Propofol sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with liver cirrhosis as an alternative to midazolam to avoid acute deterioration of minimal encephalopathy: a randomized, controlled study

Moderate Sedation or Deep Sedation for ERCP: What Are the Preferences in the Literature?

One of the most essential procedures for individuals with biliopancreatic disorders is endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). It is based on the combination of endoscopy and radiology to study the biliopancreatic ducts and apply therapeutic solutions. ERCP is currently used to treat choledocholithiasis with or without cholangitis, as well as pancreatic duct stones, benign bile, and pancreatic leaks. On the other hand, ERCP is an unpleasant procedure that must be conducted under anesthetic (moderate sedation, deep sedation, or general anesthesia). With procedures becoming more challenging, the role of anesthesia in ERCP has become even more relevant, and the use of general anesthesia has become better defined. In the last decades, many drugs have been used and some new drugs, like dexmedetomidine, have been recently introduced for sedation or anesthesia during ERCP. Moreover, the scientific community is still divided on the level of sedation to be applied, as well as on appropriate airway management. We therefore performed a narrative review of the literature to assess currently available anesthetic medications for elective ERCP and evidence supporting their effectiveness.

Position paper on perioperative management and surgical risk in the patient with cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

Management of the patient with cirrhosis of the liver that requires surgical treatment has been relatively unexplored. In Mexico, there is currently no formal stance or expert recommendations to guide clinical decision-making in this context.

AIMS

The present position paper reviews the existing evidence on risks, prognoses, precautions, special care, and specific management or procedures for patients with cirrhosis that require surgical interventions or invasive procedures. Our aim is to provide recommendations by an expert panel, based on the best published evidence, and consequently ensure timely, quality, efficient, and low-risk care for this specific group of patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven recommendations were developed that address preoperative considerations, intraoperative settings, and postoperative follow-up and care.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment and care of patients with cirrhosis that require major surgical or invasive procedures should be overseen by a multidisciplinary team that includes the anesthesiologist, hepatologist, gastroenterologist, and clinical nutritionist. With respect to decompensated patients, a nephrology specialist may be required, given that kidney function is also a parameter involved in the prognosis of these patients.

Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnostic and procedural sedation

Safe and effective sedation depends on various factors, such as the choice of sedatives, sedation techniques used, experience of the sedation provider, degree of sedation-related education and training, equipment and healthcare worker availability, the patient's underlying diseases, and the procedure being performed. The purpose of these evidence-based multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines is to ensure the safety and efficacy of sedation, thereby contributing to patient safety and ultimately improving public health. These clinical practice guidelines comprise 15 key questions covering various topics related to the following: the sedation providers; medications and equipment available; appropriate patient selection; anesthesiologist referrals for high-risk patients; pre-sedation fasting; comparison of representative drugs used in adult and pediatric patients; respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and sedation depth monitoring during sedation; management of respiratory complications during pediatric sedation; and discharge criteria. The recommendations in these clinical practice guidelines were systematically developed to assist providers and patients in sedation-related decision making for diagnostic and therapeutic examinations or procedures. Depending on the characteristics of primary, secondary, and tertiary care institutions as well as the clinical needs and limitations, sedation providers at each medical institution may choose to apply the recommendations as they are, modify them appropriately, or reject them completely.

Safety and tolerability of esketamine in propofol based sedation for endoscopic variceal ligation with or without injection sclerotherapy: Randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Esketamine is an S (+) enantiomer of ketamine with greater potency and similar psychomimetic effects compared to racemic ketamine. We aimed to explore the safety of esketamine in different doses as an adjuvant to propofol in patients undergoing endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) with or without injection sclerotherapy.

METHODS

One hundred patients were randomized to receive sedation with propofol 1.5 mg/kg in combination with sufentanil 0.1 μg/kg (group S), esketamine 0.2 mg/kg (group E0.2), esketamine 0.3 mg/kg (group E0.3), or esketamine 0.4 mg/kg (group E0.4) for EVL (n = 25 each). Hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were recorded during the procedure. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension; secondary outcomes included the incidence of desaturation, positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) after the procedure, pain score after the procedure, and secretion volume.

RESULTS

The incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in groups E0.2 (36%), E0.3 (20%), and E0.4 (24%) than in group S (72%). The incidence of SpO2  ≤94% was significantly lower in group E0.4 (4%) than in group S (32%). No significant intergroup difference was found in the PANSS assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining 0.4 mg/kg esketamine with propofol sedation was optimal to facilitate EVL with stable hemodynamic status and better respiratory function during the procedure, without significant psychomimetic side-effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Trial ID: ChiCTR2100047033, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=127518).

General anesthesia in patients with hepatic encephalopathy and acute variceal bleeding undergoing endoscopic treatment: A retrospective study

The management of cirrhotic patient with encephalopathy and acute variceal bleeding (AVB) remains a clinical challenge with a high mortality. Early endoscopic therapies are frequently applied in patients with AVB. However, the application of general anesthesia in endoscopic surgery for patients with hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is pretty challenging. The present study aimed to evaluate the possible effect of general anesthesia with tracheal intubation on patient complicated with encephalopathy and AVB during endoscopic procedure. Thirty-six cirrhotic patients with encephalopathy and AVB were retrospectively studied, 14 patients underwent endoscopic treatment under general anesthesia with tracheal intubation, and 22 patients received pharmacological treatment, or and endoscopic therapy without general anesthesia served as the control group. Routine clinical and laboratory data were collected. The total mortality rate was 13.9% (5/36), 2 (14.3%) in the anesthesia group, 3 (13.6%) in the control group. The child-Pugh class of death cases were all grade C, 3 (60%) of them were in the stage IV of HE. The stage of HE was all improved in the 2 groups, 12 (85.8 %) patients were totally recovered from consciousness disturbance in the anesthesia group and 16 (72.7 %) in the control group respectively, the difference between the 2 groups was not significant (P>0.05). Except the death cases, there were still 3 patients in the control group had impaired consciousness at discharge. Child-Pugh score, Child-Pugh class and the stage of HE in the anesthesia group were significantly improved at discharge compared with those before operation. General anesthesia does not aggravate the severity of encephalopathy, and endoscopic treatment under general anesthesia with tracheal intubation is effective for HE patients complicated with AVB.

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

Background/aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Safety, Efficacy and High-Quality Standards of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Procedures in Personalized Sedoanalgesia Managed by the Gastroenterologist: A Retrospective Study

Performing GI endoscopy under sedoanalgesia improves the quality-indices of the examination, in particular for cecal intubation and adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy. The implementation of procedural sedoanalgesia in GI endoscopy is also strongly recommended by the guidelines of the major international scientific societies. Nevertheless, there are regional barriers that prevent the widespread adoption of this good practice. A retrospective monocentric analytic study was performed on a cohort of 529 patients who underwent EGDS/Colonoscopy in sedoanalgesia, with personalized dosage of Fentanyl and Midazolam. ASA class, age and weight were collected for each patient. The vital parameters were recorded during, pre- and post-procedure. The rates of cecal intubation and of procedure-related complications were entered. The VAS scale was used to evaluate the efficacy of sedoanalgesia, and the Aldrete score was used for patient discharge criteria. No clinically significant differences were found between vital signs pre- and post-procedure. Both anesthesia and endoscopic-related complications occurring were few and successfully managed. At the end of examination, both the mean Aldrete score (89.56), and the VAS score (<4 in 99.1%) were suitable for discharge. For the colonoscopies, the cumulative adenoma detection rate (25%) and the cecal intubation rate in the general group (98%) and in the colorectal cancer screening group (100%) were satisfying. Pain control management is an ethical and medical issue aimed at increasing both patient compliance and the quality of the procedures. The findings of this work underscore that in selected patients personalized sedoanalgesia in GI endoscopy can be safely managed by gastroenterologists.

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patient: Issues on the table

Patients with liver cirrhosis are fragile and present specific clinical hallmarks. When undergoing to gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, these subjects require an individual pre evaluation, taking into account: Level of haemostasis impairment, the individual risk of infection, the impact of sedation on hepatic encephalopathy and other factors. The overall assessment of liver function, employing common scoring systems, should be also assessed in the preprocedural phase. Beside some common general problems, regarding GI endoscopy in cirrhotic subjects, also specific issues are present for some frequent indications or procedures. For instance, despite an increased incidence of adenomas in cirrhosis, colon cancer screening remains suboptimal in subjects with this disease. Several studies in fact demonstrated liver cirrhosis as a negative factor for an adequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. On the other hand, also the routine assessment of gastroesophageal varices during upper GI endoscopy presents some concern, since important inter-observer variability or incomplete description of endoscopic findings has been reported in some studies. In this review we discussed in details the most relevant issues that may be considered while performing general GI endoscopic practice, in patient with cirrhosis. For most of these issues there are no guidelines or clear indications. Moreover until now, few studies focused on these aspects. We believe that targeting these issues with corrective measures may be helpful to develop a tailored endoscopic approach for cirrhosis, in the future.

Clinical outcomes of sedation during emergency endoscopic band ligation for variceal bleeding: Multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Few studies have directly compared the efficacy of sedated- and un-sedated endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for acute variceal bleeding. We aimed to determine whether sedation during EVL in patients with variceal bleeding is safe and effective.

METHODS

We analyzed data from patients who underwent EVL for acute variceal bleeding according to sedation in six hospitals of Hallym University Medical Center. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as a failure to control bleeding, death during EVL, or rebleeding within 5 days. Secondary endpoints included the procedure time, adverse events, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Of 1,300 patients who were included, only 430 (33.1%) received sedation during EVL. Propofol alone was used for sedation in 85% of sedated-EVLs. The mean procedure time in the sedation group was shorter than that of the non-sedation group (12.4 ± 9.5 min versus 13.8 ± 9.4 min, P = 0.010). The proportion of treatment failure did not differ between the groups (7.4% versus 9.1%, P = 0.374). In the multivariable analysis, an AIMS65 score ≥2 and blood transfusion within 72 hours were associated with treatment failure of EVL; however, the use of sedation was not (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.96 [0.60-1.51]). Adverse events during EVL and hepatic encephalopathy did not differ between the two groups. Sedation also did not affect the 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [95% CI] = 0.99 [0.66-1.47]).

CONCLUSION

Sedation reduced the procedure time of EVL. Sedation is safe to use during EVL for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

Propofol vs midazolam sedation for elective endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, LILACS databases. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) were included. The outcomes studied were procedure time, recovery time, discharge time, and adverse events (bradycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3,576 records. Out of these, 8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients (302 in the propofol group and 294 in the midazolam group) were included for the final analysis. Procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups (MD: 0.25, 95%CI: -0.64 to 1.13, P = 0.59). Recovery time (MD: -8.19, 95%CI: -10.59 to -5.79, P < 0.00001). and discharge time were significantly less in the propofol group (MD: -12.98, 95%CI: -18.46 to -7.50, P < 0.00001). Adverse events were similar in both groups (RD: 0.02, 95%CI: 0-0.04, P = 0.58). Moreover, no significant difference was found for bradycardia (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.16), hypotension (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.17), and hypoxemia (RD: 0.00, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.04, P = 0.93). Five studies had low risk of bias, two demonstrated some concerns, and one presented high risk. The quality of the evidence was very low for procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events; while low for discharge time.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs show that propofol has shorter recovery and patient discharge time as compared to midazolam with a similar rate of adverse events. These results suggest that propofol should be the preferred agent for sedation in patients with cirrhosis.

Neurologic Safety of Etomidate-Based Sedation during Upper Endoscopy in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis Compared with Propofol: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

(1) Background: Although etomidate-based sedation is an effective and safe protocol in endoscopic procedures, there is a lack of evidence regarding the safety of etomidate in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC). This study aimed to compare the neurologic safety and efficacy of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation in patients with LC. (2) Methods: From December 2017 to December 2019, consecutive cirrhotic patients who underwent sedative endoscopy using either etomidate or propofol were randomly recruited. The primary endpoint was the number connection test (NCT), and the secondary endpoints included factors for the safety of sedatives during endoscopy. (3) Results: 63 patients were enrolled in each of the etomidate and propofol groups. The NCT times were significantly lower in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. Furthermore, severe or very severe degree of encephalopathy was higher in the propofol group but was not significantly different. Pharmacological properties and the overall incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between the groups. (4) Conclusion: Etomidate-based sedation exacerbates neither subclinical nor overt hepatic encephalopathy. It guarantees efficacies similar to those of propofol regarding rapid sedation, fast recovery, and early discharge, with no increased risk of adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events in patients with LC.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety profile of sedative endoscopy including cognitive performance in liver cirrhosis: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

The indiscriminate use of sedative drugs during endoscopy can pose multiple risks including cognitive impairment in advanced liver cirrhosis. However, the data are scarce regarding which sedative drugs are safest in these populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety profiles including cognitive performance among midazolam, propofol, and combination therapy in advanced cirrhotic patients. This double-blind randomized controlled study included 60 consecutive advanced cirrhotic patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The Stroop application was used to screen for cognitive impairment. Patients were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups, midazolam, propofol, or the combination group, and underwent Stroop test before and two hours after the completion of endoscopy. Hemodynamic safety and the subjective satisfaction score were also evaluated. Patients did not show significant changes in on-time or off-time on the Stroop test before and two hours after sedatives, and there was no significant difference among the 3 treatment groups. Also, there were no significant vital sign changes after sedatives. Time-to-recovery was longest in midazolam group, and patient awakening and patient memory were highest in propofol group. However, all 3 groups showed no difference in patient satisfaction, but the combination group was more preferred in terms of subjective satisfaction by physicians. Factors affecting worsened Stroop speed after sedatives were older age, low education level and high MELD score. All sedative methods using midazolam, propofol, or combination therapy showed similar safety profile in advanced cirrhosis, and were not associated with increased risk of cognitive impairment.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety and effectiveness of midazolam for cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopic variceal ligation

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is an established treatment for esophageal variceal bleeding. Midazolam (MDZ) is most commonly used for sedation during endoscopic procedures. However, adverse events (AEs) may occur more frequently in patients with cirrhosis due to altered MDZ metabolism.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 325 patients with cirrhosis who received EVL.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in treatment outcome and procedure time among 151 patients in the MDZ group and 169 patients in the non-MDZ group. Desaturation (23.2% vs. 7.7%, p<0.01), bradycardia (22.5% vs. 17.2%, p=0.03), and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) (6.6% vs. 0.6%, p<0.01) were more common in the MDZ group than in the non-MDZ group. Logistic regression analyses revealed that an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of ≥2 (p<0.01) and the use of MDZ (p<0.01) were associated with the development of overall AEs. An ECOG score of ≥2 (p=0.01), high serum creatinine level (p=0.02), and the use of MDZ (p<0.01) were significant risk factors for HE.

CONCLUSION

Extreme caution should be taken when sedating patients with cirrhosis receiving EVL due to the AEs associated with the use of MDZ.

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 is a more effective and safer sedative agent than midazolam in endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of sedation during endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) for esophageal varices (EVs) in patients with liver cirrhosis remains unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety between propofol- and midazolam-based sedation for EIS.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with EVs were prospectively and randomly assigned to midazolam-based (Midazolam group) or propofol-based (Propofol group) sedation. All patients underwent a number connection test (NCT) to evaluate minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) on the day before and at 2 and 24 hours following EIS. The primary endpoint was exacerbation of MHE after EIS, which was defined as deterioration of the NCT. The secondary endpoints were postoperative awareness, technical success rate, frequency of body movement, patient and operator satisfaction, cardiorespiratory dynamics during EIS, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Exacerbations of MHE at 2 hours after EIS compared with those before EIS were not significantly different between the two groups. In both groups, the deterioration of NCT scores before and 2 hours after EIS was observed (Propofol group: 60.0 vs. 70.0 s, P = 0.026; Midazolam group: 42.5 vs. 67.0 s, P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in awareness, technical success rate, or patient satisfaction. However, the frequency of body movement in the Propofol group was significantly lower than that in the Midazolam group (1 vs. 4, P = 0.045), and operator satisfaction in the Propofol group was significantly higher than that in the Midazolam group (P = 0.016). No adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol-based sedation exacerbated MHE after EIS similarly to midazolam-based sedation in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, propofol-based sedation provided stable sedation with a lower frequency of body movements and high operator satisfaction.

Practice Guidelines for Moderate Procedural Sedation and Analgesia 2018

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

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.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in the cirrhotic patient

As advances in liver disease continue, including the increasing use of liver transplantation, the endoscopist needs to be familiar with the standards of care and potential complications in the management of the cirrhotic population. This includes both elective endoscopic procedures, such as screening colonoscopies and variceal banding, as well as the acutely bleeding cirrhotic patient. Peri-procedural management and standards of care for acute gastrointestinal hemorrhaging of cirrhotic patients will be emphasized. This article will focus on the plethora of data available to highlight the benefits of endoscopic intervention in the care of patients with liver disease and outline the areas of future emphasis.

Propofol versus midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is often achieved using propofol or midazolam in general population. However, impaired protein synthesis, altered drug metabolism, and compromised hepatic blood flow in patients with liver cirrhosis might affect the pharmacokinetics of sedatives, placing cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy at a greater risk of adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess comparative efficacies and safety of propofol and midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy.

METHODS

Randomized, controlled trials comparing propofol with midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were selected. We performed the meta-analysis, using a random-effect model, the Review Manager, Version 5.2, statistical software package (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Five studies between 2003 and 2012, including 433 patients, were included. Propofol provided a shorter time to sedation (weight mean difference: -2.76 min, 95% confidence interval: -3.00 to -2.51) and a shorter recovery time (weight mean difference -6.17 min, 95% confidence interval: -6.81 to -5.54) than midazolam did. No intergroup difference in the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, or hypoxemia was observed. Midazolam was associated with the deterioration of psychometric scores for a longer period than propofol.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that Propofol sedation for endoscopy provides more rapid sedation and recovery than midazolam does. The risk of sedation-related side effects for propofol does not differ significantly from that of midazolam. The efficacy of propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy is superior to those of midazolam.

Endoscopic band ligation and esophageal stents for acute variceal bleeding

Patients with portal hypertension and esophageal varices are at risk of bleeding due to a progressive increase in portal pressure that may rupture the variceal wall. Appropriate treatment with initial general measures, such as resuscitation, a restrictive transfusion policy, antibiotic prophylaxis, pharmacologic therapy with vasoconstrictors, and endoscopic therapy with endoscopic band ligation are mandatory. However, 10% to 15% of patients fail initial endoscopic therapy and thus rescue therapies are needed. This article reviews the current endoscopic strategies with band ligation and esophageal stents for patients with acute variceal bleeding.

The safety of combined sedation with propofol plus fentanyl for endoscopy screening and endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhotic patients

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the safety of combined sedation with propofol plus fentanyl in patients with liver cirrhosis during screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (SEGD) and a secondary prophylaxis for esophageal varices, endoscopic gastrointestinal ligation (EVL).

METHODS

A total of 309 patients with liver cirrhosis were enrolled and divided into the sedated SEGD group (n = 83), the sedated EVL group (n = 137) and the conscious EVL group (n = 89), respectively, and 100 participants with no liver diseases who underwent endoscopy for gastritis were regarded as the sedated control group. Patients in the sedated groups were administrated with propofol plus fentanyl during the endoscopic procedures and their minimal hepatic encephalopathy and sedation-related complications, including aspiration, hypoxia, hypotension and bradycardia, were evaluated and compared. The assessments of patient satisfaction and patient cooperation in the sedated and the conscious EVL groups were conducted.

RESULTS

The incidences of complications during the endoscopic procedures were not significantly different among the sedated groups (20.5% in the sedated SEGD group, 22.6% in the sedated EVL group and 19.0% in the sedated control group). No minimal hepatic encephalopathy was induced in the sedated groups. More patients in the sedated EVL group were satisfactory with the procedure compared with the conscious EVL group, as evaluated by both endoscopists and the cirrhotic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A combined sedation with propofol plus fentanyl is safe for EVL as well as for SEGD in cirrhotic patients. Sedation might make it easier for endoscopists to perform procedures and might be more acceptable for cirrhotic patients.

Is propofol safe when administered to cirrhotic patients during sedative endoscopy?

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In patients with liver cirrhosis, drugs acting on the central nervous system can lead to hepatic encephalopathy and the effects may be prolonged. Recently, misuse of propofol has been reported and the associated risk of death have become an issue. Propofol is commonly used during sedative endoscopy; therefore, its safety in high-risk groups must be further investigated. We performed a pilot study of the safety and efficacy of propofol during endoscopy in Korean patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed under sedation with propofol along with careful monitoring in 20 patients with liver cirrhosis and 20 control subjects. The presence or development of hepatic encephalopathy was assessed using the number connection test and neurologic examination.

RESULTS

Neither respiratory depression nor clinically significant hypotension were observed. Immediate postanesthetic recovery at 5 and 10 minutes after the procedure was delayed in the cirrhotic patients compared with the control group; however, at 30 minutes, the postanesthetic recovery was similar in both groups. Baseline psychomotor performance was more impaired in cirrhotic patients, but propofol was not associated with deteriorated psychomotor function even in cirrhotic patients with a minimal hepatic encephalopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation with propofol was well tolerated in cirrhotic patients. No newly developed hepatic encephalopathy was observed.

Impact of deep sedation on the accuracy of hepatic and portal venous pressure measurements in patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) offers valuable prognostic information in patients with cirrhosis. In specific circumstances, (children, agitated patients, TIPS placement) deep sedation is required. This study aims to assess the impact of deep sedation on the accuracy of hepatic/portal pressure measurements.

METHODS

Forty-four patients were included. Measurements of baseline HVPG (n = 30), HVPG response to i.v. propranolol (n = 11), portal pressure gradient (PPG) after TIPS (n = 27) and of cardio-pulmonary pressures (n = 25) were obtained in awake conditions and under deep sedation with propofol and remifentanil.

RESULTS

During deep sedation, a marked oscillation within respiratory cycle was observed in abdominal pressures. End-expiratory sedated HVPG showed a better agreement with awake HVPG (intra-class correlation coefficient - ICC 0.864) than end-inspiratory HVPG (ICC 0.796). However, in almost half of the patients both values differed by more than 10%. Accuracy was not improved by using mean HVPG along the respiratory cycle. Similarly, changes in HVPG caused by propranolol while under sedation had a poor agreement to those obtained in awake conditions. Indeed, about a half of patients were misclassified according to the 10% HVPG reduction target. After TIPS, PPG values obtained under sedation were significantly different to awake PPG, usually underestimating the awake value. The systemic hemodynamic changes induced by sedation were not associated to a greater variability of PPG/HVPG measurements.

CONCLUSION

Deep sedation with propofol and remifentanil adds substantial variability and uncertainty to HVPG/PPG measurements. This must be considered when using these values to estimate prognosis, or targeting HVPG/PPG reductions.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

The influence of the severity of chronic virus-related liver disease on propofol requirements during propofol-remifentanil anesthesia

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of chronic virus- related liver disease severity on propofol requirements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, 48 male patients with chronic hepatitis B infection were divided into three groups according to Child-Turcotte-Pugh classification of liver function (groups A, B, and C with mild, moderate and severe liver disease, respectively). After intubation, propofol concentration was adjusted by ± 0.3 μg/mL increments to maintain bispectral index in the range of 40-60. Target propofol concentrations at anesthesia initiation, pre-intubation and pre-incision were recorded.

RESULTS

The initial concentration used in group C was significantly lower than that used in group A or B (p<0.05), whereas no difference was observed between groups A and B. At pre-intubation, the actual required concentration of propofol increased significantly (3.2 μg/mL) in group A (p<0.05), which lead to significant differences between the groups (p<0.05). At pre-incision, the requirements for propofol decreased significantly in both groups A and B (3.0 μg/mL and 2.7 μg/mL, respectively) compared with those at pre-intubation (p<0.05), and were significantly different for all three groups (p<0.05), with group C demonstrating the lowest requirement (2.2 μg/mL). The required concentrations of propofol at pre-incision were similar to those at induction.

CONCLUSION

In this study, propofol requirements administered by target-controlled infusion to maintain similar depths of hypnosis were shown to depend on the severity of chronic virus-related liver dysfunction. In other words, patients with the most severe liver dysfunction required the least amount of propofol.

The use of propofol as a sedative agent in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with traditional sedative agents.

METHODS

RCTs comparing the effects of propofol and traditional sedative agents during gastrointestinal endoscopy were found on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Cardiopulmonary complications (i.e., hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmia, and apnea) and sedation profiles were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two original RCTs investigating a total of 1,798 patients, of whom 912 received propofol only and 886 received traditional sedative agents only, met the inclusion criteria. Propofol use was associated with shorter recovery (13 studies, 1,165 patients; WMD -19.75; 95% CI -27.65, 11.86) and discharge times (seven studies, 471 patients; WMD -29.48; 95% CI -44.13, -14.83), higher post-anesthesia recovery scores (four studies, 503 patients; WMD 2.03; 95% CI 1.59, 2.46), better sedation (nine studies, 592 patients; OR 4.78; 95% CI 2.56, 8.93), and greater patient cooperation (six studies, 709 patients; WMD 1.27; 95% CI 0.53, 2.02), as well as more local pain on injection (six studies, 547 patients; OR 10.19; 95% CI 3.93, 26.39). Effects of propofol on cardiopulmonary complications, procedure duration, amnesia, pain during endoscopy, and patient satisfaction were not found to be significantly different from those of traditional sedative agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol is safe and effective for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures and is associated with shorter recovery and discharge periods, higher post-anesthesia recovery scores, better sedation, and greater patient cooperation than traditional sedation, without an increase in cardiopulmonary complications. Care should be taken when extrapolating our results to specific practice settings and high-risk patient subgroups.

Flexible imaging color enhancement improves visibility of transnasal endoscopic images in diagnosing esophageal varices: a multicenter prospective blinded study

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the usefulness of transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscope (N-EGD) with all flexible imaging color enhancement (FICE) patterns (0-9) for the diagnosis of esophageal varices (EV).

METHODS

A total of 50 patients with EV were examined during the same period by N-EGD without sedation and by peroral endoscopy (O-EGD) with sedation. The visibility of treatment scars, microvessels, recurrent EV and red color sign (RCS) were measured. Visibility was evaluated by five blinded observers (poor-good: 0-10), and the effect of both endoscopic examinations on the cardiorespiratory function of the patients was measured.

RESULTS

The image scores for O-EGD and N-EGD with ordinary mode and N-EGD with FICE were 7.3 ± 1.2, 6.1 ± 1.0 and 6.9 ± 1.0 for treatment scars; 7.2 ± 1.4, 6.2 ± 1.2 and 7.3 ± 1.0 for microvessels; 7.2 ± 1.2, 6.1 ± 1.0 and 7.1 ± 1.0 for recurrent EV and 7.2 ± 1.3, 6.1 ± 1.3, and 7.2 ± 1.2 for RCS, respectively (intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.6). When FICE patterns 2, 6 and 9 were used, visibility was much improved. Ten minutes after insertion, the double product values in the N-EGD with the FICE group were significantly better (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

N-EGD with FICE is very useful for the diagnosis of EV and can improve the visibility of N-EGD on each lesion to the same level as that of O-EGD. N-EGD with FICE does not require sedation and may reduce the risk of hepatic encephalopathy.

Randomized controlled trial for endoscopy with propofol versus midazolam on psychometric tests and critical flicker frequency in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

People with cirrhosis are at increased risk of development of complications related to sedation. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) with propofol and midazolam on psychometric tests and critical flicker frequency (CFF) in people with cirrhosis.

METHODS

A total of 127 people with cirrhosis were randomized into three groups: propofol group (n = 40), midazolam group (n = 42) and no sedation (n = 45). All patients underwent CFF test and combination of psychometry (number connection test-A and B [NCT-A,B]; digit symbol test [DST], line tracing test [LTT] and serial dotting test [SDT]) at baseline and at 2 h post-endoscopy. CFF was done at 30 min and repeated every 30 min for 2 h.

RESULTS

In the propofol group there was no deterioration in psychometry (NCT-A [55.6 ± 18.7 vs 56.4 ± 19.0 s], NCT-B [98.2 ± 35.1 vs 97.8 ± 34.6 s], DST [26.7 ± 5.7 vs 26.3 ± 5.3], LTT [112.9 ± 35.7 vs 113.7 ± 36.6 s], SDT [94.6 ± 34.1 vs 95.2 ± 34.5 s]). Significant deterioration from baseline (39.8 ± 2.9 Hz) was seen in CFF at 30 min (38.8 ± 2.3 Hz) and 1 h (39.2 ± 2.4 Hz), P = 0.01 but no difference thereafter. In the midazolam group, significant deterioration was observed on psychometry (NCT-A [56.0 ± 18.5 vs 60.4 ± 19.8 s], NCT-B [99.9 ± 29.1 vs 105.9.6 ± 30.3 s], DST [26.1 ± 4.7 vs 25.2 ± 4.3], LTT [129.1 ± 34.5 vs 132.9 ± 35.4 s], SDT [95.6 ± 34.2]). No deterioration was observed in psychometry and CFF in people with cirrhosis without sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation for UGIE was associated with earlier recovery compared with midazolam, which causes deterioration of psychometric tests and CFF for a longer time in comparison with propofol.

Gastroenterologist-guided sedation with propofol for endoscopic ultrasonography in average-risk and high-risk patients: a prospective series

OBJECTIVE

Only a few reports have addressed non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), but none specifically in high-risk patients. Our aim was to study the application of a propofol sedation protocol for EUS in average-risk and high-risk patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study including 446 patients referred for EUS. We analyzed the induction time, procedure duration, recovery times, and patients' comfort and safety. Sedation was administered by a trained nurse, under the guidance of the endoscopist. We continuously monitored vital signs as well as patient cooperation and tolerance. Complications, patient, and endoscopist satisfaction were analyzed.

RESULTS

No major complications occurred. The rate of minor complications was 9%, the most frequent being hypoxemia (8%). One hundred and thirty-eight high-risk patients were included [American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) III-IV]. Average-risk patients received higher propofol doses (202.9 ± 84.8 vs. 164.8 ± 84.3; P=0.003). No differences were found in the rate of complications or procedure-related variables. Overall patient and endoscopist satisfaction was excellent. The logistic regression model identified propofol doses (P=0.02) as a risk factor and ASA-I classification (P=0.03) as a protective factor for the appearance of complications.

CONCLUSION

Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for upper EUS in high-risk and average-risk patients is safe and could be routinely offered to high-risk and elderly patients.

Safety of propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing colonoscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography: results of a prospective controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Safety of propofol sedation in patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing colonoscopy or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains to be studied. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of propofol is safe for endoscopic procedures more complex than gastroscopy in patients with liver cirrhosis in a prospective controlled study.

METHODS

Two hundred and fourteen consecutive patients, with or without cirrhosis, who underwent colonoscopy or ERCP with propofol sedation were recruited between January and June 2009. Administration of sedation was performed by anesthesiologists and outcome measures were recorded. Main outcomes were complication rates and recovery times.

RESULTS

Sixty-one (28.5%) cirrhotic patients and 153 (71.5%) noncirrhotic patients were included. The incidence of sedation-related complications did not significantly differ between the two populations (11.5 vs. 17.0%, respectively, P=0.31). The mean (±SD) dose of propofol administered (213±86 vs. 239±100 mg, P=0.07), the mean time to achieve adequate sedation (3.3±1.1 vs. 3.0±1.2 min, P=0.21), the mean total duration of the endoscopic procedure (24.5±10.6 vs. 27.4±11.8 min, P=0.08), the mean time to reach Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale 5 (17.2±4.4 vs. 18.4±5.6 min, P=0.15), the mean time from completion of the procedure to release (9.0±2.5 vs. 9.1±3.2 min, P=0.86), and the mean time to full recovery (42.2±7.3 vs. 42.3±7.8 min, P=0.88) were very similar between the two groups. The limitation of this study was lack of randomization, and a control group of cirrhotic patients using standard sedation with benzodiazepines and opioids.

CONCLUSION

Propofol deep sedation administered by an anesthesiologist with appropriate monitorings seems to be a safe procedure during colonoscopy or ERCP in cirrhotic patients.

How best to approach endoscopic sedation?

Sedation is the drug-induced reduction of a patient's consciousness. The aim of sedation in endoscopic procedures is to increase the patient's comfort and to improve endoscopic performance, especially in therapeutic procedures. The most commonly used sedation regimen for conscious sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy is still the combination of benzodiazepines with opioids. However, the use of propofol has increased enormously in the past decade and several studies show advantages of propofol over the traditional regimes in terms of faster recovery time. It is important to be aware that the complication rate of endoscopies increases when sedation is used; therefore, a thorough risk evaluation before the procedure and monitoring during the procedure must be performed. In addition, properly trained staff and emergency equipment should be available. The best approach to sedation in endoscopy is to choose a sedation regimen for the individual patient, tailored according to the clinical risk assessment and the anxiety level of the patient, as well as to the type of planned endoscopic procedure.

Sub-clinical hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhotic patients is not aggravated by sedation with propofol compared to midazolam: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The risk of exacerbating sub-clinical hepatic encephalopathy (HE) by propofol has not been established. The aim of this study is to determine whether the use of propofol, for upper endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis, precipitates sub-clinical HE.

METHODS

Sixty-one patients with compensated HCV and HBV cirrhosis (CP score 5-6) were randomly selected and divided into two groups (intent-to-treat population) matched for age, gender, and BMI. The first group received a single propofol sedation (N = 31, age 57 ± 12, dose range 70-100 mg/procedure) and the second group (N = 30, age 56 ± 12, dose 3-6 mg/procedure) received a single midazolam sedation, all done by an anesthesiologist. All patients completed number connection test (NCT), cognitive function score, time to recovery, time to discharge sheets, and hemodynamic parameters before sedation, and at discharge from the endoscopy unit, 1h post-procedure. Thirty control subjects without cirrhosis were matched to the cirrhotic patients who received sedation with regard to age, gender, BMI, and education level.

RESULTS

A total of 58/61 cirrhotic patients (95%) had sub-clinical encephalopathy before the endoscopy (mean NCT 84.7 ± 77 s, normal < 30 s). No patient developed overt HE after sedation. There were no differences between groups in the incidence of adverse effects, cognitive function, MELD score, CP score, oxygen saturation, or respiratory and heart rates before and after sedation. Propofol did not exacerbate minimal HE when compared to midazolam (NCT changed from 87.5 ± 62 s prior to sedation to 74.2 ± 58 s after sedation in the propofol group versus 72.8 ± 62 s before to 85.6 ± 72 s after sedation in the midazolam group; p < 0.01). Time to recovery (4.1 ± 1.9 min vs. 11.5 ± 5.0 min, p < 0.001), and time to discharge (38.0 ± 9 min vs. 110 ± 42 min, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter with propofol than midazolam. Pre- and post-procedure NCT (from 25 ± 20 s to 24 ± 20 s), cognitive function score (from 25 to 26), time to recovery (3.5 ± 1.0 min), and time to discharge (35 ± 10 min) did not change in the healthy controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation with propofol has a shorter time recovery and a shorter time to discharge than midazolam and does not exacerbate sub-clinical hepatic encephalopathy in patients with compensated liver cirrhosis.

Sedation during upper GI endoscopy in cirrhotic outpatients: a randomized, controlled trial comparing propofol and fentanyl with midazolam and fentanyl

BACKGROUND

Patients with liver cirrhosis frequently undergo diagnostic or therapeutic upper GI endoscopy (UGIE), and the liver disease might impair the metabolism of drugs usually administered for sedation.

OBJECTIVE AND SETTING

To compare sedation with a combination of propofol plus fentanyl and midazolam plus fentanyl in cirrhotic outpatients undergoing UGIE.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted between February 2008 and February 2009.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS

Efficacy (proportion of complete procedures using the initial proposed sedation scheme), safety (occurrence of sedation-related complications), and recovery time were measured.

RESULTS

Two hundred ten cirrhotic patients referred for UGIE were randomized to 2 groups: midazolam group (0.05 mg/kg plus fentanyl 50 μg intravenously) or propofol group (0.25 mg/kg plus fentanyl 50 μg intravenously). There were no differences between groups regarding age, sex, weight, etiology of cirrhosis, and Child-Pugh or American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Sedation with propofol was more efficacious (100% vs 88.2%; P < .001) and had a shorter recovery time than sedation with midazolam (16.23 ± 6.84 minutes and 27.40 ± 17.19 minutes, respectively; P < .001). Complication rates were similar in both groups (14% vs 7.3%; P = .172).

LIMITATIONS

Single-blind study; sample size.

CONCLUSION

Both sedation schemes were safe in this setting. Sedation with propofol plus fentanyl was more efficacious with a shorter recovery time compared with midazolam plus fentanyl. Therefore, the former scheme is an alternative when sedating cirrhotic patients undergoing UGIE.

Recent advances in using propofol by non-anesthesiologists

Evidence is accumulating that non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) sedation has a safety and efficacy profile comparable or superior to that provided by benzodiazepines with or without opioids. The guidelines currently available emphasize the importance of appropriate patient selection, staff training, monitoring, and low-dose sedation protocols for NAAP safety. In addition, capnograph monitoring and computer-assisted sedation systems may further improve patient safety during NAAP.