Split-dose bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy performed under propofol sedation. Is there an optimal timing?

An international multidisciplinary consensus statement on fasting before procedural sedation in adults and children

The multidisciplinary International Committee for the Advancement of Procedural Sedation presents the first fasting and aspiration prevention recommendations specific to procedural sedation, based on an extensive review of the literature. These were developed using Delphi methodology and assessment of the robustness of the available evidence. The literature evidence is clear that fasting, as currently practiced, often substantially exceeds recommended time thresholds and has known adverse consequences, for example, irritability, dehydration and hypoglycaemia. Fasting does not guarantee an empty stomach, and there is no observed association between aspiration and compliance with common fasting guidelines. The probability of clinically important aspiration during procedural sedation is negligible. In the post-1984 literature there are no published reports of aspiration-associated mortality in children, no reports of death in healthy adults (ASA physical status 1 or 2) and just nine reported deaths in adults of ASA physical status 3 or above. Current concerns about aspiration are out of proportion to the actual risk. Given the lower observed frequency of aspiration and mortality than during general anaesthesia, and the theoretical basis for assuming a lesser risk, fasting strategies in procedural sedation can reasonably be less restrictive. We present a consensus-derived algorithm in which each patient is first risk-stratified during their pre-sedation assessment, using evidence-based factors relating to patient characteristics, comorbidities, the nature of the procedure and the nature of the anticipated sedation technique. Graded fasting precautions for liquids and solids are then recommended for elective procedures based upon this categorisation of negligible, mild or moderate aspiration risk. This consensus statement can serve as a resource to practitioners and policymakers who perform and oversee procedural sedation in patients of all ages, worldwide.

IMPlementing split Regimen OVEr Single dose using a Plan-Do-Study-Act approach (IMPROVES study)

Background and aims  A split-dose regimen for colonoscopy is recommended by international guidelines, but its adoption is still suboptimal. Our aim was to assess whether a Plan-Do-Study-Act approach (PDSA), a scientific method promoting quality improvement, would be able to improve adherence to a split-dose regimen, and to identify factors influencing its adoption. Methods  This study consisted of three phases: Cycle 1: a cross-sectional assessment of split-dose adherence in consecutive outpatients/inpatients undergoing colonoscopies in 74 Italian centers; Educational intervention: regional meetings with literature review, analysis of Cycle 1 data, and discussion on corrective measures; local diffusion of educational material and tools for improvement; Cycle 2: reassessment of split-dose adherence after spontaneous local interventions. Demographic, clinical, and procedural variables were systematically collected. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of split-dose adoption. Results  In total, 8213 patients (mean age = 60.29 years (SD = 13.58), men = 54 %, outpatients = 88.4 %) were enrolled between 2013 and 2016 (Cycle 1 = 4189 patients and Cycle 2 = 4024 patients). Split-dose adoption rose from 29.1 % in Cycle 1 to 51.1 % in Cycle 2 ( P  < 0.0001), and being enrolled in Cycle 2 independently predicted split-dose adherence (OR = 2.9; 95 %CI 2.6 - 3.3). The adoption improved in all time slots, including colonoscopies scheduled before 0930. The main corrective measures were: rescheduling of colonoscopies after 0930 (between 0930 and 1130: OR = 2.6; 95 %CI 2.3 - 3.1; after 1130: OR = 7; 95 %CI 5.9 - 8.4); the cleansing regimen communicated by the Endoscopy unit (via form: OR = 1.6; 95 %CI 1.3 - 1.9; via visit: OR = 2.1; 95 %CI 1.7 - 2.5); a decrease in the use of deep sedation (OR = 2; 95 %CI 1.7 - 2.5). Conclusions  An educational intervention with observation-driven corrections through a PDSA approach was able to substantially increase the adoption of a split-dose regimen.