Reasonable decision of anesthesia methods in patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal carcinoma: A retrospective analysis in a single Japanese institution

Efficacy of sedation with dexmedetomidine plus propofol during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

During endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal cancer, patient body movement can sometimes occur, which may cause discontinuation of the procedure. Propofol and dexmedetomidine have recently been found to be useful sedatives for endoscopic submucosal dissection. This study investigated whether sedation using propofol plus dexmedetomidine can suppress the patient's body movements during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection and compared this combination with sedation using propofol alone.

METHODS

This was a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial. Patients with superficial esophageal cancers who underwent esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection at Yokohama City University Hospital were prospectively enrolled and were randomly assigned to the propofol and the propofol plus dexmedetomidine groups. The primary endpoint was the incidence of restlessness. The secondary endpoints were the satisfaction score, maintenance dose of propofol, and number of rescue propofol injections.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients (propofol group: n = 33; combination group: n = 33) were included. The combination group had a significantly lower incidence of restlessness than the propofol group (3.0% vs 27.3%, P = 0.02). In the combination group, the satisfaction scores of the endoscopists were significantly higher, the maintenance dose of propofol was significantly lower, and the number of rescue propofol injections was lower than those in the propofol group (3.0% vs 18.2%, P < 0.001). Although the incidence of bradycardia was significantly higher in the combination group (30.3% vs 3.0%, P < 0.01), no serious adverse effects occurred.

CONCLUSION

The propofol plus dexmedetomidine combination provided excellent sedation that effectively suppressed the patient's body movements during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Bilateral tension pneumothorax during endoscopic submucosal dissection under general anesthesia diagnosed by point-of-care ultrasound - A case report

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection has become popular. However, this can cause serious complications. In this case, esophageal perforation caused bilateral tension pneumothorax.

CASE

A 60-year-old man with esophageal adenoma underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection under general anesthesia. The peak airway pressure was 25 cmH2O after induction but abruptly increased to 40 cmH2O after 30 min. Respiratory sounds were barely heard. The lack of lung sliding in either (right-dominant) lung on ultrasound. Within minutes, oxygen saturation and systolic blood pressure decreased to 52% and 70 mmHg. Emergent needle thoracostomy, followed by chest tube insertion, was performed on right chest and his vital signs stabilized. Upon transfer to intensive care unit, oxygen saturation and blood pressure decreased again; therefore, a left chest tube was inserted.

CONCLUSIONS

Pneumothorax due to esophageal perforation can lead to life-threatening tension pneumothorax. Anesthesiologists should be aware of the risks and emergency treatment. Ultrasound can be useful for immediate bedside patient-care decisions.

Invisible perforation during an endoscopic procedure of the esophagus under general anesthesia - A case report -

Background

Endoscopic procedures of the esophagus are more complicated than those of other regions of the gastrointestinal tract. They have a relatively long procedure time and high risk of complications, such as perforation and bleeding. Perforations that occur during the procedure can accompany pneumoperitoneum and pneumomediastinum through leakage of insufflation air and cause severe ventilatory impairment.

Case

A 58-year-old male patient underwent enucleation of leiomyoma in the esophagus using endoscopy under general anesthesia. Ventilatory impairment occurred 15 min after commencement of the procedure. Subsequently, subcutaneous emphysema and severe abdominal distension were observed. We suggested the possibility of microperforation during the procedure to the endoscopist, and he performed endoscopic clipping around the excision site of leiomyoma.

Conclusions

Providing anesthetic care by anesthesiologists during endoscopic procedures is considered necessary for patient safety. Complications of endoscopic procedures can be detected and managed early without sequelae during anesthetic care.

Comparison of general anesthesia and conscious sedation in procedure-related complications during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has a favorable outcome, compared to esophagectomy, for early esophageal neoplasia. Recent studies used general anesthesia for esophageal ESD to minimize complications due to insufficient sedation and patient movement. We aimed to evaluate the safety of general anesthesia in comparison with conscious sedation provided by anesthesiologists for esophageal ESD.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of 158 patients who underwent esophageal ESD under general anesthesia or conscious sedation provided by anesthesiologists. We evaluated the incidence of procedure-related complications, including perforation, post-ESD bleeding, cardiopulmonary adverse events (arrhythmia, hypotension, and hypoxemia), procedure failure, stricture, and new lung consolidation after ESD. Cases of frank perforation, post-ESD bleeding requiring a vigorous diagnostic approach, and cardiopulmonary adverse events were regarded as acute complications of ESD.

RESULTS

Acute complications occurred only in the conscious sedation group (8/83 [9.6%] vs. 0/75 [0.0%]; p value = 0.007). The numbers of patients with frank perforation, post-ESD bleeding, and cardiopulmonary adverse events were four, one, and three, respectively. Moreover, new lung consolidation after ESD developed only in the conscious sedation group (7/83 [8.4%] vs. 0/75 [0.0%]; p value = 0.014). ESD failed in four patients in the conscious sedation group. The incidences of stricture that required stent insertion and hospital stay after ESD were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

General anesthesia is associated with a lower incidence of acute procedure-related complications in esophageal ESD compared to conscious sedation provided by anesthesiologists. Therefore, we recommend general anesthesia as a safer option for esophageal ESD.

Feasibility of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy and two-stage sedation during endoscopic hypopharyngeal therapy

Background

Structural disorders of the hypopharynx can lead to dysphagia‐related morbidity. Endoscopic therapy in this area, for example, myotomy for Zenker's diverticulum (ZD), has traditionally been performed under general anesthesia (GA). We have developed a two‐stage sedation process, which is used along with high‐flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNOT) to facilitate endoscopic hypopharyngeal procedures.

Methods

In this prospective, single‐center study, patients undergoing endoscopic procedures between June 2016 and March 2018 were included. All endoscopies were performed with propofol and/or remifentanil and supported with HFNOT. In patients with ZD, the diverticulum and stomach were cleared of debris under conscious sedation to reduce the risk of aspiration, before sedation was deepened to facilitate myotomy. Sedation‐related adverse events were recorded.

Results

A total of 50 patients were included for analysis (mean age of 71.1, range 31–93; 58% male); 48% were categorized as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade III and 6% as Grade IV. The median procedure time was 20 min. Of patients, 83% were sedated with both propofol and remifentanil using a target‐controlled infusion under specialist anesthetic supervision. Sedation‐related adverse events included transient hypotension (38%), bradycardia (8%), and hypoxia (8%). No procedures were abandoned due to complications, and no patients required conversion to GA. Patients achieved full postprocedure recovery from sedation after a median duration of 5 min.

Conclusions

HFNOT is a useful adjunct to two‐stage sedation, which can enable high‐risk patients to safely undergo deep sedation during hypopharyngeal endoscopic procedures.

The effect of scissor-type versus non-scissor-type knives on the technical outcomes in endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal cancer: a multi-center retrospective study

The Clutch Cutter was invented as a scissor-type knife for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of gastrointestinal neoplasms. ESD with the scissor-type knife (ESD-S) may be considered a technically easier procedure than ESD with non-scissor-type knives (ESD-NS). Therefore, this study aimed to compare the technical outcomes of ESD-S with those of ESD-NS for superficial esophageal cancer. This was a multicenter retrospective study. Patients with superficial esophageal cancer treated with ESD between October 2015 and March 2018 at three hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. The ESD-S group had 48 patients and the ESD-NS group had 114 patients. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to compensate for the confounding bias between both groups. Multivariate analyses and propensity score matching were used to adjust for age, sex, the tumor size, tumor location, tumor depth, degree of tumor circumference, operator level, usage of the traction method, and the sedation method. The primary outcome was the procedure time of the ESD. Secondary outcomes were the rate of en-bloc/complete resection and the rate of complications including perforation, delayed bleeding, and stricture. Propensity score matching analysis provided 36 matched pairs. Median procedure time in the ESD-S group was significantly shorter than that in the ESD-NS group (44.0 min vs. 66.5 min, P = 0.020). In addition, the treatment outcomes were similar in both groups (en-bloc resection: 100% vs. 97.2%, P = 1; complete resection: 88.9% vs. 86.1%, P = 1; curative resection: 80.6% vs. 77.8%, P = 1; perforation: 0% vs. 5.6%, P = 0.49; delayed bleeding: 0% in both groups; stricture: 2.8% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.61). ESD-S was associated with a shorter procedure time than ESD-NS, without an increase in the incidence of complications. Therefore, the scissor-type knife should be considered as an endo-knife for ESD of superficial esophageal cancers.

Efficacy of novel sedation using the combination of dexmedetomidine and midazolam during endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the preferred treatment for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, ESD can be difficult when patients move due to insufficient sedation. We conducted a prospective confirmatory single arm study to evaluate the efficacy of using dexmedetomidine (DEX) in combination with midazolam as a novel sedation for ESD.

METHODS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection was performed without intubation in 65 patients. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who did not move or require restraint during ESD, compared to historical control of ESD performed under midazolam sedation. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of complications and self-report questionnaires from patients and endoscopists.

RESULTS

Restraint was not required in 97% of patients sedated using the combination of DEX and midazolam. Depressed respiration, low blood pressure, and bradycardia occurred in 23, 37, and 26% of patients, respectively. All patients recovered without severe complication. Occurrence of low blood pressure and bradycardia were higher, while respiratory depression was lower for the combination group than for the historical control group. The amount of midazolam used was significantly lower than in the control. Of note, 94% of patients had no painful sensations, with 3 reporting chest pain and 3 having a recollection of the procedure. Endoscopists were satisfied with the sedation in 94% of cases. All lesions were resected in en bloc fashion, without perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of DEX and midazolam provided effective sedation for ESD for ESCC.

Efficacy of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Esophageal Neoplasms under General Anesthesia

Background/Aims

Evidence that general anesthesia (GA) reduces the operative time of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is currently insufficient. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of esophageal ESD under GA.

Methods

A total of 227 lesions from 198 consecutive patients with superficial esophageal neoplasms treated by ESD at 3 Japanese institutions between April 2011 and September 2017 were included in this retrospective study. For ESD, GA and deep sedation (DS) were used in 102 (51.5%, GA group) and 96 patients (48.5%, DS group), respectively.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in age, sex, or comorbidities between the groups. In the GA group, the tumor size was larger (21 [3–77] mm vs. 14 [3–63] mm, p<0.001), luminal circumference was larger (≥2/3; 13.9% vs. 5.4%, p=0.042), procedure time was shorter (28 [5–202] min vs. 40 [8–249] min, p<0.001), and submucosal dissection speed was faster (25.2 [7.8–157.2] mm² /min vs. 16.2 [2.4–41.3] mm² /min, p<0.001). The rates of intraoperative perforation and aspiration pneumonia were lower in the GA group, but the difference did not achieve statistical significance (p=0.242 and p=0.242).

Conclusions

GA shortens the procedure time of esophageal ESD.

The safety of endoscopic esophageal procedures under general anesthesia

BACKGROUND

With the increasing demand for general anesthesia for endoscopic esophageal procedures, anesthesiologists should understand the clinical characteristics of post-procedural complications (PPCs).

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated the incidence of and risk factors associated with PPCs of endoscopic esophageal procedures performed under general anesthesia from July 2013 to November 2016. The final analysis included 129 patients; 114 who underwent esophageal endoscopic dissection for esophageal tumors and 15 cases of peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia. Frank perforation during the procedure was defined as an endoscopically recognizable or clinically detected perforation during the procedures. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify independent risk factors for PPCs.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of PPCs was 19.4% (25/129). All of the PPCs were managed successfully with conservative measures. The most common PPC was symptomatic, radiologically documented atelectasis (11/25, 44.0%), followed by esophageal perforation-related PPCs (symptomatic pneumomediastinum or pneumoperitoneum; 9/25, 36.0%). In the multivariable analysis, frank perforation during the procedure was the only independent risk factor for PPCs (odds ratio, 8.470, 95% CI, 2.051-34.974, P = 0.003). Although frank perforation during the procedure occurred in 13 patients, 38.5% (5/13) of them did not develop any clinical sequelae after their procedures. Compared with patients without PPCs, patients who developed PPCs took longer to their first oral intake and had prolonged hospital stays (P = 0.047 and 0.026, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Iatrogenic perforation during endoscopic esophageal procedures under general anesthesia was the only independent risk factor for PPCs; therefore, proactive measures and close follow-up are necessary.