Deep sedation for endoscopic cholangiopancreatography with or without pre or intraprocedural opioids: A double-blind randomised controlled trial

Feasibility and safety of deep sedation with propofol and remifentanil in spontaneous breathing during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: an observational prospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an interventional procedure that requires deep sedation or general anaesthesia. The purpose of this prospective observational study was to assess the feasibility and safety of deep sedation in ERCP to maintain spontaneous breathing.

METHODS

This is a single-centre observational prospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary referral university hospital. All consecutive patients who needed sedation or general anaesthesia for ERCP were included from January 2021 to June 2021. Deep sedation was achieved and maintained by continuous infusion of an association of propofol and remifentanil. The primary endpoint was to assess the prevalence of major anaesthesia-related complications, such as arrhythmias, hypotension, gas exchange dysfunction, and vomiting (safety endpoint). Secondary endpoints were: (a) to assess the prevalence of signs of an insufficient level of sedation, such as movement, cough, and hiccups (feasibility endpoint): (b) time needed to achieve the target level of sedation and for recovery from anaesthesia. In order to do so we collect the following parameters: peripheral oxygen saturation, fraction of inspired oxygen, noninvasive systemic blood pressure, heart rate, number of breaths per minute, neurological functions with the use of the bispectral index to determine depth of anaesthesia, and partially exhaustive CO2 end pressure to continuously assess the ventilatory status. The collected data were analysed by several tests: Shapiro-Wilk, Student's t, Tuckey post-hoc, Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskall-Wallis ran. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata/BE 17.0 (StataCorp LLC).

RESULTS

114 patients were enroled. Eight patients were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. We found that all patients were hemodynamically stable: intraoperative mean systolic blood pressure was 139,23 mmHg, mean arterial pressure was on average 106,66 mmHg, mean heart rate was 74,471 bpm. The mean time to achieve the target level of sedation was 63 s, while the mean time for the awakening after having stopped drug infusion was 92 s.

CONCLUSIONS

During ERCP, deep sedation and analgesia using the association of propofol and remifentanil and maintaining spontaneous breathing are safe and feasible, allowing for a safe and quick recovery from anaesthesia.

Efficacy and safety of remifentanil for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: a single center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Remifentanil is a rapid onset and rapid recovery opioid. The combination of remifentanil and propofol for deep sedation decreases the incidents of movement, cough, and hiccup. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of remifentanil during endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients in whom endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition was performed for solid mass lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract and adjacent organs. All patients were premedicated with midazolam (2 mg), and target-controlled infusion of propofol, opioid, and Bispectral Index (BIS) monitoring were administered as necessary to maintain moderate-to-deep sedation. The opioids used were a bolus of alfentanil or remifentanil infusion. The discharge time, consumption of propofol and opioid, adverse events, diagnostic accuracy, and sensitivity and specificity for malignancy, were compared.

RESULTS

Tissue acquisition was achieved in 123 patients (alfentanil group, n = 64; remifentanil group, n = 59). The discharge time of the remifentanil group (16.5 ± 3.2 min) was significantly shorter than that of the alfentanil group (19.0 ± 4.9 min, P = 0.001). The consumption of propofol, adverse events, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for malignancy in the alfentanil group were not significantly different from those in the remifentanil group.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of alfentanil or remifentanil for target-controlled infusion of propofol-BIS monitoring can provide good sedative and diagnostic quality for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. However, remifentanil resulted in faster recovery than alfentanil.

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.

Comparison of propofol monotherapy and propofol combination therapy for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Previous randomized controlled trials have reported conflicting findings comparing propofol combination therapy (PCT) with propofol monotherapy (PMT) for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Therefore, a systematic review was carried out to compare the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT in such patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Primary endpoints were incidence of respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, dose of propofol used, and recovery time. Procedure duration and the satisfaction of patients and doctors were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 2250 patients from 22 studies were included in the final analysis. The combined analysis did not show any difference between PCT and PMT in the incidence of respiratory complications (risk ratio [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.23; I2 = 58.34%), hypotension (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.78; I2 = 72.13%), arrhythmia (RR,1.40; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.64; I2 = 43.71%), recovery time (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.16; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.81; I2 = 95.9%), procedure duration (SMD, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.14; I2 = 0.0%), patient satisfaction (SMD, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.52; I2 = 89.63%) or doctor satisfaction (SMD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.17; I2 = 0.00%). However, the dose of propofol used was significantly lower in PCT than in PMT (SMD, -1.38; 95% CI, -1.99 to -0.77; I2 = 97.70%).

CONCLUSION

PCT showed comparable efficacy and safety to PMT with respect to respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, recovery time, procedure duration, patient satisfaction, and doctor satisfaction. However, the average dose of propofol used was higher in PMT.

Age correlates with hypotension during propofol-based anesthesia for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a procedure used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Most of the patients may feel pain, anxiety, and discomfort during this procedure, so conscious sedation is usually used during ERCP. General anesthesia would be considered if conscious sedation fails to achieve the requirement of the endoscopists. Several studies showed that propofol-based sedation could provide a better recovery profile. However, propofol has a narrow therapeutic window and complications may occur beyond this window. The present study aimed to find out the complications and the associated risk factors during ERCP procedure under propofol-based deep sedation.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from anesthetic and procedure records of the patients who underwent ERCP under propofol-based deep sedation from January 2006 to July 2010 at Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. All propofol-based deep sedations were conducted by anesthesiologists. The incidence of complications was determined and the independent risk factors identified by the multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULT

Propofol-based deep sedation was provided for 552 patients who received ERCP procedure. The majority of the patients were male, the mean age was 60 ± 16 years and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status II-III. Almost 30% of patients experienced hypotension during the procedure, although no mortality or morbidity was associated with this complication. Sex, age, anesthetic time, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, hypertension, and arrhythmia were significantly different (p < 0.05) between patients with hypotension and without hypotension during the procedure. Multivariable logistic regression identified sex and age to be the independent predictors of hypotension.

CONCLUSION

Hypotension was the most frequent anesthetic complication during procedure under propofol-based deep sedation, but this method was safe and effective under appropriate monitoring. Age is the strongest predictor of hypotension and therefore propofol-based deep sedation should be conducted with caution in the elderly.