The risk and safety of anesthesia at remote locations: the US closed claims analysis. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2009;22:502-508. [PMID: 19506473 DOI: 10.1097/aco.0b013e32832dba50]

Feasibility of non-anesthesiologist-administered sedation with dexmedetomidine and midazolam during endoscopic submucosal dissection of upper gastrointestinal tumors

Objectives

The efficacy and safety of a sedation regimen combining dexmedetomidine and midazolam during endoscopic submucosal dissection for upper gastrointestinal tumors remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this sedation regimen, where non-anesthesiologists performed sedation.

Methods

Sixty-eight patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection for upper gastrointestinal tumors, sedated by non-anesthesiologists, were retrospectively evaluated. The sedation was performed by non-anesthesiologists as part of on-the-job training (OJT) under anesthesiologists' supervision. Each non-anesthesiologist received OJT at least thrice. Proficiency levels were assessed during the third OJT session. The target sedation depth was a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -2 to -4, with 2 L/min of oxygen delivered via a nasal cannula at sedation initiation. The treatment completion rates, which measured efficacy and safety, were assessed by the frequencies of respiratory depression, hypotension, and bradycardia.

Results

The study included 14, 52, and two patients with superficial esophageal cancer, early gastric cancer, and gastric adenoma, respectively. The median treatment time was 68 and 84 min for superficial esophageal cancer, early gastric cancer, and adenoma, respectively. Endoscopic submucosal dissection was completed in all patients. No severe sedation-related adverse events were reported; however, peripheral arterial oxygen saturation <90%, hypotension, and bradycardia occurred in 1 (1.5%), 30 (44.1%), and 30 patients (44.1%), respectively. All 22 non-anesthesiologists who underwent the proficiency evaluation passed the test.

Conclusions

A sedation regimen combining dexmedetomidine and midazolam can be feasibly administered by non-anesthesiologists. Further studies are needed to verify the effectiveness of OJT.

Intravenous lidocaine decreased the incidence of SRAEs for ERCP procedures in elderly frailty patients, a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Elderly frailty patients are at particular risk of sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) during sedation. This study aimed to assess whether intravenous lidocaine could reduce the incidence of SRAEs in elderly frailty patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

A total of 210 elderly frailty patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly divided into two groups: lidocaine and control. Patients in the lidocaine group received intravenous lidocaine (1.0 mg/kg) before anesthesia induction, followed by continuous intravenous infusion (2.0 mg/kg/h) during ERCP. The control group received an equal volume of saline solution. The primary endpoint was the composite incidence of SRAEs during ERCP. Secondary endpoints were propofol consumption, VAS score, endoscopists' and patients' satisfaction scores and lidocaine-related adverse events and so on.

RESULTS

The composite incidence of SRAEs in the lidocaine group was significantly lower than in the control group (41.05% vs. 21.86%, p < 0.05). The propofol requirement (436.11 ± 118.90, 388.54 ± 149.65. p < 0.001) and VAS score of patients (3.02 ± 1.07, 2.54 ± 1.10. p < 0.05) in the lidocaine group were significantly lower than those in the control group. The endoscopists' satisfaction scores (7.77 ± 1.12, 8.23 ± 1.10. p < 0.05) and patients' satisfaction scores (8.53 ± 0.95, 8.98 ± 0.86. p < 0.05) in lidocaine group were significantly higher than those in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous lidocaine can significantly decrease the incidence of SRAEs for ERCP procedures in elderly frailty patients, with no increase in lidocaine or other related adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Trial ID: ChiCTR2300067796, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=185763 ).

Navigating gastrointestinal endoscopy challenges in the intensive care unit: A mini review

Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) may need bedside endoscopy for gastrointestinal (GI) emergencies. Conducting endoscopy in the ICU for critically ill patients needs special consideration. This mini review focuses on indications for bedside endoscopes, including GI bleeding, volvulus, and bowel obstruction. It explains the risks associated with urgent endoscopies in critical patients and outcomes. Hemodynamic instability, coagulopathy, and impaired mucosal visualization are important considerations before bedside endoscopy. It also discusses the anesthesia considerations for non-operating room anesthesia. Multidisciplinary collaboration, meticulous patient selection, and procedural optimization help mitigate risks and maximize procedural success.

Comparison of a single intravenous infusion of alfentanil or sufentanil combined with target-controlled infusion of propofol for daytime hysteroscopy: a randomized clinical trial

Background

The administration of either alfentanil or sufentanil as a single injection, combined with target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol, represents a frequently employed anesthetic regimen for daytime hysteroscopy.

Objectives

This study was designed to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of alfentanil and sufentanil in the context of daytime hysteroscopy.

Design

A total of 160 patients, scheduled for daytime hysteroscopy, were randomly allocated into two groups: Group A and Group S respectively received alfentanil 10 μg/kg or sufentanil 0.15 μg/kg as a single intravenous injection. Both groups were given propofol with TCI for sedation.

Methods

Monitoring of vital signs was conducted from pre-anesthesia through to 2 h postoperatively. The primary outcome measured was hypoxemia, defined as SpO2 levels below 92% for a duration of 30 s, which necessitated manual positive pressure ventilation. Secondary outcomes included various perioperative complications, such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurring 2 h after surgery, as well as hemodynamic indicators, NRS scores for pain, and other anesthesia-related data. This comprehensive dataset was meticulously documented and subsequently analyzed for comparative purposes.

Results

The analyses revealed that Group A had a significantly lower incidence of hypoxemia (p = 0.002) and PONV (p = 0.021). Additionally, group A demonstrated overall more stable blood pressure and heart rate, as well as higher SpO2 levels.

Conclusion

For daytime hysteroscopy, alfentanil at a dose of 10 μg/kg is safer than sufentanil at a dose of 0.15 μg/kg when combined with propofol TCI.

Trial registration

This study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (The URL of registration is https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=177784; registration number: ChiCTR2200063939). The date of first registration was September 21, 2022.

Patient selection for nonoperating room anesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the rapid growth of nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) in recent years, it is essential to review its unique challenges as well as strategies for patient selection and care optimization.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent investigations have uncovered an increasing prevalence of older and higher ASA physical status patients in NORA settings. Although closed claim data regarding patient injury demonstrate a lower proportion of NORA cases resulting in a claim than traditional operating room cases, NORA cases have an increased risk of claim for death. Challenges within NORA include site-specific differences, limitations in ergonomic design, and increased stress among anesthesia providers. Several authors have thus proposed strategies focusing on standardizing processes, site-specific protocols, and ergonomic improvements to mitigate risks.

SUMMARY

Considering the unique challenges of NORA settings, meticulous patient selection, risk stratification, and preoperative optimization are crucial. Embracing data-driven strategies and leveraging technological innovations (such as artificial intelligence) is imperative to refine quality control methods in targeted areas. Collaborative efforts led by anesthesia providers will ensure personalized, well tolerated, and improved patient outcomes across all phases of NORA care.

Comparison of the Jcerity endoscoper airway and the endotracheal tube in endoscopic esophageal variceal ligation: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Various airway techniques have been used in endoscopic esophageal variceal ligation (EVL). In this respect, Jcerity endoscoper airway (JEA) is a novel laryngeal mask airway that is designed for use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In the present study, 164 patients who underwent EVL were randomly divided into JEA group or endotracheal tube (ETT) group (ratio: 1:1). Success rate of endoscopic procedure, endoscope insertion time, procedure duration, recovery time, airway technique extubation time, anesthesia costs, hospital stay duration, complications, and hemodynamic parameters were recorded. The success rate of EVL in the JEA group was noninferior to that in the ETT group (98.8% vs. 100.0%). The airway insertion time, anesthesia duration, and recovery time were significantly shorter in the JEA group than in the ETT group (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the blood pressure during extubation was more stable in the JEA group (p < 0.001). Moreover, there were less heart rate variations during intubation (p < 0.005) and extubation (p < 0.05) in the JEA group. Nonetheless, the endoscopists' satisfaction scores were comparable between the two groups. Overall, our findings suggest that JEA is efficient and safe for clinical use in EVL.Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000031892, Registered April 13, 2020, https://www.chictr.org.cn/searchproj.html .

CO2 enterography in endoscopic retrograde cholangiography using double-balloon endoscopy: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Double-balloon endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (DBERC) is a valuable procedure for patients with altered gastrointestinal anatomy. Nonetheless, it is time-consuming and burdensome for both patients and endoscopists, partly because route selection in the reconstructed bowel with complicating loop is challenging. Carbon dioxide insufflation enterography is reportedly useful for route selection in the blind loop. This prospective randomized clinical trial investigated the usefulness of carbon dioxide insufflation enterography for route selection by comparing it with conventional observation.

METHODS

Patients scheduled to undergo DBERC were consecutively registered. They were divided into carbon dioxide insufflation enterography and conventional groups via randomization according to stratification factors, type of reconstruction methods, and experience with DBERC. The primary endpoint was the correct rate of initial route selection. The secondary endpoints were the insertion time, examination time, amount of anesthesia drugs, and complications.

RESULTS

The correct rate of route selection was significantly higher in the carbon dioxide insufflation enterography group (23/25, 92%) than in the visual method (15/25, 60%) (P = 0.018). The insertion time was significantly shorter in the carbon dioxide insufflation enterography group than in the visual group (10.8 ± 11.1 min vs 29.8 ± 15.7 min; P < 0.001). No significant differences in complications were noted between the two groups. The amounts of sedatives and analgesics used were significantly lower in the carbon dioxide insufflation enterography group (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Carbon dioxide insufflation enterography can reduce the burden of DBERC on patients and endoscopists by shortening the examination time and reducing the amount of medication.

Musculoskeletal oncology and thermal ablation: the current and emerging role of interventional radiology

The role of interventional radiology (IR) is expanding. With new techniques being developed and tested, this radiology subspecialty is taking a step forward in different clinical scenarios, especially in oncology. Musculoskeletal tumoral diseases would definitely benefit from a low-invasive approach that could reduce mortality and morbidity in particular. Thermal ablation through IR has already become important in the palliation and consolidation of bone metastases, oligometastatic disease, local recurrences, and treating specific benign tumors, with a more tailored approach, considering the characteristics of every patient. As image-guided ablation techniques lower their invasiveness and increase their efficacy while the collateral effects and complications decrease, they become more relevant and need to be considered in patient care pathways and clinical management, to improve outcomes. We present a literature review of the different percutaneous and non-invasive image-guided thermal ablation methods that are currently available and that could in the future become relevant to manage musculoskeletal oncologic diseases.

A Consensus-Driven Revision of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Case Log System: Pediatric Anesthesiology Fellowship Education

BACKGROUND

Clinical experiences, quantified by case logs, are an integral part of pediatric anesthesiology fellowship programs. Accreditation of pediatric anesthesiology fellowships by the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and establishment of case log reporting occurred in 1997 and 2009, respectively. The specialty has evolved since then, but the case log system remains largely unchanged. The Pediatric Anesthesiology Program Directors Association (PAPDA) embarked on the development of an evidence-based case log proposal through the efforts of a case log task force (CLTF). This proposal was part of a larger consensus-building process of the Society for Pediatric Anesthesia (SPA) Task Force for Pediatric Anesthesiology Graduate Medical Education. The primary aim of case log revision was to propose an evidence-based, consensus-driven update to the pediatric anesthesiology case log system.

METHODS

This study was executed in 2 phases. The CLTF, composed of 10 program directors representing diverse pediatric anesthesiology fellowship programs across the country, utilized evidence-based literature to develop proposed new categories. After an approval vote by PAPDA membership, this proposal was included in the nationally representative, stakeholder-based Delphi process executed by the SPA Task Force on Graduate Medical Education. Thirty-seven participants engaged in this Delphi process, during which iterative rounds of surveys were used to select elements of the old and newly proposed case logs to create a final revision of categories and minimums for updated case logs. The Delphi methodology was used, with a two-thirds agreement as the threshold for inclusion.

RESULTS

Participation in the Delphi process was robust, and consensus was almost completely achieved by round 2 of 3 survey rounds. Participants suggested that total case minimums should increase from 240 to 300 (300-370). Participants agreed (75.86%) that the current case logs targeted the right types of cases, but requirements were too low (82.75%). They also agreed (85.19%) that the case log system and minimums deserved an update, and that this should be used as part of a competency-based assessment in pediatric anesthesia fellowships (96%). Participants supported new categories and provided recommended minimum numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

The pediatric anesthesiology case log system continues to have a place in the assessment of fellowship programs, but it requires an update. This Delphi process established broad support for new categories and benchmarked minimums to ensure the robustness of fellowship programs and to better prepare the pediatric anesthesiology workforce of the future for independent clinical practice.

Advances in Analgosedation and Periprocedural Care for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The number and complexity of endoscopic gastrointestinal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is globally increasing. Procedural analgosedation during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has become the gold standard of gastrointestinal endoscopies. Patient satisfaction and safety are important for the quality of the technique. Currently there are no uniform sedation guidelines and protocols for specific gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and there are several challenges surrounding the choice of an appropriate analgosedation technique. These include categories of patients, choice of drug, appropriate monitoring, and medical staff providing the service. The ideal analgosedation technique should enable the satisfaction of the patient, their maximum safety and, at the same time, cost-effectiveness. Although propofol is the gold standard and the most used general anesthetic for endoscopies, its use is not without risks such as pain at the injection site, respiratory depression, and hypotension. New studies are looking for alternatives to propofol, and drugs like remimazolam and ciprofol are in the focus of researchers' interest. New monitoring techniques are also associated with them. The optimal technique of analgosedation should provide good analgesia and sedation, fast recovery, comfort for the endoscopist, patients' safety, and will have financial benefits. The future will show whether these new drugs have succeeded in these goals.

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

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

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.).

Gas Pressure From the Endoscope: An Unexplored Contributor to Morbidity and Mortality?

Background It has been shown that the incidence of venous air embolism and venous carbon dioxide (CO₂) embolism is high during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We examined insufflating gas flow and maximum pressure produced by three types of commonly used endoscopes because we could not readily locate technical data for endoscope gas flow and maximum emitted pressure in the manufacturer's manuals. Methods We tested the Olympus GIF-Q180 used for esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the CF-Q180 used for colonoscopy, and the TJF-Q180 used for ERCP (Olympus America Inc., Center Valley, Pennsylvania). Under three different clinical gas insufflation scenarios, we measured in vitro maximum gas pressure transduced from a closed space created at the endoscope tip in a worst-case scenario analysis. Results We showed that it is readily possible to generate a pressure (>5-30 times normal central venous pressure) in the air space at the tip of all three endoscopes when insufflation is activated and the gas egress is limited. Conclusions These findings shed additional light on in vivo occurrences of gas embolism during gastrointestinal endoscopy. We postulate that in addition to using exclusively CO₂ as the insufflating gas, the risk of gas embolism can be further diminished by regulating insufflating gas pressure at the tip of endoscopes.

Systems safety in nonoperating room anesthesia locations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) care is an area of rapid growth over the last decade. However, literature describing safety systems in NORA is limited. This review evaluates historical safety models described by Donabedian and Reason, assesses the NORA environment and safety concerns that may contribute to adverse events, and provides potential solutions via a human-centered systems safety design.

RECENT FINDINGS

Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 3.0 provides a framework for quality and patient safety improvement. Although the previous SEIPS 2.0 model has been used to evaluate NORA environments with focus on the case volume, high productivity pressure, and significant physical constraints common to NORA sites, literature describing SEIPS 3.0 in relation to NORA care is sparse. Given the rate of malpractice claims for death in NORA settings, solutions that address the multifactorial nature of adverse events are needed.

SUMMARY

The SEIPS 3.0 model may be applied to NORA care. Changes should focus on staffing ratios, staff/patient education, checklist utilization, burnout prevention, scheduling efficiency, anesthesia workstation standardization, communication improvements, room layout, medication and supply availability and storage, and the global managerial approach. Team members must demonstrate flexibility and a willingness to adapt to successfully implement change.

Frameworks for value-based care in the nonoperating room setting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) presents a unique opportunity for the application of value-based care (VBC) principles to procedures performed in the office-based and nonoperating room inpatient settings. The purpose of this article is to review how value is defined in NORA and enabling principles by which anesthesiologists can maximize value in NORA.

RECENT FINDINGS

In order to drive value, NORA providers can target improvements in clinical outcomes where NORA lags behind operating room-based anesthesia (death, over-sedation, nerve injury), implement protocols focusing on intermediate outcomes/quality (postoperative nausea and vomiting, pain control, hypothermia, delirium), incorporate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess the trajectory of a patient's perioperative care, and reduce costs (direct and indirect) through operational and supply-based efficiencies. Establishing a culture of patient and provider safety first, appropriate patient selection with targeted, perioperative optimization of comorbidities, and efficient deployment of staff, space, and resources are critical enablers for success.

SUMMARY

Value in NORA can be defined as clinical outcomes, quality, patient-reported outcomes, and efficiency divided by the direct and indirect costs for achieving those outcomes. We present a novel framework adapting current VBC practices in operating room anesthesia to the NORA environment.

Prevention of pulmonary complications in sedated patients undergoing interventional procedures in the nonoperating room anesthesia setting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) procedures have expanded in number, variety, and complexity. NORA involves all age groups, including frail older adults and patients often considered too sick to tolerate traditional surgical interventions. Postoperative pulmonary complications are a significant source of adverse events in the perioperative setting. We present a review focused on preventing pulmonary complications in the interventional NORA setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

NORA locations should function as independent, autonomous ambulatory units. We discuss a strategic plan involving a thorough preoperative evaluation of patients, including recognizing high-risk patients and their anesthetic management. Finally, we offer guidance on the challenges of conducting sedation and anesthesia in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or a history of COVID-19.

SUMMARY

The demands on the interventional NORA anesthesia team are increasing. Strategic planning, checklists, consistent staffing assignments, and scheduled safety drills are valuable tools to improve patient safety. In addition, through quality improvement initiatives and reporting, NORA anesthetists can achieve reductions in periprocedural pulmonary complications.

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

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

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.

Efficacy of high flow nasal oxygenation against hypoxemia in sedated patients receiving gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of high flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) on the risk of hypoxemia during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (GEPs) under sedation.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

SETTING

Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

INTERVENTION

HFNO.

PATIENTS

Adults patients undergoing GEPs under sedation.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was risk of hypoxemia, while the secondary outcomes included risks of severe hypoxemia, hypercapnia, need for jaw thrust or other airway interventions, and procedural interruption as well as procedure time, minimum SpO₂, and level of carbon dioxide (CO₂). Analyses based on age, gender, flow rate, risk status of patients were performed to investigate subgroup effects.

RESULTS

Medline, Google scholar, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to July 2021. Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 2998 patients published from 2019 to 2021 were included. All GEPs were performed under propofol sedation. Pooled results revealed significantly lower risks of hypoxemia [relative risk (RR) = 0.31, 95% CI:0.13-0.75; 2998 patients], severe hypoxemia (RR = 0.38, 95% CI:0.2-0.74; 2766 patients), other airway interventions (RR = 0.34, 95% CI:0.22-0.52; 2736 patients), procedural interruption (RR = 0.12, 95% CI:0.02-0.64, 451 patients) and a lower CO₂ level [standard mean difference (MD) = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.4 to -0.03; 458 patients] in HFNO group compared to control group. Subgroup analysis focusing on risk of hypoxemia showed no significant subgroup effects, indicating consistent benefits of HFNO in different clinical settings. There were no difference in minimum SpO₂ (p = 0.06; 262 patients), risk of hypercapnia (p = 0.09; 393 patients), need for jaw thrust (p = 0.28; 2256 patients), and procedure time (p = 0.41, 1004 patients) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated the efficacy of high flow nasal oxygenation for reducing the risk of hypoxemia in patients receiving elective gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures under sedation. Further studies are warranted to verify its cost-effectiveness in the gastrointestinal endoscopy setting.

The Comparison of Two Different Techniques of Remifentanil Administration During Implantable Vascular Access Device Procedures

PURPOSE

The aim was to compare analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of two different techniques of intravenous remifentanil administration in patients undergoing vascular; access device procedures with monitored anesthesia care.

DESIGN

A randomized, single-blinded controlled study.

METHODS

The patients (N = 92) were 30-80 years old and of American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I-III. The first group was the continuous infusion group (group CI). Intravenous continuous remifentanil was infused after starting at a dosage of 0.1 mcg/kg/min, and the dose was raised incrementally up to 1 mcg/kg/min if required. The second group was intravenous bolus patient-controlled sedation analgesia (PCSA) with remifentanil infusion at a dose of 0.05 mcg/kg per minute and bolus of 0.1 mcg/kg with lock-out time of 3 minutes. In both groups, a bolus dose of 0.1 mcg/kg remifentanil was administered. The data evaluated include level of pain and sedation, total amount of remifentanil consumption, bolus doses of remifentanil, patient and surgeon satisfaction, hemodynamic data, and adverse events.

FINDINGS

In comparison between techniques, pain and sedation scores during procedure, duration of procedure, patient and surgeon satisfaction, additional rescue medication, and bolus doses were not statistically different (P > .05). The total amount of remifentanil administered was significantly lower in the infusion group than that in the bolus group (P = .031).

CONCLUSIONS

For central venous access device procedures under monitored anesthesia care, remifentanil use in both infusion and bolus techniques could provide sufficient sedation and analgesia without serious adverse effects. Total remifentanil consumption amount in infusion group is lower than that in the bolus group.

Advances in Oncoanaesthesia and Cancer Pain

INTRODUCTION

The growing interest on how peri-‑operative interventions, especially regional anesthesia, during cancer surgery can alter oncological outcome increasing disease free survival is probably responsible for the birth of the new subspecialty called onco-anesthesia. A paradigm shift in the concept of anesthetic management has occurred recently owing to the innumerable diverse revelations from the ongoing research in this field.

DISCUSSION

Long lasting but reversible epigenetic changes can occur due to surgical stress and perioperative anesthetic medications. The exact relationship between these factors and tumor biology is being studied further. A popular topic under research now is the influence of regional anesthesia on cancer recurrence. Combining nerve blocks with total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) brings down the requirement of opioids and volatile anesthetic agents implicated in cancer recurrence. The study of mechanism of pain at the molecular level has led to the discovery of novel modes of prevention of chronic post-surgical pain. Newer combination aggressive treatment therapies -intraoperative chemotherapy and radiotherapy, isolated limb perfusion, photodynamic therapy and robotic surgery require specialized anesthetic management. The COVID pandemic introduced new guidelines for safe management of oncosurgical patients .Use of genomic mapping to personalize pain management will be the breakthrough of the decade.

CONCLUSION

The discovery that anesthetic strategy could have significant oncological sequel is a quantum leap forward. Avoiding some anesthetic medications may decrease cancer recurrence. Comprehensive cancer care and translational research will pave the way to uncover safe anesthetic practices.

Morbidity, mortality, and systems safety in non-operating room anaesthesia: a narrative review

Non-operating room anaesthesia (NORA) describes anaesthesia delivered outside a traditional operating room (OR) setting. Non-operating room anaesthesia cases have increased significantly in the last 20 yr and are projected to account for half of all anaesthetics delivered in the next decade. In contrast to most other medication administration contexts, NORA is performed in high-volume fast-paced environments not optimised for anaesthesia care. These predisposing factors combined with increasing case volume, less provider experience, and higher-acuity patients increase the potential for preventable adverse events. Our narrative review examines morbidity and mortality in NORA settings compared with the OR and the systems factors impacting safety in NORA. A review of the literature from January 1, 1994 to March 5, 2021 was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and ProQuest. After completing abstract screening and full-text review, 30 articles were selected for inclusion. These articles suggested higher rates of morbidity and mortality in NORA cases compared with OR cases. This included a higher proportion of death claims and complications attributable to inadequate oxygenation, and a higher likelihood that adverse events are preventable. Despite relatively few attempts to quantify safety concerns, it was possible to find a range of systems safety concerns repeated across multiple studies, including insufficient lighting, noise, cramped workspace, and restricted access to patients. Old and unfamiliar equipment, lack of team familiarity, and limited preoperative evaluation are also commonly noted challenges. Applying a systems view of safety, it is possible to suggest a range of methods to improve NORA safety and performance.

Patient monitoring in the nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) setting: current advances in technology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) procedures continue to increase in type and complexity as procedural medicine makes technical advances. Patients presenting for NORA procedures are also older and sicker than ever. Commensurate with the requirements of procedural medicine, anesthetic monitoring must meet the American Society of Anesthesiologists standards for basic monitoring.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been improvements in the required monitors that are used for intraoperative patient care. Some of these changes have been with new technologies and others have occurred with software refinements. In addition, specialized monitoring devises have also been introduced into NORA locations (depth of hypnosis, respiratory monitoring, point-of care ultrasound). These additions to the monitoring tools available to the anesthesiologist working in the NORA-environment push the boundaries of procedures which may be accomplished in this setting.

SUMMARY

NORA procedures constitute a growing percentage of total administered anesthetics. There is no difference in the monitoring standard between that of an anesthetic administered in an operating room and a NORA location. Anesthesiologists in the NORA setting must have the same compendium of monitors available as do their colleagues working in the operating suite.

National trends in nonoperating room anesthesia: procedures, facilities, and patient characteristics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) continues to increase in popularity and scope. This article reviews current and new trends in NORA, trends in anesthesia management in nonoperating room settings, and the evolving debates surrounding these trends.

RECENT FINDINGS

National data suggests that NORA cases will continue to rise relative to operating room (OR) anesthesia and there will continue to be a shift towards performing more interventional procedures outside of the OR. These trends have important implications for the safety of interventional procedures as they become increasingly more complex and patients continue to be older and more frail. In order for anesthesia providers and proceduralists to be prepared for this future, rigorous standards must be set for safe anesthetic care outside of the OR.Although the overall association between NORA and patient morbidity and mortality remains unclear, focused studies point toward trends specific to each non-OR procedure type. Given increasing patient and procedure complexity, anesthesiology teams may see a larger role in the interventional suite. However, the ideal setting and placement of anesthesia staff for interventional procedures remain controversial. Also, the impact of COVID-19 on the growth and utilization of non-OR anesthesia remains unclear, and it remains to be seen how the pandemic will influence the delivery of NORA procedures in postpandemic settings.

SUMMARY

NORA is a rapidly growing field of anesthesia. Continuing discussions of complication rates and mortality in different subspecialty areas will determine the need for anesthesia care and quality improvement efforts in each setting. As new noninvasive procedures are developed, new data will continue to shape debates surrounding anesthesia care outside of the operating room.

Frameworks for trainee education in the nonoperating room setting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As the volume and types of procedures requiring anesthesiologist involvement in the nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) setting continue to grow, it is important to create a formal curriculum and clearly define educational goals.

RECENT FINDINGS

A NORA rotation should be accompanied by a dedicated curriculum that should include topics such as education objectives, information about different interventional procedures, anesthesia techniques and equipment, and safety principles. NORA environment may be unfamiliar to anesthesia residents. The trainees must also learn the principles of efficiency, rapid recovery from anesthesia, and timely room turnover. Resident education in NORA should be an essential component of their training. The goals and objectives of the NORA educational experience should include not only developing the clinical knowledge necessary to implement the specific type of anesthetic desired for each procedure, but also the practical knowledge of care coordination needed to safely and efficiently work in the NORA setting.

SUMMARY

As educators, we must foster and grow a resident's resilience by continually challenging them with new clinical scenarios and giving them appropriate autonomy to take risks and move outside of their comfort zone. Residents should understand that exposure to such unique and demanding environment can be transformative.

Anaesthesia for minimally invasive cardiac procedures in the catheterization lab

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The share of cardiac procedures performed in settings involving nonoperating room anaesthesia (NORA) continues to grow rapidly, and the number of publications related to anaesthetic techniques in cardiac catheterization laboratories is substantial. We aim to summarize the most recent evidence about outcomes related to type of anaesthetic in minimally invasive cardiac procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

The latest studies, primarily focused on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr), demonstrate the need for reliable monitoring and appropriate training of the interdisciplinary teams involved in this high-risk NORA setting.

SUMMARY

Inappropriate sedation and concurrent inadequate oxygenation are main risk factors for claims involving NORA care. Current evidence deriving from TAVR shows that monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) is associated with shorter length of stay and lower mortality.

Effect of high-flow vs. low-flow nasal plus mouthguard oxygen therapy on hypoxaemia during sedation: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Whether high-flow vs. low-flow nasal oxygen reduces hypoxaemia for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is currently unknown. In this multicentre trial, 132 patients ASA physical status 3 or higher, BMI > 30 kg.m^-2 or with known or suspected obstructive sleep apnoea were randomly allocated to high-flow nasal oxygen up to 60 l.min^-1 at 100% F_I O₂ or low-flow nasal oxygen at 4 l.min^-1 . The low-flow nasal oxygen group also received oxygen at 4 l.min^-1 through an oxygenating mouthguard, totalling 8 l.min^-1 . Primary outcome was hypoxaemia, defined as S_p O₂ < 90% regardless of duration. Hypoxaemia occurred in 7.7% (5/65) of patients with high-flow and 9.1% (6/66) with low-flow nasal oxygen (percentage point difference -1.4%, 95%CI -10.9 to 8.0; p = 0.77). Between the groups, there were no significant differences in frequency of hypoxaemic episodes; lowest S_p O₂ ; peak transcutaneous carbon dioxide; hypercarbia (transcutaneous carbon dioxide > 2.66 kPa from baseline); requirement of chin lift/jaw thrust; nasopharyngeal airway insertion; bag-mask ventilation; or tracheal intubation. Following adjustment for duration of the procedure, the primary outcome remained non-significant. In high-risk patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, oxygen therapy with high-flow nasal oxygen did not reduce the rate of hypoxaemia, hypercarbia or the need for airway interventions, compared with combined oral and nasal low-flow oxygen.

Perioperative Emergencies: Who, What, When, Where, Why?

OBJECTIVE(S)

Throughout the last several decades, the perioperative mortality rate from anesthesia care has declined, shifting focus to perioperative emergencies. Data on these emergencies, often referred to as "Anesthesia STAT" calls (STATs), are lacking at adult hospitals. The goal of this study was to determine the etiology of STATs at a major academic medical center and to determine surgical cases and patient comorbid conditions that increase the risk for STATs.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective observational study.

SETTING

This study took place at a large academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients who underwent anesthesia care were included in this study.

INTERVENTIONS

No interventions were performed during this study.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Data collected included the etiologies of STATs, patient demographic information, patient comorbid conditions, and surgeries during which STATs occurred. Between February 1, 2019, and January 31, 2020, 92 STATs occurred during 58,547 anesthetic cases, with an incidence rate of 0.16%. The most common etiology for a STAT was cardiac arrest, followed by respiratory compromise. Surgical services associated with a significant increase of STATs included general, thoracic, oral/maxillofacial, and vascular surgery. Comorbid conditions that significantly increased the risk of STATs included hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, obstructive sleep apnea, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiac arrest is the most common etiology of STATs. Specific surgical services and comorbid conditions are associated with an increased risk of STATs.

Could anaesthesia be a key factor for the good outcome of bone ablation procedures? A retrospective analysis of a musculoskeletal interventional centre

OBJECTIVE

To choose the best anaesthetic approach through the retrospective review of different bone ablation procedures.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We retrospectively evaluated 118 ablation procedures carried out in our institute over the last 30 months. Three different anaesthetic approaches were used: general anaesthesia, i.v. sedation/analgesia and loco-regional anaesthesia (brachial plexus block, spinal anaesthesia). The outcomes were evaluated based on three parameters: technical success, patient comfort (Scale 1-5) and operator comfort (Scale 1-5).

RESULTS

The 118 interventional procedures were carried out on 62 benign and 56 malignant bone lesions. The overall procedural success rate was 100%. Three cases were treated under general anaesthesia: patient comfort was 5/5 in all cases; operator comfort was 5/5 in one case, and 4/5 in two cases. Twenty-one patients underwent sedation/analgesia: in three patients with benign bone lesions, patient comfort was 1/5 and operator comfort 3/5; in two patients with malignant bone lesions, patient comfort was 3/5 and operator comfort 4/5. Ninety-four patients underwent loco-regional anaesthesia: patient and operator comfort was 5/5 in all cases.

CONCLUSION

Based on our experience, loco-regional anaesthesia is probably the best anaesthetic approach during bone ablation procedures. Benign bone lesions ablation are the more painful procedures.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This is the first paper that systematically investigates about the best anaesthesiological support for IR procedures.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

Hypoxemia during procedural sedation in adult patients: a retrospective observational study

PURPOSE

Since 2010, new guidelines for procedural sedation and the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety have increased patient safety, comfort, and acceptance considerably. Nevertheless, the administration of sedatives and opioids during sedation procedures may put the patient at risk of hypoxemia. However, data on hypoxemia during procedural sedation are scarce. Here, we studied the incidence and severity of hypoxemia during procedural sedations in our hospital.

METHODS

A historical, single-centre cohort study was performed at the University Medical Centre Utrecht (UMCU), a tertiary centre in the Netherlands. Data from procedural sedation in our hospital between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2018 (3,459 males and 2,534 females; total, 5,993) were extracted from our Anesthesia Information Management System. Hypoxemia was defined as peripheral oxygen saturation < 90% lasting at least two consecutive minutes. The severity of hypoxemia was calculated as area under the curve. The relationship between the severity of hypoxemia and body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status classification, and duration of the procedure was investigated. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine percent of moderately to deeply sedated patients developed hypoxemia. A high incidence of hypoxemia was found in patients undergoing procedures in the heart catheterization room (54%) and in patients undergoing bronchoscopy procedures (56%). Hypoxemia primarily occurred in longer lasting procedures (> 120 min) and especially in the latter phases of the procedures. There was no relationship between severity of hypoxemia and BMI or ASA Physical Status.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that a considerable number of patients are at risk of hypoxemia during procedural sedation with a positive correlation shown with increasing duration of medical procedures. Additional prospective research is needed to investigate the clinical consequences of this cumulative hypoxemia.

Safety of the LMA®Gastro™ for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) patients typically receive either tubeless anesthesia or general endotracheal anesthesia (GETA). Patients receiving propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) are at higher risk of sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) than patients receiving GETA, primarily due to the need for additional airway maneuvers. The increasing use of non-operating room (OR) anesthesia and the perception of a higher incidence of adverse outcomes in non-OR areas has led to the development of devices to improve safety while maintaining efficiency. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the LMA Gastro™ could be used as a safe alternative to tubeless anesthesia for successfully completing ERCPs.

METHODS

Eligible subjects were identified within the patient population at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Inclusion criteria consisted of adult patients (≥18 years old) scheduled for elective ERCP with TIVA. This was a prospective observational study in which the following data were collected: number of attempts and time to successful supraglottic airway (SGA) placement, vital signs, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), median end-tidal CO2, practitioner satisfaction, and any complications.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients were included in this study. The overall rate of successful SGA placement within 3 attempts was 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.8-99.9) or 29/30. The rate of successful ERCP with SGA placement within 3 attempts was 93.3% (95% CI, 77.9-99.2) or 28/30. Both the gastroenterologist and anesthesiologist reported satisfaction with the device in 90% of the cases (in 66.7% of the cases both anesthesiologist and gastroenterologist scored the device a 7/7 for satisfaction). Patients maintained an SpO2 of 95%-100% from induction to discharge, with the exception of 1 patient who had an SpO2 of 93%. The median end-tidal CO2 during the procedure for all patients was 35 mm Hg. Observed aspiration did not occur in any patient. Symptoms of hoarseness (13.3%), mouth soreness (6.7%), sore throat (6.6%), and minor bleeding/cuts/redness/change in taste to the tongue (3.3%) were determined through patient questioning before postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the LMA Gastro might be a safe alternative for ERCP procedures. There was a high level of practitioner satisfaction. Only minor complications, such as hoarseness, mouth or throat soreness, or minor trauma to the tongue were experienced by patients. Similar incidences of complications may occur with GETA and tubeless anesthesia. The procedure was well tolerated by all patients; all patients maintained adequate oxygenation and required only minimal blood pressure support.

Nonoperating room anaesthesia: safety, monitoring, cognitive aids and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With an ageing population, mounting pressure on the healthcare dollar, significant advances in medical technology, and now in the context of coronavirus disease 2019, the traditional paradigm in which operative procedures are undertaken is changing. Increasingly, procedures are performed in more distant, isolated and less familiar locations, challenging anaesthesiologists and requiring well developed situational awareness. This review looks at implications for the practitioner and patient safety, outlining considerations and steps involved in translation of systems and processes well established in the operating room to more unfamiliar environments.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite limited nonoperating room anaesthesia outcome data, analysis of malpractice claims, anaesthesia-related medical disputes and clinical outcome registries have suggested higher morbidity and mortality. Complications were often associated with suboptimal monitoring, nonadherence to recommended guidelines and sedationist or nonanaesthesiologist caregivers. More recently, clear monitoring guidelines, global patient safety initiatives and widespread implementation of cognitive aids may have contributed to nonoperating room anaesthesia (NORA) outcomes approaching that of traditional operating rooms.

SUMMARY

As NORA caseloads increase, understanding structural and anaesthetic requirements is essential to patient safety. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has provided an opportunity for anaesthesiologists to implement lessons learned from previous analyses, share expertise as patient safety leaders and provide valuable input into protecting patients and caregivers.

Pediatric Anesthesia Outside the Operating Room: Safety and Systems

Anesthesia care performed outside the operating room is a growing area of pediatric anesthesia practice. The anesthesiology team expects to care for children in diverse locations, which include diagnostic and interventional radiology, gastroenterology and pulmonary endoscopy suites, radiation oncology sites, and the cardiac catheterization laboratory. To provide safe, high-quality care the anesthesiologist working in these environments must understand the unique environmental, logistical, and perioperative considerations and risks involved with each remote location. This 2-part review provides an overview of safety and system considerations in pediatric nonoperating room anesthesia before describing in more detail considerations for particular remote anesthetizing locations.

Practice horizons in pediatric nonoperating room anesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anesthesia outside the operating room is rapidly expanding for adult and pediatric patients. Anesthesia clinicians practicing in this area need a good understanding of the challenges of the NORA environment and the anesthetic risks and perioperative implications of practice so that they can deliver safe care to their patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent reports from large patient databases have afforded anesthesiologists a greater understanding of the risk of NORA when compared to anesthesia in the operating room. Descriptions of advances in team training with the use of simulation have allowed the development of organized procedural teams. With an emphasis on clear communication, an understanding of individual roles, and a patient-centered focus, these teams can reliably develop emergency response procedures, so that critical moments are not delayed in an environment remote from usual assistance.

SUMMARY

With appropriate attention to organizational concerns (i.e. team environment, safety protocols) and unrelenting focus on patient safety, anesthesiologists can assist in safely providing the benefit of cutting-edge technical advancements to pediatric patients in these challenging environments.

Comparison of a simplified nasal continuous positive airways pressure device with nasal cannula in obese patients undergoing colonoscopy during deep sedation: A randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) with a CPAP machine and mask has been shown to be more effective at minimising hypoxaemia than other devices under deep sedation. However, the efficacy of a new and simple CPAP device for spontaneously breathing obese patients during colonoscopy is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesised that oxygenation and ventilation in obese patients under deep sedation during colonoscopy using CPAP via a new nasal mask (SuperNO2VA) would be better than routine care with oxygen supplementation via a nasal cannula.

DESIGN

Randomised study.

SETTING

Single-centre, June 2017 to October 2017.

PATIENTS

A total of 174 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to Mask group or Control group. Thirty-eight patients were excluded and data from 136 patients underwent final analysis.

INTERVENTION

Patients in the Mask group were provided with nasal CPAP (10 cmH2O) at an oxygen flow rate of 15 l min. In the Control group, patients were given oxygen via a nasal cannula at a flow rate of 5 l min.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was elapsed time from anaesthesia induction to the first airway intervention.

RESULTS

The elapsed time from anaesthesia induction to the first airway intervention was 19 ± 10 min in the Mask group (n=63) vs. 10 ± 12 min in the Control group (n=73, P < 0.001). In all, 87.5% (56/64) of patients achieved the target CPAP value. More patients in the Control group (63%) received airway intervention than in the Mask group (22%) (P < 0.001). Hypoxaemia (pulse oximeter oxygen saturation, SpO2 < 90%) occurred more frequently in the Control group (22%) than in the Mask group (5%) (P = 0.004). Minute ventilationPostinduction/minute ventilationBaseline and minute ventilationProcedure-end/minute ventilationBaseline was lower in the Control group than in the Mask group (P = 0.007 and 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Application of a nasal mask at a target CPAP of 10 cmH2O improves ventilation and decreases the frequency and severity of hypoxaemia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03139448, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.