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

Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnostic and procedural sedation

Safe and effective sedation depends on various factors, such as the choice of sedatives, sedation techniques used, experience of the sedation provider, degree of sedation-related education and training, equipment and healthcare worker availability, the patient's underlying diseases, and the procedure being performed. The purpose of these evidence-based multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines is to ensure the safety and efficacy of sedation, thereby contributing to patient safety and ultimately improving public health. These clinical practice guidelines comprise 15 key questions covering various topics related to the following: the sedation providers; medications and equipment available; appropriate patient selection; anesthesiologist referrals for high-risk patients; pre-sedation fasting; comparison of representative drugs used in adult and pediatric patients; respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and sedation depth monitoring during sedation; management of respiratory complications during pediatric sedation; and discharge criteria. The recommendations in these clinical practice guidelines were systematically developed to assist providers and patients in sedation-related decision making for diagnostic and therapeutic examinations or procedures. Depending on the characteristics of primary, secondary, and tertiary care institutions as well as the clinical needs and limitations, sedation providers at each medical institution may choose to apply the recommendations as they are, modify them appropriately, or reject them completely.

Efficacy and safety of midazolam combined with dezocine for sedation and analgesia in digestive endoscopy: A prospective open single-center study

Objective: Digestive endoscopy is an important means of diagnosing and treating gastrointestinal diseases and a tool for screening and monitoring early gastrointestinal tumors. Digestive endoscopy can be performed using midazolam combined with dezocine for sedation and analgesia. This study explored the efficacy and safety of midazolam combined with dezocine. Methods: A total of 135 patients undergoing digestive endoscopy in the Department of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, from June 2021 to September 2021, were enrolled and non-blindly and non-randomly divided into a sedation-endoscopy-group (SEG, n = 45), anesthesia-endoscopy-group (AEG, n = 44), and ordinary-endoscopy-group (OEG, n = 46). Vital signs, levels of sedation and analgesia, the degree of pain during colonoscopy, satisfaction, and the incidence of complications were compared among the three groups. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in vital signs (blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and blood oxygen saturation) among the three groups before endoscopy (p > 0.05). The AEG reported no pain during colonoscopy, and the pain score during colonoscopy for the SEG was lower than that for the OEG (1.11 ± 1.21 vs. 3.00 ± 1.16, p < 0.001). The scores for satisfaction were 8.84 ± 1.30 points in the SEG, 8.95 ± 1.10 points in the AEG, and 6.37 ± 0.90 points in the OEG; the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The total incidence of complications in the AEG was 38.64% (17/44), which was significantly higher than that in the SEG [13.33% (6/45)] and OEG [13.04% (6/46)] (p < 0.001). In the SEG, the overall incidence of complications in women was significantly higher than that in men (p = 0.027). Conclusion: Digestive endoscopy using midazolam combined with dezocine for sedation makes patients more comfortable, more satisfied and more compliant than the ordinary endoscopy. Additionally, it is comparable to endoscopy under general anesthesia with propofol with regard to comfort, satisfaction, and patient compliance and comparable to the ordinary endoscopy with regard to safety. Considering the shortage of anesthesiologists, the application of midazolam combined with dezocine in digestive endoscopy is worthy of clinical popularization. This study has been registered in the Hospital Ethics Committee of the Sun Yat-sen University Sixth Affiliated Hospital (Ethical Number: 2021ZSLYEC-182).

Academy of Medicine, Singapore clinical guideline on the use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting

INTRODUCTION

In Singapore, non-anaesthesiologists generally administer sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The drugs used for sedation in hospital endoscopy centres now include propofol in addition to benzodiazepines and opiates. The requirements for peri-procedural monitoring and discharge protocols have also evolved. There is a need to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline on the safe and effective use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting.

METHODS

The Academy of Medicine, Singapore appointed an expert workgroup comprising 18 gastroenterologists, general surgeons and anaesthesiologists to develop guidelines on the use of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The workgroup formulated clinical questions related to different aspects of endoscopic sedation, conducted a relevant literature search, adopted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and developed recommendations by consensus using a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

The workgroup made 16 recommendations encompassing 7 areas: (1) purpose of sedation, benefits and disadvantages of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (2) pre-procedural assessment, preparation and consent taking for sedation; (3) Efficacy and safety of drugs used in sedation; (4) the role of anaesthesiologist administered sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (5) performance of sedation; (6) post-sedation care and discharge after sedation; and (7) training in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy for non-anaesthesiologists.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations serve to guide clinical practice during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-anaesthesiologists in the hospital setting.

A Nationwide Survey on the Facilities and Personnel for Endoscopic Sedation: Results from 50 Qualified Endoscopy Units of Teaching Hospitals Accredited by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Background/Aims

This study aimed to determine the current status of facilities, equipment, and personnel for endoscopic sedation from endoscopy units of representative hospitals in South Korea.

Methods

A questionnaire survey was conducted on 50 qualified endoscopy units accredited by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Results

All included endoscopy units had regulations and educational programs regarding sedation training for endoscopists and nursing personnel. There present one assisting nurse during endoscopy in 35 units (70%) and at least two nurses in 12 units (24.0%). All endoscopy units had examination rooms equipped with oxygen supply and suction systems. Endoscopist-directed sedation was performed in 48 units (96.0%). Propofol-based sedation was the most used sedation method. All units had a separate recovery bay. The daily number of patients per bed was greater than 10 in 17 units (34.0%). In 26 (52.0%) units, a single nurse cared for ≥10 patients per day. All the units fulfilled the discharge criteria.

Conclusions

This study presents data regarding endoscopic sedation clinical practice in 50 endoscopy units in South Korea. This study presents the current status of endoscopic sedation clinical practice in 50 qualified endoscopy units accredited by the KSGE, which provide excellent quality management.

Comparative Analysis of Anesthetic Legal Disputes between Older and Younger Patients Referred to the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists in 2009-2018

BACKGROUND

Although the average age of patients undergoing surgical procedures or anesthesia is increasing, differences in anesthesia-related injuries among different age groups have been not reported. This study compared older and younger patients on the basis of disputes regarding anesthesia-related injuries referred to the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists (KSA).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed disputes regarding anesthesia-related injuries referred to the KSA between 2009 and 2018. After excluding duplicates, incomplete data, local anesthesia cases, and patients aged ≤18 or 55-64 years, the subjects were divided into older (≥65 years) and younger (19-54 years) age groups. The parameters included in the KSA database were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

The 115 cases included in the study included 28 and 87 cases from the older and younger groups, respectively. The proportions of preventable cases of anesthesia-related adverse events differed significantly between the older (25%) and younger groups (48.3%). The most common medical disputes in the older group were related to general anesthesia, orthopedic surgery, local hospitals, and anesthesiologist, whereas those in the younger group were related to sedation, plastic surgery, local clinics, and non-anesthesiologists.

CONCLUSION

In addition to understanding the differences in anesthesia characteristics according to age group, it is also necessary to develop means for reducing preventable anesthesia-related adverse events. Furthermore, we must continue to register anesthesia-related disputes, and a voluntary reporting system should be established to prevent anesthesia-related accidents.

Monitored Anesthesia Care for Cardiovascular Interventions

The interventional cardiology is growing and evolving. Many complex procedures are now performed outside the operating room to manage cardiovascular pathologies which had been traditionally treated with cardiac surgery. Appropriate sedation strategy is crucial for improved patient comfort and successful procedure while ensuring safety. Sedation for cardiovascular intervention is frequently challenging, especially in critically-ill, high-risk patients. This review addresses pre-procedure evaluation and preparation of patients, proper monitoring, commonly used sedatives and analgesics, and considerations for specific procedures. Appropriate depth of sedation and analgesia should be balanced with patient, procedural and institutional factors. Understanding of the pharmacology of sedatives/analgesics, vigilant monitoring, ability and proper preparation for management of potential complications may improve outcomes in patients undergoing sedation for cardiovascular procedures.

Moderate versus deep sedation in adults undergoing colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing effectiveness and safety of moderate and deep sedation during colonoscopy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Central and Google scholar in May 2017 and updated in March 2018 to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness and safety of moderate and deep sedation during colonoscopy. The quality of studies was assessed using the "Risk of bias" tool. The primary endpoints were defined as patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction, incidence of recall and incidence of desaturation. Recovery time was also evaluated. Review Manager and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 919 patients from three studies were included in the final analysis. The combined analysis did not reveal any differences in patient satisfaction between moderate and deep sedation (RR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.04; P_chi² = 0.06; I² = 65%; number needed to treat to harm [NNTH] = 15.6; 95% CI: NNTH 7.8 to ∞ to number needed to treat to benefit [NNTB] = 3078.0), physician satisfaction (RR = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.02 to 6.95; P_chi² < 0.001; I² = 100%; NNTB = 1.6; 95% CI: 1.5 to 1.8), incidence of recall (RR = 5.82; 95% CI: 0.51 to 66.48; P_chi² = 0.11; I² = 60%; NNTH = 11.0; 95% CI: 7.5 to 20.5) or recovery time (mean difference = -6.77; 95% CI: -16.21 to 2.67; P_chi² < 0.001; I² = 99%). However, incidence of desaturation was higher in the deep group than in the moderate group (RR = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.99; P_chi² = 0.48; I² = 0%; NNTB = 56.7; 95% CI: 31.6 to 273.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation showed comparable safety and effectiveness to deep sedation with respect to patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction, incidence of recall and recovery time.

Trends in medical disputes involving anesthesia during July 2009-June 2018: an analysis of the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists database

Background

To identify trends in injuries and substandard care associated with anesthesia, we analyzed the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists database for anesthesia-related case files from July 2009 to June 2018.

Methods

Case characteristics, injuries, and outcomes were compared between the first part (July 2009–June 2014, n = 105) and the second part (July 2014–June 2018, n = 92) of the analyzed time period.

Results

Overall, 132 cases resulted in death. The proportion of fatal cases for sedation was similar to general anesthesia (66.2% vs. 76.3%). The proportion of cases with permanent injury or death decreased significantly in the second part of the period compared with the first part (76.1% vs. 93.3%, P = 0.002). With a growing trend in the proportion of sedation cases, a similar number of sedation and general anesthesia cases were referred during the overall period (77 and 76 cases, respectively). Propofol-based regimens remained the dominant sedation method (89.7% in the first part vs. 78.9% in the second part). The most common adverse event in cases of permanent injury or death was identified as being respiratory in origin (98/182, 53.8%). Permanent injuries or deaths were related to local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) and beach-chair positioning for shoulder surgery, in 8 and 5 cases, respectively.

Conclusions

Despite the decreasing trend in injury severity with time, several characteristic injury profiles were identified: lack of vigilance in propofol-based sedation, neurological injuries related to the beach-chair position, and LAST occurring during tumescent anesthesia or brachial plexus block.

Do we really need an anesthesiologist for routine colonoscopy in American Society of Anesthesiologist 1 and 2 patients?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In an era where healthcare costs are being heavily scrutinized, every expenditure is reviewed for medical necessity. Multiple national gastroenterology societies have issued statements regarding whether an anesthesiologist is necessary for routine colonoscopies in American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) 1 and 2 patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

A large percentage of patients are undergoing screening colonoscopy without any sedation at all, which would not require an independent practitioner to administer medications. Advances in technique and technology are making colonoscopies less stimulating. Advantages to administering sedation, including propofol, have been seen even when not administered under the direction of an anesthesiologist and complications seem to be rare. The additional cost of having monitored anesthesia care appears to be a driving factor in whether a patient receives it or not.

SUMMARY

A large multiinstitutional randomized control trial would be necessary to rule out potential confounders and to determine whether there is a safety benefit or detriment to having anesthesiologist-directed care in the setting of routine colonoscopies in ASA 1 and 2 patients. Further discussion would be necessary regarding what the monetary value of that effect is if a small difference were to be detected.

Judicial Precedent-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines of Propofol in Sedative Esthetic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Propofol is has been widely used for sedation in the field of esthetic surgery because of its favorable pharmacokinetic profile. Propofol sedation-induced side effects are rare. However, when present, they can be serious. The number of malpractice claims associated with propofol sedation has increased in recent years. This study aims to show which procedures lead to the most claims in the field of esthetic surgery through a review of Korean precedents.

METHODS

Thirteen precedent cases of propofol sedation in the field of esthetic surgery were collected between 2000 and 2016. We analyzed the type of procedure, administration route, anesthesia provider, complications, timing of damaging events, average indemnification, plaintiff's (patients) winning rate, ratio and the reason of limitation of liability and the key factors affecting the judgement in these cases.

RESULTS

Most plaintiffs were women, and in most cases (11/13, 73.3%), the times of the damaging events were in maintenance and the anesthesia provider was the surgeon. The most common complication related to propofol sedation was hypoxic brain damage. Among the 13 cases, 12 were won by the plaintiff. The mean claim settlement was 339,455,814 KRW (USD 301,792.15). The key factors affecting the judgement were administration method and staff, monitoring method, preparation of emergency kit, response to emergencies, transfer to a higher-level hospital, detailed medical recording about event and informed consent.

CONCLUSION

The number of claims owing to propofol sedation after esthetic surgery is increasing. Close monitoring during the operation, immediate reaction to an event and thorough medical records were main key factors that influenced the judgement. Preoperative explanation about the possibility of complications was important. The findings will help surgeons achieve high patient satisfaction and reduce liability concerns.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol on the sedation of pediatric patients during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning: a meta-analysis of current studies

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a widely applied diagnostic approach for detection of pediatric diseases. Sedatives are commonly used to acquire the accurate MRI images. Dexmedetomidine and propofol serve as sole or combined sedatives in pediatric MRI scanning. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol in children ubdergoing MRI. Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched up to June, 2017. Onset of sedation time, recovery time, sedation time, MRI time, MRI quality and emergence delirium were analyzed. 6 studies with 368 subjects were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The pooling data showed that propofol had a shorter onset of sedation time (WMD: 6.05, 95% CI: 3.12 – 8.98, P < 0.0001) and recovery time (WMD: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.36–1.67, P < 0.001) than dexmedetomidine. But for sedation time and MRI scanning time, there were no differences between the two groups (sedation time: P = 0.29; MRI scanning time: P = 0.50). There were no significance between dexmedetomidine and propofol on MRI quality (MRI quality 1: P = 1.00; MRI quality 2: P = 0.68; MRI quality 3: P = 0.45). Two studies using Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) to assess emergence delirium 10 minutes after awakening showed that propofol had a lower PAED than dexmedetomidine (WMD: 2.57, 95% CI: 0.15–5.00, P = 0.04). Thus, propofol should be encouraged in pediatric patients undergoing MRI for its better sedative effects and a low incidence of emergence delirium.

Propofol-Based Palliative Sedation to Treat Antipsychotic-Resistant Agitated Delirium

Delirium is a common problem in terminally ill patients that is associated with significant distress and, hence, considered a palliative care emergency. The three subtypes of delirium are hyperactive, hypoactive, and mixed, depending on the level of psychomotor activity and arousal disturbance. When agitated delirium becomes refractory in the setting of imminent dying, the agitation may be so severe that palliative sedation (PS) is required. Palliative sedation involves the administration of sedative medications with the purpose of reducing level of consciousness for patients with refractory suffering in the setting of a terminal illness. Propofol is a sedative that has a short duration of action and a very rapid onset. These characteristics make it relatively easy to titrate. Reported doses range from 50 to 70 mg per hour. The authors present a case of antipsychotic-resistant agitated delirium treated with a propofol intravenous infusion.