Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered sedation in an Italian referral hospital: An audit of 2 years and 19,407 procedures

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Balanced propofol sedation (BPS) administered by adequately trained non-anaesthesiologist personnel has gained popularity in GI endoscopy because of its shorter procedure and recovery time, high patient satisfaction, and low rate of adverse events (AEs), despite being considered controversial. We report data from an audit of endoscopist-directed (ED) nurse-administered sedation in an Italian referral hospital.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive endoscopic procedures performed between 2020 and 2022 were considered. Under the guidance of the endoscopist, the nurse administered midazolam/fentanyl, followed by a progressive top-up dosage of a 10-20 mg bolus of propofol to achieve moderate to deep sedation. The endoscopists and nurses were all certified in our hospital with a continuous and scheduled training from 2006.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 19,407 examinations (7,803 EGDS, 10,439 colonoscopies, 77 PEG, 697 EUS, and 365 ERCP) and 14,415 patients were included. Of these, 29.4 % of patients were classified as ASA I, 66.5 % as ASA II, and 5.1 % as ASA III. Hypotension was recorded in 1,293 (6 %) examinations and bradycardia in 176 (0.9 %) patients. Eleven patients (0.06 %) had minor respiratory adverse events. Two patients (0.01 %) had major AEs requiring orotracheal intubation.

CONCLUSIONS

ED-BPS is safe in low-risk patients. Major AEs occurred in 0.01 % of procedures.

The effective dose of butorphanol tartrate in patients of different ages undergoing painless gastroscopy

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the 50% effective dose (ED50) and 95% effective dose (ED95) of butorphanol tartrate in patients undergoing painless gastroscopy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent painless gastroscopy at Binzhou Medical University Hospital were divided into the youth, middle-aged, and older groups. The ED50 and ED95 required for successful sedation using butorphanol tartrate were measured using the Dixon up-and-down method in patients in the different age groups. Patients in each group were administered intravenous butorphanol 5 minutes before gastroscopy. Each patient was administered 2 mg/kg propofol. The ED50 and ED95 of butorphanol were calculated using probit analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 95 patients were included. The ED50s of butorphanol in the youth, middle-aged, and older groups were 7.384, 6.657, and 6.364 μg/kg, respectively. The ED95s of butorphanol doses in these groups were 9.108, 8.419, and 7.348 μg/kg, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The ED50 and ED95 varied among the age groups, indicating that the effective dose decreases with age.

Safety and tolerability outcomes of nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol using target-controlled infusion in routine GI endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) is increasingly accepted, but data are limited on drug administration using target-controlled infusion (TCI) in clinical practice. TCI adjusts the drug infusion based on patient-specific parameters, maintaining a constant drug dose to reduce the risk of adverse events (AEs) because of drug overdosing and to enhance patient comfort. The aims of this study were to assess the rate of AEs and to evaluate patient satisfaction with NAAP using TCI in a retrospective cohort of 18,302 procedures.

METHODS

Low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists score I and II) undergoing outpatient GI endoscopic procedures, including EGDs and colonoscopies, were sequentially enrolled at IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) between May 2019 and November 2021.

RESULTS

Data from 7162 EGDs and 11,140 colonoscopies were analyzed. Mean patient age was 59.1 ± 14.8 years, and mean body mass index was 24.9 ± 3.7 kg/m2. The male-to-female ratio was equal at 8798 (48.1%):9486 (51.9%). AEs occurred in 240 procedures (1.3%) out of the total cohort, with no differences between EGDs and colonoscopies (100 [1.4%] and 140 [1.2%], respectively; P = .418). Most patients (15,875 [98.9%]) indicated they would likely repeat the procedure with the same sedation protocol. Age (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.03; P < .008) was the only independent factor associated with overall AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

NAAP using TCI is an effective and safe sedation method for routine endoscopy. The proper propofol dosage based on individual patients and the presence of trained operators are crucial for NAAP sedation management.

Up-to-date literature review and issues of sedation during digestive endoscopy

Sedation is common during digestive endoscopy to provide comfort and pain relief for patients. However, the use of sedation in endoscopy also poses potential risks, and recent issues have been raised regarding its safety and administration. This literature review paper will discuss the most recent developments in the field of sedation in digestive endoscopy, including the adverse events that might be associated with sedation and how to manage it, the legal issues associated with administration, the impact of COVID-19 on sedation practices, and sedation in special situations. It will also touch upon the current guidelines and recommendations for sedation, including the importance of patient selection and monitoring and the need for training and certification for endoscopists administering sedation. The review will also analyse studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of various sedation techniques, including propofol, midazolam, and others. It will examine the benefits and drawbacks of these agents.

Effects of intravenous administration of magnesium sulfate in propofol-based sedation for ERCP in elderly patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Propofol-based sedations are widely used in elderly patients for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure, but respiratory depression and cardiovascular adverse events commonly occur. Magnesium administered intravenously can alleviate pain and decrease propofol requirements during surgery. We hypothesized that intravenous magnesium was used as adjuvant to propofol might be beneficial in elderly patients undergoing ERCP procedures.

METHODS

Eighty patients aged from 65 to 79 years who were scheduled for ERCP were enrolled. All patients were intravenously administered 0.1 µg/kg sufentanil as premedication. The patients were randomized to receive either intravenous magnesium sulfate 40 mg/kg (group M, n = 40) or the same volume of normal saline (group N, n = 40) over 15 min before the start of sedation. Intraoperative sedation was provided by propofol. Total propofol requirement during ERCP was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The total propofol consumption were reduced by 21.4% in the group M compared with the group N (151.2 ± 53.3 mg vs. 192.3 ± 72.1 mg, P = 0.001). The incidences of respiratory depression episodes and involuntary movement were less in the group M than those in the group N (0/40 vs. 6/40, P = 0.011; 4/40 vs. 11/40, P = 0.045; respectively). In the group M, the patients experienced less pain than those in the group N at 30 min after the procedure (1 [0-1] vs. 2 [1-2], P < 0.001). Correspondingly, the patients' satisfaction was clearly higher in the group M (P = 0.005). There was a tendency towards lower intraoperative heart rate and mean arterial pressure in group M.

CONCLUSIONS

A single bolus of 40 mg/kg of intravenous magnesium can significantly reduce propofol consumption during ERCP, with higher sedation success and lower adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ID UMIN000044737. Registered 02/07/2021.

Endobariatrics: a Still Underutilized Weight Loss Tool

Purpose of review

Bariatric and metabolic endoscopic therapies provide an option for patients seeking clinically significant weight loss with fewer adverse events than conventional bariatric surgery. Our aims are to provide an overview of the current state of primary endoscopic treatment options for weight loss and to emphasize the importance of including these therapies when presenting weight loss options to qualified patients.

Recent findings

Bariatric endoscopy procedures are associated with a lower adverse event rate when compared to bariatric surgery and result in more weight loss than most existing pharmacotherapies approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Summary

Sufficient evidence exists to implement bariatric endoscopic therapies-namely, the intragastric balloon and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty-as safe and effective treatment options for weight loss when used in combination with lifestyle changes. However, bariatric endoscopy remains an underutilized option by weight management providers. Future studies are needed to identify patient and provider-level barriers to adopting endoscopic bariatric therapies as an option for the treatment of obesity.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on the ED50 of propofol for inserting gastroscope without body movement in adult patients: a randomized, controlled study

Background

Circulatory and respiratory depression are common  problems that occur in propofol alone sedation during gastroscopy. As a widely used analgesic adjuvant, intravenous lidocaine can reduce the consumption of propofol during Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or colonoscopy. However, it is still unknown the median effective dose (ED₅₀) of propofol when combined with lidocaine intravenously. This study aimed to compare the ED₅₀ of propofol with or without intravenous lidocaine for inserting gastrointestinal endoscope successfully.

Methods

Fifty nine patients undergoing gastroscopy or gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy were randomly divided into control group (Group C, normal saline + propofol) or lidocaine group (Group L, lidocaine + propofol). Patients were initially injected a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine in Group L, whereas equivalent volume of 0.9% saline in Group C. Anaesthesia was then induced with a single bolus of propofol in all subjects. The induction dose of propofol was determined by the modified Dixon’s up-and-down method, and the initial dose was 1.5 mg/kg in both groups. The primary outcome was the ED₅₀ of propofol induction dose with or without intravenous lidocaine. The secondary outcomes were the induction time, the first propofol bolus time (FPBT: from MOAA/S score ≤ 1 to first rescue bolus propofol), and adverse events (AEs: hypoxemia, bradycardia, hypotension, and body movements).

Results

Totally, 59 patients were enrolled and completed this study. The ED₅₀ of propofol combined with lidocaine was 1.68 ± 0.11 mg/kg, significantly reduced compared with the normal saline group, 1.88 ± 0.13 mg/kg (P = 0.002). There was no statistical difference in induction time (P = 0.115) and the FPBT (P = 0.655) between the two groups. There was no significantly difference about the AEs between the two groups.

Conclusion

The ED₅₀ of propofol combined with intravenous lidocaine for successful endoscope insertion in adult patients, was 1.68 ± 0.11 mg/kg significantly reduced compared with the control group.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, No: ChiCTR2200059450. Registered on 29 April 2022. Prospective registration. http://www.chictr.org.cn.

Effective dose of propofol combined with a low-dose esketamine for gastroscopy in elderly patients: A dose finding study using dixon’s up-and-down method

Objective: This study aimed to determine the optimal dose of propofol combined with esketamine to inhibit the response to gastroscope insertion in elderly patients.

Methods: This is a prospective, non-controlled, non-randomized, single-center study. Elderly patients aged 65–80 years were enrolled in the study with the American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II undergoing elective gastroscopy. All patients were administered propofol after an intravenous esketamine at the dosage of 0.3 mg/kg 30 s, the subsequent dose of propofol was determined by the response of the previous patient to gastroscope insertion (choking, body movement, etc.) using Dixon’s up-and-down method. The initial dose of propofol administered to the first elderly patient was 3.0 mg/kg, and the standard ratio of propofol dose in adjacent patients was 0.9. At least six crossover points were obtained before the conclusion of the study. By using Probit analysis the median effective dose (ED₅₀), 95% effective dose (ED₉₅), and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for propofol were determined.

Results: The study continued until we obtained seven crossover points and 32 elderly patients (17 males and 15 females) were collected. The ED₅₀ of propofol combined with esketamine inhibiting response to gastroscope insertion in elderly patients were found to be 1.479 mg/kg (95% CI 1.331–1.592 mg/kg), and ED₉₅ was found to be 1.738 mg/kg (95% CI 1.614–2.487 mg/kg).

Conclusion: According to the present study, propofol combined with 0.3 mg/kg esketamine is safe and effective for elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy. The ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ doses of propofol inhibiting response to gastroscope insertion in elderly patients when combined with 0.3 mg/kg esketamine were 1.479 and 1.738 mg/kg, respectively, without apparent adverse effects.

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.

The effectiveness of esketamine and propofol versus dezocine and propofol sedation during gastroscopy: A randomized controlled study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol is widely used in painless gastroscopy. However, sedation with propofol alone might increase the risk of respiratory and circulatory complications. This randomized clinical study compares the efficacy and safety of esketamine or dezocine combined with intravenous (IV) propofol in patients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 102 patients were enrolled in this study and randomized into two groups. All patients were adults aged 18-64 years who underwent upper gastrointestinal gastroscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups to receive esketamine (0.3 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group E) or dezocine (0.05 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group D). In both groups, the drugs were administered intravenously. The primary outcome was the dose of propofol which provided a satisfactory sedative effect, both to the endoscopist and the patients. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, side effects (such as hypotension, nausea and vomiting and agitation), and the number of adverse circulatory and respiratory events.

RESULTS

Data of 83 patients were analysed in the present study. Dosage of propofol required in group E (1.44 mg/kg ± 0.67 mg/kg) was significantly lower compared with that in group D (2.12 mg/kg ± 0.37 mg/kg) (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in recovery time, side effects, and the frequency of sedation-related adverse events between the two groups.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The study indicates that intravenous injection of propofol and esmketamine is more effective for gastroscopy. Use of esketamine reduces the total amount of propofol required in ASA I-II patients undergoing gastroscopy compared with single use of dezocine. It also provides more stable hemodynamics, without affecting the recovery time and side effects such as respiratory and circulatory adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (www.chictr.org.cn; registration number: ChiCTR2100051814) on 05/10/2021.

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.

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.

Safety of endoscopist-administered deep sedation with propofol in patients ASA III

INTRODUCTION

Deep sedation controlled by the endoscopist is safe in patients with low anesthetic risk (ASA I-II). However, scarce evidence is available in patients with intermediate risk (ASA III).

OBJETIVE

To evaluate the safety of deep sedation with propofol controlled by the usual endoscopy staff (endoscopist, nurse, assistant) in outpatients classified as ASA III and the risk factors for the occurrence of complications during deep sedation in these patients.

DESIGN

This observational and single-centre cross-sectional study includes consecutive patients undergoing non-complex procedures in which deep sedation is administered by the endoscopy staff. Patients were divided into group I (ASA=III) and group II (ASA<III).

RESULTS

A total of 562 patients were included, 80 (14.2%) group I. Complications related to deep sedation were more frequent in group I (23.8% vs 14.5%; p=0.036), mainly mild desaturations (13.8% vs 7.5%; p=0.058). Emergency intervention or exitus were not registered. The adjusted analysis identified age as the one independent baseline risk factor for developing global adverse events.

CONCLUSION

ASA III patients developed more sedation-related complications that ASA I-II patients. However these complications were mild and do not prevent to correctly perform the procedure.

Stent versus Balloon Dilation for the Treatment of Dominant Strictures in Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background/Aims

The endoscopic management of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC)-associated dominant strictures remains challenging. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare balloon dilation and stent placement in the treatment of dominant strictures among PSC patients.

Methods

Literature searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and Lilacs/Bireme were performed for studies published until December 2020. Measured outcomes included clinical efficacy, stricture recurrence, cumulative recurrencefree rate, transplant rate, 5-year survival rate, and adverse events (i.e., pancreatitis, cholangitis, bleeding, perforation and death).

Results

A total of 5 studies (n=467) were included. Based on pooled analyses, there were no differences in clinical efficacy (risk difference [RD], -0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.58 to 0.33; I²=93%) or transplant rates (RD, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.01; I²=0%); however, the risk of occurrence of adverse events was lower with balloon dilatation than with stent placement (RD,-0.34; 95% CI, -0.45 to -0.23; I²=61%). Among the types of adverse events reported, only the rates of cholangitis/bacteremia were significantly lower in balloon dilation patients (RD, -0.19; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.13; I²=51%).

Conclusions

Compared to balloon dilation, stent placement for dominant strictures in PSC appeared to have higher complication rates without significant differences in efficacy.

Comparison of Lidocaine Spray and Lidocaine Ice Popsicle in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A Single Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under topical pharyngeal anesthesia has the advantage of avoiding the unwanted cardiopulmonary adverse events experienced following intravenous sedation. Lidocaine spray is a common anesthetic option and is safe for unsedated EGD. Although several studies have compared different topical anesthetic agents, their formulations, and delivery techniques, questions still remain concerning the optimal mode of administration. We have designed a lidocaine formulation in the form of an ice popsicle and compared its effectiveness and tolerability with lidocaine spray in patients undergoing unsedated EGD.

Methods

This was a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial. Unsedated EGD patients were randomly allocated the lidocaine spray [Group (Gp) A] or lidocaine ice popsicle (Gp B) formulation.

Results

In total, 204 unsedated EGD patients were evaluated. Compared to the spray, the lidocaine ice popsicle group showed better scores for effects in terms of endoscopist satisfaction (Gp A, 7.28±1.44; Gp B, 7.8±0.89; p=0.0022), gag reflex (Gp A, 1.3±0.66; Gp B, 1.02±0.61; p=0.0016), patient satisfaction (Gp A, 7.74±0.82; Gp B, 8.08±0.82; p=0.0039), discomfort (Gp A, 6.54±1.34; Gp B, 5.95±1.21; p=0.0012), and pain (Gp A, 5.38±1.85; Gp B, 4.51±2.01; p=0.0015).

Conclusion

Both the lidocaine spray and ice popsicle formulations are safe, effective options for diagnostic EGD with the ice popsicle exhibiting better performance. We propose the lidocaine ice popsicle formulation for topical pharyngeal anesthesia in patients undergoing unsedated diagnostic EGD and suggest it may be a suitable option during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinical Trial Register

Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) number TCTR20190502001.

Efficacy of Intragastric Balloons for Weight Loss in Overweight and Obese Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Intragastric balloons (IGB) are the most widely used endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of IGB in comparison with sham or lifestyle interventions for weight loss in overweight and obese patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed to identify randomized controlled trials, which compared IGB with sham or lifestyle intervention. Thirteen RCTs with 1523 patients were included. The difference in mean %EWL and %TWL at follow-up was 17.98%, and 4.40%, respectively, which was significantly higher in the IGB group. Similarly, the difference in mean AWL and BMIL was 6.12 kg, and 2.13 kg/m², respectively. IGB therapy is more effective than lifestyle intervention alone for weight loss in overweight and obese adults.

Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients - Part 2: Peri- and post-procedural management. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

ESGE recommends the "pull" technique as the standard method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the direct percutaneous introducer ("push") technique for PEG placement in cases where the "pull" method is contraindicated, for example in severe esophageal stenosis or in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) or esophageal cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the intravenous administration of a prophylactic single dose of a beta-lactam antibiotic (or appropriate alternative antibiotic, in the case of allergy) to decrease the risk of post-procedural wound infection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends that inadvertent insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) into the respiratory tract should be considered a serious but avoidable adverse event (AE).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that each institution should have a dedicated protocol to confirm correct positioning of NGTs placed "blindly" at the patient's bedside; this should include: radiography, pH testing of the aspirate, and end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring, but not auscultation alone.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends confirmation of correct NGT placement by radiography in high-risk patients (intensive care unit [ICU] patients or those with altered consciousness or absent gag/cough reflex).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that EN may be started within 3 - 4 hours after uncomplicated placement of a PEG or PEG-J.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends that daily tube mobilization (pushing inward) along with a loose position of the external PEG bumper (1 - 2 cm from the abdominal wall) could mitigate the risk of development of buried bumper syndrome.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

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.

Role of pancreatography in the endoscopic management of encapsulated pancreatic collections – review and new proposed classification

Pancreatic fluids collections are local complications related to acute or chronic pancreatitis and may require intervention when symptomatic and/or complicated. Within the last decade, endoscopic management of these collections via endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage has become the gold standard treatment for encapsulated pancreatic collections with high clinical success and lower morbidity compared to traditional surgery and percutaneous drainage. Proper understanding of anatomic landmarks, including assessment of the main pancreatic duct and any associated lesions – such as disruptions and strictures – are key to achieving clinical success, reducing the need for reintervention or recurrence, especially in cases with suspected disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. Additionally, proper review of imaging and anatomic landmarks, including collection location, are pivotal to determine type and size of pancreatic stenting as well as approach using long-term transmural indwelling plastic stents. Pancreatography to adequately assess the main pancreatic duct may be performed by two methods: Either non-invasively using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography or endoscopically via retrograde cholangiopan-creatography. Despite the critical need to understand anatomy via pancrea-tography and assess the main pancreatic duct, a standardized approach or uniform assessment strategy has not been described in the literature. Therefore, the aim of this review was to clarify the role of pancreatography in the endoscopic management of encapsulated pancreatic collections and to propose a new classification system to aid in proper assessment and endoscopic treatment.

Estimation of effective dose of propofol mono-sedation for successful insertion of upper gastrointestinal endoscope in healthy, non-obese Chinese adults

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol is effective in sedation for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy. However, the optimum dose is ill-defined. This study aimed to estimate the effective dose of propofol mono-sedation for successful endoscope insertion in healthy, non-obese Chinese adults undergoing single UGI endoscopy.

METHODS

Twenty-six adult patients undergoing elective single UGI endoscopy were enrolled in this study. A modified Dixon's up-and-down method was utilized to assess the effective dose of propofol for successful endoscope insertion. The initial dose of propofol administered, 1.6 mg/kg, was adjusted with 0.1 mg/kg as a step size. The patient's responses to endoscope insertion were classified as either 'movement' or 'no movement'. When patient's responses were changed from 'movement' to 'no movement' or from 'no movement' to 'movement', a crossover was defined. After eight crossovers had been obtained, patient recruitment was stopped. The mean of midpoints of all crossovers obtained by the modified Dixon's up-and-down method in all 26 patients was defined as calculated median effective dose (ED₅₀ ) of propofol for successful endoscope insertion. Furthermore, probit regression analysis was used to determine the dose of propofol where 50% (ED₅₀ ) and 95% (ED₉₅ ) of endoscope insertion attempts were successful.

RESULTS

The calculated ED₅₀ of propofol for successful endoscope insertion was 1.89 ± 0.12 mg/kg. The probit regression analysis showed that ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ of propofol for successful endoscope insertion were 1.90 mg/kg (95% CI, 1.78-2.10 mg/kg) and 2.15 mg/kg (95% CI, 2.01-3.56 mg/kg), respectively. No any patient had hypoxaemia and gag reflex during the UGI endoscopy with propofol mono-sedation.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

In healthy, non-obese Chinese adults, propofol mono-sedation can provide excellent conditions of UGI endoscopy and the estimated ED₅₀ of propofol for successful endoscope insertion is 1.89 ± 0.12 mg/kg.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is more cost-effective than laparoscopic Heller myotomy in the short term for achalasia: economic evaluation from a randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims  We aimed to perform an economic evaluation of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of achalasia. Materials and methods  An economic cost-utility analysis was carried out over a time horizon of 1 year. Patients with achalasia who were admitted to the gastroenterology outpatient clinic of a public tertiary referral hospital were assigned to undergo POEM or LHM. The monetary amounts ​​were extracted from the intranet of the institution using microcosting. All costs associated with the procedure, hospitalization, clinical follow-up and resolution of therapeutic complications were included. The utility data were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which were estimated from the scores of a quality-of-life questionnaire. Results  Forty patients (20 POEM patients and 20 LHM patients) were included. The final cost associated with POEM and LHM was US$ 2,619.19 ± 399.53 and US$ 1,696.44 ± 412.21, respectively ( P  < 0.001). However, the QALYs in the POEM group (0.434 ± 0.215 vs 0.332 ± 0.222, P  = 0.397) were slightly higher than those in the LHM group. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) suggested that an additional US$ 9,046.41/QALY gained was required when using POEM. Conclusion  For the treatment of achalasia in the public health system, POEM appears to be more cost-effective than LHM in the short term.

Efficacy and Patient Tolerability of Split-Dose Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) Oral Solution Compared to the Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Solution for Bowel Preparation in Outpatient Colonoscopy: An Evidence-Based Review

Background

Colonoscopy is the gold standard exam for evaluation of colonic abnormalities and for screening and surveillance for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy of colonoscopy is dependent on the quality of the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) have emerged as two of the most commonly used bowel preparation agents. We conducted an evidence-based review of current evidence to further investigate the efficacy and patient tolerability of split-dose SPMC oral solution compared to PEG solution for colonoscopy bowel preparation.

Methods

A systematic search was performed using Pubmed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. All studies on split-dose bowel preparation with SPMC and PEG were reviewed. Relevant studies regarding colonoscopy and bowel preparations were also included. Randomized controlled trials were prioritized due to the high quality of evidence.

Results

Eight randomized controlled trials were included. Split-dose SPMC and PEG were associated with similar results for adequacy of bowel preparation. Split-dose SPMC was associated with increased patient tolerability and compliance.

Conclusion

Split-dose SPMC and PEG are both adequate and safe for bowel preparation for outpatient colonoscopy, with split-dose SPMC being more tolerable for patients. Additional RCTs comparing these and other bowel preparation solutions are necessary to further investigate quality of bowel preparation, patient preference, and cost-effectiveness of the various options.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol Sedation in Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Propensity Score Analysis

In spite of promising preliminary results, evidence supporting the use of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation (NAAP) in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures is still limited. The aim of this manuscript was to examine the safety and efficacy of NAAP as compared to anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in EUS procedures performed in a referral center. Out of 832 patients referred to our center between 2016 and 2019, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 305 treated with NAAP and 305 controls who underwent anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation. The primary outcome was the rate of major complications. The median age was 67 years and the proportion of patients with comorbidities was 31.8% in both groups. One patient in each group (0.3%) experienced a major complication, whereas minor complications were observed in 13 patients in the NAAP group (4.2%) and 10 patients in the control group (3.2%; p = 0.52). Overall pain during the procedure was 2.3 ± 1 in group 1 and 1.8 ± 1 in group 2 (p = 0.67), whereas pain/discomfort upon awakening was rated as 1 ± 0.5 in both groups (p = 0.72). NAAP is safe and effective even in advanced EUS procedures. Further randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to confirm these findings.

Propofol vs midazolam sedation for elective endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, LILACS databases. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) were included. The outcomes studied were procedure time, recovery time, discharge time, and adverse events (bradycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3,576 records. Out of these, 8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients (302 in the propofol group and 294 in the midazolam group) were included for the final analysis. Procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups (MD: 0.25, 95%CI: -0.64 to 1.13, P = 0.59). Recovery time (MD: -8.19, 95%CI: -10.59 to -5.79, P < 0.00001). and discharge time were significantly less in the propofol group (MD: -12.98, 95%CI: -18.46 to -7.50, P < 0.00001). Adverse events were similar in both groups (RD: 0.02, 95%CI: 0-0.04, P = 0.58). Moreover, no significant difference was found for bradycardia (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.16), hypotension (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.17), and hypoxemia (RD: 0.00, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.04, P = 0.93). Five studies had low risk of bias, two demonstrated some concerns, and one presented high risk. The quality of the evidence was very low for procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events; while low for discharge time.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs show that propofol has shorter recovery and patient discharge time as compared to midazolam with a similar rate of adverse events. These results suggest that propofol should be the preferred agent for sedation in patients with cirrhosis.

Deep sedation using propofol target-controlled infusion for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Propofol sedation is effective for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, but its narrow therapeutic window highlights the importance of identifying an optimal administration technique regarding effectiveness and safety. This study aimed to determine the incidence of significant adverse events in adult patients scheduled for gastrointestinal endoscopy under anaesthetist-performed sedation using propofol target-controlled infusion and determine the existence of associations between these events and potentially related variables.

Methods

This single-centre, retrospective cohort study took place in a tertiary referral university hospital. Medical records of 823 patients (age > 18 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification scores I–III) who had undergone elective gastrointestinal endoscopy under propofol target-controlled infusion sedation during September 2018 were reviewed. Outcomes included hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia events, requirement of vasoactive drugs, unplanned tracheal intubation or supraglottic device insertion, and need for advanced cardiac life support.

Results

The most frequently encountered adverse event was oxygen desaturation < 95% with an incidence of 22.35%. Vasoactive drug administration, hypotension, and oxygen desaturation < 90% followed, with incidences of 19.2, 12.64, and 9.92%, respectively. Only 0.5% of patients required advanced airway management. Multivariate analysis revealed an association between hypotension events, colonoscopic procedures, and propofol doses (odds ratio: 3.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.43 to 6.61; P = 0.004 and odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.29; P = 0.046). A strong dose-effect relationship was found between hypoxia and obesity; patients with body mass index ≥40 were nine times (odds ratio: 10.22, 95% confidence interval: 2.83 to 36.99) more likely to experience oxygen desaturation < 90% events.

Conclusions

Propofol sedation using target-controlled infusion appears to be a safe and effective anaesthetic technique for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with acceptable rates of adverse events and could be more widely adopted in clinical practice.

Efficacy of digital single-operator cholangioscopy in the visual interpretation of indeterminate biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Indeterminate biliary strictures remain a significant diagnostic challenge. Digital single-operator cholangioscopy (D-SOC) incorporates digital imaging which enables higher resolution for better visualization and diagnosis of biliary pathology. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature in an attempt to determine the efficacy of D-SOC in the visual interpretation of indeterminate biliary strictures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Electronic searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. All D-SOC studies that reported the diagnostic performance in visual interpretation of indeterminate biliary strictures and biliary malignancies were included. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. All data were extracted and pooled to construct a 2 × 2 table. The visual interpretation of D-SOC was compared to resected surgical specimens or clinical follow-up in the included patients. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, prevalence, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), and diagnostic odds ratio (OR) were calculated. The summarized receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve corresponding with the area under the curve (AUC) was also analyzed.

RESULTS

The search yielded 465 citations. Of these, only six studies with a total of 283 procedures met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of D-SOC in the visual interpretation of biliary malignancies was 94% (95% CI 89-97) and 95% (95%CI 90-98), respectively, while +LR, -LR, diagnostic OR, and AUC were 15.20 (95%CI 5.21-44.33), 0.08 (95%CI 0.04-0.14), 308.83 (95%CI 106.46-872.82), and 0.983, respectively. The heterogeneity among 6 included studies was moderate for specificity (I² = 0.51) and low for sensitivity (I² = 0.17) and diagnostic OR (I² = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

D-SOC is associated with high sensitivity and specificity in the visual interpretation of indeterminate biliary strictures and malignancies. D-SOC should be considered routinely in the diagnostic workup of indeterminate biliary lesions.