Prospective randomized trial evaluating ketamine for advanced endoscopic procedures in difficult to sedate patients

Randomized Controlled Trial of Ketamine and Moderate Sedation for Outpatient Endoscopy in Adults

INTRODUCTION

Ketamine is an effective sedative agent in a variety of settings due to its desirable properties including preservation of laryngeal reflexes and lack of cardiovascular depression. We hypothesized that ketamine is an effective alternative to standard moderate sedation (SMS) regimens for patients undergoing endoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing ketamine to SMS for outpatient colonoscopy or esophagogastroduodenoscopy at Brooke Army Medical Center. The ketamine group received a 1-mg dose of midazolam along with ketamine, whereas the SMS group received midazolam/fentanyl. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction measured using the Patient Satisfaction in Sedation Instrument, and secondary outcomes included changes in hemodynamics, time to sedation onset and recovery, and total medication doses.

RESULTS

Thirty-three subjects were enrolled in each group. Baseline characteristics were similar. Endoscopies were performed for both diagnostic and screening purposes. Ketamine was superior in the overall sedation experience and in all analyzed categories compared to the SMS group (P = .0096). Sedation onset times and procedure times were similar among groups. The median ketamine dose was 75 mg. The median fentanyl and midazolam doses were 150 mcg and 5 mg, respectively, in SMS. Vital signs remained significantly closer to the physiological baseline in the ketamine group (P = .004). Recovery times were no different between the groups, and no adverse reactions were encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine is preferred by patients, preserves hemodynamics better than SMS, and can be safely administered by endoscopists. Data suggest that ketamine is a safe and effective sedation option for patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03461718).

Efficacy and safety of esketamine for sedation among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require propofol-based sedation combined with analgesics. At present, the efficacy and safety of esketamine as an adjunct to propofol for sedation during endoscopic procedures in patients remains controversial. Moreover, there is no universal agreement regarding the appropriate dose of esketamine supplementation. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of esketamine as an adjunct to propofol for sedation during endoscopic procedures in patients.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases and three clinical trial registry platforms were searched and the deadline was February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of esketamine for sedation were included by two reviewers. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate the pooled risk ratio or standardized mean difference.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with 1962 esketamine participants were included in the analysis. As an adjunct to propofol, the administration of esketamine reduced the recovery time compared to normal saline (NS). However, there was no significant difference between the opioids group and ketamine group. For propofol dosage, the administration of esketamine required a lower propofol dosage compared to the NS group and opioids group].For complications, the esketamine group had fewer complications compared to the NS group and opioid group in patients, but there were no significant differences between the esketamine group and ketamine group. Notably, the coadministration of esketamine was associated with a higher risk of visual disturbance compared to the NS group. In addition, we used subgroup analysis to investigate whether 0.2-0.5 mg/kg esketamine was effective and tolerable for patients.

CONCLUSION

Esketamine as an adjunct to propofol, is an appropriate effective alternative for sedation in participants undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, considering the possibility of its psychotomimetic effects, esketamine should be used with caution.

Pre-procedural Preparation and Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease poses various challenges, a major one being procedural sedation and its associated considerations. While sedation during endoscopy can improve patient comfort, decrease anxiety, and facilitate procedural completion, in patients with advanced liver disease, it is also associated with substantial and unique risks due to alterations in drug metabolism and other factors. As such, the choice of sedative agent(s) and related logistics may require careful inter-disciplinary planning and individualized considerations. Furthermore, a large proportion of agents require dose reductions and particular monitoring of the vital signs, level of consciousness, and other indices. In the present review, we provide a contemporary overview of procedural sedation considerations, commonly used intravenous sedatives, and second-line as well as novel sedatives for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease.

Endo-anesthesia: a primer

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has witnessed a Cambrian explosion of techniques, indications, and expanding target populations. GI endoscopy encompasses traditional domains that include preventive measures, palliation, as alternative therapies in patients with prohibitive risks of more invasive procedures, and indicated primary treatments. But, it has expanded to include therapeutic and diagnostic interventional endosonography, luminal endoscopic resection, third space endotherapy, endohepatology, and endobariatrics. The lines between surgery and endoscopy are blurred on many occasions within this paradigm. Moreover, patients with high degrees of co-morbidity and complex physiology require more nuanced peri-endoscopic management. The rising demand for endoscopy services has resulted in the development of endoscopy referral centers that offer these invasive procedures as directly booked referrals for regional and rural patients. This further necessitates specialized programs to ensure appropriate evaluation, risk stratification, and optimization for safe sedation and general anesthesia if needed. This landscape is conducive to the organic evolution of endo-anesthesia to meet the needs of these focused and evolving practices. In this primer, we delineate important aspects of endo-anesthesia care and provide relevant clinical and logistical considerations pertaining to the breadth of procedures.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the very elderly by using a combination of intravenous midazolam, ketamine and pethidine

AIM

The number of therapeutic endoscopic procedures in elderly individuals keeps increasing and this population has a high risk of adverse events related to sedation and general anesthesia. However, there is a paucity on data about the efficacy and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in this population.

METHODS

In total, 417 consecutive ERCP procedures were performed in 362 patients between September 2018 and January 2020. Of these, 59 patients (74 sessions) were aged ≥80 years (Group A) and 173 patients (193 procedures) were aged ≤65 years (Group B). We analyzed the prospectively collected data of patient- and procedure-related variables.

RESULTS

The procedure time was significantly longer in Group A (P < 0.05). The prevalence of comorbidities, use of anticoagulants and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification levels were significantly higher in Group A (P < 0.05). The incidence of periampullary diverticula, malignancy, rate of difficult cannulation, mean number of stones, use of biliary stents and stent dysfunction was also significantly higher in Group A (P < 0.05). The medication doses used were significantly higher and emergence symptoms were significantly more frequent in Group B (P < 0.05). The rates of bleeding, pancreatitis, perforation, cholangitis, hypoxia, hypotension and the length of hospital stay did not significantly differ between the two groups. The overall success rate of the procedure was comparable in the two groups (P = 0.874).

CONCLUSIONS

ERCP can be safely performed in elderly patients using a combination of midazolam and ketamine without propofol. The incidence of complications is comparable with that observed in younger patients. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2021; 21: 887-892.

Anesthesia for GI endoscopy in the era of COVID-19

As a result of COVID-19, the last few weeks have necessitated a reevaluation of the sedation paradigm for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. Routine screening and some surveillance procedures have taken a backseat and likely to remain so until a vaccine or effective treatment becomes available. Anesthesia providers and endoscopists are required to adapt to this new reality rapidly. The general aim of sedation remains the same-patient comfort, reduced hypoxia, prevention of aspiration along with rapid recovery, and discharge. The present review focuses on necessary modification to reduce the risk of virus contagion for both patients (from health-care providers) and vice versa. A preprocedure evaluation and consenting should be modified and provided remotely. Unsedated GI endoscopy, sedation with minimal respiratory depression, and modification of general anesthesia are explored. Challenges with supplemental oxygen administration and monitoring are addressed. Guidelines for appropriate use of personal protective equipment are discussed. Measures for limiting aerosolization are deliberated.

Recent Developments in Drugs for GI Endoscopy Sedation

Providing sedation for patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy continues to be a debated topic in both anesthesia and gastroenterology circles. Sedation approaches are widely varied across the globe. While propofol administration is embraced by more endoscopists and patients, its administration evolves controversy. Whereas trained nurses and gastroenterologists are allowed to administer propofol for GI endoscopy sedation in Europe and Asia, it is the sole privilege of anesthesia providers in the USA. However, the costs of anesthesia providers are significant and threaten to derail the screening colonoscopy practice. Efforts were made by both drug and device manufacturers to find alternatives. Fospropofol was one such effort that did not live up to the expectations due to respiratory depressant properties that were similar to propofol. Use of a new tool to administer propofol in the form of Sedasys® was the next experiment that tried to find alternative to anesthesia providers. The device did not succeed due to inadequate sedation. The latest effort is remimazolam, a new benzodiazepine that has quicker recovery profile. In the interim, many drug combinations such as propofol-dexmedetomidine and propofol-ketamine are improving the safety without compromising the quality of sedation. This review attempts to discuss the new drug innovations and drug combinations of existing sedatives for the benefit of readers.

Systematic review of anaesthetic medication for ERCP based on a network meta-analysis

AIMS

We performed a systematic review of various anaesthetic medications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and aimed to make a comprehensive comparison based on a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched globally recognized electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central and EMBASE, to retrieve relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of anaesthetic medications for ERCP. Network meta-analysis was conducted by evaluating the procedure time, adverse effects and drug requirements. The cumulative probability P value was utilized to rank the medications under examination.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs that examined 1877 patients were included in this research. Under good convergence and efficiency, data analysis was performed using a consistency model. For the comparison of procedure times, we found that a combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine (P = 0.19) or propofol plus pethidine (P = 0.18) seemed to be the two best medications for reducing procedure time. Additionally, midazolam combined with dexmedetomidine plus pethidine seemed to be the safest application for ERCP (P = 0.36). Propofol plus alfentanil also exhibited a good safety value (P = 0.28). For evaluation of drug requirements, the whole network connection could not be established; thus, comparisons in two subgroups were conducted. The results showed that midazolam combined with dexmedetomidine plus pethidine (P = 0.41) and propofol plus refentanil (P = 0.94) were superior to others in decreasing drug requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the objective results and our conclusions, we deemed that a combination of midazolam and dexmedetomidine was recommended, and propofol plus opioids also revealed great clinical value. However, we are still expecting more clinical research in the future.

Sedation with propofol during ERCP: is the combination with esketamine more effective and safer than with alfentanil? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a gastrointestinal procedure that requires a relatively motionless patient during the intervention. Deep sedation by intravenous propofol combined with an opioid has recently become the preferred sedation technique. However, when high doses of propofol are used, side effects, namely respiratory depression, may occur. Esketamine has hypnotic, analgesic, and sympathomimetic effects. Our assumption is that a combination of propofol with esketamine reduces the dosage of individual drugs, thereby minimizing sedation side effects while keeping the same satisfaction level of patients and endoscopists.

Methods/design

The study will be performed as a randomized controlled multicenter trial. Patients undergoing ERCP, ≥ 18 years old, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I–III will be randomized after written informed consent to group K (propofol/esketamine) or to group A (propofol/alfentanil). The primary outcome, reflecting effectiveness of sedation, is the total dose of propofol. Secondary outcome parameters are patients’ and endoscopists’ satisfaction with the procedure and the number of sedation-related pulmonary and cardiovascular events. Data on sedation-related events are collected by recording of oxygen saturation (SpO₂), respiratory rate (RR), end-tidal CO₂ (etCO₂), heart rate (HR), arrhythmias (electrocardiogram (ECG)), and non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurements. Satisfaction parameters are collected by means of questionnaires before and after the procedure and on the following day.

Discussion

Esketamine is known for its effective anesthetic and analgesic effects maintaining spontaneous breathing and airway reflexes. Due to an increase in sympathetic tone, hypotension and cardiac depression is less common. Unfortunately esketamine is also known for its psychotomimetic effects. We aim to demonstrate that the combination of esketamine with propofol for sedation in patients subjected to ERCP interventions is nevertheless superior to a combination of propofol with an opioid.

Trial registration

Nederland’s Trial Register, NTR5486. Registered on 17 September 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2197-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Training and Competency in Sedation Practice in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The practice of endoscopic sedation requires a thorough understanding of preprocedural assessment, sedation pharmacology, intraprocedure monitoring, adverse event management, and postprocedural care. The training process has become increasingly standardized and entails knowledge and practice-based components. The use of propofol in particular requires a higher level of structured training owing to its narrow therapeutic window. Simulation has increased opportunities for practice-based training in a controlled environment. After completion of training, the endoscopist must demonstrate competence in theoretical understanding and technical ability to administer sedation. Although individual institutions have certification processes, there is a lack of validated, standardized methods to confirm competence.

Alternative sedation for the higher risk endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial of ketamine use in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

OBJECTIVE

Sedation for endoscopy carries an element of cardiorespiratory risk, more significant for certain procedures and in certain patient groups. Ketamine has features which make it an attractive agent for sedation during the higher risk endoscopy; the objectives of this pilot trial were to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of ketamine as a primary agent for sedation during endoscopy.

METHODS

The study was a prospective randomized controlled trial, in which American Society of Anesthesiologists' (ASA) class 1-3 patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) received either conventional sedation with midazolam and pethidine or a combination of midazolam and ketamine. Patients were monitored physiologically and in respect to depth of sedation (Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score) and were observed post procedure for evidence of emergence reactions or other complications. After full recovery, patients completed a questionnaire on their experiences, with particular emphasis on vivid dreaming or other complications attributable to ketamine.

RESULTS

Demographically, control (n = 18) and study (n = 19) groups were similar in makeup. Median midazolam dose was 2 mg (interquartile range [IQR] = 1-3) and 2 mg (IQR = 2-3), respectively (p = 0.98); median procedure duration was 25.5 min (IQR = 17-30) and 21.0 min (IQR = 15-34) (p = 0.92). Median satisfaction with sedation (scored from 0 to 4) was 3.5 (range 1-4) and 4 (range 2-4) respectively (p = 0.88). No patient in either group experienced emergence reactions, dysphoria, or vivid dreaming.

CONCLUSION

In this pilot study, sedation for endoscopy with ketamine and midazolam was as effective as conventional sedation, as acceptable to patients, and was not associated with dysphoric events. Ketamine may have potential as an agent for sedation in higher risk patients.

Propofol-ketamine combination: a choice with less complications and better hemodynamic stability compared to propofol? On a prospective study in a group of colonoscopy patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In this study, we compared duration for reaching desired Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS) and postoperative recovery according to Modified Aldrete Score (MAS) of propofol and propofol-ketamine combination in a group of colonoscopy patients. Rates of cardiovascular, respiratory, laryngospasm, visual and nausea/vomiting complications were also compared as secondary outcomes.

METHODS

This is a double-blinded prospective randomized controlled trial. 95 patients were included and blocked randomized to either propofol (GroupP, n: 47) or propofol-ketamine (GroupPK, n: 48). GroupP patients received 0.5 mg/kg propofol and GroupPK received 0.5 mg/kg ketamine-propofol. Subjects were monitorized noninvasively preoperatively and every 5 min during procedure. RSS was recorded for every minute before starting procedure and for every 5 min during procedure. Recovery after colonoscopy was evaluated according to MAS. Same observer checked for MAS just after procedure in postoperative 1 min and for every 3 min during follow-up. Postoperative respiratory depression was defined as rate <10/min, hypercapnia/hypercarbia-arterial CO2 tension >50 mmHg or SO2 <90 while hypotension was defined as a decrease of 20 % in mean blood pressure compared to initial values.

RESULTS

GroupPK patients needed shorter duration for achieving RSS ≥ 4 (p: 0.038) but longer duration for achieving MAS ≥ 9 (p: 0.005). GroupP's intraoperative blood pressures and heart rates were significantly lower compared to initial values. We observed that respiratory depression (19.1 vs 0 %, p: 0.001), hypotension (29.8 vs 10.4 %, p: 0.018), and nausea/vomiting (17 vs 4.2 %, p: 0.041) were significantly more common in GroupP.

CONCLUSION

Propofol-ketamine combination is an advantageous choice in means of achieving sedation in a shorter period of time, a better hemodynamic stability, less nausea and vomiting and respiratory complication rates. Yet it seems that this choice might be related with longer recovery duration.

Current role of non-anesthesiologist administered propofol sedation in advanced interventional endoscopy

Complex and lengthy endoscopic examinations like endoscopic ultrasonography and/or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography benefit from deep sedation, due to an enhanced quality of examinations, reduced discomfort and anxiety of patients, as well as increased satisfaction for both the patients and medical personnel. Current guidelines support the use of propofol sedation, which has the same rate of adverse effects as traditional sedation with benzodiazepines and/or opioids, but decreases the procedural and recovery time. Non-anesthesiologist administered propofol sedation has become an option in most of the countries, due to limited anesthesiology resources and the increasing evidence from prospective studies and meta-analyses that the procedure is safe with a similar rate of adverse events with traditional sedation. The advantages include a high quality of endoscopic examination, improved satisfaction for patients and doctors, as well as decreased recovery and discharge time. Despite the advantages of non-anesthesiologist administered propofol, there is still a continuous debate related to the successful generalization of the procedures.

Addition of low-dose ketamine to midazolam-fentanyl-propofol-based sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of low-dose ketamine on midazolam-fentanyl-propofol-based sedation for outpatient colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Gastroenterology unit at a practice and clinical research center.

SUBJECTS

Ninety-seven healthy American Society of Anesthesiology physical status 1 volunteers.

INTERVENTIONS

Subjects were randomized to receive midazolam (0.02 mg/kg), fentanyl (1 μg/kg), and ketamine (0.3 mg/kg) and midazolam (0.02 mg/kg), fentanyl (1 μg/kg), and placebo (0.9% sodium chloride) in group K and group C, respectively. In both groups, incremental doses of propofol were used to maintain a Ramsay sedation score of 3 to 4.

MEASUREMENTS

Values of heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate were measured. Procedure times, recovery times, drug doses used, complications associated with the sedation, and physician and patient satisfaction were also recorded.

MAIN RESULTS

In group K, mean amount of propofol used and mean induction time (P < .001), the need for the use of jaw thrust maneuver and mask ventilation, and the incidence of disruptive movements were significantly lower (P < .05) and gastroenterologist satisfaction at the beginning of the procedure was significantly superior (P < .05). Mean systolic blood pressures at 4, 6, 8, and 10 minutes (P < .01); diastolic blood pressures at 4, 6, and 8 minutes (P < .05); respiratory rates at 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 20, and 25 minutes (P < .01); and oxygen saturation at 6, 8, 10, 15, and 20 minutes (P < .05) were significantly lower in group C. Patient satisfaction scores, recovery times, and discharge times were similar. No patient in either group experienced unpleasant dreams or hallucination in the postanesthesia care unit and on the first postoperative day.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of low-dose ketamine to midazolam-fentanyl-propofol-based sedation for outpatient colonoscopy resulted in more rapid and better quality of sedation, less propofol consumption, more stable hemodynamic status, and less adverse effects with similar recovery times in adult patients.

Propofol alternatives in gastrointestinal endoscopy anesthesia

Although propofol has been the backbone for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy, both anesthesiologists and endoscopists are faced with situations where an alternative is needed. Recent national shortages forced many physicians to explore these options. A midazolam and fentanyl combination is the mainstay in this area. However, there are other options. The aim of this review is to explore these options. The future would be, invariably, to move away from propofol. The reason is not in any way related to the drawbacks of propofol as a sedative. The mandate that requires an anesthesia provider to administer propofol has been a setback in many countries. New sedative drugs like Remimazolam might fill this void in the future. In the meantime, it is important to keep an open eye to the existing alternatives.

Use of anesthesia on the rise in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Conscious sedation has been the standard of care for many years for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. As procedures have become more complex and lengthy, additional medications became essential for adequate sedation. Often time's deep sedation is required for procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiography which necessitates higher doses of narcotics and benzodiazepines or even use of other medications such as ketamine. Given its pharmacologic properties, propofol was rapidly adopted worldwide to gastrointestinal endoscopy for complex procedures and more recently to routine upper and lower endoscopy. Many studies have shown superiority for both the physician and patient compared to standard sedation. Nevertheless, its use remains highly controversial. A number of studies worldwide show that propofol can be given safely by endoscopists or nurses when well trained. Despite this wealth of data, at many centers its use has been prohibited unless administered by anesthesiology. In this commentary, we review the use of anesthesia support for endoscopy in the United States based on recent data and its implications for gastroenterologists worldwide.

Ketamine, propofol and low dose remifentanil versus propofol and remifentanil for ERCP outside the operating room: is ketamine not only a "rescue drug"?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography ERCP is a painful and long procedure requiring transient deep analgesia and conscious sedation. An ideal anaesthetic that guarantees a rapid and smooth induction, good quality of maintenance, lack of adverse effects and rapid recovery is still lacking. This study aimed to compare safety and efficacy of a continuous infusion of low dose remifentanil plus ketamine combined with propofol in comparison to the standard regimen dose of remifentanil plus propofol continuous infusion during ERCP.

MATERIAL/METHODS

322 ASAI-III patients, 18-85 years old and scheduled for planned ERCP were randomized. Exclusion criteria were a predictable difficult airway, drug allergy, and ASA IV-V patients. We evaluated Propofol 1 mg/kg/h plus Remifentanil 0.25 µg/kg/min (GR) vs. Propofol 1 mg/kg/h plus Ketamine 5 µg/kg/min and Remifentanil 0.1 µg/kg/min (GK). Main outcome measures were respiratory depression, nausea/vomiting, quality of intraoperative conditions, and discharge time. P≤0.05 was statistically significant (95% CI).

RESULTS

Respiratory depression was observed in 25 patients in the GR group compared to 9 patients in the GK group (p=0.0035). ERCP was interrupted in 9 cases of GR vs. no cases in GK; patients ventilated without any complication. Mean discharge time was 20±5 min in GK and 35±6 min in GR (p=0.0078) and transfer to the ward delayed because of nausea and vomiting in 30 patients in GR vs. 5 patients in GK (p=0.0024). Quality of intraoperative conditions was rated highly satisfactory in 92% of GK vs. 67% of GR (p=0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

The drug combination used in GK confers clinical advantages because it avoids deep sedation, maintains adequate analgesia with conscious sedation, and achieves lower incidence of postprocedural nausea and vomiting with shorter discharge times.

Midazolam-ketamine combination for moderate sedation in upper GI endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to compare the quality of sedation with 3 different sedation regimens in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) in pediatric patients.

METHODS

One hundred fifty consecutive children who underwent UGIE were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 medication regimens. Patients in group A (n = 49) received placebo. Forty-five minutes after the placebo was given, repeated intravenous (IV) doses of 0.1 mg/kg midazolam were administered titrated to achieve a level of deep sedation. Patients in group B (n = 51) received oral ketamine instead of placebo, and patients in group C (n = 50) received oral fentanyl instead of placebo with the same methodology and sedation endpoint.

RESULTS

The mean dose of midazolam administered in group B patients was remarkably lower compared with that of groups A and C. Patients in group B showed less distress in IV line placement and separation from parents, higher comfort level, more endoscopist satisfaction, and higher sedation depth compared with groups A and C. The recovery time was significantly shorter in group B. All of the 3 regimens were safe. All of the complications were managed successfully.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that synergistic sedation with oral ketamine and IV midazolam for UGIE in children is a suitable and safe sedation. The higher rate of vomiting in group B in contrast to previous studies must be caused mainly by the oral route of ketamine administration.

Levels of evidence in endoscopic ultrasonography: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A prolific trend currently designates endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) literature. We aimed to record all EUS-studies published during the past decade and evaluate them in terms of scientific quality, creating a stratification based on levels of evidence (LE).

METHODS

All articles on EUS published between January 2001 and December 2010 were retrieved using a Pubmed and Cochrane Library search. Inclusion criteria were: original research papers (randomized controlled trials-RCTs, prospective and retrospective studies), meta-analyses, reviews and surveys pertinent to gastrointestinal EUS. Levels of evidence (LE) were assessed using the North of England evidence-based guidelines.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,832 eligible articles were reviewed. The majority (46.1%) of reports comprised retrospective descriptive studies (LE III). Expert reviews and committee reports (LE IV) accounted for 28.9%, well-designed quasi-experimental studies (LE IIb) for 20.1%, RCTs (LE Ib) for 2.4%, prospective controlled trials (LE IIa) for 1.4%, and meta-analyses (LE Ia) for 1.1% of the total. High LE (Ia-Ib) were assigned to loco-regional staging of luminal gastrointestinal cancers; mediastinal staging of lung cancer; diagnostic work-up of solid pancreatic tumors, suspected biliary obstruction and choledocholithiasis; celiac plexus neurolysis; and pancreatic pseudocysts drainage. Intermediate to low LE (IIa-IV) were assigned to submucosal tumors, pancreatic cysts, chronic pancreatitis and novel therapeutic applications (pancreato-biliary drainage, tumor ablation).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic and staging EUS has matured and has proven its clinical impact on patient management. Therapeutic or interventional EUS is still evolving and more quality research and data are needed to establish EUS as the best next intervention to perform once firm evidence is available.

Anaesthesia for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography is used for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. It is relatively more complex than routine endoscopies and requires adequate patient sedation. Furthermore the patients often have co-morbidities. This article provides an overview of various anaesthetic drugs and the type of anaesthesiological support.

Ketamine and midazolam sedation for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy in the Arab world

AIM: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of intravenous ketamine-midazolam sedation during pediatric endoscopy in the Arab world.

METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all pediatric endoscopic procedures performed between 2002-2008 at the shared endoscopy suite of King Abdullah University Hospital, Jordan University of Science & Technology, Jordan was conducted. All children were > 1 year old and weighed > 10 kg with American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 or 2. Analysis was performed in terms of sedation-related complications (desaturation, respiratory distress, apnea, bradycardia, cardiac arrest, emergence reactions), adequacy of sedation, need for sedation reversal, or failure to complete the procedure.

RESULTS: A total of 301 patients (including 160 males) with a mean age of 9.26 years (range, 1-18 years) were included. All were premedicated with atropine; and 79.4% (239/301) had effective and uneventful sedation. And 248 (82.4%) of the 301 patients received a mean dose of 0.16 mg/kg (range, 0.07-0.39) midazolam and 1.06 mg/kg (range, 0.31-2.67) ketamine, respectively within the recommended dosage guidelines. Recommended maximum midazolam dose was exceeded in 17.6% patients [34 female (F):19 male (M), P = 0.003] and ketamine in 2.7% (3 M:5 F). Maximum midazolam dose was more likely to be exceeded than ketamine (P < 0.001). Desaturation occurred in 37 (12.3%) patients, and was reversible by supplemental oxygen in all except 4 who continue to have desaturation despite supplemental oxygen. Four (1.3%) patients had respiratory distress and 6 (2%) were difficult to sedate and required a 3rd sedative; 12 (4%) required reversal and 7 (2.3%) failed to complete the procedure. None developed apnea, bradycardia, arrest, or emergence reactions.

CONCLUSION: Ketamine-midazolam sedation appears safe and effective for diagnostic pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy in the Arab world for children aged > 1 year and weighing > 10 kg without co-morbidities.

Deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography

Sedation and analgesia comprise an important element of unpleasant and often prolonged endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography (ERCP), contributing, however, to better patient tolerance and compliance and to the reduction of injuries during the procedure due to inappropriate co-operation. Although most of the studies used a moderate level of sedation, the literature has revealed the superiority of deep sedation and general anesthesia in performing ERCP. The anesthesiologist’s presence is mandatory in these cases. A moderate sedation level for ERCP seems to be adequate for octogenarians. The sedative agent of choice for sedation in ERCP seems to be propofol due to its fast distribution and fast elimination time without a cumulative effect after infusion, resulting in shorter recovery time. Its therapeutic spectrum, however, is much narrower and therefore careful monitoring is much more demanding in order to differentiate between moderate, deep sedation and general anesthesia. Apart from conventional monitoring, capnography and Bispectral index or Narcotrend monitoring of the level of sedation seem to be useful in titrating sedatives in ERCP.

Systematic review of endoscopic ultrasonography versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for suspected choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has emerged as an accurate diagnostic alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of all randomized controlled trials of EUS-guided ERCP versus ERCP alone in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

The search for eligible studies was carried out using the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Science Citation Index electronic databases. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Four trials containing 213 patients randomized to EUS-guided ERCP and 210 to ERCP alone were selected. In the EUS-guided ERCP group, ERCP was avoided in 143 patients (67.1 per cent) when EUS did not detect choledocholithiasis. The use of EUS significantly reduced the risk of overall complications (relative risk 0.35 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.20 to 0.62); P < 0.001) and post-ERCP acute pancreatitis (relative risk 0.21 (95 per cent c.i. 0.06 to 0.83); P = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

By performing EUS first, ERCP may be safely avoided in two-thirds of patients with common bile duct stones. Application of EUS in the selection of patients for therapeutic ERCP significantly reduces the complication rate.

Anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Traditionally, sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures was provided by the gastroenterologist. Increasingly, however, complex procedures are being performed on seriously ill patients. As a result, anesthesiologists now are providing anesthesia and sedation in the gastrointestinal endoscopy suite for many of these patients. This article reviews the challenges encountered in this environment and anesthetic techniques that can be used successfully for these procedures.

Future directions in endoscopic sedation

The role of sedation in endoscopic procedures has increased and so has the demand for advances in its administration. The pursuit of new agents or administration techniques and their study specific to endoscopic nonsurgical procedures is necessary to improve patient comfort and safety.The science of moderate and deep sedation specific to endoscopy is fledgling but approaching new horizons.

The difficult-to-sedate patient in the endoscopy suite

More than 20 million endoscopic procedures are performed in the United States annually. More than 98% of these endoscopies are performed with sedation. This includes both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Sedation reduces a patient's anxiety and discomfort, often improving their satisfaction with the procedure. Sedation creates a relaxed patient and a relaxed procedure environment allowing for a successful endoscopic examination.

Prospective evaluation of adjunctive ketamine on sphincter of Oddi motility in humans

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Performance of sphincter of Oddi manometry (SOM) at endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatogram (ERCP) is technically demanding and requires that the patient be well sedated. Droperidol is used as an adjunctive agent in patients who are difficult to sedate. Concerns regarding the safety profile of droperidol and its effects on sphincter of Oddi motility has resulted in the search for other potent sedative agents that do not influence SOM readings. Ketamine, a dissociative anesthetic, is increasingly being used as an adjunctive agent for conscious sedation. This study evaluates the effect of ketamine on sphincter of Oddi motility when used as an adjunctive sedative agent during ERCP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a prospective study of 30 consecutive patients undergoing SOM who were difficult to sedate and required adjunctive ketamine. Manometry was initially performed with intravenous administration of diazepam plus meperidine or a combination of diazepam plus meperidine and midazolam. After the initial two pull-throughs, 20 mg of ketamine was administered intravenously and the measurements were repeated 5 min later.

RESULTS

The basal pressures of the biliary sphincter and of the pancreatic sphincter were not significantly altered by ketamine. By using a definition for sphincter of Oddi dysfunction of a basal pressure >or=40 mmHg, concordance (normal vs abnormal) between the basal sphincter pressure before and after ketamine was seen in 28 patients (93%). Ketamine also did not lead to a difference in phasic wave amplitude, duration, or frequency. No complication was associated with ketamine use.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine at 20 mg did not significantly affect SOM parameters. Further studies are required to confirm our preliminary findings before ketamine can be added to the armamentarium of agents used for performance of sphincter of Oddi manometry.

Sedation with propofol for interventional endoscopic procedures: a risk factor analysis

OBJECTIVE

Propofol sedation for mainly diagnostic endoscopic procedures has proved safe in recent trials, with no need for endotracheal intubation. However, there is evidence that cardiorespiratory side effects occur more frequently and that assisted ventilation may be necessary if propofol sedation is performed for interventional endoscopic procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Over a 6-year period, all adverse events (defined as premature termination of the procedure due to sedation-related events or either the need for assisted ventilation or admission to ICU) occurring during 9547 endoscopic interventions (UGI, n = 5.374, ERCP, n = 3.937, EUS, n=236) under propofol sedation were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 135 adverse events (1.4%) were documented. Assisted ventilation was necessary in 40 patients (0.4%); 9 patients required endotracheal intubation (0.09%); 28 needed further monitoring on the ICU (0.3%); and 4 patients died, 3 potentially due to sedation-related side effects (mortality, 0.03%). Independent risk factors for sedation-related side effects were emergency endoscopic examinations and a total propofol dose >100 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventional endoscopy under propofol sedation is not risk-free. Increased attention must be focused on close monitoring of vital parameters, particularly when undertaking long-lasting interventions and emergency procedures.