Sedation with propofol for interventional endoscopic procedures: a risk factor analysis

Propofol sedation in routine endoscopy: A case series comparing target controlled infusion vs manually controlled bolus concept

BACKGROUND

Many studies have addressed safety and effectiveness of non-anaesthesiologist propofol sedation (NAPS) for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy Target controlled infusion (TCI) is claimed to provide an optimal sedation regimen by avoiding under- or oversedation.

AIM

To assess safety and performance of propofol TCI sedation in comparison with nurse-administered bolus-sedation.

METHODS

Fouty-five patients undergoing endoscopy under TCI propofol sedation were prospectively included from November 2016 to May 2017 and compared to 87 patients retrospectively included that underwent endoscopy with NAPS. Patients were matched for age and endoscopic procedure. We recorded time of sedation and endoscopy, dosage of medication and adverse events.

RESULTS

There was a significant reduction in dose per time of propofol administered in the TCI group, compared to the NAPS group (8.2 ± 2.7 mg/min vs 9.3 ± 3.4 mg/min; P = 0.046). The time needed to provide adequate sedation levels was slightly but significantly lower in the control group (5.3 ± 2.7 min vs 7.7 ± 3.3 min; P < 0.001), nonetheless the total endoscopy time was similar in both groups. No differences between TCI and bolus-sedation was observed for mean total-dosage of propofol rate as well as adverse events.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that sedation using TCI for GI endoscopy reduces the dose of propofol necessary per minute of endoscopy. This may translate into less adverse events. However, further and randomized trials need to confirm this trend.

Etomidate versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes

BACKGROUND

Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, owing to its side effects, an alternative drug is needed. We aimed to compare the safety, satisfaction, and efficacy outcomes of etomidate versus propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, including advanced endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL (via EBSCO), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Web of Science (1946-April 2020) databases for randomized controlled trials of gastrointestinal endoscopy (upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and advanced endoscopy) using etomidate or propofol as sedatives. We pooled odds ratios (ORs) for the safety profile and patient and anesthesiologist satisfaction using mixed-effects conditional logistic models and standardized mean differences for efficiency outcomes using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies involving 3875 patients were included. Compared with propofol, etomidate resulted in significantly reduced apnea (OR: 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.37; P < .001), hypoxemia (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.35-0.54; P < .001), hypotension (OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.11-0.36; P < .001), and bradycardia (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30-0.91; P = .02) but led to increased myoclonus (OR: 8.54; 95% CI: 5.20-14.01; P < .001) and lowered anesthesiologist satisfaction (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.39-0.91; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Etomidate may be a good alternative to propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially advanced endoscopy. Etomidate appears to be safe as an inducer for hemodynamically unstable patients or older adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Phase II study comparing nasal pressure monitoring with capnography during invasive endoscopic procedures: a single-center, single-arm trial

Nasal pressure signal is commonly used to evaluate obstructive sleep apnea. This study aimed to assess its safety for respiratory monitoring during sedation. A total of 45 adult patients undergoing sedation with propofol and fentanyl for invasive endoscopic procedures were enrolled. While both nasal pressure and capnograph signals were continuously recorded, only the nasal pressure signal was displayed. The primary outcome was the incidence of oxygen desaturation below 90%. The secondary outcomes were the ability to predict the desaturation and incidence of harmful events and false alarms, defined as an apnea waveform lasting more than 3 min without desaturation. Of the 45 participants, 43 completed the study. At least one desaturation event occurred in 12 patients (27.9%; 95% confidence interval 15.3-43.7%). In these 12 patients, more than half of the desaturation events were predictable in 9 patients by capnography and 11 patients by nasal pressure monitoring (p = 0.59). In the 43 patients, false alarms were detected in 7 patients with capnography and 11 patients with nasal pressure monitoring (p = 0.427). Harmful events unrelated to nasal pressure monitoring occurred in 2 patients. Nasal pressure monitoring is safe and possibly useful for respiratory monitoring despite false alarms during sedation.

Machine-Learning Model for the Prediction of Hypoxaemia during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography under Monitored Anaesthesia Care

PURPOSE

Hypoxaemia is a significant adverse event during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) under monitored anaesthesia care (MAC); however, no model has been developed to predict hypoxaemia. We aimed to develop and compare logistic regression (LR) and machine learning (ML) models to predict hypoxaemia during ERCP under MAC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We collected patient data from our institutional ERCP database. The study population was randomly divided into training and test sets (7:3). Models were fit to training data and evaluated on unseen test data. The training set was further split into k-fold (k=5) for tuning hyperparameters, such as feature selection and early stopping. Models were trained over k loops; the i-th fold was set aside as a validation set in the i-th loop. Model performance was measured using area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

We identified 6114 cases of ERCP under MAC, with a total hypoxaemia rate of 5.9%. The LR model was established by combining eight variables and had a test AUC of 0.693. The ML and LR models were evaluated on 30 independent data splits. The average test AUC for LR was 0.7230, which improved to 0.7336 by adding eight more variables with an l₁ regularisation-based selection technique and ensembling the LRs and gradient boosting algorithm (GBM). The high-risk group was discriminated using the GBM ensemble model, with a sensitivity and specificity of 63.6% and 72.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We established GBM ensemble model and LR model for risk prediction, which demonstrated good potential for preventing hypoxaemia during ERCP under MAC.

Efficacy and Safety of Deep Sedation and Anaesthesia for Complex Endoscopic Procedures—A Narrative Review

Propofol sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures is a widespread technique at present, which generates controversy worldwide when anaesthetic or non-anaesthetic personnel administer this form of sedation. There is some evidence for safe administered propofol sedation by non-anaesthetic personnel in patients undergoing endoscopy procedures, but there are only few randomised trials addressing the safety and efficacy of propofol in patients undergoing advanced procedures. A serious possible consequence of propofol sedation is the rapid and unpredictable progression from deep sedation to general anaesthesia mostly when elderly and frail patients are involved in the diagnosis or treatment of various neoplasia. This situation requires rescue measures with skilled airway management. The aim of this paper is to review the safety and efficacy aspects of sedation techniques, with special reference to propofol administration covering the whole patient journey, including preassessment, sedation options and discharge when advanced endoscopic procedures are performed.

The effectiveness of esketamine and propofol versus dezocine and propofol sedation during gastroscopy: A randomized controlled study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol is widely used in painless gastroscopy. However, sedation with propofol alone might increase the risk of respiratory and circulatory complications. This randomized clinical study compares the efficacy and safety of esketamine or dezocine combined with intravenous (IV) propofol in patients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 102 patients were enrolled in this study and randomized into two groups. All patients were adults aged 18-64 years who underwent upper gastrointestinal gastroscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups to receive esketamine (0.3 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group E) or dezocine (0.05 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group D). In both groups, the drugs were administered intravenously. The primary outcome was the dose of propofol which provided a satisfactory sedative effect, both to the endoscopist and the patients. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, side effects (such as hypotension, nausea and vomiting and agitation), and the number of adverse circulatory and respiratory events.

RESULTS

Data of 83 patients were analysed in the present study. Dosage of propofol required in group E (1.44 mg/kg ± 0.67 mg/kg) was significantly lower compared with that in group D (2.12 mg/kg ± 0.37 mg/kg) (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in recovery time, side effects, and the frequency of sedation-related adverse events between the two groups.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The study indicates that intravenous injection of propofol and esmketamine is more effective for gastroscopy. Use of esketamine reduces the total amount of propofol required in ASA I-II patients undergoing gastroscopy compared with single use of dezocine. It also provides more stable hemodynamics, without affecting the recovery time and side effects such as respiratory and circulatory adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (www.chictr.org.cn; registration number: ChiCTR2100051814) on 05/10/2021.

A Review of Sublingual Sufentanil Tablet (SST) and its Utility as an Analgesic Agent for Pain Procedures

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

High-flow nasal oxygenation reduces the risk of desaturation in adults receiving procedural sedation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Procedural sedation reduces patients’ discomfort and anxiety, facilitating performance of the examination and intervention. However, it may also cause adverse events, including airway obstruction and hypoxia. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) compared with that of standard oxygen therapy in adult patients undergoing procedural sedation.

Methods

We identified randomized controlled trials published before November 2020 based on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and ClinicalTrials.gov registry. Intraprocedural desaturation [peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) < 90%] was evaluated as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were the lowest SpO₂, need for airway intervention, oxygen therapy-related complications, and patient, operator, and anesthetist’s satisfaction.

Results

Six trials with a total of 2633 patients were reviewed. Patients using HFNO compared with standard oxygen therapy had a significantly lower risk of intraprocedural desaturation [risk ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04-0.87]. The lowest intraprocedural SpO₂ in HFNO group was significantly higher than that in standard oxygen therapy group (mean difference 4.19%, 95% CI 1.74-6.65).

Conclusions

Compared with standard oxygen therapy, HFNO may reduce the risk of desaturation and increase the lowest SpO₂ in adult patients undergoing sedation for medical procedures.

Moderate and deep procedural sedation-the role of proper monitoring and safe techniques in clinical practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Interventional pain management procedures provide significant improvement to patient quality of life and functionality. In-office procedures are becoming an increasingly more common site of pain management intervention for patients with minimal risk of harm.

RECENT FINDINGS

Moderate and deep sedation techniques can be used in patients with high anxiety, complex pharmacotherapy, or a low pain threshold. Proper guidance and oversight by an attending anesthesiologist, in addition to appropriate monitoring, are key. Epidural steroid injection complications rates have been cited at 2.4%, with the most common complications noted as persistent pain and flushing.

SUMMARY

Serious complication errors can be avoided with proper supervision and monitoring. The adherence to published societal recommendations and guidelines for indications of when to use moderate to deep sedation techniques, and appropriate supervision and monitoring methods, can avoid errors in interventional pain management procedures.

Current understanding of the impact of COVID-19 on gastrointestinal disease: Challenges and openings

The novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is caused by a positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus which belongs to the Coronaviridae family. In March 2019 the World Health Organization declared that COVID-19 was a pandemic. COVID-19 patients typically have a fever, dry cough, dyspnea, fatigue, and anosmia. Some patients also report gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, including diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, as well as liver enzyme abnormalities. Surprisingly, many studies have found severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral RNA in rectal swabs and stool specimens of asymptomatic COVID-19 patients. In addition, viral receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and transmembrane protease serine-type 2, were also found to be highly expressed in gastrointestinal epithelial cells of the intestinal mucosa. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 can dynamically infect and replicate in both GI and liver cells. Taken together these results indicate that the GI tract is a potential target of SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the present review summarizes the vital information available to date on COVID-19 and its impact on GI aspects.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Placement of Preloaded Fiducial Markers Shortens Procedure Time Compared to Back-Loaded Markers

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Fiducial markers are inert radiopaque gold or carbon markers implanted in or near pancreatic tumor to demarcate areas for image-guided radiation therapy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) pre-loaded fiducial needles (PLNs) have been developed to circumvent technical issues associated with traditional back-loaded fiducials (BLNs). We performed a randomized controlled trial to compare procedure times in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma undergoing EUS-guided placement of BLNs vs PLNs.

METHODS

In a prospective study, 44 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma referred for fiducial marker placement at 2 tertiary care centers were assigned to groups that received PLNs (n = 22) or BLNs (n = 22); each group had the same proportion of patients with tumors of different locations (head or neck vs body or tail).The procedure was standardized among all endoscopists and placement of a minimum of 3 markers inside the tumor was defined as technical success. The times for procedure and fiducial placement were recorded, total number of fiducial markers used documented, and grade of procedure difficulty ranked by passing the needle or deploying the fiducials. Other recorded variables included tumor characteristics, fluoroscopy use, and the number of fiducials clearly seen by EUS and fluoroscopy. The primary aim was to compare the duration of EUS-guided fiducial insertion of BLNs vs PLNs.

RESULTS

The median placement time was significantly shorter in the PLN group (9 min) than the BLN group (16 min) (P < .001). However, the 44% reduction in time did not reach pre-specified levels (≥60%). Similar results were found after stratifying by tumor location. Deployment of BLNs was easier than deployment of PLNs (P = .03). There was no significant difference between groups in technical success, number of fiducials placed, EUS or fluoroscopic visualization, or adverse events. During simulation computed tomography and image-guided radiation therapy, there was no difference between groups in visualization of fiducials, migration rate, or accuracy of placement.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized controlled trial of 44 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, we found EUS-guided placement of PLNs to require less time and produce similar results compared with BLNs. Further refinements in PLN delivery system are needed to increase the ease of deployment. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02332863.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Mandibular Advancement Bite Block Decrease Hypoxic Events during Sedative Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

During sedated endoscopic examinations, upper airway obstruction occurs. Nasal breathing often shifts to oral breathing during open mouth esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) which delivers humidified 100% oxygen at 30 L min⁻¹ may prevent hypoxemia. A mandibular advancement (MA) bite block with oxygen inlet directed to both mouth and nose may prevent airway obstruction during sedated EGD. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of these airway devices versus standard management. One hundred and eighty-nine patients were assessed for eligibility. One hundred and fifty-three were enrolled. This study randomly assigned eligible patients to three arms: the standard bite block and standard nasal cannula, HFNC, and MA bite block groups. EGD was performed after anaesthetic induction. The primary endpoint was the oxygen desaturation area under curve at 90% (AUC_Desat). The secondary endpoints were percentage of patients with hypoxic, upper airway obstruction, and apnoeic and rescue events. One hundred and fifty-three patients were enrolled. AUCdesat was significantly lower for HFNC and MA bite blocks versus the standard management (p= 0.019). The HFNC reduced hypoxic events by 18% despite similar airway obstruction and apnoeic events as standard group. The MA bite block reduced hypoxic events by 12% and airway obstructions by 32%. The HFNC and MA groups both showed a 16% and 14% reduction in the number of patients who received rescue intervention, respectively, compared to the standard group. The HFNC and MA bite block may both reduce degree and duration of hypoxemia. HFNC may decrease hypoxemic events while maintaining nasal patency is crucial during sedative EGD. The MA bite block may prevent airway obstruction and decrease the need for rescue intervention.

A randomized controlled trial evaluating general endotracheal anesthesia versus monitored anesthesia care and the incidence of sedation-related adverse events during ERCP in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

ERCP is a complex procedure often performed in patients at high risk for sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs). However, there is no current standard of care with regard to mode of sedation and airway management during ERCP. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of general endotracheal anesthesia (GEA) versus propofol-based monitored anesthesia care (MAC) without endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing ERCP at high risk for SRAEs.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing ERCP at high risk for SRAEs at a single center were invited to participate in this randomized controlled trial comparing GEA and MAC. Inclusion criteria were STOP-BANG score ≥3, abdominal ascites, body mass index ≥35, chronic lung disease, American Society of Anesthesiologists class >3, Mallampati class 4 airway, and moderate to heavy alcohol use. Exclusion criteria were preceding EUS, emergent ERCP, tracheostomy, unstable airway, gastric outlet obstruction or delayed gastric emptying, and altered foregut anatomy. The primary endpoint was composite incidence of SRAEs: hypoxemia, use of airway maneuvers, hypotension requiring vasopressors, sedation-related procedure interruption, cardiac arrhythmia, and respiratory failure. Secondary outcomes included procedure duration, cannulation success, in-room time, and immediate adverse events.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients (mean age, 61.1 ± 13.6 years; 36.5% women) were randomly assigned to GEA (n = 101) or MAC (n = 99) groups. Composite SRAEs were significantly higher in the MAC group compared with the GEA group (51.5% vs 9.9%, P < .001). This was primarily driven by the frequent need for airway maneuvers in the MAC group. Additionally, ERCP was interrupted in 10.1% of patients in the MAC group to convert to GEA because of respiratory instability refractory to airway maneuvers (n = 8) or significant retained gastric contents (n = 2). There were no statistically significant differences in cannulation, in-room, procedure, or fluoroscopy times between the 2 groups. All patients undergoing GEA were successfully extubated in the procedure room at completion of ERCP, and Aldrete scores in recovery did not differ between the 2 groups. There were no immediate adverse events.

CONCLUSION

In patients at high risk for SRAEs undergoing ERCP, sedation with GEA is associated with a significantly lower incidence of SRAEs, without impacting procedure duration, success, recovery, or in-room time. These data suggest that GEA should be used for ERCP in patients at high risk for SRAEs (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02850887.).

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGNS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00007768; Pre-results.

Effectiveness and safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy during a specific sedation training program for non-anesthesiologists

INTRODUCTION

sedation is a key component for the improvement of sedation quality. A correct administration requires appropriate training. We performed a study to compare sedation effectiveness, safety and patient satisfaction when administered by gastroenterologists, with and without specific training.

METHODS

a training program enrolled a group of gastroenterologists (trained group, n = 4) and their results were compared to those from a non-trained group (n = 3). ASA 1-3 patients who had undergone sedation by a gastroenterologist using midazolam and fentanyl were included over a period of 30 months. Safety was assessed in terms of the complication rate, effectiveness was assessed via the rate of completed endoscopic procedures and patient satisfaction was evaluated via a phone interview the day after the procedure.

RESULTS

a total of 3,475 patients were sedated by gastroenterologists during the study period. Significant differences were found that favored the trained group for completed procedures (5.6% vs 8.9%). A lower rate of excessive sedation (1.3% vs 8.61%), hypoxemia (0.72% vs 2.49%) and post-procedural pain (1.8% vs 4.3%) were also achieved. Patient satisfaction surpassed 99.5% and there were no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

our sedation training program improved the effectiveness and safety outcomes when compared to sedation administered by gastroenterologists without this specific training.

Polysomnographic assessment of respiratory disturbance during deep propofol sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric tumors

AIM

To investigate that polysomnographic monitoring can accurately evaluate respiratory disturbance incidence during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy compare to pulse oximetry alone.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included 10 elderly patients with early gastric cancer undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) under propofol sedation. Apart from routine cardiorespiratory monitoring, polysomnography measurements were acquired. The primary hypothesis was tested by comparing the apnea hypopnea index (AHI), defined as the number of apnea and hypopnea instances per hour during sedation, with and without hypoxemia; hypoxemia was defined as the reduction in oxygen saturation by ≥ 3% from baseline.

RESULTS

Polysomnography (PSG) detected 207 respiratory disturbances in the 10 patients. PSG yielded a significantly greater AHI (10.44 ± 5.68/h) compared with pulse oximetry (1.54 ± 1.81/h, P < 0.001), thus supporting our hypothesis. Obstructive AHI (9.26 ± 5.44/h) was significantly greater than central AHI (1.19 ± 0.90/h, P < 0.001). Compared with pulse oximetry, PSG detected the 25 instances of respiratory disturbances with hypoxemia 107.4 s earlier on average.

CONCLUSION

Compared with pulse oximetry, PSG can better detect respiratory irregularities and thus provide superior AHI values, leading to avoidance of fatal respiratory complications during ESD under propofol-induced sedation.

Prospective analysis of the complications, efficacy, and satisfaction level on the sedation performed by anaesthetists in gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To describe the anaesthesia/sedation complications during gastrointestinal endoscopy, as well as comparing scheduled procedures versus urgent procedures.

METHODS

A protocol was developed to define the anaesthesia/sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy, where the anaesthetist should always be present. These include ASA 3 and 4 patients, complex tests such as polypectomies, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or endoscopic ultrasound, deep sedation, or patients with probable difficult airway management. An analysis was made of the safety based on the complications recorded from the data directly collected automatically from the monitors, both during the sedation and in the recovery unit. An analysis was also performed on the risk factors associated with cardiorespiratory complications, the effectiveness based on the completed tests and the overall level of satisfaction through an interview using a satisfaction scale.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 3746 patients over a 7 year-period. The incidence of major complications was low, especially haemodynamic and respiratory complications. An incidence of hypoxaemia of 3% was found in scheduled endoscopy versus 5.7% in urgent endoscopy (P<.05). The rate of hypotension was also low, with significant differences between scheduled and urgent endoscopy (6.4% vs. 18.8%, P<.001). In present study, no test had to be suspended due to poor patient tolerance, and the satisfaction was high in more than 99% of cases.

CONCLUSION

The participation of the anaesthetist in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy has shown excellent results in this study, in terms of safety and efficacy, mainly in the most serious patients and complex tests, as well as a high level of satisfaction.

Establishing an anaesthetist-delivered propofol sedation service for advanced endoscopic procedures: implementing the RCA/BSG guidelines

BACKGROUND

Following recommendations from the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the British Society of Gastroenterology, we report our results of propofol sedation for complex endoscopic procedures delivered by a single consultant anaesthetist over a 5-year period.

METHODS

A weekly session was provided in the endoscopy department for procedures that were complex or could previously not be completed successfully. Deep sedation was provided by intermittent propofol bolus doses, supplemented with fentanyl where necessary, titrated to clinical effect. Patients were usually in semiprone or lateral positions and spontaneously breathed air supplemented with nasal oxygen. Service evaluation included patient recall, endoscopist satisfaction with conditions, procedural success and airway-related adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

We completed 1000 procedures, 42.5% of which were endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, with the remainder comprising a diverse range of endoscopic procedures of 3-156 min duration. Procedural conditions were excellent in 79% of cases, 261 procedures were completed which had been previously abandoned, 246 patients (24.6%) had a better experience than previously and none recalled any part of their procedure. Three patients required transient bag and mask ventilation, and nasal airways were used in 12 patients, but none required tracheal intubation or vasopressor support.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines facilitated a propofol sedation service with considerable benefits for patients and endoscopists. Provision of deep propofol sedation by an anaesthetist, in patients with an unsecured airway, appears practical, effective and efficient. Small adjustments to the airway were fairly common, but the incidence of adverse events and requirement for airway instrumentation was low.

Judicial Precedent-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines of Propofol in Sedative Esthetic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Propofol is has been widely used for sedation in the field of esthetic surgery because of its favorable pharmacokinetic profile. Propofol sedation-induced side effects are rare. However, when present, they can be serious. The number of malpractice claims associated with propofol sedation has increased in recent years. This study aims to show which procedures lead to the most claims in the field of esthetic surgery through a review of Korean precedents.

METHODS

Thirteen precedent cases of propofol sedation in the field of esthetic surgery were collected between 2000 and 2016. We analyzed the type of procedure, administration route, anesthesia provider, complications, timing of damaging events, average indemnification, plaintiff's (patients) winning rate, ratio and the reason of limitation of liability and the key factors affecting the judgement in these cases.

RESULTS

Most plaintiffs were women, and in most cases (11/13, 73.3%), the times of the damaging events were in maintenance and the anesthesia provider was the surgeon. The most common complication related to propofol sedation was hypoxic brain damage. Among the 13 cases, 12 were won by the plaintiff. The mean claim settlement was 339,455,814 KRW (USD 301,792.15). The key factors affecting the judgement were administration method and staff, monitoring method, preparation of emergency kit, response to emergencies, transfer to a higher-level hospital, detailed medical recording about event and informed consent.

CONCLUSION

The number of claims owing to propofol sedation after esthetic surgery is increasing. Close monitoring during the operation, immediate reaction to an event and thorough medical records were main key factors that influenced the judgement. Preoperative explanation about the possibility of complications was important. The findings will help surgeons achieve high patient satisfaction and reduce liability concerns.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Sedation assisted by an endoscopist (SAE) for complex endoscopic procedures. Is it time to change the current guidelines?

Currently, sedation in endoscopic procedures is considered a necessary condition and a criterion of quality in digestive endoscopy. The role of SAE in conventional endoscopic procedures is clearly established in clinical guidelines, but this is not so clear in complex endoscopic procedures, such as ERCP. In recent years, numerous studies have been published, with results similar to those noticed in this article, endorsing the safety, efficacy and efficiency of SAE, when performed by properly trained staff.

High body mass index is a risk factor for difficult deep sedation in percutaneous mitral valve repair

Background

The safety and efficacy of deep sedation (DS) in MitraClip^® procedures have been shown previously. However, clinical experience demonstrates that in some patients DS is difficult to achieve. We hypothesize that some patient characteristics can predict difficult DS.

Methods

We prospectively analysed 69 patients undergoing MitraClip^® procedures using DS. Application of DS was graded as simple (group 1) or difficult (group 2) depending on a cumulative score based on one point for each of the following criteria: decrease in oxygen saturation, retention of carbon dioxide, disruptive body movements, and the need for catecholamines. Patients with one point or less were classified as group 1, and patients with two or more points were classified as group 2.

Results

In 58 of 69 patients (84.1%), the performance of DS was simple, while in 11 patients (15.9%), DS was difficult to achieve. Patients with difficult DS were characterized by a higher body mass index (33.7 ± 6.0 kg/m² vs. 26.1 ± 4.1; p = 0.001), younger age (67 ± 13 years vs. 75 ± 13 years; p = 0.044), and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (36% ± 10 vs. 45% ± 14; p = 0.051) and presented more often with an obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (6.9% vs. 45.5%; p = 0.003). In the multivariate analysis, body mass index was an independent predictor of difficult DS. Using a body mass index of 31 kg/m² as a cut-off value, the sensitivity of predicting difficult DS was 73%, and the specificity was 88%. Using a body mass index of 35 kg/m² as a cut-off value, the specificity increased to 97%, with a sensitivity of 36%.

Conclusion

In patients with a higher body mass index who undergo MitraClip^® procedures, DS might be difficult to perform.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy under conscious sedation in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is safe: an observational study

OBJECTIVES

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive neuromuscular disease that causes muscle weakness with respiratory and swallowing dysfunction, eventually leading to death. Permanent enteral feeding is indicated in almost all patients. A percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube is considered the first choice, usually performed under conscious sedation (intravenous midazolam). Guidelines are very cautious with respect to sedation in ALS because of the risk for respiratory complications. In our tertiary referral hospital, conscious sedation has been used for many years.Our aim was to review 30-day complications in PEG performed under conscious sedation in ALS patients (without noninvasive positive pressure ventilation during the procedure).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review, including all ALS patients undergoing PEG under conscious sedation from October 2009 to April 2016, was performed.

RESULTS

Analysis included 45 (44% men) patients receiving intravenous midazolam sedation (mean dose 5 mg) during PEG placement, age 36-91 years (mean: 68.7 years). Forced vital capacity (FVC) was 24-116% (mean 68%), of which mild to moderate dysfunction (FVC 50-69%) was present in 42.2% of patients and (very) severe dysfunction (FVC <50%) in 8.8%. No respiratory complications (e.g. aspiration pneumonia) were observed. Other complications, for example, infection, bleeding and peritonitis occurred in, respectively, 8.9, 2.2 and 0%. Mean survival after PEG placement was 13.4 months (range: 1-45 months).

CONCLUSION

Conscious sedation during PEG insertion in ALS patients did not lead to respiratory complications or to an increase in other complications. Our data indicate that conscious sedation can be used safely in ALS patients with mild to moderate pulmonary dysfunction.

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 with propofol during ERCP: is the combination with esketamine more effective and safer than with alfentanil? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a gastrointestinal procedure that requires a relatively motionless patient during the intervention. Deep sedation by intravenous propofol combined with an opioid has recently become the preferred sedation technique. However, when high doses of propofol are used, side effects, namely respiratory depression, may occur. Esketamine has hypnotic, analgesic, and sympathomimetic effects. Our assumption is that a combination of propofol with esketamine reduces the dosage of individual drugs, thereby minimizing sedation side effects while keeping the same satisfaction level of patients and endoscopists.

Methods/design

The study will be performed as a randomized controlled multicenter trial. Patients undergoing ERCP, ≥ 18 years old, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I–III will be randomized after written informed consent to group K (propofol/esketamine) or to group A (propofol/alfentanil). The primary outcome, reflecting effectiveness of sedation, is the total dose of propofol. Secondary outcome parameters are patients’ and endoscopists’ satisfaction with the procedure and the number of sedation-related pulmonary and cardiovascular events. Data on sedation-related events are collected by recording of oxygen saturation (SpO₂), respiratory rate (RR), end-tidal CO₂ (etCO₂), heart rate (HR), arrhythmias (electrocardiogram (ECG)), and non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurements. Satisfaction parameters are collected by means of questionnaires before and after the procedure and on the following day.

Discussion

Esketamine is known for its effective anesthetic and analgesic effects maintaining spontaneous breathing and airway reflexes. Due to an increase in sympathetic tone, hypotension and cardiac depression is less common. Unfortunately esketamine is also known for its psychotomimetic effects. We aim to demonstrate that the combination of esketamine with propofol for sedation in patients subjected to ERCP interventions is nevertheless superior to a combination of propofol with an opioid.

Trial registration

Nederland’s Trial Register, NTR5486. Registered on 17 September 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2197-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Anesthetist-Directed Sedation Favors Success of Advanced Endoscopic Procedures

OBJECTIVES

Sedation is required to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) given the duration and complexity of these advanced procedures. Sedation options include anesthetist-directed sedation (ADS) vs. gastroenterologist-directed sedation (GDS). Although ADS has been shown to shorten induction and recovery times, it is not established whether it impacts likelihood of procedure completion. Our aim was to assess whether ADS impacts the success of advanced endoscopy procedures.

METHODS

We prospectively assessed the sedation strategy for patients undergoing ERCP and EUS between October 2010 and October 2013. Although assignment to ADS vs. GDS was not randomized, it was determined by day of the week. A sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching was used to model a randomized trial. The main outcome, procedure failure, was defined as an inability to satisfactorily complete the ERCP or EUS such that an additional endoscopic, radiographic, or surgical procedure was required. Failure was further categorized as failure due to inadequate sedation vs. technical problems.

RESULTS

During the 3-year study period, 60% of the 1,171 procedures were carried out with GDS and 40% were carried out with ADS. Failed procedures occurred in 13.0% of GDS cases compared with 8.9% of ADS procedures (multivariate odds ratio (OR): 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5-3.6)).This was driven by a higher rate of sedation failures in the GDS group, 7.0%, than in the ADS group, 1.3% (multivariate OR: 7.8 (95% CI: 3.3-18.8)). There was no difference in technical success between the GDS and ADS groups (multivariate OR: 1.2 (95% CI: 0.7-1.9)). We were able to match 417 GDS cases to 417 ADS cases based on procedure type, indication, and propensity score. Analysis of the propensity score-matched patients confirmed our findings of increased sedation failure (multivariate OR: 8.9 (95% CI: 2.5-32.1)) but not technical failure (multivariate OR: 1.2 (0.7-2.2)) in GDS compared with ADS procedures. Adverse events of sedation were rare in both groups. Failed ERCP in the GDS group resulted in a total of 93 additional days of hospitalization. We estimate that $67,891 would have been saved if ADS had been used for all ERCP procedures. No statistically significant difference in EUS success was identified, although this sub-analysis was limited by sample size.

CONCLUSION

ADS improves the success of advanced endoscopic procedures. Its routine use may increase the quality and efficiency of these services.

Clinical value of the Integrated Pulmonary Index® during sedation for interventional upper GI-endoscopy: A randomized, prospective tri-center study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The Integrated Pulmonary Index^® (IPI) is a mathematically-determined factor based on parameters of capnography and pulse oximetry, which should enable sensitive detection of impaired respiratory function. Aim was to investigate whether an additional measurement of the IPI during sedation for interventional endoscopy, compared to standard monitoring alone, allows a reduction of sedation-related respiratory depression.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

170 patients with standard monitoring randomly underwent either a blinded recording of capnography (control group, n=87) or capnography, including automated IPI calculation (IPI group, n=83), during deep sedation with midazolam and propofol. The primary endpoint was the maximum decrease of oxygen saturation from the baseline level before sedation. Secondary endpoints: incidence of hypoxemia (SaO₂<90%), other sedation-related complications (apnea rate, bradycardia, hypotension), patient cooperation and satisfaction (VAS).

RESULTS

Mean propofol dose in the IPI group (245±61mg) was comparable to the control group (225±47mg). The average drop of the oxygen saturation in the IPI group (6.5±4.1%) was nearly identical to that of the control group (7.1±4.6%, p=0.44). Apnea episodes >15s was found in 46 patients of the control and 31 of the IPI group (p<0.05). Frequency of occurrence of a drop in pO₂-saturation <90%, bradycardia <50/min or a drop of systolic pressure <90mmHg were not significantly different in both groups. Mechanical ventilation was not required in any case. Patient cooperation and satisfaction were assessed similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

A clinically appealing advantage of IPI-assessment during deep sedation with midazolam and propofol for interventional endoscopy could not be documented. However, IPI registration was more effective in reducing the incidence of apnea episodes.

Patient safety under deep sedation for digestive endoscopic procedures

Deep sedation with Propofol has become popular in recent years. The safety of this technique when administered by non-anaesthesiologists has created much controversy which at times is masked in a contentious debate on the economic sustainability of the health system. In 2011, the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy, along with 20 other organisations from European countries, revoked the recommendations of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy on the administration of Propofol by non-anaesthesiologists, citing that it is "extremely dangerous for the safety and quality of endoscopic procedures". The FDA in 2005 had already rejected the use of Propofol by non-anaesthesiologists in the United States, a prohibition which was reiterated in 2010 and is still in force, basing its evidence, among others, on the recommendations and guidelines of the Joint Commission and the Declaration of Helsinki. In Spain, the data sheet of Propofol restricts the use of the drug to anaesthesiologists and intensivists in intensive care units. In our opinion, the key elements to discuss (which we develop in our paper) are those related to: a) the morbidity and mortality of sedation (which is the same as speaking about the factors that influence its safety); b) the appropriate professionals to use this technique; and c) economic aspects related to the use of said technique. Our conclusion is that a technique cannot be declared safe when a high percentage of patients present with varying respiratory depression (and therefore hypoxaemia) and hypotension. We are confident that the collaboration of the Spanish Society of Digestive Pathology and the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy with the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy is the first step towards finding a satisfactory solution for everyone, and especially for our patients.

Bispectral Index Monitoring Reduces the Dosage of Propofol and Adverse Events in Sedation for Endobronchial Ultrasound

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend monitoring the anesthetic depth of sedation during respiratory endoscopy by using clinical scales despite their subjective nature and the potential change in the level of sedation caused by frequent stimulation. Monitoring by means of the bispectral index (BIS) has shown its utility in reducing the use of drugs and their adverse events in general anesthesia, but evidence in prolonged sedation is insufficient.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate BIS in patients undergoing endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS).

METHODS

A randomized cohort study of 90 patients with mediastinal lymph node involvement and/or lung or mediastinal lesions for whom EBUS was indicated, comparing the modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation scale clinical evaluation (n = 45) versus the BIS evaluation (n = 45) of sedation with propofol-remifentanil, was conducted in order to evaluate the clinical parameters, doses used, adverse events, and tolerance of the procedure.

RESULTS

We found a shorter waking time and a significantly lower dose of total propofol in the BIS group. Significantly fewer overall adverse events were recorded in the BIS group and included desaturation, hypotension, and bradypnea. Tolerance was better in the BIS group. No significant differences were found in terms of cough, memory of the procedure, or the level of difficulty of EBUS on the part of the pulmonologists.

CONCLUSIONS

BIS monitoring of sedation in EBUS makes it possible to reduce the dosage of propofol, thereby shortening the waking time and reducing adverse events. This form of monitoring should be taken into consideration in the future for systematic use in prolonged sedation, as in the case of EBUS.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Propofol-Mediated Sedation for Outpatient Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Propofol sedation for endoscopy may result in a rapid and unpredictable progression from deep sedation to general anesthesia, leading to potential complications. We investigated the incidence and predictors of sedation-related adverse events (SAEs) in nonintubated patients who underwent outpatient ERCP procedures with propofol sedation.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent propofol sedation for ERCP procedures. Patients were sedated using propofol in combination with low-dose opiates. Data collected included patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASAs) physical status, and procedure times. SAE includes hypoxia (pulse oximetry <90 %), hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg), and conversation to endotracheal intubation. Factors associated with SAEs were examined by univariate analysis and multivariate regression analysis (MVA).

RESULTS

A total of 3041 patients were evaluated. The median BMI was 25.2 kg/m(2), and the median ASA score was 3. The mean (±SD) duration of the procedures was 59 ± 23 min. Hypoxia requiring airway manipulation occurred in 28 % (n = 843) patients and hypotension requiring vasopressors in 0.4 % (n = 12). Forty-nine (1.6 %) patients required endotracheal intubation as a result of food in the stomach. Procedures underwent early termination in 8 (0.3 %) cases due to sedation-related hypotension (n = 5) and refractory laryngospasm (n = 3). Six patients were admitted after the ERCP for aspiration pneumonia as a result of sedation. Patients who developed SAE were older, had a higher mean BMI, and had longer mean procedure durations. On MVA, older age (p = 0.003), female sex (p = 0.001), BMI (p = 0.02), and ASA class ≥3 (p = 0.01) independently predicted SAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol can be used safely and effectively as a sedative agent for patients undergoing ERCPs when administered by trained professionals. Age, female sex, BMI, and ASA class ≥3 are independent predictors of SAEs.

Sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized controlled study of patient-controlled propofol sedation and that given by a nurse anesthetist

OBJECTIVE

Different regimens are used for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Our objectives were to compare safety, ease of treatment, recovery, and patients' experiences using patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol, nurse anesthetist-controlled sedation (ACS), or the department's standard of care, midazolam given by the procedure team (control group).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 281 adults in 301 procedures. The PCS group (n = 101) delivered bolus doses of 5 mg of propofol according to their need for sedation. The ACS group (n = 100) had 2-8 mg/kg/h of propofol infused, with the target for sedation being level 3 of the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scale. The control group was given 2-3 mg of midazolam for induction and additional 1 mg if required.

RESULTS

PCS and ACS increased the ease of the procedure and reduced the number of sedation failures compared to midazolam sedation (ACS n = 0; PCS n = 4; midazolam n = 20). The ACS group had more deeply sedated patients (OAA/S level 2), desaturation, and obstructed airways than the PCS and midazolam groups. Time to full recovery (Aldrete score ≥9) was shortest following PCS. PCS resulted in the least fatigue and pain after the procedure. Patients' preference for PCS and ACS was the same.

CONCLUSION

PCS with propofol is superior to midazolam and comparable to ACS. PCS resulted in a rapid recovery, fewer respiratory events, and was almost as effective as ACS in ensuring a successful examination.

Clinical analysis of moderate-to-deep-sedation by nonmedical sedation practitioners in 597 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether moderate-to-deep sedation with propofol and alfentanil can be administered safely by nonmedical sedation practitioners, and the outcomes of this practice in the Netherlands. We retrospectively analyzed the occurrence of sedation-related complications in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this study, 597 adult patients consecutively underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. The health status of the patients was screened according to a standardized protocol, and the patients were sedated by trained nonmedical sedation practitioners. Their vital signs were continuously monitored and recorded. All patients received oxygen, and the depth of sedation was continuously assessed and recorded. Mild and severe complications were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

All patients recovered uneventfully, and no mortality occurred. Overall, of the 597 sedated patients, 85 had mild and 4 had severe complications. Hypoxemia and upper airway obstruction, which were easily managed by trained nonmedical sedation practitioners, were the most common events. Hypotension was rare. No signs or symptoms suggestive of aspiration were reported.

CONCLUSION

Moderate-to-deep sedation has been and continues to be a risky medical procedure. Serious complications of propofol/opioid-based sedation, especially respiratory and cardiovascular adverse events, may occur. These complications need to be recognized rapidly and appropriately managed. Our study shows that well-trained nonmedical sedation practitioners can be entrusted to take responsibility for the safe administration of moderate-to-deep sedation.

Modeling the costs and benefits of capnography monitoring during procedural sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The addition of capnography to procedural sedation/analgesia (PSA) guidelines has been controversial due to limited evidence of clinical utility in moderate PSA and cost concerns.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A comprehensive model of PSA during gastrointestinal endoscopy was developed to capture adverse events (AEs), guideline interventions, outcomes, and costs. Randomized, controlled trials and large-scale studies were used to inform the model. The model compared outcomes using pulse oximetry alone with pulse oximetry plus capnography. Pulse oximetry was assumed at no cost, whereas capnography cost USD 4,000 per monitor. AE costs were obtained from literature review and Premier database analysis. The model population (n = 8,000) had mean characteristics of age 55.5 years, body mass index 26.2 kg/m(2), and 45.3 % male.

RESULTS

The addition of capnography resulted in a 27.2 % and 18.0 % reduction in the proportion of patients experiencing an AE during deep and moderate PSA, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated significant reductions in apnea and desaturation with capnography. The median (95 % credible interval) number needed to treat to avoid any adverse event was 8 (2; 72) for deep and 6 (-59; 92) for moderate. Reduced AEs resulted in cost savings that accounted for the additional upfront purchase cost. Capnography was estimated to reduce the cost per procedure by USD 85 (deep) or USD 35 (moderate).

CONCLUSIONS

Capnography is estimated to be cost-effective if not cost saving during PSA for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Savings were driven by improved patient safety, suggesting that capnography may have an important role in the safe provision of PSA.

An effective and safe sedation technique combining target-controlled infusion pump with propofol, intravenous pentazocine, and bispectral index monitoring for peroral double-balloon endoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Because peroral double-balloon endoscopy (DBE) is a time-consuming, painful procedure, sedation with analgesics, and/or anesthetics is generally required. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of our sedation protocol for peroral DBE, which consisted of target-controlled infusion (TCI) anesthesia with propofol, an intravenous bolus of pentazocine, and bispectral index (BIS) monitoring.

METHODS

A total of 34 consecutive patients who underwent DBE by the oral approach were enrolled. Patients were primarily sedated with a continuous infusion of propofol and adjusted in accordance with the BIS levels. The bolus infusion of pentazocine was performed when the propofol infusion was insufficient. The primary outcome measure of this study was to ensure the safety and efficacy of this sedation technique. The secondary purpose was to identify the characteristics of the patient who required the bolus infusion of pentazocine.

RESULTS

Five patients (14.7%) required a reduction in the dose of propofol. However, no patient experienced any serious adverse events. All patients (100%) and 80.6% (25/31) of endoscopists answered that the sedation protocol was 'excellent' or 'enough' for peroral DBE. Eleven patients (32.3%) required a bolus injection of pentazocine. Age <60 years and a total procedure time of >70 min were significant risk-factors for pentazocine use.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of propofol via TCI pump, bolus injection of pentazocine as needed, and BIS monitoring was a safe and effective procedure for peroral DBE. Reasonable satisfaction indices were obtained from both patients and endoscopists. Pentazocine was required for young patients and in cases with longer procedure times.

Efficacy and safety of a patient-positioning device (EZ-FIX) for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of a patient-positioning device (EZ-FIX) for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

A total of 105 patients were randomized to the EZ-FIX (n = 53) or non-EZ-FIX (n = 52) group in this prospective study. Midazolam and propofol, titrated to provide an adequate level of sedation during therapeutic ERCP, were administered by trained registered nurses under endoscopist supervision. Primary outcome measures were the total dose of propofol and sedative-related complications, including hypoxia and hypotension. Secondary outcome measures were recovery time and sedation satisfaction of the endoscopist, nurses, and patients.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the rate of hypoxia, but there was a statistical trend (EX-FIX group; n = 4, 7.55%, control group; n = 6, 11.53%, P = 0.06). The mean total dose of propofol was lower in the EZ-FIX group than in the non-EZ-FIX group (89.43 ± 49.8 mg vs 112.4 ± 53.8 mg, P = 0.025). In addition, the EZ-FIX group had a shorter mean recovery time (11.23 ± 4.61 mg vs 14.96 ± 5.12 mg, P < 0.001). Sedation satisfaction of the endoscopist and nurses was higher in the EX-FIX group than in the non-EZ-FIX group. Technical success rates of the procedure were 96.23% and 96.15%, respectively (P = 0.856). Procedure-related complications did not differ by group (11.32% vs 13.46%, respectively, P = 0.735).

CONCLUSION

Using EZ-FIX reduced the total dose of propofol and the recovery time, and increased the satisfaction of the endoscopist and nurses.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy

Recently, the need for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy has been increasing. However, the National Health Insurance Drug Price list in Japan does not include any drug specifically used for the sedation. Although benzodiazepines are the main medication, their use in cases of gastrointestinal endoscopy has not been approved. This has led the Japan Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Society to develop the first set of guidelines for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy on the basis of evidence-based medicine in collaboration with the Japanese Society for Anesthesiologists. The present guidelines comprise 14 statements, five of which were judged to be valid on the highest evidence level and three on the second highest level. The guidelines are not intended to strongly recommend the use of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but rather to indicate the policy as to the choice of appropriate procedures when such sedation is deemed necessary. In clinical practice, the final decision as to the use of sedation should be made by physicians considering patient willingness and physical condition.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective study comparing nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol and monitored anesthesia care

INTRODUCTION

Adequate sedation is one of the cornerstones of good quality gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE). Propofol sedation has increased significantly but there has been much debate over whether it can be administered by endoscopists. The aim of this prospective trial was to compare nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC).

METHODS

A total of 2000 outpatients undergoing GIE at Hospital Albert Einstein (São Paulo, Brazil), a tertiary-care private hospital, were divided into two matched groups: NAAP (n = 1000) and MAC (n = 1000). In NAAP, propofol doses were determined by the endoscopist. A second physician stayed in the room during the entire procedure, according to local regulations. In MAC, the anesthesiologist administered propofol.

RESULTS

In total, 1427 patients (71.3 %) were ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) class I and 573 were ASA class II. In NAAP, patients received more propofol + fentanyl (61.1 % vs. 50.5 %; P < 0.05) and there were fewer cases of deep sedation (44.7 % vs. 66.1 %; P < 0.05). Hypoxemia rates were similar (12.8 % for NAAP and 11.2 % for MAC; P = 0.3) but these reverted more rapidly in MAC (4.22 seconds vs. 7.26 seconds; P < 0.05). Agitation was more frequent in MAC (14.0 % vs. 5.6 %; P < 0.05). No later complications were observed. Patient satisfaction was very high and similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

In this setting, NAAP was as safe and effective as MAC for healthy patients undergoing GIE. Clinical trial ref. no.: U1111-1134-4430.

Sedation for interventional gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: are we overlooking the “pain”?

BACKGROUND

Although interventional gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are known to cause greater pain and discomfort than diagnostic procedures, the efficacy of adequate pain control or the difference in pain and amount of analgesic required according to type of intervention is not well known. This study was done to investigate the safety and efficacy of combining fentanyl with propofol for interventional GI endoscopic procedures and determine whether this method is superior to propofol monosedation.

METHODS

The data of 810 patients that underwent interventional GI endoscopic procedures under sedation with either propofol alone (Group P, n = 499) or propofol/fentanyl (Group PF, n = 311) at a single tertiary-care hospital between May 2012 and December 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Rates of respiratory and cardiovascular events, propofol and fentanyl requirements, and risk factors of respiratory events of the two groups were analyzed.

RESULTS

The incidence of respiratory events (P = 0.001), number of cases in which the procedure had to be interrupted for assisted mask bagging (P = 0.044), and propofol infusion rates were significantly lower in Group PF compared to Group P (P < 0.0001). The amount of fentanyl required for diagnostic procedures was significantly lower than that for interventional procedures (P < 0.001). Patients of Group PF showed a lower risk of developing respiratory events compared to Group P (OR 0.224, 95 % CI 0.069–0.724).

CONCLUSIONS

Combining fentanyl with propofol seems to reduce the risk of respiratory events compared with propofol monosedation during GI endoscopic procedures by providing effective analgesia.

Significant and safe shortening of the recovery time after flumazenil-reversed midazolam sedation

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy under midazolam sedation requires a 2-h recovery facility.

AIM

To study the potential of shortening patients' stay without jeopardizing patients' safety by the use of the benzodiazepine-antagonist flumazenil in the everyday practice and to investigate the feasibility of a study comparing midazolam with recovery with midazolam-flumazenil and immediate discharge.

METHODS

Consecutive ambulatory patients referred for endoscopy under midazolam sedation with ASA I or II, escorted by a person, were eligible. Flumazenil was given on arrival in the recovery room. Patients were discharged when adequate Aldrete scores and physical mobility were present. The next day, they were contacted by telephone.

RESULTS

A total of 1,506 patients participated. They received 5 mg midazolam, while 887 patients also received 50 mcg fentanyl. The median dose of flumazenil was 0.2 mg. Oxygen desaturation (sO2 <92%) occurred in 15% during the procedure without an effect on recovery and discharge times. Patients left the department 65 min after the last midazolam administration. The majority (82.7%) were fully alert during their journey home. At home, 2.7% went to bed, 45.2% took a nap, and 40% undertook activities. Almost every patient (98.8%) liked the shortened recovery time. Three patients had an incident (fainting, fall, and near-fall) without consequences. Based on this low incidence, a non-inferiority comparison of midazolam-flumazenil with midazolam-recovery would require a total of 32,650 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of flumazenil resulted in a safe shortening of the recovery period and offers the possibility for substantial savings in time, space, and nurse resources. A non-inferiority comparison will not be practicable.

The safety of propofol sedation for elective nonintubated esophagogastroduodenoscopy in pediatric patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety of deep sedation provided by pediatric intensivists for elective nonintubated esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

The sedation program at the Helen DeVos Children's Hospital.

PATIENTS

A 4-year retrospective analysis was done on all outpatient elective pediatric esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedures performed in an intensivist run sedation program. Safety was examined by reviewing the occurrence of minor and major adverse effects during esophagogastroduodenoscopy sedation. Interventions were studied and reported.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

During the study period, 12,447 sedations were performed by the pediatric sedation program for various procedures. Two thousand one hundred forty-seven patients received 2,325 sedations (18.6%) for esophagogastroduodenoscopies performed for various indications. During the same time period, 53 (one for every 40 esophagogastroduodenoscopy sedations) were screened, found unsuitable for nonintubated sedation, and referred for general anesthesia. There were 2,254 sedations with propofol, 65 methohexital, five ketamine, and one fentanyl/midazolam sedation. Propofol sedation proved safe with a 2.1% prevalence of minor adverse events and no major events. Methohexital, on the other hand, had higher rate (p < 0.001) of minor events and one patient developed an anaphylactic reaction to its use. Regression analysis showed that other sedative agents were 8.6 times more likely to be associated with complications than propofol (odds ratio, 8.6; 95% CI, 4.1-18.2; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that deep sedation for elective esophagogastroduodenoscopies can be provided safely in the appropriately screened patient by nonanesthesiologist physicians in a sedation program. These data suggest that propofol is a safe and effective agent for esophagogastroduodenoscopy sedation.

Is "really conscious" sedation with solely an opioid an alternative to every day used sedation regimes for colonoscopies in a teaching hospital? Midazolam/fentanyl, propofol/alfentanil, or alfentanil only for colonoscopy: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

We investigated the satisfaction of patients and endoscopists and concurrently safety aspects of an "alfentanil only" and two clinically routinely used sedation regimes in patients undergoing colonoscopy in a teaching hospital.

METHODS

One hundred and eighty patients were prospectively randomized in three groups: M (midazolam/fentanyl), A (alfentanil), and P (propofol/alfentanil); M and A were administered by an endoscopy nurse, P by an anesthesia nurse. Interventions, heart rate, saturation, electrocardiogram, noninvasive blood pressure, and expiratory CO₂ were monitored using video assistance. After endoscopy, patients and gastroenterologists completed questionnaires about satisfaction.

RESULTS

A high level of satisfaction was found in all groups, with patients in group P being more satisfied with their sedation experience (median 1.75, p < 0.001). Gastroenterologist satisfaction varied not significantly between the three alternatives. Patients in group A felt less drowsy, could communicate more rapidly than patients in both other groups, and met discharge criteria immediately after the end of the procedure. Respiratory events associated with sedation were observed in 43% patients in group M, 47% in group P, but only 13% in group A (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that alfentanil could be an alternative for sedation in colonoscopy even in the setting of a teaching hospital. It results in satisfied patients easily taking up information, and recovering rapidly. Although one might expect to observe more respiratory depression with an "opioid only" sedation technique without involvement of anesthesia partners, respiratory events were less frequent than when other methods were used.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for conscious sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: An open-label randomised controlled trial

Background:

Traditionally, midazolam has been used for providing conscious sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Recently, dexmedetomidine has been tried, but very little evidence exists to support its use.

Objective:

The primary objective was to compare haemodynamic, respiratory and recovery profile of both drugs. Secondary objective was to compare the degree of comfort experienced by patients and the usefulness of the drug to endoscopist.

Study Design:

Open-label Randomised Controlled Trial.

Methods:

Subjects between 18 and 60 years of age with American Society of Anaesthesiologist Grade I-II requiring ERCP were enrolled in two groups (30 each). Both groups received fentanyl 1 μg/kg IV at the beginning of ERCP. Group M received IV midazolam (0.04 mg/kg) and additional 0.5 mg doses until Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score reached 3-4. Group D received dexmedetomidine at loading dose of 1 μg/kg over 10 min followed by 0.5 μg/kg/h infusion until RSS reached 3-4. The vital parameters (heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), respiration rate, SpO₂), time to achieve RSS 3-4 and facial pain score (FPS) were compared during and after the procedure. In the recovery room, time to reach modified Aldrete score (MAS) 9-10 and patient and surgeon's satisfaction scores was also recorded and compared. Any complication during or after the procedure were also noted.

Results:

In Group D, patients had lower HR and FPS at 5, 10 and 15 min following the initiation of sedation (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in BP and respiratory rate. The procedure elicited a gag response in 29 (97%) and 7 (23%) subjects in Group M and Group D respectively (P<0.05). MAS of 9-10 at 5 min during recovery was achieved in 27 (90%) subjects in Group D in contrast to 5 (17%) in Group M (P<0.05). Dexmedetomidine showed higher patient and surgeon satisfaction scores (P<0.05).

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine can be a superior alternative to midazolam for conscious sedation in ERCP.

Efficacy of bispectral index monitoring during balanced propofol sedation for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Appropriate use of propofol is necessary, and objective monitoring of sedation with propofol may be helpful. Studies on the efficacy of bispectral index (BIS) monitoring in deep sedation have been conducted, but its efficacy in colonoscopy with moderate sedation is unknown. In this study, the efficacy of BIS monitoring during colonoscopy with moderate level sedation via balanced propofol sedation was investigated.

METHODS

To determine the cut-off value of BIS before the test, an optimal BIS value was determined. Patients who were scheduled to undergo outpatient colonoscopy were prospectively randomized to either a BIS or control group. Finally, a total of 115 patients were selected for this study. The satisfaction level, the complication, and the dosage of the administered propofol were compared.

RESULTS

The BIS values and the modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation scores (MOAA/S) were positively correlated (r=0.66 and p<0.001). The optimal cut-off value of BIS for maintaining moderate sedation was 81, and the area under the ROC curve was 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.93), indicating high prediction accuracy. However, there was no difference between the BIS group and the control group in levels of satisfaction of either patients or endoscopists. In addition, there was no difference in the complication and the required dose of propofol between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

BIS and clinical sedation scores, MOAA/S scores, showed a high level of correlation. However, no significant efficacy was observed in the BIS group who underwent outpatient colonoscopy.