Optimal sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: review and recommendations

Optimizing sedation in gastroscopy: a study on the etomidate/propofol mixture ratio

Objective

Propofol and etomidate are the most commonly used sedative agents in procedural sedation, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. However, there remains considerable controversy regarding the optimal ratio for the mixture of these two drugs, warranting further investigation. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the optimal ratio for combining propofol and etomidate during gastroscopy.

Methods

This study is a prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial. One hundred and sixty-two patients from July 2019 to December 2022 were evenly classified into three groups using a random number table as follows: (1) P group (propofol); (2) EP1 group (5 mL etomidate +10 mL propofol); (3) EP2 group (10 mL etomidate +10 mL), 54 patients per group. The medications, including a pre-sedation dose of 50 μg/kg dezocine followed by sedatives, ceasing when the patient's eyelash reflex vanished, indicating adequate sedation. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) measurements taken before anesthesia (T1), immediately after the administration of sedatives (T2), immediately gastroscopic insertion (T3) and immediately recovery (T4) were determined. Additional, perioperative related outcomes and adverse events were also recorded.

Results

The EP2 group exhibited a higher MAP at T2 compared to the P and EP1 groups (p < 0.05). Calculated decreases in MAP revealed values of 19.1, 18.8, and 13.8% for the P, EP1, and EP2 groups at T2, respectively. Adverse events: Group EP2 exhibited a significantly lower hypotension incidence (11.1%) compared to the Propofol group (50%) and EP1 (31.5%). Concerning injection pain, Group EP2 also showing a significant decrease in comparison to P and EP1 groups (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The use of a mixture of 10 mL etomidate and 10 mL propofol (at a 1:1 ratio) combined with dezocine for painless gastroscopy demonstrates hemodynamic stability, a low incidence of adverse reactions.

Clinical Trial Registration

https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=39874.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol (HSK3486) versus propofol for anesthetic induction and non-ICU sedation

Background: Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anesthetic agent that bears structural similarity to propofol and displays favorable pharmacodynamic characteristics such as rapid onset and offset. The meta-analysis aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in clinical practice. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 2023. The primary outcome was success rate of sedation/anesthetic induction and differences in sedation/induction time. The secondary outcomes included risks of hemodynamic instability, respiratory complications, and pain on injection, as well as recovery profiles, satisfaction score, and top-up dose requirement. Results: Twelve RCTs (sedation: n = 6, anesthetic induction, n = 6, all conducted in China) involving 1,793 patients (age: 34-58 years) published from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Pooled results revealed no differences in success rate [risk ratio (RR) = 1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99 to 1.01, I2 = 0%, 1,106 patients, p = 1] and time required for successful anesthetic induction/sedation [mean difference (MD) = 7.95 s, 95% CI: -1.09 to 16.99, I2 = 97%, 1,594 patients, p = 0.08]. The risks of top-up dose requirement (RR = 0.94, p = 0.48), cardiopulmonary complications [i.e., bradycardia (RR = 0.94, p = 0.67), tachycardia (RR = 0.83, p = 0.68), hypertension (RR = 1.28, p = 0.2), hypoxemia/pulmonary depression (RR = 0.78, p = 0.24)], and postoperative nausea/vomiting (RR = 0.85, p = 0.72), as well as discharge time (MD = 1.39 min, p = 0.14) and satisfaction score (standardized MD = 0.23, p = 0.16) did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the ciprofol group had lower risks of hypotension (RR = 0.85, p = 0.02) and pain on injection (RR = 0.17, p < 0.00001) than the propofol group. The time to full alertness was statistically shorter in the propofol group (i.e., 0.66 min), but without clinical significance. Conclusion: Our results demonstrated similar efficacy between ciprofol and propofol for sedation and anesthetic induction, while ciprofol was associated with lower risks of hypotension and pain on injection. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in pediatric or the elderly populations. Systematic Review Registration: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), identifier (CRD42023421278).

Evaluation of the sedative effect of sublingual lorazepam versus placebo in patients underwent endoscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial

Background

Digestive endoscopy (DE) is uncomfortable for most patients. Lorazepam is a potent benzodiazepine with anxiolytic and sedative effects.

Objective

This study aims to determine the sedative effect of sublingual lorazepam versus placebo as a premedication in patients who underwent DE.

Design

This is a mono-center, double-blind, and randomized controlled trial.

Methods

A lorazepam sublingual tablet was made by researchers and physical tests were done on it, then the double-blind placebo-controlled trial was done to investigate the efficacy of 2 mg sublingually administered lorazepam as a premedication for endoscopy. Lorazepam or a placebo tablet was administered sublingually 30 min before the endoscopy. The patients, nurses, and physicians were blinded to the patient group. The depth of sedation was evaluated according to the American Society of Anesthesiology.

Results

In all, 116 patients were randomly assigned to take either lorazepam (n = 58) or a placebo (n = 58). The results of physical properties tests were acceptable according to United States Pharmacopeia. There were no statistical differences between groups regarding age and gender. In the lorazepam group, 75.8% of patients showed mild sedation, and 24.2% of patients showed no sedation. All of the patients in the placebo had no sedation (p = 0.001). Time of procedure (p < 0.001), intraoperative O2 saturation (p < 0.001), intraoperative heart rate (p < 0.001), and intraoperative blood pressure (p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the lorazepam group. No significant or dangerous side effects were observed except a bit of giddiness and dizziness.

Conclusion

The results of this study showed that prescription of sublingual lorazepam 25-30 min before endoscopy provided mild sedation.

Registration

IRCT201611039014N130 (05/11/2016); https://en.irct.ir/trial/9568.

Gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal complication rates associated with diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy under sedation

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under sedation may result in gastrointestinal (GI) and non-GI complications. However, no previous studies have reported 30-day GI and non-GI complications after diagnostic EGD under sedation.We conducted a retrospective, observational study of 30-day GI and non-GI complication rates after outpatient diagnostic EGD under sedation in subjects ≥18 years between January 2012 and December 2017 based on a common data model database. Thirty-day complication rates were compared with EGD under sedation or not, type of sedation drugs (midazolam only vs midazolam/propofol) and age groups (18-64 year vs ≥65 year) for GI (bleeding and perforation) and non-GI complications (pneumonia, acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and cerebral stroke).In total, 39,910 were performed with sedation (midazolam only, n = 16,033 and midazolam/propofol, n = 23,864) and 22,894 were performed without sedation. Elderly patients significantly favored EGD without sedation (P < .01). GI and non-GI complication rates were similar between EGD under sedation and without sedation (all P > .1) except for acute myocardial infarction rate, which was significantly higher in EGD without sedation than EGD under sedation (1.7/10,000 vs 0.3/10,000 persons, P = .043). All GI and non-GI complications were also similar between the midazolam/propofol and midazolam only groups as well as between young and old patients (all P > .1).Outpatient diagnostic EGD under sedation has an excellent safety profile. In addition, it can be safely performed with midazolam only or midazolam/propofol and in young and old patients.

Pre-procedure intravenous lidocaine administration on propofol consumption for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure is generally performed in patients with high comorbidity. We aimed to reduce the consumption of propofol by adding lidocaine before ERCP.

METHODS

Eighty ERCP patients with ASA I-III, aged between 45-75 years, were randomly divided into two groups. Lidocaine group (group L, n = 40), received 1-mg midazolam, 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine, and 1 mg/kg propofol intravenously. The control group (group C, n = 40) received 1-mg midazolam, saline in the same volume as the lidocaine group, and 1 mg/kg propofol intravenously. Propofol was administered with intermittent bolus doses. Propofol consumption, oropharyngeal reflex, recovery time, endoscopist satisfaction, ketamine need, and side-effects were recorded.

RESULTS

Propofol consumption during the procedure was statistically lower in group L than in the control group (157.25 ± 39.16 mg vs 228.75 ± 64.62 mg respectively, P < 0.001). Additionally, recovery time was statistically faster in group L compared with the control group (7.78 ± 3.95 min vs 11.92 ± 3.24 min respectively, P < 0.001). The oropharyngeal reflex was less in group L than control group (6/40 vs 15/40 respectively, P = 0.042). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding visual analogue scale scores and endoscopist satisfaction (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend the use of intravenous lidocaine before the ERCP procedure as it reduces propofol consumption, recovery times, and oropharyngeal reflex.

Low-dose midazolam and propofol use for conscious sedation during diagnostic endoscopy

To find the right sedation technique for different types of treatment methods and the right amount of sedatives so the chances of side effects happening can be reduced. This was a retrospective cohort analysis conducted on prospectively collected data. Patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy only (E group) were sub-divided into two subgroups: (a) Those who received 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (E-a), (b) Those who received 0.025 mg/kg of midazolam and 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (E-b). Patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with colonoscopy (EC group) were also sub-divided into three subgroups: (a) Those who received 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (EC-a), (b) Those who received 0.025 mg/kg of midazolam and 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (EC-b), (c) Those who received 25 mg (12.5 mg if body weight < 50 kg or age > 70) of meperidine and 0.025 mg/kg of midazolam along with 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (EC-c). When the level of target was not reached, 10-20 mg of propofol was additionally injected. Sedation efficacy and safety were then compared among groups. E-b and EC-b decreased the overall amount of propofol and reduced side effect of temporary hypoxemia compared to E-a and EC-a. EC-b shortened patient recovery time compared to EC-c and reduced paradoxical reaction. In terms of the patient satisfaction and patient cooperation by endoscopists, there were no significant differences between EC-b and EC-c. Concomitant use of low dosages of both propofol and midazolam is found to be useful and safe when endoscopy needs to be performed.

Relation of viscous lidocaine combined with propofol deep sedation during elective upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to discharge

Fusing topical pharyngeal anesthetics (TPAs) to intravenous sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has been controversial. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessed the association of TPA with patient recovery time, post-EGD to discharge. Supplementary aims were to determine the association of TPA with patient and practitioner satisfaction (both measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale), total propofol dose, and side effects. The study included 93 patients (mean age 53.8 years, range 44-67; 37 men and 56 women) undergoing elective EGD at a single academic medical center from September 2015 to October 2016. Urgent or therapeutic EGDs were excluded. Interventions were 7.5 mL 2% lidocaine viscous solution and 7.5 mL placebo solution (3% methylcellulose). There were no statistically significant differences between the lidocaine (n = 46) and placebo (n = 47) groups with respect to recovery time (42 ± 17.8 vs 39 ± 15.9 minutes; P = 0.23), procedure time (6.5 ± 2.7 vs 7 ± 3.6 minutes; P = 0.77), endoscopist satisfaction (83.2 ± 24.4 vs 77 ± 27.7, P = 0.23), patient discomfort (16.6 ± 19.8 vs 24.0 ± 29.7, P = 0.37), or total propofol administered (2.3 ± 1.3 vs 2.3 ± 1.0 mg/kg, P = 0.55). Compared to placebo, topical viscous lidocaine does not appear to delay recovery time or adversely affect sedation-related outcomes.

Sedation Strategies for Procedures Outside the Operating Room

With the rapid development of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures performed outside the operating room (OR), the need for appropriate sedation care has emerged in importance to ensure the safety and comfort of patients and clinicians. The preparation and administration of sedatives and sedation care outside the OR require careful attention, proper monitoring systems, and clinically useful sedation guidelines. This literature review addresses proper monitoring and selection of sedatives for diagnostic and interventional procedures outside the OR. As the depth of sedation increases, respiratory depression and cardiovascular suppression become serious, necessitating careful surveillance using appropriate monitoring equipment.

Preparatory information reduces gastroscopy-related stress in children as confirmed by salivary cortisol

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study aimed to determine whether the anxiety levels of pediatric patients who undergo endoscopy are reduced after receiving preparatory information about the endoscopic procedure by monitoring their salivary cortisol (s-cortisol) levels.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 184 children undergoing gastroscopy under sedoanalgesia were included in the study. All the patients received a brief explanation of the endoscopic procedure. Patients were divided into two groups; Group Unexplained did not receive any further information other than a brief explanation of the procedure, Group Explained received more detailed explanation of the procedure. To determine anxiety levels, saliva specimens were taken on the day before the procedure to examine cortisol levels before and after endoscopy. Anxiety scores before endoscopy were calculated by the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale. Patients were monitored throughout sedoanalgesia, including during the endoscopy, sedation and recovery, and total propofol dosages were recorded.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine children undergoing gastroscopy (age 11.55 ± 2.52 years; 50.5% girls) constituted Group Explained and 95 children undergoing gastroscopy (age 11.44 ± 2.66 years; 56.8% male) constituted Group Unexplained. The anxiety score, duration of sedation, endoscopy and recovery, propofol dose, pre- and post-endoscopy s-cortisol levels were significantly reduced in Group Explained.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that when endoscopic procedure is explained broadly to a child, the procedural stress is significantly less, as measured by the s-cortisol levels and the anxiety questionnaire. It is important for the attending physician to explain all aspects of examination carefully.

Effectiveness and safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy during a specific sedation training program for non-anesthesiologists

INTRODUCTION

sedation is a key component for the improvement of sedation quality. A correct administration requires appropriate training. We performed a study to compare sedation effectiveness, safety and patient satisfaction when administered by gastroenterologists, with and without specific training.

METHODS

a training program enrolled a group of gastroenterologists (trained group, n = 4) and their results were compared to those from a non-trained group (n = 3). ASA 1-3 patients who had undergone sedation by a gastroenterologist using midazolam and fentanyl were included over a period of 30 months. Safety was assessed in terms of the complication rate, effectiveness was assessed via the rate of completed endoscopic procedures and patient satisfaction was evaluated via a phone interview the day after the procedure.

RESULTS

a total of 3,475 patients were sedated by gastroenterologists during the study period. Significant differences were found that favored the trained group for completed procedures (5.6% vs 8.9%). A lower rate of excessive sedation (1.3% vs 8.61%), hypoxemia (0.72% vs 2.49%) and post-procedural pain (1.8% vs 4.3%) were also achieved. Patient satisfaction surpassed 99.5% and there were no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

our sedation training program improved the effectiveness and safety outcomes when compared to sedation administered by gastroenterologists without this specific training.

The Benefit of Fentanyl in Effective Sedation and Quality of Upper Endoscopy: A Double-Blinded Randomized Trial of Fentanyl Added to Midazolam Versus Midazolam Alone for Sedation

Aims

Our goals were to compare the effect of adding fentanyl to midazolam in a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial and determine if fentanyl enhances sedation, increases adverse events or effects time of the procedure or discharge.

Methods

Patients 18 to 65 years scheduled for outpatient upper endoscopy were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized to receive either 100 mcg/2 mL of Fentanyl or 2 mL of placebo IV with a double-blinded protocol. All patients received 2 mg of intravenous midazolam initially. Additional midazolam could be given to achieve adequate sedation.

Results

There were 68 patients randomized to the Fentanyl group and 69 patients to the placebo group. The mean dose of midazolam was 4.0 mg for the Fentanyl group and 5.2 mg for placebo group (P=0.003). Both endoscopist and nurse independently rated sedation to be better in the fentanyl group (P=0001). The patient did not perceive any difference in sedation (P=0.4). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the Fentanyl group (8.5 versus 11.1 minutes, P=0.001), with no difference in the discharge time. There was significantly less retching observed in patients in the fentanyl group (P<0.001). There were no major complications.

Conclusions

Endoscopists and nurses found adding fentanyl significantly improved sedation, led to a shorter procedure time, and allowed for less midazolam to be used per case. It did not affect the patient experience of sedation and was safe. Fentanyl use for routine outpatient upper endoscopy should be considered as a safe option to improve procedural sedation.NCT:01514695 (www.clinicaltrials.gov)Accepted as an abstract for the Canadian Digestive Diseases Week meeting in February 2014.

Pethidine dose and female sex as risk factors for nausea after esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Nausea and vomiting after esophagogastroduodenoscopy have not been studied in detail. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors for post-endoscopic nausea. We performed a case-control study at the Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic. Eighteen patients with post-endoscopic nausea and 190 controls without post-endoscopic nausea were analyzed. We conducted univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses with respect to patient age; sex; body height; body weight; the use of psychotropic drugs as baseline medications; and the dosing amounts of midazolam, pethidine, flumazenil and naloxone. On univariate analysis, post-endoscopic nausea was significantly related with patient age (odds ratio = 0.946); female sex (odds ratio = 10.85); body weight (odds ratio = 0.975); and the dose per kg body weight of pethidine (odds ratio = 53.03), naloxone (odds ratio = 1.676), and flumazenil (odds ratio = 1.26). On multivariate analysis, the dose per kg body weight of pethidine (odds ratio = 21.67, p = 0.004) and female sex (odds ratio = 13.12, p = 0.047) were the factors independently associated with post-endoscopic nausea. The prevalence of nausea after esophagogastroduodenoscopy was 0.49% (18/3,654). In conclusion, post-endoscopic nausea was associated with the dose of pethidine and female sex.

Efficacy of midazolam- versus propofol-based sedations by non-anesthesiologists during therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients aged over 80 years

BACKGROUND AND AIM

As society ages, the need for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is increasing. This prospective comparative study evaluated the safety and efficacy of midazolam- versus propofol-based sedations by non-anesthesiologists during therapeutic ERCP in patients over 80 years of age.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients over 80 years of age who required therapeutic ERCP were enrolled and randomly received midazolam + fentanyl (MF group) or propofol + fentanyl (PF group) sedation. Endoscopic sedation was titrated to a moderate level and carried out by trained registered nurses. Main outcome measurements were sedation safety in terms of cardiopulmonary components and efficacy measured on a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Regarding safety, hypoxia occurred in seven (14%) in the MF group and in eight patients (16%) in the PF group (P = 0.779). Increased O₂ supply was more frequent in the PF group (32% vs 42%), albeit not significantly so. There were no differences in the frequency of hypotension, bradycardia or tachycardia between the two groups. Mean VAS score for overall satisfaction with sedation by patients, endoscopists, and nurses and the scores for pain during the procedures were not different between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the procedure outcomes or rate of ERCP-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences of safety and efficacy between midazolam- and propofol-based sedation in patients over 80 years of age. Increased O₂ supply was more frequent in the propofol group, but the prevalence of hypoxia did not differ significantly.

Consensus conference on TIPS management: Techniques, indications, contraindications

The trans jugular intrahepatic Porto systemic shunt (TIPS) is no longer viewed as a salvage therapy or a bridge to liver transplantation and is currently indicated for a number of conditions related to portal hypertension with positive results in survival. Moreover, the availability of self-expandable polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered endoprostheses has dramatically improved the long-term patency of TIPS. However, since the last updated International guidelines have been published (year 2009) new evidence have come, which have open the field to new indications and solved areas of uncertainty. On this basis, the Italian Association of the Study of the Liver (AISF), the Italian College of Interventional Radiology-Italian Society of Medical Radiology (ICIR-SIRM), and the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) promoted a Consensus Conference on TIPS. Under the auspices of the three scientific societies, the consensus process started with the review of the literature by a scientific board of experts and ended with a formal consensus meeting in Bergamo on June 4th and 5th, 2015. The final statements presented here were graded according to quality of evidence and strength of recommendations and were approved by an independent jury. By highlighting strengths and weaknesses of current indications to TIPS, the recommendations of AISF-ICIR-SIRM-SIAARTI may represent the starting point for further studies.

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.

Midazolam for sedation before procedures

BACKGROUND

Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.

Efficacy and safety of remifentanil and sulfentanyl in painless gastroscopic examination: a prospective study

We aim to assess efficacy and safety of remifentanil or sulfentanyl combined with propofol during painless gastroscopic examination in patients. In this study, 270 patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: propofol was given only in group P; propofol and remifentanil in group PR; propofol and sulfentanyl in group PS during the gastroscopic examination. Efficiency of group P was significantly higher than that of group PR and PS (P<0.01) [corrected]. Efficiency of group PR was lower than that of group PS (P<0.05). Incidence of chest wall rigidity and oxygen desaturation in group PR were higher than group P and PS (P<0.05), whereas there was no difference between groups P and PS (P>0.05). Propofol combined with remifentanil could provide satisfying anesthesia and more respiratory depression, whereas sulfentanyl at equivalent dose combined with propofol could also provide with satisfying anesthesia and less respiratory depression. Combined sufentanyl with propofol would be an effective anesthesia technique in the daytime procedure.

Endoscopic treatment for esophageal varices complicated by Isaacs' syndrome involving difficulty with conventional sedation

A 54-year-old male consulted a local doctor with a chief complaint of systemic convulsions and muscle stiffness and was diagnosed with Isaacs' syndrome based on positive findings for antibodies against voltage-gated potassium channels in 2009. He subsequently experienced repeated hematemesis in 2013, at which time he was taken to our hospital by ambulance. Emergent endoscopy revealed esophageal varices with spurting bleeding. The bleeding was stopped with urgent endoscopic variceal ligation. Three days later, the patient developed sudden dyspnea with stridor during inspiration under sedation with an intravenous injection of low-dose flunitrazepam prior to receiving additional treatment and was aroused with intravenous flumazenil, after which his dyspnea immediately improved. Dyspnea may be induced by muscle cramps associated with Isaacs' syndrome exacerbated by sedation. Endoscopic variceal ligation was performed safely using multiple ligation devices in an awake state following pre-medication with hydroxyzine, without sudden dyspnea. Endoscopists should be cautious of the use of sedatives in patients with diseases associated with muscle twitching or stiffness, as in the current case. In addition, it is necessary to administer endoscopic treatment in an awake state or under conscious sedation in patients with a high risk of dyspnea.

Does Sedation Affect Examination of Esophagogastric Junction during Upper Endoscopy?

PURPOSE

During sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), patients may not be able to perform inspiration, which is necessary to examine the esophagogastric junction. Therefore sedation may affect diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux-related findings. The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of sedation on diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux-related findings during EGD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated 28914 patients older than 20 years who underwent EGD at our institution between January 2011 and December 2011. Ultimately, 1546 patients indicated for EGD for health check-up and symptom evaluation were included.

RESULTS

There were 18546 patients who had diagnostic EGD: 10471 patients (56%) by non-sedated EGD and 8075 patients (43%) by sedated EGD. After statistical adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index, minimal change esophagitis, and hiatal hernia were significantly less frequently observed in the sedated EGD group [odds ratio (OR), 0.651; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.586 to 0.722 and OR, 0.699; 95% CI, 0.564 to 0.866]. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in other findings at the gastroesophageal junction, such as reflux esophagitis with Los Angeles classification A, B, C, and D or Barrett's esophagus, between the two groups. Similarly, there were no differences in early gastric cancer, advanced gastric cancer, and gastric ulcer occurrence.

CONCLUSION

Sedation can impede the detection of minimal change esophagitis and hiatal hernia, but does not influence detection of reflux esophagitis of definite severity and Barrett's esophagus.

Morbidity and mortality of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) in a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopist-Directed Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation (EDNAPS) has been evaluated in community settings rather than tertiary referral centers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A hospital-wide prospectively collected database of Medical Emergency Team Calls (METCALL), emergency responses triggered by medically unstable patients, was reviewed. Responses that followed EDNAPS were extracted and compared with a prospectively entered database of all endoscopies performed using EDNAPS over the same period.

RESULTS

A total of 33,539 endoscopic procedures (16,393 gastroscopies, 17,146 colonoscopies) were performed on 27,989 patients using EDNAPS. Intravenous drugs included midazolam (0 - 5 mg), fentanyl (0 - 100 mcg), and propofol (10 - 420 mg). Of 23 METCALLs (18 gastroscopies and 5 colonoscopies), there were 16 with ASA scores of III or higher. Indications for gastroscopy were gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage (n = 11; 8 variceal, 3 nonvariceal), dysphagia (n = 5), PEG removal (n = 1), and dyspepsia (n = 1). Fifteen of 22 patients, including all of those who had a colonoscopy, made a full recovery and returned to the ward or were discharged home. In the gastroscopy group, seven were intubated and admitted to Intensive Care, of whom six were emergency cases for gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 4 variceal, n = 2 non variceal) and one in which the indication was PEG removal. Two deaths occurred in the intubated group.

CONCLUSIONS

In a tertiary referral center, EDNAPS for low-to-moderate risk (ASA ≤ 2) patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy is very safe. Gastroscopy is associated with greater anesthetic risk than colonoscopy and those with high ASA scores needing urgent endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage are at particular risk of cardiorespiratory decompensation.

Conventional versus Analgesia-Oriented Combination Sedation on Recovery Profiles and Satisfaction after ERCP: A Randomized Trial

Background

The importance of providing effective analgesia during sedation for complex endoscopic procedures has been widely recognized. However, repeated administration of opioids in order to achieve sufficient analgesia may carry the risk of delayed recovery after propofol based sedation. This study was done to compare recovery profiles and the satisfaction of the endoscopists and patients between conventional balanced propofol sedation and analgesia-oriented combination sedation for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Methods

Two hundred and two adult patients scheduled for ERCP were sedated by either the Conventional (initial bolus of meperidine with propofol infusion) or Combination (repeated bolus doses of fentanyl with propofol infusion) method. Recovery profiles, satisfaction levels of the endoscopists and patients, drug requirements and complications were compared between groups.

Results

Patients of the Combination Group required significantly less propofol compared to the Conventional Group (135.0 ± 68.8 mg vs. 165.3 ± 81.7 mg, P = 0.005). Modified Aldrete scores were not different between groups throughout the recovery period, and recovery times were also comparable between groups. Satisfaction scores were not different between the two groups in both the endoscopists and patients (P = 0.868 and 0.890, respectively).

Conclusions

Considering the significant reduction in propofol dose, the non-inferiority of recovery profiles and satisfaction scores of the endoscopists and patients, analgesia oriented combination sedation may be a more safe yet effective sedative method compared to conventional balanced propofol sedation during ERCP.

Assessing the stability and safety of procedure during endoscopic submucosal dissection according to sedation methods: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is routinely performed under sedation, the difference in ESD performance according to sedation method is not well known. This study attempted to prospectively assess and compare the satisfaction of the endoscopists and patient stability during ESD between two sedation methods.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-four adult patients scheduled for ESD were sedated by either the IMIE (intermittent midazolam/propofol injection by endoscopist) or CPIA (continuous propofol infusion by anesthesiologist) method. The primary endpoint of this study was to compare the level of satisfaction of the endoscopists between the two groups. The secondary endpoints included level of satisfaction of the patients, patient's pain scores, events interfering with the procedure, incidence of unintended deep sedation, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

Level of satisfaction of the endoscopists was significantly higher in the CPIA Group compared to the IMIE group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 63.2% vs. 87.2%, P=0.001). The incidence of unintended deep sedation was significantly higher in the IMIE Group compared to the CPIA Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; 17.1% vs. 5.1%, P=0.018) as well as the number of patients showing spontaneous movement or those requiring physical restraint (IMIE vs. CPIA; spontaneous movement; 60.5% vs. 42.3%, P=0.024, physical restraint; 27.6% vs. 10.3%, P=0.006, respectively). In contrast, level of satisfaction of the patients were found to be significantly higher in the IMIE Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 85.5% vs. 67.9%, P=0.027). Pain scores of the patients, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Continuous propofol and remifentanil infusion by an anesthesiologist during ESD can increase the satisfaction levels of the endoscopists by providing a more stable state of sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01806753.

Negative impact of sedation on esophagogastric junction evaluation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy

AIM: To compare the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) areas observed in sedated and non-sedated patients during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from consecutive patients who underwent EGD for various reasons. The patients were divided into three groups according to the sedation used: propofol, midazolam, and control (no sedation). The EGJ was observed during both insertion and withdrawal of the endoscope. The extent of the EGJ territory observed was classified as excellent, good, fair, or poor. In addition, the time the EGJ was observed was estimated.

RESULTS: The study included 103 patients (50 males; mean age 58.44 ± 10.3 years). An excellent observation was achieved less often in the propofol and midazolam groups than in the controls (27.3%, 28.6% and 91.4%, respectively, P < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the time at which EGJ was observed among the groups (propofol 20.7 ± 11.7 s vs midazolam 16.3 ± 7.3 s vs control 11.6 ± 5.8 s, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that sedation use was the only independent risk factor for impaired EGJ evaluation (propofol, OR = 24.4, P < 0.001; midazolam, OR = 25.3, P < 0.001). Hiccoughing was more frequent in the midazolam group (propofol 9% vs midazolam 25.7% vs control 0%, P = 0.002), while hypoxia (SaO2 < 90%) tended to occur more often in the propofol group (propofol 6.1% vs midazolam 0% vs control 0%, P = 0.101).

CONCLUSION: Sedation during EGD has a negative effect on evaluation of the EGJ.

Endoscopist-directed propofol: pros and cons

Concerns about the safety of endoscopist-directed propofol (EDP) have been voiced that propofol should be given only by healthcare professionals trained in the administration of general anesthesia. Here we discuss the safety and drawbacks of EDP for routine endoscopic procedures. Currently, both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy are well tolerated and accepted by both patients and endoscopists due to the application of sedation in most clinics worldwide. Accordingly, propofol use is increasing in many countries. It is crucial for endoscopists to be very familiar with the use of propofol or a combination of drugs. However, the controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an anesthesiologist continues. Until now, there have been no randomized control trials comparing sedation induced by propofol administered by an endoscopist or by an anesthesiologist. It might be difficult to perform this kind of study. For the convenience and safety of sedative endoscopy, it would be important that EDP be generally applied to endoscopic procedures, and for more safety, an anesthesiologist may automatically take care of particular patients at high risk of suffering from propofol side effects.

Safety of non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in ERCP

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation purposes during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study aimed to evaluate the safety of non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) during therapeutic ERCP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients, who underwent ERCP at Centre for Liver and Digestive Diseases, Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi, were included in the study. Propofol sedation was administered by a physician who was a non-anaesthesiologist certified in basic and advanced cardiac life support. The total study duration was 6 months. The primary outcome variable was the frequency of any sedation-related complication.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients (41% males and 59% females) were enrolled in the study. The mean propofol dose used during the procedure was 201±132 mg. The mean propofol dose, when adjusted to weight and duration of procedure, was 0.05±0.04 mg kg(-1)min(-1). According to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, 136 (87%) patients were placed in ASA class I and II and 20 (13%) patients were of ASA class III. Only two patients developed sedation-related complication: one minor requiring bag-mask ventilation and other major requiring mechanical ventilation via endotracheal intubation. Both were managed by the trained non-anaesthesiologist and gastroenterologist at the place of procedure. No patients required cardiopulmonary resuscitation and admission to the intensive care unit. There were no sedation-related deaths.

CONCLUSION

NAAP sedation can be considered safe for low-risk patients (ASA class I and II) undergoing ERCP. The presence of a trained anaesthetist is advisable in high-risk patients (ASA class III and higher) with significant co-morbidities.

Deep sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens

AIM

To compare deep sedation with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

After obtaining approval of the research ethics committee and informed consent, 200 patients were evaluated and referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive propofol-fentanyl or midazolam-fentanyl (n = 100/group). We assessed the level of sedation using the observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score and bispectral index (BIS). We evaluated patient and physician satisfaction, as well as the recovery time and complication rates. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software and included the Mann-Whitney test, χ² test, measurement of analysis of variance, and the κ statistic.

RESULTS

The times to induction of sedation, recovery, and discharge were shorter in the propofol-fentanyl group than the midazolam-fentanyl group. According to the OAA/S score, deep sedation events occurred in 25% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 11% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.014). Additionally, deep sedation events occurred in 19% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 7% of the midazolam-fentanyl group according to the BIS scale (P = 0.039). There was good concordance between the OAA/S score and BIS for both groups (κ = 0.71 and κ = 0.63, respectively). Oxygen supplementation was required in 42% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 26% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.025). The mean time to recovery was 28.82 and 44.13 min in the propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl groups, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no severe complications in either group. Although patients were equally satisfied with both drug combinations, physicians were more satisfied with the propofol-fentanyl combination.

CONCLUSION

Deep sedation occurred with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl, but was more frequent in the former. Recovery was faster in the propofol-fentanyl group.

Balanced propofol sedation versus propofol monosedation in therapeutic pancreaticobiliary endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Prolonged or complex endoscopic procedures are frequently performed under deep sedation. However, no studies of therapeutic ERCP have yet compared the use of balanced propofol sedation (BPS) to propofol alone, titrated to moderate levels of sedation.

AIM

This prospective, randomized, double-blind study was planned to compare the sedation efficacy and safety of BPS (propofol in combination with midazolam and fentanyl) and propofol monosedation in therapeutic ERCP and EUS.

METHODS

BPS, or propofol monosedation titrated to a moderate level of sedation, was performed by trained registered nurses under endoscopist supervision. The main outcome measurements included sedation efficacy focusing on recovery time, sedation safety, endoscopic procedure outcomes, and complications.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in sedation efficacy, safety, procedure outcomes, and complications, with the exception of recovery time. Mean recovery time (standard deviation) was 18.37 (7.86) min in BPS and 13.4 (6.24) min in propofol monosedation (P < 0.001). In a safety analysis, cardiopulmonary complication rates related to BPS and propofol monosedation were 7.8 % (8/102) and 9.6 % (10/104), respectively (P = 0.652). No patient required assisted ventilation or permanent termination of a procedure in either group. Technical success of the endoscopic procedures was 96.3 and 97.2 %, respectively (P = 0.701). Endoscopic procedure-related complications and outcomes did not differ depending on sedation procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol monosedation by trained, registered sedation nurses under supervision resulted in a more rapid recovery time than BPS. There were no differences in the sedation safety, endoscopic procedure outcomes, and complications between BPS and propofol monosedation.

Effective teamworking in gastroenterology

The majority of healthcare provision within the NHS is delivered by teams, but most attempts at improving team functioning are limited to promoting working relationships within the team. This contrasts with other high risk industries, where formalised team training is recognised to be of paramount importance in reducing error. Some medical specialities have adapted such training methodologies with the aim of improving productivity and clinical outcomes. There are many teams within gastroenterology that could benefit from such attention. Formal analysis of team objectives and identification of essential task sequences can allow redesign of team organisation and enable structured training to strengthen team cohesion, enhance critical team skills and improve clinical outcomes. The challenge is to change teams of experts into expert teams.

Balanced propofol sedation for therapeutic GI endoscopic procedures: a prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND

There are few controlled studies on balanced propofol sedation (BPS) for therapeutic endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of BPS (propofol in combination with midazolam and meperidine) with conventional sedation (midazolam and meperidine) in patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopic procedures.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, single-blinded study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care referral center.

PATIENTS

This study involved 222 consecutive patients undergoing therapeutic EGD or ERCP from July 2009 to March 2010.

INTERVENTION

Conventional sedation or BPS by trained registered nurses under endoscopist supervision.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Rates of sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications and interruption of the procedures, procedure-related times, and assessments of health care providers (endoscopists and sedation nurses) and patients.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the BPS and conventional groups in the rates of cardiopulmonary complications (8.8% [9/102] vs 5.8% [6/104], respectively) and transient interruption of procedures (2.9% [3/102] vs 0% [0/104], respectively). No patient required assisted ventilation or premature termination of a procedure. BPS provided significantly higher health care provider satisfaction (mean±SD 10-cm visual analog scale [VAS] score) compared with conventional sedation (endoscopists: 7.57±2.61 vs 6.55±2.99, respectively; P=.011; sedation nurses: 7.86±2.31 vs 6.67±2.90, respectively; P=.001). Patient cooperation was significantly better in the BPS group (VAS; endoscopists: 7.24±2.97 vs 6.27±3.09, P=.024; sedation nurses: 7.75±2.30 vs 6.54±2.99, P=.001).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center and single-blinded study.

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional sedation, BPS provides higher health care provider satisfaction, better patient cooperation, and similar adverse event profiles in patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopic procedures.

Recent advances in using propofol by non-anesthesiologists

Evidence is accumulating that non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) sedation has a safety and efficacy profile comparable or superior to that provided by benzodiazepines with or without opioids. The guidelines currently available emphasize the importance of appropriate patient selection, staff training, monitoring, and low-dose sedation protocols for NAAP safety. In addition, capnograph monitoring and computer-assisted sedation systems may further improve patient safety during NAAP.

Endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal lesions: advancement in the application of endoscopic submucosal dissection

Curative endoscopic resection is now a viable option for a range of neoplastic lesions of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) with low invasive potential. Risk of lymph node metastasis is the most important prognostic factor in selecting appropriate lesions for endoscopic therapy, and assessment of invasion depth is vital in this respect. To determine appropriate treatment, detailed endoscopic diagnosis and estimation of depth using magnifying chromoendoscopy is the gold standard in Japan. En bloc resection is the most desirable endoscopic therapy as risk of local recurrence is low and accurate histological diagnosis of invasion depth is possible. Endoscopic mucosal resection is established worldwide for the ablation of early neoplasms, but en bloc removal using this technique is limited to small lesions. Evidence suggests that a piecemeal resection technique has a higher local recurrence risk, therefore necessitating repeated surveillance endoscopy and further therapy. More advanced endoscopic techniques developed in Japan allow effective en bloc removal of early GIT neoplasms, regardless of size. This review discusses assessment of GIT lesions and options for endoscopic therapy with special reference to the introduction of endoscopic submucosal dissection into Western countries.