Updates on the Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Sedation reversal trends at outpatient ambulatory endoscopic center vs in-hospital ambulatory procedure center using a triage protocol

BACKGROUND

Routine outpatient endoscopy is performed across a variety of outpatient settings. A known risk of performing endoscopy under moderate sedation is the potential for over-sedation, requiring the use of reversal agents. More needs to be reported on rates of reversal across different outpatient settings. Our academic tertiary care center utilizes a triage tool that directs higher-risk patients to the in-hospital ambulatory procedure center (APC) for their procedure. Here, we report data on outpatient sedation reversal rates for endoscopy performed at an in-hospital APC vs at a free-standing ambulatory endoscopy digestive health center (AEC-DHC) following risk stratification with a triage tool.

AIM

To observe the effect of risk stratification using a triage tool on patient outcomes, primarily sedation reversal events.

METHODS

We observed all outpatient endoscopy procedures performed at AEC-DHC and APC from April 2013 to September 2019. Procedures were stratified to their respective sites using a triage tool. We evaluated each procedure for which sedation reversal with flumazenil and naloxone was recorded. Demographics and characteristics recorded include patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, procedure type, and reason for sedation reversal.

RESULTS

There were 97366 endoscopic procedures performed at AEC-DHC and 22494 at the APC during the study period. Of these, 17 patients at AEC-DHC and 9 at the APC underwent sedation reversals (0.017% vs 0.04%; P = 0.06). Demographics recorded for those requiring reversal at AEC-DHC vs APC included mean age (53.5 ± 21 vs 60.4 ± 17.42 years; P = 0.23), ASA class (1.66 ± 0.48 vs 2.22 ± 0.83; P = 0.20), BMI (27.7 ± 6.7 kg/m2 vs 23.7 ± 4.03 kg/m2; P = 0.06), and female gender (64.7% vs 22%; P = 0.04). The mean doses of sedative agents and reversal drugs used at AEC-DHC vs APC were midazolam (5.9 ± 1.7 mg vs 8.9 ± 3.5 mg; P = 0.01), fentanyl (147.1 ± 49.9 μg vs 188.9 ± 74.1 μg; P = 0.10), flumazenil (0.3 ± 0.18 μg vs 0.17 ± 0.17 μg; P = 0.13) and naloxone (0.32 ± 0.10 mg vs 0.28 ± 0.12 mg; P = 0.35). Procedures at AEC-DHC requiring sedation reversal included colonoscopies (n = 6), esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (n = 9) and EGD/colonoscopies (n = 2), whereas APC procedures included EGDs (n = 2), EGD with gastrostomy tube placement (n = 1), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n = 2) and endoscopic ultrasound's (n = 4). The indications for sedation reversal at AEC-DHC included hypoxia (n = 13; 76%), excessive somnolence (n = 3; 18%), and hypotension (n = 1; 6%), whereas, at APC, these included hypoxia (n = 7; 78%) and hypotension (n = 2; 22%). No sedation-related deaths or long-term post-sedation reversal adverse outcomes occurred at either site.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the effectiveness of a triage tool used at our tertiary care hospital for risk stratification in minimizing sedation reversal events during outpatient endoscopy procedures. Using a triage tool for risk stratification, low rates of sedation reversal can be achieved in the ambulatory settings for EGD and colonoscopy.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation Training Curricula and Propofol Administration in Digestive Endoscopy Procedures: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Although efficacy and safety of nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol and nurse-administered propofol sedation practices have been amply demonstrated in patients at low American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status risk, they are still severely limited. To date, it is quite difficult to find a protocol or a shared training program. The aim of the study was to verify requirements, types of training, and operating methods described in the literature for the administration of propofol by a nurse. A scoping review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and in line with Arksey and O'Malley's framework, within four main databases of biomedical interest: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. We selected studies published during the last 20 years, including only nurses not trained in anesthesia. Seventeen articles were eligible. Despite the differences between the training and administration methods, efficacy and safety of deep sedation managed by trained nurses were comparable, just like when sedation was administered by certified registered nurse anesthetists. Training programs have been investigated in detail by only a small number of studies, although its efficacy and safety have been widely demonstrated. It is important, then, to collect evidence that allows developing of unified international guidelines for training methods to offer safe and cost-effective quality sedation.

Propofol Alone versus Propofol in Combination with Midazolam for Sedative Endoscopy in Patients with Paradoxical Reactions to Midazolam

Background/Aims

The efficacy of propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients with midazolam-induced paradoxical reactions remains unclarified. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of propofol-based sedation in patients who previously experienced paradoxical reactions.

Methods

This was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled pilot study. Participants with a history of paradoxical reactions to midazolam during a previous esophagogastroduodenoscopy were recruited and randomly assigned to group I (propofol monosedation) or group II (combination of propofol and midazolam). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a paradoxical reaction.

Results

A total of 30 participants (mean age, 54.7±12.6 years; male, 19/30) were randomly assigned to group I (n=16) or group II (n=14). There were no paradoxical reactions in group I, but there were two in group II, without a significant difference (p=0.209). The mean dose of propofol was higher in group I than in group II (p=0.002). Meanwhile, the procedure and recovery times did not differ between groups.

Conclusions

Propofol-based sedation was safe and effective for patients who experienced paradoxical reactions to midazolam. However, caution is needed because few cases of paradoxical reaction again can happen in group II in which midazolam was readministered.

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.

A Nationwide Survey on the Facilities and Personnel for Endoscopic Sedation: Results from 50 Qualified Endoscopy Units of Teaching Hospitals Accredited by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

Background/Aims

This study aimed to determine the current status of facilities, equipment, and personnel for endoscopic sedation from endoscopy units of representative hospitals in South Korea.

Methods

A questionnaire survey was conducted on 50 qualified endoscopy units accredited by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Results

All included endoscopy units had regulations and educational programs regarding sedation training for endoscopists and nursing personnel. There present one assisting nurse during endoscopy in 35 units (70%) and at least two nurses in 12 units (24.0%). All endoscopy units had examination rooms equipped with oxygen supply and suction systems. Endoscopist-directed sedation was performed in 48 units (96.0%). Propofol-based sedation was the most used sedation method. All units had a separate recovery bay. The daily number of patients per bed was greater than 10 in 17 units (34.0%). In 26 (52.0%) units, a single nurse cared for ≥10 patients per day. All the units fulfilled the discharge criteria.

Conclusions

This study presents data regarding endoscopic sedation clinical practice in 50 endoscopy units in South Korea. This study presents the current status of endoscopic sedation clinical practice in 50 qualified endoscopy units accredited by the KSGE, which provide excellent quality management.

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.