Safety and effectiveness of propofol-based monitored anesthesia care without intubation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric and esophageal cancers

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Efficacy of lidocaine injection method for esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection: single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative body movements are one of the causes of difficulty in performing esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) under conscious sedation. The use of local anesthetics as local injection materials during ESD may overcome this difficulty. We clinically evaluated the lidocaine injection method (LIM) in the submucosa during esophageal ESD.

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Patients who underwent esophageal ESD under conscious sedation from June 2018 to May 2021 were included in this study. In the LIM group, lidocaine was used for submucosal injection during ESD; in the control group, ESD was performed without lidocaine. The primary outcome was the presence of body movements.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were enrolled and randomized in a 1:1 ratio in two groups. The incidence of body movements was significantly lower in the LIM group (12% [3/25]) than in the control group (48% [12/25]; P = 0.01). The median additional dose of midazolam was 2 mg (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.5-4 mg) in the LIM group and 4 mg (IQR: 3-6 mg) in the control group, which was significantly lower in the LIM group (P < 0.01). The median visual analog scale score for endoscopist satisfaction was 7 (IQR: 5-8) in the LIM group and 5 (IQR: 4-6.5) in the control group, which was significantly higher in the LIM group.

CONCLUSIONS

LIM during esophageal ESD reduced body movements while decreasing the level of sedation. Therefore, LIM during esophageal ESD is an option for maintaining good sedation (UMIN000032804).

Usefulness of discharge standards in outpatients undergoing sedative endoscopy: a propensity score-matched study of the modified post-anesthetic discharge scoring system and the modified Aldrete score

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of discharge standards in outpatients undergoing sedative endoscopy by comparing the modified post-anesthetic discharge scoring system (MPADSS) and the modified Aldrete score.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 376 outpatients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy under midazolam sedation; 181 outpatients were assessed regarding discharge after sedative endoscopy using the MPADSS (group M), and 195 patients were assessed by the modified Aldrete score (group A). The clinical characteristics, types of endoscopy, endoscopic outcomes, and anesthesia outcomes were evaluated between the two groups. We compared discharge score, recovery time, and adverse events using propensity-score matching.

Results

Propensity-score matching created 120 matched pairs. The proportion of patients who had a recovery time within 60 min after endoscopy was significantly higher in group A than that in group M (42.5% versus 25.0%, respectively; P < 0.01). The proportion of patients who required > 120 min of recovery time after endoscopy was significantly lower in group A than that in group M (0.0% versus 5.0%, respectively; P = 0.03). However, significantly more patients had drowsiness at discharge in group A compared with group M (19.1% versus 5.0%, respectively; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the adverse event rate within 24 h of discharge between the groups.

Conclusions

Patients assessed by the modified Aldrete score were allowed to discharge earlier than those assessed by the MPADSS. However, a patient’s level of consciousness should be assessed carefully, especially in patients who visit the hospital alone.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-022-02549-7.

Comparing Different Anesthesia Methods on Anesthetic Effect and Postoperative Pain in Patients with Early Gastric Cancer during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive technique to completely peel the pathological mucosa from the submucosa under endoscopy, which has been often utilized to treat early gastric cancer. During the operation, anesthesia is required to reduce the discomfort due to the complexity, high risk, and longtime operation of ESD. In this study, we compared different anesthesia methods on anesthetic effect and postoperative pain in patients (≥65 years old) with early gastric cancer during ESD. For this purpose, 60 patients with early gastric cancer who were more than 65 years old were selected from January 2019 to December 2021, where 30 patients treated with simple intravenous general anesthesia were divided into the simple group and 30 patients treated with intravenous combined inhalation general anesthesia were regarded as the composite group. The hemodynamic index, wake-up time, postoperative pain intensity, operation time, and the incidence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. For the hemodynamic index before incision, after incision, and at the end of the operation, the mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the composite group was higher than that in the simple group (P < 0.05) and the heart rate (HR) was lower than that in the simple group (P < 0.05). After the ESD operation, the wake-up time and visual analogue scale (VAS) in the composite group were lower than those in the simple group (P < 0.05). In addition, the ESD operation time and incidence of adverse reactions in the composite group was significantly lower than that in the simple group (P < 0.05). These results showed that intravenous combined inhalation general anesthesia had a good anesthetic effect, stable hemodynamics during ESD operation, and slight postoperative pain.

Endoscopic resection of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Current indications and treatment outcomes

Endoscopic resection (ER) is an alternate minimally invasive treatment for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC). We aimed to review the clinical indications and treatment outcomes of ER for SESCC. Endoscopic mucosal resection is relatively easy and efficient for SESCC ≤ 15 mm. In contrast, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended to achieve en bloc resection for lesions >15 mm, in view of the accurate pathological evaluation. The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines recommend ER for non‐circumferential cT1a‐EP/LPM (epithelium/lamina propria mucosae), cT1a‐MM/T1b‐SM1 (muscularis mucosa/superficial submucosa ≤ 200μm) SESCC, and whole‐circumferential T1a‐EP/LPM SESCC ≤ 50 mm (upon implementing preventive measures for stenosis), considering the risk‐benefit balance of ER. It defines pT1a‐EP/LPM without lymphovascular invasion as a curative endoscopic resection. The guidelines recommend additional esophagectomy or chemoradiotherapy for pT1b SESCC or any SESCC, with lymphovascular invasion. However, there is no recommendation for or against the administration of additional treatments for pT1a‐MM without lymphovascular invasion, owing to limited evidence. Researchers have reported on high en bloc and R0 resection rates of ESD, and a randomized controlled trial demonstrated that clip‐line traction‐assisted ESD could significantly reduce the ESD procedural time. Moreover, steroid treatment has been developed to prevent post‐ESD esophageal strictures. There have been reports on favorable long‐term outcomes of ESD. However, most of them are retrospective studies. Further robust data in prospective trials are warranted to achieve a definitive evidence of ESD, which will be beneficial to patients with SESCC.

Effects of Different Anesthetic and Analgesic Methods on Cellular Immune Function and Stress Hormone Levels in Patients Undergoing Esophageal Cancer Surgery

The change of perioperative immune function in patients with esophageal cancer is mainly caused by the joint action of surgical trauma and anesthesia. In our study, we aimed to investigate the effects of different anesthetic methods on the changes of T lymphocyte subsets and cytokines in peripheral blood of patients with esophageal cancer surgery. 50 patients with esophageal cancer were divided into the study group and the control group. Among them, the patients in the control group chose intravenous anesthesia and received self-controlled intravenous analgesia after surgery. Patients in the study group chose thoracic epidural anesthesia combined with general anesthesia, undergoing self-controlled epidural analgesia after surgery; serum interleukin-2 (IL-2) and soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2R) were measured by ELISA. Serum stress hormones GH and sIL-8 were measured by radioimmunoassay. Both groups of patients achieved significant postoperative analgesia, but the VAS score in the study group at the T2-T4 time point was lower than that in the control group. The serum GH concentration in the study group increased at T1 and reached its highest peak at T2, then decreased. The serum IL-8 concentration of the two groups showed a downward trend from T1 to T4. Thoracic epidural anesthesia combined with general anesthesia for postoperative epidural analgesia can relieve the degree of cellular immunosuppression during and after surgery. Moreover, the thoracic epidural block combined with general anesthesia for esophageal cancer surgery and epidural analgesia after surgery for patients are anesthetic and analgesic methods with clinically significant effects. Our research results have a positive effect on the promotion of postoperative rehabilitation in patients with malignant cell tumors.

Preclinical Efficacy and Clinical Feasibility of a Novel Aerosol-Exposure Protection Mask for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Background/Aims

This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a novel aerosol-exposure protection (AP) mask in preventing coronavirus disease in healthcare professionals during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and to evaluate its clinical feasibility.

Methods

In Study 1, three healthy volunteers volitionally coughed with and without the AP mask in a cleanroom. Microparticles were visualized and counted with a specific measurement system and compared with and without the AP mask. In Study 2, 30 patients underwent endoscopic resection with the AP mask covering the face, and the SpO2 was measured throughout the procedure.

Results

In Study 1, the median number of microparticles in volunteers 1, 2, and 3 with and without the AP mask was 8.5 and 110.0, 7.0 and 51.5, and 8.0 and 95.0, respectively (p<0.01). Using the AP mask, microparticles were reduced by approximately 92%. The median distances of microparticle scattering without the AP mask were 60, 0, and 68 in volunteers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In Study 2, the mean SpO2 was 96.3%, and desaturation occurred in three patients.

Conclusion

The AP mask could provide protection from aerosol exposure and can be safely used for endoscopy in clinical practice.

A Simple Risk Scoring System for Predicting the Occurrence of Aspiration Pneumonia After Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

BACKGROUND

Aspiration pneumonia after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is rare, but can be fatal. We aimed to investigate risk factors and develop a simple risk scoring system for aspiration pneumonia.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 7833 patients who underwent gastric ESD for gastric neoplasm under anesthesiologist-directed sedation. Candidate risk factors were screened and assessed for significance using a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO)-based method. Top significant factors were incorporated into a multivariable logistic regression model, whose prediction performance was compared with those of other machine learning models. The final risk scoring system was created based on the estimated odds ratios of the logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The incidence of aspiration pneumonia was 1.5%. The logistic regression model showed comparable performance to the best predictive model, extreme gradient boost (area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.731 vs 0.740). The estimated odds ratios were subsequently used for the development of the clinical scoring system. The final scoring system exhibited an AUROC of 0.730 in the test dataset with risk factors: age (≥70 years, 4 points), male sex (8 points), body mass index (≥27 kg/m2, 4 points), procedure time (≥80 minutes, 5 points), lesion in the lower third of the stomach (5 points), tumor size (≥10 mm, 3 points), recovery time (≥35 minutes, 4 points), and desaturation during ESD (9 points). For patients with total scores ranging between 0 and 33 points, aspiration pneumonia probabilities spanned between 0.1% and 17.9%. External validation using an additional cohort of 827 patients yielded AUROCs of 0.698 for the logistic regression model and 0.680 for the scoring system.

CONCLUSIONS

Our simple risk scoring system has 8 predictors incorporating patient-, procedure-, and sedation-related factors. This system may help clinicians to stratify patients at risk of aspiration pneumonia after ESD.

Clinical Outcomes and Adverse Events of Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of the Mid to Upper Stomach under General Anesthesia and Monitored Anesthetic Care

Background/Aims

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of gastric tumors in the mid-to-upper stomach is a technically challenging procedure. This study compared the therapeutic outcomes and adverse events of ESD of tumors in the mid-to-upper stomach performed under general anesthesia (GA) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC).

Methods

Between 2012 and 2018, 674 patients underwent ESD for gastric tumors in the midbody, high body, fundus, or cardia (100 patients received GA; 574 received MAC). The outcomes of the propensity score (PS)-matched (1:1) patients receiving either GA or MAC were analyzed.

Results

The PS matching identified 94 patients who received GA and 94 patients who received MAC. Both groups showed high rates ofen bloc resection (GA, 95.7%; MAC, 97.9%; p=0.68) and complete resection (GA, 81.9%; MAC, 84.0%; p=0.14). There were no significant differences between the rates of adverse events (GA, 16.0%; MAC, 8.5%; p=0.18) in the anesthetic groups. Logistic regression analysis indicated that the method of anesthesia did not affect the rates of complete resection or adverse events.

Conclusions

ESD of tumors in the mid-to-upper stomach at our high-volume center had good outcomes, regardless of the method of anesthesia. Our results demonstrate no differences between the efficacies and safety of ESD performed under MAC and GA.

Optimal selection of endoscopic resection in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection according to lesion size

En bloc resection is essential for accurate pathological evaluation in patients with superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC). This retrospective study aimed to clarify optimal treatment selection of endoscopic resection according to lesion size. A total of 760 patients underwent endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) between January 2011 and December 2015. Among them, this retrospective study included 196 solitary index SESCC lesions ≤20 mm, with the deepest invasion to the mucosa or superficial submucosa endoscopically. The lesions were classified according to size measured via endoscopy as follows; group A: lesions ≤10 mm, group B: lesions ≥11 mm but ≤15 mm, and group C: lesions ≥16 mm but ≤20 mm. The short- and long-term outcomes were investigated for EMR and ESD subgroups. In patients undergoing EMR and ESD, en bloc resection rates for group A and B were not different (98.8 vs. 100%, 93.3 vs. 100%, respectively). However, the en bloc resection rate was significantly lower in EMR than that in ESD for group C (64.3 vs. 100%, P < 0.001). Furthermore, the use of adjunctive ablative therapy rate was significantly higher in EMR than that in ESD in group C (35.7 vs. 0%, P < 0.001). The 5-year cumulative local recurrence rate of group C was significantly higher than that of group A + B after EMR (P < 0.01). EMR was an adequate treatment for SESCC lesions ≤15 mm. On the other hand, ESD could be necessary to achieve en bloc resection for lesions ≥16 mm to avoid local recurrence.

A new reliable acoustic respiratory monitoring technology during upper gastrointestinal tract therapeutic endoscopy with CO2 insufflation

Previous studies documented the effectiveness and benefits of capnography monitoring during propofol-based sedation for colonoscopy to reduce the incidence of hypoxemia. However, the performance of capnography during longer duration endoscopic therapy of upper gastrointestinal tract cancers under CO₂ insufflation it is not well known. In this study, we compare a new device with acoustic monitoring technology to standard capnography monitoring. We retrospectively analyzed 49 patients who underwent endoscopic resection of early upper gastrointestinal tract cancer between December 2013 and October 2014. All 49 patients were monitored using both acoustic monitoring technology and standard capnography. We investigated the duration of the periods with unmeasurable respiratory rate during the overall procedure. When comparing standard capnography monitoring to the new acoustic monitoring technology, the ratio of the unmeasurable time was significantly lower in RRa (36.9% vs. 21.6%, p < 0.01). The ratio of unmeasurable respiratory rate by capnography was strongly correlated to the ratio of unmeasurable PETCO₂ level by capnography (R² = 0.847). There were no severe events or adverse events (grade 2 or more) during all 49 procedures. The acoustic monitoring technology provides a more reliable respiratory monitoring when compared to standard capnography during endoscopic resection of upper gastrointestinal tract cancers under CO₂ insufflation, even if the procedures were prolonged and complex.

Feasibility of the lidocaine injection method during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Background and Aim

Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is often technically difficult due to intraoperative body movements. The level of sedation can be increased to suppress body movements, but this may not be successful in all cases. Using local analgesics for submucosal injection during ESD may aid in conscious sedation. This study evaluated the feasibility of the lidocaine injection method (LIM) during esophageal ESD.

Methods

Twenty‐nine patients with superficial esophageal cancer were enrolled in this study at Osaka Saiseikai Nakatsu Hospital, and 1% lidocaine + 0.4% hyaluronate sodium was injected into the submucosa underneath the lesion during esophageal ESD. The main outcome was body movements that disturbed the procedure.

Results

Most patients were male (90%), with a median age of 70 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 66–75 years old), and the median lesion size was 17 mm (IQR: 12–21 mm). The median injection volume of lidocaine was 70 mg (IQR: 55–79 mg). All lesions were successfully removed en bloc. In all cases, there were no body movements that disturbed the procedure. Regarding adverse events of sedation, five patients (17%) had hypotension, four patients (14%) had bradycardia, and seven patients (24%) had hypoxemia during ESD. Convulsions or arrhythmia as adverse events associated with lidocaine were not observed.

Conclusions

Esophageal ESD with LIM did not cause body movements that disturbed the procedure. LIM may help create a stable conscious sedation method for esophageal ESD.

Efficacy of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Esophageal Neoplasms under General Anesthesia

Background/Aims

Evidence that general anesthesia (GA) reduces the operative time of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is currently insufficient. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of esophageal ESD under GA.

Methods

A total of 227 lesions from 198 consecutive patients with superficial esophageal neoplasms treated by ESD at 3 Japanese institutions between April 2011 and September 2017 were included in this retrospective study. For ESD, GA and deep sedation (DS) were used in 102 (51.5%, GA group) and 96 patients (48.5%, DS group), respectively.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in age, sex, or comorbidities between the groups. In the GA group, the tumor size was larger (21 [3–77] mm vs. 14 [3–63] mm, p<0.001), luminal circumference was larger (≥2/3; 13.9% vs. 5.4%, p=0.042), procedure time was shorter (28 [5–202] min vs. 40 [8–249] min, p<0.001), and submucosal dissection speed was faster (25.2 [7.8–157.2] mm² /min vs. 16.2 [2.4–41.3] mm² /min, p<0.001). The rates of intraoperative perforation and aspiration pneumonia were lower in the GA group, but the difference did not achieve statistical significance (p=0.242 and p=0.242).

Conclusions

GA shortens the procedure time of esophageal ESD.

Propofol sedation without endotracheal intubation is safe for endoscopic submucosal dissection in the esophagus and stomach

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early esophageal and stomach cancer is usually performed under general anesthesia. However, propofol sedation without endotracheal intubation has been suggested as a viable alternative.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of propofol sedation without endotracheal intubation during ESD in the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent ESD for upper gastrointestinal tumors with propofol-remifentanil analgosedation in a tertiary referral center in the Netherlands between October 2013 and February 2018. Primary endpoints were the rates of intraprocedural endoscopy- and anesthesia-related complications. Secondary endpoints were the postprocedural complication rates within 30 days and endotracheal intubation conversion rates.

Results

Of 88 patients, intraprocedural ESD-related complications occurred in three patients (3.4%). Intraprocedural anesthesia-related complications occurred in two patients (2.3%), one of whom required conversion to endotracheal intubation. Postprocedural ESD-related complications occurred in 14 patients (15.9%), and minor postprocedural complications occurred in two patients (2.3%). Eighty-two (93.2%) patients were discharged within one day after ESD. No patient was readmitted for anesthesia-related complications.

Conclusion

Propofol-based sedation without endotracheal intubation is safe for ESD procedures in the esophagus and stomach with low anesthesia-related complication rates and short hospital stay.

Comparison of sedation between the endoscopy room and operation room during endoscopic submucosal dissection for neoplasms in the upper gastrointestinal tract

BACKGROUND

The present study was performed to compare the safety of sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the endoscopy room versus operation room.

METHODS

In total, 297 patients with gastrointestinal tumors who underwent ESD from January 2011 to December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent ESD in the endoscopy room without propofol (Group E) versus operation room with propofol (Group O). The patient, tumor, and procedure characteristics; adverse events; and treatment outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The patient and tumor characteristics, including age (73.6 ± 8.2 vs. 72.5 ± 9.1 years), comorbidities, and tumor size and histology, were not different between Groups E and O. The ESD procedure time was comparable between Groups E and O (105.4 ± 70.4 vs. 106.5 ± 64.4 min), and the anesthesia time was equivalent (138.3 ± 78.1 vs. 148.4 ± 68.8 min). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the two groups. During the ESD procedure, desaturation occurred significantly more often in Group E than O (12.9% vs. 4.0%, P = 0.021, odds ratio: 3.53, 95% CI: 1.17-14.4). The recovery time after ESD was significantly longer in Group E than O (180 (100-360) vs. 90 (0-180) min, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A decreased desaturation rate and shorter recovery time after ESD were the advantages of sedation in the operation room with propofol compared with sedation in the endoscopy room. These findings warrant further exploration of the advantages of safe and effective ESD for upper gastrointestinal neoplasms in the operation room.

Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in gastric cancer patients aged ≥85 years undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although the number of gastric cancer patients aged ≥85 years indicated for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has increased, little is known about the outcomes and prognostic factors. This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) of patients aged ≥85 years who underwent ESD for gastric cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 108 patients aged ≥85 years with 149 gastric cancers treated by ESD between 1999 and 2014 at our institution. The clinical outcomes and prognosis were evaluated. Furthermore, the relationships between patient and lesion characteristics with OS were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

All patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) of 0 to 1. En bloc, R0, and curative resections were achieved in 98.0%, 91.3%, and 72.7%, respectively, without severe adverse events requiring surgery. During a median follow-up period of 40.2 months (range, 1.8-108.7 months), 23 patients died, including 2 of gastric cancer. The 3-year (54.3% vs 95.9%) and 5-year (54.3% vs 76.3%) OS rates were significantly lower in patients with a low (<44.6) as opposed to a higher (≥44.6) prognostic nutritional index (PNI) (P < .001). The PNI was independently prognostic of OS (hazard ratio, 7.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-22.9; P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

ESD is feasible for gastric cancer patients aged ≥85 years with good PS. However, low PNI was found to be prognostic of reduced OS, indicating the need to evaluate the PNI in determining whether to perform ESD.

The Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine vs. Sufentanil in Monitored Anesthesia Care during Burr-Hole Surgery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: A Retrospective Clinical Trial

Background: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a very common clinical emergency encountered in neurosurgery. While both general anesthesia (GA) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC) can be used during CSDH surgery, MAC is the preferred choice among surgeons. Further, while dexmedetomidine (DEX) is reportedly a safe and effective agent for many diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, there have been no trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEX vs. sufentanil in CSDH surgery.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEX vs. sufentanil in MAC during burr-hole surgery for CSDH.

Methods: In all, 215 fifteen patients underwent burr-hole surgery for CSDH with MAC and were divided into three groups: Group D1 (n = 67, DEX infusion at 0.5 μg·kg⁻¹ for 10 min), Group D2 (n = 75, DEX infusion at 1 μg·kg⁻¹ for 10 min), and Group S (n = 73, sufentanil infusion 0.3 μg·kg⁻¹ for 10 min). Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) of all three groups was maintained at 3. Anesthesia onset time, total number of intraoperative patient movements, hemodynamics, total cumulative dose of DEX, time to first dose and amount of rescue midazolam or fentanyl, percentage of patients converted to alternative sedative or anesthetic therapy, postoperative recovery time, adverse events, and patient and surgeon satisfaction scores were recorded.

Results: The anesthesia onset time was significantly less in group D2 (17.36 ± 4.23 vs. 13.42 ± 2.12 vs. 15.98 ± 4.58 min, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). More patients in groups D1 and S required rescue midazolam to achieve RSS = 3 (74.63 vs. 42.67 vs. 71.23%, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). However, the total dose of rescue midazolam was significantly higher in group D1 (2.8 ± 0.3 vs. 1.9 ± 0.3 vs. 2.0 ± 0.4 mg, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). The time to first dose of rescue midazolam was significantly longer in group D2 (17.32 ± 4.47 vs. 23.56 ± 5.36 vs. 16.55 ± 4.91 min, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Significantly fewer patients in groups S and D2 required rescue fentanyl to relieve pain (62.69 vs. 21.33 vs. 27.40%, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Additionally, total dose of rescue fentanyl in group D1 group was significantly higher (212.5 ± 43.6 vs. 107.2 ± 35.9 vs. 98.6 ± 32.2 μg, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Total number of patient movements during the burr-hole surgery was higher in groups D1 and S (47.76 vs. 20.00 vs. 47.95%, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Four patients in D1 and five in S converted to propofol. The time to recovery for discharge from the PACU was significantly shorter in group D2 (16.24 ± 4.15 vs. 12.48 ± 3.29 vs. 15.91 ± 3.66 min, respectively, for D1, D2, S; P < 0.001). Results from the patient and surgeon satisfaction scores showed significant differences favoring group D2 (P < 0.05). More patients in groups D1 and S showed higher levels of the overall incidence of tachycardia and hypertension, and required higher doses of urapidil and esmolol (P < 0.05). Six patients experienced respiratory depression in group S.

Conclusion: Compared with sufentanil, DEX infusion at 1 μg·kg⁻¹ was associated with fewer intraoperative patient movements, fewer rescue interventions, faster postoperative recovery, and better patient and surgeon satisfaction scores and could be safely and effectively used for MAC during burr-hole surgery for CSDH.

Propofol-Based Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

The main objective of this study is to evaluate general anesthesia or propofol-based sedation methods at gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures.The anesthetic method administered to cases undergoing upper gastrointestinal ESD between 2013 and 2015 was retrospectively investigated. Procedure time, lesion size, dissection speed, anesthesia time, adverse effects such as gag reflex, nausea, vomiting, cough, number of desaturation episodes (SpO2 < 90%), oropharyngeal suctioning requirements, hemorrhage, perforation, and amount of anesthetic medications were recorded.There were 54 and 37 patients who were administered sedation (group S) and general anesthesia (group G), respectively. The demographics of the groups were similar. The calculated dissection speed was significantly high in group G (36.02 ± 20.96 mm/min) compared with group S (26.04 ± 17.56 mm/min; P = 0.010). The incidence of nausea, cough, number of oropharyngeal suctioning, and desaturation episodes were significantly high in group S compared with that in group G (P < 0.5). While there was no difference between the groups in terms of hemodynamic parameters, in group S the use of propofol and in group G the use of midazolam and fentanyl were significantly higher (P < 0.05). Anesthesia time, postoperative anesthesia care unit, and hospital stay durations were not significantly different between the groups.General anesthesia increased dissection speed and enhanced endoscopist performance when compared with propofol-based sedation technique.

Sedation in the Endoscopy Suite

OPINION STATEMENT

Sedation practices in the endoscopy suite have changed dramatically in the decades since the introduction of routine colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Patients initially received moderate sedation (or even no sedation), but now frequently receive monitored anesthesia care (MAC). This significant shift has introduced anesthesiologists to the endoscopy suite along with new sedative medications and safety concerns. Appreciating the ramifications of this change requires an understanding of sedation depth, patient selection, drug use, sedation delivery, patient monitoring, recovery from sedation, and patient outcomes. Furthermore, the changing landscape of healthcare quality and reimbursement challenges us to provide the best possible care for our patients in the most economical way possible. The endoscopy suite is a unique sedation environment, and it is the purpose of this article to review those elements that contribute to a uniquely demanding work environment.