Propofol use in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Balanced propofol sedation is extensively used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) are common. In various clinical settings, the combination of dexmedetomidine with opioids and benzodiazepines has provided effective sedation with increased safety. The aim of this investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during ERCP.

METHODS

Forty-one patients were randomly divided into two groups: the dexmedetomidine (DEX) group and the propofol (PRO) group. Patients in the DEX group received an additional bolus of 0.6 μg kg-1 dexmedetomidine followed by a dexmedetomidine infusion at 1.2 μg kg-1 h-1, whereas the PRO group received 1-2 mg kg-1 of propofol bolus followed by a propofol infusion at 2-3 mg kg-1 h-1. During ERCP, the primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for > 10 s). Other intraoperative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes, including respiratory depression (respiratory rate of < 10 bpm min-1), hypotension (MAP < 65 mmHg), and bradycardia (HR < 45 beats min-1).

RESULTS

The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared to the PRO group (0% versus 28.6%, respectively; P = 0.032). Patients in the PRO group exhibited respiratory depression more frequently than patients in the DEX group (35% versus 81%, respectively; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in terms of hypotension and bradycardia episodes between groups. During the procedures, the satisfaction scores of endoscopists and patients, as well as the pain and procedure memory scores of patients were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with propofol, dexmedetomidine provided adequate sedation safety with no adverse effects on sedation efficacy during ERCP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200061468, 25/06/2022.

Randomized, Single-Blind, Comparative Study of Remimazolam Besylate vs Propofol for Facial Plastic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Use of local anesthesia and conscious sedation with a combination of a sedative and anesthetic drug during a surgical procedure is an approach designed to avoid intubation, which produces fewer adverse events compared to general anesthesia. In the present study, a comparison was made between the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate and propofol for facial plastic surgery.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to evaluate the clinical efficacy, comfort, and incidence of adverse events of remimazolam compared with propofol combined with alfentanil in outpatient facial plastic surgery.

METHODS

In this randomized, single-blind, single-center, comparative study, facial plastic surgery patients were randomly divided into remimazolam-alfentanil (n = 50) and propofol-alfentanil (n = 50) groups for sedation and analgesia. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoxemia, while secondary endpoints included efficacy and safety evaluations.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences regarding the surgical procedure, sedation and induction times, pain and comfort scores, muscle strength recovery, heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure, but the dosage of alfentanil administered to the remimazolam group (387.5 μg) was lower than that for the propofol group (600 μg). The incidence of hypoxemia (P = .046) and towing of the mandibular (P = .028), as well as wake-up (P = .027) and injection pain (P = .008), were significantly higher in the propofol group than the remimazolam group.

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam and propofol had similar efficacies for sedation and analgesia during facial plastic surgery, but especially the incidence of respiratory depression was significantly lower in patients given remimazolam.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

The 90% effective dose (ED90) of remimazolam for inhibiting responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope during ERCP

BACKGROUND

Compared to midazolam, remimazolam has a faster onset and offset of hypnotic effect, as well as cardiorespiratory stability, this study aims to determine the 90% effective dose (ED90) of remimazolam to inhibit responses to insertion of a duodenoscope during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

A dose-response study was carried out undergoing ERCP who received remimazolam-alfentanil anesthesia using 10 µg/kg of alfentanil between September 2021 and November 2021. The initial dose of remimazolam was 0.2 mg/kg. The dose was then decided based on the responses of earlier patients by exploiting the sequential ascend and descend according to a 9: 1 biased coin design. Upon failure, the dose of remimazolam was increased by 0.025 mg/kg in the next patient. When the insertion was successful, the succeeding patient was randomized to an identical dose or a dose that was lower by 0.025 mg/kg.The ED90 of remimazolam for inhibiting responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope during ERCP was calculated. Adverse events and complications of remimazolam were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 55 elderly patients (age > 65) were included in the study. 45 successfully anesthetized patients, and 10 unsuccessfully. The ED90 of remimazolam was 0.300 mg/kg (95% CI = 0.287-0.320). ED95 was 0.315 (95% CI = 0.312-0.323) and ED99 was 0.323 (95% CI = 0.323-0.325). Among the patients, 9 patients developed hypotension, 2 patients developed bradycardia and 1 patient developed tachycardia, and hypoxia occurred in 2 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A loading dose of 0.300 mg / kg of remimazolam for elderly patients undergoing ERCP can safely, effectively, and quickly induce patients to fall asleep and inhibit responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was registered at the website ClinicalTrials.gov on 22/09/2021(NCT05053763).

A Review on Endoscopic Management of Acute Cholecystitis: Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gallbladder Drainage and Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage

A percutaneous cholecystostomy tube (PCT) is the conventionally favored nonoperative intervention for treating acute cholecystitis. However, PCT is beset by high adverse event rates, need for scheduled reintervention, and inadvertent dislodgement, as well as patient dissatisfaction with a percutaneous drain. Recent advances in endoscopic therapy involve the implementation of endoscopic transpapillary drainage (ETP-GBD) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), which are increasingly preferred over PCT due to their favorable technical and clinical success combined with lower complication rates. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of the literature on EUS-GBD and ETP-GBD, delineating instances when clinicians should opt for endoscopic management and highlighting potential risks associated with each approach.

Sedative-sparing effect of acupuncture in gastrointestinal endoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the efficacy of acupuncture therapy (including manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture) performed before or during gastrointestinal endoscopy with propofol as the main sedative, compared with placebo, sham acupuncture, or no additional treatment other than the same sedation.

Methods

A systematic search was performed through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Databases (CBM), Wanfang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), SinoMed, and Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP) to collect randomized controlled trials published before 5 November 2022. Bias assessment of the included RCTs was performed according to Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). Stata16.0 software was used to perform statistical analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias analysis. The primary outcome was sedative consumption, and the secondary outcomes included the incidence of adverse events and wake-up time.

Results

A total of 10 studies with 1331 participants were included. The results showed that sedative consumption [mean difference (MD) = -29.32, 95% CI (-36.13, -22.50), P < 0.001], wake-up time [MD = -3.87, 95% CI (-5.43, -2.31), P < 0.001] and the incidence of adverse events including hypotension, nausea and vomiting, and coughing (P < 0.05) were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group.

Conclusion

Acupuncture combined with sedation reduces sedative consumption and wake-up time compared with sedation alone in gastrointestinal endoscopy; this combined approach allows patients to regain consciousness more quickly after examination and lower the risk of adverse effects. However, with the limited quantity and quality of relevant clinical studies, caution must be applied until more high-quality clinical studies verify and refine the conclusions.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?, identifier: CRD42022370422.

A randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing remimazolam to propofol when combined with alfentanil for sedation during ERCP procedures

STUDY OBJECTIVE

In many countries, the combination of propofol and opioid is used as the preferred sedative regime during ERCP. However, the most serious risks of propofol sedation are oxygen deficiency and hypotension. Compared to midazolam, remimazolam has a faster onset and offset of hypnotic effect, as well as cardiorespiratory stability, and to achieve widespread acceptance for procedural sedation, remimazolam must replace propofol which is the most commonly used for procedural sedation. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy profiles of the remimazolam and propofol when combined with alfentanil for sedation during ERCP procedures.

DESIGN

A randomized, controlled, single-center trial.

SETTING

The Endoscopic Centre of Tianjin Nankai Hospital, China.

PATIENTS

518 patients undergoing elective ERCP under deep sedation.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly assigned to be sedated with either a combination of remimazolam-alfentanil or propofol-alfentanil.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the prevalence of hypoxia, which was defined as SpO₂ < 90% for >10 s. Other outcomes were the need for airway maneuver, procedure, and sedation-related outcomes and side effects (e.g., nausea, vomiting, and cardiovascular adverse events).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 518 patients underwent randomization. Of these, 250 were assigned to the remimazolam group and 255 to the propofol group. During ERCP, 9.6% of patients in the remimazolam group showed hypoxia, while in the propofol group, 15.7% showed hypoxia (p = 0.04). The need for airway maneuvering due to hypoxia was significantly greater in the propofol group (p = 0.04). Furthermore, patients sedated with remimazolam had a lower percentage of hypotension than patients sedated with propofol (p < 0.001). Patients receiving remimazolam sedation expressed higher satisfaction scores and were recommended the same sedation for the next ERCP. The procedure time in the remimazolam group was much longer than in the propofol group due to the complexity of the patient's disease, which resulted in a longer sedation time.

CONCLUSION

During elective ERCP, patients administered with remimazolam showed fewer respiratory depression events under deep sedation with hemodynamic advantages over propofol when administered in combination with alfentanil.

Comparison Effects of Propofol-Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol-Remifentanil for Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial

Objective. To compare the effects of propofol-dexmedetomidine versus propofol-remifentanil for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). Design, Setting, and Participants. A single-center, randomized trial from August 20, 2020 to August 20, 2021, in patients undergoing EUS. Interventions. Propofol-dexmedetomidine (PD) versus propofol-remifentanil (PR). Outcome Measures. The primary outcome was the endoscopist satisfaction level. The secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, the incidence of adverse events, induction time, and time to achieve postanesthesia discharge score (PADS) ≥9. Methods. Total of 200 patients were enrolled and randomized into PD and PR groups. A bolus dose of 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine was injected intravenously for 5 min. Subsequently, a continuous infusion of 0.5 μg/kg/h for the PD group. Remifentanil was continuously infused at 1.5 μg/kg/h for the PR group. A bolus dose of 1 mg/kg propofol was administered to both groups and then continuously infused. Results. The endoscopist satisfaction level was higher in the PR group than in the PD group ( $P=0.009$ ). Patient satisfaction was not significantly different between the groups ( $P=0.738$ ). No patients required mask ventilation or tracheal intubation in both groups. All patients were relatively hemodynamically stable. The incidence of body movements during the procedure in the PD group was higher than in the PR group ( $P=0.035$ ). The induction time and time taken to achieve PADS ≥9 in the PD group were longer than in the PR group ( $P<0.05$ ). Conclusions. PR sedation can increase the satisfaction level of the endoscopist by providing faster induction time and lower body movement and that of the patient by achieving faster PADS than PD sedation. Trial registration number: http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000034987).

Bispectral index-guided propofol sedation during endoscopic ultrasonography

Background/Aims

Bispectral index (BIS) monitors process and display electroencephalographic data are used to assess the depth of anesthesia. This study retrospectively evaluated the usefulness of BIS monitoring during endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS).

Methods

This study included 725 consecutive patients who underwent EUS under sedation with propofol. BIS monitoring was used in 364 patients and was not used in 361. The following parameters were evaluated: (1) median dose of propofol; (2) respiratory and circulatory depression; (3) occurrence of body movements; (4) awakening score >8 at the time; and (5) awakening score 2 hours after leaving the endoscopy room.

Results

The BIS group received a significantly lower median dose of propofol than the non-BIS group (159.2 mg vs. 167.5 mg; p=0.015) in all age groups. For patients aged ≥75 years, the reduction in heart rate was significantly lower in the BIS group than in the non-BIS group (1.2% vs. 9.1%; p=0.023). Moreover, the occurrence of body movements was markedly lower in the BIS group than in the non-BIS group (8.5% vs. 39.4%; p<0.001).

Conclusions

During EUS examination, BIS monitoring is useful for maintaining a constant depth of anesthesia, especially in patients 75 years of age or older.

Standardization of EUS imaging and reporting in high-risk individuals of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: consensus statement of the Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection Consortium

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an aggressive disease most often diagnosed after local progression or metastatic dissemination, precluding resection and resulting in a high mortality rate. For individuals with elevated personal risk of the development of pancreatic cancer, EUS is a frequently used advanced imaging and diagnostic modality. However, variability in the expertise and definition of EUS findings exists among gastroenterologists, as well as a lack of standardized reporting of relevant findings at the time of examination. Adoption of standardized EUS reporting, using a universally accepted and agreed on terminology, is needed.

METHODS

A consensus statement designed to create a standardized reporting template was authored by a multidisciplinary group of experts in pancreatic diseases that includes gastroenterologists, radiologists, surgeons, oncologists, and geneticists. This statement was developed using a modified Delphi process as part of the Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection Consortium, and >75% agreement was required to reach consensus.

RESULTS

We identified reporting elements and present standardized reporting templates for EUS indications, procedural data, EUS image capture, and descriptors of findings, tissue sampling, and postprocedural assessment of adequacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of this standardized EUS reporting template should improve consistency in clinical decision-making for individuals with elevated risk of pancreatic cancer by providing complete and accurate reporting of pancreatic abnormalities. Standardization will also help to facilitate research and clinical trial design by using clearly defined and consistent imaging descriptions, thus allowing for comparison of results across different centers.

Impact of endoscopist experience, patient age and comorbidities on dose of sedation and sedation-related complications by endoscopic ultrasound

AIM

The aim of the study is to investigate the influence of endosonographer experience and patient-related factors on the dose of sedation and sedation-related complications during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

METHODS

Our retrospective analysis included EUS investigations performed between 2015 and 2018 at our institution. Sedation-related complications were defined as cardiorespiratory instability with oxygen saturation drop below 90% or prolonged low blood pressure or bradycardia.

RESULTS

In total, 537 EUS examinations were analyzed (37.3% interventional). The median dose of propofol and midazolam were: 140 (30-570) and 3(1-7) mg, respectively. Sedation-related complications were documented in 1.8% of cases. All patients had transient, nonfatal respiratory insufficiency. Totally, 60% of the patients who developed complications were >75 years and 70% were male. The presence of cardiac and/or pulmonary comorbidities was associated with an OR = 8.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-41.7] and American Society of Anesthesiologists class III with an OR = 7.64 (95% CI, 1.60-36.3) for the occurrence of sedation-related complications. Endosonographer experience did not influence the rate of sedation-related complications. In both diagnostic and interventional EUS, patients with comorbidities and older age received significantly less sedation. Experienced endosonographers used less sedation than trainees.

CONCLUSION

Endosonographer experience, patient age and the presence of comorbidities had a significant influence on sedation dose. Sedation-related complications occurred only in 1.8% of cases.

Lateral position intubation followed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided angiotherapy in acute esophageal variceal rupture: A case report

BACKGROUND

Massive esophageal variceal bleeding can be catastrophic, leading to high morbidity and mortality. Patients experiencing massive esophageal variceal bleeding are at high risk of aspiration and hemorrhagic shock in acute episodes. Intubation and bleeding control are the two essential steps for resuscitation of these patients.

CASE SUMMARY

A 47-year-old male patient was admitted to our hospital with upper digestive tract bleeding. He was diagnosed with alcohol-induced liver cirrhosis and consequent esophagogastric varices. As he did not show a good response to somatostatin and Sengstaken-Blakemore tube placement, the patient was scheduled for endoscopic angiotherapy under anesthesia. Preoperative assessment showed an ASA physical status of III and Child-Pugh classification B. However, massive hemorrhage occurred just after induction of anesthesia.  Intubation by video-guided laryngoscopy in the lateral decubitus position was attempted twice and was successful. After that, an experienced endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) specialist performed angiotherapy and occluded the culprit vessel. An ultra-thin gastroscope was then inserted into the endotracheal tube to extract the blood observed in the lobar bronchi. The patient suffered hemorrhagic shock with an estimated blood loss of 1500 mL in 20 min and remained in the intensive care unit for two days. The patient was discharged from our hospital eight days later without major complications.

CONCLUSION

Intubation in the lateral decubitus position and EUS-guided treatment can be life-saving procedures in patients with massive upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine in propofol-based sedation for ERCP procedures: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Propofol-based sedation is widely used in ERCP procedures, but adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events commonly occur. Intravenous injection of lidocaine has an analgesic effect and can reduce the requirements of fentanyl and propofol during abdominal surgery. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine on propofol requirements during ERCP procedures.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly divided into 2 groups, the lidocaine group and the control group. All patients received .02 mg/kg midazolam and .1 μg/kg sufentanil intravenously as premedication. A bolus of propofol was applied for induction of sedation, and perfusion of propofol was applied for maintenance. Patients in the lidocaine group received a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine intravenously followed by continuous infusion of 2 mg/kg/h, whereas the control group received the same volumes of saline solution. The primary outcome was the propofol requirement during ERCP.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, propofol requirements were reduced by 33.8% in the lidocaine group (212.0 ± 118.2 mg vs 320.0 ± 189.6 mg, P = .023). Involuntary movement was less common in the lidocaine group than in the control group (12.5% vs 41.7%, P = .049). In the lidocaine group, postprocedure pain and fatigue, as measured by the visual analog scale, were significantly reduced (0 [range, 0-4] vs 3 [range, 0-5], P = .005; 2 [range, 0-4] vs 5 [range, 2-8], P < .001).The incidence of oxygen desaturation, hypotension, and bradycardia tended to be lower in the lidocaine group.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous lidocaine can significantly decrease propofol requirements during ERCP, with higher sedation quality and endoscopist satisfaction. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03996577.).

Effect of sevoflurane anaesthesia on nasal mask in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: is it a preferred alternative?

Background/aim

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) often requires deep sedation. Propofol provides adequate sedation and amnesia at subhypnotic doses, but safe guarding the patient’s airway is important for preventing respiratory depression or u28ba events. This study compared sedation levels, operator satisfaction, intraoperative and recovery characteristics using sevoflurane with nasal mask and propofol in ERCP.

Material and methods

Sixty-one patients underwent ERCP (Group I: propofol, n = 31; Group II, sevoflurane, n = 30), with sedation controlled by the Ramsay sedation scale (RSS). The patients’ demographic data, procedure length, overall drug dose, hemodynamic changes, duration of recovery and Aldrete scores during recovery were evaluated. In addition, satisfaction of the gastroenterologist was evaluated.

Results

The mean sphincterotomy satisfaction scores were statistically significant (P= 0.043). The Aldrete scores and RSS of the groups were similar; there was a significant difference between groups at the beginning of the procedure regarding peripheric oxygen saturations and Group II’s saturation levels increased during sedation.

Conclusion

In ERCP, propofol infusion provides shorter recovery duration and adequate sedation levels. Sevoflurane and oxygen with a nasal mask can be chosen to generate specific anaesthesia in patients, especially for strong airway support and safety treating hypoxemic patients.

Dilatation Therapy and Demographic Characteristics Significantly Influence the Amount of Propofol for Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) may require different amounts of sedative agents depending on demographic characteristics, indication of ERC, and/or endoscopic intervention.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all patients undergoing therapeutic ERC from 2008 - 2014 who received deep sedation with propofol ± midazolam.

RESULTS

A total of 2448 ERC procedures were performed in 781 patients. The cumulative per procedure propofol dose in the different groups was as follows: PSC 479 mg (±256), bile duct stones 356 mg (±187), benign stenosis/cholestasis 395 mg (±228), malignant stenosis 401 mg (±283), and postliver transplant complications 391 mg (±223) (p < 0.05). Multivariable analysis showed that dilatation therapy (p = 0.001), age (p = 0.001), duration of the intervention (p = 0.001), BMI (p = 0.001), gender (p = 0.001), platelet count (p = 0.003), and bilirubin (p = 0.043) influence independently the propofol consumption.

CONCLUSIONS

Demographic characteristics and endoscopic interventions have a distinct influence on the amount of sedation required for therapeutic ERC. Although the sedation-associated complication rate is low optimization of sedative regimens is a prime goal to further reduce adverse events of therapeutic ERC.

Safety and efficacy of endoscopist-directed balanced propofol sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Background

Endoscopist-directed balanced propofol sedation (BPS) appears to be safe and effective for routine endoscopy. However, there are limited data on its use in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We evaluated the safety and efficacy of endoscopist-directed BPS for ERCP, and compared patient outcomes with anesthesiologist-administered moderate sedation.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study, using prospectively collected endoscopy data from a tertiary care medical center where endoscopist-directed BPS during ERCP is routine practice. Adverse outcomes included need for bag-mask ventilation or intubation, aborted ERCP due to sedation, hospital admission post-ERCP (outpatients)/change in the level of care (inpatients), and death within 24 h.

Results

A total of 501 patients underwent ERCP with the use of endoscopist-directed BPS: Cohort 1 - 380 (76%) inpatients, mean age 64.1, 46% male, 24% American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA) score I, 65% ASA II, 11% ASA III. Concurrently, 24 patients received anesthesiologist-administered moderate sedation: Cohort 2 - 19 (79%) inpatients, mean age 65.0, 67% male, 12% ASA I, 25% ASA II, 38% ASA III, 25% ASA IV. In Cohort 1, none of the adverse outcomes were observed. Propofol dose was inversely correlated with age (r=-0.42, P<0.001), ASA score (r=-0.19, P<0.001), and Mallampati score (r=-0.24, P<0.001). One patient in Cohort 2 who received anesthesiologist-administered BPS required bag-mask ventilation and the ERCP was prematurely aborted because of the sedation. There were no deaths from any cause within 24 h of ERCP.

Conclusion

Endoscopist-directed BPS appears safe, efficacious, and feasible for ASA I-III patients undergoing inpatient or ambulatory ERCP.

Periprocedural Role of Nurses During Interventional Endoscopic Procedures Under Deep Sedation

Background. Most of endoscopic procedures, either diagnostic or therapeutic, are nowadays performed under sedation, used as a standard practice in most of the centers. Consequently, the number and complexity of endoscopic procedures has increased as sedation diminishes anxiety and discomfort for patients, also improving the quality of endoscopic examinations, and outcomes in therapeutic endoscopy. Compared to standard diagnostic upper or lower GI endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are often longer and more complicated procedures, thus requiring higher doses of sedatives. Sedation levels and medication types depend on a variety of factors, related both to patient characteristics (age, comorbidities, preference, etc.), and procedure types (simple diagnostic endoscopy or more complex therapeutic procedures). Propofol has become undoubtedly the induction agent of choice as it is easy to administer, enables prompt awakening, and has fewer side effects. Aim. The aim of this paper is to outline the role and efficacy of the endoscopy nurse in the peri-procedural care of patients undergoing complex therapeutic interventions (EUS-guided and/or ERCP) under propofol sedation. Methods. At our institution, the Research Centre of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Craiova, 192 patients underwent interventional endoscopic procedures between January 2014-December 2014 (130 EUS and 62 ERCP) under sedation with propofol. We included 110 patients in our study that were followed-up between 4 to 6 hours after the procedures. The GI nurse was responsible that the patients and/or their accompanying persons receive proper information in both written and spoken form regarding their procedure and potential adverse events after sedation. After the procedures the side effects related to anesthesia were marked down by the GI nurse based on a standard questionnaire. Results. The patients mean age was 53.5 years old, with 46 (41.8%) women and 64 (58.2%) men. Most of the patients, that is 90 (81.8%), presented no adverse events. The other 20 patients (18.2%) had the following side effects from sedation: drowsiness in 5 (4.5%) of the cases, nausea in 3 cases (2.8%), vomiting in one case (0.9%), 2 (1.8%) of the patients presented dizziness, 2 (1.8%) headache, 3 (2.8%) coughing, only one patient (0.9%) had an injection site reaction, one (0.9%) had shivers, and 2 patients (1.8%) presented bradycardia. Patients that had side effects were mainly of advanced age and with associated diseases which included chronic kidney disease, cardio-vascular diseases. The nurse responsible with the follow-up of patients was able to rapidly assess their complaints and intervene to the benefit of the patient, before serious adverse events could occur. Conclusions. Although propofol sedations is generally considered safe, potential side effects should be held in mind. The GI nurse has a valuable role in monitoring patients and assessing their response to sedation after the procedure, as well as in timely stepping in where necessary to prevent further complications.

Patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis require more sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiography

Background and study aims Patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) require repeated endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC). Our aim was to evaluate whether patients with PSC require higher doses of sedation during ERC. Patients and methods We retrospectively analyzed all patients undergoing ERC from 2006 to 2013 who received conscious sedation with propofol and midazolam. The duration of the intervention and a potential progression of propofol consumption or intervention time by visit number were analyzed. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify independent factors which influence propofol consumption. Results A total of 2962 ERC procedures were performed in 1211 patients. Patients with PSC (n = 157) underwent 461 ERC procedures whereas patients without PSC (n = 1054) had 2501 ERC examinations. The total median propofol dose was 450 mg (290 - 630 mg) for patients with PSC and 300 mg (200 - 450 mg) for the non-PSC group (P < 0.05). The propofol consumption in patients with PSC was increased by a factor of 1.24 (P = 0.0071) independent of intervention time. Younger age (< 60.8 years) and duration of the intervention were associated with a higher need for sedation by factors of 1.21 and 1.71, respectively (P < 0.0001). The robustness of the results was tested in a sensitivity analysis which confirmed the results (P < 0.0001). Conclusions Patients with PSC may require higher doses of sedation for ERC compared to other patient groups independent of age and duration of ERC. The higher dosage of sedation has to be taken into account when using ERC to treat a patient with PSC.

Endoscopic ultrasound sedation in the United Kingdom: Is life without propofol tolerable?

There is compelling evidence to support the quality, cost effectiveness and safety profile of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). However in the United Kingdom, it is recommended that the administration and monitoring of propofol sedation for endoscopic procedures should be the responsibility of a dedicated and appropriately trained anaesthetist only. The majority of United Kingdom EUS procedures are performed with opiate and benzodiazepine sedation rather than anaesthetist led propofol lists due to anaesthetist resource availability. We sought to prospectively determine the tolerability and safety of EUS with benzodiazepine and opiate sedation in single United Kingdom centre. Two hundred consecutive patients undergoing either EUS or oesophago-gastroduodenoscopy (OGD) with conscious sedation were prospectively recruited with a 1:1 enrolment ratio. Patients completed questionnaires pre and post procedure detailing anticipated and actual pain experienced on a 1-10 visual analogue scale. Demographics, procedure duration, sedation doses and willingness to repeat the procedure were also recorded. EUS procedures lasted significantly longer than OGDs (15 min vs 6 min, P < 0.0001), however, there was no difference in anticipated pain scores between the groups (EUS 3.37/10 vs OGD 3.47/10, P = 0.46). Pain scores indicated EUS was better tolerated than OGD (1.16/10 vs 1.88/10, P = 0.03) although higher doses of sedation were used for EUS procedures. There were no complications identified in either group. We feel our study demonstrates that the tolerability of EUS with opiate and benzodiazepine sedation is acceptable.

High efficacy with deep nurse-administered propofol sedation for advanced gastroenterologic endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Whereas data on moderate nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) efficacy and safety for standard endoscopy is abundant, few reports on the use of deep sedation by endoscopy nurses during advanced endoscopy, such as Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) are available and potential benefits or hazards remain unclear. The aims of this study were to investigate the efficacy of intermittent deep sedation with propofol for a large cohort of advanced endoscopies and to provide data on the safety.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All available data from patients sedated with intermittent deep NAPS for ERCP, EUS or double balloon enteroscopy (DBE, since the method was implemented in May 2007 through December 2012 were included for evaluation in a retrospective case-control design.

RESULTS

Data from 1899 patients undergoing 1899 procedures were included for evaluation. All but one procedure were completed with intermittent deep NAPS. The mean propofol dose was 397 mg (SD: 232.4) and the infusion rate was 23.9 mg/kg. The frequency of hypoxia was 4.3 % and 20 patients needed assisted ventilation (1.1 %). Anesthesiologic support was requested eight times (0.4 %). One patient was intubated due to suspected aspiration.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermittent deep NAPS for advanced endoscopies in selected patients provided an almost 100 % success rate. However, the rate of hypoxia, hypotension and respiratory support was high compared with previously published data, but the method was still assessed as safe.

Current role of non-anesthesiologist administered propofol sedation in advanced interventional endoscopy

Complex and lengthy endoscopic examinations like endoscopic ultrasonography and/or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography benefit from deep sedation, due to an enhanced quality of examinations, reduced discomfort and anxiety of patients, as well as increased satisfaction for both the patients and medical personnel. Current guidelines support the use of propofol sedation, which has the same rate of adverse effects as traditional sedation with benzodiazepines and/or opioids, but decreases the procedural and recovery time. Non-anesthesiologist administered propofol sedation has become an option in most of the countries, due to limited anesthesiology resources and the increasing evidence from prospective studies and meta-analyses that the procedure is safe with a similar rate of adverse events with traditional sedation. The advantages include a high quality of endoscopic examination, improved satisfaction for patients and doctors, as well as decreased recovery and discharge time. Despite the advantages of non-anesthesiologist administered propofol, there is still a continuous debate related to the successful generalization of the procedures.