AGA Institute review of endoscopic sedation

Risk of Renal Injury After the Use of Polyethylene Glycol for Outpatient Colonoscopy: A Prospective Observational Study

GOAL

The goal of this study was to estimate the risk of renal injury after the use of 3-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) before outpatient colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND

Population-based studies showed that the use of PEG was associated with renal injury, but this association has not been confirmed by prospective study.

STUDY

Patients ≥40 years of age with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥30 mL/min were screened for enrollment. Laboratory data were collected before, during, and after the colonoscopies. Patients with a ≥30% increase in baseline serum creatinine levels were followed until a peak level was detected. Renal injury included acute renal dysfunction (ARD) and acute kidney injury (AKI), defined as a 30% to 49% increase and ≥50% increase in creatinine levels compared with the baseline, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 1163 patients (mean age, 55.7 y) completed the study. Baseline and first postcolonoscopy laboratory data were obtained an average of 17.0 days before and 17.3 days after the colonoscopies were performed, respectively. Renal injury was identified in 32 patients; 26 patients (2.2%) had ARD, and 6 patients (0.5%) had AKI. All patients with renal injury recovered fully during follow-up. In the subgroup analysis, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) before colonoscopy was statistically associated with the development of AKI (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-35.5; P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study showed that the use of PEG was associated with a small risk of renal injury. NSAIDs use was statistically associated with AKI in the context of colonoscopy for which PEG was used for bowel preparation.

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.

Benefits and harms of capnography during procedures involving moderate sedation: A rapid review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patient safety is a priority in dentistry. Evaluating the benefits and harms associated with the addition of capnography to standard monitoring during moderate sedation for adult patients in the dental practice setting is needed.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors used rapid review methodology to identify relevant systematic reviews, which they updated through a systematic search by using the same search strategy as the identified reviews. The authors searched PubMed and Google Scholar and through the references of the identified systematic reviews, which yielded 2,892 studies. Inclusion criteria were that the article was available in English, was original research in adult humans who had undergone moderate procedural sedation, and involved comparing standard monitoring with the addition of capnography.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were eligible, involving 3,866 adults undergoing procedural sedation. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the evidence and rate it as being of moderate to low quality because of high risk of bias and heterogeneous effects for the outcomes of hypoxemia and adverse respiratory events. Capnography had higher sensitivity to detect adverse respiratory events than did standard monitoring alone (0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 0.99) and may reduce the risk of developing hypoxemia by 31% (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.82). Capnography did not affect the risk of developing serious adverse events, procedure time, sedation quality, or patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Adding capnography to standard monitoring of adults during moderate sedation may reduce the risk of developing hypoxemia, increase detection of adverse respiratory events, and is not associated with additional harms. These findings suggest routine use of capnography during moderate sedation has the potential to reduce adverse anesthetic outcomes in dental practice.

Combination of propofol and dezocine to improve safety and efficacy of anesthesia for gastroscopy and colonoscopy in adults: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Gastroscopy and colonoscopy are important and common endoscopic methods for the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal and colorectal diseases. However, endoscopy is usually associated with adverse reactions such as nervousness, nausea, vomiting, choking cough, and pain. Severe discomfort, such as vomiting, coughing, or body movement, may lead to aggravation of a pre-existing condition or even interruption of examination or treatment, especially in some critically ill patients with physiological dysfunction (e.g., cardiovascular or respiratory disease). The optimal methods for inducing analgesia and sedation in endoscopy are areas of ongoing debate; nevertheless, determining an appropriate regimen of sedation and analgesia is important.

AIM

To evaluate the effects of propofol combined with dezocine, sufentanil, or fentanyl in painless gastroscopy and colonoscopy.

METHODS

Four hundred patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups for anesthesia: intravenous dezocine, sufentanil, fentanyl, or saline. Propofol was administered intravenously for induction and maintenance of anesthesia.

RESULTS

The dosage of propofol in the dezocine group was significantly lower than those in other groups (P < 0.01). Bispectral index and Steward score (0-6 points, an unresponsive, immobile patient whose airway requires maintenance to a fully recovered patient) after eye opening in the dezocine group were significantly higher than those in other groups (P < 0.01). Awakening time and postoperative pain score (0-10 points, no pain to unbearable pain) in the dezocine group were significantly lower than those in other groups (P < 0.01). Mean arterial pressure and pulse oxygen saturation in the dezocine group were significantly more stable at various time points (before dosing, disappearance of eyelash reflex, and wakeup) than those in other groups (P < 0.01). The rates of hypopnea, jaw thrust, body movements, and usage of vasoactive drugs in the dezocine group were significantly lower than those in other groups (P < 0.01). Additionally, the rates of reflex coughing, nausea, and vomiting were not statistically different between the four groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The combination of propofol and dezocine can decrease propofol dosage, reduce the risk for the development of inhibitory effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, increase analgesic effect, decrease body movement, shorten awakening time, and improve awakening quality.

Unsedated Outpatient Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Stroke Patients: Is It Feasible and Safe?

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is an established practice for long-term nutrition in dysphagia-suffering stroke patients. This study sought to determine the feasibility and safety of outpatient, unsedated PEG implementation in stroke patients. This retrospective cohort study involved stroke victims who underwent unsedated outpatient PEG insertion from 2014 to 2017 at our Surgical Endoscopy Unit. Patients were given pharyngeal anesthesia with lidocaine 10% spray, while the PEG tube was placed under local anesthesia. The incidence of intraprocedural and postprocedural complications and 30-day mortality rate were recorded. Data from 127 cases were analyzed. The procedures were performed with minor, transient complications, which resolved after rescue maneuvers. No intraprocedural and postprocedural major complications or death were observed. During the 30-day follow-up, the most important complication involved a single case of accidental PEG removal that was successfully resolved surgically. Unsedated PEG insertion appears to be a feasible, well-tolerated, and safe option for stroke-related dysphagia.

Updates on the Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Sedation, defined as the depressed level of consciousness, induced by drug administration, is widely used for gastrointestinal endoscopy to relieve a patient's anxiety and discomfort. In addition, successful procedure is anticipated with control of unintended movements. Endoscopic sedation, however, cannot be free from the risk of serious adverse events, e.g., cardiopulmonary compromise. Therefore, principles on personnel, facility and equipment, as well as performance itself, should be followed to prevent unfavorable incidents. In this article, sedation guidelines for the Accreditation of Qualified Endoscopy Units, issued by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, are presented.

Sedation Strategies for Procedures Outside the Operating Room

With the rapid development of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures performed outside the operating room (OR), the need for appropriate sedation care has emerged in importance to ensure the safety and comfort of patients and clinicians. The preparation and administration of sedatives and sedation care outside the OR require careful attention, proper monitoring systems, and clinically useful sedation guidelines. This literature review addresses proper monitoring and selection of sedatives for diagnostic and interventional procedures outside the OR. As the depth of sedation increases, respiratory depression and cardiovascular suppression become serious, necessitating careful surveillance using appropriate monitoring equipment.

Safety and efficacy of combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sedation with etomidate or propofol alone during gastroscopy has many side effects. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combined use of propofol and etomidate for sedation during gastroscopy.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Medline (via Ovid SP), Cochrane library databases, CINAHL (via EBSCO), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), Wanfang, VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were systematically searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the combined use of propofol and etomidate vs etomidate or propofol alone for sedation during gastroscopy. Data were pooled using the random-effects models or fixed-effect model based on heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies with 2973 participants were included in the analysis. Compared to propofol alone, the combined use of propofol and etomidate possibly increased recovery time (SMD = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.04-0.24; P = .005), and the risk for myoclonus (OR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.73-5.44; P < .001), injection pain, and nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, compared to propofol alone, the combination of propofol and etomidate produced an apparent beneficial effect for mean arterial pressure (MAP) after anesthesia (SMD = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.38-2.26; P = .006), SPO2 after anesthesia (SMD = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.43-1.55; P < .001), apnea or hypoxemia (OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.08-0.33; P < .001), injection pain, and body movement. Further, compared to etomidate alone, the combination of propofol and etomidate reduced the risk for myoclonus (OR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.11-0.22; P < .001), body movement, and nausea and vomiting.

CONCLUSION

The combination of propofol and etomidate might increase recovery time vs that associated with propofol, but it had fewer side effects on circulation and respiration in patients undergoing gastroscopy. The combined use of propofol and etomidate can improve and produce an apparent beneficial effect on the adverse effects of propofol or etomidate alone, and it was safer and more effective than propofol or etomidate alone.

Factors related to paradoxical reactions during propofol-induced sedated endoscopy

Objective: The factors related to paradoxical excitement during propofol-induced sedation remain unclear. We aimed to investigate this issue during sedated upper endoscopy. Material and methods: Among the health examinees scheduled for sedated upper endoscopy from June 2017 to December 2017, 421 participated in the study. Endoscopists were blinded to the information about the examinees and evaluated the development of paradoxical reactions. Propofol was exclusively used as the sedative agent via intermittent bolus injection. A multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate the factors associated with paradoxical reactions. Results: The incidence of paradoxical reactions was 16.1%. Anxiety (adjusted odds ratio: 2.76; 95% confidence interval: 1.46 - 5.27; p = .002) and age (odds ratio: 0.92; 95% confidence interval: 0.89 - 0.96; p < .001) were significantly associated with paradoxical reactions. Of the nine items of the anxiety questionnaire, four had independent and significant associations with paradoxical reactions (i.e., excess worry, sleeping problems, somatic symptoms, and health concerns; odds ratios: 2.38, 2.71, 2.27 and 2.39, respectively). Conclusion: Propofol-induced paradoxical reactions tend to occur when an individual has anxiety and is of a young age. Further large population-based studies should be performed to confirm this phenomenon.

Evaluation of pain and patient satisfaction by music therapy in patients with endoscopy/colonoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopy and colonoscopy are frequently performed procedures to evaluate the gastrointestinal system. These procedures are sometimes disturbing and painful for the patient. In gastrointestinal suits, endoscopy and colonoscopy may be performed on awake or sedated patients. Music therapy is a common and non-pharmacological treatment for various medical conditions, pain, and anxiety. The aim of the present study was to add music therapy to sedation administered during endoscopy and colonoscopy. The effect of music treatment on drug consumption, anxiety, and pain was investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

American Anesthesiologist Association I-III adult patients scheduled for endo/colonoscopy were randomized to music treatment and no music treatment groups. Patients with endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde colangiopancreaticography were excluded from the study. Anxiety score and pain severity were evaluated before and after the procedure. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and oxygen saturation were recorded before, during, and after the procedure. Total drug consumption was recorded. Patient satisfaction and desire for the same protocol for recurrent procedures were investigated.

RESULTS

Music therapy added to deep sedation administered by anesthesiologists provided decreased anxiety score and propofol consumption. Patient satisfaction was increased, and patients reported a desire for the same protocol for recurrent procedures.

CONCLUSION

The present study may serve as the beginning of using music therapy for pain treatment in gastroenterology procedures in our hospital with/without sedation. Music and other non-pharmacological treatment methods must be remembered to increase patient comfort during enco/colonoscopies and other painful procedures.

Safety and effectiveness of midazolam for cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopic variceal ligation

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is an established treatment for esophageal variceal bleeding. Midazolam (MDZ) is most commonly used for sedation during endoscopic procedures. However, adverse events (AEs) may occur more frequently in patients with cirrhosis due to altered MDZ metabolism.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 325 patients with cirrhosis who received EVL.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in treatment outcome and procedure time among 151 patients in the MDZ group and 169 patients in the non-MDZ group. Desaturation (23.2% vs. 7.7%, p<0.01), bradycardia (22.5% vs. 17.2%, p=0.03), and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) (6.6% vs. 0.6%, p<0.01) were more common in the MDZ group than in the non-MDZ group. Logistic regression analyses revealed that an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of ≥2 (p<0.01) and the use of MDZ (p<0.01) were associated with the development of overall AEs. An ECOG score of ≥2 (p=0.01), high serum creatinine level (p=0.02), and the use of MDZ (p<0.01) were significant risk factors for HE.

CONCLUSION

Extreme caution should be taken when sedating patients with cirrhosis receiving EVL due to the AEs associated with the use of MDZ.

Efficacy and Safety of Deep Sedation in Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been accepted as safe and effective for treating early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, it often causes severe pain. Therefore, in this study, we performed RFA under deep sedation and investigated its efficacy and safety.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study including 511 HCC patients who received approximately 886 RFA treatments between December 2014 and November 2016 at our institution. Respiratory depression was defined as oxygen saturation of below 90%; and severe body movement was defined as movement caused by pain, which was managed by lowering the power of the generator. Factors associated with respiratory depression and severe body movement were examined via univariate and multivariate regression analyses.

RESULTS

Respiratory depression occurred in 15.3% of the patients and severe body movement in 26.5% of the patients. In the multivariate analysis, BMI (≥ 25 kg/m², odds ratio [OR] = 1.75, P = 0.035) and longer ablation (≥ 10 min, OR = 2.59, P = 0.002) were significant respiratory depression-related factors. Male sex (OR = 2.02, P = 0.005), Child-Pugh class A (odds ratio = 1.96, P = 0.018), and longer ablation (≥ 10 min, OR = 3.03, P < 0.001) were significant factors related to severe body movement.

CONCLUSION

Deep sedation for RFA can be performed safely and effectively. Higher BMI and longer ablation were risk factors for respiratory depression and male sex, Child-Pugh class A, and longer ablation were independent predictors of severe body movement during RFA under deep sedation.

Conscious sedation using propofol versus midazolam in cirrhotic patients during upper GI endoscopy: A comparative study

AIM

We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of propofol versus midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy.

METHODS

Ninety compensated cirrhotic patients (all met class I-III criteria according to the American Society of Anesthesia) were enrolled in this comparative study. They were classified into three groups according to scheduled pre-endoscopy sedation drugs; the midazolam group, which included 30 patients who received IV weight-dependent midazolam (0.05 mg/kg with additional doses of 1 mg every 2 min when necessary, up to a maximum dose of 0.1 mg/kg or 10 mg); the propofol group, which included 30 patients who received a propofol bolus dose according to age and weight (0.25 mg/kg with additional doses of 20-30 mg every 30-60 s when necessary, up to a maximum dose of 400 mg); and the combined group, which included 30 patients who received half a dose of midazolam and of propofol.

RESULTS

Prolonged postendoscopy recovery times were reported in the midazolam group, while shorter recovery times were reported in the propofol and combined groups. All patients in the propofol and combined groups gained consciousness shortly postendoscopy; however, only half of the midazolam group's patients gained consciousness after the standard recovery time (10-30 min). Highly significant differences were found among the three groups regarding consciousness level according to the Glasgow coma scale, as well as regarding the occurrence of hypoxia during endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Considering safety and efficacy issues, propofol is better than midazolam in gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially in patients with liver cirrhosis.

The effect of bispectral index monitoring on cognitive performance following sedation for outpatient colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Bispectral index (BIS) monitoring can positively affect cognitive performance through decreasing the use of sedative agents. We aimed to evaluate the effect of BIS monitoring on early cognitive performance among patients undergoing sedation for colonoscopy.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Randomized, controlled trial in a university hospital.

METHODS

100 patients were randomized into two groups. In the monitored group (n = 50), the depth of anesthesia was monitored using the BIS, and BIS scores were maintained between 60 and 80. In the usual care group (n = 50), BIS monitoring was not performed. To determine the patients' baseline cognitive performance levels, the mini-mental state examination (MMSE), Trieger dot test (TDT) and clock drawing test (CDT) were used. The patients' post-procedure cognitive performance levels were determined when they were classified as ready for discharge.

RESULTS

The total volume (mg) of propofol used [median (range) IQR] in the sedation procedure was lower in the monitored group [100 (50-200) 100-140] than in the usual care group [150 (75-200) 100-200] (P < 0.001). The discharge scores [mean (SD)] using MMSE and CDT were higher in the monitored group [26 (3) and 3 (1), respectively] than in the usual care group [23 (3) and 2 (1), respectively] (P = 0.002 and P = 0.002, respectively). The discharge scores using TDT [mean (SD)] were lower in the monitored group [11 (7)] than in the usual care group [15 (11)] (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

BIS monitoring among sedated patients was associated with lower propofol use and smaller decline in cognitive performance.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12617000134325).

A collaborative educational intervention on procedural sedation and analgesia across the Pacific

Aim

Worldwide, health‐care providers carry out procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department. However, training opportunities are limited in many Asian countries, including Japan. We formed an educational group consisting of board‐certified emergency physicians in the USA and Japanese physicians and developed a PSA training module. The aims of our study were to demonstrate the effectiveness of training and to describe PSA practice in Japan.

Methods

We undertook a pretest of PSA knowledge questions and a retest immediately after the training intervention. We also carried out a survey and asked about participants' PSA practice. The training module consisted of four didactic hours and three simulation and skills laboratory hours. Results of all pre‐ and post‐intervention knowledge questions were analyzed with McNemar's test, and overall scores were analyzed with a paired t‐test.

Results

One hundred and forty‐four health‐care providers including 123 physicians, 16 nurses, two pharmacists, and three medical students participated in the training. A total of 119 (83%) completed both the pre‐ and post‐intervention knowledge questions. Before the training, participants scored an average 66% (63%–69%) on the written knowledge test. After the intervention, participants showed significant improvement on the knowledge test (improvement 17%; 14%–20%). Among participants who answered the practice survey, 121 (88%) have undertaken PSA. Only 14 (12%) participants always or often use a continuous capnography for PSA. Only 32 (26.4%) participants undertook pre‐PSA systematic evaluation.

Conclusion

Our educational intervention successfully increased participants' knowledge. Only the minority of health‐care providers use capnography routinely for PSA, and pre‐PSA evaluation is not commonly carried out.

Propofol is a more effective and safer sedative agent than midazolam in endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of sedation during endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) for esophageal varices (EVs) in patients with liver cirrhosis remains unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety between propofol- and midazolam-based sedation for EIS.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with EVs were prospectively and randomly assigned to midazolam-based (Midazolam group) or propofol-based (Propofol group) sedation. All patients underwent a number connection test (NCT) to evaluate minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) on the day before and at 2 and 24 hours following EIS. The primary endpoint was exacerbation of MHE after EIS, which was defined as deterioration of the NCT. The secondary endpoints were postoperative awareness, technical success rate, frequency of body movement, patient and operator satisfaction, cardiorespiratory dynamics during EIS, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Exacerbations of MHE at 2 hours after EIS compared with those before EIS were not significantly different between the two groups. In both groups, the deterioration of NCT scores before and 2 hours after EIS was observed (Propofol group: 60.0 vs. 70.0 s, P = 0.026; Midazolam group: 42.5 vs. 67.0 s, P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in awareness, technical success rate, or patient satisfaction. However, the frequency of body movement in the Propofol group was significantly lower than that in the Midazolam group (1 vs. 4, P = 0.045), and operator satisfaction in the Propofol group was significantly higher than that in the Midazolam group (P = 0.016). No adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol-based sedation exacerbated MHE after EIS similarly to midazolam-based sedation in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, propofol-based sedation provided stable sedation with a lower frequency of body movements and high operator satisfaction.

Effectiveness and safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy during a specific sedation training program for non-anesthesiologists

INTRODUCTION

sedation is a key component for the improvement of sedation quality. A correct administration requires appropriate training. We performed a study to compare sedation effectiveness, safety and patient satisfaction when administered by gastroenterologists, with and without specific training.

METHODS

a training program enrolled a group of gastroenterologists (trained group, n = 4) and their results were compared to those from a non-trained group (n = 3). ASA 1-3 patients who had undergone sedation by a gastroenterologist using midazolam and fentanyl were included over a period of 30 months. Safety was assessed in terms of the complication rate, effectiveness was assessed via the rate of completed endoscopic procedures and patient satisfaction was evaluated via a phone interview the day after the procedure.

RESULTS

a total of 3,475 patients were sedated by gastroenterologists during the study period. Significant differences were found that favored the trained group for completed procedures (5.6% vs 8.9%). A lower rate of excessive sedation (1.3% vs 8.61%), hypoxemia (0.72% vs 2.49%) and post-procedural pain (1.8% vs 4.3%) were also achieved. Patient satisfaction surpassed 99.5% and there were no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

our sedation training program improved the effectiveness and safety outcomes when compared to sedation administered by gastroenterologists without this specific training.

Analgesic Effect and Hemodynamic Changes Due to Dexmedetomidine Versus Fentanyl During Elective Colonoscopy: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

There are different methods used for anesthesia during a colonoscopy procedure.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic effect and hemodynamic changes due to dexmedetomidine and fentanyl during elective colonoscopy.

Methods

This double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 80 patients aged 20 - 70 years, candidates for elective colonoscopy, who were randomly divided into two equal groups. In the intervention group (group D), dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg was given 10 minutes before starting the colonoscopy and then, 0.5 mcg/kg/hour during colonoscopy was prescribed. In the control group (group F), fentanyl 0.5 mcg/kg was prescribed three minutes before starting the colonoscopy and then, the normal saline infusion was used as maintenance. Propofol 20 mg was prescribed as the rescue dose if needed (pain or severe discomfort during colonoscopy) during the procedure. Demographic and basic clinical data and blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂), and pain score (based on the visual analogue scale) were recorded from the start of the colonoscopy (time 0) and every 5 minutes until the recovery.

Results

The two groups had no significant difference in the duration of colonoscopy, colonoscopist's satisfaction, and patients' satisfaction (P > 0.05). The mean pain score during colonoscopy was lower in the dexmedetomidine group (P = 0.039). Heart rate was less in the dexmedetomidine group than in the fentanyl group and this difference was statistically significant. The mean arterial pressure had no difference between the two groups.

Conclusions

The results of the present study showed pain score was lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the fentanyl group.

Dexmedetomidine is safe and reduces the additional dose of midazolam for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in very elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) often requires deep sedation. Dexmedetomidine, a highly selective α2-adrenoceptor agonist with sedative activity and minimal effects on respiration, has recently been widely used among patients in the intensive care unit. However, its use in endoscopic procedures in very elderly patients is unclear. In this study, we retrospectively investigated the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine sedation during ERCP.

METHODS

The study included 62 very elderly patients (aged over 80 years) who underwent ERCP from January 2014, with sedation involving dexmedetomidine (i.v. infusion at 3.0 μg/kg/h over 10 min followed by continuous infusion at 0.4 μg/kg/h) along with midazolam. For comparison, the study included 78 patients who underwent ERCP before January 2014, with midazolam alone. We considered additional administration of midazolam as needed to maintain a sedation level of 3-4, according to the Ramsay sedation scale. The outcome measures were amount of midazolam, adverse events associated with sedation, and hemodynamics.

RESULTS

The incidence of decreased SpO2 and median dose of additional midazolam were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the conventional group. The minimum systolic blood pressure and minimum heart rate during and after examination was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the conventional group. However, serious acute heart failure or arrhythmia was not noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine can decrease the incidence of respiratory complications and the total dose of other sedative agents. It can be used as an alternative to conventional methods with midazolam for adequate sedation during ERCP in very elderly patients.

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.

Effect and Tolerability of Same-Day Repeat Colonoscopy

Purpose/Aim of the study: The main purpose of the colonoscopy is screening for colorectal cancers and diagnosis of colorectal disease The cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy directly depend on the adequate bowel preparation. Inadequate colonoscopy is recommended to be re-scheduled within 1 year. Re-scheduling is an economic and patient burden. Thus instead of re-scheduling, another strategy may be attempted. The purpose of this study was to examine the usefulness and effect of the same day repeat colonoscopy after administration of an additional laxative dose. Materials and Methods: Patients with inadequate colonoscopy were enrolled in the study. The patients eligible for the enrollment were instructed to consume an additional laxative and scheduled in afternoon. The demographic data of the patient, the details of the index and repeat procedures were obtained by a questionnaire. Results: A total of 60 patients were enrolled in the study. The rate of adequate colonoscopy was 80%. Cecum intubation rate was 83.3%. There were no complications due to colonoscopy itself and additional laxatives. The polyp detection rate was 26.6%. The withdrawal time was 6.7 ± 1.34 min. Conclusion: The results of the present study showed that same day repeat colonoscopy with additional laxative dose can be a safe and effective method for repeat procedure of an inadequate colonoscopy. The patients tolerated and were satisfied with the same day protocol. Quality indicators of colonoscopy such as adenoma detection rate and cecum intubation rate were achieved. Same day bowel cleansing method may be considered as an alternative way rather than re-scheduling inadequate colonoscopy for a later time.

Sedation with propofol in digestive endoscopy administered by gastroenterologists. Experience in a Venezuelan hospital

OBJECTIVES

propofol is a rapid acting hypnotic that is becoming the drug of choice for sedation in digestive endoscopy worldwide. There is some controversy with regard to the use of propofol by physicians who are not anesthesiologists. We present our experience of the administration of propofol by endoscopist and nursing personnel.

METHODS

this was a retrospective study of sedation in endoscopy. Propofol was exclusively used and administered by the endoscopist who performed the procedure and the nursing staff. All patients included were of a low and moderate surgical risk (ASA I, II and III). No complementary medication was used such as benzodiazepines or opiates.

RESULTS

a total of 70,696 digestive endoscopy procedures performed between 2002 and 2017 were included in the study. Propofol was administered in an induction bolus of 10 to 50 mg, continuing with intermittent boluses of 10 to 20 mg, according to the patients' response. The incidence of complications was very low, assisted ventilation with a mask was required on 78 (0.11%) occasions. Only one case required endotracheal intubation and two patients had significant hypotension that required the administration of ephedrine. The average recovery time of all neuropsychomotor functions after the procedure was 15 minutes; 98% of patients reported a good or excellent level of tolerance and clearly remembered the details of the interview one hour after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

the use of propofol as a sedative in digestive endoscopy is a safe and effective technique, provided that it is administered and controlled by the endoscopist and nursing staff in properly selected patients. This allows gastroenterologists to achieve adequate sedation.

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE ENDOSCOPIC FINDINGS AND THE HISTOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS OF ANTRAL GASTRITES

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Gastritis is a very common disorder that is widely distributed worldwide, representing one of the most prevalent pathological entities in Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the correlation between the endoscopic findings and the histological diagnosis of antral gastritis. METHODS: In this study, 92 reports of upper digestive endoscopy were performed between November 2014 and January 2015, including biopsy of the antral gastric mucosa, comparing the endoscopic and histological findings, which were classified according to the Sidney System. The 92 exams included 35 men and 57 women, ranging in age from 15 to 84 years. The most frequent indication was epigastric pain. RESULTS: Of the 92 examinations analyzed, the histological diagnosis of antral gastritis appeared in 75 exams, 59 endoscopic reports contained the diagnosis of antral gastritis, and 33 endoscopic findings were normal. The kappa coefficient was 0.212 (P<0.05), indicating that there was no significant agreement between the endoscopic findings and the histological diagnosis of antral gastritis. CONCLUSION: We conclude that histology represents the gold standard method for the diagnosis of antral gastritis and that in daily clinical practice, biopsies should always be performed, regardless of the endoscopic findings.

Recent Trends in the Practice of Procedural Sedation Under Local Anesthesia for Catheter Ablation, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and Endoscopic Surgery in Japan: A Retrospective Database Study in Clinical Practice from 2012 to 2015

OBJECTIVES

To investigate changes in sedation practice during 2012-2015, using a large health claims database, for catheter ablation (CA), gastrointestinal endoscopic examination (EE), and surgery (ES) after dexmedetomidine (DEX) was approved for procedural sedation in 2013. We assessed the trends of sedative utilization, sedative-analgesic combinations, and, additionally, incidence of complications from 2012 to 2015.

METHODS

Using the database provided by Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan), annual utilization proportions of the sedatives and sedative-analgesic combinations and occurrence of complications were calculated in patients with a record of local anesthesia and CA, EE, and/or ES but without general anesthesia used on the same day. The sedatives studied were DEX, propofol (PF), midazolam (MDZ), diazepam, flunitrazepam, thiamylal (TIA), thiopental (TIO), and ketamine.

RESULTS

DEX was used most often for CA, followed by PF. From 2012 to 2015, the proportion of DEX increased from 30 to 36%, and that of PF slightly decreased from 29 to 27%. The order of utilization proportions did not change for EE or ES. The use of benzodiazepines, particularly MDZ, predominated. The top five sedative-analgesic combination patterns changed during the study period for CA, but not for EE or ES. The most common complications with CA, EE, and ES were bradycardia, nausea and vomiting, and respiratory depression, respectively. There were no changes in the complications' trends for the procedures.

CONCLUSION

The approved use of DEX for procedural sedation resulted in changes for CA, but not for EE or ES. The complication trends did not change.

The Benefit of Fentanyl in Effective Sedation and Quality of Upper Endoscopy: A Double-Blinded Randomized Trial of Fentanyl Added to Midazolam Versus Midazolam Alone for Sedation

Aims

Our goals were to compare the effect of adding fentanyl to midazolam in a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial and determine if fentanyl enhances sedation, increases adverse events or effects time of the procedure or discharge.

Methods

Patients 18 to 65 years scheduled for outpatient upper endoscopy were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized to receive either 100 mcg/2 mL of Fentanyl or 2 mL of placebo IV with a double-blinded protocol. All patients received 2 mg of intravenous midazolam initially. Additional midazolam could be given to achieve adequate sedation.

Results

There were 68 patients randomized to the Fentanyl group and 69 patients to the placebo group. The mean dose of midazolam was 4.0 mg for the Fentanyl group and 5.2 mg for placebo group (P=0.003). Both endoscopist and nurse independently rated sedation to be better in the fentanyl group (P=0001). The patient did not perceive any difference in sedation (P=0.4). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the Fentanyl group (8.5 versus 11.1 minutes, P=0.001), with no difference in the discharge time. There was significantly less retching observed in patients in the fentanyl group (P<0.001). There were no major complications.

Conclusions

Endoscopists and nurses found adding fentanyl significantly improved sedation, led to a shorter procedure time, and allowed for less midazolam to be used per case. It did not affect the patient experience of sedation and was safe. Fentanyl use for routine outpatient upper endoscopy should be considered as a safe option to improve procedural sedation.NCT:01514695 (www.clinicaltrials.gov)Accepted as an abstract for the Canadian Digestive Diseases Week meeting in February 2014.

Assessment of the Berlin Questionnaire for evaluation of hypoxemia risk in subjects undergoing deep sedation for screening gastrointestinal endoscopy

Background

Subjects with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are vulnerable to sedation-related complications during endoscopic procedures. A significant portion of subjects undergoing routine endoscopy is at high risk of OSA, but most are undiagnosed. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of high risk for OSA among Chinese subjects undergoing deep sedation for screening gastrointestinal endoscopy and to evaluate the hypoxemia risk of these examinees stratified by Berlin Questionnaire (BQ).

Patients and methods

We performed a prospective cohort study in subjects undergoing deep sedation with monitored anesthesia care for combined esophagogastroduodenoscopy plus colonoscopy. Subjects who were Chinese were stratified into high- and low-risk groups for OSA by administration of BQ. Deep sedation was achieved via a propofol target-controlled infusion system. Hypoxemia was defined as pulse oximetry reading of less than 90%. The frequency of hypoxemia was compared between high- and low-risk groups for OSA.

Results

A total of 615 Chinese subjects were recruited during the study period, and 614 subjects were included for analysis. Two hundred eighteen (35.5%) subjected were classified to be at high risk of OSA, and 396 (64.5%) were stratified to be at low risk of OSA by BQ. Hypoxemia occurred in 83 (13.5%) subjects during endoscopy procedures. The risk of developing hypoxemia in the high-risk group was significantly higher when compared to that of the low-risk group subjects (24.8% vs 7.3%; relative risk, 3.37; 95% CI, 2.22–5.13).

Conclusion

About one-third Chinese subjects undergoing deep sedation for screening endoscopy were at high risk of OSA. Subjects at high risk of OSA are associated with an increased risk of hypoxemia in comparison to the low-risk group when undergoing deep sedation for screening gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Efficacy and safety of etomidate-midazolam for screening colonoscopy in the elderly: A prospective double-blinded randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recent studies have shown that etomidate is associated with fewer serious adverse events than propofol and has a noninferior sedative effect. We investigated whether etomidate-midazolam is associated with fewer cardiopulmonary adverse events and has noninferior efficacy compared to propofol-midazolam for screening colonoscopy in the elderly.

METHODS

A prospective, single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial was performed. Patients aged over 65 years who were scheduled to undergo screening colonoscopy were randomized to receive either etomidate or propofol based on midazolam. The primary outcome was all cardiopulmonary adverse events. The secondary outcomes were vital sign fluctuation (VSF), adverse events disturbing the procedure, and sedation-related outcomes.

RESULTS

The incidence of cardiopulmonary adverse events was higher in the propofol group (72.6%) than in the etomidate group (54.8%) (P = .040). VSF was detected in 17 (27.4%) and 31 (50.0%) patients in the etomidate and propofol groups, respectively (P = .010). The incidence rate of adverse events disturbing the procedure was significantly higher in the etomidate group (25.8%) than in the propofol group (8.1%) (P = .008). Moreover, the incidence rate of myoclonus was significantly higher in the etomidate group (16.1%) than in the propofol group (1.6%) (P = .004). There was no statistical significance between the 2 groups with respect to sedation times and sedation-related outcomes including patients' and endoscopist's satisfaction. In the multivariate analysis, the etomidate group had significantly low odds ratio (OR) associated with VSF (OR: 0.407, confidence interval: 0.179-0.926, P = .032).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend using etomidate-midazolam in patients with high ASA score or vulnerable to risk factors; propofol-midazolam may be used as a guideline in patients with low ASA score.

Continued midazolam versus diphenhydramine in difficult-to-sedate patients: a randomized double-blind trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current guidelines recommend diphenhydramine in patients undergoing endoscopy who are not adequately sedated with a benzodiazepine and opioid combination. Because this practice has not been adequately assessed, we performed a randomized, double-blind trial comparing diphenhydramine with continued midazolam in such patients.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective colonoscopy with moderate sedation were eligible. Sedation was measured with the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score with adequate sedation defined as 3 on a 0- to 5-point scale. Patients not adequately sedated with midazolam 5 mg and fentanyl 100 μg were randomly assigned to diphenhydramine 25 mg versus continued midazolam 1.5 mg. Adequacy of sedation was assessed 3 minutes after each study medication dose. If MOAA/S was 4 to 5, study medication was repeated, to a maximum of 3 doses. The primary endpoint was adequate sedation.

RESULTS

The planned enrollment of 200 patients (100 in each study group) was attained. Adequate sedation was achieved less often with diphenhydramine than midazolam (27% vs 65%, difference = -38%; 95% CI, -50% to -24%; P < .0001). After study medications were completed, more patients required additional medication for sedation or analgesia with diphenhydramine versus midazolam (84% vs 68%, P = .008), whereas the time to discharge from the recovery unit was similar (134 vs 129 minutes). Treatment effect was consistent across subgroups including age ≤55, substance abuse, benzodiazepine use, opioid use, and psychiatric medication use.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopists performing moderate sedation should continue midazolam rather than switching to diphenhydramine in patients who do not achieve adequate sedation with usual doses of midazolam and an opioid. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01769586.).

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.

THE USE OF THE FORCEPS BIOPSY AS AN AUXILIARY TECHNIQUE FOR THE VISUALIZATION OF THE MAJOR DUODENAL PAPILLA USING THE FOWARD-VIEWING UPPER ENDOSCOPY

BACKGROUND

- Conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy is the best method for evaluation of the upper gastrointestinal tract, but it has limitations for the identification of the major duodenal papilla, even after the use of the straightening maneuver. Side-viewing duodenoscope is recommended for optimal examination of major duodenal papilla in patients at high risk for lesions in this region.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of the biopsy forceps during conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy as an additional tool to the straightening maneuver, in the evaluation of the major duodenal papilla.

METHODS

A total of 671 patients were studied between 2013 and 2015, with active major duodenal papilla search in three endoscope steps: not straightened, straightened and use of the biopsy forceps after straightening. In all of them it was recorded whether: major duodenal papilla was fully visualized (position A), partially visualized (position B) or not visualized (position C). If major duodenal papilla was not fully visualized, patients continued to the next step.

RESULTS

A total of 341 were female (50.8%) with mean age of 49 years. Of the 671 patients, 324 (48.3%) major duodenal papilla was identified in position A, 112 (16.7%) in position B and 235 (35%) in position C. In the 347 patients who underwent the straightening maneuver, position A was found in 186 (53.6%), position B in 51 (14.7%) and position C in 110 (31.7%). Of the 161 remaining patients and after biopsy forceps use, position A was seen in 94 (58.4%), position B in 14 (8.7%) and position C in 53 (32.9%). The overall rate of complete visualization of major duodenal papilla was 90%.

CONCLUSION

The use of the biopsy forceps significantly increased the total major duodenal papilla visualization rate by 14%, reaching 604/671 (90%) of the patients (P<0.01) and it can be easily incorporated into the routine endoscopic examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Physician Reimbursement for Prostate Biopsies Falls as Procedures Shift From Offices to Facilities

OBJECTIVE

To examine how Medicare reimbursement for prostate biopsies was allocated to physicians, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and hospitals from 2012 to 2015.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data (2012-2015), we assessed provider payments to physicians and ASCs for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies (Current Procedural Terminology 55700, 76842, 76972) for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. Data were aggregated at provider-level for those reporting >10 biopsies per year. Hospital payments were estimated based on Outpatient Prospective Payment System. We report average and total payments for physicians, hospitals, and ASCs.

RESULTS

We identified 534,807 prostate biopsies, of which 13.3% and 14.8% were associated with an ASC and hospital, respectively. Payments for all biopsies totaled $276.7 million ($152.7 million to physicians; $35.1 million to ASCs, $88.9 million to hospitals). From 2012 through 2015, physician payments for biopsies declined by $19 million (Δ=-43.2%, P = .06 for trend). Payments to ASCs (+$3.2 million, Δ = 38.8%, P = .29) and hospitals (+$11.1 million, Δ = 58.6%, P = .16) both increased. The decline in physician payments was due to a 13.7% decline in volume and lower median reimbursement for office-based procedures ($415 to $277, P = .04). The share of biopsies performed at facilities increased from 26.5% to 30.0%, and the proportion of payments associated with those settings also increased from 42.7% to 65.3%.

CONCLUSION

Over time, a greater share of Medicare payments for biopsies has been directed toward facilities instead of physicians. Understanding the relationship between these trends and cancer screening and Medicare payment policies will be crucial in the future.

Optimal procedural sequence for same-day bidirectional endoscopy with moderate sedation: A prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Same-day bidirectional endoscopy (BDE) is a commonly performed procedure, but the optimal sequence for the procedure with moderate conscious sedation is not well established. This study investigated the optimal sequence for same-day BDE under moderate conscious sedation and carbon dioxide insufflation in terms of sedation doses, patient discomfort, and colonoscopy performance.

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled study of 120 patients who were scheduled for BDE examination was performed. Colonoscopy followed by esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) examination was performed in 60 patients (colonoscopy-EGD group), and EGD followed by colonoscopy examination was performed in another 60 patients (EGD-colonoscopy group). Endoscopists and patients completed a questionnaire to assess objective and subjective discomfort.

RESULTS

Baseline demographics, procedure indications, bowel preparation quality, cecal intubation rate/time, colonoscopy withdrawal time, endoscopic interventions, BDE procedure time, colon polyp/adenoma detection rates, patient discomfort, and adverse events were similar between the two study groups. The total doses of fentanyl and midazolam were significantly higher for the colonoscopy-EGD group than for the EGD-colonoscopy group (83.4 ± 17.7 vs 68.7 ± 18.6 μg and 6.3 ± 1.4 vs 5.2 ± 1.3 mg, P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001, respectively). The recovery time to discharge was significantly longer for the colonoscopy-EGD group than for the EGD-colonoscopy group (43.5 ± 16.2 vs 34.5 ± 8.9 min, P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by colonoscopy is the optimal sequence for same-day BDE under moderate conscious sedation and carbon dioxide insufflation. Following this order allows for a reduction of sedation doses and for shorter recovery times.

Impact of anxiety on sedative medication dosage in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Introduction

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a diagnostic method used in the investigation of upper gastrointestinal system diseases. A high level of anxiety of patients who undergo EGD increases the duration of the procedure and the sedation and analgesic requirements. Sedation is used to increase patient comfort and tolerance by reducing the anxiety and pain associated with endoscopic procedures.

Aim

In this study, the effect of anxiety scores on medication doses was investigated in patients who underwent EGD under sedation.

Material and methods

A psychiatrist, an endoscopist and an anesthesiologist conducted a prospective observational study blindly to investigate the effect of pre-procedural (before EGD) anxiety level on medication doses for sedation. Patients were divided into two groups, with and without additional medication doses.

Results

The study included 210 consecutive patients who underwent EGD under sedation. The average STAI-S score was 40.28 and the average STAI-T score was 40.18. There was no relationship between anxiety scores and gender (p = 0.058, p = 0.869). Statistically significant results were obtained for anxiety scores with additional sedation dosing (p < 0.05). It was observed that an additional dose of medication was affected by age, body mass index and anxiety scores (p < 0.005). Patients who were young, had a low body mass index and had high anxiety scores had significantly higher additional dose requirements.

Conclusions

The medications used for sedation during EGD may be inadequate or an additional dose of medication may be needed for patients who have higher anxiety scores, younger age, and lower body mass index.

Endoscopy for patients affected by inflammatory bowel disease: bowel preparation and sedation

Endoscopy has a key role in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It is helpful in the diagnosis, in case of relapse, refractoriness, before therapeutic changes, after surgery as well as in the assessment of mucosal healing and in the surveillance of colo-rectal cancer. IBD patients are intended to undergo several times the examination during their lifespan. Bowel preparation and sedation highly contribute to high-quality colonoscopy. Areas covered: Few studies addressed preparation and sedation in the field of IBD. In this review, we focused our attention on the available evidences about bowel preparation and sedation in patients with IBD. Expert commentary: In recent years, the goal of medical treatment in IBD is shifting from clinical improvement in symptoms towards mucosal healing. High-quality endoscopy will gain even more importance in the management of IBD. It is important to locate the most effective preparation and the best sedation in patient with IBD to perform a high-quality endoscopy.

Efficacy and safety of flumazenil injection for the reversal of midazolam sedation after elective outpatient endoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Midazolam sedation during elective endoscopy is widely performed and flumazenil is frequently administered after endoscopy to reverse sedation in clinical practice. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of flumazenil injections after elective endoscopy under midazolam sedation.

METHODS

Participants who underwent an upper endoscopy under midazolam sedation were randomly divided into two groups. In group I, flumazenil was administered i.v. 10 min after the patient's transfer to the recovery room, and no antidote was injected in group II. The time of stay in the recovery room and adverse events were reviewed through the nursing records. We asked the patients about their pain and degree of satisfaction according to a visual analogue scale (VAS), their memory of the procedure, mental status and the presence of uncomfortable symptoms on the day of the procedure and the day afterwards.

RESULTS

The length of stay in recovery was significantly shorter in group I than in group II. No significant differences were found in the number of patients with pain (VAS ≥1), adverse events and discomfort between the two groups. Additionally, there were no differences in the patients' memory of the procedure, satisfaction with sedation, willingness to repeat the endoscopy and mental status.

CONCLUSIONS

The time in the recovery room after flumazenil administration was significantly shortened, and the use of the drug did not increase the risk of adverse events or discomfort. The use of flumazenil for reversing midazolam sedation seems to be safe and effective.

Comparison of propofol alone and in combination with ketamine or fentanyl for sedation in endoscopic ultrasonography

BACKGROUND

We evaluated whether the addition of a small dose of ketamine or fentanyl would lead to a reduction in the total dose of propofol consumed without compromising the safety and recovery of patients having endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS).

METHODS

A total of 210 adult patients undergoing elective EUS under sedation were included in the study. Patients were randomized into three groups. Patients were premedicated intravenously with normal saline in group 1, 50 µg fentanyl in group 2, and 0.5 mg/kg ketamine in group 3. All patients received intravenous propofol for sedation. Propofol consumption in mg/kg/h was noted. The incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, desaturation, and coughing was noted. The time to achieve a Post Anesthesia Discharge Score (PADS) of 10 was also noted.

RESULTS

There were 68 patients in group 1, 70 in group 2, and 72 in group 3. The amount of propofol consumed was significantly higher in group 1 (9.25 [7.3-13.2]) than in group 2 (8.8 [6.8-12.2]) and group 3 (7.6 [5.7-9.8]). Patient hemodynamics and oxygenation were well maintained and comparable in all groups. The time to achieve a PADS of 10 was significantly higher in group 3 compared to the other two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of 50 µg fentanyl or 0.5 mg/kg ketamine in a single dose during EUS reduces the dose of propofol required for sedation. However, unlike the addition of fentanyl, the addition of ketamine increased the time to recovery. Thus, 50 µg fentanyl is a good additive to propofol infusion for sedation during EUS to reduce the requirement for propofol without affecting the time to recovery.

Can sedation using a combination of propofol and dexmedetomidine enhance the satisfaction of the endoscopist in endoscopic submucosal dissection?

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 The aim of this pilot randomized controlled trial was to evaluate and compare the satisfaction of the endoscopist along with the effectiveness and safety of sedation between sedation protocol using a combination of propofol (PF) and dexmedetomidine (DEX) (Combination group) and sedation protocol using PF alone (PF group) during gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-eight patients with gastric neoplasias scheduled for gastric ESD were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two groups. The satisfaction scores of the endoscopists and the parameters for the effectiveness and safety of sedation were evaluated by comparisons between the two groups.

RESULTS

The satisfaction scores of the endoscopists, which were measured using a visual analogue scale, were significantly higher in the Combination group than in the PF group (88 vs. 69, P  = 0.003). The maintenance dose of PF was lower in the Combination group than in the PF group (2 mg/kg/h vs. 5 mg/kg/h, P  < 0.001), and the number of rescue PF injections was fewer in the Combination group than in the PF group (2 times vs. 6 times, P  < 0.001). The incidence of bradycardia (defined as a pulse rate ≤ 45 bpm) in the Combination group was higher than that in the PF group (37.9 % vs. 10.3 %, P  = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that gastroenterologist-directed sedation using a combination of PF and DEX during gastric ESD can enhance the satisfaction levels of endoscopists by providing stable sedation with an acceptable safety profile.

Premedication with benzodiazepines for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: Comparison between oral midazolam and sublingual alprazolam

Background:

Premedication with orally administered benzodiazepines is effective in reducing anxiety and discomfort related to endoscopic procedures. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of oral midazolam in comparison to sublingual alprazolam as premedication for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

Materials and Methods:

Adult candidates for diagnostic EGD received either oral midazolam (7.5 mg in 15 cc apple juice) or sublingual alprazolam (0.5 mg) 30 min before EGD. Procedural anxiety and pain/discomfort were assessed using 11-point numerical rating scales. Patients’ overall tolerance (using a four-point Likert scale) and willingness to repeat the EGD, if necessary, were also assessed. Blood pressure, heart rate, and arterial oxygen saturation were monitored from medication to 30 min after the procedure.

Results:

Patients experienced a similar reduction in procedural anxiety after medication with oral midazolam and sublingual alprazolam; mean (standard deviation [SD] of 1.86 [1.63] and 2.02 [1.99] points, respectively, P = 0.91). Compared to oral midazolam, pain/discomfort scores were lower with sublingual alprazolam; mean (SD) of 4.80 (3.01) versus 3.68 (3.28), P = 0.024. There was no significant difference between the two groups in patients’ tolerance, willingness to repeat the procedure, or hemodynamic events.

Conclusion:

Oral midazolam and sublingual alprazolam are equally effective in reducing EGD-related anxiety; however, EGD-related pain/discomfort is lower with alprazolam. Both benzodiazepines are equally safe and can be used as premedication for patients undergoing diagnostic EGD.

Trends in United States Drug Shortages for Medications Used in Gastroenterology

Introduction

Drug shortages have become more severe in recent years; however, data describing how such shortages impact gastroenterology (GI) drugs are limited. We characterize longitudinal trends of drug shortages in the USA within the scope of GI practice.

Methods

Drug shortage data from the University of Utah Drug Information Service were analyzed from January 2001 to December 2014. A board certified gastroenterologist, an internal medicine physician, and a clinical pharmacist identified drug shortages within the scope of GI practice, whether they are used for high-acuity conditions, availability, formulation, or therapeutic category. Trends in the length of shortages for GI drugs were described using standard descriptive statistics and regression analysis.

Results

A total of 1,774 drug shortages were reported over the 14-year period. Of those, 253 shortages (14.3%) were classified within the scope of GI practice. The number of newly-reported GI drug shortages increased from 15 in 2001 to 44 in 2014. The majority of GI drugs (55.7%) were parenteral and 102 shortages (40.3%) were single source drugs. By the end of the study period, 44 (17.4%) GI drugs remained on active shortage with a median duration of 24.3 months (interquartile range [IQR] 6.9–32.1). The median duration for resolved shortages of GI drugs was 7.7 months (IQR 2.9–17.6).

Conclusions

There was a significant increase in shortages of drugs used in GI practice from 2001 to 2014. Many of these drugs were used for high-acuity conditions and alternative agents were also impacted. Gastroenterologists must be cognizant of current shortages in order to mitigate impact on patient care.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea Increases the Risk of Cardiopulmonary Adverse Events Associated with Ambulatory Colonoscopy Independent of Body Mass Index

BACKGROUND

The relationship between body mass index (BMI) and cardiopulmonary adverse events (CAEs) for ambulatory colonoscopy is unclear.

AIM

To assess the association of BMI and CAEs associated with ambulatory colonoscopy.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort analysis of 418 patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy at the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center categorized as normal/overweight (BMI < 30), obese (BMI 30-34), or morbidly obese (BMI ≥ 35). Adjusted logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

At least one CAE occurred in 46.4% of patients (220 events, 72.7% were hypoxia). The rate of CAEs (BMI < 30: 43.8%, BMI 30-34: 48.0%, BMI ≥ 35: 50.6%, p = 0.53) and rate of hypoxia (BMI < 30: 34.8%, BMI 30-34: 40.9%, BMI ≥ 35: 43.2%, p = 0.32) were numerically higher for obese and morbidly obese patients, but not statistically significant. Obese (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70-1.73) and morbidly obese (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.61-1.85) patients did not have an increased risk of CAEs after adjusting for age, ASA class, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and type of sedation. OSA was independently associated with an increased risk of CAEs (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.09-2.74, p = 0.02) after adjusting for BMI, age, ASA class, and type of sedation.

CONCLUSION

OSA confers a higher risk of CAEs independent of BMI and sedation type. Consideration of undiagnosed OSA is recommended for appropriate pre-procedure risk stratification. While not statistically significant in this study, there may be clinically significant increased risks of CAEs and hypoxia for patient with BMI > 30 that require further evaluation with larger studies.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy under sedation is associated with pneumonia in older inpatients-results of a retrospective case-control study

Background and aims

Apparent aspiration is a notable adverse event during gastrointestinal endoscopy under sedation (GIES), but data about inapparent aspiration are scarce. Generally, particularly older patients are at higher risk of suffering from adverse events.

Objective

The objective of this article is to determine the risk of pneumonia, lower respiratory tract infection (LRI) and systemic inflammatory activation after GIES, especially in patients of at least 65 years.

Methods

The retrospective case-control study included 250 patients undergoing GIES and assigned age-, gender- and time of performance-matched controls without invasive procedure or sedation (ratio 1:1).

Results

On day 3 patients of advanced age presented with both pneumonia and LRI more often (2.6 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.041 and 7.8 vs. 2.5%, p = 0.034, respectively). In general, several inflammatory parameters increased significantly after GIES (i.e. white blood cell count (increase of ≥ 25%) 18.6 vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001), leading to more frequent antibiotic treatment (6.8 vs. 1.6%, p = 0.004). The effects were less pronounced on day 7.

Conclusions

Patients of advanced age carry an increased risk of pneumonia and LRI after GIES. Patients are generally more likely to feature inflammation and to receive antibiotic treatment.

Effect of propofol combined with opioids on cough reflex suppression in gastroscopy: study protocol for a double-blind randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The best methods for inducing analgesia and sedation for gastroscopy are still debated but finding an adequate regimen of sedation/analgesia is important. Stimulation of the larynx under sedation can cause reflex responses. Propofol with opioids has been recommended for gastroscopy sedation but the effects on cough reflex suppression remain unclear. This trial will evaluate the effects of propofol combined with small doses of dezocine, oxycodone, sufentanil or fentanyl for gastroscopy. We hypothesise that better performance may be obtained with a combination of propofol and oxycodone. We will observe the incidence and degree of reflex coughing and gagging under sedation when using propofol combined with one of the above drugs or propofol alone.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This will be a prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. ASA I-II level patients aged 18-65 years and scheduled for gastroscopy will be included. It is planned that 500 subjects will be randomised to intravenously receive 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.5-0.8 μg/kg fentanyl (fentanyl group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.05-0.08 μg/kg sufentanil (sufentanil group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.04-0.05 mg/kg dezocine (dezocine group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.04-0.05 mg/kg oxycodone (oxycodone group), or 2.4-3 mg/kg propofol plus 2-2.5 mL saline (control group) for sedation. The primary endpoint is the incidence and degree of reflex coughing and gagging. The secondary endpoints include the occurrence of discomfort or side effects, the use of jaw thrust, assisted ventilation or additional propofol, recovery time, duration of procedure and Steward score.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee for Clinical Research of Zhongda Hospital, Affiliated to Southeast University (No. 2015ZDSYLL033.0). The results of the trial will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Register (No. ChiCTR-ICR-15006952).

TRIAL STATUS

At the time of manuscript submission, the study was in the recruitment phase.

Factors impacting patient cooperation during elective gastroscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Some people have difficulty tolerating upper endoscopy. The cause of and risk factors for this are not well known. The aim of this study was to investigate the factors involved in poor cooperation during screening upper endoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 4,422 subjects who underwent a health inspection with upper endoscopy carried out by a single experienced endoscopist were included. We retrospectively investigated subjects' self-reporting questionnaires and medical records, including endoscopic and histologic findings. The examinees' cooperation and the completeness of endoscopic examination were evaluated based on the operator's subjective judgment.

RESULTS

Examinee cooperation during the endoscopic procedure was poor in 358 out of 4,422 subjects (8.1%). Of the subjects with poor cooperation, the endoscopic examination was incomplete in 36 subjects (10.1%). Multivariate analysis revealed that young age (< 40 years), female sex, high body mass index (≥ 25), hiatal hernia, and procedural sedation using midazolam were independent risk factors for poor cooperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Cooperation during screening upper endoscopy was poor in a considerable number of examinees. Endoscopists must keep in mind that examinee cooperation is more likely to be poor in the young, obese people, women, patients with hiatal hernias, and those who receive procedural sedation.

Anesthesia Service Use and the Uptake of Screening Colonoscopies

BACKGROUND

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently defined "screening colonoscopy" to include separately furnished anesthesia services.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between anesthesia service use and the uptake of screening colonoscopies.

STUDY DESIGN

We correlated metropolitan statistical area (MSA) level anesthesia service use rates, derived from the 2008, 2010, and 2012 Medicare and MarketScan claims data, with the presence of individual level guideline concordant screening colonoscopy using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data for the same years.

MEASURES

Proportion of colonoscopies with anesthesia service was calculated at the MSA level. A guideline concordant screening colonoscopy was defined as a colonoscopy received within the past 10 years.

RESULTS

The average MSA level anesthesia service use rate in colonoscopy significantly increased from 25.34% in 2008 to 44.25% in 2012; but only a moderate increase in the rate of guideline concordant colonoscopies was observed, from 57.36% in 2008 to 65.32% in 2012. After adjusting for patient characteristics, we found a nonsignificant negative association between anesthesia service use rate and colonoscopy screening rate, with an odds ratio of 0.90 for receiving a guideline concordant colonoscopy for each percentage point increase in anesthesia service use rate (P=0.27). The relationship between anesthesia service use and the overall colorectal cancer screening rate followed the same pattern and was also not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant association between anesthesia service use and colonoscopy screening or colorectal cancer screening rates was found, suggesting that more evidence is needed to support the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule change.

Evaluating Patient-Centered Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Procedural Sedation, Part 1 Efficacy: Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations

The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research, established by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, convened a meeting of sedation experts from a variety of clinical specialties and research backgrounds with the objective of developing recommendations for procedural sedation research. Four core outcome domains were recommended for consideration in sedation clinical trials: (1) safety, (2) efficacy, (3) patient-centered and/or family-centered outcomes, and (4) efficiency. This meeting identified core outcome measures within the efficacy and patient-centered and/or family-centered domains. Safety will be addressed in a subsequent meeting, and efficiency will not be addressed at this time. These measures encompass depth and levels of sedation, proceduralist and patient satisfaction, patient recall, and degree of pain experienced. Consistent use of the recommended outcome measures will facilitate the comprehensive reporting across sedation trials, along with meaningful comparisons among studies and interventions in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Safety and Effectiveness of Endoscopist-Directed Nurse-Administered Sedation during Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is routinely performed in treating gastric neoplasia and requires long-term higher levels of sedation. Endoscopist-directed nurse-administered sedation (EDNAS) has not been well studied in ESD. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of EDNAS for ESD.

METHODS

Patients treated with ESD for gastric tumors between 2013 and 2015 were retrospectively collected. Patients were divided into a midazolam-treated group (M group) and a midazolam plus propofol-treated group (MP group). Clinical outcome, safety, effectiveness, adverse events of ESD, and adverse events of sedation were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 209 collected patients, 83 were in the M group and 126 were in the MP group. Of all patients, 67 patients had the circulatory adverse event during the ESD procedure. Sedation method was the only significant risk factor (M versus MP: 2.17 (1.14-4.15), p = 0.019). In analysis of MP subgroups, 47 patients suffered an adverse event from sedation, and current smoking was the only significant association factor for adverse event (0.15 (0.03-0.68), p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

In performing ESD, the effect of sedation is reduced in smoking patients. EDNAS may be acceptable for ESD under careful monitoring of vital sign and oxygen saturation.