Sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized controlled study of patient-controlled propofol sedation and that given by a nurse anesthetist

Patients' Experiences of Patient-Controlled Sedation: An Interview Study of Patients who Underwent Endoscopy

PURPOSE

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) allows patients to self-administer sedative drugs during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There is a paucity of research on the experiences of patients who used PCS. Therefore the purpose of this study was to describe the perioperative experiences of patients who used PCS during ERCP.

DESIGN

Prospective study using semi-structured interviews.

METHODS

Qualitative content analysis facilitated a latent understanding of the manifest content.

FINDINGS

Eleven interviews revealed three main themes and underlying categories that summarized the patient experience: participation (control and perioperative sedation); communication (personnel, information, safety, insecurity, and concern); and sensation (effects and side effects).

CONCLUSIONS

The participatory experience of PCS resulted not from the opportunity for patient involvement but, rather, the establishment of a patient-professional relationship. Specifically, the interactions between patients and health care professionals played a vital role in the patients' overall experience of PCS.

Nursing Difficulties and Issues in Endoscopic Sedation: Qualitative Research in Japan

Gastrointestinal endoscopic treatments have increased in Japan. Respiratory depression is as an unexpected development during sedation. This study aimed to clarify the sedation-related difficulties encountered by nurses involved in endoscopic treatment. Participants were five nurses who had worked for more than a year in the endoscopy department of a gastrointestinal endoscopy specialist guidance facility in Sapporo. Semistructured interviews were conducted. The number of recording units obtained was 129, which were divided into 12 categories and subdivided into 42 subcategories. The nursing practice difficulties related to sedation in endoscopic treatment were classified into two major categories: "difficulties in nursing practice" and "system difficulties." All of the "difficulty in nursing practice" items were role-fulfilling difficulties involved in protecting patient safety and reducing anxiety and discomfort. Four of these items reflected difficulties related particularly to the role of the nurse in charge of the sedated patient in the endoscopy room. To reduce the difficulties encountered by nurses, a treatment environment system must be devised to ensure patient safety and improve the education support system for nurses with regard to sedation.

Comparison of propofol-nalbuphine and propofol-fentanyl sedation for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been increasingly used to treat patients with biliary/pancreatic duct obstruction or stricture outside the operating room. Effective and safe sedation techniques are needed because of painful stimuli and the long duration of the ERCP procedure.Nalbuphine has been shown to cause less respiratory depression during sedation than similar cases without nalbuphine. This study compared the effects of propofol-nalbuphine (PN) and propofol-fentanyl (PF) sedation in patients undergoing ERCP.

Methods

Four hundred patients scheduled for ERCP procedures were divided into two groups: the PF group (receiving PF sedation,n = 199) and the PN group (receiving PN sedation,n = 201). Vital signs, adverse events during surgery, patient movement scores, pain scores, and adverse events one day post-ERCP were recorded.

Results

Stable haemodynamics were observed in both groups.Compared to the PF group, the PN group showed significantly decreased respiratory depression (P < 0.0001) and surgical interruptions (P = 0.048).Nalbuphine decreased patient movement by reducing pain from ERCP.

Conclusion

Nalbuphine, instead of fentanyl, precipitated less respiratory depression while permitting adequate/equivalent sedation for ERCP and therefore provides more efficient and safer sedation.

Trial registration

ChiCTR, ChiCTR1800016018, Registered 7 May 2018, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=27085

Controversies in ERCP: Indications and preparation

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss the pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. The first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites before ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis, and other related technical topics. In the second part, specific procedural ERCP-techniques including precut techniques and its timing as well as management algorithms are discussed. In addition, controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

Patient-Controlled Sedation Versus Clinician-Administered Sedation for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) has been explored as a sedation method in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), yet a comprehensive review article on this topic is lacking. We performed a systematic review to compare PCS against clinician-administered sedation. The primary objectives are to compare the sedative dosage used and the sedation depth, while secondary objectives are to compare sedation failure rates, clinician intervention rates, and patient satisfaction. A systematic literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Database using the terms "ERCP," "Sedation," "Patient-controlled," and related terms. Randomized controlled trials comparing PCS against clinician-administered sedation in adults undergoing ERCP were included. Articles without English full texts were excluded. Studies were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for quality assessment of individual included trials. This systematic review is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020198647). A total of 2619 articles were identified from the literature search. A total of 2615 articles were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. Four articles (comprised of 4 independent trials involving 425 patients) were included in analysis. When compared with clinician-administered sedation, PCS in ERCP may lead to lower propofol dosage used and lower sedation depth. The sedation failure rates appear to be higher in PCS, whereas lower rates of airway maneuvers are required. No significant difference was observable for patient satisfaction rates between PCS and clinician-administered sedation. The included studies demonstrated unclear to high risk of bias, particularly in randomization, incomplete outcome data, and outcome measurement. PCS appears to be a feasible option for sedation in ERCP. Nonetheless, large-scale, high-quality trials will be required before PCS can be regularly implemented in ERCP.

Patient-controlled Sedation During Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) is a documented method for endoscopic procedures considered to facilitate early recovery. Limited data have been reported, however, on its use during flexible bronchoscopy (FB).

METHODS

This study hypothesized that PCS with propofol during FB would facilitate early recovery, with similar bronchoscopist and patient satisfaction compared with nurse-controlled sedation (NCS) with midazolam. A total of 150 patients were randomized 1:1:1 into a control group (premedication with morphine-scopolamine and NCS with midazolam), PCS-MS group (premedication with morphine-scopolamine and PCS with propofol), and PCS-G group (premedication with glycopyrronium and PCS with propofol).

RESULTS

The procedures included transbronchial biopsy, transbronchial needle aspiration, cryotherapy/biopsy, and/or multistation endobronchial ultrasound. FB duration values in median (range) were 40 (10 to 80), 39 (12 to 68), and 44 (10 to 82) minutes for the groups NCS, PCS-MS, and PCS-G, respectively. An overall 81% of the patients in the combined PCS groups were ready for discharge (modified Post Anaesthetic Discharge Scoring System, score 10) 2 hours after bronchoscopy compared with 40% in the control group (P<0.0001). Between PCS groups, 96% of the PCS-G group patients were ready for discharge compared with 65% in the PCS-MS group (P=0.0002) at 2 hours. Bronchoscopists' and patients' satisfaction scores were high in all groups. Postdischarge quality scores showed no differences among the groups.

CONCLUSION

PCS with propofol during FB is feasible, as it shortened recovery time without compromising procedure conditions for bronchoscopists or patients. A rapid postsedation stabilization of vital signs facilitates surveillance before the patient leaves the hospital.

Patient-controlled sedation with propofol for endoscopic procedures-A cost analysis

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol accompanied by a bedside nurse anaesthetist is an alternative sedation method for endoscopic procedures compared with midazolam administered by a nurse or endoscopist. Increasing costs in health care demands an economic perspective when introducing alternative methods. We applied a hospital perspective on a cost analysis comparing different methods of sedation and the resource use that were expected to affect cost differences related to the sedation.

METHODS

Based on two randomised previous studies, the direct costs were determined for different sedation methods during two advanced endoscopic procedures: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and flexible bronchoscopy including endobronchial ultrasound. ERCP comparisons were made between midazolam sedation by the endoscopic team, PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist and propofol sedation administered by a nurse anaesthetist. Bronchoscopy comparisons were made between midazolam sedation by the endoscopic team and PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist, categorised by premedication morphine-scopolamine or glycopyrronium.

RESULTS

Propofol PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist resulted in lower costs per patient for sedation for both ERCP (233 USD) and bronchoscopy (premedication morphine-scopolamine 267 USD, premedication glycopyrronium 269 USD) compared with midazolam (ERCP 425 USD, bronchoscopy 337 USD). Aborted procedures that needed to be repeated and prolonged hospital stays significantly increased the cost for the midazolam groups.

CONCLUSION

Propofol PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist reduces the direct sedation costs for ERCP and bronchoscopy procedures compared with midazolam sedation.

Patient-Controlled Versus Clinician-Controlled Sedation With Propofol: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With Trial Sequential Analyses

BACKGROUND

Sedation with propofol is frequently used to facilitate diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Propofol can be administrated by the patient (patient-controlled sedation [PCS]) or by a clinician (clinician-controlled sedation [CCS]). We aimed to compare these 2 techniques.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registries were searched up to October 2017 for randomized controlled trials comparing PCS with CCS with propofol. The primary end points were the risks of presenting at least 1 episode of oxygen desaturation, arterial hypotension, and bradycardia, and the risk of requiring a rescue intervention (pharmacologic therapies or physical maneuvers) for sedation-related adverse events. Secondary end points were the dose of propofol administrated, operator and patient satisfaction, and the risk of oversedation. A random-effects model and an α level of .02 to adjust for multiple analyses were used throughout. Trial sequential analyses were performed for primary outcomes. Quality of evidence was assessed according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials (1103 patients; median age, 47 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III) describing various diagnostic and therapeutic procedures with propofol sedation were included. PCS had no impact on the risk of oxygen desaturation (11 trials, 31/448 patients [6.9%] with PCS versus 46/481 [9.6%] with CCS; risk ratio, 0.74 [98% confidence interval, 0.35-1.56]) but decreased the risk of requiring a rescue intervention for adverse events (11 trials, 29/449 patients [6.5%] with PCS versus 74/482 [15.4%] with CCS; risk ratio, 0.45 [98% confidence interval, 0.25-0.81]). For both outcomes, Trial sequential analyses suggested that further trials were unlikely to change the results, although the quality of evidence was graded very low for all primary outcomes. For the risk of arterial hypotension and bradycardia, the required sample size for a definitive conclusion had not been reached. Analysis of secondary outcomes suggested that PCS decreased the risk of oversedation and had no impact on propofol dose administrated, or on operator or patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

PCS with propofol, compared with CCS with propofol, had no impact on the risk of oxygen desaturation, but significantly decreased the risk of rescue interventions for sedation-related adverse events. Further high-quality trials are required to assess the risks and benefits of PCS.

Effect And Predictive Value Of Routine Preoperative Laboratory Testing For Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Several studies and guidelines are questioning routine preoperative laboratory tests in surgical and endoscopic procedures. Their effect in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is not currently known. This study was carried out to evaluate the risk of adverse effects in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and their association with preoperative lab tests.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center, prospective observational study on all 956 patients undergoing 1196 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies in the Endoscopy Unit of Helsinki University Central Hospital from 1 March 2012 to 28 February 2013. Routine preoperative laboratory test results (basic blood count, creatinine, potassium, sodium, international normalized ratio/thromboplastin time, and amylase), health status, medication, and demographic information of all patients were analyzed in relation to adverse effects related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and procedural sedation.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis showed post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (43 cases, 3.6%) to have no association with abnormal routine preoperative laboratory tests. Respiratory depression caused by sedation (128 cases, 11%) was not associated with abnormal routine preoperative laboratory tests, and anemia was found to be a slightly protecting factor. Cardiovascular depression caused by sedation was associated with thrombocytopenia (odds ratio = 1.87, p = 0.025) and, in male patients, hyponatremia (odds ratio = 3.66, p < 0.001). Incidence of other adverse effects was too low for statistical analysis.

CONCLUSION

Routine universal preoperative lab testing was not found to be successful in predicting adverse effects in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures. Laboratory testing should be done focusing on each patient's individual needs.

Systematic review of anaesthetic medication for ERCP based on a network meta-analysis

AIMS

We performed a systematic review of various anaesthetic medications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and aimed to make a comprehensive comparison based on a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched globally recognized electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central and EMBASE, to retrieve relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of anaesthetic medications for ERCP. Network meta-analysis was conducted by evaluating the procedure time, adverse effects and drug requirements. The cumulative probability P value was utilized to rank the medications under examination.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs that examined 1877 patients were included in this research. Under good convergence and efficiency, data analysis was performed using a consistency model. For the comparison of procedure times, we found that a combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine (P = 0.19) or propofol plus pethidine (P = 0.18) seemed to be the two best medications for reducing procedure time. Additionally, midazolam combined with dexmedetomidine plus pethidine seemed to be the safest application for ERCP (P = 0.36). Propofol plus alfentanil also exhibited a good safety value (P = 0.28). For evaluation of drug requirements, the whole network connection could not be established; thus, comparisons in two subgroups were conducted. The results showed that midazolam combined with dexmedetomidine plus pethidine (P = 0.41) and propofol plus refentanil (P = 0.94) were superior to others in decreasing drug requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the objective results and our conclusions, we deemed that a combination of midazolam and dexmedetomidine was recommended, and propofol plus opioids also revealed great clinical value. However, we are still expecting more clinical research in the future.