A survey of sedation practices for colonoscopy in Canada. Can J Gastroenterol. 2011;25:255-260. [PMID: 21647459 DOI: 10.1155/2011/783706]

Comparison of ciprofol (HSK3486) versus propofol for the induction of deep sedation during gastroscopy and colonoscopy procedures: A multi-centre, non-inferiority, randomized, controlled phase 3 clinical trial

Ciprofol is a propofol analogue with improved pharmacokinetic properties. A multi‐centre, non‐inferiority trial was conducted to compare the deep sedation properties of ciprofol and propofol with a non‐inferiority margin of 8% in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy. In total, 289 patients were randomly allocated for surgery (259 colonoscopy and 30 gastroscopy) at a 1:1 ratio to be given intravenous injections of ciprofol (0.4 mg/kg) or propofol (1.5 mg/kg). The primary outcome was the success rate of colonoscopy defined as colonoscopy completion with no need for an alternative sedative or >5 ciprofol or propofol top up doses within any 15‐min time period. The success rate of colonoscopy was 100% in the ciprofol group vs. 99.2% in the propofol group (mean difference 0.8%, 95% CI: −2.2% to 4.2%). Except for the gastrointestinal lesions found during the gastroscopy and colonoscopy procedures, the occurrence rates of adverse drug reactions in the ciprofol and propofol groups were 31.3% and 62.8%, respectively (P < 0.001). Pain on injection was less common in the ciprofol group (4.9% vs. 52.4%, P < 0.001). The outcomes demonstrated that ciprofol was non‐inferior to propofol with regard to successful sedation for gastroscopy or colonoscopy procedures and no obvious important adverse events occurred.

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.

Autonomous Nervous Response During Sedation in Colonoscopy and the Relationship With Clinician Satisfaction

Background: Nurse assisted propofol sedation (NAPS) is a common method used for colonoscopies. It is safe and widely accepted by patients. Little is known, however, about the satisfaction of clinicians performing colonoscopies with NAPS and the factors that negatively influence this perception such as observer-reported pain events. In this study, we aimed to correlate observer-reported pain events with the clinicians' satisfaction with the procedure. Additionally, we aimed to identify patient biosignals from the autonomic nervous system (B-ANS) during an endoscopy that correlate with those pain events. Methods: Consecutive patients scheduled for a colonoscopy with NAPS were prospectively recruited. During the procedure, observer-reported pain events, which included movements and paralinguistic sounds, were simultaneously recorded with different B-ANS (facial electromyogram (EMG), skin conductance level, body temperature and electrocardiogram). After the procedure, the examiners filled out the Clinician Satisfaction with Sedation Instrument (CSSI). The primary endpoint was the correlation between CSSI and observer-reported pain events. The second primary endpoint was the identification of B-ANS that make it possible to predict those events. Secondary endpoints included the correlation between CSSI and sedation depth, the frequency and dose of sedative use, polyps resected, resection time, the duration of the procedure, the time it took to reach the coecum and the experience of the nurse performing the NAPS. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03860779. Results: 112 patients with 98 (88.5%) available B-ANS recordings were prospectively recruited. There was a significant correlation between an increased number of observer-reported pain events during an endoscopy with NAPS and a lower CSSI (r = -0.318, p = 0.001). Additionally, the EMG-signal from facial muscles correlated best with the event time points, and the signal significantly exceeded the baseline 30 s prior to the occurrence of paralinguistic sounds. The secondary endpoints showed that the propofol dose relative to the procedure time, the cecal intubation time, the time spent on polyp removal and the individual nurse performing the NAPS significantly correlated with CSSI. Conclusion: This study shows that movements and paralinguistic sounds during an endoscopy negatively correlate with the satisfaction of the examiner measured with the CSSI. Additionally, an EMG of the facial muscles makes it possible to identify such events and potentially predict their occurrence.

Sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review of recommendations

BACKGROUND

Sedation is commonly used in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, considerable variability in sedation practices has been reported. The objective of this review was to identify and synthesize existing recommendations on sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed guidelines and position statements identified through a search of PubMed, guidelines databases, and websites of relevant professional associations from January 1, 2005 to May 10, 2019. We included English-language guidelines/position statements with recommendations relating to sedation for adults undergoing routine gastrointestinal endoscopy. Documents with guidance only for complex endoscopic procedures were excluded. We extracted and synthesized recommendations relating to: 1) choice of sedatives, 2) sedation administration, 3) personnel responsible for monitoring sedated patients, 4) skills and training of individuals involved in sedation, and 5) equipment required for monitoring sedated patients. We assessed the quality of included documents using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.

RESULTS

We identified 19 guidelines and 7 position statements meeting inclusion criteria. Documents generally agreed that a single, trained registered nurse can administer moderate sedation, monitor the patient, and assist with brief, interruptible tasks. Documents also agreed on the routine use of pulse oximetry and blood pressure monitoring during endoscopy. However, recommendations relating to the drugs to be used for sedation, the healthcare personnel capable of administering propofol and monitoring patients sedated with propofol, and the need for capnography when monitoring sedated patients varied. Only 9 documents provided a grade or level of evidence in support of their recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations for sedation practices in routine gastrointestinal endoscopy differ across guidelines/position statements and often lack supporting evidence with potential implications for patient safety and procedural efficiency.

Perception and Practices of Colonoscopy Procedure: A Nationwide Survey of Indian Gastroenterologists

Introduction There is a lack of data and consensus about the practices and policies regarding performing colonoscopy in India. We surveyed gastroenterologists to assess their practices and policies of performing colonoscopy.

Methodology A questionnaire was presented to gastroenterologists all over India regarding their preference of bowel preparation and method of sedation, completeness of cecal and ileal intubation rates, preferences for inflation, use of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, and complications faced.

Results Of the 350 surveys, 307 had completely responded (88%). Only 18% of the centers were conducting more than 100 colonoscopies a month and 46% denied following a colon cancer screening policy. Two bottles of liquid polyethylene glycol were the most preferred preparation. A total of 21% did not prefer any sedation at all. Nitrous oxide was used by only 5.6% of doctors. Ileal intubation rate was >96% in 34% of centers and cecal intubation rate >96% in 58% of centers. Air was used for inflation by 58%, while 39% used CO2. A total of 40% of the respondents believe CO2 inflation would improve cecal intubation rate, while 9.4% believed otherwise. While one third found CO2 inflation unnecessary and 14% not cost-effective, three fourths were still interested in setting up a CO2 facility. Reasons for not using nitrous oxide were practical/administrative difficulty (46.6%), side effects (20%), and cost (16%). Still more than half surveyed would consider using Entonox in future. Perforation was the most noted complication faced by respondents.

Conclusions This survey of real-world clinical practices will help to formulate practice guideline regarding colonoscopy in India.

Feasibility of a transmucosal sublingual fentanyl tablet as a procedural pain treatment in colonoscopy patients: a prospective placebo-controlled randomized study

Since patients often experience pain and unpleasantness during a colonoscopy, the present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sublingually administered fentanyl tablets for pain treatment. Furthermore, since the use of intravenous drugs significantly increases colonoscopy costs, sublingual tablets could be a cost-effective alternative to intravenous sedation. We conducted a prospective placebo-controlled randomized study of 158 patients to evaluate the analgesic effect of a 100 µg dose of sublingual fentanyl administered before a colonoscopy. Pain, sedation, nausea, and satisfaction were assessed during the colonoscopy by the patients as well as the endoscopists and nurses. Respiratory rate and peripheral arteriolar oxygen saturation were monitored throughout the procedure. There were no differences between the fentanyl and placebo groups in any of the measured variables. The median pain intensity values, as measured using a numerical rating scale, were 4.5 in the fentanyl group and 5 in the placebo group. The sedation and oxygen saturation levels and the respiratory rate did not differ between the groups. The majority of the colonoscopies were completed.Our results indicate that a 100 µg dose of sublingual fentanyl is not beneficial compared to the placebo in the treatment of procedural pain during a colonoscopy.

[Effects of remifentanil on awakening of propofol sedated patients submitted to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized clinical trial]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sedation for endoscopic procedures aims to provide high quality sedation, lower risks, short recovery time, superior recovery quality and absence of side effects, seeking high patient level of satisfaction. The goal of the study was to assess administration of remifentanil combined with propofol regarding the effects of the drug association during sedation and recovery for patients submitted to upper GI diagnostic endoscopy.

METHOD

One hundred and five patients were assessed, randomly divided into three groups of 35 patients. The Control Group was sedated with propofol alone. Study Group 1 was sedated with a fixed dose of 0.2 μg.kg^-1 remifentanil combined with propofol. Study Group 2 was sedated with 0.3 μg.kg^-1 remifentanil combined with propofol. We assessed the quality of sedation, hemodynamic parameters, incidence of significant hypoxemia, time for spontaneous eye opening, post-anesthetic recovery time, quality of post-anesthetic recovery, presence of side effects and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Study Group 1 showed better quality of sedation. The groups in which remifentanil was administered combined with propofol showed shorter eye-opening time and shorter post-anesthetic recovery time compared to the control group. The three groups presented hemodynamic changes at some of the moments assessed. The incidence of significant hypoxemia, the quality of post-anesthetic recovery, the incidence of side effects and patient satisfaction were similar in the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of propofol with remifentanil at a dose of 0.2 μg.kg^-1 was effective in improving the quality of sedation, and at doses of 0.2 μg.kg^-1 and 0.3 μg.kg^-1 reduced the time to spontaneous eye opening and post-anesthetic recovery in comparison to sedation with propofol administered alone.

Endoscopist-Directed Propofol as an Adjunct to Standard Sedation: A Canadian Experience

Background

Sedation practices vary widely by region. In Canada, endoscopist-directed administration of a combination of fentanyl and midazolam is standard practice. A minority of cases are performed with propofol.

Aims

To describe the safety of nonanaesthetist administered low-dose propofol as an adjunct to standard sedation.

Methods

This was a single-centre retrospective study of patients having undergone endoscopic procedures with propofol sedation between 2004 and 2012 in a teaching hospital in Montreal. Procedures were performed by gastroenterologists trained in Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support. Sedation was administered by intravenous bolus by a registered nurse, under the direction of the endoscopist. Outcomes of procedures were collected in the context of a retrospective chart review using the hospital's endoscopy database.

Results

Of patients undergoing endoscopies at our centre, 4930 patients received propofol as an adjunct to standard sedation with fentanyl and midazolam. Cecal intubation rate for colonoscopies (n = 2921) was 92.0%. Gastroscopies (n = 1614), flexible sigmoidoscopies (n = 28), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n = 331) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion (n = 36) had success rates, defined as successful completion of the procedure within anatomical limits, of 99.0, 96.4, 94.0 and 91.7%, respectively. The average dose of propofol used for each procedure was 34.5 ± 20.8 mg. Fentanyl was used in 67.4% of procedures at an average dose of 94.3 ± 17.5 mcg. Midazolam was used in 92.7% of cases at an average dose of 3.0 ± 0.7 mg. Reversal agents (naloxone or flumazenil) were used in 0.43% of the cases (n = 21). Patients who received propofol were discharged uneventfully within the usual postprocedure recovery time. One patient required sedation-related hospitalization. For patients having received propofol in addition to standard sedation agents, 99.6% experienced no adverse events. There were no mortalities.

Conclusion

The use of low-dose propofol as an adjunct to fentanyl and midazolam, administered by a registered nurse under the direction of the endoscopist was safe and effective in patients at our centre.

Effectiveness and safety of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: An opinion review

Although endoscopy is a less invasive procedure than surgery, patients can experience pain without sedation. Patients expect reduced pain during endoscopies from effective and safe sedatives. Midazolam and propofol are used for endoscopic sedation in many countries and regions. Midazolam is a widely available benzodiazepine, and many clinical trials have shown it to be an effective sedative. However, patients who are sedated with midazolam require rest in the recovery room due to its relatively long half-life, and an antagonist such as flumazenil may need to be administered in cases of deep or prolonged sedation. Propofol is a short-acting sedative with a short half-life and a quick recovery time. Therefore, the use of propofol has been increasing. However, propofol has a narrow margin of safety and often induces adverse effects such as respiratory depression. Also, propofol has no specific antagonist, and should be administered by an anesthesiologist or an endoscopist familiar with anesthesia. Remimazolam, which is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, has recently gained attention. Remimazolam has a short half-life and an antagonist. Both effective and safe sedation is desired in accordance with the increasing need for sedative endoscopies. Therefore, in this review each sedative is summarized.

Practice recommendations for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy

Objective

Although sedation improves patient experience during colonoscopy, there is great jurisdictional variability in sedative practices. The objective of this study was to develop practice recommendations for the use of moderate and deep sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy to facilitate standardisation of practice.

Design

We recruited 32 multidisciplinary panellists to participate in a modified Delphi process to establish consensus-based recommendations for the use of sedation in colonoscopy. Panel members participated in a values assessment survey followed by two rounds of anonymous online voting on preliminary practice recommendations. An inperson meeting was held between voting rounds to facilitate consensus-building. Consensus was defined as >60% agreement/disagreement with recommendation statements; >80% agreement/disagreement was considered indicative of strong consensus.

Results

Twenty-nine panellists participated in the values assessment survey. Panellists ranked all factors presented as important to the development of practice recommendations. The factor considered most important was patient safety. Patient satisfaction, procedural efficiency, and cost were considered less important. Strong consensus was achieved for all nine practice recommendations presented to the panel. These recommendations included that all endoscopists be able to perform colonoscopy with moderate sedation, that an endoscopist and a single trained nurse are sufficient for performing colonoscopy with moderate sedation, and that anaesthesia-provided deep sedation be used for select patients.

Conclusion

The recommendations presented in this study were agreed on by a multidisciplinary group and provide guidance for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy. Standardised sedation practices will promote safe, effective, and efficient colonoscopy for all patients.

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.

Sedation practices in gastrointestinal endoscopy-A survey from southern India

Gastrointestinal endoscopies can cause an unpleasant experience for the patient. In India, most endoscopists follow a common institutional policy for sedation. The aim of this study was to analyze the sedation practices in various endoscopy centers across southern India. Data were collected with the help of a structured questionnaire given to a senior endoscopist of the center. Data from the completed questionnaire were later analyzed. Data were obtained from 19 centers across southern India. All endoscopy suites had central oxygen supply and emergency cart. A defibrillator was available in 12 centers (63.2%). Common criteria followed for administering sedation included therapeutic procedures (84.2%), patients who requested sedation (63.2%), children (63.2%), high-risk procedures (57.9%), and uncooperative patients (57.9%). Monitoring methods included pulse oximetry alone in six centers (31.6%), pulse oximetry with blood pressure monitoring in five centers (26.3%), and pulse oximetry, blood pressure, and electrocardiography (ECG) monitoring in eight centers (42.1%). For advanced procedures like endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), sedation was universally used. An anesthesiologist was available in the endoscopy suite in eight centers (42.1%). Five endoscopists administered propofol sedation without anesthesiologist's presence (26.3%). Thirteen centers had a written protocol for pre-procedure risk assessment (68.4%). A dedicated post-procedure observation area was available in seventeen centers (89.5%). Seven centers followed a written post-sedation discharge protocol (36.8%). Significant variations exist in the practice of sedation among endoscopists in southern India. There is an urgent need to formulate guidelines by endoscopy societies for ensuring better patient outcomes in endoscopy.

Patient comfort scores do not affect endoscopist behavior during colonoscopy, while trainee involvement has negative effects on patient comfort

INTRODUCTION

Patient comfort is an important part of endoscopy and reflects procedure quality and endoscopist technique. Using the validated, Nurse Assisted Patient Comfort Score (NAPCOMS), this study aimed to determine whether the introduction of NAPCOMS would affect sedation use by endoscopists.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was conducted over 3 phases. Phase One and Two consisted of 8 weeks of endoscopist blinded and aware data collection, respectively. Data in Phase Three was collected over a 5-month period and scores fed back to individual endoscopists on a monthly basis.

RESULTS

NAPCOMS consists of 3 domains - pain, sedation, and global tolerability. Comparison of Phase One and Two, showed no significant differences in sedative use or NAPCOMS. Phase Three data showed a decline in fentanyl use between individual months ( P  = 0.035), but no change in overall NAPCOMS. Procedures involving trainees were found to use more midazolam ( P  = 0.01) and fentanyl ( P  = 0.01), have worse NAPCOMS scores, and resulted in longer procedure duration ( P  < 0.001). Data comparing gastroenterologists and general surgeons showed increased fentanyl use ( P  = 0.037), decreased midazolam use ( P  = 0.001), and more position changes ( P  = 0.002) among gastroenterologists.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of a patient comfort scoring system resulted in a decrease in fentanyl use, although with minimal clinical significance. Additional studies are required to determine the role of patient comfort scores in quality control in endoscopy. Procedures completed with trainees used more sedation, were longer, and had worse NAPCOMS scores, the implications of which, for teaching hospitals and training programs, will need to be further considered.

Effect of propofol combined with opioids on cough reflex suppression in gastroscopy: study protocol for a double-blind randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The best methods for inducing analgesia and sedation for gastroscopy are still debated but finding an adequate regimen of sedation/analgesia is important. Stimulation of the larynx under sedation can cause reflex responses. Propofol with opioids has been recommended for gastroscopy sedation but the effects on cough reflex suppression remain unclear. This trial will evaluate the effects of propofol combined with small doses of dezocine, oxycodone, sufentanil or fentanyl for gastroscopy. We hypothesise that better performance may be obtained with a combination of propofol and oxycodone. We will observe the incidence and degree of reflex coughing and gagging under sedation when using propofol combined with one of the above drugs or propofol alone.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This will be a prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. ASA I-II level patients aged 18-65 years and scheduled for gastroscopy will be included. It is planned that 500 subjects will be randomised to intravenously receive 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.5-0.8 μg/kg fentanyl (fentanyl group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.05-0.08 μg/kg sufentanil (sufentanil group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.04-0.05 mg/kg dezocine (dezocine group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.04-0.05 mg/kg oxycodone (oxycodone group), or 2.4-3 mg/kg propofol plus 2-2.5 mL saline (control group) for sedation. The primary endpoint is the incidence and degree of reflex coughing and gagging. The secondary endpoints include the occurrence of discomfort or side effects, the use of jaw thrust, assisted ventilation or additional propofol, recovery time, duration of procedure and Steward score.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee for Clinical Research of Zhongda Hospital, Affiliated to Southeast University (No. 2015ZDSYLL033.0). The results of the trial will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Register (No. ChiCTR-ICR-15006952).

TRIAL STATUS

At the time of manuscript submission, the study was in the recruitment phase.

Patient safety under deep sedation for digestive endoscopic procedures

Deep sedation with Propofol has become popular in recent years. The safety of this technique when administered by non-anaesthesiologists has created much controversy which at times is masked in a contentious debate on the economic sustainability of the health system. In 2011, the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy, along with 20 other organisations from European countries, revoked the recommendations of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy on the administration of Propofol by non-anaesthesiologists, citing that it is "extremely dangerous for the safety and quality of endoscopic procedures". The FDA in 2005 had already rejected the use of Propofol by non-anaesthesiologists in the United States, a prohibition which was reiterated in 2010 and is still in force, basing its evidence, among others, on the recommendations and guidelines of the Joint Commission and the Declaration of Helsinki. In Spain, the data sheet of Propofol restricts the use of the drug to anaesthesiologists and intensivists in intensive care units. In our opinion, the key elements to discuss (which we develop in our paper) are those related to: a) the morbidity and mortality of sedation (which is the same as speaking about the factors that influence its safety); b) the appropriate professionals to use this technique; and c) economic aspects related to the use of said technique. Our conclusion is that a technique cannot be declared safe when a high percentage of patients present with varying respiratory depression (and therefore hypoxaemia) and hypotension. We are confident that the collaboration of the Spanish Society of Digestive Pathology and the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy with the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy is the first step towards finding a satisfactory solution for everyone, and especially for our patients.

Room for Quality Improvement in Endoscopist-Directed Sedation: Results from the First Nationwide Survey in Korea

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study sought to characterize the current sedation practices of Korean endoscopists in real-world settings.

METHODS

All active members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy were invited to complete an anonymous 35-item questionnaire.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 22.7% (1,332/5,860). Propofol-based sedation was the dominant method used in both elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy (55.6%) and colonoscopy (52.6%). The mean satisfaction score for propofol-based sedation was significantly higher than that for standard sedation in both examinations (all p<0.001). The use of propofol was supervised exclusively by endoscopists (98.6%). Endoscopists practicing in nonacademic settings, gastroenterologists, or endoscopists with.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopist-directed propofol administration is the predominant sedation method used in Korea. This survey strongly suggests that there is much room for quality improvement regarding sedation training and patient vigilance in endoscopist-directed sedation.

Modeling the costs and benefits of capnography monitoring during procedural sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The addition of capnography to procedural sedation/analgesia (PSA) guidelines has been controversial due to limited evidence of clinical utility in moderate PSA and cost concerns.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A comprehensive model of PSA during gastrointestinal endoscopy was developed to capture adverse events (AEs), guideline interventions, outcomes, and costs. Randomized, controlled trials and large-scale studies were used to inform the model. The model compared outcomes using pulse oximetry alone with pulse oximetry plus capnography. Pulse oximetry was assumed at no cost, whereas capnography cost USD 4,000 per monitor. AE costs were obtained from literature review and Premier database analysis. The model population (n = 8,000) had mean characteristics of age 55.5 years, body mass index 26.2 kg/m(2), and 45.3 % male.

RESULTS

The addition of capnography resulted in a 27.2 % and 18.0 % reduction in the proportion of patients experiencing an AE during deep and moderate PSA, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated significant reductions in apnea and desaturation with capnography. The median (95 % credible interval) number needed to treat to avoid any adverse event was 8 (2; 72) for deep and 6 (-59; 92) for moderate. Reduced AEs resulted in cost savings that accounted for the additional upfront purchase cost. Capnography was estimated to reduce the cost per procedure by USD 85 (deep) or USD 35 (moderate).

CONCLUSIONS

Capnography is estimated to be cost-effective if not cost saving during PSA for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Savings were driven by improved patient safety, suggesting that capnography may have an important role in the safe provision of PSA.

Target-Controlled Infusion of Propofol in Training Anesthesiology Residents in Colonoscopy Sedation: A Prospective Randomized Crossover Trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol is widely used in sedation for colonoscopy, but its adverse effects on cardiovascular and respiratory systems are still concerning. The present study investigated whether target controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol could provide a better sedation quality than manually controlled infusion (MCI) in training inexperienced anesthesiology residents.

MATERIAL/METHODS

Eighteen training residents were allocated into 2 groups receiving TCI and MCI training in their first month in the endoscopy center, while receiving MCI and TCI training instead in their second month. The last 2 patients at the end of each month were included to analyze the sedation quality of TCI and MCI techniques by comparing satisfaction of endoscopist and patients based on the visual analogue scale (VAS). Heart rate (HR), mean blood pressure (MAP), SpO2, and recovery time were also compared as the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The demographic data were similarly distributed among the TCI and MCI patients. Endoscopist's satisfaction score in the TCI group was significantly higher than in the MCI group, 81.3±7.2 versus 74.2±9.5 (P=0.003), but the patients' satisfaction score was similar between the 2 groups. More stable hemodynamic status was obtained in the TCI group, manifested as higher lowest MAP and lower highest MAP than in the MCI group. Lowest SpO2 in the TCI group was significantly higher than in the MCI group. Patients in the TCI group recovered earlier than in the MCI group.

CONCLUSIONS

TCI is a more effective and safer technique for anesthesiology residents in sedation for colonoscopy.

Propofol sedation versus no sedation in detection of pharyngeal and upper gastrointestinal superficial squamous cell carcinoma using endoscopic narrow band imaging: a multicenter prospective trial

Intravenous propofol can provide a superior quality of sedation compared to standard sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, the utility of propofol sedation for the endoscopic early detection of superficial pharyngeal and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma has not been investigated. In a multicenter, prospective trial, 255 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomas (ESCCs) were assigned to receive propofol sedation or no sedation according to their own willingness. The primary aim was to compare the detection rates of superficial cancer in the pharyngeal region and the esophagus between two groups. The secondary aim was to evaluate factors associated with technical adequacy. The detection rate was higher in the propofol sedation vs. no sedation group for H&N region (6.06% vs. 2.40%), but not significantly (P=0.22). However, the small lesion (less than 10 mm in diameter) detection rate was higher in sedation vs. no sedation group for H&N region (88.89% vs. 33.33%; P=0.048). The median time for pharyngeal observation in the sedation group was faster than in the no sedation group (20.6 s vs. 44.3 s; P<0.001). Ninety-five percent of H&N region evaluations were totally complete in sedation compared with sixty percent in the no sedation group (P<0.001). The overall p value indicated that only smoking habit was associated with incomplete pharyngeal observation (P<0.05), and it was more difficult to accomplish a complete pharyngeal observation in patients who smoked more than 10 packs per day. Intravenous propofol sedation compared to no intravenous sedation during conventional upper gastrointestinal endoscopy can facilitate a more complete pharyngeal examination and increase the detection rate of superficial H&N squamous cell carcinoma in high risk patients.

Endoscopic sedation and monitoring practices in Portugal: a nationwide web-based survey

BACKGROUND

National surveys have been used to obtain information on sedation and monitoring practices in endoscopy in several countries.

AIMS

To provide data from Portugal and query the Portuguese endoscopists on nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 31-item web survey was sent to all 490 members of the Portuguese Society of Gastroenterology.

RESULTS

A total of 129 members (26%) completed the questionnaire; 57% worked in both public and private practice. Most performed esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation (public - 70%; private - 57%) and colonoscopies with sedation (public - 64%; private - 69%). Propofol was the most commonly used agent for colonoscopy, especially in private practice (52 vs. 33%), and it provided the best satisfaction (mean 9.6/10). A total of 94% chose propofol as the preferred sedation for routine colonoscopy. Nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol was performed only by four respondents; however, 71% reported that they would consider its use, given adequate training. Pulse oximetry is monitored routinely (99%); oxygen supplementation is administered by 81% with propofol and 42% with traditional sedation. Most (82%) believed that propofol sedation may increase the uptake of endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

The use of sedation is routine practice in colonoscopy, but not esophagogastroduodenoscopy. The preferred agent is propofol and it is used almost exclusively by anesthesiologists.

Propofol alternatives in gastrointestinal endoscopy anesthesia

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

Colonoscopy, pain and fears: Is it an indissoluble trinomial?

Colonoscopy is the reference method in the secondary prevention, diagnosis and, in some cases, treatment of colorectal cancer. It can often cause pain associated with embarrassment, anxiety, and physical and emotional discomfort. Pain intensity is influenced by a lot of factors, and there is a strict relationship among pain, pain perception, and mind. Several methods can be used to break the trinomial colonoscopy, pain and fear. Sedoanalgesia is recommended by several guidelines. If no sedation is offered, the patient must accept a higher chance of unacceptable discomfort and the endoscopist a lower chance of completing the procedure because of patient discomfort. Other non-pharmacologic methods such as acupuncture, music, and hydrocolonoscopy can be used as alternatives to pharmacologic sedoanalgesia. Furthermore, new endoscopic technologies such as variable-stiffness colonoscopes and ultrathin colonoscopes, or the use of carbon dioxide instead of air for colon insufflation, can reduce the pain caused by colonoscopy. In the future, technical improvements such as wireless capsules or robotic probes, will probably enable to overcome the present concept of colonoscopy, avoiding the use of traditional endoscopes. However, at present the poor attention paid by endoscopists to the pain and discomfort caused by colonoscopy can not be justified. There are several methods to reduce pain and anxiety and to break the trinomial colonoscopy, pain and fear. We must use them.

Mechanical analysis of insertion problems and pain during colonoscopy: why highly skill-dependent colonoscopy routines are necessary in the first place... and how they may be avoided

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy requires highly skill-dependent manoeuvres that demand a significant amount of training, and can cause considerable discomfort to patients, which increases the use of sedatives. Understanding the underlying fundamental mechanics behind insertion difficulties and pain during colonoscopy may help to simplify colonoscopy and reduce the required extent of training and reliance on sedatives.

METHODS

A literature search, anatomical studies, models of the colon and colonoscope, and bench tests were used to qualitatively analyze the fundamental mechanical causes of insertion difficulties and pain. A categorized review resulted in an overview of potential alternatives to current colonoscopes.

RESULTS

To advance a colonoscope through the colon, the colon wall, ligaments and peritoneum must be stretched, thus creating tension in the colon wall, which resists further wall deformation. This resistance forces the colonoscope to bend and follow the curves of the colon. The deformations that cause insertion difficulties and pain (necessitating the use of complex conventional manoeuvres) are the stretching of ligaments, and stretching of colon wall in the transverse and longitudinal directions, and the peritoneum.

CONCLUSIONS

Four fundamental mechanical solutions to prevent these deformations were extracted from the analysis. The current results may help in the development of new colonoscopy devices that reduce - or eliminate - the necessity of using highly skill-dependent manoeuvres, facilitate training and reduce the use of sedatives.

A survey of the practice of after-hours and emergency endoscopy in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To determine staffing and practice patterns for after-hours endoscopy service in Canada.

METHODS

A link to a web-based survey was sent by e-mail to all clinical members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology in February 2011. A priori, it was planned to compare variations in practice among gastroenterologists (GIs) performing endoscopy in different regions of Canada, between pediatric and adult GIs, and between university and community hospitals.

RESULTS

Of 422 potential respondents, 168 (40%) responded. Of the 139 adult GIs, 61% performed after-hours endoscopy in the endoscopy suite where daytime procedures were performed, 62% had a trained endoscopy nurse available for all procedures, 38% had access to propofol sedation, 12% reprocessed the endoscopes themselves or with the help of a resident, 4% had out-of-hospital patients come directly to their endoscopy suite and 53% were highly satisfied. The adult endoscopists practising at community hospitals were more likely to have an anesthetist attend the procedure. Regional differences were noted, with more involvement of anesthetists (13%) and availability of propofol (50%) in Ontario, more frequent reprocessing of endoscopes in the central reprocessing units in British Columbia (78%) and almost universal availability of a trained endoscopy nurse (96%) with concomitant higher endoscopist satisfaction (84% highly satisfied) in Alberta.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-third of surveyed endoscopists across the country do not have a trained endoscopy nurse to assist in after-hours endoscopy - the time period when urgent patients often present and typically require therapeutic endoscopic interventions. There are significant regional differences in the practice of after-hours endoscopy in Canada.

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol versus midazolam and propofol, titrated to moderate sedation, for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) is controversial due to deep sedation concerns.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of moderate sedation with two different NAAP regimens for colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial allocating 135 consecutive outpatients to placebo (group P) or midazolam 2 mg (group M+P) before NAAP targeted to moderate sedation. Depth of sedation every 2 min throughout the procedure, propofol doses, recovery times, complications and patient and endoscopist satisfaction were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 84 % of assessments of the depth of sedation were moderate. Mean induction (76 [40-150] vs. 53 [30-90]) and total propofol doses (mg) (136 [60-270] vs. 104 [50-190]) were significantly higher for group P (p < 0.001). However, deep sedation was significantly more prevalent in group M+P in minutes 4 (16 vs. 1 %, p = 0.05), 6 (20 vs. 3.5 %, p = 0.046) and 8 (17 vs. 1.8 %, p = 0.06) of the procedure, coinciding with midazolam peak action. From minute 8 on, moderate sedation was significantly deeper for M+P (p = 0.002). Early recovery time (6.8 min vs. 5.2, p = 0.007), but not discharge time (10.4 min vs. 9.8, p = 0.5), was longer for M+P. Pain perception (P 1.03 vs. M+P 0.3, p = 0.009) and patient satisfaction scores (P 9.4 vs. M+P 9.8, p = 0.047) were better for M+P. No major complications occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation was feasible with both NAAP regimens. Drug synergy in the midazolam plus propofol sedation regimen promotes a deeper and longer moderate sedation, improving patient satisfaction rates but prolonging early recovery time (Clinical Trials gov NCT01428882).

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation for colonoscopy is safe and effective: a prospective Spanish study over 1000 consecutive exams

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Propofol is increasingly being used in sedated colonoscopy. This paper assesses the safety and efficacy of nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol in a large series of colonoscopies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective registry of consecutive American Society of Anesthetics (ASA) class I and II outpatients undergoing colonoscopy was carried out. Propofol, administered by a nurse under an endoscopist's supervision, was the sole sedative agent used.

RESULTS

Of the 1000 patients (563 women/437 men, mean age 57, range 8-89 years) included in the study, 57.4% showed ASA I and 42.6% ASA II characteristics. The cecal intubation rate was 96.9%. 48.2% of the procedures were for therapeutic purposes. The mean propofol dose was 177 mg (range 50-590 mg). Doses correlated inversely with patient age (r=-0.38; P<0.001) and were lower in ASA II patients (P<0.001) and in diagnostic (rather than therapeutic) exams (P<0.001). The average recovery time (from extracting the colonoscope to patient discharge) was 18.6 min (range 4-75) and longer in ASA II patients (P=0.05). A pulse oximetry saturation of less than 90% and a decrease in systolic blood pressure of more than 20 mmHg were observed in 24 (2.4%) and 385 (35.8%) patients, respectively. Both events were more frequent in patients older than 65 years (P<0.05); the latter was more common in ASA II patients.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy under endoscopist-controlled propofol sedation in low-risk patients is safe and effective, allowing for a complete exploration, although patients at least 65 years old and/or classified as ASA II are more likely to present a decrease in blood pressure and have a prolonged recovery time.