Prospective Comparison of Moderate Conscious Sedation and Anesthesia Assistance for the Performance of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)

Comparing sedation protocols for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): A retrospective study

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Effective sedation is crucial to enhance patient comfort and optimize endoscopist performance. Various sedation protocols, including Propofol and Dexmedetomidine (Pro-Dex), Ketamine and Propofol (Keto-Fol), Propofol and Midazolam (Pro-Mid), and Propofol alone, have been utilized during ERCP. This retrospective study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of these four sedation protocols.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 600 patients who underwent ERCP between 2018 and 2021, with each patient receiving one of the four sedation protocols. Protocol assignment was based on the endoscopist's preference. Data on hemodynamic parameters, sedation level, recovery time, and procedure-related complications were collected.

Results

Baseline data showed no significant differences among the groups pre-procedure. The Pro-Dex group exhibited significantly lower mean total propofol dose, shorter recovery time, and faster achievement of Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score 3-4 compared to the other groups. The Pro-group demonstrated significantly longer hospital stay than the other three groups (median, 4.19 ± 1.1 vs. 3.48 ± 1.2 days in the KP groups, p = 0.042). There were no significant variations in the incidence of respiratory depression, hypotension, or bradycardia among the four groups. Additionally, notable trends were found for hemodynamic measures, total propofol dosage, time to reach the desired level of sedation (as measured by the Ramsay Sedation Scale), and hospital stay based on BMI categories, indicating that higher BMI is linked to more serious outcomes.

Conclusion

Our retrospective study demonstrates that the Pro-Dex protocol offers superior sedation quality, faster recovery, and fewer complications compared to the other protocols during ERCP. However, the incidence of ERCP-related adverse events did not significantly differ among the four sedation protocols. These findings can aid clinicians in selecting the most appropriate sedation protocol for ERCP, considering patient and endoscopist preferences.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Up-to-date literature review and issues of sedation during digestive endoscopy

Sedation is common during digestive endoscopy to provide comfort and pain relief for patients. However, the use of sedation in endoscopy also poses potential risks, and recent issues have been raised regarding its safety and administration. This literature review paper will discuss the most recent developments in the field of sedation in digestive endoscopy, including the adverse events that might be associated with sedation and how to manage it, the legal issues associated with administration, the impact of COVID-19 on sedation practices, and sedation in special situations. It will also touch upon the current guidelines and recommendations for sedation, including the importance of patient selection and monitoring and the need for training and certification for endoscopists administering sedation. The review will also analyse studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of various sedation techniques, including propofol, midazolam, and others. It will examine the benefits and drawbacks of these agents.

Randomized trial comparing general anesthesia with anesthesiologist-administered deep sedation for ERCP in average-risk patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

General anesthesia (GA) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is increasingly used to perform ERCP. The definitive choice between the 2 sedative types remains to be established. This study compared outcomes of GA with MAC in ERCP performed in patients at average risk for sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs).

METHODS

At a tertiary referral center, patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≤III were randomly assigned to undergo ERCP with MAC or GA. The main outcome was a composite of hypotension, arrhythmia, hypoxia, hypercapnia, apnea, and procedural interruption or termination defined as SRAEs. In addition, ERCP procedural time, success, adverse events, and endoscopist and patient satisfaction were compared.

RESULTS

Of 204 randomized, 203 patients were evaluated for SRAEs (MAC, n = 96; GA, n = 107). SRAEs developed in 35% of the MAC cohort (34/96) versus 9% in the GA cohort (10/107), which was statistically significant (P < .001). Mean induction time for GA was significantly longer than that for MAC (10.3 ± 10 minutes vs 6.5 ± 10.8 minutes, respectively; P < .001). ERCP procedure time, recovery time, cannulation time and success, and procedure-related adverse events were not statistically different between the 2 sedative groups. The use of GA improved endoscopist and patient satisfaction (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

GA is safe with fewer SRAEs than MAC in patients with ASA scores ≤III undergoing ERCP. Apart from prolonging induction time, use of GA does not change the procedural success or ERCP-related adverse events and offers greater endoscopist and patient satisfaction. Hence, GA is a consideration in patients undergoing ERCP in this population group. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04099693.).