs were successful. 7.59% had procedure-related complications: in the form PEP - 5.290%, significant bleeding - 1.08%, and perforation - 0.43%.

Conclusions

Endoscopist-directed, nurse-administered sedation for ERCP with balanced propofol solution is practical, efficient, time saving, safe, and acceptable to patients.

A comparison of ketamine-midazolam combination and propofol-fentanyl combination on procedure comfort and recovery process in pediatric colonoscopy procedures

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam-ketamine combination versus fentanyl-propofol combination in pediatric diagnostic colonoscopy.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of 68 children undergoing diagnostic gastroenterology with midazolam-ketamine combination (Group-K) or with fentanyl-propofol combination (Group-P) in the pediatric gastroentology department at a Turkish tertiary hospital between January 2015 and June 2017. An intravenous midazolam was administered one minute before ketamine administration in Group K. Intravenous fentanyl was given to Group P, followed by intravenous propofol.

Results

There were statistically no significant differences between the groups as for age, gender, weight, duration of colonoscopy and complications observed during procedure. Ramsay sedation score was significantly higher in Group K. Recovery time and the rate of complications during the recovery of Group-K (23 patients, 65.7%) was significantly higher than that of Group P (8 patients, 24.2%) (p= 0.001).

Conclusions

Colonoscopy procedures can be quite comfortable in children when using the midazolam-ketamine combination. However, adverse effects related to ketamine were observed during recovery.

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.

Echocardiography in the Era of Obesity

Patients with obesity are at increased risk for coronary artery disease and heart failure and often present with symptoms of dyspnea, fatigue, edema, or chest pain. Echocardiography is frequently used to help distinguish whether these symptoms are due to cardiac disease. Unfortunately, obesity has a significant impact on image quality because of signal attenuation. Ultrasound-enhancing agents may improve the detection of structural remodeling and subclinical left ventricular dysfunction in patients with obesity. Assessment of chamber sizes and cardiac remodeling in severely obese subjects must be interpreted with caution, however, as the current recommendations for indexing cardiac chamber sizes to body size may lead to false conclusions about chamber volumes or mass, particularly in settings in which weight is changing. As a result of increases in stroke volume and cardiac output, obesity may exacerbate hemodynamic compromise in obstructive structural or valvular disease. With regard to assessment of ischemic heart disease, stress echocardiography can effectively risk-stratify patients with obesity and may have advantages over other noninvasive modalities. In general, transesophageal echocardiography is safe in patients with obesity, although some precautions should be observed. Stress echocardiography using the transesophageal approach is an alternative for preoperative or ischemia evaluation in patients with suboptimal transthoracic views.

Propofol with and without Midazolam for Diagnostic Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopies in Children

PURPOSE

Various publications on the use of sedation and anesthesia for diagnostic procedures in children have demonstrated that no ideal agent is available. Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children, adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension, are concerns in propofol-based sedation. Propofol is used in combination with other sedatives in order to reduce potential complications. We aimed to analyze whether the administration of midazolam would improve the safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies in children.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of children who underwent diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies during a 30-month period. Demographic characteristics, vital signs, medication dosages, induction times, sedation times, recovery times, and any complications observed, were examined.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics did not differ between the midazolam-propofol and propofol alone groups. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of induction times, sedation times, recovery times, or the proportion of satisfactory endoscopist responses. No major procedural complications, such as cardiac arrest, apnea, or laryngospasm, occurred in any case. However, minor complications developed in 22 patients (10.7%), 17 (16.2%) in the midazolam-propofol group and five (5.0%) in the propofol alone group (p=0.010).

CONCLUSION

The sedation protocol with propofol was safe and efficient. The administration of midazolam provided no additional benefit in propofol-based sedation.

Risk factors for hypoxemia during routine anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal endoscopy under anesthesia has been carried out as a routine procedure in China. Hypoxemia is still an adverse event with a high incidence in routine anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the incidence of hypoxemia varies greatly across countries (< 1% to 85%), and there is a lack of relevant high-quality reports in China. Propofol, as a sedative for anesthetic gastroscopy in outpatients, has been recognized for its safety and effectiveness and is recommended by the expert consensus on Sedation/Anesthesia for Digestive Endoscopic Diagnosis and Treatment in China (2014). However, there are still some debate over its safety in foreign countries. In this study, we used propofol as a sedative for gastroscopy in outpatients to observe its effect on the incidence of hypoxemia.

AIM

To observe and analyze the incidence of and risk factors for hypoxemia in anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 580 outpatients who were sedated with propofol from September 1, 2018 to November 30, 2018 in Digestive Endoscopy Center of Shanghai Changhai Hospital were included in the study. These patients were divided into either a hypoxemia (n = 110) group or a non-hypoxemia group (n = 470). The basic information, anesthesia procedure, and endoscopic operation related information of the two groups were recorded.

RESULTS

The information of patients in the two groups was compared and analyzed. It was found that there were significantly differences between the two groups in snoring history, biopsy, age, body mass index, abdominal circumference, endoscopic operation time, propofol dosage, ASA classification, and endoscopic physician classification (P < 0.05). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that age (>5 years, OR = 8.955, 95 %CI: 2.070-38.746) and propofol dosage (>197 mg, OR = 2.360, 95 %CI: 1.320-4.219) were independent risk factors for hypoxemia.

CONCLUSION

Intervention is needed for elderly patients (especially patients over 75 years old) and patients requiring large amounts of propofol (especially > 197 mg) to prevent the occurrence of hypoxemia.

Recovery of cognitive function after sedation with propofol for outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIM

Most endoscopies performed in the United States utilize sedation. Anesthesia provides patient comfort and improved procedural quality but adds to the complexity of scheduling routine outpatient procedures. We aimed to assess the return of cognitive function after propofol administration in patients undergoing outpatient endoscopies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cognitive recovery for patients undergoing endoscopy under monitored anesthesia care was evaluated using EncephalApp. Patients were tested before and after procedure and healthy controls were tested twice, 30 min apart. Results were tabulated in on state (on time) and off state (off time) and total time (on time + off time). The time difference between pre- and post-tests, "delta," was calculated for on, off, and total times. Wilcoxon rank test was used to check the difference in mean delta of all three test times between cases and controls and to check for statistical significance.

RESULTS

The difference in mean time between cases and controls was significant for off (P < 0.0001) and total (P = 0.0002) times. No statistically significant difference was noted in mean time for on time (P = 0.013) between cases and controls. Cognitive flexibility, a measure of on time, returned to baseline after procedural sedation even though psychomotor speed, a measure of off time and total time, had not.

CONCLUSION

Cognitive flexibility returns to baseline within 30-45 min after propofol sedation despite delayed return of psychomotor speed and reaction time.

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.

Supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation enhances oxygenation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients sedated with propofol: a randomized multicentre clinical trial

Background

Hypoventilation is the main reason for hypoxia during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures with sedation. The key to preventing hypoxia is to maintain normal ventilation during the procedure. We introduced supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation (SJOV) through a new Wei nasal jet tube (WNJ) to reduce the incidence of hypoxia in patients sedated with propofol during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures.

Methods

In a multicentre, prospective randomized single-blinded study, 1781 outpatients undergoing routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy who were sedated with propofol by an anaesthetist were randomized into the following three groups: the supplementary oxygen via nasal cannula group [nasal cannula oxygen: O 2 (2 litres min -1 ) was administered via a nasal cannula]; the supplementary oxygen via WNJ group [WNJ oxygen: O 2 (2 litres min -1 ) was administered through a WNJ]; and the SJOV via WNJ group (WNJ SJOV: SJOV was administered via WNJ) at three centres from March 2015 to July 2016. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of hypoxia (peripheral oxygen saturation of 75-89%). Other adverse events were also recorded.

Results

Supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation decreased the incidence of hypoxia from 9 to 3% ( P <0.0001). No severe hypoxia occurred in the WNJ SJOV group, one instance occurred in the WNJ oxygen group, and two instances were observed in the nasal cannula oxygen supply control group. Supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation-related minor adverse events increased significantly within 1 min after the procedure but decreased 30 min later.

Conclusions

The use of SJOV during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients who are sedated with propofol reduces the incidence of hypoxia, with minor and tolerable adverse events. Supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation has a favourable risk-to-benefit ratio and may improve patient safety.

Clinical trial registration

NCT02436018.

Comparison of two supplement oxygen methods during gastroscopy with intravenous propofol anesthesia in obese patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hypoxemia is a major complication in obese patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy under intravenous anesthesia or sedation due to altered airway anatomy. We design this randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare efficacy and safety of the Wei nasal jet tube (WNJT) and nasal prongs for supplement oxygen during gastroscopy with intravenous propofol anesthesia in obese patients.

METHODS

The study will be a single-center, prospective RCT. A total of 308 obese patients will be recruited and randomly assigned to receive either the WNJT (group A) or nasal prongs (group B). During gastroscopy with intravenous propofol anesthesia, 5 L/min of oxygen will be delivered through the jet port of the WNJT in the group A and via the nasal prongs in the group B. The primary outcome is the incidence of hypoxemia and severe hypoxemia. The secondary outcomes are adverse events during the gastroscopy, postoperative complications, and satisfaction of the anesthetist, physician, and patient.

DISCUSSION

This RCT aims to clarify whether the WNJT can result in reduced incidences of hypoxemia and complications and provide improved satisfaction to the anesthetist, physician, and patient. Thus, it can be determined if the WNJT is a useful tool for supplement oxygen in obese patients undergoing gastroscopy with intravenous propofol anesthesia. The results will provide the evidence for anesthesiologists to make a decision regarding the choice of supplementary oxygen methods in this condition.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial, ChiCTR-IOR-17013089 . Registered on 23 October 2017.

Staffing at Ambulatory Endoscopy Centers in the United States: Practice, Trends, and Rationale

Background

Endoscopy nurse (RN) has a pivotal role in administration and monitoring of moderate sedation during endoscopic procedures. When sedation for the procedure is administered and monitored by an anesthesia specialist, the role of an RN is less clear. The guidelines on this issue by nursing and gastroenterology societies are contradictory.

Methods

Survey study of endoscopy lab managers and directors at outpatient endoscopy units in Texas. The questions related to staffing patterns for outpatient endoscopies and responsibilities of different personnel assisting with endoscopies.

Results

Responses were received from 65 endoscopy units (response rate 38%). 63/65 (97%) performed at least a few cases with an anesthesia specialist. Of these, 49/63 (78%) involved only an endoscopy technician, without an additional RN in the room. At 12/49 (25%) units, the RN performed tasks of an endoscopy technician. At 14/63 (22%), an additional RN was present during endoscopic procedures and performed tasks not directly related to patient care.

Conclusions

Many ambulatory endoscopy units do not have an RN present at all times when sedation is administered by an anesthesia specialist. An RN, when present, did not perform tasks commensurate with the education and training. This has implications about optimal utilization of nurses and cost of performing endoscopies.

Continued midazolam versus diphenhydramine in difficult-to-sedate patients: a randomized double-blind trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current guidelines recommend diphenhydramine in patients undergoing endoscopy who are not adequately sedated with a benzodiazepine and opioid combination. Because this practice has not been adequately assessed, we performed a randomized, double-blind trial comparing diphenhydramine with continued midazolam in such patients.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective colonoscopy with moderate sedation were eligible. Sedation was measured with the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score with adequate sedation defined as 3 on a 0- to 5-point scale. Patients not adequately sedated with midazolam 5 mg and fentanyl 100 μg were randomly assigned to diphenhydramine 25 mg versus continued midazolam 1.5 mg. Adequacy of sedation was assessed 3 minutes after each study medication dose. If MOAA/S was 4 to 5, study medication was repeated, to a maximum of 3 doses. The primary endpoint was adequate sedation.

RESULTS

The planned enrollment of 200 patients (100 in each study group) was attained. Adequate sedation was achieved less often with diphenhydramine than midazolam (27% vs 65%, difference = -38%; 95% CI, -50% to -24%; P < .0001). After study medications were completed, more patients required additional medication for sedation or analgesia with diphenhydramine versus midazolam (84% vs 68%, P = .008), whereas the time to discharge from the recovery unit was similar (134 vs 129 minutes). Treatment effect was consistent across subgroups including age ≤55, substance abuse, benzodiazepine use, opioid use, and psychiatric medication use.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopists performing moderate sedation should continue midazolam rather than switching to diphenhydramine in patients who do not achieve adequate sedation with usual doses of midazolam and an opioid. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01769586.).

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia provides no additional benefit to propofol sedation for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized controlled double-blinded clinical trial

Propofol sedation has been applied during esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedures, but whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia should be administered at the same time has rarely been reported. Our study examined the role of topical pharyngeal anesthesia in sedated endoscopies in a randomized controlled double-blinded clinical trial. A total of 626 patients who underwent sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy were randomized into the experimental group (n = 313) or the control group (n = 313). The discomfort score, immediately and one day after the procedure, was not statistically significant [7.2 (5-9) vs. 7.5 (6-9), P = 0.210; 2.3 (0-3) vs. 2.6 (0-4), P = 0.095, respectively]. Two patients in the experimental group and three patients in the control group needed oral medication for pharyngeal discomfort (P = 0.354). The satisfaction score was 9.2 (8-10) in the experimental group and 8.9 (7-10) in the control group (P = 0.778). Lidocaine topical pharyngeal anesthesia in propofol-sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy did not further reduce the pharyngeal discomfort or improve the satisfaction. This clinical trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03070379).

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.

Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) position paper on the non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Propofol sedation by non-anesthesiologists in GI endoscopy, despite generally considered a safe procedure, is still a matter of debate. Benefits of propofol sedation include rapid onset of action, greater patient comfort and fast recovery with prompt discharge from the endoscopy unit. The use of propofol for sedation in GI endoscopy, preceded by dedicated training courses, has been approved by several anaesthesiologist and gastroenterologist societies but an Italian position paper taking into account the Italian law is lacking. In the present document, the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) Sedation Group, on behalf of the SIED, presents a series of updated position statements concerning propofol sedation in GI endoscopy. The paper summarizes the advantages of propofol, how it should be administered and how patients should be monitored. Moreover, details concerning proper training of non-anaesthesiologist personnel involved in its use are provided. Protocols concerning propofol use s must be shared with the hospital's anaesthesiology staff and approved by the hospital's Executive Director.

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.

Assessing the safety of physician-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation in low-risk patients undergoing endoscopy and colonoscopy

Background and study aims Physician-directed nurse-administered balanced propofol sedation (PhD NAPS) in patients undergoing endoscopy and/or colonoscopy is being increasingly utilized worldwide. However, this method of sedation is not universally employed in Australian hospitals due to concerns surrounding its safety. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of PhD NAPS in low-risk patients undergoing endoscopy and/or colonoscopy. Patients and methods This study was conducted at a single tertiary teaching hospital in Adelaide, Australia. It was a prospective study involving 1000 patients with an ASA score of 1 - 3 presenting with any indication for endoscopy, colonoscopy or both. A total of 981 patients (451 male) with a mean age of 53 years (range: 16 - 87) were recruited from January 2010 to October 2012. 440 endoscopies, 420 colonoscopies, and 121 combined procedures were performed. The intra-procedural adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Results There were no major intra-procedural adverse events. Minor AEs occurred in 6.42 % of patients, and resolved spontaneously or with intravenous fluid boluses in all cases. Conclusion PhD NAPS is safe when the proceduralist and nursing staff are adequately trained and strict patient selection criteria are used.

Similar Risk of Cardiopulmonary Adverse Events Between Propofol and Traditional Anesthesia for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Even though propofol use for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has increased over the past decade, there is a perception that it causes a higher rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation-related adverse events associated with use of propofol vs nonpropofol agents for endoscopic procedures. We also wanted to determine the influence of duration or complexity of the procedures and endoscopist-directed (gastroenterologist) vs non-gastroenterologist-directed sedation on the outcomes.

METHODS

A search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane controlled trials registry. The following cardiopulmonary adverse events were assessed: hypoxia, hypotension, and arrhythmias. The procedures were divided into 2 groups based on the procedure length: a nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group consisting of esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and sigmoidoscopy, and an advanced endoscopic procedures group including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasonography, balloon enteroscopy, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Pooled odds ratios for complications were calculated for all the procedures combined and then separately for the 2 groups. Random-effects models were used for 2-proportion comparisons.

RESULTS

Of the 2117 citations identified, 27 original studies qualified for this meta-analysis and included 2518 patients. Of these, 1324 received propofol, and 1194 received midazolam, meperidine, pethidine, remifentanil, and/or fentanyl. Most of the included studies were randomized trials of moderate quality and nonsignificant heterogeneity (Cochran Q, 26.07; P = .13). Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled odds ratio with the use of propofol for developing hypoxia for all the procedures combined was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.07), and for developing hypotension was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.64-1.32). In the nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group, those who received propofol were 39% less likely to develop complications than those receiving traditional sedative agents (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99). There was no difference in the complication rate for the advanced endoscopic procedure group (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.34). A subgroup analysis did not show any difference in adverse events when propofol was administered by gastroenterologists or nongastroenterologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation has a similar risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events compared with traditional agents for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Propofol use in simple endoscopic procedures was associated with a decreased number of complications. When used for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures of a complex nature and longer duration, propofol was not associated with increased rates of hypoxemia, hypotension, or arrhythmias. Administration of propofol by gastroenterologists does not appear to increase the complication rates.

Safety of Propofol Used as a Rescue Agent During Colonoscopy

GOAL

The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety of propofol when used by gastroenterologists in patients who have an inadequate response to standard sedation (narcotics and benzodiazepines).

BACKGROUND

Many patients fail to achieve adequate sedation from narcotics and benzodiazepines during colonoscopy. The administration of propofol for colonoscopy is increasing, although its use by gastroenterologists is controversial.

STUDY

We performed a retrospective review of our hospital's colonoscopy records from January 2006 to December 2009 to identify 403 subjects undergoing screening colonoscopies who required propofol (20 to 30 mg every 3 min as needed) because of inadequate response to standard sedation. We also randomly selected 403 controls undergoing screening colonoscopies from the same time period that only required standard sedation. The incidence of adverse effects was then compared.

RESULTS

There were no major adverse events in either group. The rates of minor adverse events in the propofol and control group were 0.02 and 0.01, respectively (P=0.56). Adverse effects in the propofol group included: transient hypotension (n=1), nausea/vomiting (n=3), agitation (n=2), and rash (n=1). Adverse effects seen with standard sedation included: transient hypotension (n=2), nausea/vomiting (n=1), and oversedation (n=2). Patients who received propofol were more likely to be younger, had a history of illicit drug use, and a longer procedure time (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive propofol administered by gastroenterologist for conscious sedation was not associated with increased incidence of adverse events. It may be of value in patients who do not respond to conventional sedation.

Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation by anesthesiologists and gastroenterologist-led teams using computer-assisted personalized sedation during upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

No randomized controlled studies comparing propofol versus no sedation have been reported. Comparative data demonstrating the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation by anesthesiologists (ANES), and gastroenterologist-led teams (GLT) using computer-assisted personalized sedation (CAPS), during routine gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in Japan do not exist. We aimed to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of propofol sedation versus no sedation (PLCB) when propofol is given by ANES or GLT, during routine GI endoscopy.

METHODS

Two hundred and seventy two American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II adults were prospectively enrolled in this multicenter study and randomized into three groups (PLCB, ANES, GLT). Ability to maintain moderate sedation, defined as MOAA/S scores of 2-4 for ≥50% of all MOAA/S measurements from scope-in to scope-out, was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included patient (PSSI) and clinician (CSSI) satisfaction.

RESULTS

Proportion of subjects maintained in moderate sedation by ANES (88.1%) and GLT (94.5%) was significantly higher than PLCB (21.6%; P < 0.001); there was no difference between the ANES and GLT groups (P = 0.116). Mean PSSI scores for subjects sedated by ANES (81.2 ± 12.5) and GLT (80.8 ± 14.1) were significantly higher than PLCB (65.3 ± 19.7; P < 0.001) and mean CSSI scores were also significantly higher in both active treatment groups (75.5 ± 10.2, 77.9 ± 10.3) than PLCB (60.8 ± 18.6; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Moderate sedation can be achieved and maintained with propofol, improving both patient and physician satisfaction, when propofol is given by an anesthesiologist or a gastroenterologist-led team using CAPS.

Non-Operating Room Anesthesia in the Endoscopy Unit

The term, non-operating room anesthesia, describes a location remote from the main operating suites and closer to the patient, including areas that offer specialized procedures, like endoscopy suites, cardiac catheterization laboratories, bronchoscopy suites, and invasive radiology suites. There has been an exponential growth in such procedures and they present challenges in both organizational aspects and administration of anesthesia. This article explores the requirements for the location, preoperative evaluation and patient selection, monitoring, anesthesia technique, and postoperative management at these sites. There is a need to better define the role of the anesthesia personnel at these remote sites.

Application of clip traction in endoscopic submucosal dissection to the treatment of early esophageal carcinoma and precancerous lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

It is usually difficult to obtain a good view of the dissection plane during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of clip traction in ESD for the treatment of early esophageal carcinoma (EEC) or precancerous lesions.

METHODS

This is a case-matched comparative study. We selected 100 EEC patients who had undergone ESD. Fifty cases underwent ESD without clip traction (non-clip group), and 50 cases underwent ESD with clip traction (clip group). The patient-related variables, dissection time, data regarding muscularis propria injury, etc. were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

ESD was successful in all cases without complication. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to age, gender, the longitudinal diameter of the lesions, etc. Wide visual field exposure of the submucosal tissue below the lesion was obtained by applying clip traction. The dissection time of ESD was shorter in the clip group than in the non-clip group [22.02 (6.77) min vs 26.48 (12.56); P = 0.018] when the extent of lesion was less than half of the circumference of the esophagus; otherwise, there was no difference between the two groups (P = 0.252). Moreover, the muscularis propria injuries in the clip group were obviously less than the non-clip group (10 vs 30 %, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Clip traction can decrease the rate of muscularis propria injury and shorten the dissection time. It is recommended as a safe and effective auxiliary procedure for the treatment of esophageal ESD.

Risks Associated With Anesthesia Services During Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We aimed to quantify the difference in complications from colonoscopy with vs without anesthesia services.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study and analyzed administrative claims data from Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Research Databases from 2008 through 2011. We identified 3,168,228 colonoscopy procedures in men and women, aged 40-64 years old. Colonoscopy complications were measured within 30 days, including colonic (ie, perforation, hemorrhage, abdominal pain), anesthesia-associated (ie, pneumonia, infection, complications secondary to anesthesia), and cardiopulmonary outcomes (ie, hypotension, myocardial infarction, stroke), adjusted for age, sex, polypectomy status, Charlson comorbidity score, region, and calendar year.

RESULTS

Nationwide, 34.4% of colonoscopies were conducted with anesthesia services. Rates of use varied significantly by region (53% in the Northeast vs 8% in the West; P < .0001). Use of anesthesia service was associated with a 13% increase in the risk of any complication within 30 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.14), and was associated specifically with an increased risk of perforation (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), hemorrhage (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.27-1.30), abdominal pain (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), complications secondary to anesthesia (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.28), and stroke (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.08). For most outcomes, there were no differences in risk with anesthesia services by polypectomy status. However, the risk of perforation associated with anesthesia services was increased only in patients with a polypectomy (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.09-1.52). In the Northeast, use of anesthesia services was associated with a 12% increase in risk of any complication; among colonoscopies performed in the West, use of anesthesia services was associated with a 60% increase in risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall risk of complications after colonoscopy increases when individuals receive anesthesia services. The widespread adoption of anesthesia services with colonoscopy should be considered within the context of all potential risks.

Safety and effectiveness of propofol-based monitored anesthesia care without intubation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric and esophageal cancers

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) becomes more difficult with an increased risk of complications if patient sedation is insufficient. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of propofol-based monitored anesthesia care (MAC) without intubation during ESD for early esophageal cancer (EEC) or early gastric cancer (EGC) in the endoscopy room.

METHODS

We investigated 1013 consecutive patients with 1126 lesions who underwent ESD for EGC/EEC with either MAC or regular sedation by endoscopists (control group) between July 2010 and March 2013. Patient characteristics, endoscopic findings, technical results, body movement, oxygen saturation (SpO2 ), and drug dosages were then examined.

RESULTS

MAC was carried out in 137 EGC (16%) and 82 EEC patients (57%), whereas regular sedation was used in 731 EGC (84%) and 63 EEC patients (43%). MAC was conducted in 21% of all ESD procedures. In the MAC and control groups, body movement requiring a third person for control occurred in 30 (22%) and 533 (72%) cases during gastric ESD (P < 0.0001) and in 36 (44%) and 53 (84%) cases during esophageal ESD (P < 0.0001), respectively. The median minimum SpO2 was significantly lower in the MAC group than in the control group during both gastric and esophageal ESD (96% vs 98%, P < 0.0001; 96% vs 98%, P < 0.0004, respectively). MAC did not cause any adverse effects requiring prolongation of hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol-based MAC without intubation provided a safer treatment environment by significantly reduced body movement and was very effective for difficult cases requiring longer procedure times or more powerful sedation.

The value of Integrated Pulmonary Index (IPI) monitoring during endoscopies in children

The Integrated Pulmonary Index (IPI) is an algorithm included in commercially available monitors that constitutes a representation of 4 parameters: EtCO2, RR, SpO2 and PR. The IPI index has been validated for adults and children older than 1 year of age. In this study we aimed to study the value of IPI monitoring during pediatric endoscopic procedures. Our data consisted of 124 measurements of 109 patients undergoing different procedures (upper endoscopy 84 patients, colonoscopy 6 patients, both 9 patients). The data was divided into 3 groups based on the drug type used: propofol only, 5 patients (group 1); propofol & midazolam, 89 patients (group 2); propofol, midazolam and Fentanyl, 15 patients (group 3). Patients in group 2 and 3 had significantly higher IPI levels than group 1. Significantly lower IPI values were found between ages 4-6 compared to 7-12 years old. High midazolam dose was associated with lower IPI levels during the procedure. No significant differences were found for propofol doses. Patients who had an anesthetist present had lower IPI levels during the procedure compared to those who did not. No differences were noted between the different procedures. IPI alerted all apnea episodes (58 events, IPI = 1) and hypoxia (26 events, IPI ≤ 3) episodes, whereas pulse oximetry captured only the hypoxia episodes (IPI sensitivity = 1, specificity 0.98, positive predictive value 0.95). Younger patient age, use of propofol alone, higher midazolam doses and presence of anesthetist are all associated with lower IPI levels.

A target-controlled infusion system with bispectral index monitoring of propofol sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Propofol administration via a target-controlled infusion system with bispectral index monitoring (BIS/TCI system) is expected to prevent complications from sedation during complex and long endoscopic procedures. We evaluated the feasibility of setting the BIS/TCI system for non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From May 2009 to February 2013, 250 patients with esophagogastric neoplasms were treated with ESD using the BIS/TCI system with NAAP. In the TCI system, the initial target blood concentration of propofol was set at 1.2 μg/mL. The titration speed of propofol was adjusted according to the BIS score and the movement of the patient. The BIS target level ranged from moderate to deep sedation, at which a stable BIS score between 60 and 80 was obtained.

RESULTS

In 80.4 % of patients, it was possible to maintain stable sedation with a blood concentration of propofol of less than 1.6 µg/mL using TCI throughout the ESD procedure. The default setting for ideal blood concentration of propofol was 1.2 μg/mL, because the medians of the lower and upper bounds of blood concentration were 1.2 μg/mL (range 0.6 - 1.8 μg/mL) and 1.4 μg/mL (range 1.0 - 3.8 μg/mL), respectively. Although hypotension occurred in 27 patients (10.8 %), oxygen desaturation occurred in only nine patients (3.6 %), and severe desaturation in only two patients (0.8 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Using our settings, it is possible for a non-anesthesiologist to maintain stable sedation during a lengthy endoscopic procedure through propofol sedation with a BIS/TCI system.

Capnography improves detection of apnea during procedural sedation for percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage

BACKGROUND

Capnography provides noninvasive monitoring of ventilation and can enable early recognition of altered respiration patterns and apnea.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the detection of apnea and the prediction of oxygen desaturation and hypoxemia using capnography versus clinical surveillance during procedural sedation for percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage (PTCD).

METHODS

Twenty consecutive patients scheduled for PTCD were included in the study. All patients were sedated during the procedure using midazolam and propofol. Aside from standard monitoring, additional capnographic monitoring was used and analyzed by an independent observer.

RESULTS

The mean (± SD) cumulative duration of apnea demonstrated by capnography was significantly longer than the mean cumulative duration of clinically detected apnea (207.5 ± 348.8 s versus 8.2 ± 17.9 s; P=0.015). The overall number of detected episodes of apnea was also significantly different (113 versus seven; P=0.012). There were 15 events of oxygen desaturation (decrease in oxygen saturation [SaO2] ≥ 5%), which were predicted in eight of 15 cases by capnography and in one of 15 cases by clinical observation. There were three events of hypoxemia (SaO2 <90%) that were predicted in three of three cases by capnography and in one of three cases by clinical observation.

CONCLUSION

Capnographic monitoring was superior to clinical surveillance in the detection of apnea and in the prediction of oxygen desaturation during procedural sedation for PTCD.

Endoscopic sedation: from training to performance

Adequate sedation and analgesia are considered essential requirements to relieve patient discomfort and pain and ultimately to improve the outcomes of modern gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. The willingness of patients to undergo sedation during endoscopy has increased steadily in recent years and standard sedation practices are needed for both patient safety and successful procedural outcomes. Therefore, regular training and education of healthcare providers is warranted. However, training curricula and guidelines for endoscopic sedation may have conflicts according to varying legal frameworks and/or social security systems of each country, and well-recognized endoscopic sedation training systems are not currently available in all endoscopy units. Although European and American curricula for endoscopic sedation have been extensively developed, general curricula and guidelines for each country and institution are also needed. In this review, an overview of recent curricula and guidelines for training and basic performance of endoscopic sedation is presented based on the current literature.

Guidelines for safety in the gastrointestinal endoscopy unit

Historically, safety in the gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy unit has focused on infection control, particularly around the reprocessing of endoscopes. Two highly publicized outbreaks where the transmission of infectious agents were related to GI endoscopy have highlighted the need to address potential gaps along the endoscopy care continuum that could impact patient safety.

Safety analysis of endoscopist-directed propofol sedation: a prospective, national multicenter study of 24 441 patients in German outpatient practices

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Since 2008, there exists a German S3-guideline allowing non-anesthesiological administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. In this prospective, national, multicenter study, we evaluated the safety of endoscopist-administered propofol sedation (EDP) in German outpatient practices of Gastroenterology.

METHODS

In this multicenter survey of 53 ambulatory practices of Gastroenterology, we prospectively evaluated 24 441 patients that had received EDP. We recorded adverse events during the endoscopic procedure and additionally retrieved questionnaires investigating subjective parameters 24 h after the endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

In 24 441 patients 13 793 colonoscopies, 6467 esophagogastroduodenoscopies, and 4181 double examinations were performed. In this study, 52.1% of the patients received propofol mono-sedation, and 47.9% received a combination of midazolam and propofol. Major adverse events occurred in four patients (0.016%) enrolled to this study (three mask ventilations and one laryngospasm). Minor adverse events were observed in 112 patients (0.46%) with hypoxemia being the most common minor event. All patients with adverse events recovered without persistent impairment. Minor adverse events occurred more frequently in patients sedated with propofol mono compared to propofol and midazolam (P < 0.0001) and correlated with increasing propofol dosages (P < 0.001; Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.044). Twenty-four hours after the endoscopy, patients sedated with propofol plus midazolam stated a significantly reduced sensation of pain (P < 0.01) and improved symptoms of dizziness, nausea and vomiting (P < 0.001) compared to patients having received propofol mono-sedation.

CONCLUSION

Four years after the implementation of a German S3-Guideline for endoscopic sedation, we demonstrated that EDP is a safe procedure.

Safety and efficacy of propofol administered by paediatricians during procedural sedation in children

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the safety and the efficacy of paediatrician-administered propofol in children undergoing different painful procedures.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study over a 12-year period in three Italian hospitals. A specific training protocol was developed in each institution to train paediatricians administering propofol for painful procedures.

RESULTS

In this study, 36,516 procedural sedations were performed. Deep sedation was achieved in all patients. None of the children experienced severe side effects or prolonged hospitalisation. There were six calls to the emergency team (0.02%): three for prolonged laryngospasm, one for bleeding, one for intestinal perforation and one during lumbar puncture. Nineteen patients (0.05%) developed hypotension requiring saline solution administration, 128 children (0.4%) needed O2 ventilation by face mask, mainly during upper endoscopy, 78 (0.2%) patients experienced laryngospasm, and 15 (0.04%) had bronchospasm. There were no differences in the incidence of major complications among the three hospitals, while minor complications were higher in children undergoing gastroscopy.

CONCLUSION

This multicentre study demonstrates the safety and the efficacy of paediatrician-administered propofol for procedural sedation in children and highlights the importance of appropriate training for paediatricians to increase the safety of this procedure in children.

Sedation-associated complications in endoscopy are not reduced significantly by implementation of the German S-3-guideline and occur in a severe manner only in patients with ASA class III and higher

INTRODUCTION

The German guideline for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy was published in 2008. Several recommendations in this guideline, especially concerning staffing and structural requirements for sedation, have low evidence and therefore are subject to discussion in the field.

AIM

Comparison of endoscopic complications in a department specialized for gastrointestinal and pulmological diseases before and after implementation of the German guideline grouped in sedation-associated and non-sedation-associated complications.

METHODS

Prospective documentation of complications with retrospective analysis of two patient groups (before guideline: 1.5.2008-30.4.2010; after guideline: 1.5.2010-30.4.2012) at which the sedation technique remained the same (balanced propofol sedation, BPS).

RESULTS

Both investigation periods covered almost 7000 procedures. Interventional and general complications were nonsignificantly elevated in the latter group (1.27% before vs. 1.55% after guideline, p = 0.08). Saturation decline (in both groups 0.26%) was unchanged, and circulation-associated complications (0.27% vs. 0.13%, p = 0.07) were reduced nonsignificantly. Necessity for the administration of flumazenil and for intensive care monitoring was reduced in a nonsignificant manner after the implementation of the guideline. Severe complications (reanimation, apnea, and death) were unchanged, and no patient with ASA I-II suffered from a severe complication. Propofol consumption was higher after guideline implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations of the new German sedation guideline do not significantly reduce complications in endoscopic procedures. Especially, procedures involving patients with ASA classes I and II do not require an additional staff member solely for sedation. Prospective randomized studies might be necessary to optimize the utilization of resources.

Complications following colonoscopy with anesthesia assistance: a population-based analysis

IMPORTANCE

Deep sedation for endoscopic procedures has become an increasingly used option but, because of impairment in patient response, this technique also has the potential for a greater likelihood of adverse events. The incidence of these complications has not been well studied at a population level.

DESIGN

Population-based study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Using a 5% random sample of cancer-free Medicare beneficiaries who resided in one of the regions served by a SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry, we identified all procedural claims for outpatient colonoscopy without polypectomy from January 1, 2000, through November 30, 2009.

INTERVENTION

Colonoscopy without polypectomy, with or without the use of deep sedation (identified by a concurrent claim for anesthesia services).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The occurrence of hospitalizations for splenic rupture or trauma, colonic perforation, and aspiration pneumonia within 30 days of the colonoscopy.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 165 527 procedures in 100 359 patients, including 35 128 procedures with anesthesia services (21.2%). Selected postprocedure complications were documented after 284 procedures (0.17%) and included aspiration (n = 173), perforation (n = 101), and splenic injury (n = 12). (Some patients had >1 complication.) Overall complications were more common in cases with anesthesia assistance (0.22% [95% CI, 0.18%-0.27%]) than in others (0.16% [0.14%-0.18%]) (P < .001), as was aspiration (0.14% [0.11%-0.18%] vs 0.10% [0.08%-0.12%], respectively; P = .02). Frequencies of perforation and splenic injury were statistically similar. Other predictors of complications included age greater than 70 years, increasing comorbidity, and performance of the procedure in a hospital setting. In multivariate analysis, use of anesthesia services was associated with an increased complication risk (odds ratio, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.09-1.94]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although the absolute risk of complications is low, the use of anesthesia services for colonoscopy is associated with a somewhat higher frequency of complications, specifically, aspiration pneumonia. The differences may result in part from uncontrolled confounding, but they may also reflect the impairment of normal patient responses with the use of deep sedation.

Use of anesthesia on the rise in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Conscious sedation has been the standard of care for many years for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. As procedures have become more complex and lengthy, additional medications became essential for adequate sedation. Often time's deep sedation is required for procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiography which necessitates higher doses of narcotics and benzodiazepines or even use of other medications such as ketamine. Given its pharmacologic properties, propofol was rapidly adopted worldwide to gastrointestinal endoscopy for complex procedures and more recently to routine upper and lower endoscopy. Many studies have shown superiority for both the physician and patient compared to standard sedation. Nevertheless, its use remains highly controversial. A number of studies worldwide show that propofol can be given safely by endoscopists or nurses when well trained. Despite this wealth of data, at many centers its use has been prohibited unless administered by anesthesiology. In this commentary, we review the use of anesthesia support for endoscopy in the United States based on recent data and its implications for gastroenterologists worldwide.

Capnographic monitoring reduces the incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation and hypoxemia during propofol sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled study (ColoCap Study)

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this randomized study was to determine whether intervention based on additional capnographic monitoring reduces the incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation during propofol sedation for colonoscopy.

METHODS

Patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (ASA) 1-3) scheduled for colonoscopy under propofol sedation were randomly assigned to either a control arm with standard monitoring (standard arm) or an interventional arm in which additional capnographic monitoring (capnography arm) was available. In both study arms, detection of apnea or altered respiration induced withholding propofol administration, stimulation of the patient, chin lift maneuver, or further measures. The primary study end point was the incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation (defined as a fall in oxygen saturation (SaO(2)) of ≥5% or <90%); secondary end points included the occurrences of hypoxemia (SaO(2) <90%), severe hypoxemia (SaO(2) ≤85%), bradycardia, hypotension, and the quality of sedation (patient cooperation and patient satisfaction).

RESULTS

A total of 760 patients were enrolled at three German endoscopy centers. The intention-to-treat analysis revealed a significant reduction of the incidence of oxygen desaturation in the capnography arm in comparison with the standard arm (38.9% vs. 53.2%; P<0.001). The numbers of patients with a fall in SaO(2) <90% and ≤85% were also significantly different (12.5% vs. 19.8%; P=0.008 and 3.7 vs. 7.8%; P=0.018). There were no differences regarding the rates of bradycardia and hypotension. Quality of sedation was similar in both groups. Results of statistical analyses were maintained for the per-protocol population.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional capnographic monitoring of ventilatory activity reduces the incidence of oxygen desaturation and hypoxemia during propofol sedation for colonoscopy.