Safety and effectiveness of propofol sedation during and after outpatient colonoscopy

Comparison of propofol-based sedation and midazolam sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy conducted by pediatric gastroenterologists

Objectives

The effectiveness and safety of propofol-based sedation and midazolam sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy were compared.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the cases of pediatric patients (≤15 years old) who had undergone bidirectional endoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and colonoscopy by pediatric gastroenterologists. Demographic data, indications, sedatives/dosages, clinical outcomes, endoscopic findings, adverse events, and total patient time requirements (total time in which patients stay in our hospital) were compared in the two sedation groups.

Results

Ninety-one children (51 boys, 40 girls, mean age 13 years, range 9-15) treated at our hospital were enrolled. Propofol alone or in combination with midazolam and/or pentazocine was administered to 51 patients (propofol-based sedation group). Midazolam alone or in combination with pentazocine was administered to the other 40 patients (midazolam sedation group). In the propofol group, the following mean doses were used: propofol, 96 mg (range 40-145 mg); midazolam, 4.9 mg (range 3-5 mg); and pentazocine, 7.5 mg. In the midazolam group, the mean doses of midazolam and pentazocine were 6.2 mg (range 4-10 mg) and 15 mg, respectively. All procedures were successfully completed by pediatric gastroenterologists. The total procedure times and endoscopic findings were similar in the two groups, but the median patient time requirement in the propofol group was significantly shorter versus the midazolam group (7.3 h vs. 8.4 h, p < 0.001). No adverse events occurred in either group.

Conclusions

Propofol-based sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy was safely and effectively performed by pediatric gastroenterologists, and its patient time requirement was shorter than that for midazolam sedation.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen reduced hypoxemia in patients undergoing gastroscopy under general anesthesia at ultra-high altitude: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hypoxemia can occur in people at ultra-high altitude (above 3500 m) even at rest, and patients undergoing gastroscopy under general anesthesia have higher risk of hypoxemia. Supplementary oxygen via standard nasal cannula (SNC) is the standard of care for most patients who undergo gastroscopy under general anesthesia, which provides oxygen flow up to 15 L/min. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) could deliver oxygen at a rate up to 60 L/min, which is recommended by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines. We speculated that the benefit with HFNC is more prominent in high-altitude areas, and aimed to compare the incidence of hypoxemia during gastroscopy under general anesthesia at ultra-high altitude with oxygen supply via either HFNC or SNC.

METHODS

The trial was registered at at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100045513; date of registration on 18/04/2021). Adult patients undergoing gastroscopy with anesthesia (estimated duration of anesthesia at ≥ 15 min) were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive HFNC oxygen or SNC oxygen. The primary outcome was hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for any duration). Secondary outcomes included severe hypoxemia (SpO2 < 75% for any duration or SpO2 < 90% but ≥ 75% for ≥ 60 s) and hypotension, as defined by reduction of mean arterial blood pressure by ≥ 25% from the baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 262 patients were enrolled: 129 in the HFNC group and 133 in the SNC group. All patients received the designated intervention. Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test and χ2 test were employed in the study. The rate of hypoxemia was 9.3% (12/129) in the HFNC group versus 36.8% (49/133) in the SNC group [risk ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.25(0.14-0.45); P < 0.001). The HFNC group also had lower rate of severe hypoxemia [0.0% (0/129) versus 11.3% (15/133); risk ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.03(0.00-0.55); P < 0.001, respectively]. The rate of hypotension did not differ between the 2 groups [22.5% (29/129) in HFNC group versus 21.1% (28/133) in SNC group; risk ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.07(0.67-1.69) ; P = 0.779].

CONCLUSION

HFNC oxygen reduced the incidence of hypoxemia during anesthesia in adult patients undergoing gastroscopy at ultra-high altitude.

Polyps are detected more often in early colonoscopies

OBJECTIVE

To examine the time variation in polyp detection for colonoscopies performed in a tertiary hospital and to explore independent factors that predict polyp detection rate (PDR).

METHODS

Data on all patients who underwent colonoscopy for the diagnostic purpose at our endoscopy center in Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University from January 2021 to December 2021 were reviewed. The start time of included colonoscopies for eligible patients was recorded. PDR and polyps detected per colonoscopy (PPC) were calculated. The endoscopists' schedules were classified into full-day and half-day shifts according to their participation in the morning and afternoon colonoscopies.

RESULTS

Data on a total of 12116 colonoscopies were analyzed, with a PDR of 38.03% for all the patients and 46.38% for patients ≥50 years. PDR and PPC significantly decreased as the day progressed (both p < .001). For patients ≥50 years, PDR declined below 40% at 13:00-13:59 and 16:00-16:59. The PDR in the morning was higher than that in the afternoon for both half-day (p = .019) and full-day procedures (p < .001). In multivariate analysis, start time, patient gender, age, conscious sedation, and bowel preparation quality significantly predicted PDR (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The polyp detection declined as the day progressed. A continuous work schedule resulted in a subpar PDR. Colonoscopies performed in the morning had a higher PDR than that in the afternoon. Patient gender, age, conscious sedation, and bowel preparation quality were identified as the independent predictors of PDR.

Evaluation of Propofol-Sparing Effect of Intravenous Lignocaine in Patients Undergoing Daycare Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures

Background Propofol is the most common sedative for endoscopies. Propofol alone may require larger doses for adequate level of sedation. Lignocaine is known for its anesthetic-sparing effect. We tested whether the addition of intravenous lignocaine to propofol-based sedation reduces its dose. Methods This prospective, randomized study was performed on 90 patients of 18 to 60 years of age, of either sex of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade-I & II, and was divided into two groups. Group L + P received IV bolus of 1.5 mg/kg 2% lignocaine over 10 minutes followed by 1.5 mg/ kg/ h infusion and group NS + P- received the equivalent volumes of normal saline in bolus and infusion. Patients were induced with fentanyl (2 µg/kg) and propofol (1 mg/kg). To maintain an adequate sedation level, a supplemental bolus of 0.5 mg /kg propofol was administered. The outcomes recorded were the total and supplemental amount of propofol administered, as well as recovery time. Results The mean supplemental propofol for group L + P and group NS + P- 37.00 ± 29.93 and 58.67 ± 19.49 mg, respectively and mean total propofol consumption was 98.22 ± 34.00 mg and 131.11 ± 23.18 mg, respectively, (p < 0.001). Mean recovery time in group L + P was also shorter (5.22 ± 2.14 versus 9.96 ± 2.14). The incidence of adverse events like gag reflux, upper airway obstruction, pain on injection, and hypotension was significantly lower in group L + P (p < 0.05). Conclusion The addition of lignocaine to propofol-based sedation reduced the overall propofol requirement at the same time maintaining hemodynamic stability, spontaneous respiration, and early recovery.

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.

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.

Bispectral Index Monitoring and Observer Rating Scale Correlate with Dreaming during Propofol Anesthesia for Gastrointestinal Endoscopies

Background and objectives: Dreaming is a commonly reported side effect of propofol anesthesia. Materials and Methods: We investigated the inci-dence and character of dreams in patients undergoing intravenous propofol anesthesia and cor-related it with an observer rating scale of facial expression on the seven-point scale from pain to smile. A total of 124 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were recruited in the pro-spective observational study. Bispectral index (BIS), blood pressure (BP), and pulse were moni-tored. Upon emergence from anesthesia, the patient’s facial expression was rated numerically. Thereafter, patients were asked whether they had dreams and to rate their dreams as pleasant or unpleasant. The mean age of participants was 53; body mass index, 26.17; duration of procedure, 20 min; and average propofol dose, 265 mg. Results: Dreaming was reported by 43% of patients. Dreams were pleasant in all but one patient. There was a significant correlation of the observer’s rating of facial expression with dreaming (r = 0.260; p = 0.004). Dreamers had higher scores of observer rating of facial expression (1 (0–2) vs. 0.5 (0–1), p = 0.006). Conclusions: BIS values were lower in the dreamers vs. non-dreamers 2 min after the endoscopy started (48 (43–62) vs. 59 (45–71), p = 0.038). Both BIS and observer ratings correlate with dreaming in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endos-copy. Trial registration number: NCT04235894.

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.

Safety and Recipient Satisfaction of Propofol Sedation in Outpatient Endoscopy: A 24-Hour Prospective Investigation Using a Questionnaire Survey

Background/Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of sedation with propofol as an alternative to benzodiazepine drugs in outpatient endoscopy.

Methods

In this prospective study, examinees who underwent outpatient endoscopy under propofol sedation and submitted a nextday questionnaire with providing informed consent were evaluated. Periprocedural acute responses, late adverse events within 24 hours, and examinee satisfaction were evaluated.

Results

Among the 4,122 patients who received propofol in the 17,978 outpatient-based endoscopic examinations performed between November 2016 and March 2018, 2,305 eligible examinees (esophagogastroduodenoscopy for 1,340, endoscopic ultrasonography for 945, and total colonoscopy for 20) were enrolled, and their responses to a questionnaire were analyzed. The mean propofol dose was 69.6±24.4 mg (range, 20–200 mg). Diazepam, midazolam, and/or pentazocine in combination with propofol was administered to 146 examinees. Mild oxygen desaturation was observed in 59 examinees (2.6%); and mild bradycardia, in 2 (0.09%). Other severe reactions or late events did not occur. After eliminating 181 invalid responses, 97.7% (2,065/2,124) of the patients desired propofol sedation in future examinations.

Conclusions

Propofol sedation was found to be safe-without severe adverse events or accidents-for outpatient endoscopy on the basis of the patients’ next-day self-evaluation. Given the high satisfaction level, propofol sedation might be an ideal tool for painless endoscopic screening.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Trial registration

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

Safety and Effectiveness of Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation in Outpatients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy are common outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures that frequently use sedation. We aimed to identify a protocol that combines safety with cost effectiveness.

METHODS

We collected data from consecutive outpatients (age, 20-98 y) who underwent diagnostic EGD (n = 117,661) or colonoscopy (n = 32,550) with propofol sedation from January 2006 through December 2016. Propofol was administered by a nurse via bolus injection using an age-adjusted standard protocol, up to a total of 200 mg. The primary outcome measure was occurrence of adverse events within 24 hours. Secondary outcome measures included rates of procedure success, respiratory depression, and other procedure-related adverse events.

RESULTS

The median dose of propofol administered for EGD was 77 mg (range, 20-160 mg) and for colonoscopy was 99 mg (range, 40-200 mg). Among patients undergoing EGD, those younger than 41 years required 1.5-fold more propofol than patients 61-80 years old. The only adverse event was the transient need for supplemental oxygen supply, required by 1950 patients (1.3%): 1689 undergoing EGD (1.4%) and 261 undergoing colonoscopy (0.8%). Patients were discharged after 60 minutes and at least 66,250 patients (44%) drove themselves from the hospital. None experienced a traffic accident within 24 hours after receiving propofol sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse-administered propofol monosedation using an age-adjusted standard protocol up to a maximal of 200 mg is safe and practical for outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Comparison of propofol monotherapy and propofol combination therapy for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Previous randomized controlled trials have reported conflicting findings comparing propofol combination therapy (PCT) with propofol monotherapy (PMT) for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Therefore, a systematic review was carried out to compare the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT in such patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Primary endpoints were incidence of respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, dose of propofol used, and recovery time. Procedure duration and the satisfaction of patients and doctors were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 2250 patients from 22 studies were included in the final analysis. The combined analysis did not show any difference between PCT and PMT in the incidence of respiratory complications (risk ratio [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.23; I2 = 58.34%), hypotension (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.78; I2 = 72.13%), arrhythmia (RR,1.40; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.64; I2 = 43.71%), recovery time (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.16; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.81; I2 = 95.9%), procedure duration (SMD, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.14; I2 = 0.0%), patient satisfaction (SMD, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.52; I2 = 89.63%) or doctor satisfaction (SMD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.17; I2 = 0.00%). However, the dose of propofol used was significantly lower in PCT than in PMT (SMD, -1.38; 95% CI, -1.99 to -0.77; I2 = 97.70%).

CONCLUSION

PCT showed comparable efficacy and safety to PMT with respect to respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, recovery time, procedure duration, patient satisfaction, and doctor satisfaction. However, the average dose of propofol used was higher in PMT.

Patient Satisfaction With Propofol for Outpatient Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study

BACKGROUND

Previous literature has shown that propofol has ideal anesthetic properties for patients undergoing colonoscopy, a common procedure at outpatient surgery centers. However, there is a paucity of information regarding patient satisfaction with propofol.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction with propofol compared with nonpropofol (fentanyl/midazolam) anesthesia for outpatient colonoscopies. Safety and complications were secondary end points.

DESIGN

This study was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group controlled clinical trial (NCT 02937506).

SETTING

This study was conducted at a single ambulatory surgery center at an urban teaching community health system.

PATIENTS

Patients were scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy. Those with high-risk cardiac or pulmonary disease were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

Anesthesia personnel administered either fentanyl/midazolam (n = 300) or propofol (n = 300) for sedation during outpatient colonoscopy. A single, highly experienced endoscopist performed all colonoscopies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were patient satisfaction (5-point Likert scale) and procedure complications. Data were collected on the day of endoscopy by the nursing staff of the postanesthesia care unit. A subinvestigator blinded to the randomization called patients 24 to 72 hours after discharge to obtain data on postprocedure problems and status of resumption of normal activities. Analysis was intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Fewer patients who received propofol remembered being awake during the procedure (2% vs 17% for fentanyl, p < 0.0001) and were more likely to rate the amount of anesthesia received as being "just right" (98.7% vs 91.3% for fentanyl, p = 0.0002) and state that they were "very satisfied" with their anesthesia (86.3% vs 74% for fentanyl, p = 0.0005). Twenty-six percent of fentanyl procedures were rated "difficult" compared with 4.3% for propofol (p < 0.0001), and complications were fewer in the propofol group (2.7% vs 11.7%, p < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

The endoscopist could not be completely blinded to the anesthetic administered.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients prefer propofol over a combination of fentanyl/midazolam as their anesthetic for outpatient colonoscopies. From a patient and provider perspective, propofol appears to be superior to fentanyl/midazolam for outpatient colonoscopy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A445.

Safety of non-anesthesia provider administered propofol sedation in non-advanced gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAPP) administered propofol sedation in patients undergoing non-advanced gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving non-advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 608 publications, 25 [colonoscopy (9), upper GI endoscopy (5), and combined procedures (11)] were identified to meet inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Data was analyzed for hypoxia rates, airway intervention rates, and airway complication rates.

RESULTS

A total of 137,087 patients were involved. A total of 2931 hypoxia episodes (defined as an oxygen saturation below 90%) were reported with a pooled hypoxia rate of 0.014 (95% CI being 0.008-0.023). Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates and pooled airway complication rates were 0.002 (95% CI being 0.006-0.001) and 0.001 (95% CI being 0.000-0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of adverse events in patients undergoing non-advanced GI endoscopic procedures with NAPP sedation are extremely small. Similar data for anesthesia providers is not available. It is prudent for anesthesia providers to demonstrate their superiority in prospective randomized controlled trials, if they like to retain exclusive ownership over propofol sedation in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

Psychomotor and cognitive effects of 15-minute inhalation of methoxyflurane in healthy volunteers: implication for post-colonoscopy care

Background and study aims: Colonoscopy with portal inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox) is highly feasible with low sedation risk and allows earlier discharge. It is unclear if subjects can return to highly skilled psychomotor skill task shortly after Penthrox assisted colonoscopy. We evaluated the psychomotor and cognitive effects of 15-minute inhalation of Penthrox in adults. Patients and methods: Sixty healthy volunteers (18 to 80 years) were studied on 2 occasions with either Penthrox or placebo in a randomized, double-blind fashion. On each occasion, the subject's psychomotor function was examined before, immediately, 30, 60, 120, 180 and 240 min after a 15-minute inhalation of studied drug, using validated psychomotor tests (Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), auditory reaction time (ART), eye-hand coordination (EHC) test, trail making test (TMT) and logical reasoning test (LRT). Results: Compared to placebo, a 15-minute Penthrox inhalation led to an immediate but small impairment of DSST (P < 0.001), ART (P < 0.001), EHC (P < 0.01), TMT (P = 0.02) and LRT (P = 0.04). In all subjects, the performance of all 5 tests normalized by 30 minutes after inhalation, and was comparable to that with placebo. Although increasing age was associated with a small deterioration in psychomotor testing performance, the magnitude of Penthrox effects remained comparable among all age groups. Conclusions: In all age groups, a 15-minute Penthrox inhalation induces acute but short-lasting impairment of psychomotor and cognitive performance, which returns to normal within 30 minutes , indicating that subjects who have colonoscopy with Penthrox can return to highly skilled psychomotor skills tasks such as driving and daily work the same day.

Practice guidelines for propofol sedation by non-anesthesiologists: the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force recommendations on propofol sedation

In South Korea, as in many other countries, propofol sedation is performed by practitioners across a broad range of specialties in our country. However, this has led to significant variation in propofol sedation practices, as shown in a series of reports by the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists (KSA). This has led the KSA to develop a set of evidence-based practical guidelines for propofol sedation by non-anesthesiologists. Here, we provide a set of recommendations for propofol sedation, with the aim of ensuring patient safety in a variety of clinical settings. The subjects of the guidelines are patients aged ≥ 18 years who were receiving diagnostic or therapeutic procedures under propofol sedation in a variety of hospital classes. The committee developed the guidelines via a de novo method, using key questions created across 10 sub-themes for data collection as well as evidence from the literature. In addition, meta-analyses were performed for three key questions. Recommendations were made based on the available evidence, and graded according to the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Draft guidelines were scrutinized and discussed by advisory panels, and agreement was achieved via the Delphi consensus process. The guidelines contain 33 recommendations that have been endorsed by the KSA Executive Committee. These guidelines are not a legal standard of care and are not absolute requirements; rather they are recommendations that may be adopted, modified, or rejected according to clinical considerations.

Clinical study of anesthetization by dezocine combined with propofol for indolent colonoscopy

AIM: To assess the use of dezocine combined with propofol for the anesthetization of patients undergoing indolent colonoscopy.

METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of patients undergoing indolent colonoscopy in the Xinjiang People’s Hospital was conducted from April 1 to April 30, 2015. The survey collected patient general information and anesthesia data, including overall medical experience and pain management. Thirty minutes after colonoscopy surgery, samples of venous blood were collected and the biochemical indicators of gastrointestinal function were analyzed.

RESULTS: There were 98 female and 62 male respondents. Indolent colonoscopy was found to be more suitable for mid to older-aged patients. The necessary conditions for the diagnosis of digestive diseases were required in 65 of the 73 inpatients. Adverse reactions to the intraoperative process included two cases of body movement and two cases of respiratory depression. Gastrin and vasoactive intestinal peptide levels were slightly increased. However, somatostatin and endothelin levels were slightly decreased.

CONCLUSION: This study revealed that dezocine combined with propofol can be successfully used for the anesthetization of indolent colonoscopy patients without pain and should be widely used.

Bronchoscopist-directed Continuous Propofol Infusion for Targeting Moderate Sedation During Endobronchial Ultrasound Bronchoscopy: A Practical and Effective Protocol

BACKGROUND

Propofol use for sedation during routine flexible bronchoscopy is expanding. However, there are concerns over propofol's reliability in targeting moderate sedation during more complex and lengthy procedures, such as endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) bronchoscopy. Its delivery by continuous infusion, which provides a steady sedation effect, may be a practical model for achieving reliable outcomes in this setting.

METHODS

We tested a continuous propofol infusion protocol targeting moderate sedation for EBUS bronchoscopy. A fixed loading rate of 125 mcg/kg/min and initial maintenance rate of 75 mcg/kg/min were used. Sedation assessments were performed every 2.5 minutes. The infusion was adjusted by a nurse under the direction of the bronchoscopist to maintain moderate sedation, normal vital signs, and patient comfort. Prospectively collected data from the first 31 patients using the protocol were analyzed.

RESULTS

A mix of EBUS types was performed in a fellowship training environment. Median procedure duration was 51 minutes (interquartile range, 41 to 75 min). Ninety-four percent of total bronchoscopy time was spent in moderate sedation, whereas only 1.9% was occupied by agitation-related delays. Average propofol dose per case was 0.07 mg/kg/min (±0.020), and infusion adjustments were required once every 8 minutes. Sampling goals were met in all patients, and diagnostic and nodal staging accuracies were 90% and 91%, respectively. All tumor specimens sent for genetics were sufficient for analysis. There were no major procedure-related complications.

CONCLUSION

Bronchoscopist-directed continuous propofol infusion is effective and practical for reliably and safely targeting moderate sedation during EBUS bronchoscopy, without sacrificing the breadth and accuracy of the procedure.

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.

Factors influencing challenging colonoscopies during anesthesiologist-assisted deep sedation

BACKGROUND/AIM

Increased demand for colon cancer screening procedures can significantly impact on routine colonoscopy management at dedicated facilities, prompting a review of the factors that can negatively affect workflow. Although potential adverse effects and impact on costs of deep sedation have been documented elsewhere, this study focuses on variables that can influence performance of colonoscopy in deep sedation and interfere with normal procedure scheduling in settings where the presence of an anesthesiologist is mandatory.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of the activities of a colonoscopy screening unit, applying Bayesian Network (BN) analysis, designed to assess interdependencies among variables that can affect a process in complex, multidimensional systems. The study was performed at a teaching hospital where endoscopists and anesthesiologists of varying work experience operate on a rota basis. During a six-month period, we analyzed 1485 consecutive colonoscopies performed under deep propofol sedation, administered by an anesthesiologist via hand-controlled syringe. The BN was constructed with the variables: Gender, age, ASA status, bowel preparation, baseline blood pressure, endoscopist's experience, anesthesiologist's experience, presence of polypectomy, and the target node, "challenging procedure." This previously undefined category refers to any events disrupting the scheduled rota.

RESULT AND CONCLUSION

Two distinct networks were identified. One deals mainly with relationships among the variables, patients' demographic and clinical characteristics (procedures with polypectomy, ASA and baseline blood pressure). The other explains relationships among the variables, "challenging procedure," bowel preparation, and endoscopist's experience. The factors associated with the anesthesiologist's activity do not influence challenging colonoscopies.

Portable inhaled methoxyflurane is feasible and safe for colonoscopy in subjects with morbid obesity and/or obstructive sleep apnea

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Colonoscopy with inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox) is well tolerated in unselected subjects and is not associated with respiratory depression. The aim of this prospective study was to compare the feasibility, safety, and post-procedural outcomes of portable methoxyflurane used as an analgesic agent during colonoscopy with those of anesthesia-assisted deep sedation (AADS) in subjects with morbid obesity and/or obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The outcomes of 140 patients with morbid obesity/OSA who underwent colonoscopy with either Penthrox inhalation (n = 85; 46 men, 39 women; mean age 57.2 ± 1.1 years) or AADS (n = 55; 27 men, 28 women; mean age, 54.9 ± 1.1 years) were prospectively assessed.

RESULTS

All Penthrox-assisted colonoscopies were successful, without any requirement for additional intravenous sedation. Compared with AADS, Penthrox was associated with a shorter total procedural time (24 ± 1 vs. 52 ± 1 minutes, P < 0.001), a lower incidence of hypotension (3 /85 vs. 23 /55, P < 0.001), and a lower incidence of respiratory desaturation (0 /85 vs. 14 /55, P < 0.001). The patients in the Penthrox group recovered more rapidly and were discharged much earlier than those in the AADS group (27 ± 2 vs. 97 ± 5 minutes, P < 0.0001). Of those who underwent colonoscopy with Penthrox, 90 % were willing to receive Penthrox again for colonoscopy. More importantly, of the patients who underwent colonoscopy with Penthrox and had had AADS for previous colonoscopy, 82 % (28 /34) preferred to receive Penthrox for future colonoscopies. Penthrox-assisted colonoscopy cost significantly less than colonoscopy with AADS ($ 332 vs. $ 725, P < 0.001), with a cost saving of approximately $ 400 for each additional complication avoided.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with AADS, Penthrox is highly feasible and safe in patients with morbid obesity/OSA undergoing colonoscopy and is associated with fewer cardiorespiratory complications. Because of the advantages of this approach in regard to procedural time, recovery time, and cost benefit in comparison with AADS, further evaluation in a randomized trial is warranted.

Sedation with etomidate-fentanyl versus propofol-fentanyl in colonoscopies: A prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

The combination of propofol-fentanyl for sedation during colonoscopy is characterized by high prevalence of side effects. Etomidate-fentanyl provides fewer hemodynamic and respiratory complications. The aim of our study was to compare the safety and efficacy of propofol-fentanyl and etomidate-fentanyl for conscious sedation in elective colonoscopy.

METHODS

This double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 90 patients aged between 18- 55 years old who were candidates for elective colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive sedation with fentanyl plus propofol or etomidate. Two minutes after injecting 1 micro/kg of fentanyl, the patients received 0.5mg/kg propofol by infusion (25 µ/kg/min) or 0.1 mg/kg etmoidate (15 µ/kg/min). Pulse rate, mean arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate, and saturation of peripheral oxygen (SPO2) were monitored. In addition, the patient and colonoscopist satisfaction, the recovery time, sedation and pain score in both groups were assessed.

RESULTS

Sedation score in propofol group was higher. Pain score as well as the physician and patient satisfaction showed no significant difference between the two study groups. Hemodynamic changes and arterial saturation were the same in both groups. The duration of recovery was 1.27±0.82 minutes in the etomidate group; versus 2.57±2.46 minutes in the propofol group (P=0.001). Recovery time in the etmoid group was 2.68±3.14 minutes and in the propofol group was 5.53±4.67 minutes (p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

The combination of fentanyl and etomidate provides an acceptable alternative to sedation with fentanyl and propofol with the advantage of significantly faster recovery time, in the outpatient setting.

SEDASYS(®), airway, oxygenation, and ventilation: anticipating and managing the challenges

In May 2013, the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) approved SEDASYS(®), a device that enables non-anesthesia physicians to provide mild-to-moderate sedation to patients undergoing colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy. SEDASYS(®) is the first among the devices being built to provide computer-assisted personalized sedation. Although the intention of this approval is to cut the anesthesia related expenses, it is likely to create new challenges to the users-both clinical and administrative-that might even increase the cost. Deep sedation is required frequently for a successful completion of the procedure, which poses unforeseen challenges. The present review aims to provide clear information to the users regarding pre-procedure assessment, possible sedation related complications and management options.

Patient-controlled analgesia with inhaled methoxyflurane versus conventional endoscopist-provided sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized multicenter trial

OBJECTIVE

Inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox, Medical Device International, Melbourne, Australia) has been used extensively in Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) to manage trauma-related pain. The aim is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and outcome of Penthrox for colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized study.

SETTING

Three tertiary endoscopic centers.

PATIENTS

Two hundred fifty-one patients were randomized to receive either Penthrox (n = 125, 70 men, 51.4 ± 1.1 years old) or intravenous midazolam and fentanyl (M&F; n = 126, 72 men, 54.9 ± 1.1 years old) during colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

Discomfort (visual analogue scale [VAS] pain score), anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y [STAI-Y] anxiety score), colonoscopy performance, adverse events, and recovery time.

RESULTS

Precolonoscopy VAS pain and STAI-Y scores were comparable between the 2 groups. There were no differences between groups in (1) pain VAS or STAI Y-1 anxiety scores during or immediately after colonoscopy, (2) procedural success rate (Penthrox: 121/125 vs M&F: 124/126), (3) hypotension during colonoscopy (7/125 vs 8/126), (4) tachycardia (5/125 vs 3/126), (5) cecal arrival time (8 ± 1 vs 8 ± 1 minutes), or (6) polyp detection rate (30/125 vs 43/126). Additional intravenous sedation was required in 10 patients (8%) who received Penthrox. Patients receiving Penthrox alone had no desaturation (oxygen saturation [SaO(2)] < 90%) events (0/115 vs 5/126; P = .03), awoke quicker (3 ± 0 vs 19 ± 1 minutes; P < .001) and were ready for discharge earlier (37 ± 1 vs 66 ± 2 minutes; P < .001) than those receiving intravenous M&F.

LIMITATIONS

Inhaled Penthrox is not yet available in the United States and Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-controlled analgesia with inhaled Penthrox is feasible and as effective as conventional sedation for colonoscopy with shorter recovery time, is not associated with respiratory depression, and does not influence the procedural success and polyp detection.

Safety and effectiveness of low-dose propofol sedation during and after esophagogastroduodenoscopy in child A and B cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Effective and safe sedation for patients with liver cirrhosis is problematic.

AIM

To examine the safety and effectiveness of low-dose propofol sedation during and after esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Study 1 was a prospective study in cirrhotic patients who underwent diagnostic EGD under propofol sedation. Propofol was given by bolus injection with an age-adjusted standard protocol consisting of 40 mg for patients <70 years, 30 mg for patients aged 70-89 years; additional injections of 20 mg propofol were given up to a maximum of 120 mg. The principal parameter was the occurrence of adverse events within 24 h after EGD. Secondary parameters included successful procedures, complications, and full recovery within 60 min. In Study 2, the residual effects of propofol were evaluated using a driving simulator and blood propofol concentrations in a subset of cirrhotic patients undergoing EGD and compared with healthy individuals. The principal parameter was driving ability.

RESULTS

Study 1: Consecutive cirrhotic patients were entered and all 163 successfully completed EGD. The mean dose of propofol was 46 mg (range 30-120 mg). No complications occurred. Full recovery had occurred in 100 % 60 min after the procedure. No adverse events occurred within 24 h after EGD. Study 2: There were no significant differences in blood propofol levels between cirrhotic patients (n = 21) and healthy individuals (n = 20) after sedation. In cirrhotic patients, there was no deterioration in driving ability as compared with healthy individuals.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose propofol sedation provided safe and effective sedation for EGD in cirrhotic patients with rapid recovery.