Safety of propofol for conscious sedation during endoscopic procedures in high-risk patients-a prospective, controlled study

Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnostic and procedural sedation

Safe and effective sedation depends on various factors, such as the choice of sedatives, sedation techniques used, experience of the sedation provider, degree of sedation-related education and training, equipment and healthcare worker availability, the patient's underlying diseases, and the procedure being performed. The purpose of these evidence-based multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines is to ensure the safety and efficacy of sedation, thereby contributing to patient safety and ultimately improving public health. These clinical practice guidelines comprise 15 key questions covering various topics related to the following: the sedation providers; medications and equipment available; appropriate patient selection; anesthesiologist referrals for high-risk patients; pre-sedation fasting; comparison of representative drugs used in adult and pediatric patients; respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and sedation depth monitoring during sedation; management of respiratory complications during pediatric sedation; and discharge criteria. The recommendations in these clinical practice guidelines were systematically developed to assist providers and patients in sedation-related decision making for diagnostic and therapeutic examinations or procedures. Depending on the characteristics of primary, secondary, and tertiary care institutions as well as the clinical needs and limitations, sedation providers at each medical institution may choose to apply the recommendations as they are, modify them appropriately, or reject them completely.

ED50 and ED95 of Propofol Combined with Different Doses of Intravenous Lidocaine for First-Trimester Uterine Aspiration: A Prospective Dose-Finding Study Using Up-and-Down Sequential Allocation Method

Purpose

This study aimed to test the effect of different doses of intravenous lidocaine on the median effective dose (ED50) and 95% effective dose (ED95) of propofol-induction dose and identify the optimal dose.

Patients and Methods

Patients undergoing first-trimester uterine aspiration were screened and randomly enrolled into the following groups: saline (L₀), 0.5 mg/kg lidocaine (L_0.5), 1.0 mg/kg lidocaine (L_1.0), and 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine (L_1.5). Anesthesia was induced with 1.0 µg/kg fentanyl. Prepared lidocaine or saline solution was injected later according to allocation, followed by propofol. The dose of propofol for each patient was determined using the up-and-down sequential study design. The primary end point was the ED50 and ED95 of the propofol-induction dose. The total propofol doses, awakening time, and adverse events were recorded.

Results

The ED50 (95% confidence interval) of propofol was significantly lower in groups L_1.0 and L_1.5 than group L₀ (1.6 [1.5–1.7] mg/kg and 1.8 [1.6–1.9] mg/kg, versus 2.4 [2.3–2.5] mg/kg, respectively; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in ED50 between groups L_1.0 and L_1.5 (p>0.05). However, surprisingly, the ED50 was significantly higher in group L_0.5 than L₀ (2.8 [2.6–3.0] mg/kg vs 2.4 [2.3–2.5] mg/kg; p<0.05). The total doses of propofol in groups L_1.0 and L_1.5 were lower than those in groups L₀ and L_0.5 (p<0.05). The systolic blood pressure (SBP) decline after anesthesia induction in group L_0.5 was greater than that in group L₀ (p<0.01). The incidence of respiratory depression in group L_0.5 was greater than that in groups L₀ and L_1.0 (p<0.05).

Conclusion

In patients who underwent first-trimester uterine aspiration, intravenous lidocaine 1.0 mg/kg prior to propofol injection significantly reduced the ED50 of propofol induction dose without severe side effects, equivalent to the effect of 1.5 mg/kg dose. We recommend 1.0 mg/kg as the optimal dose.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Endoscopic Sedation Research: 2001-2020

Background and Aims: To evaluate endoscopic sedation research and predict research hot spots both quantitatively and qualitatively using bibliometric analysis. Methods: We extracted relevant publications from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) on 13 December 2020. We examined the retrieved data by bibliometric analysis (e.g., co-cited and cluster analysis, keyword co-occurrence) using the software CiteSpace and VOSviewer and the website of bibliometrics, the Online Analysis Platform of Literature Metrology (http://bibliometric.com/), to analyse and predict the trends and hot spots in this field. Main Results: We identified 2,879 articles and reviews on endoscopic sedation published between 2001 and 2020. Although the overall trend is increasing, with slight fluctuation in some years, there were significant increases in 2007 and 2012. In respect of the contributions on endoscopic sedation research, the United States (US) had the greatest number of publications, and it was followed by Japan and China. In addition, collaboration network analysis revealed that the most frequent collaboration was between the US and China. Six of the top ten most prolific research institutions were located in the US. The most publications on endoscopic sedation research in the past two decades were found primarily in journals on gastroenterology and hepatology. Keyword co-occurrence and co-citation cluster analysis revealed the most popular terms relating to endoscopic sedation in the manner of cluster labels; these included patient anxiety, tolerance, ketamine, propofol, hypoxia, nursing shortage, endoscopic ultrasonography, colorectal cancer, carbon dioxide insufflation, and water exchange (WE). Keyword burst detection suggested that propofol sedation, adverse event, adenoma detection rate (ADR), hypoxemia, and obesity were newly-emergent research hot spots. Conclusions: Our findings showed that hypoxia, adverse event, and ADR, along with conscious sedation and propofol sedation, have been foci of endoscopic sedation research over the past 20 years. The research focus has shifted from sedative drugs to sedative complications and endoscopy quality control, which means that there will be higher requirements and standards for sedative quality and endoscopy quality in the future.

A plea for a unified approach to sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy in Romania: results from a prospective multicentric trial

Background. Adequate sedation is a prerequisite for quality endoscopic examination of the digestive tract. We aimed to evaluate the current practices and safety profile of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Romania and its impact on the technical success of the procedure and procedure-related adverse events.

Methods. We conducted a prospective, multicentric, observational study including all patients undergoing digestive endoscopic procedures under various degrees of sedation. We collected data regarding the endoscopic procedure, type and degree of sedation, drug regimens, personnel in charge of sedation, and relevant patient related information. The main study outcome was the rate of sedation-related adverse events; secondary study outcomes included procedure-related adverse events and the impact of sedation on procedure success.

Results. 1,043 consecutive endoscopic procedures from eight Romanian endoscopy units were included in our study. Sedation regimens were highly variable between participating centers, with 566 (54%) of procedures being performed under sedation provided by an anaesthesiologist. Sedation-related adverse events occurred in 40 cases (3.8%), most of them were mild respiratory and cardiovascular events and all reversed spontaneously.

On multivariate analysis, male gender, procedure type (endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) and deep sedation were risk factors for complications. The endoscopy unit, ASA status, age and type of sedative did not influence the complication rate.

Conclusion. In conclusion, sedation for endoscopic procedures is generally safe, despite a high variability in sedation practices between centers in Romania. Establishing a national guideline on sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy will ensure consistent and safe practice for these procedures.

Documentation of Procedural Sedation by Emergency Physicians

Introduction

Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) frequently require procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) to facilitate procedures, such as joint reduction. Proper documentation of screening demonstrates awareness of the necessity of presedation assessment. It is unknown if introducing emergency physicians (EPs) at the ED improves presedation assessment and documentation. In this study the differences in documentation of ED sedation and success rates for reduction of hip dislocations in the presence versus absence of EPs are described.

Methods

In this retrospective descriptive study, we analyzed data of patients presenting with a dislocated hip post total hip arthroplasty (THA) shortly after the introduction of EPs. The primary outcome measure was the presence of documentation of presedation assessment. Secondary outcomes were documentation of medication, vital signs, and success rate of hip reductions.

Results

In the two-year study period, 133 sedations for hip reductions were performed. Sixty-eight sedations were completed by an EP. The documentation of fasting status, airway screening, analgesia use, and vital signs was documented significantly more often when an EP was present (respectively 64.9%, 80.3%, 37.4%, and 72.7%, all P < 0.001). There was no difference in success rate of hip reductions between the groups.

Conclusion

PSA in the ED is associated with superior documentation of presedation assessment, medication, and vital signs when EPs are involved.

A comparison of ketamine-midazolam combination and propofol-fentanyl combination on procedure comfort and recovery process in pediatric colonoscopy procedures

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam-ketamine combination versus fentanyl-propofol combination in pediatric diagnostic colonoscopy.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of 68 children undergoing diagnostic gastroenterology with midazolam-ketamine combination (Group-K) or with fentanyl-propofol combination (Group-P) in the pediatric gastroentology department at a Turkish tertiary hospital between January 2015 and June 2017. An intravenous midazolam was administered one minute before ketamine administration in Group K. Intravenous fentanyl was given to Group P, followed by intravenous propofol.

Results

There were statistically no significant differences between the groups as for age, gender, weight, duration of colonoscopy and complications observed during procedure. Ramsay sedation score was significantly higher in Group K. Recovery time and the rate of complications during the recovery of Group-K (23 patients, 65.7%) was significantly higher than that of Group P (8 patients, 24.2%) (p= 0.001).

Conclusions

Colonoscopy procedures can be quite comfortable in children when using the midazolam-ketamine combination. However, adverse effects related to ketamine were observed during recovery.

Left Lower Lung Collapse in a Patient Undergoing Endoscopic Procedure

ASA closed claims from 2000 to 2009 have shown that adverse respiratory events are more common in nonoperating room locations like endoscopy suite than in the operating room (44% v/s 20%). Here, we report a case of lung atelectasis which resulted in hypoxemia in a malnourished patient undergoing endoscopic procedure. It is crucial to identify the high-risk patients and monitor them appropriately in the postoperative phase. Continuous capnometry may offer additional benefit by identifying hypercapnia, hypoventilation at the earliest in the recovery area, thus preventing serious complications.

The comparison of ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral blockade and internal intercostal nerve block for non-intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery

Background

To compare the safety and feasibility of ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral blockade (TPVB) and internal intercostal nerve block (IINB) for non-intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery (NIVATS).

Methods

Thirty-four patients who underwent NIVATS from April 2016 to May 2017 were retrospectively reviewed and divided into two groups consecutively according to local analgesia treatment, of which 20 patients received TPVB (P group) and the remaining 14 received IINB (I group). A Propensity Score Matching (PSM) analysis was performed to control the selection bias due to nonrandom assignment.

Results

The procedure of propensity scores yielded 2 matched cohorts of 14 patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding gender, age, BMI, and surgical types (P>0.05). Blood-gas analysis 15 minutes after opening the chest showed significantly lower PaCO2 in the P group compared to the I group (P=0.004). The consumption of propofol from anesthesia induction to 15 minutes after opening the chest was also lower in the P group compared with the I group (P=0.012). There were no significant differences in the duration of surgery and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores between the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusions

Ultrasound-guided TPVB can provide safe and reliable local anesthesia for NIVATS.

Propofol with and without Midazolam for Diagnostic Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopies in Children

PURPOSE

Various publications on the use of sedation and anesthesia for diagnostic procedures in children have demonstrated that no ideal agent is available. Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children, adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension, are concerns in propofol-based sedation. Propofol is used in combination with other sedatives in order to reduce potential complications. We aimed to analyze whether the administration of midazolam would improve the safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies in children.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of children who underwent diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies during a 30-month period. Demographic characteristics, vital signs, medication dosages, induction times, sedation times, recovery times, and any complications observed, were examined.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics did not differ between the midazolam-propofol and propofol alone groups. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of induction times, sedation times, recovery times, or the proportion of satisfactory endoscopist responses. No major procedural complications, such as cardiac arrest, apnea, or laryngospasm, occurred in any case. However, minor complications developed in 22 patients (10.7%), 17 (16.2%) in the midazolam-propofol group and five (5.0%) in the propofol alone group (p=0.010).

CONCLUSION

The sedation protocol with propofol was safe and efficient. The administration of midazolam provided no additional benefit in propofol-based sedation.

Safety of applying midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation combination under the supervision of endoscopy nurse with patient-controlled analgesia pump in colonoscopy

AIM

To compare the results of midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation performed by an endoscopy nurse and anaesthetist during colonoscopy in terms of patient satisfaction and safety.

METHODS

American Statistical Association (ASA) I-II 60 patients who underwent colonoscopy under sedation were randomly divided into two groups: sedation under the supervision of an anaesthetist (SSA) and sedation under the supervision of an endoscopy nurse (SSEN). Both groups were initially administered 1 mg midazolam, 50 mg ketamine and 30-50 mg propofol. Continuation of sedation was performed by the anaesthetist in the SSA group and the nurse with a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump in the SSEN group. The total propofol consumption, procedure duration, recovery times, pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and satisfaction score of the patients, and side effects were recorded. In addition, the patients were asked whether they remembered the procedure and whether they would prefer the same method in the case of re-endoscopy.

RESULTS

Total propofol consumption in the SSEN group was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than that in the SSA group. When the groups were compared in terms of VAS score, recovery time, patient satisfaction, recall of the procedure, re-preference for the same method in case of re-endoscopy, and side effects, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the two groups. No long-term required intervention side effects were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy sedation in ASA I-II patients can be safely performed by an endoscopy nurse using PCA pump with the incidence of side effects and patient satisfaction levels similar to sedation under anaesthetist supervision.

Conscious sedation using propofol versus midazolam in cirrhotic patients during upper GI endoscopy: A comparative study

Aim

We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of propofol versus midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy.

Methods

Ninety compensated cirrhotic patients (all met class I–III criteria according to the American Society of Anesthesia) were enrolled in this comparative study. They were classified into three groups according to scheduled pre‐endoscopy sedation drugs; the midazolam group, which included 30 patients who received IV weight‐dependent midazolam (0.05 mg/kg with additional doses of 1 mg every 2 min when necessary, up to a maximum dose of 0.1 mg/kg or 10 mg); the propofol group, which included 30 patients who received a propofol bolus dose according to age and weight (0.25 mg/kg with additional doses of 20–30 mg every 30–60 s when necessary, up to a maximum dose of 400 mg); and the combined group, which included 30 patients who received half a dose of midazolam and of propofol.

Results

Prolonged postendoscopy recovery times were reported in the midazolam group, while shorter recovery times were reported in the propofol and combined groups. All patients in the propofol and combined groups gained consciousness shortly postendoscopy; however, only half of the midazolam group's patients gained consciousness after the standard recovery time (10–30 min). Highly significant differences were found among the three groups regarding consciousness level according to the Glasgow coma scale, as well as regarding the occurrence of hypoxia during endoscopy.

Conclusion

Considering safety and efficacy issues, propofol is better than midazolam in gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially in patients with liver cirrhosis.

Use of high-flow nasal cannula in obese patients receiving colonoscopy under intravenous propofol sedation: A case series

Intravenous sedation during colonoscopy has become the standard practice in the United States given its higher patient satisfaction and procedural quality. This practice is not free of side effects as a significant proportion of patients undergoing this procedure tend to have respiratory depression and desaturation events. Obesity, as it relates to higher levels of body mass index (BMI) has a positive correlation with the incidence of hypoxemia. During colonoscopy High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) may potentially improve oxygen performance in patients receiving colonoscopy under intravenous sedation. Here we present 3 cases of patients undergoing adjunctive oxygen therapy with HFNC during colonoscopy with intravenous sedation. We found patients to have lower number of desaturation events and were satisfied with their experience.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Photoplethysmography respiratory rate monitoring in patients receiving procedural sedation and analgesia for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

The value of capnography during procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) for the detection of hypoxaemia during upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopic procedures is limited. Photoplethysmography respiratory rate (RRp) monitoring may provide a useful alternative, but the level of agreement with capnography during PSA is unknown. We therefore investigated the level of agreement between the RRp and capnography-based RR (RRc) during PSA for UGI endoscopy. This study included patients undergoing PSA for UGI endoscopy procedures. Pulse oximetry (SpO2) and RRc were recorded in combination with Nellcor 2.0 (RRp) monitoring (Covidien, USA). Bland-Altman analysis was used to evaluate the level of agreement between RRc and RRp. Episodes of apnoea, defined as no detection of exhaled CO2 for minimal 36 s, and hypoxaemia, defined as an SpO2 < 92 %, were registered. A total of 1054 min of data from 26 patients were analysed. Bland-Altman analysis between the RRc and RRp revealed a bias of 2.25 ± 5.41 breath rate per minute (brpm), with limits of agreement from -8.35 to 12.84 brpm for an RR ≥ 4 brpm. A total of 67 apnoea events were detected. In 21 % of all apnoea events, the patient became hypoxaemic. Hypoxaemia occurred 42 times with a median length of 34 (19-141) s, and was preceded in 34 % of the cases by apnoea and in 64 % by an RRc ≥ 8 brpm. In 81 % of all apnoea events, photoplethysmography registered an RRp ≥ 4 brpm. We found a low level of agreement between capnography and the plethysmography respiratory rate during procedural sedation for UGI endoscopy. Moreover, respiratory rate derived from both the capnogram and photoplethysmogram showed a limited ability to provide warning signs for a hypoxaemic event during the sedation procedure.

Flexible bronchoscopy with moderate sedation in COPD: a case-control study

Background

Flexible bronchoscopy is increasingly used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. We aimed to examine the safety of flexible bronchoscopy with moderate sedation in patients with COPD.

Methods

This study is a prospective, longitudinal, case–control, single-center study including 1,400 consecutive patients. After clinical and lung function assessments, patients were dichotomized in COPD or non-COPD groups. The primary end point was the combined incidence of complications.

Results

The incidence of complications was similar in patients with and without COPD and independent of forced expiratory volume in the first second % predicted. Patients with COPD more frequently required insertion of a naso- or oropharyngeal airway; however, this difference was no longer significant after adjustment for age, gender, and duration of the procedure. Hypotension was significantly more common among patients with COPD. The number of episodes of hypoxemia ≤90% did not differ between the groups. However, patients with COPD had a lower mean and nadir transcutaneous oxygen saturation. Transcutaneous carbon dioxide tension (PtcCO₂) change over the time course was similar in both groups, but both peak PtcCO₂ and time on PtcCO₂ >45 mmHg were higher in the COPD group. There were no differences in patient-reported outcomes.

Conclusion

The safety of flexible bronchoscopy is similar in patients with and without COPD. This finding confirms the suitability of the procedure for both clinical and research indications.

Safety of non-anesthesia provider administered propofol sedation in non-advanced gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAPP) administered propofol sedation in patients undergoing non-advanced gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving non-advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 608 publications, 25 [colonoscopy (9), upper GI endoscopy (5), and combined procedures (11)] were identified to meet inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Data was analyzed for hypoxia rates, airway intervention rates, and airway complication rates.

RESULTS

A total of 137,087 patients were involved. A total of 2931 hypoxia episodes (defined as an oxygen saturation below 90%) were reported with a pooled hypoxia rate of 0.014 (95% CI being 0.008-0.023). Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates and pooled airway complication rates were 0.002 (95% CI being 0.006-0.001) and 0.001 (95% CI being 0.000-0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of adverse events in patients undergoing non-advanced GI endoscopic procedures with NAPP sedation are extremely small. Similar data for anesthesia providers is not available. It is prudent for anesthesia providers to demonstrate their superiority in prospective randomized controlled trials, if they like to retain exclusive ownership over propofol sedation in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

Sedation in hypoalbuminemic geriatric patients under spinal anesthesia in hip surgery. Midazolam or Propofol?

Objectives:

To compare midazolam and propofol sedation in hypoalbuminemic geriatric patients under spinal anesthesia in hip surgery with bispectral index monitoring.

Methods:

This prospective and randomized study was completed in the Department of Anesthesiology, Okmeydani Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey between February 2013 and December 2014. Sixty patients undergoing elective hip surgery under spinal anesthesia in the geriatric age group with albumin levels below 3 g/dl were randomly divided into Group I and Group II. After administration of spinal block, Group I were given 0.05 mg/kg bolus midazolam, and then 0.02-0.1 mg/kg/hr dose infusion was begun. In Group II, 1 mg/kg bolus propofol was given within 10 minutes, and then 1-3 mg/kg/hr infusion was begun. The systolic arterial pressure, diastolic arterial pressure, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, peripheral oxygen saturation values, respiratory rate, and Wilson’s 5-stage sedation score were recorded at 15-minute intervals. At the end of the operation, the recovery time and surgeon satisfaction were recorded.

Results:

The recovery times for patients in Group I were found to be longer than in Group II (p<0.05). The respiration rate in patients in Group I at the start of surgery, 15th minute of surgery, and after surgery were lower than in Group II (p<0.05).

Conclusion:

We conclude that propofol is more reliable in terms of hemodynamic stability than midazolam, as it causes less respiratory depression and faster recovery in the propofol group.

Factors influencing challenging colonoscopies during anesthesiologist-assisted deep sedation

BACKGROUND/AIM

Increased demand for colon cancer screening procedures can significantly impact on routine colonoscopy management at dedicated facilities, prompting a review of the factors that can negatively affect workflow. Although potential adverse effects and impact on costs of deep sedation have been documented elsewhere, this study focuses on variables that can influence performance of colonoscopy in deep sedation and interfere with normal procedure scheduling in settings where the presence of an anesthesiologist is mandatory.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of the activities of a colonoscopy screening unit, applying Bayesian Network (BN) analysis, designed to assess interdependencies among variables that can affect a process in complex, multidimensional systems. The study was performed at a teaching hospital where endoscopists and anesthesiologists of varying work experience operate on a rota basis. During a six-month period, we analyzed 1485 consecutive colonoscopies performed under deep propofol sedation, administered by an anesthesiologist via hand-controlled syringe. The BN was constructed with the variables: Gender, age, ASA status, bowel preparation, baseline blood pressure, endoscopist's experience, anesthesiologist's experience, presence of polypectomy, and the target node, "challenging procedure." This previously undefined category refers to any events disrupting the scheduled rota.

RESULT AND CONCLUSION

Two distinct networks were identified. One deals mainly with relationships among the variables, patients' demographic and clinical characteristics (procedures with polypectomy, ASA and baseline blood pressure). The other explains relationships among the variables, "challenging procedure," bowel preparation, and endoscopist's experience. The factors associated with the anesthesiologist's activity do not influence challenging colonoscopies.

Post-gastrointestinal endoscopy complications in patients with obstructive sleep apnea or at high risk for sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is becoming increasingly more prevalent with the rise in obesity. Complications from gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in this patient population have been reported in several studies, but the modest complication rates from these procedures make it difficult to come to definitive conclusions based on single studies. The objective of our study was to systematically review these studies reporting the incidence of post-procedure complications in patients with OSA undergoing endoscopy to determine whether the presence of OSA increases post-procedure complications.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using the Cochrane Collaboration Methodology. We searched Medline via Ovid, PubMed, Embase, and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews databases from 1950 to August 2013. We rated the quality of evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Meta-analysis was done using Review Manager Version 5.0.20.

RESULTS

Our search resulted in seven eligible studies. There was no significant association between diagnosis of OSA and post-GI endoscopy complications including hypoxemia, respiratory distress, variations in blood pressure or heart rate, bradypnea, or need for significant interventions. Subgroup analysis based on the type of GI endoscopy or the type of anesthesia used did not show any significant associations either.

CONCLUSIONS

Obstructive sleep apnea patients and/or patients at high risk for obstructive sleep apnea do not appear to be at increased risk of adverse outcomes from GI endoscopy.

Evaluation of Pharyngeal Function between No Bolus and Bolus Propofol Induced Sedation for Advanced Upper Endoscopy

This study aimed to assess pharyngeal function between no bolus and bolus propofol induced sedation during gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection. A retrospective study was conducted involving consecutive gastric cancer patients. Patients in the no bolus group received a 3 mg/kg/h maintenance dose of propofol after the initiation of sedation without bolus injection. All patients in the bolus group received the same maintenance dose of propofol with bolus 0.5 mg/kg propofol injection. Pharyngeal functions were evaluated endoscopically for the first 5 min following the initial administration of propofol. Fourteen patients received no bolus propofol induction and 13 received bolus propofol induction. Motionless vocal cords were observed in 2 patients (14%) in the no bolus group and 3 (23%) in the bolus group. Trachea cartilage was not observed in the no bolus group but was apparent in 6 patients (46%) in the bolus group (P < 0.01). Scope stimulated pharyngeal reflex was observed in 11 patients (79%) in the no bolus group and in 3 (23%) in the bolus group (P < 0.01). Propofol induced sedation without bolus administration preserves pharyngeal function and may constitute a safer sedation method than with bolus.

Difficult colonoscopies in the propofol era

BACKGROUND

To study the relationship between endoscopic practice and adverse events during colonoscopy under standard deep sedation induced and monitored by an anesthetist.

METHODS

We investigated the routine activity of an endoscopy center at the Padova University teaching hospital. We considered not only endoscopic and cardiorespiratory complications, but also the need to use high-dose propofol to complete the procedure, and the inability to complete the procedure. Variables relating to the patient's clinical conditions, bowel preparation, the endoscopist's and the anesthetist's experience, and the duration of the procedure were input in the model.

RESULTS

617 procedures under deep sedation were performed with a 5% rate of adverse events. The average dose of propofol used was 2.6 ± 1.2 mg/kg. In all, 14 endoscopists and 42 anesthetists were involved in the procedures. The logistic regression analysis identified female gender (OR=2.3), having the colonoscopy performed by a less experienced endoscopist (OR=1.9), inadequate bowel preparation (OR=3.2) and a procedure lasting longer than 17.5 minutes (OR=1.6) as the main risk factors for complications. An ASA score of 2 carried a 50% risk reduction (OR=0.5).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Our model showed that none of the variables relating to anesthesiological issues influenced which procedures would prove difficult.

Propofol vs midazolam plus fentanyl for upper gastrointestinal endomicroscopy: A randomized trial

AIM: To compare the endomicroscopic image quality of integrated confocal laser endomicroscopy (iCLE) and sedation efficacy of propofol vs midazolam plus fentanyl (M/F).

METHODS: Consecutive outpatients undergoing iCLE were prospectively recruited and randomized to the propofol group (P group) or M/F group. The patient, performing endoscopist and endoscopic assistant were blinded to the randomization. The quality of endomicroscopic images and anesthetic efficacy outcomes were blindly evaluated after iCLE examination.

RESULTS: There were significantly more good quality endomicroscopic images in the propofol group than in the M/F group (72.75% vs 52.89%, P < 0.001). The diagnostic accuracy for upper gastrointestinal mucosal lesions using confocal laser endomicroscopy favors the P group, although this did not reach statistical significance. Adverse events and patient assessment were not significantly different for M/F vs propofol except for more frequent intraprocedural recall with M/F. Procedure duration and sedation times were significantly longer in the M/F group, while the scores of endoscopist, anesthetist and assistant assessment were all significantly better in the P group.

CONCLUSION: Sedation with propofol might increase the proportion of good quality endomicroscopic images, and may result in improved procedural efficacy and diagnostic accuracy during iCLE examination.

Effectiveness of outpatient percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy replacement using esophagogastroduodenoscopy and propofol sedation

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of outpatient percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) replacement using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and propofol sedation.

METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the outcome and complications of consecutive patients referred for PEG replacement which was performed using EGD under propofol sedation in the outpatient setting. The success rate, the mean dose of propofol, procedure time, EGD findings, discharge time from endoscopy unit, respiratory depression, and complications within 72 h of the procedure were evaluated. In a subset of these patients, the blood concentrations of propofol were measured.

RESULTS: All 221 patients underwent successful PEG replacement. The mean dose of propofol was 34 mg (range, 20-60 mg) with a mean procedure time of 5.9 min (range, 3-8 min). Reflux esophagitis (12 patients), gastric ulcer (5), gastric neoplasm (2), and duodenal ulcer (1) were newly diagnosed at replacement. Discharge from endoscopy unit was possible in 100% of patients 45 min after the procedure. Only 3.6% (8) required transient supplemental oxygen. No complications occurred within 72 h of the procedure. During EGD the level of sedation and propofol blood concentrations after administration of propofol (30 mg) in these PEG patients corresponded to those of propofol (60 mg) in middle aged subjects (control).

CONCLUSION: PEG replacement using EGD and propofol sedationin the outpatient setting was safe and practical.

Sedation, analgesia, and monitoring

Endoscopic procedures are common and sedation is frequently used to minimize anxiety and discomfort, reduce the potential for physical injury during the procedure, and improve overall patient tolerability and satisfaction. In this article, the authors review the variety of options for sedation and analgesia available to the gastroenterologist or surgical endoscopist.

Analysis of oxygen saturations recorded during dental intravenous sedations: a retrospective quality assurance of 3500 cases

The death of a patient under sedation in New South Wales, Australia, in 2002 has again raised the question of the safety of dental sedation. This study sought answers to 2 questions: Can safe oxygen saturation levels (≥ 94%) be consistently maintained by a single operator/sedationist? Does the additional use of propofol, in subanesthetic doses, increase the risk of exposure to hypoxemia? Three thousand five hundred cases generated between 1996 and 2006 were randomly examined and divided into 2 subcohorts: 1750 patients were sedated with midazolam and fentanyl, and 1750 patients received propofol, in subanesthetic increments, in addition to midazolam and fentanyl. Initial sedation was established using midazolam and fentanyl in both subcohorts. The second subcohort received propofol during times of noxious stimulation. Patient exposure to 2 or more oxygen desaturations below 94% was uncommon. The variables that were significantly associated with low saturations were age, gender, and weight. Neither the dose of midazolam nor the additional use of propofol was a significant risk factor. ASA classification (I or II) was not a determinant of risk. The data, within the limitations of the study, showed that a single operator/sedationist, supported by a well-trained team of nurses, can consistently maintain safe oxygen saturation levels. The additional use of propofol did not increase exposure to hypoxemia.

Safe and effective sedation in endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a randomized comparison between propofol continuous infusion and intermittent midazolam injection

PURPOSE

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) generally takes longer to perform than conventional endoscopy and usually requires moderate/deep sedation with close surveillance for patient safety. The aim of this study was to compare the safety profiles and recovery scores propofol continuous infusion and intermittent midazolam (MDZ) injection as sedation for ESD.

METHODS

Sixty EGC patients scheduled for ESDs between August and November 2008 were included in this prospective study and randomly divided into a propofol (P-group, 28 patients) and an MDZ (M-group, 32 patients) group using an odd-even system. The P-group received a 0.8 mg/kg induction dose and a 3 mg/kg/h maintenance dose of 1% propofol using an infusion pump. All patients received 15 mg pentazocine at the start of the ESD and at 60-min intervals thereafter. We recorded and analyzed blood pressure, oxygen saturation and heart rate during and following the procedure and evaluated post-anesthetic recovery scores (PARS) and subsequent alertness scores.

RESULTS

The propofol maintenance and total dose amounts were (mean +/- standard deviation) 3.7 +/- 0.6 mg/kg/h and 395 +/- 202 mg, respectively. The mean total dose of MDZ was 10.3 +/- 4.5 mg. There were no cases of de-saturation <90% or hypotension <80 mmHg in either group. Alertness scores 15 and 60 min after the procedures were significantly higher in the P-group (4.9/4.9) than in the M-group (4.6/4.5; p < 0.05). The mean PARS 15 and 30 min after the ESDs were significantly higher in the P-group (9.6/9.9) than in the M-group (8.6/9.2; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Based on our results, the ESDs for EGC performed under sedation using propofol continuous infusion were as safe as those performed using intermittent MDZ injection. Propofol-treated patients had a quicker recovery profile than those treated with MDZ. We therefore recommend the use of continuous propofol sedation for ESD, but sedation guidelines for the use of propofol are necessary.

Sedation with propofol for routine ERCP in high-risk octogenarians: a randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Adequate patient sedation is mandatory for diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In this respect it is known that the short-acting anesthetic propofol offers certain potential advantages for sedation during ERCP, but there are no controlled studies concerning the feasibility and safety of propofol sedation in elderly, high-risk patients.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty consecutive patients aged >or=80 yr with high comorbidity (ASA score >or=III: 91 %), randomly received midazolam plus meperidine (n = 75) or propofol alone (n = 75) for sedation during ERCP. Vital signs were continuously monitored and procedure-related parameters, recovery time, and quality as well as patients' cooperation and tolerance of the procedure were assessed.

RESULTS

Clinically relevant changes in vital signs were observed at comparable frequencies with a temporary oxygen desaturation (<90%) occurring in eight patients in the propofol-group and seven patients receiving midazolam/meperidine (n.s.). Hypotension was documented in two patients in the propofol group and one patient receiving midazolam/meperidine. Propofol provided a significantly better patient cooperation than midazolam/meperidine (p < 0.01), but the procedure tolerability was rated nearly the same by both groups. Mean recovery time was significantly shorter in the propofol group (22 +/- 7 min vs 31 +/- 8 min for midazolam/meperidine (p < 0.01)) while the recovery score was significantly higher under propofol (8.3 +/- 1.2 vs 6.1 +/- 1.1(p < 0.01)). During recovery a significant lower number of desaturation events (<90%) were observed in the propofol group (12%) than in the midazolam/meperidine group (26%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Under careful monitoring the use of propofol for sedation during ERCP is superior to midazolam/meperidine even in high-risk octogenarians.

The science and politics of propofol

Propofol use for endoscopy is increasing rapidly. Its administration by registered nurses under the supervision of endoscopists has thus far proven safe, but is not realistically feasible in most U.S. endoscopy units. Therefore, propofol in the United States is being administered almost entirely by anesthetists. Transition to anesthetist-delivered sedation for endoscopy is being accompanied by increased costs, which in turn has the potential to adversely affect endoscopic practice. The gastroenterology and anesthesia communities should work together to explore mechanisms to expand propofol use or an alternative for endoscopy in a safe and cost-effective manner.