Propofol administration by endoscopists versus anesthesiologists in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient safety outcomes

Application of topical pharyngeal anesthesia to reduce adverse reactions during painless gastroscopy: A prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Studies have reported that certain adverse reactions can occur during painless gastroscopy examination. Knowing how to decrease the risks and incidence of adverse reactions is of great importance.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia combined with intravenous anesthesia is superior to intravenous anesthesia alone in patients undergoing painless gastroscopy and to determine whether this combined approach had any additional benefits.

METHODS

Three hundred patients undergoing painless gastroscopy were randomly assigned to either the control group or the experimental group. In the control group, patients were anesthetized with propofol, while patients in the experimental group received propofol combined with 2% lidocaine spray for topical pharyngeal anesthesia. Hemodynamic parameters before and after the procedure, including the heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and pulse oxygen saturation (SPO2) were recorded. Any adverse reactions experienced by the patient, including choking and respiratory depression, and the total dosage of propofol required during each procedure were also documented.

RESULTS

Compared with pre-anesthetic data, the HR, MAP, and SPO2 were reduced after the completion of the painless gastroscopy procedure in both groups. However, the HR, MAP, and SPO2 measurements taken after the gastroscopy were significantly lower in the control group than those of the experimental group (P< 0.05); thus, the hemodynamic parameters of the experimental group were more stable. Compared with the control group, there was significant reduction in the total amount of propofol administered in the experimental group (P< 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions, including choking and respiratory depression, was significantly lower in the experimental group (P< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrated that the application of topical pharyngeal anesthesia in painless gastroscopy can significantly reduce the incidence of adverse reactions. Thus, the combination of topical pharyngeal and intravenous anesthesia is worthy of clinical application and promotion.

Median Effective Dose of an Etomidate-Propofol Mixture with Dezocine in Inhibiting the Response to Gastroscope Insertion: Gender Differences in a Randomized Controlled Study Using Dixon’s Up-and-Down Method

What Is Known and Objective. Appropriate doses of sedatives are crucial for a successful, painless upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Hence, we conducted a randomized controlled study to explore the effects of dezocine on the median effective dose (ED50) of the etomidate-propofol (E-P) mixture in prohibiting response to gastroscope insertion in patients of different genders. Methods. Patients aged 18–65 years enrolled in the study of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) with physical status I or II undergoing elective gastroscopy were included. Patients were randomly assigned to the male normal saline group (MS group), male dezocine group (MD group), female normal saline group (FS group), and female dezocine group (FD group). All patients were anesthetized with an E-P mixture of 1 : 1. The FD and MD groups were intravenously injected (i.v.) 50 µg/kg dezocine 5 min before anesthesia, while the FS and MS groups were injected with an equal volume of normal saline 5 min before anesthesia. According to the preexperiment, the initial dose of the E-P mixture for the FD and MD groups was 0.4 and 0.3 mL/kg for the FS and MS groups. The variation proportion was set as 0.9 between dosages. Dixon’s up-and-down method was adopted to confirm the dose of the E-P mixture for the next patient, which was reduced if the insertion was performed successfully; otherwise, the dose was increased. Centered isotonic regression was employed to determine the ED50 and 90% confidence interval (CI) values of the E-P mixture in the four groups. The total amount of E-P mixture consumed was recorded as well as the adverse events of patients. Results. The ED50 and 90% CI of the MS, MD, FS, and FD groups were 0.315 (0.285–0.349), 0.206 (0.175–0.237), 0.329 (0.305–0.355), and 0.207 (0.188–0.227) mL/kg, respectively. The MD group was <MS group ( $P\le 0.001$ ), and the FD group was <FS group ( $P\le 0.001$ ); no statistical difference was observed between the MS and FS groups and MD and FD groups. Dezocine reduced the total amount of E-P mixture consumed and the overall incidence of adverse events. What Is New and Conclusion. Dezocine significantly decreased the ED50 of the E-P mixture in inhibiting the response of patients to gastroscope insertion and the occurrence rate of adverse events. Further, gender had no impact on the ED50 of the E-P mixture.

Evaluation of 30-day mortality in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy in a tertiary hospital: a 3-year retrospective survey

Objective

Despite international guidelines recommendations to use mortality as a quality criterion for gastrointestinal (GI) procedures, recent studies reporting these data are lacking. Our objective was to report death causes and rate following GI endoscopies in a tertiary university hospital.

Design

We retrospectively reviewed all GI procedures made between January 2017 and December 2019 in our tertiary hospital in Switzerland. Data from patients who died within 30 days of the procedure were recorded.

Results

Of 18 233 procedures, 251 patients died within 30 days following 345 (1.89%) procedures (244/9180 gastroscopies, 53/5826 colonoscopies, 23/2119 endoscopic ultrasound, 19/911 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, 6/197 percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies). Median age was 70 years (IQR 61–79) and 173/251 (68.92%) were male. Median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 5 (IQR 3–7), and 305/345 procedures (88.4%) were undertaken on patients with an ASA score ≥3. Most frequent indications were suspected GI bleeding (162/345; 46.96%) and suspected cancer or tumourous staging (50/345; 14.49%). Major causes of death were oncological progression (72/251; 28.68%), cardiopulmonary failure or cardiac arrest of unkown origin (62/251; 24,7%) and liver failure (20/251; 7.96%). No deaths were caused by complications such as perforation or bleeding.

Conclusions

Progression of malignancies unrelated to the procedure was the leading cause of short-term death following a GI procedure. After improvements in periprocedural care in the last decades, we should focus on patient selection in this era of new oncological and intensive care therapies. Death rate as a quality criterion is subject to caution as it depends on indication, setting and risk benefit ratio.

Retrospective observational study on safety of sedation for colonoscopies in ASA I and II patients performed by a nurse and under the supervision of anesthesiology

INTRODUCTION

Out of operating room sedation with propofol by non-anaesthesiologists (Non Anaesthesiologist Administration of Propofol: NAAP) is a growing practice. This is due to the increase in minimally invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures requiring sedation, and the difficulty of anaesthesiology services to respond adequately to this demand.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study is to assess the safety of a programme of nurse sedationist-administered target controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol in colonoscopies supervised by anaesthesiologists.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Over a period of 6 months, all ASA I and II patients who required colonoscopy and met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. A total of 381 colonoscopies were performed. Episodes of desaturation, hypo- or hypertension, bradycardia or tachyarrhythmia and the need for anaesthesiology assistance during sedation were analysed. After the procedure, patient satisfaction was assessed on a scale of 1-5, and pain was assessed on a numerical verbal scale of 1-5.

RESULTS

A small percentage (5%) of patients presented oxygen saturation of less than 90%, without requiring mask ventilation; 7.35% presented hypotension, 3.94% presented bradycardia, and the supervising anaesthesiologist was called in 22% of cases. Patient satisfaction at the end of the procedure was 4.27 out of 5.

CONCLUSION

Sedation during colonoscopy in ASA I and II patients following an agreed protocol can be safely administered by nurse sedationists under the supervision of an anaesthesiologist.

2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Such cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary, and most patients recover without sequelae. However, these events may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

[2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation]

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary. Most patients recover without sequelae. However, they may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

Safety Profile of Endoscopist-directed Balanced Propofol Sedation for Procedural Sedation: An Experience at a Hospital-based Endoscopy Unit

BACKGROUND

Nurse-administered propofol sedation was restricted to anesthesiologists in 2009, a practice that has contributed to spiraling health care costs in the United States.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of endoscopist-directed balanced propofol sedation (EDBPS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients undergoing endoscopy with EDBPS from January 1, 2017, to June 20, 2017, and abstracted their medical records. Adverse events (AEs) included: hypoxia (oxygen saturation < 90%); hypotension [(a) systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg, (b) systolic blood pressure decline of >50 mm Hg, (c) decline in mean arterial pressure of >30%]; bradycardia (heart rate of < 40 beats/min). Logistic regression identified factors independently associated with AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 1897 patients received EDBPS during the study period [mean age: 55 y (SD=11.4 y); 56.4% women]. Patients received median doses of 50 µg fentanyl, 2 mg of midazolam, and a mean propofol dose of 160±99 mg. There were no major complications (upper 95% confidence interval, 0.19%). Overall, 334 patients (17.6%) experienced a clinically insignificant AE: 65 (3.4%) experienced transient hypoxia, 277 patients (14.6%) experienced hypotension, 2 had transient bradycardia. In bivariate analysis, older age was associated with risk for hypotension, propofol dose was associated with transient hypoxemia, and procedure duration was associated with both hypotension and transient hypoxia. In multivariate analysis, only procedure length was associated with AEs (odds ratio scale 10; odds ratio=1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.09, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EDBPS is safe for endoscopic sedation. Given the higher cost of anesthesia-administered propofol, endoscopists should reinstate EDBPS by revising institutional sedation policies.

2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary. Most patients recover without sequelae. However, they may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

Academy of Medicine, Singapore clinical guideline on the use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting

INTRODUCTION

In Singapore, non-anaesthesiologists generally administer sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The drugs used for sedation in hospital endoscopy centres now include propofol in addition to benzodiazepines and opiates. The requirements for peri-procedural monitoring and discharge protocols have also evolved. There is a need to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline on the safe and effective use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting.

METHODS

The Academy of Medicine, Singapore appointed an expert workgroup comprising 18 gastroenterologists, general surgeons and anaesthesiologists to develop guidelines on the use of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The workgroup formulated clinical questions related to different aspects of endoscopic sedation, conducted a relevant literature search, adopted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and developed recommendations by consensus using a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

The workgroup made 16 recommendations encompassing 7 areas: (1) purpose of sedation, benefits and disadvantages of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (2) pre-procedural assessment, preparation and consent taking for sedation; (3) Efficacy and safety of drugs used in sedation; (4) the role of anaesthesiologist administered sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (5) performance of sedation; (6) post-sedation care and discharge after sedation; and (7) training in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy for non-anaesthesiologists.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations serve to guide clinical practice during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-anaesthesiologists in the hospital setting.

Assessment of pain between sedated and unsedated colonoscopy: Double-blind randomized clinical trail

Background

Colonoscopy plays a vital role for the diagnosis and treatment of colonic diseases but can be associated with anxiety and discomfort or pain. We tested whether unsedated colonoscopy impacts quality indicators and investigated predictors of pain during colonoscopy.

Materials and Methods

This randomized controlled trial was performed on candidates for elective colonoscopy at AL Zahra Hospital, Isfahan at 2018-2019. Balanced block randomization was used to allocate 275 cases into two groups. At finally, 124 patients in case and 122 patients in control group enrolled in analysis. Patients in the sedation group received midazolam with/out pethidine before colonoscopy. Pain intensity in rectal examination (PIREX), preprocedural anxiety, pain intensity during colonoscopy, hemodynamics, duration of colonoscopy, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, bloating within 24 h after colonoscopy, and willingness to repeat colonoscopy were assessed and compared between two groups.

Results

Compared to the group with sedation, cecal intubation time was shorter and bloating was less frequent (7% vs. 16%, P = 0.02) in the unsedated group. There was no difference between the two groups regarding polyp detection rate, cecal detection rate, and willingness to repeat colonoscopy. Pain during rectal examination was significantly associated with pain during colonoscopy (P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval; 0.5-1.3).

Conclusion

The assessment of pain intensity during rectal examination may help to identify patients who can benefit from sedation during colonoscopy. Colonoscopy with sedation does not seem to have a negative impact on colonoscopy quality indicators, and may even reduce cecal intubation time and bloating following procedure.

Perioperative Implications of the 2020 American Heart Association Scientific Statement on Drug-Induced Arrhythmias-A Focused Review

The recently released American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement on drug-induced arrhythmias discussed medications commonly associated with bradycardia, supraventricular tachycardias, and ventricular arrhythmias. The foundational data for this statement were collected from general outpatient and inpatient populations. Patients undergoing surgical and minimally invasive treatments are a unique subgroup, because they may experience hemodynamic changes associated with anesthesia and their procedure, receive multiple drug combinations not given in either inpatient or outpatient settings, or experience postprocedural inflammatory syndromes. Accordingly, the generalizability of the AHA scientific statement to this perioperative population is unclear. This focused review highlights important aspects of the new AHA scientific statement and their application to the perioperative setting. The authors review medications frequently encountered and given by anesthesiologists and their risk of drug-induced arrhythmias and discuss common anesthetic and adjunctive medications and their associated risks of bradycardia, atrial fibrillation, torsades de pointes, and drug-induced Brugada syndrome. In many instances, the risk of arrhythmia reported by the AHA scientific statement in the general population appeared to be higher than found in perioperative arenas. Furthermore, the authors discuss the arrhythmia risk of additional medications commonly ordered or administered by anesthesiologists that are not included in the AHA scientific statement. As patient and procedural complexity increases and novel anesthetic combinations propagate, further research and observational studies will be required to delineate further perioperative risks for drug-induced arrhythmia.

National survey on sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in 2758 Chinese hospitals

BACKGROUND

Although sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is widely used in China, the characteristics of sedation use, including regional distribution, personnel composition, equipment used, and drug selection, remain unclear. The present study aimed to provide insights into the current practice and regional distribution of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in China.

METHODS

A questionnaire consisting of 19 items was distributed to directors of anaesthesiology departments and anaesthesiologists in charge of endoscopic sedation units in mainland China through WeChat.

RESULTS

The results from 2758 participating hospitals (36.7% of the total) showed that 9 808 182 gastroscopies (69.3%) and 4 353 950 colonoscopies (30.7%), with a gastroscopy-to-colonoscopy ratio of 2.3, were conducted from January to December 2016. Sedation was used with 4 696 648 gastroscopies (47.9%) and 2 148 316 colonoscopies (49.3%), for a ratio of 2.2. The most commonly used sedative was propofol (61.0% for gastroscopies and 60.4% for colonoscopies). Haemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO₂) was monitored in most patients (96.1%). Supplemental oxygen was routinely administered, but the availability of other equipment was variable (anaesthesia machine in 64.9%, physiological monitor in 84.4%, suction device in 72.3%, airway equipment in 75.5%, defibrillator in 32.7%, emergency kit in 57.0%, and difficult airway kit in 20.8% of centres responding).

CONCLUSIONS

The sedation rate for gastrointestinal endoscopy is much lower in China than in the USA and in Europe. The most commonly used combination of sedatives was propofol plus an opioid (either fentanyl or sufentanil). Emergency support devices, such as difficult airway devices and defibrillators, were not usually available.

Prospective audit of the safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation in an Australian referral hospital

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopist directed nurse administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) is widely considered to be safe and efficient, but there are limited data from the Australian health-care setting, and Australian sedation guidelines do not support the practice. Thus, we report data from a prospective audit of EDNAPS over a 6.5-year period in an Australian referral hospital.

METHODS

Consecutive endoscopic procedures performed between January 2013 and June 2019. Sedation protocol was an initial dose of midazolam 1-3 mg intravenously (i.v.) and propofol 10-50 mg i.v.. Further aliquots of propofol 10-30 mg i.v. were given as required. ProvationMD® endoscopic reporting system was used to prospectively record patient demographics, medication and dose, American Society of Anesthesiologist's (ASA) class, and sedation-related complications.

RESULTS

During the 78-month period, 28 051 eligible procedures were performed; 3093 procedures performed with anesthetic support or without EDNAPS were excluded. In total, 24 958 procedures with EDNAPS were analyzed including 7563 gastroscopies, 12 941 colonoscopies, 2932 gastroscopy and colonoscopy, 1440 flexible sigmoidoscopies, and 82 combined gastroscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Of these, 9539 were ASA 1 (38.2%), 13 680 were ASA 2 (54.8%), 1733 were ASA 3 (6.9%), and 4 were ASA 4 (0.02%). Sedation-related complications occurred in 66 patients (0.26%), predominantly transient hypoxic episodes. No patient required intubation for an airway emergency, and there was no sedation-related mortality. Sedation-related complications increased with ASA class and were significantly more common with gastroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopist directed nurse administered propofol sedation is a safe way of performing endoscopic sedation in low-risk patients in the hospital setting.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

Endoscopist-directed propofol is more efficient than anesthesiologist-administered propofol in patients at low-intermediate anesthetic risk

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopist-directed propofol (EDP) sedation is becoming more popular, with a reported safety and efficacy similar to anesthesiologist-administered propofol (AAP). The aim of this study is to compare the efficiency of EDP and AAP in patients of low-intermediate anesthetic risk.

METHODS

A prospective cost-effectiveness comparison study was conducted. The costs of the endoscopic procedures in the EDP and AAP group were calculated using the full cost methodology after breaking down the endoscopic activity into relative value units to allocate costs in an equitable way. To determine the effectiveness, adverse events related to endoscopic sedation and the number of incomplete procedures were registered for the EDP group and compared with those published by anesthesiologists for AAP.

RESULTS

A total of 1165 and 18 919 endoscopic procedures were, respectively, included in the EDP and AAP groups. The average costs of EDP vs. AAP for gastroscopy, colonoscopy and endoscopic ultrasound were &OV0556; 182.81 vs. &OV0556; 332.93, &OV0556; 297.07 vs. &OV0556; 459.76, and &OV0556; 319.92 vs. &OV0556; 485.12, respectively. No significant differences were detected regarding the rate of overall adverse events (4.43 vs. 4.46%) or serious adverse events (0 vs. 0.17%); the rate of arterial hypotension was significantly lower in the EDP group: 0.34 vs. 1.78% [odds ratio (OR), 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.08-0.46] and the desaturation rate was significantly lower in the AAP group: 3.26 vs. 1.29% (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.85-3.60). No significant differences were found in terms of incomplete examinations (0.17 vs. 0.14%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with low-intermediate anesthetic risk referred for an endoscopic examination, EDP appears to be more efficient than AAP.

Percutaneous hepatic biopsy under propofol sedation. A safe and effective procedure

INTRODUCTION

the percutaneous hepatic biopsy is a necessary procedure for the diagnosis of liver diseases which can cause complications and psychological discomfort for the patient.

AIMS

to determine the safety profile of propofol in percutaneous hepatic biopsy, the complications of the technique per se and patients satisfaction once completed.

METHODS

a retrospective observational study was performed via the acquisition of data of tolerance and perceived quality by the patients using a transversal survey.

RESULTS

ninety-seven patients were included with an average propofol dose of 170.46 mg. Of the complications resulting from the sedation, there were six slight desaturations (6.2 %) resolved with a forehead maneuver (50 %) or cessation of the propofol infusion pump (50 %) and eleven hypotension episodes (11.3 %) resolved without intervention (82.82 %) or with fluid replacement (18.18 %). Of the complications resulting from the technique, there were three cases of early-onset pain (3.1 %) and one delayed (1.03 %); all were resolved with 1 g of intravenous paracetamol. All patients were discharged with oral tolerance and without the need for analgesia 24 hours after the procedure. General satisfaction, as well as psychological discomfort, were evaluated as "very good/excellent" in 100 % of the patients.

DISCUSSION

propofol demonstrated a favorable safety profile in hepatic biopsy, aiding in the ultimate success of the procedure and tolerance for the patient. We propose the expansion of the use of sedation with propofol to this procedure.

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.