Sedation regimens for gastrointestinal endoscopy

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.

Baseline Cannabinoid Use Is Associated with Increased Sedation Requirements for Outpatient Endoscopy

Background and Aims: Given the underlying properties of cannabinoids, we aimed to assess associations between cannabinoid use and sedation requirements for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted at three endoscopy units. Adult outpatients undergoing EGD or colonoscopy with endoscopist-directed conscious sedation (EDCS) were given questionnaires on cannabinoid use and relevant parameters. Outcomes included intraprocedural midazolam, fentanyl, and diphenhydramine use, procedural tolerability, and adverse events. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to yield adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of outcomes. Results: A total of 419 patients were included. Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with high midazolam use, defined as ≥5 mg, during EGD (AOR 2.89, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.19-7.50), but not during colonoscopy (AOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41-1.91). Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with the administration of any diphenhydramine during EGD (AOR 3.04, 95% CI: 1.29-7.30) with a similar nonsignificant trend for colonoscopy (AOR 2.36, 95% CI: 0.81-7.04). Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with increased odds of requiring high total sedation, defined as any of midazolam ≥5 mg, fentanyl ≥100 mcg, or any diphenhydramine during EGD (AOR 3.72, 95% CI: 1.35-11.68). Cannabinoid use was not independently associated with fentanyl use, intraprocedural awareness, discomfort, or adverse events. Conclusions: Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with higher sedation use during endoscopy with EDCS, particularly with midazolam and diphenhydramine. Given increasingly widespread cannabinoid use, endoscopists should be equipped with optimal sedation strategies for this population. As part of the informed consent process, cannabis users should be counseled that they may require higher sedation doses to achieve the same effect.

Comparison of 95% effective dose of remimazolam besylate and propofol for gastroscopy sedation on older patients: A single-centre randomized controlled trial

AIMS

Advanced age is an important risk factor for adverse events during procedural sedation. Remimazolam is safe and effective in gastroscopic sedation. However, the ideal dose and application for older patients are not well known. We aim to investigate its 95% effective dose (ED95) for older patients undergoing gastroscopy and to assess its safety and efficacy, with propofol as the comparison.

METHODS

The trial consists of 2 parts, patients aged >65 years and scheduled for outpatient painless gastroscopy were enrolled. In the first part, Dixon's up-and-down methodology was used to determine the ED95 of remimazolam besylate and propofol for gastroscopic insertion, in combination with 0.2 μg/kg remifentanil. In the second part, patients in each group received 0.2 μg/kg remifentanil and ED95 dose of the study drugs for sedation induction, supplemental doses were added to maintain sedation depth when necessary. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse events. The secondary outcome was the recovery time.

RESULTS

The ED95 of remimazolam besylate and propofol induction were 0.2039 (95% confidence interval 0.1753-0.3896) mg/kg and 1.9733 (95% confidence interval 1.7346-3.7021) mg/kg respectively. Adverse events were reported in 26 (40.6%) patients in the remimazolam group and 54 (83.1%) in the propofol group (P < .0001), whereas the remimazolam group presented a higher incidence of hiccups (P = .0169). Besides, the median time to awakening was approximately 1 min shorter with remimazolam than with propofol (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

For older patients undergoing gastroscopy, the ED95 dose of remimazolam is a safer alternative than propofol when inducing the same sedation depth.

Technique, sedation, and clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal tumor with involvement of dentate line: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of rectal tumors involving the dentate line (RT-DL) is challenging because of the anatomical features of the anal canal. This study aimed to identify optimal techniques and sedation and to determine the clinical outcomes of ESD for RT-DL.

Methods

We retrospectively collected medical records and endoscopic results of patients who underwent ESD for rectal tumors between January 2012 and April 2021. Patients were divided into RT-DL and rectal tumors not involving the dentate line (RT-NDL) groups, as per involvement of the dentate line. The treatment results and clinical outcomes of the two groups were evaluated and analyzed. Additionally, subgroup analysis was performed in the RT-DL group for the sedation method involved.

Results

In total, 225 patients were enrolled and 22 were assigned to the RT-DL group. The complete resection rate (90.9% vs. 95.6%, P =0.336), delayed bleeding (13.6% vs. 5.9%, P =0.084), perforation (0% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.343), hospital stays (4.55 vs. 4.48 days, P = 0.869), and recurrence (0% vs. 0.5%) showed no significant group differences. However, in RT-DL group, the procedure time (78.32 vs. 51.10 min, P = 0.002) was longer and there was more perianal pain (22.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.001). The subgroup analysis revealed that deep sedation using propofol reduced perianal pain during the procedure (0/14 vs. 5/8, P = 0.002).

Conclusions

ESD of RT-DL is a safe and effective treatment despite the challenges of requiring a high level of technique and longer procedure time. In particular, ESD under deep sedation should be considered in patients with RT-DL to control perianal pain.

Pilot Study: Personalized Medicine in Endoscopy, Can Pharmacogenomics Predict Response to Conscious Sedation?

BACKGROUND

Adequate response to moderate (conscious) sedation varies significantly between individuals. Polymorphisms in genes encoding drug metabolizing enzymes can lead to inter-individual variability in drug efficacy, potentially influencing sedation requirements during endoscopic procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the potential role of inter-individual variation in inherited polymorphisms of drug-metabolizing enzymes, cytochrome P450 (CYP450), specifically CYP3A4 and CYP3A5, in sedation requirements for outpatient endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of sedation requirements and pharmacogenomics data in 106 unique patients who received outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, or both between December 2011 and February 2019 was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups based on their sedation requirements during endoscopy (high vs. normal sedation).

RESULTS

Patients with reduced a CYP2C19 metabolism (poor + intermediate metabolizers) (odds ratio [OR] = 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-0.91, p = 0.03), poor CYP3A5 metabolism (OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.095-0.65, p = 0.0046), and poor UGT1A1 (OR = 2.76, 95% CI: 1.07-7.13, p = 0.08) had higher odds of requiring normal sedation compared to those with CYP2C19 increased metabolism, CYP3A5 intermediate metabolism, and UGT1A1 intermediate metabolism.

CONCLUSION

Information about inter-individual variation in (CYP450) genes may be useful for determining the sedation requirements for outpatient endoscopic procedures. We found that patients with reduced CYP2C19 metabolism, poor CYP3A5 metabolism, and poor UGT1A1 metabolism were more likely to require normal sedation requirements during outpatient endoscopic procedures.

Sedation during endoscopic procedures: a Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology Position Statement

Administration of sedation by non-anesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy remains highly controversial in Greece. The aim of this set of 16 position statements prepared by experts in the field on behalf of the Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology is to aid gastroenterologists in their everyday clinical practice and provide evidence for the best use of drugs for the sedation of patients who undergo an endoscopy. The statements address issues such as the level of sedation required, the best drugs used, their mode of action, their side-effects and possible ways to counter their action, and were adopted if at least 80% of all participants agreed upon them.

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.

Reconstruction of the phreno-esophageal ligament (R-PEL) prevents the intrathoracic migration (ITM) after concomitant sleeve gastrectomy and hiatal hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) is the most attractive bariatric procedure, but the postoperative intrathoracic gastric migration (ITM) and "de novo" GERD are major concerns. The main objective of our study was to evaluate the efficiency of the concomitant HHR with or without partial reconstruction of phreno-esophageal ligament (R-PEL) to prevent ITM after LSG. The secondary objectives focused on procedure's metabolic and GERD-related outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Consecutive patients who underwent primary LSG and concomitant HHR were included in a single-center prospective study. According to the HHR surgical technique, two groups were analyzed and compared: Group A included patients receiving crura approximation only and Group B patients with R-PEL. The patients' evolution of co-morbidities, GERD symptoms, radiologic, and endoscopic details were prospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-three patients undergoing concurrent HHR and LSG were included in the study (Group A and B, 146 and 127 patients) The mean age and BMI were 42.6 ± 11.3 and 43.4 ± 6.8 kg/m². The 12-month postoperative ITM was radiologically found in more than half of the patients in Group A, while in group B, the GEJ's position appeared normal in 91.3% of the patients, meaning that R-PEL reduced 7 times the rate of ITM. The percentage of no-improvement and "de novo" severe esophagitis (Los Angeles C) was 4 times higher in group A 3.4% vs. 0.8% with statistical significance, and correlated to ITM. The GERD symptoms were less frequent in Group B vs Group A, 21.3% vs 37%, with statistical significance. No Barrett's esophagus and no complication were recorded in any of the patients.

CONCLUSION

Concurrent LSG and HHR by crura approximation only has a very high rate of ITM in the first postoperative year (over 50%). R-PEL is an innovative technique which proved to be very efficient in preventing the ITM after HHR.

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.

Virtual reality distraction during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Virtual reality (VR) is an established and effective tool in reducing autonomic and somatic pain. We aimed to examine the analgesic effects of VR distraction during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial and enrolled patients who had indication for unsedated EGD with topical anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to use Oculus GO with three-dimensional specific software content (standalone VR headset), sham VR or without VR during EGD. The primary outcome was patient pain scores during EGD.

RESULTS

A total of 96 patients undergoing diagnostic EGD were randomized to receive VR (n = 32), sham VR (n = 32), and no VR defined as the control group (n = 32). Patients in all groups reported no statistically different pain during esophageal intubation. The mean pain score was 2.7 ± 2.4 in the VR group, 2.7 ± 2.5 in the sham VR and 2.3 ± 2.3 in the control group, (P value = 0.751). No significant difference was observed in heart rate and blood pressure, and the endoscopists reported higher overall satisfaction scores in VR (4.3 ± 0.5) compared with the control group (4 ± 0.8) but without significance (P value = 0.156).

CONCLUSION

Virtual reality-assisted anesthesia during EGD did not significantly reduce patient pain during esophageal intubation. There was no superiority in using VR distraction regarding patient's and endoscopist's satisfaction compared with standard EGD without VR Further studies are required to detect any true clinical advantage of VR distraction during EGD.

Abstract No. : ABS2330 : Comparison of three different sedative regimens for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Background &Aims:

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are relatively invasive and unpleasant and need high level of patient co-operation. Aim of our study was to compare three different sedative regimens using propofol, dexmedetomidine and fentanyl-midazolam combination for safer sedation in GI endoscopic procedures.

Methods:

The patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into three groups of 30 each. Group P patients received propofol 1mg/kg i.v followed by 0.5mg/kg/hr infusion. Group- D received dexmedetomidine1µg/kg i.v. infusion over 10min followed by 0.5µg/kg/hr infusion. Group- FM received fentanyl 1µg/kg and midazolam 20 µg/kg i.v. followed by fentanyl 0.5µg/kg/hr infusion. The endoscopic procedure was started when the patient attained a level of conscious sedation [score of 2-4 on the Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale(OAA/S scale)].The patient’s and endoscopist level of satisfaction was assessed using the 10 - point visual analogue scale

Results:

Demographic data and the duration of the procedure between the three groups were similar and statistically insignificant. The heart rate, mean arterial pressure and oxygen saturation were lower in Group-D and were statistically significant. The onset of sedation was earlier with Group-P. The time to recovery, requirement of additional fentanyl, incidence of gagging, patient and surgeon’s satisfaction scores and maximum OAA/S score were similar in Groups D and P and better than Group-MF.

Conclusion:

I We conclude that dexmedetomidine provides an overall better experience for the patient, endoscopist and anaesthesiologist than propofol and midazolam-fentanyl combination.

Midazolam for conscious sedation in transcatheter device closure of atrial septal defects guided solely by transthoracic echocardiography

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the safety and feasibility of midazolam for conscious sedation in transcatheter device closure of atrial septal defects guided solely by transthoracic echocardiography.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 55 patients who underwent transcatheter device closure of atrial septal defects from October, 2019 to May, 2020. All patients received intravenous midazolam and local anesthesia with lidocaine to maintain sedation. A group of previous patients with unpublished data who underwent the same procedure with general anesthesia was set as the control group. The relevant clinical parameters, the Ramsay sedation scores, the numerical rating scale, and the post-operative satisfaction questionnaire were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

In the midazolam group, the success rate of atrial septal defect closure was 98.2%. Hemodynamic stability was observed during the procedure. None of the patients needed additional endotracheal intubation for general anesthesia. Compared with the control group, the midazolam group had no statistically significant differences in the Ramsay sedation score and numerical rating scale scores. Patients in the midazolam group experienced more post-operative satisfaction than those in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Conscious sedation using midazolam is a safe and effective anesthetic technique for transcatheter device closure of atrial septal defects guided solely by transthoracic echocardiography.

A Simple Risk Scoring System for Predicting the Occurrence of Aspiration Pneumonia After Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

BACKGROUND

Aspiration pneumonia after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is rare, but can be fatal. We aimed to investigate risk factors and develop a simple risk scoring system for aspiration pneumonia.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 7833 patients who underwent gastric ESD for gastric neoplasm under anesthesiologist-directed sedation. Candidate risk factors were screened and assessed for significance using a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO)-based method. Top significant factors were incorporated into a multivariable logistic regression model, whose prediction performance was compared with those of other machine learning models. The final risk scoring system was created based on the estimated odds ratios of the logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The incidence of aspiration pneumonia was 1.5%. The logistic regression model showed comparable performance to the best predictive model, extreme gradient boost (area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.731 vs 0.740). The estimated odds ratios were subsequently used for the development of the clinical scoring system. The final scoring system exhibited an AUROC of 0.730 in the test dataset with risk factors: age (≥70 years, 4 points), male sex (8 points), body mass index (≥27 kg/m2, 4 points), procedure time (≥80 minutes, 5 points), lesion in the lower third of the stomach (5 points), tumor size (≥10 mm, 3 points), recovery time (≥35 minutes, 4 points), and desaturation during ESD (9 points). For patients with total scores ranging between 0 and 33 points, aspiration pneumonia probabilities spanned between 0.1% and 17.9%. External validation using an additional cohort of 827 patients yielded AUROCs of 0.698 for the logistic regression model and 0.680 for the scoring system.

CONCLUSIONS

Our simple risk scoring system has 8 predictors incorporating patient-, procedure-, and sedation-related factors. This system may help clinicians to stratify patients at risk of aspiration pneumonia after ESD.

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.

Pain Intensity at Injection Site during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Using Long- and Medium-Chain versus Long-Chain Triglyceride Propofol: A Randomized Controlled Double-Blind Study

Background/Aims

The intensities of injection pain resulting from the use of long- and medium-chain triglyceride (LCT/MCT) propofol and conventional LCT propofol during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) have yet to be compared. We aimed to determine the pain intensity caused by different formulations of propofol and to evaluate the formulation that would be preferred by patients as a sedative agent during their next procedure.

Methods

This study was a single-center, randomized, controlled, and double-blind trial. Pain intensity was estimated 30 seconds after propofol injection by an examiner who was blinded to the group assignment using a numeric (0-10) pain rating scale (NPRS). After 1 week, the patients were asked whether they could recall the pain and were willing to receive the same agent for their next EGD.

Results

One hundred twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to LCT/MCT or LCT group. Although there was no significant difference in pain incidence between the LCT/MCT and LCT groups (52.9% vs 65.6%, p=0.156), the pain intensity was significantly lower in the LCT/MCT group (NPRS median [interquartile range]; 1 (0-2) vs 2 (0-5), p=0.005). After 1 week, fewer patients in the LCT/MCT group recalled the pain (19.1% vs 63.9%, p<0.001) and more patients in the LCT/MCT group were more willing to use the same agent for their next procedure (86.8% vs 72.1%, p=0.048) than in the LCT group.

Conclusions

LCT/MCT propofol significantly reduced injection pain intensity compared to LCT propofol during EGD and preferred by patients as a sedative agent during their next EGD.

Management of Non-Variceal Upper GI Bleeding in the Geriatric Population: An Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the geriatric (age > 65 years) population and presents a unique management challenge in the context of multiple medical comorbidities, polypharmacy, and increased risk of adverse outcomes and is confounded by an increased prevalence of obscure GI bleeds. A review of relevant guidelines, literature, and personal observations will enhance management strategies in the elderly.

RECENT FINDINGS

Non-variceal bleeding represents a significant proportion of upper GI bleeding (UGIB) in geriatric patients. Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) remains the most common cause in geriatric patients hospitalized for UGIB, but its incidence is decreasing. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the gold standard for treating UGIB in geriatrics with a therapeutic yield of approximately 75%. Scoring systems such as Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) and AIMS-65 may be useful for risk stratification but are not validated in trials. Obscure bleeds account for up to 30% of hospitalizations and must be considered during triage and management. Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) technology is efficacious for detecting obscure jejunal bleeding after failed EGD and may enhance the yield of balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE). The most significant factor for the increased morbidity and mortality in the geriatric population is the presence of multiple medical comorbidities and polypharmacy. An EGD should be done within 24 h of hospital presentation. If non-diagnostic, VCE may be a viable option for diagnosing an obscure small-bowel bleed, representing up to 30% of GI bleeds in this population.

Risk Factors for Prolonged Hospital Stay after Endoscopy

Background/Aims

The recovery room used after endoscopy has limited capacity, and an efficient flow of the endoscopy unit is desired. We investigated the duration of hospital stay after endoscopy and the risk factors for prolonged hospital stay among outpatients.

Methods

We retrospectively studied consecutive patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy at the Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic. We collected data on age, sex, body weight, midazolam and pethidine dosage, respiratory depression during endoscopy, and duration of hospital stay after endoscopy (scope out to check out). Risk factors for prolonged hospital stay (>100 minutes) were identified using multiple logistic regression analysis.

Results

We enrolled 3,898 patients, including 3,517 (90.2%) patients tested under sedation and 381 (9.8%) patients tested without sedation. Overall, 442 (11.3%) patients had prolonged stay (>100 min). The mean time difference between sedation group and non-sedation group was 44.2 minutes for esophagogastroduodenoscopy and 39.1 minutes for colonoscopy. Age (odds ratio [OR], 1.025; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.014−1.036), female sex (OR, 1.657; 95% CI, 1.220−2.249), and midazolam dose (OR, 1.019; 95% CI, 1.013−1.026) were independently associated with prolonged hospital stay after esophagogastroduodenoscopy, with similar results for colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Old age, female sex, and midazolam dose were independent risk factors for prolonged hospital stay after endoscopy.

Prospective audit of the safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation in an Australian referral hospital

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopist directed nurse administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) is widely considered to be safe and efficient, but there are limited data from the Australian health-care setting, and Australian sedation guidelines do not support the practice. Thus, we report data from a prospective audit of EDNAPS over a 6.5-year period in an Australian referral hospital.

METHODS

Consecutive endoscopic procedures performed between January 2013 and June 2019. Sedation protocol was an initial dose of midazolam 1-3 mg intravenously (i.v.) and propofol 10-50 mg i.v.. Further aliquots of propofol 10-30 mg i.v. were given as required. ProvationMD® endoscopic reporting system was used to prospectively record patient demographics, medication and dose, American Society of Anesthesiologist's (ASA) class, and sedation-related complications.

RESULTS

During the 78-month period, 28 051 eligible procedures were performed; 3093 procedures performed with anesthetic support or without EDNAPS were excluded. In total, 24 958 procedures with EDNAPS were analyzed including 7563 gastroscopies, 12 941 colonoscopies, 2932 gastroscopy and colonoscopy, 1440 flexible sigmoidoscopies, and 82 combined gastroscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Of these, 9539 were ASA 1 (38.2%), 13 680 were ASA 2 (54.8%), 1733 were ASA 3 (6.9%), and 4 were ASA 4 (0.02%). Sedation-related complications occurred in 66 patients (0.26%), predominantly transient hypoxic episodes. No patient required intubation for an airway emergency, and there was no sedation-related mortality. Sedation-related complications increased with ASA class and were significantly more common with gastroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopist directed nurse administered propofol sedation is a safe way of performing endoscopic sedation in low-risk patients in the hospital setting.

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.

Clinical efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen in patients undergoing ERCP under sedation

Hypoxemia can occur during endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) and it is difficult to achieve adequate ventilation with the prone position. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has been recommended to be more effectively help ventilation than conventional low flow oxygen. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of HFNO during sedated ERCP and to identify predictors of desaturation during ERCP. The investigated variables were age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists classes (ASA), duration of exam, and sedative used for midazolam or/and propofol of 262 patients with sedated ERCP. The differences between categorical and continuous variables were analyzed using the Student's t test and the chi-square test. Desaturation (SpO2 ≤ 90%) occurred in 9(3.4%) patients among 262 patients during sedated ERCP. The variables found to predict desaturation were older age (p < 0.01), higher sedation dose for midazolam or propofol (p < 0.01), and use of midazolam (p < 0.01). Desaturation rate was lower during sedated ERCP with HFNO compared to the preliminary study with conventional low flow nasal oxygen. Patients with older age, higher sedation dose, or the use of midazolam might require close monitoring for desaturation and hypoventilation by nursing staff. The study shows the use of high-flow nasal oxygen reduces the incidence of desaturation during ERCP.

Airway Management for Initial PEG Insertion in the Pediatric Endoscopy Unit: A Retrospective Evaluation of 168 Patients

PURPOSE

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placements are commonly performed pediatric endoscopic procedures. Because of underlying disease, these patients are at increased risk for airway-related complications. This study compares patient characteristics and complications following initial PEG insertion with general endotracheal anesthesia (GETA) vs. anesthesia-directed deep sedation with a natural airway (ADDS).

METHODS

All patients 6 months to 18 years undergoing initial PEG insertion within the endoscopy suite were considered for inclusion in this retrospective cohort study. Selection of GETA vs. ADDS was made by the anesthesia attending after discussion with the gastroenterologist.

RESULTS

This study included 168 patients (GETA n=38, ADDS n=130). Cohorts had similar characteristics with respect to sex, race, and weight. Compared to ADDS, GETA patients were younger (1.5 years vs. 2.9 years, p=0.04), had higher rates of severe American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) disease severity scores (ASA 4-5) (21% vs. 3%, p<0.001), and higher rates of cardiac comorbidities (39.5% vs. 18.5%, p=0.02). Significant associations were not observed between GETA/ADDS status and airway support, 30-day readmission, fever, or pain medication in unadjusted or adjusted models. GETA patients had significantly increased length of stay (e^β=1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.11-2.18) after adjusting for ASA class, room time, anesthesia time, fever, and cardiac diagnosis. GETA patients also had increased room time (e^β=1.20, 95% CI=1.08-1.33) and anesthesia time (e^β=1.50, 95% CI=1.30-1.74) in adjusted models.

CONCLUSION

Study results indicate that younger and higher risk patients are more likely to undergo GETA. Children selected for GETA experienced longer room times, anesthesia times, and hospital length of stay.

Continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus injection of propofol during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND/AIMS

It is unclear whether continuous infusion or intermittent bolus injection of propofol is better for achieving adequate sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of continuous infusion and intermittent bolus injection of propofol during therapeutic ERCP.

METHODS

In this prospective study, we randomly assigned 232 patients undergoing therapeutic ERCP to either continuous infusion (CI group, n = 113) or intermittent bolus injection (BI group, n = 119) of propofol. The primary outcome was the quality of sedation as assessed by the endoscopist. Other sedation-related parameters included sedation induction time, total dose of propofol, recovery time, involuntary patient movement, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Overall satisfaction with sedation by the endoscopist and monitoring nurse were significantly higher in the CI group than the BI group (mean satisfaction score, 9.66 vs. 8.0 and 9.47 vs. 7.96, respectively, p < 0.01 for both). However, patients in the CI group had a significantly longer sedation induction time (5.28 minutes vs. 4.34 minutes, p < 0.01) and received a higher dose of propofol than patients in the BI group (4.22 mg/kg vs. 2.08 mg/kg, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Continuous infusion of propofol during therapeutic ERCP had the advantage over intermittent bolus injection of maintaining a constant level of sedation without increasing adverse events. However, it was associated with an increased total dose of propofol and prolonged sedation induction time.

Endoscopic Ultrasound

Endoscopic ultrasound provides high-resolution, real-time imaging of the gastrointestinal tract and surrounding extramural structures. In recent years, endoscopic ultrasound has played an increasing role as an adjunct or alternative method to conventional surgical therapies. The role of endoscopic ultrasound in diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal malignancy, pancreatic diseases, and biliary diseases continues to evolve. Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound procedures for a variety of pancreatic and biliary indications shows a high technical and clinical success rate, with low rate of adverse events. Endoscopic ultrasound plays a key role in multidisciplinary management of complex surgical and oncology patients and those with pancreaticobiliary disorders.

Comparison of Fentanyl versus Meperidine in Combination with Midazolam for Sedative Colonoscopy in Korea

Background/Aims

Combination of midazolam and opioids is used widely for endoscopic sedation. Compared with meperidine, fentanyl is reportedly associated with rapid recovery, turnover rate of endoscopy room, and quality of endoscopy. We compared fentanyl with meperidine when combined with midazolam for sedative colonoscopy.

Methods

A retrospective, cross-sectional, 1:2 matching study was conducted. Induction and recovery time were compared as the primary outcomes. Moreover, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, total procedure time of colonoscopy, paradoxical reaction, adenoma detection rate, and adverse effect of midazolam or opioids were assessed as the secondary outcomes.

Results

A total of 129 subjects (43 fentanyl vs. 86 meperidine) were included in the analysis. The fentanyl group showed significantly more rapid induction time (4.5±2.7 min vs. 7.5±4.7 min, p<0.001), but longer recovery time (59.5±25.6 min vs. 50.3±10.9 min, p=0.030) than the meperidine group. In multivariate analysis, the induction time of the fentanyl group was 3.40 min faster (p<0.001), but the recovery time was 6.38 min longer (p=0.046) than that of the meperidine group. There was no difference in withdrawal time and adenoma detection rate between the two groups.

Conclusions

The fentanyl group had more rapid sedation induction time but longer recovery time than the meperidine group.

Using Etomidate and Midazolam for Screening Colonoscopies Results in More Stable Hemodynamic Responses in Patients of All Ages

Background/Aims

Recent studies have demonstrated that etomidate is a safe sedative drug with noninferior sedative effects. In our recent study, we revealed that etomidate/midazolam was more hemodynamically stable than propofol/midazolam in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopies. We aimed to investigate whether compared with propofol/midazolam, etomidate/midazolam causes fewer cardiopulmonary adverse events with noninferior efficacy for screening colonoscopies in patients of all ages.

Methods

In this single-center, randomized, double-blind study, we prospectively enrolled 200 patients. The patients were divided into etomidate and propofol groups. The primary outcome was the occurrence of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with fluctuations in vital signs (oxygen desaturation and transient hypotension), adverse events interrupting the procedure, and sedation-related outcomes.

Results

Adverse cardiopulmonary events were more common in the propofol group than the etomidate group (65.0% vs 51.0%, respectively; p=0.045). Forty-six patients (46.0%) in the propofol group and 29 (29.0%) in the etomidate group experienced fluctuations in their vital signs (p=0.013). The proportions of patients experiencing adverse events that interrupted the procedure, including myoclonus, were not significantly different between the two groups (etomidate: 20.0% vs propofol: 11.0%; p=0.079). Both groups had similar sedation-related outcomes. Multivariate analysis revealed that compared with the propofol groups, the etomidate group had a significantly lower risk of fluctuations in vital signs (odds ratio, 0.427; 95% confidence interval, 0.230 to 0.792; p=0.007).

Conclusions

Compared with using propofol/midazolam, using etomidate/midazolam for screening colonoscopies results in more stable hemodynamic responses in patients of all ages; therefore, we recommend using etomidate/midazolam for colonoscopies in patients with cardiovascular risk factors.

Influence of midazolam-related genetic polymorphism on conscious sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a Korean population

Genetic polymorphism can result in abnormal pharmacodynamics that subsequently leads to the individual variance in sedative effects and adverse reactions. The aim of this study was to elucidate the association between midazolam-related genetic polymorphism and sedative effects, including adverse reactions, under conscious sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. We prospectively enrolled 100 eligible patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The efficacy of the sedation, adverse reactions, plasma concentration of midazolam and 1-hydroxymidazolam were investigated as well as the genetic polymorphism of MDR1 and CYP3A5. The correlation between genetic polymorphism and sedative effects was assessed. Regarding MDR1 gene, the plasma concentration of midazolam was greater in patients with CGC haplotype (P = 0.012), while it was lower in patients with CAC haplotype (P = 0.005) than in those with other haplotypes. However, genetic polymorphism of neither MDR1 nor CYP3A5 correlated with the plasma concentration of 1-hydroxymidazolam. CGT haplotype of MDR1 was significantly correlated with sedation grade after midazolam administration (P = 0.042). In contrast, genetic polymorphism of CYP3A5 was not correlated with sedation grade. There was no association between genetic polymorphism of MDR1 or CYP3A5 and selected adverse reactions related to midazolam. Genetic polymorphism of MDR1 influences the concentration of midazolam and the sedation grade. However, it is not associated with adverse reactions such as paradoxical response and retrograde amnesia.

Adverse events of conscious sedation using midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Background

This study was conducted to identify the types and incidence of adverse events associated with midazolam, which is the most widely used drug to induce conscious sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy, and to analyze the factors associated with hypoxemia and sedation failure.

Methods

Of 87,740 patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy between February 2015 and May 2017, the electronic medical records of 335 who reportedly developed adverse events were retrospectively reviewed, and analysis was performed to determine the risk factors for hypoxemia and sedation failure, the two most frequent adverse events among those manifested during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Results

The overall adverse event rate was 0.38% (n = 335); hypoxemia was most frequent, accounting for 40.7% (n = 90), followed by sedation failure (34.8%, n = 77), delayed discharge from the recovery room (22.1%, n = 49), and hypotension (2.2%, n = 5). Compared with the control group, the hypoxemia group did not show any significant differences in sex and body weight, but mean age was significantly older (P < 0.001) and a significantly lower dose of midazolam was administered (P < 0.001). In the group with sedation failure, the mean rate was higher in men (P < 0.001) and a significantly higher dose of midazolam was administered (P < 0.001), but no age difference was found.

Conclusions

Midazolam-based conscious sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy can lead to various adverse events. In particular, as elderly patients are at higher risk of developing hypoxemia, midazolam dose adjustment and careful monitoring are required in this group.

Low-dose midazolam and propofol use for conscious sedation during diagnostic endoscopy

To find the right sedation technique for different types of treatment methods and the right amount of sedatives so the chances of side effects happening can be reduced. This was a retrospective cohort analysis conducted on prospectively collected data. Patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy only (E group) were sub-divided into two subgroups: (a) Those who received 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (E-a), (b) Those who received 0.025 mg/kg of midazolam and 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (E-b). Patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with colonoscopy (EC group) were also sub-divided into three subgroups: (a) Those who received 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (EC-a), (b) Those who received 0.025 mg/kg of midazolam and 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (EC-b), (c) Those who received 25 mg (12.5 mg if body weight < 50 kg or age > 70) of meperidine and 0.025 mg/kg of midazolam along with 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (EC-c). When the level of target was not reached, 10-20 mg of propofol was additionally injected. Sedation efficacy and safety were then compared among groups. E-b and EC-b decreased the overall amount of propofol and reduced side effect of temporary hypoxemia compared to E-a and EC-a. EC-b shortened patient recovery time compared to EC-c and reduced paradoxical reaction. In terms of the patient satisfaction and patient cooperation by endoscopists, there were no significant differences between EC-b and EC-c. Concomitant use of low dosages of both propofol and midazolam is found to be useful and safe when endoscopy needs to be performed.

Meperidine for patients expected to have poor tolerance to esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled study

Background

Anxious patients and those with poor tolerance to previous esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) usually have poor tolerance for EGD.

Aims

To investigate the effect of meperidine on these patients during EGD.

Methods

A total of 110 patients undergoing diagnostic EGD were randomized to receive either meperidine (n = 55) or placebo (n = 55) before EGD. The primary outcome was patient discomfort scores during esophageal intubation.

Results

Patients in the meperidine group reported less discomfort during esophageal intubation (median score of 5.0 and interquartile range (IQR) 1.5-7.0) compared with the control (median score of 6.0, IQR 5.0-8.5, P = .003). Patients in the meperidine group had better tolerance during the procedure (median score of 2 (IQR 1.0-3.0) versus 3 (IQR 1.0-4.0), P = .048), and the endoscopists reported higher overall satisfaction scores (median score of 9 (IQR 7.0-9.0) versus 8 (IQR 7.0-9.0), P = .043). There was significantly less increase in heart rate and blood pressure during the procedure in the meperidine group than in the placebo group (23 bpm (IQR 9-32) versus 30 bpm (IQR 18-52); P = .006); (7 mmHg (IQR 1-14) versus 18 mmHg (IQR 2-30); P = .008). Connect-the-numbers test showed comparable results before and after EGD between the two groups.

Conclusion

For patients expected to have poor tolerance during EGD, meperidine reduced discomfort, decreased cardiovascular distress, and improved endoscopist satisfaction, without adverse effects on their psychomotor function after the procedure.

Propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continues to be widely used, but propofol sedation is becoming more popular because its unique pharmacokinetic properties make endoscopy almost painless, with a very predictable and rapid recovery process. There is controversy as to whether propofol should be administered only by anesthesia professionals. According to published values, endoscopist-directed propofol has a lower mortality rate than endoscopist-delivered benzodiazepines and opioids, and a comparable rate to general anesthesia by anesthesiologists. Rapid recovery has a major impact on patient satisfaction, post-procedure education and the general flow of the endoscopy unit. According to estimates, the absolute economic benefit of endoscopist-directed propofol implementation in a screening setting is probably substantial, with 10-year savings of $3.2 billion in the USA. Guidelines concerning the use of propofol emphasize the need for adequate training and certification in sedation by non-anesthetists.

Pethidine dose and female sex as risk factors for nausea after esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Nausea and vomiting after esophagogastroduodenoscopy have not been studied in detail. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors for post-endoscopic nausea. We performed a case-control study at the Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic. Eighteen patients with post-endoscopic nausea and 190 controls without post-endoscopic nausea were analyzed. We conducted univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses with respect to patient age; sex; body height; body weight; the use of psychotropic drugs as baseline medications; and the dosing amounts of midazolam, pethidine, flumazenil and naloxone. On univariate analysis, post-endoscopic nausea was significantly related with patient age (odds ratio = 0.946); female sex (odds ratio = 10.85); body weight (odds ratio = 0.975); and the dose per kg body weight of pethidine (odds ratio = 53.03), naloxone (odds ratio = 1.676), and flumazenil (odds ratio = 1.26). On multivariate analysis, the dose per kg body weight of pethidine (odds ratio = 21.67, p = 0.004) and female sex (odds ratio = 13.12, p = 0.047) were the factors independently associated with post-endoscopic nausea. The prevalence of nausea after esophagogastroduodenoscopy was 0.49% (18/3,654). In conclusion, post-endoscopic nausea was associated with the dose of pethidine and female sex.

Effect of the midazolam added with propofol-based sedation in esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension may be a concern in the propofol-based sedation. We aimed to analyze whether administration of midazolam would improve safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in EGD.

METHODS

One hundred twenty patients who were scheduled to undergo diagnostic EGD were randomly assigned to either midazolam plus propofol (MP) or propofol alone groups. In the MP group, 2 mg of midazolam and 10 mg of propofol were given initially. In the propofol alone group, 40-60 mg of propofol was given initially. In both groups, 20 mg of propofol was given repeatedly to maintain moderate sedation as needed. Vital signs including oxygen saturation were monitored every 2 min. After the patients fully recovered, satisfaction score was investigated from endoscopists, nurses, and patients, respectively.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics did not differ between the MP and propofol alone groups. The mean required doses of propofol was (mean ± standard deviation) 0.3 ± 0.3 and 0.8 ± 0.2 mg/kg in the MP and propofol alone groups, respectively (P < 0.001). In addition, sedation-related adverse events and recovery time did not differ between the two groups. The proportion of satisfactory did not differ between the two groups (MP vs propofol alone; proportion; patient, 95.0% vs 93.3%, P > 0.999; endoscopist, 73.3% vs 80.0%, P = 0.064; nurse, 73.3% vs 76.7%, P = 0.551).

CONCLUSION

Adding midazolam to propofol did not reduced the safety and efficacy, and sedation using propofol alone could be suitable for sedation during diagnostic EGD.

Complications and outcomes of routine endoscopy in the very elderly

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 In Japan, the elderly population has been increasing annually. The number of elderly patients for whom esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy (CS) is indicated also has been rising. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of routine endoscopy in a cohort of octogenarians aged 85 years and older - defined by the World Health Organization as the very elderly.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 A total of 5,586 patients underwent EGDs, and 2,484 patients underwent CSs performed at the Keio University Hospital from January to September 2014. One hundred eighty-five EGDs and 70 of the CS were performed in the very elderly. Six hundred nine EGDs and 262 CS were performed on younger patients (aged forties). Statistical analysis was performed by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

 On univariate analysis, the rate of adverse events (AEs) in the very elderly was significantly higher compared to the younger group (6.3 % vs. 1.1 %; P  < 0.01). Moreover, the very elderly cohort received substantial therapeutic intervention as compared to the younger (16.9 % vs. 6.9 %; P  < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, independent risk factors of AEs included: very elderly patients (odds ratio (OR) 3.30, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.05 - 10.35), inpatients (OR 3.22, 95 % CI 1.34 - 7.74), and use of pethidine hydrochloride prescription (OR 3.44, 95 % CI 1.51 - 7.81).

CONCLUSIONS

 Routine endoscopy in the very elderly incurs a significant risk of AEs, particularly when combined with pethidine hydrochloride prescription.

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.

Effect of dexmedetomidine in the prophylactic endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for oesophageal varices: a study protocol for prospective interventional study

Background

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a novel, highly selective α2-adrenoceptor agonist that elicits sedative, amnestic, sympatholytic and analgesic effects in patients. Several Japanese investigators have reported the clinical usefulness of DEX for sedation in endoscopic therapies for gastrointestinal malignancies; however, there have been limited data regarding the usefulness and safety of DEX for sedation during endoscopic procedures for oesophageal varices (OVs), such as endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS). In this prospective, single-arm interventional study, we aimed to elucidate these issues.

Methods

Patients who require two or more sessions of prophylactic EIS for the treatment of OVs will be enrolled in this prospective interventional study. EIS procedures include two methods: (1) sedation during endoscopic procedures will be performed using conventional methods (pentazocine (PNZ) and midazolam (MDZ)), and (2) sedation during endoscopic procedures will be performed using PNZ, low-dose MDZ and DEX. These two methods were randomly assigned in the first and second EIS. The effect and safety of these two procedures with respect to patient sedation are to be compared with the degree of sedation evaluated using the Bispectral Index monitoring system (Aspect Medical Systems, Norwood, Massachusetts, USA).

Ethics and dissemination

This study received approval from the Institutional Review Board at Hyogo College of Medicine (approval no. 2324). The authors are committed to publishing the study results as widely as possible in peer-reviewed journals, and to ensuring that appropriate recognition is provided to everyone who is working on this study.

Trial registration number

UMIN000026688; Pre-results.

A Response Surface Model Exploration of Dosing Strategies in Gastrointestinal Endoscopies Using Midazolam and Opioids

Classical midazolam-opioid combination for gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation has been adopted for decades. Dosing regimens have been studied but most require fixed dosing intervals. We intend to use a sophisticated pharmacodynamic tool, response surface model (RSM), to simulate sedation using different regimens. RSM can predict patient's response during different phases of the examination and predict patient's wake-up time with precision and without the need for fixed dosing intervals. We believe it will aid physicians in guiding their dosing strategy and timing.The study is divided into 2 parts. The first part is the full Greco RSMs development for 3 distinct phases: esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, and intersession (the time lapse between procedures). Observer's Assessment of Alertness Score (OAA/S) is used to assess patient response. The second part simulates 6 regimens with different characteristics using the RSMs: midazolam only, balanced midazolam and opioids, high-dose opioids and midazolam, low-dose midazolam with high-dose opioids, high-dose midazolam and low-dose opioids, and finally midazolam with continuous opioid infusion. Loss of response at 95% probability for adequate anesthesia during examination and return of consciousness at 50% probability during intersession was selected for simulation purposes.The average age of the patient population is 49.3 years. Mean BMI is 21.9 ± 2.3 kg/m. About 56.7% were females and none received prior abdominal surgery. The cecal intubation rate was 100%. Only 1 patient (3%) developed temporary hypoxemia, which was promptly managed with simple measures. The RSMs for each phase showed significant synergy between midazolam and alfentanil. The balanced midazolam and alfentanil combination provided adequate anesthesia and most rapid return of consciousness. The awakening time from the final drug bolus was 7.4 minutes during EGD and colonoscopy stimulation, and 9.1 minutes during EGD simulation.Simulation of regimens with different characteristics gives insights on dosing strategies. A balanced midazolam-alfentanil regimen is adequate in providing good anesthetic depth and most rapid return of consciousness. We believe with the aid of our RSM, clinicians can perform sedation with more flexibility and precision.

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.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation during endoscopy: A meta-analysis

Patients undergoing endoscopy frequently require sedation, which commonly includes the administration of midazolam or dexmedetomidine. Previous meta-analyses have mainly focused on comparing the effects of these two drugs in intensive care unit patients. In the present study, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the sedative and clinical effectiveness of these two drugs in patients undergoing endoscopy were searched in a number of databases. The meta-analysis showed that dexmedetomidine demonstrated a significantly lower rate of respiratory depression and adverse events compared with those presented upon midazolam administration. A significant difference was also observed in the sedation potency of the sedatives. The current controlled data suggest that dexmedetomidine may be an alternative to midazolam in the sedation for endoscopy. However, more high-quality and well-designed studies are required to further evaluate this conclusion.