Combined sedation with midazolam/propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients

Safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered sedation in an Italian referral hospital: An audit of 2 years and 19,407 procedures

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Balanced propofol sedation (BPS) administered by adequately trained non-anaesthesiologist personnel has gained popularity in GI endoscopy because of its shorter procedure and recovery time, high patient satisfaction, and low rate of adverse events (AEs), despite being considered controversial. We report data from an audit of endoscopist-directed (ED) nurse-administered sedation in an Italian referral hospital.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive endoscopic procedures performed between 2020 and 2022 were considered. Under the guidance of the endoscopist, the nurse administered midazolam/fentanyl, followed by a progressive top-up dosage of a 10-20 mg bolus of propofol to achieve moderate to deep sedation. The endoscopists and nurses were all certified in our hospital with a continuous and scheduled training from 2006.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 19,407 examinations (7,803 EGDS, 10,439 colonoscopies, 77 PEG, 697 EUS, and 365 ERCP) and 14,415 patients were included. Of these, 29.4 % of patients were classified as ASA I, 66.5 % as ASA II, and 5.1 % as ASA III. Hypotension was recorded in 1,293 (6 %) examinations and bradycardia in 176 (0.9 %) patients. Eleven patients (0.06 %) had minor respiratory adverse events. Two patients (0.01 %) had major AEs requiring orotracheal intubation.

CONCLUSIONS

ED-BPS is safe in low-risk patients. Major AEs occurred in 0.01 % of procedures.

Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol has a favourable efficacy profile in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, however adverse events remain frequent. Emerging evidence supports remimazolam use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares remimazolam and propofol, both combined with a short-acting opioid, for sedation of adults in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy-, safety-, and satisfaction-related outcomes between remimazolam and propofol, both combined with short-acting opioids, for sedation of adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We performed sensitivity analyses, subgroup assessments by type of short-acting opioid used and age range, and meta-regression analysis using mean patient age as a covariate. We used R statistical software for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

We included 15 trials (4516 subjects). Remimazolam was associated with a significantly lower sedation success rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.991; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.984-0.998; high-quality evidence) and a slightly longer induction time (mean difference [MD] 9 s; 95% CI 4-13; moderate-quality evidence), whereas there was no significant difference between the sedatives in other time-related outcomes. Remimazolam was associated with significantly lower rates of respiratory depression (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.30-0.56; high-quality evidence), hypotension (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.35-0.51; moderate-quality evidence), hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.12-0.52; high-quality evidence), and bradycardia (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30-0.58; high-quality evidence). There was no difference in patient (MD 0.41; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence) and endoscopist satisfaction (MD -0.31; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.04; high-quality evidence) between both drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam has clinically similar efficacy and greater safety when compared with propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopies.

Patient Anxiety in Endoscopy: A Comparative Analysis of Single vs. Dual Procedure Effects

AIM

This study aimed to investigate the difference in anxiety levels between patients undergoing gastroscopy only and those subjected to both gastroscopy and colonoscopy. Despite known preoperative anxiety impacts, no prior research has compared these specific patient groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 150 patients were divided equally into two groups: Group I, undergoing gastroscopy only, and Group II, undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy. Inclusion criteria were patients in the age range 18-70 years and having an ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status classification of I-III. Exclusion criteria were patients outside the age range, and patients with hearing disorders, psychiatric disorders, dementia, or recent anxiolytic drug use. Anxiety was analysed using the Beck Anxiety Inventory Scale before procedures, without any premedication.

RESULTS

Patients in Group II had significantly higher anxiety levels, with particular increases noted in symptoms such as leg weakness and tremors, inability to relax, and fears of adverse events and death. These results highlighted a considerable elevation in anxiety among patients anticipating or undergoing combined endoscopic procedures.

DISCUSSION

The findings revealed that undergoing combined gastroscopy and colonoscopy procedures significantly elevated patient anxiety levels compared to gastroscopy alone. This suggests a critical need for healthcare providers to implement more strong preoperative counselling and anxiety reduction strategies for patients facing multiple procedures. Addressing this increased anxiety could lead to better patient experiences, reduced procedural complications, and improved satisfaction and outcomes.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation Training Curricula and Propofol Administration in Digestive Endoscopy Procedures: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Although efficacy and safety of nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol and nurse-administered propofol sedation practices have been amply demonstrated in patients at low American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status risk, they are still severely limited. To date, it is quite difficult to find a protocol or a shared training program. The aim of the study was to verify requirements, types of training, and operating methods described in the literature for the administration of propofol by a nurse. A scoping review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and in line with Arksey and O'Malley's framework, within four main databases of biomedical interest: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. We selected studies published during the last 20 years, including only nurses not trained in anesthesia. Seventeen articles were eligible. Despite the differences between the training and administration methods, efficacy and safety of deep sedation managed by trained nurses were comparable, just like when sedation was administered by certified registered nurse anesthetists. Training programs have been investigated in detail by only a small number of studies, although its efficacy and safety have been widely demonstrated. It is important, then, to collect evidence that allows developing of unified international guidelines for training methods to offer safe and cost-effective quality sedation.

Procedural sedation analgesia in the elderly patient

Elderly patients are perceived as a high-risk group for procedural sedation. Procedural sedation analgesia (PSA) is generally safe in older adults. What is not acceptable is undertreating pain or inadequately sedating a stable patient. All the usual precautions should be taken. One should consider any comorbidities that could make the patient more at risk of adverse reactions or complications. Older patients may be at higher risk for oxygen desaturation, but they usually respond quickly to supplemental oxygen. Geriatric patients usually require lower doses of medications. They tend to be more sensitive to medications, with slower metabolism, less physiologic reserve to handle side effects, and a smaller volume of distribution. The use of drugs for sedation in elderly patients requires careful consideration of their age-related changes in physiology and pharmacokinetics. The choice of drug should be based on the patient's medical condition, comorbidities, and potential adverse effects. Moreover, the administration should be done by trained personnel with close monitoring of vital signs and level of consciousness to prevent complications such as respiratory depression.

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.

Acupuncture to Improve Patient Discomfort During Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims

Severe discomfort during an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) is often a stressful experience for patients undergoing the procedure. An increasing number of studies have shown that acupuncture may reduce discomfort during UGE. A systematic review in 2004 investigated the effect of acupuncture for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but these data have not been recently reviewed. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the current evidence and provide up-to-date knowledge for clinical decision-making.

Methods

Nine databases were searched from inception to June 2021. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The outcome data were synthesized where necessary, and risks of bias of included studies were assessed using RevMan V.5.3.

Results

Twenty-three eligible RCTs with 3,349 patients were identified. It was found that acupuncture plus topical pharyngeal anesthesia with lidocaine hydrochloride (TPALH) resulted in greater improvements regarding visual analog scale (VAS) scores and the incidence of nausea and vomiting (INV) when compared with TPALH alone. These results were consistent among studies of manual acupuncture, electroacupuncture, auricular-plaster, superficial needle (SFN) and acupressure. In the meta-analysis, SFN plus TPALH showed significant improvement of VAS scores compared to sham SFN plus TPALH (MD -1.11, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.70, P < 0.00001). Most of included studies did not report any side effects in their findings, and were of medium-to-high risk of bias.

Conclusion

Acupuncture, as adjunctive therapy to TPA, may result in less patient discomfort than TPA alone. Findings from this review should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity identified. There is low-quality evidence supporting the use of acupuncture over sham. More rigorously designed RCTs are needed to inform clinical decision-making.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO [CRD42014008966].

Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Relevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

Seven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.95-7.88, I2 = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = -2.72-8.19, I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25-1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46-2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11-0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38-6.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Clinical efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen in patients undergoing ERCP under sedation

Hypoxemia can occur during endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) and it is difficult to achieve adequate ventilation with the prone position. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has been recommended to be more effectively help ventilation than conventional low flow oxygen. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of HFNO during sedated ERCP and to identify predictors of desaturation during ERCP. The investigated variables were age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists classes (ASA), duration of exam, and sedative used for midazolam or/and propofol of 262 patients with sedated ERCP. The differences between categorical and continuous variables were analyzed using the Student's t test and the chi-square test. Desaturation (SpO2 ≤ 90%) occurred in 9(3.4%) patients among 262 patients during sedated ERCP. The variables found to predict desaturation were older age (p < 0.01), higher sedation dose for midazolam or propofol (p < 0.01), and use of midazolam (p < 0.01). Desaturation rate was lower during sedated ERCP with HFNO compared to the preliminary study with conventional low flow nasal oxygen. Patients with older age, higher sedation dose, or the use of midazolam might require close monitoring for desaturation and hypoventilation by nursing staff. The study shows the use of high-flow nasal oxygen reduces the incidence of desaturation during ERCP.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Propofol sedation with a target-controlled infusion pump and bispectral index monitoring system in elderly patients during a complex upper endoscopy procedure

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although the usefulness of propofol sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric neoplasms was reported previously, information is limited on its use in elderly patients. We investigated the safety and efficacy of propofol sedation with a target-controlled infusion (TCI) pump and bispectral index (BIS) monitoring system (TCI/BIS system) in elderly patients during gastric ESD.

METHODS

Included were 413 consecutive gastric ESD procedures involving 455 lesions (379 patients) performed in patients under propofol sedation with a TCI/BIS system between October 2009 and September 2013. Patients were divided into 3 groups: group A, age <70 years (n = 162); group B, age ≥70 and <80 years (n = 171); and group C, age ≥80 years (n = 80). We compared the propofol dose and adverse events (eg, hypotension and hypoxemia) during ESD.

RESULTS

Older groups required a lower target concentration of propofol (group A: median 2.1 μg/mL [interquartile range (IQR), 1.9-2.3]; group B: median 1.6 μg/mL [IQR, 1.3-1.8]; and group C: median 1.4 μg/mL [IQR, 1.2-1.6]; P < .0001). Hypotension tended to occur in the younger group, and hypoxemia occurred at a significantly higher rate in the older groups, although the number of cases was small. Low preoperative systolic blood pressure (≤125 mm Hg) was associated with hypotension (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-2.70; P = .013) and abnormal pulmonary function was associated with hypoxemia in groups B and C (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 1.01-31.5; P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients required lower doses of propofol with the TCI/BIS system than younger patients. Attention to hypoxemia is necessary in elderly patients, particularly patients with abnormal pulmonary function.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective study comparing nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol and monitored anesthesia care

INTRODUCTION

Adequate sedation is one of the cornerstones of good quality gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE). Propofol sedation has increased significantly but there has been much debate over whether it can be administered by endoscopists. The aim of this prospective trial was to compare nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC).

METHODS

A total of 2000 outpatients undergoing GIE at Hospital Albert Einstein (São Paulo, Brazil), a tertiary-care private hospital, were divided into two matched groups: NAAP (n = 1000) and MAC (n = 1000). In NAAP, propofol doses were determined by the endoscopist. A second physician stayed in the room during the entire procedure, according to local regulations. In MAC, the anesthesiologist administered propofol.

RESULTS

In total, 1427 patients (71.3 %) were ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) class I and 573 were ASA class II. In NAAP, patients received more propofol + fentanyl (61.1 % vs. 50.5 %; P < 0.05) and there were fewer cases of deep sedation (44.7 % vs. 66.1 %; P < 0.05). Hypoxemia rates were similar (12.8 % for NAAP and 11.2 % for MAC; P = 0.3) but these reverted more rapidly in MAC (4.22 seconds vs. 7.26 seconds; P < 0.05). Agitation was more frequent in MAC (14.0 % vs. 5.6 %; P < 0.05). No later complications were observed. Patient satisfaction was very high and similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

In this setting, NAAP was as safe and effective as MAC for healthy patients undergoing GIE. Clinical trial ref. no.: U1111-1134-4430.

Non-anesthesiologist administrated propofol (NAAP) during endoscopic submucosal dissection for elderly patients with early gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Propofol is rapidly increasing in use in many countries because endoscopists and patients report greater satisfaction with propofol than with conventional sedatives. However, propofol infusion during lengthy endoscopic procedures in elderly patients is still controversial. We investigated the safety of gastroenterologist-guided propofol sedation in elderly patients who underwent gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) at a single center.

METHODS

We reviewed 121 medical records of patients who underwent gastric ESD. We compared retrospectively the details of propofol usage, hemodynamics, and re-sedation in the elderly group to those in a younger group.

RESULTS

No significant differences in patients' baseline characteristic including ASA classification between elderly and younger groups were shown. The average maintenance dose and total dose of propofol infusion could be similarly administrated in both groups. Seven adverse events (5.8 %) occurred at the time of propofol bolus injection. Although 3 cases (2.5 %) of hypotension (systolic blood pressure <80 mmHg), 8 cases (6.6 %) of desaturation (blood oxygen saturation <90 %) and 1 case (0.8 %) of bradycardia (pulse rate <40) were found during the maintenance of propofol infusion, there were no statistically significant differences in the elderly and younger groups. All events were immediately resolved without any intervention. No patients developed a re-sedated condition.

CONCLUSION

Gastroenterologist-guided propofol sedation during gastric ESD may be acceptable even in the elderly with ASA classification I/II under careful monitoring of vital signs and oxygen saturation.

Usefulness of intraductal ultrasonography in icteric patients with highly suspected choledocholithiasis showing normal endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Choledocholithiasis is one of the causes of jaundice and may require urgent treatment. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been the primary management strategy for choledocholithiasis. However, small stones can be overlooked during ERCP.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of intraductal ultrasonography (IDUS) for detecting choledocholithiasis in icteric patients with highly suspected common bile duct (CBD) stones without definite stone diagnosis on ERCP.

METHODS

Ninety-five icteric (bilirubin ≥ 3 mg/dL) patients who underwent ERCP for highly suspected choledocholithiasis without definite filling defects on cholangiography were prospectively enrolled in the present study. We evaluated the bile duct using IDUS for the presence of stones or sludge. Reference standard for choledocholithiasis was endoscopic extraction of stone or sludge.

RESULT

Bile duct stones were detected with IDUS in 31 of 95 patients (32.6%). IDUS findings were confirmed by endoscopic stone extraction in all patients. The mean diameter of CBD stones detected by IDUS was 2.9 mm (range 1-7 mm). IDUS revealed biliary sludge in 24 patients (25.2%) which was confirmed by sludge extraction in 21 patients (87.5%). In dilated CBD, detection rate of bile duct stone/sludge based on IDUS was significantly higher than in non-dilated CBD (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

IDUS is useful for the detection of occult CBD stone on ERCP in icteric patients with highly suspected CBD stones.

Stepwise sedation for elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

AIM

To investigate stepwise sedation for elderly patients with mild/moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy.

METHODS

Eighty-six elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD and 82 elderly patients without COPD scheduled for upper GI endoscopy were randomly assigned to receive one of the following two sedation methods: stepwise sedation involving three-stage administration of propofol combined with midazolam [COPD with stepwise sedation (group Cs), and non-COPD with stepwise sedation (group Ns)] or continuous sedation involving continuous administration of propofol combined with midazolam [COPD with continuous sedation (group Cc), and non-COPD with continuous sedation (group Nc)]. Saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2), blood pressure, and pulse rate were monitored, and patient discomfort, adverse events, drugs dosage, and recovery time were recorded.

RESULTS

All endoscopies were completed successfully. The occurrences of hypoxemia in groups Cs, Cc, Ns, and Nc were 4 (9.3%), 12 (27.9%), 3 (7.3%), and 5 (12.2%), respectively. The occurrence of hypoxemia in group Cs was significantly lower than that in group Cc (P < 0.05). The average decreases in value of SpO2, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure in group Cs were significantly lower than those in group Cc. Additionally, propofol dosage and overall rate of adverse events in group Cs were lower than those in group Cc. Finally, the recovery time in group Cs was significantly shorter than that in group Cc, and that in group Ns was significantly shorter than that in group Nc (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The stepwise sedation method is effective and safer than the continuous sedation method for elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD during upper GI endoscopy.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

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).

Utility and problems of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer in elderly patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is reported to be a safe and reliable procedure for the elderly, but these reports could have already had a bias at the time ESD was performed. However, the reports have not clearly stated the criteria of indications. In the present study, we retrospectively elucidated the usefulness and problems of ESD for early gastric cancer in elderly patients (≥ 65 years) in comparison with non-elderly patients.

METHODS

The subjects were selected from 412 consecutive patients with early gastric cancer (515 lesions) for which ESD was performed between June 2002 and February 2010. The following were used for analysis between groups: pre- and postoperative performance status (PS) of subjects, prevalence rates of pre-existing comorbidities, characteristics of lesions, treatment outcomes, durations of hospitalization, operating times, incidence rates of complications and durations of hospitalization, and postoperative hemorrhage rates, and duration of hospitalization in patients with anticoagulant therapy.

RESULTS

Of the lesions in the elderly, four patients (1.0%) were elderly with a PS of 3. The PS increased to six patients (1.6%) after the procedure. None of the non-elderly had a PS of 3 before or after the procedure. The ratio of patients with a pre-existing comorbidity was higher in the elderly than in the non-elderly. There were no differences between the two groups in the characteristics of the lesions, their duration of hospitalization, their operating times, or the incidence rates of complications. However, the elderly with perforations had a significantly longer hospitalization than the comparable non-elderly. The percentage of the patients taking anticoagulant drugs was significantly higher among the elderly. Of the patients on anticoagulant therapy, the duration of hospitalization tended to be longer in the elderly but no significant difference was found. None of the non-elderly with postoperative hemorrhage had received anticoagulant therapy. In the elderly with postoperative hemorrhage, 15.8% of the lesions were in those who had received anticoagulant therapy, indicating a significantly higher percentage of such lesions in the elderly group.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that ESD is useful in elderly patients because there is a similar risk as for the non-elderly if the approach is individualized, and the following are taken into consideration when making the final decision of performing ESD in an elderly patient: patients should have a PS of 0, 1, or 2; determine whether or not anticoagulant therapy can be discontinued and whether or not treatment can be performed reliably without complications.

Age-dependent safety analysis of propofol-based deep sedation for ERCP and EUS procedures at an endoscopy training center in a developing country

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) procedures in elderly patients are on the rise, and they play an important role in the diagnosis and management of various gastrointestinal diseases. The use of deep sedation in these patients has been established as a safe and effective technique in Western countries; however, it is uncertain if the situation holds true among Asians. The present study aimed to evaluate the age-dependent safety analysis and clinical efficacy of propofol-based deep sedation (PBDS) for ERCP and EUS procedures in adult patients at a World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO) Endoscopy Training Center in Thailand.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective review of anesthesia or sedation service records of patients who underwent ERCP and EUS procedures. All procedures were performed by staff endoscopists, and all sedations were administered by anesthesia personnel in the endoscopy room.

RESULTS

PBDS was provided for 491 ERCP and EUS procedures. Of these, 252 patients (mean age, 45.1 + 11.1 years, range 17-65 years) were in the <65 age group, 209 patients (mean age, 71.7 + 4.3 years, range 65-80 years) were in the 65-80 year-old group, and 30 patients (mean age, 84.6 + 4.2 years, range 81-97 years) were in the >80 age group. Common indications for the procedures were pancreatic tumor, cholelithiasis, and gastric tumor. Fentanyl, propofol, and midazolam were the most common sedative drugs used in all three groups. The mean doses of propofol and midazolam in the very old patients were relatively lower than in the other groups. The combination of propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl, as well as propofol and fentanyl, were frequently used in all patients. Sedation-related adverse events and procedure-related complications were not statistically significantly different among the three groups. Hypotension was the most common complication.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of the WGO Endoscopy Training Center in a developing country, PBDS for ERCP and EUS procedures in elderly patients by trained anesthesia personnel with appropriate monitoring is relatively safe and effective. Although adverse cardiovascular events, including hypotension, in this aged group is common, all adverse events were usually transient, mild, and easily treated, with no sequelae.

[Digestive system endoscopy in the elderly and in patients with severe comorbidities]

Besides the technical equipment, the endoscopic team's theoretical and practical skills, the success of endoscopic intervention is influenced by the patient's general condition. Advanced age, severe co-morbidities may increase the risk, especially in case of operative endoscopy. The decision is more complicated when alarm symptoms urge the examination. The endoscopic examination of digestive system, biliary track and pancreas in advanced age can safely be performed as alternatives of surgical intervention. It is important to know the exact stage of cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases, besides, in case of stroke the patient's cooperation is very important. In everyday practice the most common problems are the endoscopic examination of the patient in oral anticoagulant and/or thrombocyte aggregation inhibition therapy and the question of suspending, modifying or restarting the therapy. Examining the patients with implanted electronic device as well as antibiotic prophylaxis in expanding range of indications are special issues. The gastroenterologist makes the decision based on the knowledge of the endoscopic intervention, the patient's risk classification, the indications, the contradictions and the alternative diagnostic possibilities. This review attempts to give an overview with some practical aspects.

Sub-clinical hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhotic patients is not aggravated by sedation with propofol compared to midazolam: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The risk of exacerbating sub-clinical hepatic encephalopathy (HE) by propofol has not been established. The aim of this study is to determine whether the use of propofol, for upper endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis, precipitates sub-clinical HE.

METHODS

Sixty-one patients with compensated HCV and HBV cirrhosis (CP score 5-6) were randomly selected and divided into two groups (intent-to-treat population) matched for age, gender, and BMI. The first group received a single propofol sedation (N = 31, age 57 ± 12, dose range 70-100 mg/procedure) and the second group (N = 30, age 56 ± 12, dose 3-6 mg/procedure) received a single midazolam sedation, all done by an anesthesiologist. All patients completed number connection test (NCT), cognitive function score, time to recovery, time to discharge sheets, and hemodynamic parameters before sedation, and at discharge from the endoscopy unit, 1h post-procedure. Thirty control subjects without cirrhosis were matched to the cirrhotic patients who received sedation with regard to age, gender, BMI, and education level.

RESULTS

A total of 58/61 cirrhotic patients (95%) had sub-clinical encephalopathy before the endoscopy (mean NCT 84.7 ± 77 s, normal < 30 s). No patient developed overt HE after sedation. There were no differences between groups in the incidence of adverse effects, cognitive function, MELD score, CP score, oxygen saturation, or respiratory and heart rates before and after sedation. Propofol did not exacerbate minimal HE when compared to midazolam (NCT changed from 87.5 ± 62 s prior to sedation to 74.2 ± 58 s after sedation in the propofol group versus 72.8 ± 62 s before to 85.6 ± 72 s after sedation in the midazolam group; p < 0.01). Time to recovery (4.1 ± 1.9 min vs. 11.5 ± 5.0 min, p < 0.001), and time to discharge (38.0 ± 9 min vs. 110 ± 42 min, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter with propofol than midazolam. Pre- and post-procedure NCT (from 25 ± 20 s to 24 ± 20 s), cognitive function score (from 25 to 26), time to recovery (3.5 ± 1.0 min), and time to discharge (35 ± 10 min) did not change in the healthy controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation with propofol has a shorter time recovery and a shorter time to discharge than midazolam and does not exacerbate sub-clinical hepatic encephalopathy in patients with compensated liver cirrhosis.

Recent advances in using propofol by non-anesthesiologists

Evidence is accumulating that non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) sedation has a safety and efficacy profile comparable or superior to that provided by benzodiazepines with or without opioids. The guidelines currently available emphasize the importance of appropriate patient selection, staff training, monitoring, and low-dose sedation protocols for NAAP safety. In addition, capnograph monitoring and computer-assisted sedation systems may further improve patient safety during NAAP.