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

Development of a predictive model for hypoxia due to sedatives in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective clinical study in Korea

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Sedation has become a standard practice for patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. However, considering the serious cardiopulmonary adverse events associated with sedatives, it is important to identify patients at high risk. Machine learning can generate reasonable prediction for a wide range of medical conditions. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors associated with sedation during GI endoscopy and develop a predictive model for hypoxia during endoscopy under sedation.

METHODS

This prospective observational study enrolled 446 patients who underwent sedative endoscopy at the Korea University Ansan Hospital. Clinical data were used as predictor variables to construct predictive models using the random forest method that is a machine learning algorithm.

RESULTS

Seventy-two of the 446 patients (16.1%) experienced life-threatening hypoxia requiring immediate medical intervention. Patients who developed hypoxia had higher body weight, body mass index (BMI), neck circumference, and Mallampati scores. Propofol alone and higher initial and total dose of propofol were significantly associated with hypoxia during sedative endoscopy. Among these variables, high BMI, neck circumference, and Mallampati score were independent risk factors for hypoxia. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the random forest-based predictive model for hypoxia during sedative endoscopy was 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.86) and displayed a moderate discriminatory power.

CONCLUSIONS

High BMI, neck circumference, and Mallampati score were independently associated with hypoxia during sedative endoscopy. We constructed a model with acceptable performance for predicting hypoxia during sedative endoscopy.

Consensus guidelines for the perioperative management of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Deep sedation without tracheal intubation (monitored anaesthesia care) and general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation are commonly used anaesthesia techniques for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There are distinct pathophysiological differences between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia that need to be considered depending on the nature and severity of the patient's underlying disease, comorbidities, and procedural risks. An international group of expert anaesthesiologists and gastroenterologists created clinically relevant questions regarding the merits and risks of monitored anaesthesia care vs general anaesthesia in specific clinical scenarios for planning optimal anaesthetic approaches for ERCP. Using a modified Delphi approach, the group created practical recommendations for anaesthesiologists, with the aim of reducing the incidence of perioperative adverse outcomes while maximising healthcare resource utilisation. In the majority of clinical scenarios analysed, our expert recommendations favour monitored anaesthesia care over general anaesthesia. Patients with increased risk of pulmonary aspiration and those undergoing prolonged procedures of high complexity were thought to benefit from general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation. Patient age and ASA physical status were not considered to be factors for choosing between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia. Monitored anaesthesia care is the favoured anaesthesia plan for ERCP. An individual risk-benefit analysis that takes into account provider and institutional experience, patient comorbidities, and procedural risks is also needed.

Comparative Study of Moderate Sedation with Propofol Versus Propofol Combined with Midazolam for Ambulatory Care Digestive Endoscopic Procedures

Anesthesia is essential during colonoscopy because it provides patients with necessary sedation to perform the investigation safely and nonetheless to obtain the highest quality of the results. We aimed here to evaluate and establish which of the combinations of anesthetic drugs most frequently used for sedation purposes for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed in the ambulatory best covers the needs of the patient and the gastroenterologist. This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind study carried out on a total of 100 patients, aged between 18 and 80 years, who meet the conditions for inclusion in the study. Patients were randomly allocated into either group A (Propofol) or group B (Midazolam plus Propofol). Evaluation of the dose of Propofol used in the 2 groups, awakening time, anesthetic induction, as well as the occurrence of episodes of bradycardia and hypotension represented the parameters followed in the study. In group A, 50 patients received on average 218.6mg of Propofol in bolus of 10-20mg. In group B, 50 patients received 0.1mg/kg Midazolam and an average of up to 129.2mg of Propofol in bolus of 10-20mg. Awakening time was shorter in group A-3.18 minutes, than in group B-15.7 minutes. Bradycardia and hypotension were met in a larger number in group B than in group A. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups. The conclusion of our study was that the group to which only Propofol was administered had the best results from all aspects (rapid anesthetic induction, stability of vital functions, lower cost, awakening time much faster) compared to the combination of Propofol with Midazolam.

Tolerability of Midazolam to treat acute agitation in elderly demented patients: A systematic review

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Behavioural disorders are difficult to manage in elderly demented patients because of the lack of appropriate drugs or difficulties surrounding the route of administration. The tolerability of Midazolam is well described in the emergency management of agitation for young patients, when administered intramuscularly or intravenously. However, very little data are available on the use of oral Midazolam for this indication and in the elderly population.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted, and studies were included if involving adults, receiving Midazolam, alone or in combination, whatever the route, dosage or indication and if they reported adverse events related to the use of Midazolam.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Forty-one articles were included. Eleven different adverse events were identified from the studies. Hypotension and desaturation were the two most frequent adverse events reported. Adverse reactions appear to be more common in older patients but also when Midazolam was used in combination with other drugs. The frequency of these adverse effects was lower than those reported for neuroleptic drugs.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The oral route appears to be appropriate to provide a rapid and well-tolerated response. Further studies will be needed to confirm the good tolerance of oral Midazolam in the management of acute agitation in elderly demented patients.

Efficacy and safety of etomidate-midazolam for screening colonoscopy in the elderly: A prospective double-blinded randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recent studies have shown that etomidate is associated with fewer serious adverse events than propofol and has a noninferior sedative effect. We investigated whether etomidate-midazolam is associated with fewer cardiopulmonary adverse events and has noninferior efficacy compared to propofol-midazolam for screening colonoscopy in the elderly.

METHODS

A prospective, single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial was performed. Patients aged over 65 years who were scheduled to undergo screening colonoscopy were randomized to receive either etomidate or propofol based on midazolam. The primary outcome was all cardiopulmonary adverse events. The secondary outcomes were vital sign fluctuation (VSF), adverse events disturbing the procedure, and sedation-related outcomes.

RESULTS

The incidence of cardiopulmonary adverse events was higher in the propofol group (72.6%) than in the etomidate group (54.8%) (P = .040). VSF was detected in 17 (27.4%) and 31 (50.0%) patients in the etomidate and propofol groups, respectively (P = .010). The incidence rate of adverse events disturbing the procedure was significantly higher in the etomidate group (25.8%) than in the propofol group (8.1%) (P = .008). Moreover, the incidence rate of myoclonus was significantly higher in the etomidate group (16.1%) than in the propofol group (1.6%) (P = .004). There was no statistical significance between the 2 groups with respect to sedation times and sedation-related outcomes including patients' and endoscopist's satisfaction. In the multivariate analysis, the etomidate group had significantly low odds ratio (OR) associated with VSF (OR: 0.407, confidence interval: 0.179-0.926, P = .032).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend using etomidate-midazolam in patients with high ASA score or vulnerable to risk factors; propofol-midazolam may be used as a guideline in patients with low ASA score.

Propofol target-controlled infusion for sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy: A comparison of propofol alone versus propofol-fentanyl-midazolam

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is the major technique for diagnosis of GI disease and treatment. Various sedation and analgesia regimens such as midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol can be used during GI endoscopy. The purpose of the study was to compare propofol alone and propofol combination with midazolam and fentanyl in moderate sedation for GI endoscopy. One hundred patients undergoing GI endoscopy were enrolled in this study. All patients received a propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) to maintain sedation during the procedure. Patients were randomly allocated into either Group P (propofol TCI alone) or Group C (combination of propofol TCI plus midazolam and fentanyl). Dermographic data, anesthetic parameters (sedation regimen, blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation), procedure parameters (procedure time, colonoscopy, or panendoscopy), propofol consumption, and adverse events (hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia) were all recorded. Postprocedural records included recovery time, postoperative adverse events (nausea, vomiting, dizziness, recall, and pain) and satisfaction. The average propofol consumption was 251 ± 83 mg in Group P and 159 ± 73 mg in Group C (p < 0.001). The incidence of transient hypotension was higher in Group P (p = 0.009). The recovery time and discharge time were both shorter in Group C (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006 respectively). Overall, postprocedural adverse events were similar in both groups. The postanesthetic satisfaction was comparable in both groups. TCI of propofol combined with midazolam and fentanyl achieved sedation with fewer hypotension episodes and shorter recovery and discharge time than propofol TCI alone in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.