Anesthesia-administered sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: monitored anesthesia care or general endotracheal anesthesia?

The 90% effective dose (ED90) of remimazolam for inhibiting responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope during ERCP

BACKGROUND

Compared to midazolam, remimazolam has a faster onset and offset of hypnotic effect, as well as cardiorespiratory stability, this study aims to determine the 90% effective dose (ED90) of remimazolam to inhibit responses to insertion of a duodenoscope during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

A dose-response study was carried out undergoing ERCP who received remimazolam-alfentanil anesthesia using 10 µg/kg of alfentanil between September 2021 and November 2021. The initial dose of remimazolam was 0.2 mg/kg. The dose was then decided based on the responses of earlier patients by exploiting the sequential ascend and descend according to a 9: 1 biased coin design. Upon failure, the dose of remimazolam was increased by 0.025 mg/kg in the next patient. When the insertion was successful, the succeeding patient was randomized to an identical dose or a dose that was lower by 0.025 mg/kg.The ED90 of remimazolam for inhibiting responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope during ERCP was calculated. Adverse events and complications of remimazolam were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 55 elderly patients (age > 65) were included in the study. 45 successfully anesthetized patients, and 10 unsuccessfully. The ED90 of remimazolam was 0.300 mg/kg (95% CI = 0.287-0.320). ED95 was 0.315 (95% CI = 0.312-0.323) and ED99 was 0.323 (95% CI = 0.323-0.325). Among the patients, 9 patients developed hypotension, 2 patients developed bradycardia and 1 patient developed tachycardia, and hypoxia occurred in 2 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A loading dose of 0.300 mg / kg of remimazolam for elderly patients undergoing ERCP can safely, effectively, and quickly induce patients to fall asleep and inhibit responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was registered at the website ClinicalTrials.gov on 22/09/2021(NCT05053763).

Patient Position in Operative Endoscopy

It is well known by surgeons that patient positioning is fundamental to exposing the organs when performing an operation via laparoscopy, as gravity can help move the organs and facilitate the exposure of the surgical site. But is it also important for endoscopic procedures? This paper examines various types of endoscopic operations and addresses the issue of the patient's position. The patient's position can be changed not only by rotating the patient along the head-toe axis but also by tilting the surgical bed, as is undertaken during laparoscopic surgical procedures. In particular, it is useful to take into account the effect of gravity on lesion exposure, tumour traction during dissection, crushing by body weight, risk of sample drop, risk of damage to adjacent organs, and anatomical exposure for procedures with radiological support. The endoscopist should always keep in mind the patient's anatomy and the position of the endoscope during operative procedures, not limited to considering only intraluminal vision.

Safety of prone emergence from general endotracheal anesthesia in patients undergoing ERCP: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Conventional supine emergence and prone extubation from general endotracheal anesthesia (GEA) are associated with extubation-related adverse events (ERAEs). Given the minimally invasive nature of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as well as the improved ventilation/perfusion matching and easier airway opening in the prone position, we aimed to assess the safety of prone emergence and extubation in patients undergoing ERCP under GEA.

METHODS

Totally, 242 eligible patients were recruited and randomized into the supine extubation group (n = 121; supine group) and the prone extubation group (n = 121; prone group). The primary endpoint was the incidence of ERAEs during emergence, including hemodynamic fluctuations, coughing, stridor, and hypoxemia requiring airway maneuvers. The secondary endpoints included the incidence of monitoring disconnections, extubation time, recovery time, room exit time, and post-procedure sore throat.

RESULTS

The incidence of ERAEs was significantly lower in the prone group compared with the supine group (8.3% vs 34.7%, OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.18-0.56; P < 0.001). Moreover, the prone group demonstrated no monitoring disconnections, shorter extubation time and room exit time, faster recovery, and, lower frequency and milder sore throat after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing ERCP under GEA, compared with supine, prone emergence, and extubation had remarkably lower rates of EAREs and better recovery, and can maintain continuous monitoring and improve efficiency.

ERCP-related adverse events: incidence, mechanisms, risk factors, prevention, and management

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a commonly performed procedure for pancreaticobiliary disease. While ERCP is highly effective, it is also associated with the highest adverse event (AE) rates of all commonly performed endoscopic procedures. Thus, it is critical that endoscopists and caregivers of patients undergoing ERCP have clear understandings of ERCP-related AEs.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the available evidence on ERCP-related AEs. For the purposes of this review, we subdivide the presentation of each ERCP-related AE according to the following clinically relevant domains: definitions and incidence, proposed mechanisms, risk factors, prevention, and recognition and management. The evidence informing this review was derived in part from a search of the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, performed on 1 May 20231 May 2023.

EXPERT OPINION

Knowledge of ERCP-related AEs is critical not only given potential improvements in peri-procedural quality and related care that can ensue but also given the importance of reviewing these considerations with patients during informed consent. The ERCP community and researchers should aim to apply standardized definitions of AEs. Evidence-based knowledge of ERCP risk factors should inform patient care decisions during training and beyond.

Consensus guidelines for the perioperative management of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Deep sedation without tracheal intubation (monitored anaesthesia care) and general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation are commonly used anaesthesia techniques for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There are distinct pathophysiological differences between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia that need to be considered depending on the nature and severity of the patient's underlying disease, comorbidities, and procedural risks. An international group of expert anaesthesiologists and gastroenterologists created clinically relevant questions regarding the merits and risks of monitored anaesthesia care vs general anaesthesia in specific clinical scenarios for planning optimal anaesthetic approaches for ERCP. Using a modified Delphi approach, the group created practical recommendations for anaesthesiologists, with the aim of reducing the incidence of perioperative adverse outcomes while maximising healthcare resource utilisation. In the majority of clinical scenarios analysed, our expert recommendations favour monitored anaesthesia care over general anaesthesia. Patients with increased risk of pulmonary aspiration and those undergoing prolonged procedures of high complexity were thought to benefit from general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation. Patient age and ASA physical status were not considered to be factors for choosing between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia. Monitored anaesthesia care is the favoured anaesthesia plan for ERCP. An individual risk-benefit analysis that takes into account provider and institutional experience, patient comorbidities, and procedural risks is also needed.

A randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing remimazolam to propofol when combined with alfentanil for sedation during ERCP procedures

STUDY OBJECTIVE

In many countries, the combination of propofol and opioid is used as the preferred sedative regime during ERCP. However, the most serious risks of propofol sedation are oxygen deficiency and hypotension. Compared to midazolam, remimazolam has a faster onset and offset of hypnotic effect, as well as cardiorespiratory stability, and to achieve widespread acceptance for procedural sedation, remimazolam must replace propofol which is the most commonly used for procedural sedation. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy profiles of the remimazolam and propofol when combined with alfentanil for sedation during ERCP procedures.

DESIGN

A randomized, controlled, single-center trial.

SETTING

The Endoscopic Centre of Tianjin Nankai Hospital, China.

PATIENTS

518 patients undergoing elective ERCP under deep sedation.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly assigned to be sedated with either a combination of remimazolam-alfentanil or propofol-alfentanil.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the prevalence of hypoxia, which was defined as SpO₂ < 90% for >10 s. Other outcomes were the need for airway maneuver, procedure, and sedation-related outcomes and side effects (e.g., nausea, vomiting, and cardiovascular adverse events).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 518 patients underwent randomization. Of these, 250 were assigned to the remimazolam group and 255 to the propofol group. During ERCP, 9.6% of patients in the remimazolam group showed hypoxia, while in the propofol group, 15.7% showed hypoxia (p = 0.04). The need for airway maneuvering due to hypoxia was significantly greater in the propofol group (p = 0.04). Furthermore, patients sedated with remimazolam had a lower percentage of hypotension than patients sedated with propofol (p < 0.001). Patients receiving remimazolam sedation expressed higher satisfaction scores and were recommended the same sedation for the next ERCP. The procedure time in the remimazolam group was much longer than in the propofol group due to the complexity of the patient's disease, which resulted in a longer sedation time.

CONCLUSION

During elective ERCP, patients administered with remimazolam showed fewer respiratory depression events under deep sedation with hemodynamic advantages over propofol when administered in combination with alfentanil.

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.

Randomized trial comparing general anesthesia with anesthesiologist-administered deep sedation for ERCP in average-risk patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

General anesthesia (GA) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is increasingly used to perform ERCP. The definitive choice between the 2 sedative types remains to be established. This study compared outcomes of GA with MAC in ERCP performed in patients at average risk for sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs).

METHODS

At a tertiary referral center, patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≤III were randomly assigned to undergo ERCP with MAC or GA. The main outcome was a composite of hypotension, arrhythmia, hypoxia, hypercapnia, apnea, and procedural interruption or termination defined as SRAEs. In addition, ERCP procedural time, success, adverse events, and endoscopist and patient satisfaction were compared.

RESULTS

Of 204 randomized, 203 patients were evaluated for SRAEs (MAC, n = 96; GA, n = 107). SRAEs developed in 35% of the MAC cohort (34/96) versus 9% in the GA cohort (10/107), which was statistically significant (P < .001). Mean induction time for GA was significantly longer than that for MAC (10.3 ± 10 minutes vs 6.5 ± 10.8 minutes, respectively; P < .001). ERCP procedure time, recovery time, cannulation time and success, and procedure-related adverse events were not statistically different between the 2 sedative groups. The use of GA improved endoscopist and patient satisfaction (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

GA is safe with fewer SRAEs than MAC in patients with ASA scores ≤III undergoing ERCP. Apart from prolonging induction time, use of GA does not change the procedural success or ERCP-related adverse events and offers greater endoscopist and patient satisfaction. Hence, GA is a consideration in patients undergoing ERCP in this population group. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04099693.).

The effective doses of remimazolam besylate in the procedural sedation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

This study aimed to determine the values of the half-effective dose (ED50) and 95% effective dose (ED95) of remimazolam besylate used in the procedural sedation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Sixty patients who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this study were selected. Sufentanil was administered intravenously and remimazolam besylate was administered 2 min later. ERCP treatment was feasible when the modified alertness/sedation (MOAA/S) score was ≤2. If choking or movement occurred during duodenoscope placement, it was considered as a positive reaction. The dose was increased in the next patient; otherwise, it was considered as a negative reaction, and the dose was reduced in the next patient. The ED50 and ED95 values and 95% confidence interval (CI) of remimazolam besylate were calculated by Probit regression analysis. All 60 patients completed the trial. The ED50 and ED95 values of remimazolam besylate were 0.196 and 0.239 mg/kg, respectively, for the procedural sedation of ERCP. The time of MOAA/S score ≤ 2 was (82.58 ± 21.70) s, and the mean time of awakening was (9.03 ± 5.64) min. Transient hypotension was observed in two patients without medical intervention. The ED50 and ED95 values of remimazolam besylate used in the procedural sedation of ERCP were 0.196 and 0.239 mg/kg, and the dose of the medications has definite efficacy and good safety.

Pro-Con Debate: Monitored Anesthesia Care Versus General Endotracheal Anesthesia for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Over the past several decades, anesthesia has experienced a significant growth in nonoperating room anesthesia. Gastrointestinal suites represent the largest volume location for off-site anesthesia procedures, which include complex endoscopy procedures like endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). These challenging patients and procedures necessitate a shared airway and are typically performed in the prone or semiprone position on a dedicated procedural table. In this Pro-Con commentary article, the Pro side supports the use of monitored anesthesia care (MAC), citing fewer hemodynamic perturbations, decreased side effects from inhalational agents, faster cognitive recovery, and quicker procedural times leading to improved center efficiency (ie, quicker time to discharge). Meanwhile, the Con side favors general endotracheal anesthesia (GEA) to reduce the infrequent, but well-recognized, critical events due to impaired oxygenation and/or ventilation known to occur during MAC in this setting. They also argue that procedural interruptions are more frequent during MAC as anesthesia professionals need to rescue patients from apnea with various airway maneuvers. Thus, the risk of hypoxemic episodes is minimized using GEA for ERCP. Unfortunately, neither position is supported by large randomized controlled trials. The consensus opinion of the authors is that anesthesia for ERCP should be provided by a qualified anesthesia professional who weighs the risks and benefits of each technique for a given patient and clinical circumstance. This Pro-Con article highlights the many challenges anesthesia professionals face during ERCPs and encourages thoughtful, individualized anesthetic plans over knee-jerk decisions. Both sides agree that an anesthetic technique administered by a qualified anesthesia professional is favored over an endoscopist-directed sedation approach.

Choice of sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: is monitored anesthesia care as safe as general anesthesia? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) are the 2 most common methods of sedation used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the overall safety between MAC vs. GA in ERCP.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases to identify studies reporting the use of MAC or GA as a choice of sedation for ERCP. The primary outcome was to compare the overall rate of sedation-related adverse events in MAC vs. GA groups. The secondary endpoint was to investigate the total duration of the procedure, recovery time, ERCP cannulation rates, and conversion rate of MAC to GA. The meta-analysis was performed using a Der Simonian and Laird random-effects model.

Results

A total of 21 studies reporting on 11,592 patients were included. The overall sedation-related side-effects were similar in the GA (12.76%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.80-21.73; I²=95%) and MAC (12.08%, 95%CI 5.38-20.89; I²=99%) groups (P=0.956). Hypoxia, arrhythmias, hypotension, aspiration and other sedation-related side-effects were similar between the 2 groups. The mean duration of the procedure was longer in the MAC group, but the mean recovery time was shorter. Significant heterogeneity was noted in our meta-analysis.

Conclusions

In our meta-analysis, the overall sedation-related side-effects were similar between the MAC and GA groups. MAC could be used as a safer alternative to GA when performing ERCP. However, large multicenter randomized control trials are needed to further validate our findings.

Gastrointestinal and hepatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic: Manifestations, mechanism and management

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is considered the causative pathogen of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has become an international danger to human health. Although respiratory transmission and symptoms are still the essential manifestations of COVID-19, the digestive system could be an unconventional or supplementary route for COVID-19 to be transmitted and manifested, most likely due to the presence of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in the gastrointestinal tract. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 can trigger hepatic injury via direct binding to the ACE2 receptor in cholangiocytes, antibody-dependent enhancement of infection, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, inflammatory cytokine storms, ischemia/reperfusion injury, and adverse events of treatment drugs. Gastrointestinal symptoms, including anorexia, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, which are unusual in patients with COVID-19, and some digestive signs may occur without other respiratory symptoms. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 can be found in infected patients' stool, demonstrating the likelihood of transmission through the fecal-oral route. In addition, liver function should be monitored during COVID-19, particularly in more severe cases. This review summarizes the evidence for extra-pulmonary manifestations, mechanisms, and management of COVID-19, particularly those related to the gastrointestinal tract and liver.

Comparison of LMA® gastro airway and gastro-laryngeal tube in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective randomized observational trial

BACKGROUND

New generation airway devices with different designs have been developed as an alternative to endotracheal intubation in order to avoid adverse events associated with sedation in endoscopic procedures and to provide patent airway. We aimed to compare two supraglottic airway devices (SGADs), the LMA®GastroTM Airway and Gastro Laryngeal Tube (GLT), in terms of airway efficiency, performance during procedure and adverse events in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

A hundred-three ERCP patients without high risk of aspiration were included. Patients were randomly allocated to the LMA Gastro and GLT groups. The primary study outcomes were the comparison of the two SGADs in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). Secondary study outcome was SGADs-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Procedures were completed with SGADs in fifty patients in each group. The rate of successful insertion at first attempt was 72% in GLT and 96% in LMA Gastro (p=0.004). The mean OLP of LMA Gastro Group (31.8cm H2O) was significantly higher than that of the GLT Group (26.5cm H2O), (p=0.0001). However endoscopists' satisfaction was higher in GLT (p=0.0001). Mucosal damage and sore throat were lower in LMA Gastro Group.

CONCLUSIONS

LMA® Gastro™ had a higher OLP than GLT. However, GLT was better for endoscopist satisfaction, as it provides more satisfying maneuverability. As to secondary outcome advers events were lower in LMA® Gastro™. The lower complication rates associated with the device and providing a more patent airway also highlighted the apparent clinical efficacy of LMA® Gastro™ than GLT, in ERCP.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in the Era of COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which led to a worldwide pandemic that started in early 2020. Healthcare systems across the world encountered an unprecedented surge of COVID-19 patients resulting in more than half a million deaths globally. COVID-19 has affected multiple sub-specialties and procedure-related fields, including gastroenterology. Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy centers are specialized units where thousands of endoscopies are performed annually. A significant proportion of these procedures are affected due to the national and regional lockdowns across the globe. To adapt to this rapidly evolving situation, endoscopy centers have undergone significant changes and have taken unprecedented precautions to avoid the transmission of the virus. However, endoscopy centers are going through financial strain due to a reduction in the number of procedures from lockdowns and fear of virus transmission. Theoretically, endoscopies could add to the disease transmission as SARS-CoV-2 has shown to be present in the GI secretions. Multiple precautions such as mandatory use of face masks, safe distancing, use of barriers between the endoscopists and patients, negative pressure rooms, extended use of personal protective equipment, and volume reduction have been taken to decrease the risk of disease transmission by these centers. Moreover, pre-endoscopy COVID-19 testing has now become the norm. In this review, we highlight the significant changes assumed by the endoscopy center. Furthermore, we discuss cost-related concerns of pre-endoscopy COVID-19 testing, the downtime and delays related to the procedures, and effects of rescheduling. As the pandemic progresses through multiple phases, endoscopy centers should use a dynamic approach to adapt and strive to provide the best patient care.