Factors affecting patient tolerance of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Effect of Premedication with Glycopyrrolate on Patient Tolerance and Procedure Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial

Background and aim

An optimal topical pharyngeal anesthesia (TPA) is required for better patient tolerance and procedural outcomes of an unsedated upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE). Several additional strategies have been tried to improve patient tolerance with limited success. We hypothesized that premedication with glycopyrrolate would enhance TPA and improve patient tolerance and procedural outcomes of an unsedated UGIE.

Materials and methods

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial between July 2020 and May 2022. Consecutive patients undergoing unsedated UGIE were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous glycopyrrolate or a placebo 30 minutes before TPA. Patient tolerance, comfort level for the endoscopist, cardiorespiratory fluctuations, percentage of failed esophageal intubation, and incomplete examination were studied.

Results

380 patients were randomized to 190 in each arm. The median (IQR) VAS scores for the overall patient satisfaction in the glycopyrrolate and placebo groups were 8 (1) and 7 (2), respectively (p = 0.04). The median (IQR) VAS scores for endoscopist assessment of patient cooperation in the glycopyrrolate and placebo groups were 8 (1.3) and 8 (1), respectively (p = 0.04). There was no difference in the percentage of failed esophageal intubation and incomplete examination, fluctuations in heart rate, and oxygen saturation of the participants. However, the mean arterial pressure (MAP) on-table before the start of the procedure at 1 minute and 3 minutes was significantly higher in the glycopyrrolate group (p = 0.01, 0.01, and 0.04, respectively).

Conclusion

In unsedated UGIE, glycopyrrolate premedication significantly improves the patient tolerance and endoscopist's comfort, with minimal cardiorespiratory effects. Hence, it could be incorporated into day-care unsedated endoscopy practice.Trial registration - CTRI/2020/07/026786.

How to cite this article

Ramalingam R, Senthamizhselvan K, Harichandrakumar KT, et al. Effect of Premedication with Glycopyrrolate on Patient Tolerance and Procedure Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2023;13(2):55-60.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) Position Statement on the Use of Hyoscine-n-butylbromide (Buscopan) During Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Hyoscine butylbromide, also known as hyoscyamine or scopolamine, and sold under the trade name Buscopan, is an antimuscarinic agent commonly used to induce smooth muscle relaxation and reduce spasmodic activity of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract during endoscopic procedures. However, the balance between desirable and undesirable (adverse) effects is not clear when used during GI endoscopy. The Clinical Affairs Committee of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) conducted systematic reviews and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations for the use of Buscopan during GI endoscopy. To summarize, we recommend against the use of Buscopan before or during colonoscopy (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence). We suggest against the use of Buscopan before or during gastroscopy (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). We suggest the use of Buscopan before or during ERCP (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). More research is needed to determine whether patients undergoing advanced procedures such as endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection benefit from its use. Buscopan should be used with caution in patients with cardiac comorbidities. According to its product monograph, Buscopan is contraindicated in patients with tachycardia, angina, and cardiac failure. Thus, Buscopan should be used very cautiously in patients with these conditions, and only when the potential benefits of its use outweigh the potential risks in a particular case. Such patients require careful cardiac monitoring in an environment where resuscitation equipment and appropriately trained staff to use it are readily available. According to its product monograph, Buscopan is also contraindicated in patients with prostatic hypertrophy with urinary retention, and therefore, should be used very cautiously in such patients as well, and only when the potential benefits of its use outweigh the potential risks in a particular case. Obtaining a preprocedural history of glaucoma is unlikely to be of value when considering Buscopan use. However, in cases where Buscopan has been used, patients should be counselled postprocedurally and told to present to an emergency facility should they experience eye pain, redness, decreased vision, nausea and vomiting or headache.

Using naso- and oro-intestinal catheters in physiological research for intestinal delivery and sampling in vivo: practical and technical aspects to be considered

Intestinal catheters have been used for decades in human nutrition, physiology, pharmacokinetics, and gut microbiome research, facilitating the delivery of compounds directly into the intestinal lumen or the aspiration of intestinal fluids in human subjects. Such research provides insights about (local) dynamic metabolic and other intestinal luminal processes, but working with catheters might pose challenges to biomedical researchers and clinicians. Here, we provide an overview of practical and technical aspects of applying naso- and oro-intestinal catheters for delivery of compounds and sampling luminal fluids from the jejunum, ileum, and colon in vivo. The recent literature was extensively reviewed, and combined with experiences and insights we gained through our own clinical trials. We included 60 studies that involved a total of 720 healthy subjects and 42 patients. Most of the studies investigated multiple intestinal regions (24 studies), followed by studies investigating only the jejunum (21 studies), ileum (13 studies), or colon (2 studies). The ileum and colon used to be relatively inaccessible regions in vivo. Custom-made state-of-the-art catheters are available with numerous options for the design, such as multiple lumina, side holes, and inflatable balloons for catheter progression or isolation of intestinal segments. These allow for multiple controlled sampling and compound delivery options in different intestinal regions. Intestinal catheters were often used for delivery (23 studies), sampling (10 studies), or both (27 studies). Sampling speed decreased with increasing distance from the sampling syringe to the specific intestinal segment (i.e., speed highest in duodenum, lowest in ileum/colon). No serious adverse events were reported in the literature, and a dropout rate of around 10% was found for these types of studies. This review is highly relevant for researchers who are active in various research areas and want to expand their research with the use of intestinal catheters in humans in vivo.

Meperidine for patients expected to have poor tolerance to esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled study

Background

Anxious patients and those with poor tolerance to previous esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) usually have poor tolerance for EGD.

Aims

To investigate the effect of meperidine on these patients during EGD.

Methods

A total of 110 patients undergoing diagnostic EGD were randomized to receive either meperidine (n = 55) or placebo (n = 55) before EGD. The primary outcome was patient discomfort scores during esophageal intubation.

Results

Patients in the meperidine group reported less discomfort during esophageal intubation (median score of 5.0 and interquartile range (IQR) 1.5-7.0) compared with the control (median score of 6.0, IQR 5.0-8.5, P = .003). Patients in the meperidine group had better tolerance during the procedure (median score of 2 (IQR 1.0-3.0) versus 3 (IQR 1.0-4.0), P = .048), and the endoscopists reported higher overall satisfaction scores (median score of 9 (IQR 7.0-9.0) versus 8 (IQR 7.0-9.0), P = .043). There was significantly less increase in heart rate and blood pressure during the procedure in the meperidine group than in the placebo group (23 bpm (IQR 9-32) versus 30 bpm (IQR 18-52); P = .006); (7 mmHg (IQR 1-14) versus 18 mmHg (IQR 2-30); P = .008). Connect-the-numbers test showed comparable results before and after EGD between the two groups.

Conclusion

For patients expected to have poor tolerance during EGD, meperidine reduced discomfort, decreased cardiovascular distress, and improved endoscopist satisfaction, without adverse effects on their psychomotor function after the procedure.

Acupuncture to improve tolerance of diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy in patients without systemic sedation: results of a single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial (DRKS00000164)

Background

Sedation prior to esophagogastroduodenoscopy is widespread and increases patient comfort. However, it demands additional trained personnel, accounts for up to 40 % of total endoscopy costs and impedes rapid hospital discharge. Most patients lose at least one day of work. 98 % of all serious adverse events occurring during esophagogastroduodenoscopy are ascribed to sedation. Acupuncture is reported to be effective as a supportive intervention for gastrointestinal endoscopy, similar to conventional premedication. We investigated whether acupuncture during elective diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy could increase the comfort of patients refusing systemic sedation.

Methods

We performed a single-center, double-blinded, placebo-controlled superiority trial to compare the success rates of elective diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies using real and placebo acupuncture. All patients aged 18 years or older scheduled for elective, diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy who refused systemic sedation were eligible; 354 patients were randomized. The primary endpoint measure was the rate of successful esophagogastroduodenoscopies. The intervention was real or placebo acupuncture before and during esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Successful esophagogastroduodenoscopy was based on a composite score of patient satisfaction with the procedure on a Likert scale as well as quality of examination, as assessed by the examiner.

Results

From February 2010 to July 2012, 678 patients were screened; 354 were included in the study. Baseline characteristics of the two groups showed a similar distribution in all but one parameter: more current smokers were allocated to the placebo group. The intention-to-treat analysis included 177 randomized patients in each group. Endoscopy could successfully be performed in 130 patients (73.5 %) in the real acupuncture group and 129 patients (72.9 %) in the placebo group. Willingness to repeat the procedure under the same conditions was 86.9 % in the real acupuncture group and 87.6 % in the placebo acupuncture group.

Conclusions

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation is safe and can successfully be performed in two-thirds of patients. Patients planned for elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation do not benefit from acupuncture of the Sinarteria respondens (Rs) 24 Chengjiang middle line, Pericard (Pc) 6 Neiguan bilateral, or Dickdarm (IC) 4 Hegu bilateral, according to traditional Chinese medicine meridian theory.

Trial registration

DRKS00000164. Registered on 10 December 2009.

Double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing real versus placebo acupuncture to improve tolerance of diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation: a study protocol

Background

Sedation prior to performance of diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGDE) is widespread and increases patient comfort. But 98% of all serious adverse events during EGDEs are ascribed to sedation. The S3 guideline for sedation procedures in gastrointestinal endoscopy published in 2008 in Germany increases patient safety by standardization. These new regulations increase costs because of the need for more personnel and a prolonged discharge procedure after examinations with sedation. Many patients have difficulties to meet the discharge criteria regulated by the S3 guideline, e.g. the call for a second person to escort them home, to resign from driving and working for the rest of the day, resulting in a refusal of sedation. Therefore, we would like to examine if an acupuncture during elective, diagnostic EGDEs could increase the comfort of patients refusing systemic sedation.

Methods/Design

A single-center, double blinded, placebo controlled superiority trial to compare the success rates of elective, diagnostic EGDEs with real and placebo acupuncture. All patients aged 18 years or older scheduled for elective, diagnostic EGDE who refuse a systemic sedation are eligible. 354 patients will be randomized. The primary endpoint is the rate of successful EGDEs with the randomized technique. Intervention: Real or placebo acupuncture before and during EGDE. Duration of study: Approximately 24 months.

Discussion

Organisation/Responsibility The ACUPEND - Trial will be conducted in accordance with the protocol and in compliance with the moral, ethical, and scientific principles governing clinical research as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (1989) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The Interdisciplinary Endoscopy Center (IEZ) of the University Hospital Heidelberg is responsible for design and conduct of the trial, including randomization and documentation of patients' data. Data management and statistical analysis will be performed by the independent Institute for Medical Biometry and Informatics (IMBI) and the Center of Clinical Trials (KSC) at the Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg.

Trial registration

The trial is registered at Germanctr.de (DRKS00000164) on December 10^th 2009. The first patient was randomized on February 2^nd 2010.

[Sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Analysis of tolerance, complications and cost-effectiveness]

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Sedation of patients is an important complement to endoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to analyze tolerance, complications and cost-effectiveness in patients undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

A total of 357 patients were prospectively studied: 138 non-sedated, 116 sedated with midazolam and 103 sedated with midazolam and meperidine. Subjective tolerance, tolerance perceived by the endoscopist, complications, and cost-effectiveness were evaluated. The Chi-square test was used for the statistical analysis. P-values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Subjective tolerance was greater in patients sedated with midazolam and meperidine than in the other groups (p < 0.05). Tolerance perceived by the endoscopist was greater in the group sedated with both drugs than in the group sedated with midazolam (p < 0.05). Subjective tolerance was better in sedated men and women but there was no association between sedation and perceived tolerance according to sex. Subjective tolerance was better in sedated patients older than 70 years than in those younger than 40 years (p < 0.05). Complications were more frequent in sedated patients and the most frequent complication in all the groups studied was mild desaturation; there was a significant difference between the group sedated with midazolam and meperidine and the non-sedated group (p < 0.05). Non-sedation had the best cost-effectiveness ratio but sedation with midazolam and meperidine was the most effective alternative.

CONCLUSION

From the point of view of the endoscopist, endoscopy can be performed without sedation, although subjective tolerance is greater in patients sedated with midazolam and meperidine. Non-sedation is more cost-effectiveness than sedation but if sedation is required midazolam and meperidine achieve better results in terms of effectiveness than midazolam alone.

Sedation versus no sedation in the performance of diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a Canadian randomized controlled cost-outcome study

BACKGROUND

Sedation is not required to perform a technically adequate gastroscopy (EGDE), but does improve patient satisfaction, comfort, and willingness to repeat particularly in the elderly and those with decreased pharyngeal sensitivity. The comparative cost-efficacy of sedation versus no sedation remains poorly characterized.

AIM

To compare the cost-efficacy of diagnostic EGDE with and without sedation in an adult ambulatory Canadian population.

METHODS

A double-blind randomized controlled trial assigned patients to sedation versus placebo. "Successful endoscopy" was considered an EGDE rated 4/4 in technical adequacy (1 = inadequate to 4 = totally adequate), and 1-2/5 in patient self-reported comfort (1 = acceptable to 5 = unacceptable). Secondary outcomes included recovery room time, patient satisfaction alone, and willingness to repeat the procedure. Cost data were obtained using a published, institutional activity-based costing methodology. Analysis was intention to treat using standard univariate and multivariate methods.

RESULTS

419 patients (mean age 54.5, 48% male) were randomized (N = 210 active vs N = 209 placebo). Among patients randomized to active medication 76% of procedures were "successful" (placebo 46%), 79% were satisfied with their level of comfort (placebo 47%), and willingness to repeat was 81% (placebo 65%). We observed a 10% crossover rate from placebo to active medications. The use of sedation was the major determinant of successful endoscopy (OR = 3.8; 95% CI: 2.5-5.7), but contributed to an increased recovery room time (29 vs 15 min; p < 0.0001). The expected cost of an additional successful endoscopy using sedation was $90.06 (CDN). In a planned subgroup analysis, among the elderly (>75; N = 53) unsedated endoscopy became the dominant approach. Indeed, in this population, a trend was observed favoring the effectiveness of placebo (63%) versus active medication (57%) (OR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.25-2.3) and was less costly resulting in $450 savings/unsedated EGDE.

CONCLUSIONS

In the average Canadian ambulatory adult population, sedated diagnostic EGDE is more costly but remains an efficacious strategy by increasing the rate of successful endoscopies, patient satisfaction, and willingness to repeat. However, among the elderly (>75 yr), an unsedated strategy may be more cost-efficacious.

Assessing clinical generalizability in sedation studies of upper GI endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Prior endoscopic studies evaluating conscious sedation have recruited only a small proportion of the patients actually approached. The generalizability of such results to an unselected adult ambulatory care population is thus questionable. The objectives of this study were to determine the characteristics of patients who refused inclusion in a randomized controlled trial of sedation and to compare these characteristics to those of patients who agreed to participate.

METHODS

Patients who refused participation in a randomized controlled trial of sedation completed standardized questionnaires addressing demographic data and possible confounding variables, and they also completed a validated anxiety questionnaire. Characteristics associated with refusal to participate in the randomized controlled trial were assessed by using uni- and multivariate analysis. Exploratory comparisons of outcomes between both groups included self-reported satisfaction with level of comfort and technical adequacy.

RESULTS

Of 302 patients screened, 203 refused to participate in the randomized controlled trial. The most common reason for refusal was the request for no sedation (135/203). A total of 163 were enrolled in this synchronous study. Patients who refused to participate exhibited 3 distinguishing characteristics: prior treatment for an anxiety disorder (risk difference 9.4%: 95% CI[3%, 17%]), use of analgesic medication (risk difference 10.4%: 95% CI[2%, 19%]), and prior experience with EGD (risk difference 17.9: 95% CI[5%, 30%]). Only upper endoscopy experience was predictive of refusal to participate in the randomized controlled trial. No differences in outcomes existed between patients randomized to sedation and those refusing the randomized controlled trial who chose to receive sedative medication. Patients who refused participation in the randomized controlled trial and who underwent upper endoscopy without sedation were more satisfied than patients randomized to placebo (1.33 vs. 2.58; risk difference -1.25: 95% CI[-0.38, -2.1]). Moreover, the procedure in these patients was more adequate technically (4.86 vs. 4.18; risk difference 0.68: 95% CI[0.21, 1.13]).

CONCLUSIONS

Characteristics of patients accepting and refusing randomization were highly similar, differing only with regard to upper endoscopy experience. An exploratory analysis of outcomes suggests that randomized controlled trial results may be biased in a direction that may underestimate the benefits of not administering sedative medication in a real-life setting.

Efficacy, safety, and limitations in current practice of sedation and analgesia

The ease and availability of endoscopy as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality for gastrointestinal disorders has greatly increased the number of procedures performed in the United States. One of the main factors in achieving a flawless procedure is the use of sedation and analgesia in endoscopy. This article examines the efficacy, safety, and limitations inherent in the current practice of sedation and analgesia.

Predicting which patients can undergo upper endoscopy comfortably without conscious sedation

BACKGROUND

Eliminating conscious sedation for diagnostic endoscopy may be advantageous for patient safety and cost containment. The aim of this study was to identify and validate independent predictors of a comfortable, technically adequate, unsedated diagnostic upper endoscopy in Canadian patients.

METHODS

Patients were consecutively enrolled in a prospective fashion. Data collected on an initial cohort of 268 patients included demographics, a validated anxiety questionnaire, use of sedatives/analgesics, upper endoscopy experience, pharyngeal sensitivity, technical adequacy, and patient assessment of comfort after the procedure. The main outcome measure was "satisfactory upper endoscopy," a composite of optimal scores for patient comfort and technical adequacy. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the optimal predictive model of a satisfactory unsedated diagnostic upper endoscopy. Once identified, 68 additional patients were enrolled in a similar fashion from an independent prospective sample for purposes of outcome validation. Multivariate analysis was then repeated with the total cohort (N = 336). These results were then compared for concordance with those obtained from the initial cohort.

RESULTS

Among the initial 268 patients (54.3% women; mean age 51 +/- 17 years), 49% were anxious, 15% regularly used sedatives and analgesics, 28% experienced increased pharyngeal sensitivity, and 41% had previously undergone upper endoscopy. Endoscopy was completed in 94.7% of patients without sedation and was technically adequate in 97%, and 80.1% were willing to repeat the procedure under similar conditions. Satisfactory upper endoscopy was achieved in only 59% of the initial cohort. The only independent and significant predictors of a satisfactory upper endoscopy were advancing age (OR 1.2: 95% CI [1.1, 1.4]) and decreased pharyngeal sensitivity (OR 0.5: 95% CI [0.27, 0.93]). Concordance of results were noted after validation with the second cohort. Satisfactory endoscopy was achieved in only 59.5% of the total cohort (n = 336); only 61% reported a comfortable procedural experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of patients who can comfortably undergo technically adequate unsedated upper endoscopy is modest. Unsedated upper endoscopy is most likely to be successful under these procedural conditions in patients of advancing age with decreased pharyngeal sensitivity. The generalizability of these findings to an American population requires further study and may assist in identifying a subgroup of patients in whom it is cost-effective to perform upper endoscopy comfortably without sedation.

Anesthesia and sedation in the endoscopy suite? (influences and options)

Advances in technology and pharmacology have enabled gastrointestinal endoscopists to expand the diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities of the specialty. Research into the impact of the endoscopy environment on patient stress, acknowledgement of the various patient coping styles, development and deployment of procedural preparative programs and information streamlining have been shown to be of value in decreasing anxiety and reducing sedative requirements. Being aware of procedure-related stressors, and factors associated with complications, allows us to tailor our sedation or anesthesia plan to the individual patient.