Anesthesia Related Complications of Gastrointestinal Endoscopies; A Retrospective Descriptive Study

Comparison of efficacy and safety of equivalent doses of remimazolam versus propofol for gastroscopy anesthesia in elderly patients

Remimazolam, a novel intravenous anesthetic, has been proven to be safe and efficacious in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. However, reports comparing the effectiveness and safety of using equivalent doses of remimazolam with propofol have not been seen. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation efficacy and safety of the 95% effective doses (ED95) of remimazolam versus propofol combined with sufentanil in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. In the first step of this two-step study, a modified up-and-down method was used to calculate the ED95 of remimazolam and propofol when combined with 0.1 µg/kg sufentanil in inhibiting body movement of elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy. In the second step, ED95 of both agents calculated in the first step were administered, endpoints of efficacy, safety, and incidence of adverse events were compared. A total of 46 individuals completed the first step. The ED95 of remimazolam was 0.163 mg/kg (95% CI 0.160-0.170 mg/kg), and that of propofol was 1.042 mg/kg (95% CI 1.007-1.112 mg/kg). In the second step, 240 patients completed the trial. The anesthetic effective rates of the remimazolam group and the propofol group were 78% and 83%, respectively, with no statistical difference (P = 0.312). Patients in the remimazolam group had more stable circulatory functions (P < 0.0001) and a lower incidence of pain on injection (3.3% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of hypotension was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (15.6% vs. 39.0%, P < 0.0001). Overall adverse event was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (21.3% vs. 62.7%, P < 0.0001).In this study, we found that when anesthesia was administered to elderly gastroscopy patients based on 95% effective doses of remimazolam and propofol, remimazolam was as effective as propofol, but was safer with a lower incidence of adverse events.Study registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000034234. Registered 29/06/2020, https://www.chictr.org.cn .

Comparison of 95% effective dose of remimazolam besylate and propofol for gastroscopy sedation on older patients: A single-centre randomized controlled trial

AIMS

Advanced age is an important risk factor for adverse events during procedural sedation. Remimazolam is safe and effective in gastroscopic sedation. However, the ideal dose and application for older patients are not well known. We aim to investigate its 95% effective dose (ED95) for older patients undergoing gastroscopy and to assess its safety and efficacy, with propofol as the comparison.

METHODS

The trial consists of 2 parts, patients aged >65 years and scheduled for outpatient painless gastroscopy were enrolled. In the first part, Dixon's up-and-down methodology was used to determine the ED95 of remimazolam besylate and propofol for gastroscopic insertion, in combination with 0.2 μg/kg remifentanil. In the second part, patients in each group received 0.2 μg/kg remifentanil and ED95 dose of the study drugs for sedation induction, supplemental doses were added to maintain sedation depth when necessary. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse events. The secondary outcome was the recovery time.

RESULTS

The ED95 of remimazolam besylate and propofol induction were 0.2039 (95% confidence interval 0.1753-0.3896) mg/kg and 1.9733 (95% confidence interval 1.7346-3.7021) mg/kg respectively. Adverse events were reported in 26 (40.6%) patients in the remimazolam group and 54 (83.1%) in the propofol group (P < .0001), whereas the remimazolam group presented a higher incidence of hiccups (P = .0169). Besides, the median time to awakening was approximately 1 min shorter with remimazolam than with propofol (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

For older patients undergoing gastroscopy, the ED95 dose of remimazolam is a safer alternative than propofol when inducing the same sedation depth.

Morbidity, mortality, and systems safety in non-operating room anaesthesia: a narrative review

Non-operating room anaesthesia (NORA) describes anaesthesia delivered outside a traditional operating room (OR) setting. Non-operating room anaesthesia cases have increased significantly in the last 20 yr and are projected to account for half of all anaesthetics delivered in the next decade. In contrast to most other medication administration contexts, NORA is performed in high-volume fast-paced environments not optimised for anaesthesia care. These predisposing factors combined with increasing case volume, less provider experience, and higher-acuity patients increase the potential for preventable adverse events. Our narrative review examines morbidity and mortality in NORA settings compared with the OR and the systems factors impacting safety in NORA. A review of the literature from January 1, 1994 to March 5, 2021 was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and ProQuest. After completing abstract screening and full-text review, 30 articles were selected for inclusion. These articles suggested higher rates of morbidity and mortality in NORA cases compared with OR cases. This included a higher proportion of death claims and complications attributable to inadequate oxygenation, and a higher likelihood that adverse events are preventable. Despite relatively few attempts to quantify safety concerns, it was possible to find a range of systems safety concerns repeated across multiple studies, including insufficient lighting, noise, cramped workspace, and restricted access to patients. Old and unfamiliar equipment, lack of team familiarity, and limited preoperative evaluation are also commonly noted challenges. Applying a systems view of safety, it is possible to suggest a range of methods to improve NORA safety and performance.

Timing of Emergency Endoscopy for Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Literature Review

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common cause for Emergency Department and hospital admissions and has significant mortality and morbidity if it remains untreated. Upper endoscopy is the key procedure for both diagnosis and treatment of acute upper GI bleeding. The aim of this article is to review the optimal timing of endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleeding. The cost-effectiveness and the influence of urgent or emergent endoscopy on patients' outcomes are discussed. Also, we compare and contrast the available evidence and guidelines regarding the recommended time points for performing endoscopy in different clinical settings.

Prevalence of Anesthetic and Gastrointestinal Complications of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an endoscopic method for treatment of many biliary diseases. With respect to rapid recovery and more patient comfort, this procedure is currently performed under light general anesthesia (GA) or conscious sedation.

OBJECTIVES

The current study aimed to clarify that intravenous sedation or light general anesthesia can be performed without great fear of anesthesia related complications in ERCP patients and sedative doses of propofol can be used safely in outpatient settings under the supervision of an expert anesthesiologist.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study on 1023 ERCP patients under light GA during 2014 - 2018 in Qom, Shahid Beheshti Hospital. Data were collected by a checklist and were analyzed by using chi-square test in SPSS V.22.

RESULTS

From 1023 patients, 501 (48.97 %) were male and 522 (51.03 %) were female with a mean age of 47.2 ± 6.7 years. The most common finding in ERCP was choledocholithiasis (76.15 %). The most common complication was hemodynamic instability (37.01 %) followed by desaturation (11.65 %) both of them ware anesthesia related. Prevalence of GI (gastrointestinal) related complications was 13.39 %. The most common GI related complications were pancreatitis (7.92 %) and bleeding (3.32 %). Total mortality rate was 0.88 %.

CONCLUSIONS

ERCP-related complications are inevitable but can be controlled by early diagnosis and clinical experience. Severe complications and high risk patients may increase the mortality and morbidity of the procedure. Anesthesia related complications are more frequent than GI related unwanted events. Fortunately, the most common anesthesia related complications are readily manageable and are minor in nature when an expert anesthesiologist is present in the scene. Close monitoring of the patient's vital signs should be the mainstay of the safe procedure.