Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Where are we at in 2014?

Young, Healthy, Underweight Women Require Higher Effective Doses of Propofol for Successful Gastroscope Insertion: a Dose-Finding Study Using Dixon's Up-and-Down Method

Purpose

The number of young women undergoing painless gastroscopy is rising annually. However, the lack of studies on the effective doses of propofol sedation for young, underweight women, presents a clinical challenge. Our study aimed to determine and compare the effective doses of propofol required for successful gastroscope insertion in normal-weight and underweight young women.

Patients and Methods

Chinese women aged 18-35 years who were of normal weight (18.5 ≤ body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m²) or underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²) and were undergoing painless gastroscopy were included. The initial induction dose of propofol was 2.0 mg/kg, and subsequent doses were adjusted using the modified Dixon's up-and-down method (step size: 0.1 mg/kg). The 50% and 95% effective dose of propofol (ED50 and ED95), defined as the doses required for successful gastroscope insertion in 50% and 95% of patients, respectively, were determined using the modified Dixon's up-and-down method and isotonic regression analysis. All adverse events were documented.

Results

Thirty patients were included in each group. The modified Dixon's up-and-down method was used, and the ED50 of propofol was found to be significantly higher in patients in the underweight group (2.72 ± 0.23 mg/kg) than those in the normal-weight group (2.03 ± 0.13 mg/kg) (P < 0.001). The ED50 and ED95 in the normal-weight group extrapolated using isotonic regression analysis were 2.00 (83% confidence interval [CI], 1.900-2.100) mg/kg and 2.30 (83% CI, 2.300-2.400) mg/kg, respectively. In the underweight group, these values increased to 2.80 (83% CI, 2.700-2.900) mg/kg and 3.00 (83% CI, 3.000-3.100) mg/kg, respectively. The nonoverlapping CIs indicated significant differences between patients in the normal-weight and underweight groups.

Conclusion

Young, healthy, underweight women require higher effective doses of propofol for deep sedation for successful gastroscope insertion compared with young, healthy, normal-weight women.

The 50% effective dose of remimazolam combined with different doses of esketamine for painless gastroscopy

OBJECTIVE

Remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine sedative that provides effective sedation, stable haemodynamics, and minimal adverse effects during intravenous general anaesthesia. The aim of this study was to determine the 50% effective dose (ED50) of remimazolam combined with different doses of esketamine for painless gastroscopy and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this combination.

METHODS

This was a randomised, double-blind, up-and-down sequential allocation study. Patients undergoing painless gastroscopy who met all the inclusion criteria and did not meet any of the exclusion criteria were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio into the ES0 group (0 mg/kg of esketamine), ES1 group (0.2 mg/kg of esketamine), and ES2 group (0.4 mg/kg of esketamine). The initial dose of remimazolam was 0.3 mg/kg in each group, with the dose increased or decreased by 0.05 mg/kg for the subsequent patient based on the success or failure of sedation in the previous patient. The trial was concluded when seven successful failure crossovers were achieved. The ED50 and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of remimazolam were calculated using Probit regression. Haemodynamic parameters, time to induction of anaesthesia, time to gastroscopy, time to awakening from anaesthesia, and adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients were included in the final analysis: 19 in the ES0 group, 23 in the ES1 group, and 17 in the ES2 group. The ED50 (95% CI) of remimazolam in the ES0, ES1, and ES2 groups was 0.344 (0.302-0.389) mg/kg, 0.289 (0.249-0.328) mg/kg, and 0.193 (0.145-0.239) mg/kg, respectively. Additionally, the ES1 and ES2 groups exhibited more stable haemodynamics compared to the ES0 group. However, the ES1 and ES2 groups had significantly longer recovery times than the ES0 group. The incidence of hypotension was higher in the ES0 group compared to the ES1 and ES2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The ED50 of remimazolam combined with 0 mg/kg, 0.2 mg/kg, and 0.4 mg/kg of esketamine for induction of anaesthesia during painless gastroscopy was 0.344 mg/kg, 0.289 mg/kg, and 0.193 mg/kg, respectively. Combining esketamine with remimazolam for induction of anaesthesia during painless gastroscopy offers advantages in terms of haemodynamic stability and reduced adverse effects.

Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam in Short Endoscopic Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Appropriate sedation and anesthesia are crucial for ensuring comfortable endoscopic procedures. Propofol is one of the most often used sedatives. However, its safety and adverse effects restrict its usage. Remimazolam is a relatively new intravenous benzodiazepine that offers many benefits. Our analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of remimazolam during short endoscopic procedures. Materials and Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Turning Research Into Practice databases up to 31 December 2023, for randomized controlled trials published in English. Statistical analyses were performed using Cochrane Review Manager 5.4.1 and Stata Software/MP. Results: The success rate of sedation with remimazolam was slightly lower than that with propofol (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98~1.00; p = 0.004; I2 = 42%). As for anesthetic effect-related outcomes, remimazolam did not show advantages in onset time (MD = 12.72, 95% CI: 6.53~18.90, p < 0.001, I2 = 94%), recovery time (MD = 0.86, 95% CI: -0.55~2.27, p = 0.23, I2 = 98%), or intraoperative body movement (RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.60~2.32, p = 0.62, I2 = 87%). However, compared to propofol, remimazolam significantly reduced the incidence of several adverse events, including injection pain (RR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.03~0.14, p < 0.001, I2 = 69%), intraoperative hypotension (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.31~0.47, p < 0.001, I2 = 65%), bradycardia (RR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.15~0.45, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%), and respiratory depression (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.25~0.46, p < 0.001, I2 = 50%). The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was slightly higher with remimazolam (RD: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00~0.03, p = 0.04, I2 = 33%). Conclusions: Remimazolam is a promising sedative for short endoscopic procedures due to its superior safety profile despite a slightly lower sedation success rate compared to propofol.

Unsedated or On-Demand Minimally Sedated Water-Aided Outpatient Colonoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: A Step Forward or Backward? Experience from Daily Practice in a Regional (Nonacademic) Hospital

Background: By using optimal insertion techniques with water infusion and dynamic position changes, pain during colonoscopy is greatly reduced and the procedures can usually be performed without sedation. We investigated whether the excellent results with water-aided colonoscopy reported by experts are reproducible in daily practice in a regional hospital. Methods: During the year 2023, 500 consecutive outpatients 50-75 years old presenting for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance could choose between unsedated or on-demand minimally sedated colonoscopy, moderate sedation with midazolam, or deep sedation with propofol. A total of 57% opted for unsedated colonoscopy, and of those patients, 250 consecutive patients were included. The primary outcome was the feasibility of the procedure. Cecal intubation rate (CIR), pain scores, use of midazolam, and willingness to repeat future procedures in the same way were registered periprocedural. Additional outcomes were cecal intubation time (CIT), detection rate of lesions, polyp resection rate, rate of adequate bowel preparation, and volume of water aspirated during insertion. Results: 250 consecutive sedation-free or on-demand minimally sedated water-based colonoscopies were analyzed. The CIR was 98%. A total of 96.5% completed without sedation and 5% of the procedures were perceived as moderately painful, but none had severe pain. The willingness to repeat was 97%. The mean CIT was 8.2 min. Conclusions: Using water-aided insertion techniques, comfortable sedation-free, or on-demand minimally sedated colonoscopy in daily practice in a regional hospital is feasible in the vast majority of patients presenting for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance, and the willingness to repeat is very high.

Remimazolam for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A comprehensive review

Worldwide, a majority of routine endoscopic procedures are performed under some form of sedation to maximize patient comfort. Propofol, benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used. However, in recent years, Remimazolam is gaining immense popularity for procedural sedation in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. It is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2020 for use in procedural sedation. Remimazolam has shown a favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile in terms of its non-specific metabolism by tissue esterase, volume of distribution, total body clearance, and negligible drug-drug interactions. It also has satisfactory efficacy and has achieved high rates of successful sedation in GI endoscopy. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that the efficacy of Remimazolam is non-inferior to Propofol, which is currently a gold standard for procedural sedation in most parts of the world. However, the use of Propofol is associated with hemodynamic instability and respiratory depression. In contrast, Remimazolam has lower incidence of these adverse effects intra-procedurally and hence, may provide a safer alternative to Propofol in procedural sedation. In this comprehensive narrative review, highlight the pharmacologic characteristics, efficacy, and safety of Remimazolam for procedural sedation. We also discuss the potential of Remimazolam as a suitable alternative and how it can shape the future of procedural sedation in gastroenterology.

Efficacy and safety of propofol target-controlled infusion combined with butorphanol for sedated colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Propofol is a short-acting, rapid-recovering anesthetic widely used in sedated colonoscopy for the early detection, diagnosis and treatment of colon diseases. However, the use of propofol alone may require high doses to achieve the induction of anesthesia in sedated colonoscopy, which has been associated with anesthesia-related adverse events (AEs), including hypoxemia, sinus bradycardia, and hypotension. Therefore, propofol co-administrated with other anesthetics has been proposed to reduce the required dose of propofol, enhance the efficacy, and improve the satisfaction of patients receiving colonoscopy under sedation.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) in combination with butorphanol for sedation during colonoscopy.

METHODS

In this controlled clinical trial, a total of 106 patients, who were scheduled for sedated colonoscopy, were prospectively recruited and assigned into three groups to receive different doses of butorphanol before propofol TCI: Low-dose butorphanol group (5 μg/kg, group B1), high-dose butorphanol group (10 μg/kg, group B2), and control group (normal saline, group C). Anesthesia was achieved by propofol TCI. The primary outcome was the median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol TCI, which was measured using the up-and-down sequential method. The secondary outcomes included AEs in perianesthesia and recovery characteristics.

RESULTS

The EC50 of propofol for TCI was 3.03 μg/mL [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.83-3.23 μg/mL] in group B2, 3.41 μg/mL (95%CI: 3.20-3.62 μg/mL) in group B1, and 4.05 μg/mL (95%CI: 3.78-4.34 μg/mL) in group C. The amount of propofol necessary for anesthesia was 132 mg [interquartile range (IQR), 125-144.75 mg] in group B2 and 142 mg (IQR, 135-154 mg) in group B1. Furthermore, the awakening concentration was 1.1 μg/mL (IQR, 0.9-1.2 μg/mL) in group B2 and 1.2 μg/mL (IQR, 1.025-1.5 μg/mL) in group B1. Notably, the propofol TCI plus butorphanol groups (groups B1 and B2) had a lower incidence of anesthesia AEs, when compared to group C. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in the rates of AEs in perianesthesia, including hypoxemia, sinus bradycardia, hypotension, nausea and vomiting, and vertigo, among group C, group B1 and group B2.

CONCLUSION

The combined use with butorphanol reduces the EC50 of propofol TCI for anesthesia. The decrease in propofol might contribute to the reduced anesthesia-related AEs in patients undergoing sedated colonoscopy.

Effect of different doses of dexmedetomidine on the median effective concentration of propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

AIMS

Dexmedetomidine could be an ideal adjuvant to propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy because it provides both analgesia and sedation without respiratory depression. This study investigates the effect of different doses of dexmedetomidine on the median effective concentration of propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Ninety adult patients were randomly assigned to Group Control, Group DEX0.5 (0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine) or Group DEX1.0 (1.0 μg/kg dexmedetomidine). Anaesthesia during endoscopy was implemented by plasma target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol with different doses of dexmedetomidine. TCI concentration of the first patient for each group was 2.5 μg/mL and the consecutive adjacent concentration gradient was 0.5 μg/mL. Median effective concentration (EC₅₀ ) of propofol by TCI for gastrointestinal endoscopy was determined by using the modified Dixon's up-and-down method. Cardiovascular variables were also measured.

RESULTS

EC₅₀ of propofol by TCI and 95% confidence interval (CI) for gastrointestinal endoscopy were 3.77 (3.48-4.09), 2.51 (2.27-2.78) and 2.10 (1.90-2.33) μg/mL in Group Control, Group DEX0.5 and Group DEX1.0, respectively. The average percent change from heart rate (HR) baseline was 2.8 (8.9), -7.4 (7.7) and -10.5 (8.8) (P < .001), and the average percent change from mean arterial pressure (MAP) baseline was -10.6 [-24.7; 3.5], -9.5 [-29.2; 11.4] and -4.0 [-27.3; 15.5] (P = .034) in Group Control, Group DEX0.5 and Group DEX1.0, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine reduced the EC₅₀ of propofol by TCI. A 0.5-1 μg/kg dose of dexmedetomidine caused a decrease in HR without bradycardia. The decrease in dosage of propofol with increasing doses of dexmedetomidine caused more stable MAP. Dexmedetomidine is an ideal adjuvant drug to propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Can Propofol Be Used to Assess the Presence of the Rectoanal Inhibitory Reflex During Anorectal Manometry Studies?

OBJECTIVES

To study changes in intra-anal pressure (IAP) and characteristics of the rectoanal inhibitory reflex (RAIR) during anorectal manometry (ARM) in patients undergoing anesthesia induction with propofol.

METHODS

Prospective study in which ARM was performed at baseline while patients were awake and repeated after propofol-induced anesthesia. We studied IAP and the presence and characteristics of the RAIR before and after propofol.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients were included (63% male; 9.2 years). Three patients had obstructive symptoms after Hirschsprung disease repair (HSCR), and 24 had intractable constipation. At baseline, the RAIR was present on 21 of 27 patients and absent on 6 of 27. Of the six patients with an absent RAIR, it remained absent in four of six (three known HSCR, and one new diagnosis of IAS achalasia), and two of six had a normal RAIR during propofol. Therefore, RAIR was present in all patients with constipation. The mean resting IAP was significantly lower after propofol. The percentage of IAS relaxation after lower balloon volume inflations was significantly higher during propofol (P < 0.05). No difference was observed over the latency time or the total relaxation time after propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol can be used to assess the presence of the RAIR during ARM in children who are uncooperative and undergoing other procedures under anesthesia. On the other hand, propofol significantly reduces the resting IAP and increases the percentage of internal anal sphincter relaxation after balloon distention. These findings may impact the interpretation to decide if an intervention is needed, or if there is a possible spinal neuropathy.

The median effective concentration of propofol with different doses of esketamine during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: A randomized controlled trial

AIMS

Propofol may result in hypotension, bradycardia and loss of protective reflexes, especially in elderly patients, while esketamine, a N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, has analgesic, anaesthetic and sympathomimetic properties and is known to cause less cardiorespiratory depression. We hypothesized that esketamine may reduce the median effective concentration (EC₅₀ ) of propofol and coadministration is less likely to produce hypotension during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients.

METHODS

Ninety elderly patients, aged 65-89 years, undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly assigned into 3 groups: SK0 (control) group (0 mg/kg esketamine); SK0.25 group (0.25 mg/kg esketamine); and SK0.5 group (0.5 mg/kg esketamine). Anaesthesia was achieved by plasma target-controlled infusion of propofol with different bolus doses of esketamine. The EC₅₀ of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy was determined by using the up-and-down method of Dixon. The initial plasma target concentration is 2.5 μg/mL and the adjacent concentration gradient is 0.5 μg/mL. Cardiovascular variables were also measured.

RESULTS

Propofol EC₅₀ s and its 95% confidence interval for gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients were 3.69 (2.59-4.78), 2.45 (1.85-3.05) and 1.71 (1.15-2.27) μg/mL in the SK0, SK0.25 and SK0.5 groups, respectively (P < .05). The average percent change from baseline mean arterial pressure was -19.7 (7.55), -15.2 (7.14) and -10.1 (6.73), in the SK0, SK0.25 and SK0.5 groups, respectively (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Combination medication of propofol with esketamine reduced the propofol EC₅₀ during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients compared with administration of propofol without esketamine. Increasing doses of SK with propofol are less likely to produce hypotension with shorter recovery time.

A plea for a unified approach to sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy in Romania: results from a prospective multicentric trial

Background. Adequate sedation is a prerequisite for quality endoscopic examination of the digestive tract. We aimed to evaluate the current practices and safety profile of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Romania and its impact on the technical success of the procedure and procedure-related adverse events. Methods. We conducted a prospective, multicentric, observational study including all patients undergoing digestive endoscopic procedures under various degrees of sedation. We collected data regarding the endoscopic procedure, type and degree of sedation, drug regimens, personnel in charge of sedation, and relevant patient related information. The main study outcome was the rate of sedation-related adverse events; secondary study outcomes included procedure-related adverse events and the impact of sedation on procedure success. Results. 1,043 consecutive endoscopic procedures from eight Romanian endoscopy units were included in our study. Sedation regimens were highly variable between participating centers, with 566 (54%) of procedures being performed under sedation provided by an anaesthesiologist. Sedation-related adverse events occurred in 40 cases (3.8%), most of them were mild respiratory and cardiovascular events and all reversed spontaneously. On multivariate analysis, male gender, procedure type (endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) and deep sedation were risk factors for complications. The endoscopy unit, ASA status, age and type of sedative did not influence the complication rate. Conclusion. In conclusion, sedation for endoscopic procedures is generally safe, despite a high variability in sedation practices between centers in Romania. Establishing a national guideline on sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy will ensure consistent and safe practice for these procedures.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patient: Issues on the table

Patients with liver cirrhosis are fragile and present specific clinical hallmarks. When undergoing to gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, these subjects require an individual pre evaluation, taking into account: Level of haemostasis impairment, the individual risk of infection, the impact of sedation on hepatic encephalopathy and other factors. The overall assessment of liver function, employing common scoring systems, should be also assessed in the preprocedural phase. Beside some common general problems, regarding GI endoscopy in cirrhotic subjects, also specific issues are present for some frequent indications or procedures. For instance, despite an increased incidence of adenomas in cirrhosis, colon cancer screening remains suboptimal in subjects with this disease. Several studies in fact demonstrated liver cirrhosis as a negative factor for an adequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. On the other hand, also the routine assessment of gastroesophageal varices during upper GI endoscopy presents some concern, since important inter-observer variability or incomplete description of endoscopic findings has been reported in some studies. In this review we discussed in details the most relevant issues that may be considered while performing general GI endoscopic practice, in patient with cirrhosis. For most of these issues there are no guidelines or clear indications. Moreover until now, few studies focused on these aspects. We believe that targeting these issues with corrective measures may be helpful to develop a tailored endoscopic approach for cirrhosis, in the future.

Discharge following sedation for endoscopic procedures: a best practice implementation project

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this project was to promote best discharge practice in sedated patients following endoscopic procedures in an endoscopy tertiary center in Shanghai, China.

INTRODUCTION

Discharge of sedated patients is the final stage of the endoscopic procedure. Healthcare providers must ensure patient safety through timely and appropriate discharge from endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

A clinical audit was undertaken using the JBI Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System tool. Eight audit criteria that were representative of best-practice recommendations for the discharge of sedated patients following endoscopic procedures were used. A baseline audit was conducted, followed by the implementation of multiple strategies that were determined by the key stakeholders. The project was finalized with a follow-up audit to determine change in practice.

RESULTS

Improvements in practice were observed for all eight criteria. The most significant improvements were for the following criteria: an organizational policy exists for patient discharge after endoscopy, minimum discharge criteria are established, minimum discharge criteria are met before the patient is discharged (each from 0% to 100% compliance), patient received written and verbal discharge instructions (from 12% to 100% compliance), and discharge care plan is documented in the patient's medical file (from 0% to 88%). Criteria 4 (discharge is authorized by an appropriate staff member), 6 (staff member is appropriately trained and educated) and 7 (patient is accompanied by a responsible adult) achieved the least improvement in compliance rates, as baseline measures already showed a high degree of compliance. Overall, there was improvement in compliance for all best-practice recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The project demonstrated positive changes in the discharge care of sedated patients following endoscopic procedures in an endoscopy tertiary center in Shanghai, China. A formalized organizational discharge policy is currently in place and a continuous cycle of audit and re-audit will need to be carried out in the future to keep the quality at a high and steady level.

Identifying who best tolerates moderate sedation: Results from a national database of gastrointestinal endoscopic outcomes

BACKGROUND

With increasing volume and cost of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, the proper selection of patients for moderate sedation becomes increasingly relevant. The current literature lacks consistent findings that allow for appropriate selection of patients for moderate sedation.

AIM

To analyze a nationwide registry of patients to identify patient and procedural factors associated with lower sedation requirements for endoscopy.

METHODS

The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative National Endoscopic Database was queried to assess adult patients undergoing moderate sedation for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy from 2008 to 2014. Patients were stratified into two groups [low dose (LD) and high dose sedation] based on sedation requirements. Anthropometric, procedural, and anesthesia data were compared, and multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with LD sedation.

RESULTS

Of the 371102 patients included in the study, 63137 where stratified into the LD sedation group and 307965 were in the high dose group. Moderate sedation was managed primarily by endoscopists (50%) and anesthesia providers (47%). Patients undergoing EGDs and procedures performed in the inpatient setting, in ambulatory surgery centers, intensive care units or hospital wards, required less sedation than colonoscopies, outpatient procedures and procedures done in endoscopy suites, respectively (P < 0.0001 for all). On multivariable analysis, factors predictive of tolerance with lower sedation requirements for EGDs and colonoscopies were female gender, age ≥ 50, non-White race, Hispanic descent, body mass index ≤ 25 kg/m², and higher American Society of Anesthesia Class (P < 0.0001 for all).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians should consider these patient profiles in determining which patients will better tolerate moderate sedation vs those better suited for alternative sedation methods.

Remimazolam tosilate in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority, phase III trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Remimazolam tosilate (RT) is a new short-acting GABA(A) receptor agonist, having potential to be an effective option for procedural sedation. Here, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of RT with propofol in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

This positive-controlled, non-inferiority, phase III trial recruited patients at 17 centers, between September 2017 and November 2017. A total of 384 patients scheduled to undergo upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly assigned to receive RT or propofol. Primary endpoint was the success rate of sedation. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded to evaluate safety.

RESULTS

The success rate of sedation in the RT group was non-inferior to that in the propofol group (97.34% vs 100.00%; difference in rate -2.66%, 95% CI -4.96 to -0.36, meeting criteria for non-inferiority). Patients in the RT group had longer time to adequate sedation (P < 0.0001) but shorter time to fully alert (P < 0.0001) than that in the propofol group. The incidences of hypotension (13.04% vs 42.86%, P < 0.0001), treatment-related hypotension (0.54% vs 5.82%, P < 0.0001), and respiratory depression (1.09% vs 6.88%, P = 0.0064) were significantly lower in the RT group. AEs were reported in 74 (39.15%) patients in the RT group and 114 (60.32%) patients in the propofol group, with significant difference (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This trial established non-inferior sedation success rate of RT compared with propofol. RT allows faster recovery from sedation compared with propofol. The safety profile is favorable and appears to be superior to propofol, indicating that it was feasible and well tolerated for patients.

Nonoperating room anesthesia in different parts of the world

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advances in early diagnosis and treatment of diseases using minimally invasive procedures has led to an increase in the number of cases in locations outside the operating room. This surge created the need for anesthesia services to expand to these areas to provide well tolerated and favorable procedural conditions. The present review describes nonoperating room anesthesia patterns in different parts of the world.

RECENT FINDINGS

Nonoperating room anesthesia has grown exponentially over the last years. Patients scheduled in these areas are sicker and older compared to the operating room patients. Anesthesiologist-directed care has proven to be well tolerated, with less serious complications and improvement in patients and proceduralist satisfaction.

SUMMARY

There are marked variations in how anesthesia services are delivered in out of operating room locations in different parts of the world. Although there are some data available from the United States, expansion of minimally invasive procedures across continents will likely lead to the emergence of various models of delivering anesthetic care.

Medical, Political, and Economic Considerations for the Use of MAC for Endoscopic Sedation: Big Price, Little Justification?

The last few decades of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy have seen phenomenal growth. In many aspects, GI endoscopy has led the field of nonsurgical interventional medicine. In many aspects, this growth is facilitated by advancements in sedation-both drugs and techniques. Unfortunately, the topic of GI endoscopy sedation is also mired in many controversies, mainly emanating from the cost of anesthesia providers. While no one debates their role in the majority of advanced endoscopic procedures, the practice of universal propofol sedation in the USA, delivered by anesthesia providers, needs a closer look. In this review, medical, political, and economic considerations of this important topic are discussed in a very frank and honest way. While such ubiquitous propofol use has increased satisfaction of both patients and gastroenterologists, there is little justification. More importantly, going by the evidence, there is even less justification for the mandated anesthesia providers use for such delivery. Unfortunately, the FDA could not be convinced otherwise. The new drug fospropofol met the same fate. Approval of SEDASYS^®, the first computer-assisted personalized sedation system, was a step in the right direction, nevertheless an insufficient step that failed to takeoff. As a result, in spite of years of research and efforts of many august societies, the logjam of balancing cost and justification of propofol sedation has continued. We hope that recent approval of remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, and potential approval of oliceridine, a novel short-acting opioid, might be able to contain the cost without compromising the quality of sedation.

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

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Anesthesia Related Complications of Gastrointestinal Endoscopies; A Retrospective Descriptive Study

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are widely used for diagnostic and therapeutic measures. Analgesia and sedation/anesthesia are inseparable parts of these studies and their related complications are inevitable.

METHODS

In a retrograde descriptive study in Shahid Beheshti Hospital, affiliated to Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran from March 2013 to March 2017, we gathered information regarding common anesthesia related complications and analyzed them.

RESULTS

44659 procedures were performed during the study period and records of 21342 men (47.79%) and 23317 women (52.21%) were evaluated. Hemodynamic instability (9998; 22.39%), dysrhythmia (1600; 3.58%), desaturation (608; 1.36%), prolonged apnea (34; 0.08%), aspiration (43; 0.10%), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (636; 1.42%), headache (106; 0.24%), delirium (51; 0.11%), aphasia (1; 0.00%), masseter muscle spasm (1; 0.01%), myocardial infarction (2; 0.00%), and death (5; 0.01%) were seen in the patients.

CONCLUSION

Sedation/anesthesia is enough safe in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures to enhance the patients’ satisfaction and cooperation. If anesthesia with spontaneous breathing and unsecure airway is selected for this purpose, vigilance of anesthesia provider will be the key element of uneventful and safe procedure.

Safety of applying midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation combination under the supervision of endoscopy nurse with patient-controlled analgesia pump in colonoscopy

AIM

To compare the results of midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation performed by an endoscopy nurse and anaesthetist during colonoscopy in terms of patient satisfaction and safety.

METHODS

American Statistical Association (ASA) I-II 60 patients who underwent colonoscopy under sedation were randomly divided into two groups: sedation under the supervision of an anaesthetist (SSA) and sedation under the supervision of an endoscopy nurse (SSEN). Both groups were initially administered 1 mg midazolam, 50 mg ketamine and 30-50 mg propofol. Continuation of sedation was performed by the anaesthetist in the SSA group and the nurse with a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump in the SSEN group. The total propofol consumption, procedure duration, recovery times, pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and satisfaction score of the patients, and side effects were recorded. In addition, the patients were asked whether they remembered the procedure and whether they would prefer the same method in the case of re-endoscopy.

RESULTS

Total propofol consumption in the SSEN group was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than that in the SSA group. When the groups were compared in terms of VAS score, recovery time, patient satisfaction, recall of the procedure, re-preference for the same method in case of re-endoscopy, and side effects, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the two groups. No long-term required intervention side effects were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy sedation in ASA I-II patients can be safely performed by an endoscopy nurse using PCA pump with the incidence of side effects and patient satisfaction levels similar to sedation under anaesthetist supervision.

Use of diphenhydramine as an adjunctive sedative for colonoscopy in patients on chronic opioid therapy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Chronic opioid use increases tolerance to sedatives. Diphenhydramine is recommended for difficult-to-sedate patients during endoscopic procedures. We hypothesized that the addition of diphenhydramine to midazolam and fentanyl would improve objective and subjective measures of procedural sedation.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included patients on chronic opioids undergoing colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive 50 mg of diphenhydramine intravenously (n = 61) or placebo (n = 58), in addition to fentanyl and midazolam. Baseline characteristics, amount of fentanyl and midazolam, procedure times, and adverse events were recorded. Quality of sedation was assessed by the physician and nurse. Patients rated pain and amnesia on a 10-point scale.

RESULTS

There was no difference in amounts of fentanyl (125.4 ± 56.2 μg vs 126.9 ± 53.5 μg, P = .88) and midazolam (4.9 ± 2.1 mg vs 5 ± 1.9 mg, P = .79) used. The mean sedation scores from the physician (6.2 ± 1.1 vs 5.3 ± 1.2, P =.0002) and nurses (5.6 ± 1.5 vs 5.1 ± 1.4, P =.04) were statistically significant in favor of the diphenhydramine arm. Patient scores for pain (2.05 ± 2.17 vs 3.09 ± 3.95, P =.047) and amnesia (7.8 ± 3.4 vs 6.5 ± 3.8, P =.047) favored the group that received diphenhydramine. Qualitative assessment showed no significant difference between the groups. There was no difference in induction time (P = .86), procedure duration (P = .98), or recovery time (P = .16). Hypotensive episodes were more common in the placebo group (P = .027).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients on chronic opioid therapy, administration of diphenhydramine does not allow for lower doses of procedural sedatives but improves quality of sedation without increasing the number of adverse events. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT T01967433.).

Sedation practices in gastrointestinal endoscopy-A survey from southern India

Gastrointestinal endoscopies can cause an unpleasant experience for the patient. In India, most endoscopists follow a common institutional policy for sedation. The aim of this study was to analyze the sedation practices in various endoscopy centers across southern India. Data were collected with the help of a structured questionnaire given to a senior endoscopist of the center. Data from the completed questionnaire were later analyzed. Data were obtained from 19 centers across southern India. All endoscopy suites had central oxygen supply and emergency cart. A defibrillator was available in 12 centers (63.2%). Common criteria followed for administering sedation included therapeutic procedures (84.2%), patients who requested sedation (63.2%), children (63.2%), high-risk procedures (57.9%), and uncooperative patients (57.9%). Monitoring methods included pulse oximetry alone in six centers (31.6%), pulse oximetry with blood pressure monitoring in five centers (26.3%), and pulse oximetry, blood pressure, and electrocardiography (ECG) monitoring in eight centers (42.1%). For advanced procedures like endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), sedation was universally used. An anesthesiologist was available in the endoscopy suite in eight centers (42.1%). Five endoscopists administered propofol sedation without anesthesiologist's presence (26.3%). Thirteen centers had a written protocol for pre-procedure risk assessment (68.4%). A dedicated post-procedure observation area was available in seventeen centers (89.5%). Seven centers followed a written post-sedation discharge protocol (36.8%). Significant variations exist in the practice of sedation among endoscopists in southern India. There is an urgent need to formulate guidelines by endoscopy societies for ensuring better patient outcomes in endoscopy.

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

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

Anesthesia Practices for Interventional Radiology in Europe

PURPOSE

The Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) prompted an initiative to frame the current European status of anesthetic practices for interventional radiology, in consideration of the current variability of IR suite settings, staffing and anesthetic practices reported in the literature and of the growing debate on sedation administered by non-anesthesiologists, in Europe.

METHODS

Anonymous online survey available to all European CIRSE members to assess IR setting, demographics, peri-procedural care, anesthetic management, resources and staffing, pain management, data collection, safety, management of emergencies and personal opinions on the role CIRSE should have in promoting anesthetic care for interventional radiology.

RESULTS

Predictable differences between countries and national regulations were confirmed, showing how significantly many "local" factors (type and size of centers, the availability of dedicated inpatient bed, availability of anesthesia staff) can affect the routine practice and the expansion of IR as a subspecialty. In addition, the perception of the need for IR to acquire more sedation-related skills is definitely stronger for those who practice with the lowest availability of anesthesia care.

CONCLUSION

Significant country variations and regulations along with a controversial position of the anesthesia community on the issue of sedation administered by non-anesthesiologists substantially represent the biggest drawbacks for the expansion of peri-procedural anesthetic care for IR and for potential initiatives at an European level.

Clinical application of a novel endoscopic mask: A randomized controlled trial in aged patients undergoing painless gastroscopy

Background: Desaturation during painless gastroscopy in aged patients leads to discontinuation of the procedure, prolonged manipulation time and increased risk of severe complications. An endoscopic nasal mask was designed to control hypoxia during the above procedures. A randomized trial was performed to test whether the novel endoscopic mask is helpful for hypoxia during painless gastroscopy in aged patients. Methods: In this randomized, controlled trial, 141 aged patients undergoing painless gastroscopy were randomized into nasal catheter group (69 patients) and endoscopic mask group (65 patients). Primary outcomes were minimum pulse oxygen saturation and incidence of pulse oxygen saturation ≤ 90%. Results: Finally, 134 aged patients were analyzed, including 69 patients in nasal catheter group and 65 patients endoscopic mask group. The minimum pulse oxygen saturation (96.4% ± 4.8%) was higher in the aged endoscopic mask group than in the aged nasal catheter group (94.3% ± 5.6%, P = 0.0075). The incidence of pulse oxygen saturation ≤ 90% did not significantly differ between the endoscopic mask group and nasal catheter group (6.2% VS 15.9%, P = 0.07). There were no severe adverse events in either groups. Conclusion: The endoscopic mask was safely used in aged patients during painless gastroscopy under propofol sedation and significantly improved the minimum pulse oxygen saturation without increasing time to examination or recovery time.

Capnography compared to pulse oximetry for early detection of respiratory compromise in non-intubated patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures: a systematic review protocol

Does the use of capnography versus pulse oximetry increase the early detection of respiratory compromise and improve safety in non-intubated patients undergoing moderate sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures?Respiratory compromise will be detected by alveolar hypoventilation/hyperventilation (EtCO2 < 35 mmHg/EtCO2 > 50 mmHg), arterial oxygen desaturation (defined as a pulse oximetry reading of <95% for >5 s), visual assessments of abnormal ventilation including apnea detection and adverse respiratory events that involve the need for bag-mask ventilation.

A comparison of propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing interest in sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). Prospective randomized studies comparing sedation properties and complications of propofol and midazolam/meperidine in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) are few.

AIM

To compare propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation for UGE in terms of cardiopulmonary side effects, patient and endoscopist satisfaction and procedure-related times.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of propofol versus midazolam and meperidine in 100 patients scheduled for diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The patients were divided into propofol and midazolam/meperidine groups. Randomization was generated by a computer. Cardiopulmonary side effects (hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia), procedure-related times (endoscopy time, awake time, time to hospital discharge), and patient and endoscopist satisfaction were compared between groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the cost, endoscopy time, or demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients. Awake time and time to hospital discharge were significantly shorter in the propofol group (6.58 ±4.72 vs. 9.32 ±4.26 min, p = 0.030 and 27.60 ±7.88 vs. 32.00 ±10.54 min, p = 0.019). Hypotension incidence was significantly higher in the propofol group (12% vs. 0%, p = 0.027). The patient and endoscopist satisfaction was better with propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol may be preferred to midazolam/meperidine sedation, with a shorter awake and hospital discharge time and better patient and endoscopist satisfaction. However, hypotension risk should be considered with propofol, and careful evaluation is needed, particularly in cardiopulmonary disorders.

Effectiveness of topical lidocaine as an adjuvant to propofol for procedural sedation in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedures: a systematic review protocol

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE

The quantitative objective is to identify the effectiveness of topical lidocaine as an adjuvant to propofol versus propofol alone for procedural sedation in adult patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedures.

Safety of Propofol Used as a Rescue Agent During Colonoscopy

GOAL

The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety of propofol when used by gastroenterologists in patients who have an inadequate response to standard sedation (narcotics and benzodiazepines).

BACKGROUND

Many patients fail to achieve adequate sedation from narcotics and benzodiazepines during colonoscopy. The administration of propofol for colonoscopy is increasing, although its use by gastroenterologists is controversial.

STUDY

We performed a retrospective review of our hospital's colonoscopy records from January 2006 to December 2009 to identify 403 subjects undergoing screening colonoscopies who required propofol (20 to 30 mg every 3 min as needed) because of inadequate response to standard sedation. We also randomly selected 403 controls undergoing screening colonoscopies from the same time period that only required standard sedation. The incidence of adverse effects was then compared.

RESULTS

There were no major adverse events in either group. The rates of minor adverse events in the propofol and control group were 0.02 and 0.01, respectively (P=0.56). Adverse effects in the propofol group included: transient hypotension (n=1), nausea/vomiting (n=3), agitation (n=2), and rash (n=1). Adverse effects seen with standard sedation included: transient hypotension (n=2), nausea/vomiting (n=1), and oversedation (n=2). Patients who received propofol were more likely to be younger, had a history of illicit drug use, and a longer procedure time (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive propofol administered by gastroenterologist for conscious sedation was not associated with increased incidence of adverse events. It may be of value in patients who do not respond to conventional sedation.

The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol with different doses of fentanyl during colonoscopy in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Propofol and fentanyl are the most widely administered anesthesia maintaining drugs during colonoscopy. In this study, we determined the median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol required for colonoscopy in elderly patients, and the purpose of this study was to describe the pharmacodynamic interaction between fentanyl and propofol when used in combination for colonoscopy in elderly patients.

METHODS

Ninety elderly patients scheduled for colonoscopy were allocated into three groups in a randomized, double-blinded manner as below, F0.5 group (0.5 μg.kg(-1) fentanyl), F1.0 group (1.0 μg.kg(-1) fentanyl) and saline control group. Anaesthesia was achieved by target-controlled infusion of propofol (Marsh model, with an initial plasma concentration of 2.0 μg.ml(-1)) and fentanyl. Colonoscopy was started 3 min after the injection of fentanyl. The EC50 of propofol for colonoscopy with different doses of fentanyl was measured by using an up-and-down sequential method with an adjacent concentration gradient at 0.5 μg.ml(-1) to inhibit purposeful movements. Anaesthesia associated adverse events and recovery characters were also recorded.

RESULTS

The EC50 of propofol for colonoscopy in elderly patients were 2.75 μg.ml(-1) (95% CI, 2.50-3.02 μg.ml(-1)) in F0.5 group, 2.05 μg.ml(-1) (95% CI, 1.98-2.13 μg.ml(-1)) in F1.0 group and 3.08 μg.ml(-1) (95% CI, 2.78-3.42 μg.ml(-1)) in control group respectively (P < 0.05). Patients in the F1.0 group had a significantly longer awake time and length of hospital stay than those in control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Increasing doses of fentanyl up to 1.0 μg.kg(-1) reduces the propofol EC50 required for elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy, and there was no significant difference in anaesthesia associated adverse events but prolonged awake and discharge time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR15006368. Date of registration: May 3, 2015.

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

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

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in the cirrhotic patient

As advances in liver disease continue, including the increasing use of liver transplantation, the endoscopist needs to be familiar with the standards of care and potential complications in the management of the cirrhotic population. This includes both elective endoscopic procedures, such as screening colonoscopies and variceal banding, as well as the acutely bleeding cirrhotic patient. Peri-procedural management and standards of care for acute gastrointestinal hemorrhaging of cirrhotic patients will be emphasized. This article will focus on the plethora of data available to highlight the benefits of endoscopic intervention in the care of patients with liver disease and outline the areas of future emphasis.