Post-Anaesthetic Discharge Scoring System to assess patient recovery and discharge after colonoscopy

Investigation of the actual implementation of "post-sedation discharge briteria" and "time-out" immediately before procedure in endoscopy: A nationwide survey study in Japan

OBJECTIVES

Post-sedation discharge criteria for outpatient endoscopy and time-out procedures immediately before endoscopic examinations are important for ensuring patient safety. This study used a web-based questionnaire to survey the implementation status and current situation of these practices in Japan in 2024.

METHODS

A self-administered questionnaire was conducted from December 2023 to January 2024 using Google Forms. Participants were primarily from facilities involved in endoscopy study groups and readers of an endoscopy-specific e-newsletter. Additionally, medical staff from endoscopic centers across Japan were invited to participate in collaboration with the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Technicians Society.

RESULTS

A total of 1,495 valid responses (medical staff: 1197 [80%]; doctors: 298) were collected from 1168 facilities, after excluding duplicate responses. Among the participating facilities, 58% were general hospitals, 21% were clinics or health check-up centers, and 9% were university hospitals or national cancer centers. Post-sedation discharge criteria were implemented in 58% of facilities for esophagogastroduodenoscopy and 56% for colonoscopy, with the post-sedation recovery score used as the criterion in about half of these cases. Time-out procedures were implemented in 57% of the facilities for both esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy. Items confirmed during time-out in more than half of the facilities included: patient's name, details of antithrombotic drugs, content of examination, drug allergies, underlying disease, date of birth, consent form, age, procedure start time, and patient's identification number.

CONCLUSION

The implementation rate of post-sedation discharge criteria and time-out procedures was found to be close to 60%, reflecting the real-world situation in Japan in 2024.

A Comparison among Score Systems for Discharging Patients from Recovery Rooms: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The recovery room (RR) is a hospital area where patients are monitored in the early postoperative period before being transferred to the surgical ward or other specialized units. The utilization of scores in the RR context facilitates the assignment of patients to the appropriate ward and directs necessary monitoring. Some scoring systems allow nurses to select patients who can be discharged directly to their homes.

AIM AND METHODS

The aim of this narrative review was to describe and compare the scoring systems employed to discharge postoperative patients from RR, with a focus on item characteristics.

RESULTS

Nine scoring systems were identified and discussed: the "Aldrete Score System" and its modified version, the "Respiration, Energy, Alertness, Circulation, Temperature Score", the "Post Anesthetic Discharge Scoring System", the "White and Song Score", the "Readiness for Discharge Assessment Tool", the "Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine Service Checklist", the "Post-Anesthetic Care Tool", the "Post-operative Quality Recovery Scale", and the "Discerning Post Anesthesia Readiness for Transition" instrument.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

To obtain a comprehensive overview, the items included in the scoring systems were compared. Despite the availability of guidelines for patients' discharge readiness from the RR, there is no universally recommended scoring system. Next-generation scores must be improved to ease their use, minimize errors, and increase safety. The main goals of the scores included in this narrative review were to be simple to use, feasible, intuitive, comprehensive, and flexible. However, these goals frequently conflict because patient assessment takes time, and a smart and comprehensive score may not consider some clinical parameters that may be crucial for the discharge decision. Therefore, further research should be conducted on this topic.

Post-Anesthesia Recovery: A Comprehensive Review of Sampe, Modified Aldrete, and White Scoring Systems

Post-anesthesia recovery is a vital phase in the perioperative continuum, where the quality of care and monitoring heavily influence patient outcomes. This comprehensive review examines the Sampe, Modified Aldrete, and White Scoring Systems, pivotal in evaluating patients' readiness for discharge from the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU). The review delves into the historical evolution of post-anesthesia care, highlighting the transition from minimal post-operative support to the establishment of PACUs and the subsequent development of structured recovery scoring systems. Each scoring system is analyzed in detail, focusing on its components, criteria, scoring methodology, advantages, and limitations. A comparative analysis underscores these systems' similarities and differences, sensitivity, specificity, and practical applications in clinical settings. Additionally, the review discusses the clinical implications of these scoring systems in enhancing patient management, improving safety, and ensuring standardized care. Emerging technologies and future directions in recovery assessment are also explored, providing insights into potential innovations. This review aims to equip healthcare professionals with a deeper understanding of these scoring systems, facilitating informed decisions to optimize post-anesthesia care and patient outcomes.

Comparison of Remimazolam and Propofol in Recovery of Elderly Outpatients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized, Non-Inferiority Trial

Purpose

We designed this trial to compare the recovery time of remimazolam and propofol in elderly patients undergoing painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Patients and Methods

In this randomized, non-Inferiority trial, 360 patients aged 65 years or older, scheduled for elective outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy, were randomly assigned to the remimazolam combined with fentanyl (RF) group or the propofol combined with fentanyl (PF) group. The primary outcome was the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay time, defined as the time from the end of the examination to scoring 9 points using the Modified Post-Anesthetic Discharge Scoring System (MPADSS) criteria. Secondary outcomes included sedation-related adverse events, recall, injection pain, as well as postoperative Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) scores at 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month postoperatively.

Results

A total of 351 patients completed the study, with 174 receiving remimazolam and 177 receiving propofol. The PACU stay time in RF group was non-inferior to that in PF group [14 (11, 18) vs 13 (10, 17), mean difference 1 (95% confidence interval 0, 2), P=0.084 for noninferiority]. However, remimazolam was associated with lower rate of hypoxemia [4.7% (8/180) vs 12.4% (22/180), P=0.011], reduced use of vasoactive drugs [1 (0, 1) vs 1 (1, 2), P<0.001], less injection pain [2 (1.2%) vs 35 (21.3%), P<0.001], and lower recall [20 (11.8%) vs 36 (20.3%), P=0.034]. There were no differences in the QoR-15 scores and PSQI scores at postoperative 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month between groups.

Conclusion

This non-inferiority study revealed that in elderly outpatients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, remimazolam achieved recovery times comparable to propofol, with fewer associated complications.

Safe outpatient discharge after gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation and analgesia: a systematic literature review

Sedation and analgesia during gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy increase procedural quality, contributing at the same time to greater patient satisfaction and willingness to undergo the procedure. Although sedation use has been optimized by the advent of efficacious and safe medications, data regarding the minimal criteria for discharge after outpatient endoscopy remain scant. Moreover, the time of discharge after endoscopy can be highly variable, depending not only on the type of procedure and anesthesia administered, but also on postprocedural complications and the patient's comorbidities. To make things even more conflicting, there is neither consensus among various endoscopic societies, concerning the most appropriate discharge strategy, nor a universally established tool that could be incorporated into everyday clinical practice, allowing patients' safe discharge as well as ability to drive. In this context, we conducted a systematic review, aiming to summarize the evidence regarding the available discharge scoring systems after outpatient GI endoscopy with sedation and analgesia administration.

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.

Procedural sedation programme minimising adverse events: a 3-year experience from a tertiary paediatric emergency department

INTRODUCTION

A well-developed procedural sedation programme in the paediatric emergency department can minimise adverse events. We examined how adherence to current best evidence ensures safe delivery of paediatric sedation in a newly established tertiary paediatric hospital.

METHODS

Our sedation service uses a robust provider training and privileging system, standardised policy and procedures and rigorous data collection all within an evidence-based clinical governance process. We examined sedation data from the first 3 years of operation.

RESULTS

From July 2018 to May 2022, ketamine was used in 3388 of the 3405 sedations. The mean age of sedated children was 5.5 years (range 6 months to 17.8 years) and common indications were closed reduction of fractures and laceration repairs. A total of 148 (4.37%, 95% CI 3.68% to 5.06%) adverse events were documented, including 88 (2.59%, 95% CI 2.06% to 3.13%) cases of vomiting, 50 (1.48%, 95% CI 1.07% to 1.88%) cases related to airway and breathing with 40 (1.18%, 95% CI 0.82% to 1.54%) cases of oxygen desaturation, 6 (0.18%, 95% CI 0.04% to 0.32%) cases of laryngospasm, 4 (0.12%, 95% CI 0% to 0.23%) cases of apnoea.

CONCLUSION

This study presents a large single-centre dataset on the use of intravenous ketamine in paediatric procedural sedation. Adhering to international standards and benchmarks for provider skills and training, drug administration and monitoring facilities, with a strict clinical governance process, optimizes patient safety.

Comparison of the effects of spinal anesthesia, paracervical block and general anesthesia on pain, nausea and vomiting, and analgesic requirements in diagnostic hysteroscopy: A non-randomized clinical trial

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of spinal anesthesia (SPA), paracervical block (PB), and general anesthesia (GA), on pain, the frequency of nausea and vomiting and analgesic requirements in diagnostic hysteroscopy.

Methods

This single-center, non-randomized, parallel-group, clinical trial was conducted on 66 diagnostic hysteroscopy candidates who were selected by convenience sampling at Fatemieh Hospital, in Hamadan, Iran, in 2021.

Results

The mean pain score during recovery and the need for analgesic injections was found to be significantly higher in the GA group compared to that in the SPA group (pain: 3.77 ± 2.25 vs. 0.10 ± 0.30, P < 0.001), (analgesic: 50 vs. 0%, P < 0.001) and PB group (pain: 3.77 ± 2.25 vs. 0.90 ± 1.37, P < 0.001), (analgesic 50 vs. 10%, P < 0.001), respectively. However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the mean pain score between SPA and PB groups (0.10 ± 0.30 vs. 0.90 ± 1.3, P = 0.661). In addition, there were no significant differences between groups on nausea/vomiting after operation (P = 0.382). In adjusted regression analysis (adjusting for age, weight, gravid, abortion, and cause of hysteroscopy), the odds ratio (OR) of pain score during recovery was increased in PB (OR: 4.471, 95% CI: 1.527-6.156, P = 0.018) and GA (OR: 8.406, 95% CI: 2.421-9.195, P = 0.001) groups compared with the SPA group. However, in adjusting based on times of surgery duration, anesthesia duration, recovery and return of motor function, the ORs of pain score between groups was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Despite reduced pain during recovery in patients receiving SPA, duration of anesthesia, recovery period, and return of motor function were significantly prolonged compared to those receiving PB or GA. It seems that PB with less recovery time and faster return of motor function than SPA and also mild pain during recovery compared to GA can be a good option for hysteroscopy.

Clinical trial registration

http://www.irct.ir, identifier IRCT20120915010841N26.

Usefulness of discharge standards in outpatients undergoing sedative endoscopy: a propensity score-matched study of the modified post-anesthetic discharge scoring system and the modified Aldrete score

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of discharge standards in outpatients undergoing sedative endoscopy by comparing the modified post-anesthetic discharge scoring system (MPADSS) and the modified Aldrete score.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 376 outpatients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy under midazolam sedation; 181 outpatients were assessed regarding discharge after sedative endoscopy using the MPADSS (group M), and 195 patients were assessed by the modified Aldrete score (group A). The clinical characteristics, types of endoscopy, endoscopic outcomes, and anesthesia outcomes were evaluated between the two groups. We compared discharge score, recovery time, and adverse events using propensity-score matching.

Results

Propensity-score matching created 120 matched pairs. The proportion of patients who had a recovery time within 60 min after endoscopy was significantly higher in group A than that in group M (42.5% versus 25.0%, respectively; P < 0.01). The proportion of patients who required > 120 min of recovery time after endoscopy was significantly lower in group A than that in group M (0.0% versus 5.0%, respectively; P = 0.03). However, significantly more patients had drowsiness at discharge in group A compared with group M (19.1% versus 5.0%, respectively; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the adverse event rate within 24 h of discharge between the groups.

Conclusions

Patients assessed by the modified Aldrete score were allowed to discharge earlier than those assessed by the MPADSS. However, a patient’s level of consciousness should be assessed carefully, especially in patients who visit the hospital alone.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-022-02549-7.

2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Such cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary, and most patients recover without sequelae. However, these events may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

[2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation]

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary. Most patients recover without sequelae. However, they may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

[2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation]

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary. Most patients recover without sequelae. However, they may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

When to Discharge a Patient After Endoscopy: A Narrative Review

Video endoscopy is an important modality for the diagnosis and treatment of various gastrointestinal diseases. Most endoscopic procedures are performed as outpatient basis, sometimes requiring sedation and deeper levels of anesthesia. Moreover, advances in endoscopic techniques have allowed invasion into the third space and the performance of technically difficult procedures that require the utmost precision. Hence, formulating strategies for the discharge of patients requiring endoscopy is clinically and legally challenging. In this review, we have discussed the various criteria and scores for the discharge of patients who have undergone endoscopic procedures with and without anesthesia.

Ropivacaine instillation through subgaleal drain: A novel approach for acute post-craniotomy pain

Background and Aims:

Post-craniotomy pain has often been overlooked and undertreated. Various classes of analgesic drugs have been used, not without limitations. Therefore, we planned to study the novel technique of wound instillation of ropivacaine through the surgical drain in patients undergoing supratentorial craniotomy to study its effect on post-craniotomy pain, analgesic requirement in the post-operative period along with the recovery profile of the patient and the side effects.

Methods:

This prospective, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study enroled 50 patients of either gender, scheduled to undergo elective craniotomy, under general anaesthesia. They were randomly divided into two groups and received either 12 ml of 0.25% ropivacaine (group R) or 12 ml of normal saline (group NS), through the subgaleal drain, after the closure of the dura. Pain scores were assessed at 1, 2, 4, 8 and 24 hours post-operatively. Student’s t-test was used for comparison of continuous variables and the Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was used for comparing the nominal categorical data.

Results:

The visual analogue scale score was higher in group NS than in group R, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.012, 0.016, and 0.005 at 0, 1, and 2 post-operative hours, respectively). The difference in the mean emergence time in the two groups was 1.12 minutes (P = 0.024).

Conclusion:

Single-time wound instillation of ropivacaine (12 ml of 0.25%) through surgical (subgaleal) drain during wound closure is an effective and simple technique for reducing post-operative pain and analgesic consumption and early emergence in neurosurgical patients undergoing supratentorial craniotomy.

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.

Does propofol mode of administration influence psychomotor recovery time after sedation for colonoscopy: A prospective randomized assessor-blinded trial

Background

Propofol sedation has become increasingly popular for colonoscopy. Different modes of propofol administration have been described, but their influence on psychomotor recovery time remains largely unknown. This prospective randomized assessor-blinded study tested the hypothesis that target-controlled infusion system (TCI) combined with sedation depth monitoring should be associated with a more stable sedation than intermittent bolus application with clinical monitoring of sedation depth, resulting in a faster psychomotor skills recovery.

Methods

One hundred sixty-four patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive propofol with the former (TCI group) or the latter (bolus group) mode of administration. Psychomotor skill recovery was assessed using the Choice Reaction Time (CRT) performed before and every ten minutes after waking up from propofol sedation. Clinical recovery was also assessed using the modified Post-anesthetic Discharge Scoring System (PADS).

Results

Induction and wake up times were longer in the TCI group, where patients received more propofol than those in the bolus group. Evolution of CRT was similar in both groups. Twenty minutes after arrival in the post-anesthesia care unit, 35 (49%) of patients in the TCI group and 43 (54%) in the bolus group achieved CRT values equal or shorter than their baseline values. Interestingly, according to the PADS score, most of the patients were considered fit for discharge at that moment. Incidence of adverse event was not different between groups.

Conclusion

In the conditions of our study characterized by short procedure duration, target-controlled infusion of propofol does not offer any benefit in terms of psychomotor skills recovery over intermittent bolus application.

Randomized clinical trial to assess the mPADSS scale in recovery and home discharge after endoscopy

BACKGROUND

current clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of objective scales as a criterion for post-endoscopy sedation discharge.

OBJECTIVE

to assess the recovery time, complications and patient satisfaction level using the mPADSS scale.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

demographic data and medical history were collected. Vital signs, anxiety and abdominal pain were measured pre-endoscopy. Patients were randomized into a control group, discharged according to the usual practice, and the intervention group, who underwent the mPADSS scale every ten minutes, until an objective score was reached.

RESULTS

one hundred and eighteen patients were randomized (78 colonoscopies, 32 gastroscopies, three gastro + colonoscopies and 15 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies/endoscopic ultrasound [ERCP/USE]). With regard to medical history, there were 36 cases of elevated blood pressure and 19 diabetes cases, 15 with anticoagulant/antiplatelet and 21 with hypnotic/anxiolytic medication. An average of 160 mg of propofol was required per patient, with additional flumazenil and midazolam in 49. There were two episodes of vomiting and three of mild desaturation, all of them in the control group. Sixty patients were included in the control group and 58 in the mPADSS group, who were discharged in 15 and 10 minutes on average respectively (p < 0.005); 24-48h telephone call follow-up data were available for 105 subjects. There were four readmissions (three control and one mPADSS). There were no differences in pain and post-sedation symptoms and the level of satisfaction in terms of attention and duration of stay was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

this study shows the efficiency, safety and patient satisfaction using the mPADSS scale. Thus, its use is recommend.

Deep Sedation or Paracervical Block for Daycare Gynecological Procedures: A Prospective, Comparative Study

Context:

Many minor gynecological procedures are done for diagnostic and therapeutic reasons. A balance has to be struck between ability to discharge a patient at the earliest with minimum procedure-related discomfort to ensure patient safety as well as satisfaction.

Aim:

This prospective randomized study was designed to compare deep sedation versus paracervical block for minor gynecological surgeries comparing the time to discharge readiness, pain after the procedure, and overall patient satisfaction.

Setting and Design:

This prospective randomized comparative study was conducted at a tertiary level hospital after institutional ethics committee approval and registry of trial at CTRI (India).

Methods:

Seventy young women underwent minor gynecological procedures under these two modes of anesthesia. Time to discharge readiness from hospital to home was assessed using modified postanesthesia discharge score system (PADSS). Pain after procedure as well as patient satisfaction was evaluated. Patients were also asked whether they would recommend the same anesthetic technique for the procedure in the future. Answers were noted on a Likert scale.

Results:

Patients were ready to be discharged faster in deep sedation group compared to paracervical block group based upon modified PADSS score (1 h 9.6 min vs. 1 h 18 min) (P = 0.005). Pain in the perioperative period was analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA and found to be significantly lesser in deep sedation group when considered till 80 min after surgery. The mean satisfaction score in patients who underwent deep sedation was 91.24 (standard deviation [SD] 2.8) compared to patients given paracervical block which was low at 64.67 (SD 15.8). All patients given deep sedation were ready to recommend the anesthesia technique as compared to only 53.3% of patients who were given paracervical block.

Conclusions:

Deep sedation may be preferred over paracervical block for daycare minor gynecological procedures.

The Effect of Adjustment of Endotracheal Tube Cuff Pressure during Scarless Remote Access Endoscopic and Robotic Thyroidectomy on Laryngo-Pharyngeal Complications: Prospective Randomized and Controlled Trial

Scarless remote access endoscopic and robotic thyroidectomy has been recently performed as a safe and feasible method. However, little is known about the laryngo-pharyngeal complications after surgery and the effect of adjusting the endotracheal tube cuff pressure during surgery on laryngo-pharyngeal complications. Patients were randomized into two groups: the control group (n = 52) and adjusted group (n = 52). The initial cuff pressure was set to 25 mmHg and then monitored without adjustment (control group) or with adjustment at approximately 25 mmHg (adjusted group) throughout surgery. The incidences and severity of postoperative sore throat (POST), hoarseness, dysphagia, and cough were recorded at 1, 6, 24, and 48 h after surgery. Cuff pressures of the control group changed significantly over time and were higher than those of the adjusted group. The incidence of POST was lower in the adjusted group at 24 h postoperatively (p = 0.035), and there was a significant difference in the severity of POST at 6 and 24 h postoperatively between the two groups. There were no differences in the incidence of hoarseness, dysphagia, and cough between the two groups, except dysphagia and cough at 6 h postoperatively. Therefore, intraoperative monitoring and adjustment of the cuff pressure can reduce the incidence of laryngo-pharyngeal complications.

Successful implementation of an appendectomy process improvement protocol

Background

A key component of a process improvement program is the institution of hospital-specific protocols to address certain disparities and streamline patient care. In that regard, we evaluated the implementation of an outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy (OLA) protocol at a tertiary military hospital. We hypothesized that OLA would reduce length of stay (LOS) without increasing complications.

Methods

In August 2016, our institution implemented an OLA protocol-defined as discharge within 24 hours of surgery. Exclusion criteria included age <18 years old, grade 4 or 5 appendicitis, immunosuppression, current pregnancy, and no supervision during the first 24 hours postdischarge. To determine OLA's effect on LOS, analysis of variance was used to perform a comparison between the years 2014 and 2017. Successful outpatient appendectomies were recorded preprotocol and postprotocol, as well as readmission complications.

Results

In 2017, the first full year of protocol implementation, 44 of 59 (75%) patients met the inclusion criteria, and all but 2 (42 of 44, 95%) stayed for less than 24 hours. Of the two outliers, one developed acute on chronic kidney disease and one had a slow return of bowel function following grade 3 appendicitis. Complications were low across all years (one per year). In 2017, the readmission was for percutaneous drainage of an abscess. Overall, protocol implementation produced a significant decrease in LOS.

Discussion

OLA protocol decreased LOS at a military hospital and should be expanded to other department of defense (DoD) facilities. Further research is needed to identify cost benefit to the military health system.

Level of evidence

III.

Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) position paper on the non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Propofol sedation by non-anesthesiologists in GI endoscopy, despite generally considered a safe procedure, is still a matter of debate. Benefits of propofol sedation include rapid onset of action, greater patient comfort and fast recovery with prompt discharge from the endoscopy unit. The use of propofol for sedation in GI endoscopy, preceded by dedicated training courses, has been approved by several anaesthesiologist and gastroenterologist societies but an Italian position paper taking into account the Italian law is lacking. In the present document, the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) Sedation Group, on behalf of the SIED, presents a series of updated position statements concerning propofol sedation in GI endoscopy. The paper summarizes the advantages of propofol, how it should be administered and how patients should be monitored. Moreover, details concerning proper training of non-anaesthesiologist personnel involved in its use are provided. Protocols concerning propofol use s must be shared with the hospital's anaesthesiology staff and approved by the hospital's Executive Director.

Prospective, randomized, and controlled trial on ketamine infusion during bilateral axillo-breast approach (BABA) robotic or endoscopic thyroidectomy: Effects on postoperative pain and recovery profiles: A consort compliant article

BACKGROUND

Robotic or endoscopic thyroidectomy using bilateral axillo-breast approach (BABA) is frequently performed for excellent cosmesis. However, postoperative pain is remained as concerns due to the extent tissue dissection and tension during the operation. Ketamine is a noncompetitive N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that reduces acute postoperative pain. We evaluated the effects of intraoperative ketamine infusion on postoperative pain control and recovery profiles following BABA robotic or endoscopic thyroidectomy.

METHODS

Fifty-eight adult patients scheduled for BABA robotic or endoscopic thyroidectomy were randomized into a control group (n = 29) and ketamine group (n = 29). Following induction of anesthesia, patients in each group were infused with the same volume of saline or ketamine solution (1 mg/kg bolus, 60 μg/kg/h continuous infusion). Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil was used to induce and maintain anesthesia. Pain scores (101-point numerical rating scale, 0 = no pain, 100 = the worst imaginable pain), the consumption of rescue analgesics, and other postoperative adverse effects were assessed at 1, 6, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

Patients in the ketamine group reported lower pain scores than those in the control group at 6 hours (30 [30] vs 50 [30]; P = 0.017), 24 hours (20 [10] vs 30 [20]; P < 0.001), and 48 hours (10 [10] vs 20 [15]; P < 0.001) in neck area. No statistically significant differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of the requirements for rescue analgesics or the occurrence of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous ketamine infusion during anesthesia resulted in lower postoperative pain scores following BABA robotic or endoscopic thyroidectomy, with no increase in adverse events.

Quality Assurance in the Endoscopy Suite: Sedation and Monitoring

Recent development and expansion of endoscopy units has necessitated similar progress in the quality assurance of procedure sedation and monitoring. The large number of endoscopic procedures performed annually underlies the need for standardized quality initiatives focused on mitigating patient risk before, during, and immediately after endoscopic sedation, as well as improving procedure outcomes and patient satisfaction. Specific standards are needed for newer sedation modalities, including propofol administration. This article reviews the current guidelines and literature concerning quality assurance and endoscopic procedure sedation.

On the Horizon: The Future of Procedural Sedation

Sedation plays an integral part in endoscopy. By achieving patient comfort, it allows for a better examination and enhances patient satisfaction. Various medications have been used, propofol being the current favorite. With emphasis on patient safety and quality of endoscopy, various new medications in different combinations are being used to achieve adequate sedation and not escalate the cost of the procedure. With the advent of newer medications and newer modalities to administer these medications, there is need for more specialized training for the endoscopist to feel comfortable while using these medications.

Hospital-based acute care after outpatient colonoscopy: implications for quality measurement in the ambulatory setting

INTRODUCTION

Ambulatory surgery centers now report immediate hospital transfer rates as a measure of quality. For patients undergoing colonoscopy, this measure may fail to capture adverse events, which occur after discharge yet still require a hospital-based acute care encounter.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted this study to estimate rates of immediate hospital transfer and hospital-based acute care following outpatient colonoscopy performed in ambulatory surgery centers.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS

Using state ambulatory surgery databases from the 2009-2010 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, we identified adult patients who underwent colonoscopy. Immediate hospital transfer and overall acute health care utilization in the 14 days following colonoscopy was determined from corresponding inpatient, ambulatory surgery, and emergency department databases. To compare rates across centers while accounting for differences in patient populations, we calculated risk-standardized rates using hierarchical generalized linear modeling.

RESULTS

The final sample included 1,137,381 colonoscopy discharges from 1019 centers. At the ambulatory surgery center level, the median risk-standardized hospital transfer rate was 0.0% (interquartile range=0.0%), whereas the hospital-based acute care rate was 2.1% (interquartile range=0.6%), with few centers (N=36) having no observed encounters. No correlation was noted between the risk-standardized hospital transfer and hospital-based acute care rates (volume weighted correlation coefficient=0.04, P=0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients more frequently experience hospital-based acute care encounters after colonoscopy than the need for immediate hospital transfer. Broadening existing quality measures to include hospital-based acute care in the postdischarge period may provide a more complete measure of quality.