Propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Endoscopic features with associated histological and molecular alterations in serrated polyps with dysplasia: Retrospective analysis of a tertiary case series

BACKGROUND

Serrated polyps are incompletely understood lesions and include serrated sessile lesion (SSL) without or with dysplasia and traditional serrated adenoma (TSA).

AIMS

We investigated prevalence and characteristics of serrated lesions, especially SSL with dysplasia (mixed polyps).

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed data from consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy at a tertiary care center. Endoscopic and histopathological characteristics of identified lesions were studied. SSLs with dysplasia were molecularly analyzed for mutations and microsatellite instability.

RESULTS

Among 1147 patients, a total of 436 polyps were found, including 288 adenomas (66.1 %) and 114 serrated lesions (SLDR 26.2 %). PDR was 34.5 % and ADR was of 30.2 %. Serrated lesions included 75 hyperplastic polyps (17.2 %), 24 SSLs without dysplasia (5.5 %), 6 SSLs with dysplasia (mixed polyps) (1.4 %) and 9 TSA (2.1 %). The mixed polyps were evaluated molecularly: these analyses found no KRAS mutation, a single NRAS mutation in one lesion, the Val600Glu BRAF mutation in four lesions in both their serrated non-dysplastic and dysplastic areas, and microsatellite instability in four lesions, limited to the dysplastic areas.

CONCLUSION

Our single-center experience confirms the high prevalence of serrated lesions, a part of which are SSL with dysplasia. These lesions seem to carry specific molecular alterations.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for anesthesia induction in adult patients received elective surgeries: a meta‑analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol is use widely used in anesthesia, known for its effectiveness, may lead to cardiopulmonary issues in some patients. Ciprofol has emerged as a possible alternative to propofol because it can achieve comparable effects to propofol while causing fewer adverse events at lower doses. However, no definitive conclusion has been reached yet. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to identify potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ciprofol with propofol in general anesthesia until September 30, 2023. The efficacy outcomes encompassed induction success rate, time to onset of successful induction, time to disappearance of eyelash reflex, and overall estimate means in Bispectral Index (BIS). Safety outcomes were assessed through time to full alertness, incidence of hypotension, incidence of arrhythmia, and incidence of injection-site pain. Continuous variables were expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and dichotomous variables were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 and STATA 14.0. The quality of the evidence was rated through the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

A total of 712 patients from 6 RCTs were analyzed. Meta-analysis suggested that ciprofol was equivalent to propofol in terms of successful induction rate, time to onset of successful induction, time to disappearance of eyelash reflex, time to full alertness, and incidence of arrhythmia, while ciprofol was better than propofol in overall estimated mean in BIS (MD: -3.79, 95% CI: -4.57 to -3.01, p < 0.001), incidence of hypotension (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.94, p = 0.02), and incidence of injection-site pain (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.47, p < 0.001). All results were supported by moderate to high evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol may be a promising alternative to propofol because it facilitates achieving a satisfactory anesthesia depth and results in fewer hypotension and injection-site pain. However, we still recommend conducting more studies with large-scale studies to validate our findings because only limited data were accumulated in this study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023479767.

The effective dose of remimazolam in adult gastroscopy

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to explore the median effective dose (ED50) and the dose required for successful anesthesia in 95% of the patients (ED95) of remimazolam for intravenous anesthesia in adult outpatients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

This pilot study was conducted in patients scheduled to undergo painless gastroscopy at the authors' hospital between March 15, 2022 and March 25, 2022. The ED of remimazolam was determined using the modified Dixon sequential method, using an initial induction dose of 0.2 mg/kg. With successful or failed anesthesia, the remimazolam dose was decreased or increased by 0.05 mg/kg for the next patient, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients (43.6 ± 10.5 years of age) were enrolled. During gastroscopy, the remimazolam induction dose was 19.93 ± 2.96 mg (0.2-0.45 mg/kg). Eighteen patients could complete anesthesia with remimazolam alone, and four patients needed propofol to complete anesthesia. The induction time after the injection of remimazolam was 20.8 ± 8.4 s, the gastroscopy time was 5.1 ± 1.3 min, and the anesthesia recovery time was 17.5 ± 5.6 min. The ED50 and the ED95 of remimazolam were 0.362 mg/kg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.313-0.455 mg/kg) and 0.464 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.403-2.242 mg/kg), respectively. The vital signs of all patients remained within the predefined acceptable limits. No patients required antagonist rescue.

CONCLUSION

The ED50 and ED95 of remimazolam for adult gastroscopy were 0.362 mg/kg and 0.464 mg/kg, respectively. Additional anesthetics might be required during gastroscopy in some patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered. The number is ChiCTR2200057446.

A convenient machine learning model to predict full stomach and evaluate the safety and comfort improvements of preoperative oral carbohydrate in patients undergoing elective painless gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Assessment of the patient's gastric contents is the key to avoiding aspiration incidents, however, there is no effective method to determine whether elective painless gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) patients have a full stomach or an empty stomach. And previous studies have shown that preoperative oral carbohydrates (POCs) can improve the discomfort induced by fasting, but there are different perspectives on their safety. This study aimed to develop a convenient, accurate machine learning (ML) model to predict full stomach. And based on the model outcomes, evaluate the safety and comfort improvements of POCs in empty- and full stomach groups.

METHODS

We enrolled 1386 painless GIE patients between October 2022 and January 2023 in Nanjing First Hospital, and 1090 patients without POCs were used to construct five different ML models to identify full stomach. The metrics of discrimination and calibration validated the robustness of the models. For the best-performance model, we further interpreted it through SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and constructed a web calculator to facilitate clinical use. We evaluated the safety and comfort improvements of POCs by propensity score matching (PSM) in the two groups, respectively.

RESULTS

Random Forest (RF) model showed the greatest discrimination with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.837 [95% confidence interval (CI): 79.1-88.2], F1 71.5%, and best calibration with a Brier score of 15.2%. The web calculator can be visited at https://medication.shinyapps.io/RF_model/. PSM results demonstrated that POCs significantly reduced the full stomach incident in empty stomach group (p < 0.05), but no differences in full stomach group (p > 0.05). Comfort improved in both groups and was more significant in empty stomach group.

CONCLUSIONS

The developed convenient RF model predicted full stomach with high accuracy and interpretability. POCs were safe and comfortably improved in both groups, with more benefit in empty stomach group. These findings may guide the patients' gastrointestinal preparation.

Operational outcomes of propofol sedation versus fentanyl, midazolam and diphenhydramine sedation for endoscopies and colonoscopies at an academic medical center

BACKGROUND

On July 1st, 2021, the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) implemented new sedation protocols in the luminal gastrointestinal (GI) suite. GI proceduralist supervised, Nurse Administered Sedation with fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine (NAS) sedation was transitioned to Monitored Anesthesia Care with propofol under physician anesthesiologist supervision (MAC).

OBJECTIVE

To determine if there are statistically significant reductions in Sedation-Start to Scope-In time (SSSI) when using Monitored Anesthesia Care with propofol (MAC) versus Nurse Administered Sedation with fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine (NAS). Secondary objectives were to determine if statistically significant improvements to other operational times, quality measures, and satisfaction metrics were present.

METHOD

This study was a retrospective analysis of a natural experiment resultant of a change from NAS to MAC sedation protocols. Outcomes for NAS protocols from 1/1/21-6/30/21 were compared to outcomes of MAC protocols from the dates 8/1/21-10/31/21. Results were analyzed using Quasi-Poisson regression analysis and stratified based on upper GI, lower GI, and combined procedures. Patient demographic data including age, biological sex, comorbidities, and BMI, were adjusted for in the analysis. ASA matching was not performed as nursing sedation does not use ASA classifications. Pre-anesthesia co-morbidities were assessed via evaluation of a strict set of comorbidities abstracted from the electronic medical record. Perioperative operational outcomes include Sedation Start to Scope-In (SSSI), In-Room to Scope-In Time (IRSI), Scope Out to Out of Room (SOOR), Total Case Length (TCL), and Post Anesthesia Care Unit Length of Stay (PACU LOS). Quality outcomes include PACU Administered Medications (PAM), and Clinician Satisfaction Scores (CSS).

RESULTS

A total of 5,582 gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic cases (upper, lower, and combined endoscopies) were observed. Statistically significant decreases in SSSI of 2.5, 2.1, and 2.2 minutes for upper, lower, and dual GI procedures were observed when using MAC protocols. A statistically significant increase in satisfaction scores of 47.0 and 19.6 points were observed for nurses and proceduralists, respectively, when using MAC.

CONCLUSION

MAC protocols for endoscopic GI procedures at UCH led to statistically significant decreases in the time required to complete procedures thus increasing operational efficiency.

The study of different dosages of remazolam combined with sufentanil and propofol on painless gastroscopy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Gastroscopy is one of the most commonly used diagnostic modalities for upper gastrointestinal disorders. Remazolam besylate, a new type of ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine drug, has been less studied in gastroscopy. In this study, we studied the efficacy and safety of remazolam combined with propofol for painless gastroscopy.

METHODS

This is a single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial. Hundred patients undergoing painless gastroscopy were included in this study and randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 50 per group): the remazolam 3 mg group (R3 group) and the remazolam 6 mg group (R6 group). Sufentanil, remazolam, and propofol are used to anesthetize the patients, and then, the effects of different dosages of remazolam on these patients are compared and analyzed. The patient's general condition, vital signs at different times, the dosage of propofol (mg) and additional times, complications, duration of gastroscopy (minute), awakening time (minute), residence time in the resuscitation room (minute), and adverse reactions were recorded.

RESULTS

R3 group systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure are more stable (P < .05); The number of additional propofol in R6 group was less (P < .05). The incidence of hypotension was lower in R3 group, as well as the time of awakening and staying in the resuscitation room were shorter (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Remazolam 3mg combined with sufentanil and propofol have less effect on hemodynamics in painless gastroscopy, and the patients have shorter awakening time.

Comparison of propofol-esketamine versus propofol for anesthesia in gastroscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial

Objective

To compare the effects of propofol-esketamine and propofol in gastroscopy in adults.

Methods

This randomized controlled clinical trial was performed from January 2021 to March 2021. Eighty patients were enrolled and allocated into normal saline group (group N) and esketamine group (group E). The primary outcome was total amount of propofol. Secondary outcomes included incidences of injection pain, involuntary movement, hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events during examination, total examination time, recovery time and postoperative adverse effects.

Results

Total amount of propofol was significantly smaller in group E (101.64 ± 32.64 mg) than in group N (129.55 ± 36.34 mg, p = 0.001). Incidences of injection pain, involuntary movement and hypotension was significantly lower in group E than in group N. Incidences of hypertension and tachycardia was higher in group E than in group N. There was no significant difference in incidences of laryngospasm or hypoxemia, total examination time, recovery time, incidences of postoperative adverse effects between two groups.

Conclusion

Combination of propofol with 0.2 mg/kg esketamine reduced total amount of propofol, provided a more stable hemodynamic status and did not affect recovery time in gastroscopy.

Clinical trial registration

http://www.chictr.org, identifier ChiCTR2100042406.

Analysis of the efficacy of subclinical doses of esketamine in combination with propofol in non-intubated general anesthesia procedures - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The number of non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room is growing as the increasing demand for comfort treatment. Non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room requires rapid onset of anesthesia, smoothness, quick recovery, and few postoperative complications. Traditional anesthetic regimens (propofol alone or propofol and opioids/dezocine/midazolam, etc.) have severe respiratory and circulatory depression and many systemic adverse effects. In this paper, we compare the effectiveness and safety of propofol and subclinical doses of esketamine with other traditional regimens applied to non-intubated general anesthesia through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and Sinomed databases for the period from January 2000 to October 2022. We rigorously screened the literature according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, while risk assessment of the studies was performed using The Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and statistical analysis of the data was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The main outcome indicators we evaluated were the various hemodynamic parameters and incidence of various adverse effects between the experimental and control groups after induction of anesthesia.

RESULTS

After a rigorous screening process, a total of 14 papers were included in the final meta-analysis. After risk bias assessment, three of the papers were judged as low risk and the others were judged as having moderate to high risk. Forest plots were drawn for a total of 16 indicators. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in HR' WMD 3.27 (0.66, 5.87), MAP' WMD 9.68 (6.13, 13.24), SBP' WMD 5.42 (2.11, 8.73), DBP' WMD 4.02 (1.15, 6.88), propofol dose' SMD -1.39 (-2.45, -0.33), hypotension' RR 0.30 (0.20, 0.45), bradycardia' RR 0.33 (0.14, 0.77), hypoxemia or apnea' RR 0.45 (0.23, 0.89), injection pain' RR 0.28 (0.13, 0.60), intraoperative choking' RR 0.62 (0.50, 0.77), intraoperative body movements' RR 0.48 (0.29, 0.81) and overall incidence of adverse reactions' RR 0.52 (0.39, 0.70).The indicators that were not statistically different were time to wake up' WMD - 0.55 (-1.29, 0.19), nausea and vomiting 0.84' RR (0.43, 1.67), headache and dizziness' RR 1.57 (0.98, 2.50) and neuropsychiatric reaction' RR 1.05 (0.28, 3.93). The funnel plot showed that the vast majority of studies fell within the funnel interval, but the symmetry was relatively poor.

CONCLUSION

In non-intubated general anesthesia, the combination of subclinical doses of esketamine and propofol did reduce circulatory and respiratory depression, injection pain, and other adverse effects, while the incidence of esketamine's own side effects such as neuropsychiatric reactions did not increase, and the combination of the two did not cause the occurrence of new and more serious adverse reactions, and the combination of the two was safe and effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPREO registration number: CRD 42022368966.

Sedative-sparing effect of acupuncture in gastrointestinal endoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the efficacy of acupuncture therapy (including manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture) performed before or during gastrointestinal endoscopy with propofol as the main sedative, compared with placebo, sham acupuncture, or no additional treatment other than the same sedation.

Methods

A systematic search was performed through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Databases (CBM), Wanfang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), SinoMed, and Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP) to collect randomized controlled trials published before 5 November 2022. Bias assessment of the included RCTs was performed according to Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). Stata16.0 software was used to perform statistical analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias analysis. The primary outcome was sedative consumption, and the secondary outcomes included the incidence of adverse events and wake-up time.

Results

A total of 10 studies with 1331 participants were included. The results showed that sedative consumption [mean difference (MD) = -29.32, 95% CI (-36.13, -22.50), P < 0.001], wake-up time [MD = -3.87, 95% CI (-5.43, -2.31), P < 0.001] and the incidence of adverse events including hypotension, nausea and vomiting, and coughing (P < 0.05) were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group.

Conclusion

Acupuncture combined with sedation reduces sedative consumption and wake-up time compared with sedation alone in gastrointestinal endoscopy; this combined approach allows patients to regain consciousness more quickly after examination and lower the risk of adverse effects. However, with the limited quantity and quality of relevant clinical studies, caution must be applied until more high-quality clinical studies verify and refine the conclusions.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?, identifier: CRD42022370422.

Bilevel positive airway pressure for gastroscopy with sedation in patients at risk of hypoxemia: A prospective randomized controlled study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Hypoxemia is one of the most frequent adverse events during sedated gastroscopy, and there is still no effective means to prevent and cure it. Therefore, we conducted this randomized trial to confirm our hypothesis that, compared with the nasal cannula group, bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) would decrease the incidence of hypoxemia in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) or overweight status undergoing gastroscopy.

DESIGN

In a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial, 80 patients aged 18-65 years and with OSA or overweight status who underwent gastroscopy with sedation were randomly assigned to two groups: the nasal cannula and BPAP groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (75% < peripheral oxygen saturation [SpO2] < 90% for >5 sand <60 s).

MAIN RESULTS

Compared to the nasal cannula group, BPAP therapy significantly decreased the incidence of hypoxemia from 40.0% to 2.5% (absolute risk difference [ARD], 37.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 21.6 to 53.4], p < 0.001), decreased subclinical respiratory depression from 52.5% to 22.5% (ARD, 30.0% [95% CI, 9.8 to 50.2], p = 0.006), and decreased severe hypoxemia from 17.5% to 0% (ARD, 17.5% [95% CI, 5.7 to 29.3], p = 0.006). The BPAP intervention also decreased the total propofol dosage and operation time and improved anesthesiologist's satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

BPAP therapy significantly decreased the incidence of hypoxemia in patients with OSA or overweight status who underwent gastroscopy.

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia in adult patients: a multicenter phase 2a clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Ciprofol is a novel 2, 6-disubstituted phenolic derivative anesthetic that binds to the gamma-aminobutyric acid-A receptor.

AIM

To determine the equally potent dose of ciprofol compared with propofol as an induction agent for general anesthesia in patients undergoing selective surgery, and to assess its safety.

METHOD

A total of 109 patients undergoing selective non-emergency, non-cardiothoracic or non-neurosurgical surgery requiring tracheal intubation for general anesthesia were enrolled. Ten patients per group were assigned to ciprofol-0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 mg/kg, and propofol-2.0 or 2.5 mg/kg groups, respectively to receive an intravenous bolus dose. An additional 20 patients were enrolled in the ciprofol-0.3, 0.5 or propofol-2.0 mg/kg groups. The primary outcome was the success rate of induction defined as a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) ≤ 1 after the initial bolus dose. The secondary outcomes included the time to reach MOAA/S ≤ 1, the time to loss of the eyelash reflex, the incidences and severity of adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

The success rates were 100% for all 5 groups. The mean time to MOAA/S ≤ 1 and the time to loss of the eyelash reflex were not different among the 5 groups, regardless of whether a top-up dose was needed. There were no significant differences in the incidences and severity of AEs in the dose ranges investigated of ciprofol vs. propofol.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of a single bolus dose of ciprofol-0.5 mg/kg for the general anesthesia induction in selective surgery patients was comparable to that of propofol-2.0 mg/kg.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03698617, retrospectively registered.

Etomidate versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes

BACKGROUND

Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, owing to its side effects, an alternative drug is needed. We aimed to compare the safety, satisfaction, and efficacy outcomes of etomidate versus propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, including advanced endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL (via EBSCO), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Web of Science (1946-April 2020) databases for randomized controlled trials of gastrointestinal endoscopy (upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and advanced endoscopy) using etomidate or propofol as sedatives. We pooled odds ratios (ORs) for the safety profile and patient and anesthesiologist satisfaction using mixed-effects conditional logistic models and standardized mean differences for efficiency outcomes using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies involving 3875 patients were included. Compared with propofol, etomidate resulted in significantly reduced apnea (OR: 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.37; P < .001), hypoxemia (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.35-0.54; P < .001), hypotension (OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.11-0.36; P < .001), and bradycardia (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30-0.91; P = .02) but led to increased myoclonus (OR: 8.54; 95% CI: 5.20-14.01; P < .001) and lowered anesthesiologist satisfaction (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.39-0.91; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Etomidate may be a good alternative to propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially advanced endoscopy. Etomidate appears to be safe as an inducer for hemodynamically unstable patients or older adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Safety and efficacy of target controlled infusion administration of propofol and remifentanil for moderate sedation in non-hospital dental practice

Background

Fearful and anxious patients who find dental treatment intolerable without sedative and analgesic support may benefit from moderate sedation. Target controlled infusion (TCI) pumps are superior to bolus injection in maintaining low plasma and effect-site concentration variability, resulting in stable, steady-state drug concentrations. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of moderate sedation with remifentanil and propofol using TCI pumps in non-hospital dental settings.

Methods

A prospective chart review was conducted on 101 patients sedated with propofol and remifentanil using TCI pumps. The charts were completed at two oral surgeons and one general dentist's office over 6 months. Hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, and over-sedation were considered adverse events and were collected using Tracking and Reporting Outcomes of Procedural Sedation (TROOPS). Furthermore, patient recovery time, sedation length, drug dose, and patient satisfaction questionnaires were used to measure sedation effectiveness.

Results

Of the 101 reviewed sedation charts, 54 were of men, and 47 were of women. The mean age of the patients was 40.5 ±18.7 years, and their mean BMI was 25.6 ± 4.4. The patients did not experience hypoxia, bradycardia, and hypotension during the 4694 min of sedation. The average minimum Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) and heartbeats were 75.1 mmHg and 60.4 bpm, respectively. 98% of patients agreed that the sedation technique met their needs in reducing their anxiety, and 99% agreed that they were satisfied with the sedation 24 hours later. The average sedation time was 46.9 ± 55.6 min, and the average recovery time was 12.4 ± 4.4 min. Remifentanil and propofol had mean initial effect-site concentration doses of 0.96 µ/ml and 1.0 ng/ml respectively. The overall total amount of drug administered was significantly higher in longer sedation procedures compared to shorter ones, while the infusion rate decreased as the procedural stimulus decreased.

Conclusion

According to the results of this study, no patients experienced adverse events during sedation, and all patients were kept at a moderate sedation level for a wide range of sedation times and differing procedures. The results showed that TCI pumps are safe and effective for administering propofol and remifentanil for moderate sedation in dentistry.

[The role of HFNC oxygen in pre-oxygenation prior to intubation and the practice of invasive procedures]

Over recent years, High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has been more and more extensively applied in numerous medical settings, and it is now carried out in invasive procedures such as pre-oxygenation before orotracheal intubation, often leading to complications. More generally, pre-oxygenation is aimed at maintaining the highest possible oxygen saturation for extended periods of time. With this in mind, HFNC seems as effective as standard oxygen delivery with regard to hematosis in patients with mild or moderate hypoxemia, and it presents the advantage of reducing the adverse events associated with intubation. That said, during pre-oxygenation of patients with severe hypoxemia, non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is probably more effective than HFNC, especially in the prevention of respiratory events. However, in patients with little or no hypoxemia undergoing risky procedures such as bronchial endoscopy, HFNC allows better oxygen saturation than standard methods. To summarize, even though NIV remains useful in unstable patients, especially in decreasing desaturation episodes, HFNC could represent a reasonable alternative in case of poor tolerance, allowing continuous oxygenation of patients requiring digestive endoscopy or trans-esophageal ultrasound.

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has been associated with difficult experiences and can leave patients with an unpleasant impression. Propofol and midazolam are the most commonly used intravenous anesthetics for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, cardiac and pulmonary adverse events are the primary concerns associated with the use of these sedatives. Remimazolam tosylate is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine drug with a mild inhibitory effect on the respiratory and circulatory systems. These properties qualify remimazolam tosylate to be used as a replacement for propofol or midazolam as a sedative during gastrointestinal endoscopy. This study aims to describe the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate as a sedative for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel-controlled, noninferiority clinical study will be conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate as a sedative during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Participants (n = 1800) will be randomized to receive remimazolam tosylate at 0.15 mg/kg (experimental group 1), remimazolam tosylate at 0.2 mg/kg (experimental group 2), or propofol at 1.5 mg/kg (control group). Procedure success will be assessed and defined as the completion of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy without the administration of a rescue sedative agent or more than two top-up doses of the trial drug in any 5-min period after initial administration. Sedation quality will be evaluated using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score. Adverse events will be recorded to evaluate safety.

DISCUSSION

This study will determine the optimal dosage of remimazolam tosylate during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and will describe its efficacy and safety. These findings may contribute to a more comfortable and safer experience for patients compared with that when the conventional sedative propofol is used.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04727034. Registered on February 18, 2021.

Effective dose of propofol combined with a low-dose esketamine for gastroscopy in elderly patients: A dose finding study using dixon’s up-and-down method

Objective: This study aimed to determine the optimal dose of propofol combined with esketamine to inhibit the response to gastroscope insertion in elderly patients.

Methods: This is a prospective, non-controlled, non-randomized, single-center study. Elderly patients aged 65–80 years were enrolled in the study with the American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II undergoing elective gastroscopy. All patients were administered propofol after an intravenous esketamine at the dosage of 0.3 mg/kg 30 s, the subsequent dose of propofol was determined by the response of the previous patient to gastroscope insertion (choking, body movement, etc.) using Dixon’s up-and-down method. The initial dose of propofol administered to the first elderly patient was 3.0 mg/kg, and the standard ratio of propofol dose in adjacent patients was 0.9. At least six crossover points were obtained before the conclusion of the study. By using Probit analysis the median effective dose (ED₅₀), 95% effective dose (ED₉₅), and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for propofol were determined.

Results: The study continued until we obtained seven crossover points and 32 elderly patients (17 males and 15 females) were collected. The ED₅₀ of propofol combined with esketamine inhibiting response to gastroscope insertion in elderly patients were found to be 1.479 mg/kg (95% CI 1.331–1.592 mg/kg), and ED₉₅ was found to be 1.738 mg/kg (95% CI 1.614–2.487 mg/kg).

Conclusion: According to the present study, propofol combined with 0.3 mg/kg esketamine is safe and effective for elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy. The ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ doses of propofol inhibiting response to gastroscope insertion in elderly patients when combined with 0.3 mg/kg esketamine were 1.479 and 1.738 mg/kg, respectively, without apparent adverse effects.

Efficacy and safety of subanesthetic doses of esketamine combined with propofol in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Background

Painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is widely used for the diagnosis and treatment of digestive diseases. At present, propofol is commonly used to perform painless gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the high dose of propofol often leads to a higher incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory complications. Studies have shown that the application of propofol combined with ketamine in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is beneficial to reduce the dosage of propofol and the incidence of related complications. Esketamine is dextrorotatory structure of ketamine with a twice as great anesthetic effect as normal ketamine but fewer side effects. We hypothesized that esketamine may reduce the consumption of propofol and to investigate the safety of coadministration during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

A total of 260 patients undergoing painless gastrointestinal endoscopy (gastroscope and colonoscopy) were randomly divided into P group (propofol + saline), PK1 group (propofol + esketamine 0.05 mg/kg), PK2 group (propofol + esketamine 0.1 mg/kg), and PK3 group (propofol + esketamine 0.2 mg/kg). Anesthesia was achieved by 1.5 mg/kg propofol with different doses of esketamine. Propofol consumption per minute was recorded. Hemodynamic index, pulse oxygen saturation, operative time, induction time, awakening status, orientation recovery time, adverse events, and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were also recorded during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Results

Propofol consumption per minute was 11.78, 10.56, 10.14, and 9.57 (mg/min) in groups P, PK1, PK2, and PK3, respectively; compared with group P, groups PK2 and PK3 showed a decrease of 13.92% (P = 0.021) and 18.76% (P = 0.000), respectively. In all four groups, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), but not pulse oxygen saturation (SpO₂) significantly decreased (P = 0.000) immediately after administration of induction, but there were no significant differences between the groups. The induction time of groups P, PK1, PK2, and PK3 was 68.52 ± 18.394, 64.83 ± 13.543, 62.23 ± 15.197, and 61.35 ± 14.470 s, respectively (P = 0.041). Adverse events and psychotomimetic effects were observed but without significant differences between the groups.

Conclusions

The combination of 0.2 mg/kg esketamine and propofol was effective and safe in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy as evidenced by less propofol consumption per minute, shorter induction time, and lower incidence of cough and body movement relative to propofol alone. The lack of significant differences in hemodynamic results, anesthesia-related indices, adverse events, and MMSE results showed the safety to apply this combination for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Trial registration This study was registered with China Clinical Trial Registration on 07/11/2020 (registration website: chictr.org.cn; registration numbers: ChiCTR https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/2000039750).

Anesthesia for digestive tract endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonoperating room anesthesia for digestive tract endoscopy has its own specificities and requires practical training. Monitoring devices, anesthetic drugs, understanding of procedures and management of complications are critical aspects.

RECENT FINDINGS

New data are available regarding risk factors for intra- and postoperative complications (based on anesthesia registries), airway management, new anesthetic drugs, techniques of administration and management of advances in interventional endoscopy procedures.

SUMMARY

Digestive tract endoscopy is a common procedure that takes place outside the operating room most of the time and has become more and more complex due to advanced invasive procedures. Prior evaluation of the patient's comorbidities and a good understanding of the objectives and constraints of the endoscopic procedures are required. Assessing the risk of gastric content aspiration is critical for determining appropriate anesthetic protocols. The availability of adequate monitoring (capnographs adapted to spontaneous ventilation, bispectral index), devices for administration of anesthetic/sedative agents (target-controlled infusion) and oxygenation (high flow nasal oxygenation) guarantees the quality of sedation and patient' safety during endoscopic procedures. Knowledge of the specificities of each interventional endoscopic procedure (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, submucosal dissection) allows preventing complications during anesthesia.

Efficacy and Safety of Deep Sedation and Anaesthesia for Complex Endoscopic Procedures—A Narrative Review

Propofol sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures is a widespread technique at present, which generates controversy worldwide when anaesthetic or non-anaesthetic personnel administer this form of sedation. There is some evidence for safe administered propofol sedation by non-anaesthetic personnel in patients undergoing endoscopy procedures, but there are only few randomised trials addressing the safety and efficacy of propofol in patients undergoing advanced procedures. A serious possible consequence of propofol sedation is the rapid and unpredictable progression from deep sedation to general anaesthesia mostly when elderly and frail patients are involved in the diagnosis or treatment of various neoplasia. This situation requires rescue measures with skilled airway management. The aim of this paper is to review the safety and efficacy aspects of sedation techniques, with special reference to propofol administration covering the whole patient journey, including preassessment, sedation options and discharge when advanced endoscopic procedures are performed.

Long-term high-risk drinking does not change effective doses of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope in Chinese male patients

Background

Available literature indicates that long-term drinkers demand a higher dose of propofol for induction of anesthesia than non-drinkers. However, there is no study having assessed the influence of long-term high-risk drinking (LTHRD) on the effective doses of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope with sedation. This study was designed to compare the effective doses of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope between LTHRD and non-drinking (ND) Chinese male patients.

Methods

Thirty-one LTHRD patients and 29 ND male patients undergoing elective gastroscopy with propofol sedation were enrolled. The modified Dixon’s up-and-down method was applied to determine the calculated median effective dose (ED₅₀) of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope. Furthermore, the isotonic regression analysis was used to establish the dose–response curve of propofol and assess the effective doses of propofol where 50% (ED₅₀) and 95% (ED₉₅) of gastroscope insertions were successful.

Results

The calculated ED₅₀ of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope was 1.55 ± 0.10 mg/kg and 1.44 ± 0.11 mg/kg in the LTHRD and ND patients. The isotonic regression analysis further showed that ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope was 1.50 mg/kg (95%CI, 1.40–1.63) and 1.80 mg/kg (95%CI, 1.74–1.90) in the LTHRD patients, respectively; 1.40 mg/kg (95% CI, 1.27–1.57) and 1.60 mg/kg (95%CI, 1.56–1.65) in the ND patients. The ED₅₀ of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope was not significantly different between LTHRD and ND patients.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the difference in the estimated ED₅₀ of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope between LTHRD and ND Chinese male patients was not statistically significant.

Trial registration

The study was registered on November 28, 2020 (ChiCTR2000040382) in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01725-2.

An Integrative Bioinformatics Analysis of the Potential Mechanisms Involved in Propofol Affecting Hippocampal Neuronal Cells

The aim of this study is to probe the possible molecular mechanisms underlying the effects of propofol on HT22 cells. HT22 cells treated with different concentrations were sequenced, and then the results of the sequencing were analyzed for dynamic trends. Expression pattern clustering analysis was performed to demonstrate the expression of genes in the significant trend modules in each group of samples. We first chose the genes related to the trend module for WGCNA analysis, then constructed the PPI network of module genes related to propofol treatment group, and screened the key genes. Finally, GSEA analysis was performed on the key genes. Overall, 2,506 genes showed a decreasing trend with increasing propofol concentration, and 1,871 genes showed an increasing trend with increasing propofol concentration. WGCNA analysis showed that among them, turquoise panel genes were negatively correlated with propofol treatment, and genes with Cor R >0.9 in the turquoise panel were selected for PPI network construction. The MCC algorithm screened a total of five key genes (CD86, IL10RA, PTPRC, SPI1, and ITGAM). GSEA analysis showed that CD86, IL10RA, PTPRC, SPI1, and ITGAM are involved in the PRION_DISEASES pathway. Our study showed that propofol sedation can affect mRNA expression in the hippocampus, providing new ideas to identify treatment of nerve injury induced by propofol anesthesia.

The effectiveness of esketamine and propofol versus dezocine and propofol sedation during gastroscopy: A randomized controlled study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol is widely used in painless gastroscopy. However, sedation with propofol alone might increase the risk of respiratory and circulatory complications. This randomized clinical study compares the efficacy and safety of esketamine or dezocine combined with intravenous (IV) propofol in patients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 102 patients were enrolled in this study and randomized into two groups. All patients were adults aged 18-64 years who underwent upper gastrointestinal gastroscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups to receive esketamine (0.3 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group E) or dezocine (0.05 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group D). In both groups, the drugs were administered intravenously. The primary outcome was the dose of propofol which provided a satisfactory sedative effect, both to the endoscopist and the patients. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, side effects (such as hypotension, nausea and vomiting and agitation), and the number of adverse circulatory and respiratory events.

RESULTS

Data of 83 patients were analysed in the present study. Dosage of propofol required in group E (1.44 mg/kg ± 0.67 mg/kg) was significantly lower compared with that in group D (2.12 mg/kg ± 0.37 mg/kg) (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in recovery time, side effects, and the frequency of sedation-related adverse events between the two groups.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The study indicates that intravenous injection of propofol and esmketamine is more effective for gastroscopy. Use of esketamine reduces the total amount of propofol required in ASA I-II patients undergoing gastroscopy compared with single use of dezocine. It also provides more stable hemodynamics, without affecting the recovery time and side effects such as respiratory and circulatory adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (www.chictr.org.cn; registration number: ChiCTR2100051814) on 05/10/2021.

Effect of electroacupuncture on discomfort during gastroscopy: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Gastroscopy procedures are frequently performed under general sedation to minimize discomfort. Patients who refuse a sedative injection may experience more discomfort and adverse reactions such as pain and nausea. These instances reduce patient compliance and willingness to participate in future procedures. Acupuncture has been shown to have an anti-nausea and analgesic effect; however, there is limited data available that demonstrates the efficacy of acupuncture when applied before gastroscopy.

Methods

A total of 60 participants will be randomly assigned to the electroacupuncture (EA) group and the sham electroacupuncture (SEA) group at a ratio of 1:1. Acupuncture treatment will be performed before gastroscopy for a duration of 30 min. All patients will complete detailed questionnaires at 30 min and 7 days post-procedure to record the severity of their symptoms. The primary outcome will be the average of 4 standard visual analogue scale (VAS) scores in the categories of nausea, vomiting, throat discomfort, and agitation as reported by the patient. The secondary outcomes will be patient’s anxiety level as recorded by the 6-item short form of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S6) and Amsterdam Pre-Operative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS), preference in a future endoscopy, pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), heart rate (HR), and blood pressure (BP). Anxiety scales will be assessed before and after acupuncture; others will be completed at 30 min and 7 days post-procedure. The duration of the gastroscopy and the number of biopsies will be recorded after operation.

Discussion

This randomized controlled trial will explore the feasibility of the further clinical application of electroacupuncture for the improvement of patient discomfort during gastroscopy without systemic sedation.

Trial registration

ChiCTR2000040726. This trial has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Shanghai Municipal Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine (2020SHL-KY-11). Registration date 12 August 2020.

Gastroscopy sedation: clinical trial comparing propofol and sufentanil with or without remimazolam

BACKGROUND

Propofol-sufentanil is often used in clinical anesthesia for patients undergoing sedative gastroscopy, but there are still adverse events such as longer recovery time, respiratory depression and higher doses of propofol etc. This study was to evaluate the sedative effect of remimazolam-propofol-sufentanil in sedative gastroscopy.

METHODS

Patients who were going to have gastroscopy examination were randomly divided into two groups: Group RM (remimazolam-propofol-sufentanil group) and group PR (propofol-sufentanil group). Patients of each group were anesthetized according to the corresponding anesthesia procedure, and all observation indices were recorded.

RESULTS

In the RM group, there were only small and unsignificant changes in the values of SBP, HR, RR and SpO2 after anesthesia(P>0.05), while the values of SBP, HR, RR and SpO2 in the PR group at each time point after anesthesia were significantly lower than those at T0, and the values of SBP and RR at T2, T3 and T4 were also significantly lower than those at T1（P<0.05). The dosage of propofol (38±9 mg) in the RM group was significantly less than that (115±15 mg) in the PR group, meanwhile the anesthesia time (8.4±1.6 min), awakening time (2.9±0.8 min), discharge time (6.7±3.1 min) of the RM group were also significantly shorter than those of the PR group (14.5±3.3, 8.7±1.9, 12.4±3.6 min)（P<0.05), but there was no statistical significance between the two groups in other indices（P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In clinical practice, remimazolam-propofol-sufentanil sedative scheme has more advantages than propofol-sufentanil sedative scheme.

Efficacy of high flow nasal oxygenation against hypoxemia in sedated patients receiving gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of high flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) on the risk of hypoxemia during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (GEPs) under sedation.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

SETTING

Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

INTERVENTION

HFNO.

PATIENTS

Adults patients undergoing GEPs under sedation.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was risk of hypoxemia, while the secondary outcomes included risks of severe hypoxemia, hypercapnia, need for jaw thrust or other airway interventions, and procedural interruption as well as procedure time, minimum SpO₂, and level of carbon dioxide (CO₂). Analyses based on age, gender, flow rate, risk status of patients were performed to investigate subgroup effects.

RESULTS

Medline, Google scholar, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to July 2021. Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 2998 patients published from 2019 to 2021 were included. All GEPs were performed under propofol sedation. Pooled results revealed significantly lower risks of hypoxemia [relative risk (RR) = 0.31, 95% CI:0.13-0.75; 2998 patients], severe hypoxemia (RR = 0.38, 95% CI:0.2-0.74; 2766 patients), other airway interventions (RR = 0.34, 95% CI:0.22-0.52; 2736 patients), procedural interruption (RR = 0.12, 95% CI:0.02-0.64, 451 patients) and a lower CO₂ level [standard mean difference (MD) = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.4 to -0.03; 458 patients] in HFNO group compared to control group. Subgroup analysis focusing on risk of hypoxemia showed no significant subgroup effects, indicating consistent benefits of HFNO in different clinical settings. There were no difference in minimum SpO₂ (p = 0.06; 262 patients), risk of hypercapnia (p = 0.09; 393 patients), need for jaw thrust (p = 0.28; 2256 patients), and procedure time (p = 0.41, 1004 patients) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated the efficacy of high flow nasal oxygenation for reducing the risk of hypoxemia in patients receiving elective gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures under sedation. Further studies are warranted to verify its cost-effectiveness in the gastrointestinal endoscopy setting.

Pain Intensity at Injection Site during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Using Long- and Medium-Chain versus Long-Chain Triglyceride Propofol: A Randomized Controlled Double-Blind Study

Background/Aims

The intensities of injection pain resulting from the use of long- and medium-chain triglyceride (LCT/MCT) propofol and conventional LCT propofol during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) have yet to be compared. We aimed to determine the pain intensity caused by different formulations of propofol and to evaluate the formulation that would be preferred by patients as a sedative agent during their next procedure.

Methods

This study was a single-center, randomized, controlled, and double-blind trial. Pain intensity was estimated 30 seconds after propofol injection by an examiner who was blinded to the group assignment using a numeric (0-10) pain rating scale (NPRS). After 1 week, the patients were asked whether they could recall the pain and were willing to receive the same agent for their next EGD.

Results

One hundred twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to LCT/MCT or LCT group. Although there was no significant difference in pain incidence between the LCT/MCT and LCT groups (52.9% vs 65.6%, p=0.156), the pain intensity was significantly lower in the LCT/MCT group (NPRS median [interquartile range]; 1 (0-2) vs 2 (0-5), p=0.005). After 1 week, fewer patients in the LCT/MCT group recalled the pain (19.1% vs 63.9%, p<0.001) and more patients in the LCT/MCT group were more willing to use the same agent for their next procedure (86.8% vs 72.1%, p=0.048) than in the LCT group.

Conclusions

LCT/MCT propofol significantly reduced injection pain intensity compared to LCT propofol during EGD and preferred by patients as a sedative agent during their next EGD.

Anti-tumor Activity of Propofol: A Focus on MicroRNAs

BACKGROUND

MicroRNAs are endogenous, short, non-coding RNAs with the length as low as 20 to 25 nucleotides. These RNAs are able to negatively affect the gene expression at the post-transcriptional level. It has been demonstrated that microRNAs play a significant role in cell proliferation, cell migration, cell death, cell differentiation, infection, immune response, and metabolism. Besides, the dysfunction of microRNAs has been observed in a variety of cancers. So, modulation of microRNAs is of interest in the treatment of disorders.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current review is to investigate the modulatory effect of propofol on microRNAs in cancer therapy.

METHODS

This review was performed at PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science data-bases using keywords "propofol', "microRNA", "cancer therapy", "propofol + microRNA" and "propofol + miR".

RESULTS

It was found that propofol dually down-regulates/upregulates microRNAs to exert its antitumor activity. In terms of oncogenesis microRNAs, propofol exert an inhibitory effect, while propofol significantly enhances the expression of oncosuppressor microRNAs.

CONCLUSION

It seems that propofol is a potential modulator of microRNAs and this capability can be used in the treatment of various cancers.

Confocal laser endomicroscopy under propofol-based sedation for early gastric cancer and pre-cancerous lesions is associated with better diagnostic accuracy: a retrospective cohort study in China

Background

Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) has advantages in detecting gastric neoplastic lesions, meanwhile it requires strict patient cooperation. Sedation could improve patient cooperation and quality of endoscopy. However, sedation is still not very popular in some resource-limited countries and regions. The purpose of this study was to compare propofol-based sedated versus un-sedated CLE in the value of diagnosing early gastric cancer (EGC) and precancerous lesions.

Methods

A retrospective, cohort, single center study of 226 patients who underwent CLE between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017 was performed. Patients enrolled were allocated into the propofol-based sedated group (n = 126) and the un-sedated group (n = 100). The comparison of validity and reliability of CLE for identifying EGC and precancerous lesions between the two groups was performed through analyzing CLE diagnosis and pathological diagnosis. Reporting followed the STROBE guidelines.

Results

The area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of diagnosing EGC in the sedated group was 0.97 (95 % CI: 0.95 to 0.99), which was higher than that in the un-sedated group (0.88 (95 % CI: 0.80 to 0.97), P = 0.0407). CLE with sedation performed better than without sedation in diagnosing intraepithelial neoplasia and intestinal metaplasia (P = 0.0008 and P = 0.0001, respectively). For patients considered as high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia or EGC by endoscopists, they would not get biopsy during CLE but receive endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) subsequently, and the misdiagnosis rate of CLE was 0 % in the sedated group and 27.59 % (95 % CI: 10.30–44.91 %) in the un-sedated group (P = 0.006).

Conclusions

Propofol based sedation was associated with improved diagnostic value of CLE for detecting EGC as well as precancerous lesions (intraepithelial neoplasia OR intestinal metaplasia).

Risk Factors for Prolonged Hospital Stay after Endoscopy

Background/Aims

The recovery room used after endoscopy has limited capacity, and an efficient flow of the endoscopy unit is desired. We investigated the duration of hospital stay after endoscopy and the risk factors for prolonged hospital stay among outpatients.

Methods

We retrospectively studied consecutive patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy at the Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic. We collected data on age, sex, body weight, midazolam and pethidine dosage, respiratory depression during endoscopy, and duration of hospital stay after endoscopy (scope out to check out). Risk factors for prolonged hospital stay (>100 minutes) were identified using multiple logistic regression analysis.

Results

We enrolled 3,898 patients, including 3,517 (90.2%) patients tested under sedation and 381 (9.8%) patients tested without sedation. Overall, 442 (11.3%) patients had prolonged stay (>100 min). The mean time difference between sedation group and non-sedation group was 44.2 minutes for esophagogastroduodenoscopy and 39.1 minutes for colonoscopy. Age (odds ratio [OR], 1.025; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.014−1.036), female sex (OR, 1.657; 95% CI, 1.220−2.249), and midazolam dose (OR, 1.019; 95% CI, 1.013−1.026) were independently associated with prolonged hospital stay after esophagogastroduodenoscopy, with similar results for colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Old age, female sex, and midazolam dose were independent risk factors for prolonged hospital stay after endoscopy.

Safety and efficacy of fentanyl versus pethidine in cataract surgery under propofol- based sedation: A double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial

Background:

The study was aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of fentanyl and pethidine on the sedative quality of patients who underwent phacoemulsification cataract surgery with Propofol.

Materials and Methods:

In this double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial, patients who were candidates for elective phacoemulsification surgery with topical anesthesia were enrolled. The selected patients were randomly allocated into the two groups for receiving sedation with Propofol-Pethidine (PP) or propofol-fentanyl (PF) combinations. Demographic characteristics, hemodynamic parameters before, during, and after the operation, sedation and pain scores, and patients' and surgeons' satisfaction scores were compared in the two studied groups.

Results:

In this trial, 70 patients (35 patients in each group) have completed the study. Mean (standard deviation) operation time was 22.9 (6.8) and 25.46 (7.7) minutes in PF and PP groups (P = 0.118).Mean pain score in PF 0.46 (0.14) was significantly higher than PP groups 0.236 (0.06) (P = 0.011). The mean value of diastolic and systolic blood pressures, pulse rate, and mean arterial pressure dioxide were significantly decreased in both PF and PP groups (P_Time < 0.001), although there was no significant difference between groups.

Conclusion:

Our findings indicated the equivalence effects on hemodynamic parameters for both pethidine and fentanyl in combination with propofol in which they could provide appropriate sedation and safe anesthesia with lower complications and acceptable patients' and surgeons' satisfaction.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol Sedation in Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Propensity Score Analysis

In spite of promising preliminary results, evidence supporting the use of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation (NAAP) in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures is still limited. The aim of this manuscript was to examine the safety and efficacy of NAAP as compared to anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in EUS procedures performed in a referral center. Out of 832 patients referred to our center between 2016 and 2019, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 305 treated with NAAP and 305 controls who underwent anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation. The primary outcome was the rate of major complications. The median age was 67 years and the proportion of patients with comorbidities was 31.8% in both groups. One patient in each group (0.3%) experienced a major complication, whereas minor complications were observed in 13 patients in the NAAP group (4.2%) and 10 patients in the control group (3.2%; p = 0.52). Overall pain during the procedure was 2.3 ± 1 in group 1 and 1.8 ± 1 in group 2 (p = 0.67), whereas pain/discomfort upon awakening was rated as 1 ± 0.5 in both groups (p = 0.72). NAAP is safe and effective even in advanced EUS procedures. Further randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to confirm these findings.

Nonoperating room anesthesia in different parts of the world

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advances in early diagnosis and treatment of diseases using minimally invasive procedures has led to an increase in the number of cases in locations outside the operating room. This surge created the need for anesthesia services to expand to these areas to provide well tolerated and favorable procedural conditions. The present review describes nonoperating room anesthesia patterns in different parts of the world.

RECENT FINDINGS

Nonoperating room anesthesia has grown exponentially over the last years. Patients scheduled in these areas are sicker and older compared to the operating room patients. Anesthesiologist-directed care has proven to be well tolerated, with less serious complications and improvement in patients and proceduralist satisfaction.

SUMMARY

There are marked variations in how anesthesia services are delivered in out of operating room locations in different parts of the world. Although there are some data available from the United States, expansion of minimally invasive procedures across continents will likely lead to the emergence of various models of delivering anesthetic care.

The propofol-sparing effect of intravenous lidocaine in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled study

Background

Propofol provides a prominent sedation effect in colonoscopy. However, anesthesia and sedation induced with propofol in the elderly might result in cardiopulmonary complications, especially when it is combined with opoids in the regimen. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation could decrease the overall propofol requirement in elderly patients during colonoscopy while the procedural sedation satisfaction and the hemodynamic stability were not compromised.

Methods

Ninety-two patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly enrolled into lidocaine+propofol (L + P) group or normal saline+propofol (NS + P) groups. Subjects received intravenous bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine followed by 4 mg kg^− 1 h^− 1 lidocaine continuous infusion in L + P group or equivalent volumes of normal saline for boluses and infusion in NS + P group. Anesthesia was induced with 2.5 μg sufentanil followed by injection of 1.2 mg kg^− 1 propofol in all patients. A single supplemental bolus of 0.6 mg kg^− 1 propofol was administered whenever MOAA/S score > 1 or had body movement during the colonoscopy. The recorded primary endpoints included: the total amount of propofol administered during entire procedure, the supplemental amount of propofol after induction, and the frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol.

Results

A total of 79 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with NS + P group, the total amounts of propofol (induction plus supplemental) were no significant differences in L + P group; however, the required supplemental propofol was less (69.9 ± 39.2 mg vs. 51.5 ± 38.6 mg) (P = 0.039); the average frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol given after induction were lower (2.1 ± 1.1 vs. 1.4 ± 0.9) (P = 0.003); the calculated “unit propofol” infusion rate was lower (0.18 ± 0.05 vs. 0.14 ± 0.04 mg kg^− 1 min^− 1) (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

The addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation resulted in a remarked reduction of supplemental propofol in the elderly during colonoscopy.

Trial registration

The present clinical trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn on 11th March 2019 (registration No. ChiCTR1900021818).

Efficacy and Safety of Etomidate in Comparison with Propofol or Midazolam as Sedative for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of etomidate with those of propofol or midazolam for the maintenance of sedation during endoscopy.

METHODS

The study enrolled patients who underwent sedative endoscopy in our hospital and divided them into three groups. Patients in each group were administered midazolam as induction therapy and were subsequently administered either midazolam (M + M group), propofol (M + P group), or etomidate (M + E group) as maintenance medication. The primary outcome was overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events.

RESULTS

In total, 105 patients who underwent sedative endoscopic examination were enrolled. The outcomes related to the procedure and sedation were not significantly different among the groups. Overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events were observed in 9 patients (25.7%) in the M + M group, 8 patients (23.5%) in the M + P group, and 10 patients (27.8%) in the M + E group. The logistic regression analysis revealed that etomidate use was not an independent risk factor for overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes following the use of etomidate for maintenance after induction with midazolam for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were not inferior to those following midazolam or propofol use from the perspectives of safety and efficacy.

Medical, Political, and Economic Considerations for the Use of MAC for Endoscopic Sedation: Big Price, Little Justification?

The last few decades of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy have seen phenomenal growth. In many aspects, GI endoscopy has led the field of nonsurgical interventional medicine. In many aspects, this growth is facilitated by advancements in sedation-both drugs and techniques. Unfortunately, the topic of GI endoscopy sedation is also mired in many controversies, mainly emanating from the cost of anesthesia providers. While no one debates their role in the majority of advanced endoscopic procedures, the practice of universal propofol sedation in the USA, delivered by anesthesia providers, needs a closer look. In this review, medical, political, and economic considerations of this important topic are discussed in a very frank and honest way. While such ubiquitous propofol use has increased satisfaction of both patients and gastroenterologists, there is little justification. More importantly, going by the evidence, there is even less justification for the mandated anesthesia providers use for such delivery. Unfortunately, the FDA could not be convinced otherwise. The new drug fospropofol met the same fate. Approval of SEDASYS^®, the first computer-assisted personalized sedation system, was a step in the right direction, nevertheless an insufficient step that failed to takeoff. As a result, in spite of years of research and efforts of many august societies, the logjam of balancing cost and justification of propofol sedation has continued. We hope that recent approval of remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, and potential approval of oliceridine, a novel short-acting opioid, might be able to contain the cost without compromising the quality of sedation.

Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol is commonly used for sedation during endoscopic procedures. Data suggests its superiority to traditional sedatives used in endoscopy including benzodiazepines and opioids with more rapid onset of action and improved post-procedure recovery times for patients. However, Propofol requires administration by trained healthcare providers, has a narrow therapeutic index, lacks an antidote and increases risks of cardio-pulmonary complications.

AIM

To compare, through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, sedation with propofol to traditional sedatives with or without propofol during endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, LILACS, BVS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. The last search in the literature was performed on March, 2019 with no restriction regarding the idiom or the year of publication. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. We divided sedation therapies to the following groups: (1) Propofol versus benzodiazepines and/or opiate sedatives; (2) Propofol versus Propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids; and (3) Propofol with adjunctive benzodiazepine and opioid versus benzodiazepine and opioid. The following outcomes were addressed: Adverse events, patient satisfaction with type of sedation, endoscopists satisfaction with sedation administered, dose of propofol administered and time to recovery post procedure. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5 software version 5.39.

RESULTS

A total of 23 clinical trials were included (n = 3854) from the initial search of 6410 articles. For Group I (Propofol vs benzodiazepine and/or opioids): The incidence of bradycardia was not statistically different between both sedation arms (RD: -0.01, 95%CI: −0.03–+0.01, I²: 22%). In 10 studies, the incidence of hypotension was not statistically difference between sedation arms (RD: 0.01, 95%CI: −0.02–+0.04, I²: 0%). Oxygen desaturation was higher in the propofol group but not statistically different between groups (RD: −0.03, 95%CI: −0.06–+0.00, I²: 25%). Patients were more satisfied with their sedation in the benzodiazepine + opioid group compared to those with monotherapy propofol sedation (MD: +0.89, 95%CI: +0.62–+1.17, I²: 39%). The recovery time after the procedure showed high heterogeneity even after outlier withdrawal, there was no statistical difference between both arms (MD: -15.15, 95%CI: −31.85–+1.56, I²: 99%). For Group II (Propofol vs propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids): Bradycardia had a tendency to occur in the Propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opioid-associated (RD: -0.08, 95%CI: −0.13–−0.02, I²: 59%). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of bradycardia (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: −0.08–+0.08, I²: 85%), desaturation (RD: −0.00, 95%CI: −0.03–+0.02, I²: 44%) or recovery time (MD: -2.04, 95%CI: −6.96–+2.88, I²: 97%) between sedation arms. The total dose of propofol was higher in the propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opiates but with high heterogeneity. (MD: 70.36, 95%CI: +53.11–+87.60, I²: 61%). For Group III (Propofol with benzodiazepine and opioid vs benzodiazepine and opioid): Bradycardia and hypotension was not statistically significant between groups (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: −0.002–+0.02, I²: 3%; RD: 0.04, 95%CI: −0.05–+0.13, I²: 77%). Desaturation was evaluated in two articles and was higher in the propofol + benzodiazepine + opioid group, but with high heterogeneity (RD: 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08–+0.22, I²: 95%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that the use of propofol alone or in combination with traditional adjunctive sedatives is safe and does not result in an increase in negative outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

Adverse events associated with bidirectional endoscopy with midazolam and pethidine

Same-day bidirectional endoscopy has been reported to reduce recovery time, and procedure-related cost. The safety of bidirectional endoscopy vs colonoscopy only, while using midazolam and pethidine, has never been evaluated. We reviewed 1,202 consecutive patients who underwent bidirectional endoscopy or colonoscopy only with administration of midazolam and pethidine in Toyoshima Ensdoscopy Clinic. We compared the clinical characteristics and adverse events associated with method of endoscopy (colonoscopy only vs bidirectional endoscopy). Furthermore, multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to study the role of age, sex, use of sedative, polypectomy, and bidirectional endoscopy in adverse events. In the bidirectional endoscopy group, the doses of pethidine and midazolam, and the incidence rates of hypoxia and posto-endoscopic nausea were significantly higher. On multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio = 1.061, p<0.001), use of pethidine (odds ratio = 4.311, p = 0.003), and bidirectional endoscopy (odds ratio = 3.658, p<0.001) were independently associated with hypoxia. On multivariate analysis, female sex (odds ratio = 10.25, p = 0.027) and bidirectional endoscopy (odds ratio = 6.051, p = 0.022) were independently associated with post-endoscopic nausea. In conclusion, bidirectional endoscopy could increase hypoxia in elderly patients using pethidine and post-endoscopic nausea in female patients.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy and hypoxia during gastroscopy with propofol sedation: a randomized multicenter clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hypoxia is one of the most frequent adverse events with sedated GI endoscopy and can lead to serious consequences. No modalities have been found previously to prevent hypoxia. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) supportive oxygen therapy provides heated and humidified oxygen up to 60 L/minute. Because of its ability to improve respiratory function and good tolerance, we aimed to evaluate the validity and safety of HFNC supportive oxygen therapy in preventing the incidence of hypoxia in patients undergoing gastroscopy with propofol sedation.

METHODS

In a multicenter, prospective randomized single-blinded study, 1994 outpatients undergoing routine gastroscopy with propofol sedation provided by an anesthesiologist were randomized into 2 groups: the nasal cannula group (O₂ [2 L/minute] was supplied via an HFNC) and the HFNC group (O₂ [30-60 L/minute] was supplied via an HFNC) at 3 centers from November 2017 to February 2018. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxia. Other adverse events were also recorded.

RESULTS

HFNC supportive oxygen therapy decreased the incidence of hypoxia (75% ≤ Spo₂ < 90% for <60 seconds) and severe hypoxia (Spo₂ < 75% for any duration or 75% ≤ Spo₂ < 90% for ≥60 seconds) from 8.4% to 0% (P < .001) and from 0.6% to 0% (P = .03), respectively. The only HFNC-related adverse event was xeromycteria/rhinalgia (1.7%), which was observed 1 minute after the procedure and disappeared after 30 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC supportive oxygen therapy can prevent the incidence of hypoxia and severe hypoxia in patients in America Society of Anesthesiologists class I-II undergoing elective gastroscopy under propofol sedation, with minimal related adverse events and good tolerance. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03332433.).