Endoscopist-administered propofol: a retrospective safety study

A clinical trial comparing propofol versus propofol plus midazolam in diagnostic endoscopy of patients with a low anesthetic risk

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

propofol and midazolam are two of the most commonly used sedatives in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). The objective of this study was to evaluate these two sedation regimens administered to patients who underwent an UGE with regard to security, efficiency, quality of exploration and patient response.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

a prospective, randomized and double-blind study was performed which included 83 patients between 18 and 80 years of age of a low anesthetic risk (ASA - American Society of Anesthesiologists- I-II) who underwent a diagnostic UGE. Patients were randomized to receive sedation with either placebo plus propofol (group A) or midazolam plus propofol (group B).

RESULTS

in group A, 42 patients received a placebo bolus (saline solution) and on average up to 115 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. In group B, 41 patients received 3 mg of midazolam and an average of up to 83 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. There were no significant differences in the adverse effects observed in either group and all adverse events were treated conservatively. The patients in group B (midazolam plus propofol) entered the desired sedated state more quickly with no variation in the overall time of the exploration. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups and the patients were equally satisfied regardless of the sedatives they received.

CONCLUSIONS

the use of midazolam plus propofol as a sedative does not affect the overall exploration time, a lower dose of propofol can be used and it is as safe as administering propofol as a monotherapy while providing the same level of both exploration quality and patient approval.

How does tolerability of double balloon enteroscopy compare to other forms of endoscopy?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastrointestinal endoscopy can be difficult for patients to tolerate. Studies on endoscopic tolerability mainly focus on gastroscopy or colonoscopy with a paucity of data on double balloon enteroscopy (DBE). We aimed to prospectively evaluate tolerability in patients undergoing several forms of endoscopy including DBE.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, gastroscopy, endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERCP), capsule endoscopy (CE) and DBE were prospectively recruited. A questionnaire recorded demographics, procedural data, patient tolerability (pain, discomfort and distress recorded on numerical rating scales) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

RESULTS

956 patients were recruited (512 women; median age 57 years). The median pain score for DBE was poor with a score of 5 compared with 1 and 0 for oesophagogastroduodenoscopy and ERCP, respectively (p<0.001). Colonoscopy and retrograde DBE scores were not dissimilar. CE was well tolerated with a median pain score of 0. Patients with DBE required significantly higher doses of sedation and analgesia than other patients. The HADS Anxiety Score was also associated with poorer tolerability.

CONCLUSIONS

DBE is poorly tolerated when compared with other forms of endoscopy despite higher doses of sedation. Increasing demand to improve tolerability of DBE in the UK may be addressed with the use of propofol.

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.

Effect of propofol anesthesia on force application during colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Sedation is frequently used during colonoscopy to control patient discomfort and pain. Propofol is associated with a deeper level of sedation than is a combination of a narcotic and sedative hypnotic and, therefore, may be associated with an increase in force applied to the colonoscope to advance and withdraw the instrument.

OBJECTIVE

To compare force application to the colonoscope insertion tube during propofol anesthesia and moderate sedation.

DESIGN

An observational cohort study of 13 expert and 12 trainee endoscopists performing colonoscopy in 114 patients. Forces were measured by using the colonoscopy force monitor, which is a wireless, handheld device that attaches to the insertion tube of the colonoscope.

SETTING

Community ambulatory surgery center and academic gastroenterology training programs.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing routine screening or diagnostic colonoscopy with complete segment force recordings.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Axial and radial forces and examination time.

RESULTS

Axial and radial forces increase and examination time decreases significantly when propofol is used as the method of anesthesia.

LIMITATIONS

Small study, observational design, nonrandomized distribution of sedation type and experience level, different instrument type and effect of prototype device on insertion tube manipulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation is associated with a decrease in examination time and an increase in axial and radial forces used to advance the colonoscope.

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.

Propofol versus Midazolam for Sedation during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Children

Background/Aims

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol and midazolam for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in children.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of 62 children who underwent ambulatory diagnostic EGD during 1-year period. Data were collected from 34 consecutive patients receiving propofol alone. Twenty-eight consecutive patients who received sedation with midazolam served as a comparison group. Outcome variables were length of procedure, time to recovery and need for additional supportive measures.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in age, weight, sex, and the length of endoscopic procedure. The recovery time from sedation was markedly shorter in propofol group (30±16.41 minutes) compared with midazolam group (58.89±17.32 minutes; p<0.0001). During and after the procedure the mean heart rate was increased in midazolam group (133.04±19.92 and 97.82±16.7) compared with propofol group (110.26±20.14 and 83.26±12.33; p<0.0001). There was no localized pain during sedative administration in midazolam group, though six patients had localized pain during administration of propofol (p<0.028). There was no serious major complication associated with any of the 62 procedures.

Conclusions

Intravenous administered propofol provides faster recovery time and similarly safe sedation compared with midazolam in pediatric patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopist-directed propofol sedation (EDP) remains controversial. We sought to update the safety experience of EDP and estimate the cost of using anesthesia specialists for endoscopic sedation.

METHODS

We reviewed all published work using EDP. We contacted all endoscopists performing EDP for endoscopy that we were aware of to obtain their safety experience. These complications were available in all patients: endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and death.

RESULTS

A total of 646,080 (223,656 published and 422,424 unpublished) EDP cases were identified. Endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and deaths were 11, 0, and 4, respectively. Deaths occurred in 2 patients with pancreatic cancer, a severely handicapped patient with mental retardation, and a patient with severe cardiomyopathy. The overall number of cases requiring mask ventilation was 489 (0.1%) of 569,220 cases with data available. For sites specifying mask ventilation risk by procedure type, 185 (0.1%) of 185,245 patients and 20 (0.01%) of 142,863 patients required mask ventilation during their esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy, respectively (P < .001). The estimated cost per life-year saved to substitute anesthesia specialists in these cases, assuming they would have prevented all deaths, was $5.3 million.

CONCLUSIONS

EDP thus far has a lower mortality rate than that in published data on endoscopist-delivered benzodiazepines and opioids and a comparable rate to that in published data on general anesthesia by anesthesiologists. In the cases described here, use of anesthesia specialists to deliver propofol would have had high costs relative to any potential benefit.

[Colonoscopy: maximizing detection and characterization]

The endoscopic analysis of the colonic lumen with a flexible tube began around1960, at first with a gastrocamera, then with a fibrocolonoscope. After 1990, the electronic imaging brought a three points revolution with increased resolution of the image, transfer of the image on a television monitor giving access to multiple observers, electronic image processing. The recent colonoscopes have an increased resolution with more pixels in the Charged Coupled Device (CCD) sensor, a High Definition Television (HDTV) image and an electronic and/or optical zoom for magnification. Colonoscopy is now often performed in a similar environment to that of surgery. Therapeutic applications justify a strict strategy for endoscopic diagnosis. At first, detection of the lesion in standard vision, then characterization with the help of chromoscopy for the evaluation of morphology and with the help of magnification for the evaluation of the pit pattern. Then, comes the time for treatment decision between abstention, endoscopic resection or surgery. The legitimacy of the management is controlled in retrospective by the analysis of the tissue samples. Recent alternatives to colonoscopy (3D radiological imaging, colon capsule) should not invalidate the priority attributed to colonoscopy which associates treatment to the early detection of colorectal cancer and precursors.