Safe and effective sedation in endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a randomized comparison between propofol continuous infusion and intermittent midazolam injection

Safety and Efficacy of Sedation During Emergency Endoscopy for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This study aimed to compare patients with and without sedation during emergency endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) and to clarify the safety and efficacy of sedation in emergency endoscopy.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected 389 patients who underwent emergency endoscopy for UGIB at Ureshino Medical Center from 2016 to 2021. Patients were divided into two groups: sedation group during emergency endoscopy and nonsedation group. Clinical characteristics, patient status on admission, and UGIB etiology were evaluated. Treatment outcomes and adverse events were evaluated using propensity score matching (PSM), and risk factors for mortality from UGIB were investigated using Cox multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The sedation group was significantly younger, composed of a higher proportion of males, and had chronic liver disease. Blood pressure and hemoglobin level on admission were significantly higher in the sedation group. The main cause of bleeding was peptic ulcer, which was significantly higher in the nonsedation group. PSM created 133 matched pairs. The success rate of endoscopic hemostasis was similar in both groups, and procedure time was significantly shorter in the sedation group than in the nonsedation group (17.6 ± 10.0 versus 20.2 ± 10.2 min, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in adverse events between groups. Cox multivariate analyses revealed that red blood cell transfusion [hazard ratio (HR) 4.45, P < 0.02] and rebleeding (HR 3.30, P = 0.03) were associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality from UGIB.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation reduced the procedure time during emergency endoscopy for UGIB. Sedation during emergency endoscopy for UGIB is acceptable for safe endoscopic procedures.

Comparison of Intra and Post-operative Sedation efficacy of Dexmedetomidine-Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine-Propofol for Major Abdominal Surgery

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and side effects of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in combination with midazolam and propofol have not been comparatively studied in a single clinical trial as sedative agents to general anesthesia before.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to compare intra and post-operative sedation between DEX-Midazolam and DEX-Propofol in patients who underwent major abdominal surgery on the duration of general anesthesia, hemodynamic and sedation effect.

METHOD

This prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial included 50 patients who were 20 to 60 years of age and admitted for major abdominal surgery. The patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated random numbers table to sedation with DEX plus midazolam (DM group) (n=25) or DEX plus propofol (DP group) (n=25). In the DM group, patients received a bolus dose of 0.1 mg/kg of midazolam and immediately initiated the intravenous (i.v.) infusion of DEX 1 µg/kg over a 10 min and 0.5 µg/kg/hr by continuous i.v. infusion within operation period. In the DP group, patients received pre-anesthetic i.v. DEX 1 µg/kg over 15 min before anesthesia induction and 0.2-1 µg/kg/hr by continuous i.v. infusion during the operative period. After preoxygenation for at least 2 min, during the surgery, patients received propofol infusion dose of 250 μg/kg/min for 15 min then a basal infusion dose of 50 μg/kg/min. The bispectral index (BIS) value, as well as mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SaO2), percutaneous arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2) and end-tidal carbon dioxide tension (ETCO2) were recorded before anesthesia (T0), during anesthesia (at 15-min intervals throughout the surgical procedure), by a blinded observer. Evidence of apnea, hypotension, hypertension and hypoxemia were recorded during surgery.

RESULTS

The hemodynamic changes, including HR, MAP, BIS, VT, SaO2, and RR had a downward tendency with time, but no significant difference was observed between the groups (P>0.05). However, the two groups showed no significant differences in ETCO2 and SPO2 values in any of the assessed interval (P>0.05). In this study, the two groups showed no significant differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting, coughing, apnea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia and hypoxemia (P>0.05). Respiratory depression and serious adverse events were not reported in either group. Extubation time after surgery was respectively 6.3 ± 1.7 and 5.8 ± 1.4 hr. in the DM and DP groups and the difference was not statistically significant (P= 0.46).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed no significant differences between the groups in hemodynamic and respiratory changes in each of the time intervals. There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of complication intra and post-operative. Further investigations are required to specify the optimum doses of using drugs which provide safety in cardiovascular and respiratory system without adverse disturbance during surgery.

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.

Clinical Outcomes and Adverse Events of Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of the Mid to Upper Stomach under General Anesthesia and Monitored Anesthetic Care

Background/Aims

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of gastric tumors in the mid-to-upper stomach is a technically challenging procedure. This study compared the therapeutic outcomes and adverse events of ESD of tumors in the mid-to-upper stomach performed under general anesthesia (GA) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC).

Methods

Between 2012 and 2018, 674 patients underwent ESD for gastric tumors in the midbody, high body, fundus, or cardia (100 patients received GA; 574 received MAC). The outcomes of the propensity score (PS)-matched (1:1) patients receiving either GA or MAC were analyzed.

Results

The PS matching identified 94 patients who received GA and 94 patients who received MAC. Both groups showed high rates ofen bloc resection (GA, 95.7%; MAC, 97.9%; p=0.68) and complete resection (GA, 81.9%; MAC, 84.0%; p=0.14). There were no significant differences between the rates of adverse events (GA, 16.0%; MAC, 8.5%; p=0.18) in the anesthetic groups. Logistic regression analysis indicated that the method of anesthesia did not affect the rates of complete resection or adverse events.

Conclusions

ESD of tumors in the mid-to-upper stomach at our high-volume center had good outcomes, regardless of the method of anesthesia. Our results demonstrate no differences between the efficacies and safety of ESD performed under MAC and GA.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Incidence rates, risk factors, and outcomes of aspiration pneumonia after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The risk and prognosis of aspiration pneumonia (AP) after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are inconsistent among studies. We aim to estimate the incidence, risk factors, and outcome of AP in patients after gastric ESD.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge were searched for relevant articles from inception until April 2020. Data involving the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes were extracted. Pooled incidence, odds ratios (ORs), or standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Forty records involving 48 674 subjects were finally included. The pooled incidence of AP after gastric ESD was 1.9% (95% CI, 1.2-2.7) via the double arcsine transformation method and 1.6% (1.1-2.5%) via the logit transformation method. Risk factors analyses revealed that old age (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.99-3.18), comorbid pulmonary disease (2.49; 1.66-3.74), comorbid cerebrovascular disease (2.68; 1.05-6.85), remnant stomach (4.91; 1.83-13.14), sedation with propofol (2.51; 1.48-4.28), and long procedural duration (count data: 5.20, 1.25-21.7; measurement data: 1.01, 1.01-1.02) were related to the occurrence of AP. Patients with AP had a longer hospital stay (SMD, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.25-0.87) than those without AP.

CONCLUSIONS

About 1.9% (1.2-2.7%) of the patients who receive gastric ESD may develop AP, resulting in prolonged hospital stay. More attention should be paid in patients who are older; have comorbidities such as pulmonary diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, or gastric remnant; or require a long procedural duration or deep sedation with propofol.

Efficacy of combination therapy with dexmedetomidine for benzodiazepines-induced disinhibition during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepines (BZDs) and analgesics are widely used for conscious sedation during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, endoscopic procedures are sometimes discontinued because of BZD-induced disinhibitory reactions such as excessive movement. We evaluated the usefulness of dexmedetomidine (DEX) for BZD-induced disinhibition in ERCP.

METHODS

Between February 2018 and August 2019, 22 patients who underwent EUS or ERCP were enrolled. All patients showed BZD-induced excessive movement at the first examination (BZD group) and received DEX at the second examination (DEX group). The initial DEX dose was 6 μg/kg/h for a 10-min loading, followed by 0.4 μg/kg/h during the procedure. BZDs and analgesics were administered before scope insertion. An additional sedative was administered to achieve a Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) of 4-5. Sedative effect, procedure completion rate, and changes in circulatory and respiratory dynamics were evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean RSS scores were significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the DEX (5.1 ± 0.5) compared with the BZD (4.0 ± 0.5) group. The movement score (p < 0.001) and number of additional sedatives required (p < 0.01) were lower in the DEX group. The procedure completion rate was significantly higher in the DEX (95.5%) compared with the BZD group (63.6%; p < 0.05). Significant differences in the frequency of hypotension (p = 1.00), bradycardia (p = 0.22), and respiratory depression (p = 0.68) were not noted between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of DEX to BZD therapy yielded better sedative efficacy, lower excessive movement, a reduction in BZDs used, and a higher procedure complete rate. DEX may be used as an alternative method for BZD-induced inhibition during ERCP.

Review on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection focusing on the technical aspect

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables removal of broad-based colorectal polyps or lateral spreading tumors with a higher rate of en bloc resection and a lower risk of local recurrence. However, it is technically demanding. Over the past 20 years, various equipment and innovative techniques have been developed to reduce the difficulty of ESD. The information in the literature is scattered. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive review on the setup and technical aspects of colorectal ESD.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database and systemically reviewed all original and review articles related to colorectal ESD. Further manual search according to reference lists of identified articles were done. The selected articles were categorized and reviewed. Original figures were created to help readers understand some of the ESD techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 216 articles were identified, in which 25 of them were review articles and 191 of them were original articles. They were categorized and reviewed. An in-depth appraisal of the setting, equipment, and technical aspects of colorectal ESD was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ESD is a technically demanding procedure that requires expert endoscopic skills, it can be mastered. With good peri-procedural preparation, sufficient knowledge of the equipment, and thorough understanding of the useful endoscopic tricks and maneuvers, colorectal ESD can be performed smoothly and safely.

Propofol sedation without endotracheal intubation is safe for endoscopic submucosal dissection in the esophagus and stomach

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early esophageal and stomach cancer is usually performed under general anesthesia. However, propofol sedation without endotracheal intubation has been suggested as a viable alternative.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of propofol sedation without endotracheal intubation during ESD in the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent ESD for upper gastrointestinal tumors with propofol-remifentanil analgosedation in a tertiary referral center in the Netherlands between October 2013 and February 2018. Primary endpoints were the rates of intraprocedural endoscopy- and anesthesia-related complications. Secondary endpoints were the postprocedural complication rates within 30 days and endotracheal intubation conversion rates.

Results

Of 88 patients, intraprocedural ESD-related complications occurred in three patients (3.4%). Intraprocedural anesthesia-related complications occurred in two patients (2.3%), one of whom required conversion to endotracheal intubation. Postprocedural ESD-related complications occurred in 14 patients (15.9%), and minor postprocedural complications occurred in two patients (2.3%). Eighty-two (93.2%) patients were discharged within one day after ESD. No patient was readmitted for anesthesia-related complications.

Conclusion

Propofol-based sedation without endotracheal intubation is safe for ESD procedures in the esophagus and stomach with low anesthesia-related complication rates and short hospital stay.

Safety and Efficacy of Nonanesthesiologist-Administrated Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Gastric Epithelial Tumors

Objective

There is no consensus regarding administration of propofol for performing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in patients with comorbidities. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of propofol-induced sedation administered by nonanesthesiologists during ESD of gastric cancer in patients with comorbidities classified according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status.

Methods

Five hundred and twenty-two patients who underwent ESD for gastric epithelial tumors under sedation by nonanesthesiologist-administrated propofol between April 2011 and October 2017 at Dokkyo Medical University Hospital were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to the ASA physical status classification. Hypotension, desaturation, and bradycardia were evaluated as the adverse events associated with propofol. The safety of sedation by nonanesthesiologist-administrated propofol was measured as the primary outcome.

Results

The patients were classified according to the ASA physical status classification: 182 with no comorbidity (ASA 1), 273 with mild comorbidity (ASA 2), and 67 with severe comorbidity (ASA 3). The median age of the patients with ASA physical status of 2/3 was higher than the median age of those with ASA physical status of 1. There was no significant difference in tumor characteristics, total amount of propofol used, or ESD procedure time, among the 3 groups. Adverse events related to propofol in the 522 patients were as follows: hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg) in 113 patients (21.6%), respiratory depression (SpO₂ < 90%) in 265 patients (50.8%), and bradycardia (pulse rate < 50 bpm) in 39 patients (7.47%). There was no significant difference in the incidences of adverse events among the 3 groups during induction, maintenance, or recovery. No severe adverse event was reported. ASA 3 patients had a significantly longer mean length of hospital stay (8 days for ASA 1, 9 days for ASA 2, and 9 days for ASA 3, P = 0.003). However, the difference did not appear to be clinically significant.

Conclusions

Sedation by nonanesthesiologist-administrated propofol during ESD is safe and effective, even for at-risk patients according to the ASA physical status classification.

Respiratory measurement using infrared thermography and respiratory volume monitor during sedation in patients undergoing endoscopic urologic procedures under spinal anesthesia

We aimed to evaluate changes in respiratory pattern after sedation by simultaneously applying a respiratory volume monitor (ExSpiron1Xi, RVM) and infrared thermography (IRT) to patients undergoing spinal anesthesia during endoscopic urologic surgeries. After spinal anesthesia was performed, the patient was placed in a lithotomy position for surgery. Then, we established the baseline of the RVM, and started monitoring the mouth and nose with the infrared camera. SpO₂ was continuously measured throughout these processes. Once the baseline was set, 0.05 mg/kg midazolam was administered for sedation. Apnea was defined as cessation of airflow for ≥ 10 s with respiratory rate of < 6 breaths/min; hypopnea was defined as a decrease in oxygen hemoglobin of > 4%, compared to baseline. We measured the time at which apnea was detected by IRT, the time at which hypopnea was detected by RVM, and the time at which hypoxia was detected by SpO₂. Twenty patients (age: 68.9 ± 11.2 years, body mass index: 24.2 ± 2.6 kg/min²) completed the study. Before sedation, the baseline correlation coefficient of respiratory rate detection between RVM and IRT was 0.866. After midazolam administration, apnea was detected in all subjects within the first 5 min by IRT; the median time required to detect apnea was 102.5 [interquartile range (IQR) 25-75%: 80-155] s. Hypopnea was detected in all subjects within the first 5 min by RVM: the median time required to detect hypopnea was 142.5 (IQR 115-185.2) s. The median time required for SpO₂ to decrease > 4% from baseline was 160 (IQR 125-205) s. Our results suggest that IRT can be useful for rapid detection of respiratory changes in patients undergoing sedation following spinal anesthesia for endoscopic urologic procedures.

Safety of simultaneous endoscopic submucosal dissection for two large colorectal neoplasias in the same patient

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Multiple large colorectal lesions requiring endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are sometimes diagnosed during colonoscopy. We evaluated the feasibility and safety of ESD of two colorectal lesions in one session.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The lesions of 16 patients who underwent two ESD procedures in a single session (double ESD group) from November 2009 to July 2014 were matched with those of 64 patients who underwent a single ESD procedure (single ESD group) based on the size and location of the lesion and presence of submucosal fibrosis.

RESULTS

The net ESD time per patient was longer in double ESD group than in single ESD group (104.0±36.2 vs. 59.1±39.2 min, p<0.001). The net ESD time per lesion tended to be shorter in double ESD group than in single ESD group (49.6±30.0 vs. 59.1±39.2 min, p=0.077). The en bloc resection and curative resection rates did not differ between double ESD and single ESD groups (93.8 % vs. 98.4%, p=0.262; 90.6 % vs. 84.4 %, p=0.534, respectively). The intra- and postprocedural bleeding rates were 12.5% and 0% in double ESD group and 15.6% and 3.1% in single ESD group, respectively. Perforation occurred in two (6.3%) in double ESD group and in six (9.4%) in single ESD group (p=0.715).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the single ESD, two simultaneous colorectal ESD procedures in a patient did not increase complications; the en bloc and curative resection rates were similar when performed a single ESD procedure and two simultaneous ESD procedures.

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.

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.

Comparison of propofol with midazolam in endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Interruption of sedation due to a poor response to modified neuroleptanalgesia (m-NLA) with midazolam often occurs during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) because most patients have a history of heavy alcohol intake. Recently, propofol has been used feasibly and safely during endoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to clarify the efficacy and safety of propofol compared with that of midazolam during ESD for ESCC.

METHODS

This was a single-blind, randomized controlled trial in a single center. Patients with ESCC scheduled for ESD were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the propofol group and the midazolam group. The main outcome was the incidence of discontinuation of the procedure due to a poor response to sedation. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for a poor response to sedation.

RESULTS

Between April 2014 and October 2015, 132 patients (n = 66 per group) who underwent ESD for ESCC were enrolled in this study. The incidence of discontinuation due to a poor response to sedation in the propofol and midazolam groups was 0% (0/66) and 37.9% (25/66), respectively (p < 0.01). Multivariate analyses revealed that use of midazolam [Odds ratio (OR), 7.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.64-21.92; p < 0.01] and age (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98; p < 0.01) were risk factors for a poor response to sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that, compared with midazolam, propofol is a more efficient sedative for m-NLA during ESD for ESCC.

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.

Efficacy and safety of etomidate-based sedation compared with propofol-based sedation during ERCP in low-risk patients: a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Etomidate is a short-acting intravenous hypnotic with a safety profile that is superior to alternative drugs such as propofol. However, there is a lack of evidence on the safety of etomidate in ERCP. The objective of this study was to compare efficacy and safety profiles of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation.

METHODS

This single-center, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial included patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I to II who had been scheduled for ERCP. All patients received .05 mg/kg midazolam intravenously as pretreatment before receiving etomidate or propofol. Either etomidate or propofol was then administered according to group allocation. The primary endpoint was an overall respiratory event. A noninferiority margin of 10% was assumed.

RESULTS

Sixty-three and 64 patients were enrolled in the etomidate and propofol groups, respectively. Respiratory events were identified in 10 patients (15.6%) in the etomidate group and 16 patients (25.4%) on the propofol group, with a rate difference of -9.8% (1-sided 97.5% confidence interval, -∞ to 4.2%). The overall incidence of cardiovascular events tended to be higher in the etomidate group (67.2% vs 50.8%, P = .060). In particular, tachycardia (heart rate > 100 beats/min) was more common in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (64.1% vs 34.9%, P = .001). Transient hypotension tended to be less common in the etomidate group (6.3 vs 15.9%, P = .084).

CONCLUSIONS

Etomidate-based sedation during ERCP was noninferior to propofol-based sedation in terms of the overall incidence of respiratory events in patients with ASA physical status I to II. (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform number: KCT0001926.).

Efficacy and safety of sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric cancers using a comparative trial of propofol versus midazolam

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Proper sedation is necessary for the safe and satisfactory completion of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer. This study was conducted as a comparative trial of efficacy and safety, comparing propofol-based sedation and midazolam-based sedation during ESD of early gastric cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study examined 64 lesions in 58 patients treated using ESD with midazolam plus pentazocine between July 2013 and January 2014 (group M) and 237 lesions in 216 patients treated by ESD using propofol plus pentazocine between February 2014 and December 2015 (group P). The two groups were compared in terms of the frequency of body movement during ESD as the primary outcome and in terms of the procedure time, en bloc resection rate, intraoperative change in cardiorespiratory dynamics, and postoperative awareness as the secondary outcomes. Body movement was defined as movement by a patient that required interruption of the procedure or restraint of the patient's body trunk, and addition of a sedative agent.

RESULTS

The median frequency of body movement during ESD was significantly lower in group P (0 times) than in group M (3 times) ( P  < 0.001). No significant difference was found for the mean procedure time (117 min in group P; 127 min in group M). Although no significant difference was found in the incidence of hypoxemia, bradycardia, or bradypnea, the incidence of hypotension was significantly higher in group P (31.5 %) than in group M (6.9 %) ( P  = 0.004). Patients in group P had significantly higher postoperative awareness immediately after ESD and at 1 hour after ESD ( P  = 0.002 and 0.022, respectively).

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate the efficacy and safety of propofol-based sedation for gastric ESD.

Comparison of sedation between the endoscopy room and operation room during endoscopic submucosal dissection for neoplasms in the upper gastrointestinal tract

BACKGROUND

The present study was performed to compare the safety of sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the endoscopy room versus operation room.

METHODS

In total, 297 patients with gastrointestinal tumors who underwent ESD from January 2011 to December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent ESD in the endoscopy room without propofol (Group E) versus operation room with propofol (Group O). The patient, tumor, and procedure characteristics; adverse events; and treatment outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The patient and tumor characteristics, including age (73.6 ± 8.2 vs. 72.5 ± 9.1 years), comorbidities, and tumor size and histology, were not different between Groups E and O. The ESD procedure time was comparable between Groups E and O (105.4 ± 70.4 vs. 106.5 ± 64.4 min), and the anesthesia time was equivalent (138.3 ± 78.1 vs. 148.4 ± 68.8 min). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the two groups. During the ESD procedure, desaturation occurred significantly more often in Group E than O (12.9% vs. 4.0%, P = 0.021, odds ratio: 3.53, 95% CI: 1.17-14.4). The recovery time after ESD was significantly longer in Group E than O (180 (100-360) vs. 90 (0-180) min, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A decreased desaturation rate and shorter recovery time after ESD were the advantages of sedation in the operation room with propofol compared with sedation in the endoscopy room. These findings warrant further exploration of the advantages of safe and effective ESD for upper gastrointestinal neoplasms in the operation room.

Etomidate versus propofol sedation for complex upper endoscopic procedures: a prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although a growing body of evidence demonstrates that propofol-induced deep sedation can be effective and performed safely, cardiopulmonary adverse events have been observed frequently. Etomidate is a new emerging drug that provides hemodynamic and respiratory stability, even in high-risk patient groups. The objective of this study was to compare safety and efficacy profiles of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation.

METHODS

A total of 128 patients undergoing EUS were randomized to receive either etomidate or propofol blinded administered by a registered nurse. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with any cardiopulmonary adverse events.

RESULTS

Overall cardiopulmonary adverse events were identified in 22 patients (34.38%) of the etomidate group and 33 patients (51.56%) of the propofol group, without significant difference (P = .074). However, the incidence of oxygen desaturation (4/64 [6.25%] vs 20/64 [31.25%]; P =.001) and respiratory depression (5/64 [7.81%] vs 21/64 [32.81%]; P =.001) was significantly lower in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. The frequency of myoclonus was significantly higher in the etomidate group (22/64 [34.37%]) compared with the propofol group (8/64 [12.50%]) (P =.012). Repeated measure analysis of variance revealed significant effects of sedation group and time on systolic blood pressure (etomidate group greater than propofol group). Physician satisfaction was greater in the etomidate group than in the propofol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Etomidate administration resulted in fewer respiratory depression events and had a better sedative efficacy than propofol; however, it was more frequently associated with myoclonus and increased blood pressure during endoscopic procedures. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0001701.).

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.

Association between CT-Diagnosed Pneumonia and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Gastric Neoplasms

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This prospective cohort study aimed to elucidate the incidence and characteristics of pneumonia associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of gastric neoplasms using CT.

METHODS

We included consecutive 188 patients with gastric neoplasms treated with ESD. All patients underwent CT before ESD and the day after ESD. Pneumonia associated with ESD was defined as lung ground glass opacity or consolidation by CT the day after ESD.

RESULTS

In 188 patients, 28 patients had diabetes mellitus. Pneumonia was observed by CT in 21 patients (11.2%) after ESD. Of those, 7 patients had diabetes mellitus. By univariate analysis, compared with patients with non-pneumonia complications, risk factors for pneumonia were significantly increased in patients with diabetes mellitus (p = 0.01) and in those who underwent a long procedure time (p = 0.02). By multivariate analysis, pneumonia was significantly increased in patients with diabetes mellitus (OR 4.06, 95% CI 1.35-12.19) and in those who underwent a long procedure time (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of CT-diagnosed pneumonia associated with ESD was relatively high. Furthermore, it was revealed that diabetes mellitus and a long procedure time were risk factors of CT-diagnosed pneumonia.

Similar Risk of Cardiopulmonary Adverse Events Between Propofol and Traditional Anesthesia for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Even though propofol use for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has increased over the past decade, there is a perception that it causes a higher rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation-related adverse events associated with use of propofol vs nonpropofol agents for endoscopic procedures. We also wanted to determine the influence of duration or complexity of the procedures and endoscopist-directed (gastroenterologist) vs non-gastroenterologist-directed sedation on the outcomes.

METHODS

A search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane controlled trials registry. The following cardiopulmonary adverse events were assessed: hypoxia, hypotension, and arrhythmias. The procedures were divided into 2 groups based on the procedure length: a nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group consisting of esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and sigmoidoscopy, and an advanced endoscopic procedures group including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasonography, balloon enteroscopy, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Pooled odds ratios for complications were calculated for all the procedures combined and then separately for the 2 groups. Random-effects models were used for 2-proportion comparisons.

RESULTS

Of the 2117 citations identified, 27 original studies qualified for this meta-analysis and included 2518 patients. Of these, 1324 received propofol, and 1194 received midazolam, meperidine, pethidine, remifentanil, and/or fentanyl. Most of the included studies were randomized trials of moderate quality and nonsignificant heterogeneity (Cochran Q, 26.07; P = .13). Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled odds ratio with the use of propofol for developing hypoxia for all the procedures combined was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.07), and for developing hypotension was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.64-1.32). In the nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group, those who received propofol were 39% less likely to develop complications than those receiving traditional sedative agents (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99). There was no difference in the complication rate for the advanced endoscopic procedure group (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.34). A subgroup analysis did not show any difference in adverse events when propofol was administered by gastroenterologists or nongastroenterologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation has a similar risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events compared with traditional agents for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Propofol use in simple endoscopic procedures was associated with a decreased number of complications. When used for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures of a complex nature and longer duration, propofol was not associated with increased rates of hypoxemia, hypotension, or arrhythmias. Administration of propofol by gastroenterologists does not appear to increase the complication rates.

Feasibility of deep sedation with a combination of propofol and dexmedetomidine hydrochloride for esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sedation with a combination of propofol (PF) and dexmedetomidine (DEX) compared with sedation with benzodiazepines in esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed clinical data for 40 consecutive patients who had undergone esophageal ESD at the Yokohama City University Hospital between July 2012 and August 2014. Of these patients, 20 were sedated with benzodiazepines (conventional group) and another 20 patients were sedated with a combination of PF and DEX (combination group). Parameters for efficacy and safety of sedation were evaluated by comparisons between the two groups.

RESULTS

Median procedural times in the combination group were shorter than those in the conventional group (61 min vs. 89 min, P = 0.03), and the percentage of patients who showed restlessness in the combination group was significantly lower than that in the conventional group (25% vs. 65%, P = 0.025). Incidences of hypotension and bradycardia in the combination group were higher than those in the conventional group (60% vs. 15%, P = 0.008, and 60% vs. 15%, P = 0.008, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study suggests that a combination of PF and DEX may provide stable deep sedation with less body movement than benzodiazepines during esophageal ESD.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection

ESD is an established effective treatment modality for premalignant and early-stage malignant lesions of the stomach, esophagus, and colorectum. Compared with EMR, ESD is generally associated with higher rates of en bloc, R0, and curative resections and a lower rate of local recurrence. Oncologic outcomes with ESD compare favorably with competing surgical interventions, and ESD also serves as an excellent T-staging tool to identify noncurative resections that will require further treatment. ESD is technically demanding and has a higher rate of adverse events than most endoscopic procedures including EMR. As such,sufficient training is critical to ensure safe conduct and high-quality resections. A standardized training model for Western endoscopists has not been clearly established,but will be self-directed and include courses, animal model training, and optimally an observership at an expert center.Numerous dedicated ESD devices are now available in the United States from different manufacturers. Although the use of ESD in the United States is increasing, issues related to technical difficulty, limited training opportunities and mentors, risk of adverse events, long procedure duration,and suboptimal reimbursement may limit ESD adoption in the United States to a modest number of academic referral centers for the foreseeable future.

Clinical Outcomes and Complications of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Superficial Gastric Neoplasms in the Elderly

The number of elderly people with superficial gastric neoplasms is increasing, but the clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for treating elderly people with superficial gastric neoplasms remains unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESD for patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) and precancerous lesions in elderly (≥75 years of age) and nonelderly (<75 years of age) patients.From October 2005 to December 2014, 83 consecutive patients with EGC and precancerous lesions (86 lesions) who were treated using ESD in our hospital were retrospectively reviewed. There were 44 lesions in 42 elderly patients who were at least 75-years old. The following parameters were compared between the 2 groups: preexisting comorbidities, performance status (PS), lesion inclusion criteria, lesion characteristics, treatment outcomes, surgery time, duration of hospitalization, complications, and intraoperative hemodynamic changes.Elderly patients had significantly higher preexisting comorbidity rates (90.9% vs 59.5%, P = 0.001), expanded lesion criteria rates (43.2% vs 19.0%, P = 0.016), and lower best PS rates (38.6% vs 81.0%, P < 0.001) than nonelderly patients. Lesion characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. The elderly had higher intraoperative hypotension rates (47.7% vs 21.4%, P = 0.011) and oxygen desaturation rates (9.1% vs 0.0%, P = 0.045) than nonelderly patients. In addition, the elderly also had a longer surgery time (107.0 ± 51.4 vs 91.5 ± 66.2 minutes, P = 0.049) and duration of hospitalization (7.5 ± 3.8 vs 5.9 ± 2.0 days, P = 0.016) than nonelderly patients. There were no differences in the prevalence rates of en-bloc resection, complete resection, bleeding, perforation, pneumonia, or intraabdominal free air between the 2 groups.Although elderly patients who underwent ESD for superficial gastric neoplasms had an increasing risk of intraoperative hypotension and oxygen desaturation, all patients were treated appropriately without postoperative sequelae. ESD is a safe and feasible intervention for elderly patients who have more comorbidity, a worse PS and more expanded lesions.

Safety of gastroenterologist-guided sedation with propofol for upper gastrointestinal therapeutic endoscopy in elderly patients compared with younger patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Propofol sedation for elderly patients during time-consuming endoscopic procedures is controversial. Therefore, we investigated the safety of using propofol in elderly patients during upper gastrointestinal therapeutic endoscopy.

METHODS

The medical records of 160 patients who underwent therapeutic endoscopic procedures under gastroenterologist-guided propofol sedation at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. The subjects were divided into two groups a younger group, patients <75 years old; and an elderly group, patients ≥75 years old. The two groups were compared with respect to the therapeutic regimen, circulatory dynamics, and presence/absence of discontinuation of propofol treatment.

RESULTS

Although the number of patients with liver dysfunction was higher in the elderly group, there were no other significant differences in the baseline characteristics, including the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, between the elderly and younger groups. The average maintenance rate of continuous propofol infusion was lower in the elderly patients. No statistically significant differences were found in the occurrence of adverse events between the elderly and younger groups. None of the patients returned to a re-sedated state after the initial recovery from sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroenterologist-guided propofol sedation in elderly patients can be safely achieved in the same manner as that in younger patients, even for time-consuming upper gastrointestinal therapeutic endoscopic procedures.

Safety and effectiveness of propofol-based monitored anesthesia care without intubation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric and esophageal cancers

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) becomes more difficult with an increased risk of complications if patient sedation is insufficient. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of propofol-based monitored anesthesia care (MAC) without intubation during ESD for early esophageal cancer (EEC) or early gastric cancer (EGC) in the endoscopy room.

METHODS

We investigated 1013 consecutive patients with 1126 lesions who underwent ESD for EGC/EEC with either MAC or regular sedation by endoscopists (control group) between July 2010 and March 2013. Patient characteristics, endoscopic findings, technical results, body movement, oxygen saturation (SpO2 ), and drug dosages were then examined.

RESULTS

MAC was carried out in 137 EGC (16%) and 82 EEC patients (57%), whereas regular sedation was used in 731 EGC (84%) and 63 EEC patients (43%). MAC was conducted in 21% of all ESD procedures. In the MAC and control groups, body movement requiring a third person for control occurred in 30 (22%) and 533 (72%) cases during gastric ESD (P < 0.0001) and in 36 (44%) and 53 (84%) cases during esophageal ESD (P < 0.0001), respectively. The median minimum SpO2 was significantly lower in the MAC group than in the control group during both gastric and esophageal ESD (96% vs 98%, P < 0.0001; 96% vs 98%, P < 0.0004, respectively). MAC did not cause any adverse effects requiring prolongation of hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol-based MAC without intubation provided a safer treatment environment by significantly reduced body movement and was very effective for difficult cases requiring longer procedure times or more powerful sedation.

Optimization of Deep Sedation with Spontaneous Respiration for Therapeutic Endoscopy Combining Propofol and Bispectral Index Monitoring

Background/Aims. This study aimed to establish optimal propofol anesthesia for therapeutic endoscopy, which has not been established. Methodology. We retrospectively investigated data on 89 patients who underwent upper-GI endoscopic submucosal dissection or endoscopic mucosal resection under anesthesia with propofol. Examined doses of propofol were changed according to efficacy and/or adverse events and classified into 5 periods. A bispectral index (BIS) monitor was used at Period 5 to decrease the incidence of adverse events caused by oversedation. The initial dose of propofol was administered after bolus injection of pethidine hydrochloride (0.5 mg/kg), and 1.0 mL of propofol was added every minute until the patients fell asleep. Continuous and bolus infusion were performed to maintain sedation. When the patient moved or an adverse event occurred, the maintenance dose examined was increased or decreased by 5 mL/h regardless of body weight. Results. Dose combinations (introduction : maintenance) and patient numbers for each period were as follows: Period 1 (n = 27), 0.5 mg/kg : 5 mg/kg/h; Period 2 (n = 11), 0.33 mg/kg : 3.3 mg/kg/h; Period 3 (n = 7), 0.5 mg/kg : 3.3 mg/kg/h; Period 4 (n = 14), 0.5 mg/kg : 2.5 mg/kg/h; Period 5 (n = 30), 0.5 mg/kg : 2.5 mg/kg/h, using BIS monitor. During Period 5, an adverse event occurred in 10.0% of patients, which was lower than that for Periods 1–4. Conclusions. Period 5 propofol anesthesia with BIS protocol could be safe and useful for therapeutic endoscopy under deep sedation with spontaneous respiration.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy

Recently, the need for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy has been increasing. However, the National Health Insurance Drug Price list in Japan does not include any drug specifically used for the sedation. Although benzodiazepines are the main medication, their use in cases of gastrointestinal endoscopy has not been approved. This has led the Japan Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Society to develop the first set of guidelines for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy on the basis of evidence-based medicine in collaboration with the Japanese Society for Anesthesiologists. The present guidelines comprise 14 statements, five of which were judged to be valid on the highest evidence level and three on the second highest level. The guidelines are not intended to strongly recommend the use of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but rather to indicate the policy as to the choice of appropriate procedures when such sedation is deemed necessary. In clinical practice, the final decision as to the use of sedation should be made by physicians considering patient willingness and physical condition.

Feasibility of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation for emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Background. The safety of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) sedation in emergent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has not been fully clarified. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the safety of NAAP sedation in emergent ERCP. Materials and Methods. We retrospectively analyzed 182 consecutive patients who had obstructive jaundice and who underwent ERCP under NAAP sedation. The patients were divided into Group A (with mild acute cholangitis or without acute cholangitis) and Group B (moderate or severe acute cholangitis). And technical safety and adverse events were assessed. Results. The adverse events were hypoxia (31 cases), hypotension (26 cases), and bradycardia (2 cases). There was no significant difference in the rate of each adverse event of hypoxia and bradycardia in either group. Although the rate of transient hypotension associated in Group B was higher than that in Group A, it was immediately improved with conservative treatment. Moreover, there were no patients who showed delayed awakening, or who developed other complications. Conclusions. In conclusion, NAAP sedation is feasible even in emergent ERCP. Although some transient adverse events (e.g., hypotension) were observed, no serious adverse events occurred. Thus, propofol can be used in emergent ERCP but careful monitoring is mandatory.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during endoscopic submucosal dissection

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of sedation protocols for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil.

METHODS: Fifty-nine patients scheduled for ESD were randomly allocated into a dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (DR) group or a propofol-remifentanil (PR) group. To control patient anxiety, dexmedetomidine or propofol was infused to maintain a score of 4-5 on the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. Remifentanil was infused continuously at a rate of 6 μg/kg per hour in both groups. The ease of advancing the scope into the throat, gastric motility grading, and satisfaction of the endoscopist and patient were assessed. Hemodynamic variables and hypoxemic events were compared to evaluate patient safety.

RESULTS: Demographic data were comparable between the groups. The hemodynamic variables and pulse oximetry values were stable during the procedure in both groups despite a lower heart rate in the DR group. No oxygen desaturation events occurred in either group. Although advancing the scope into the throat was easier in the PR group (“very easy” 24.1% vs 56.7%, P = 0.010), gastric motility was more suppressed in the DR group (“no + mild” 96.6% vs 73.3%, P = 0.013). The endoscopists felt that the procedure was more favorable in the DR group (“very good + good” 100% vs 86.7%, P = 0.042), whereas patient satisfaction scores were comparable between the groups. En bloc resection was performed 100% of the time in both groups, and the complete resection rate was 94.4% in the DR group and 100% in the PR group (P = 0.477).

CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil were comparable to propofol and remifentanil during ESD. However, the endoscopists favored dexmedetomidine perhaps due to lower gastric motility.

Assessing the stability and safety of procedure during endoscopic submucosal dissection according to sedation methods: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is routinely performed under sedation, the difference in ESD performance according to sedation method is not well known. This study attempted to prospectively assess and compare the satisfaction of the endoscopists and patient stability during ESD between two sedation methods.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-four adult patients scheduled for ESD were sedated by either the IMIE (intermittent midazolam/propofol injection by endoscopist) or CPIA (continuous propofol infusion by anesthesiologist) method. The primary endpoint of this study was to compare the level of satisfaction of the endoscopists between the two groups. The secondary endpoints included level of satisfaction of the patients, patient's pain scores, events interfering with the procedure, incidence of unintended deep sedation, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

Level of satisfaction of the endoscopists was significantly higher in the CPIA Group compared to the IMIE group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 63.2% vs. 87.2%, P=0.001). The incidence of unintended deep sedation was significantly higher in the IMIE Group compared to the CPIA Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; 17.1% vs. 5.1%, P=0.018) as well as the number of patients showing spontaneous movement or those requiring physical restraint (IMIE vs. CPIA; spontaneous movement; 60.5% vs. 42.3%, P=0.024, physical restraint; 27.6% vs. 10.3%, P=0.006, respectively). In contrast, level of satisfaction of the patients were found to be significantly higher in the IMIE Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 85.5% vs. 67.9%, P=0.027). Pain scores of the patients, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Continuous propofol and remifentanil infusion by an anesthesiologist during ESD can increase the satisfaction levels of the endoscopists by providing a more stable state of sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01806753.

Propofol versus midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is often achieved using propofol or midazolam in general population. However, impaired protein synthesis, altered drug metabolism, and compromised hepatic blood flow in patients with liver cirrhosis might affect the pharmacokinetics of sedatives, placing cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy at a greater risk of adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess comparative efficacies and safety of propofol and midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy.

METHODS

Randomized, controlled trials comparing propofol with midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were selected. We performed the meta-analysis, using a random-effect model, the Review Manager, Version 5.2, statistical software package (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Five studies between 2003 and 2012, including 433 patients, were included. Propofol provided a shorter time to sedation (weight mean difference: -2.76 min, 95% confidence interval: -3.00 to -2.51) and a shorter recovery time (weight mean difference -6.17 min, 95% confidence interval: -6.81 to -5.54) than midazolam did. No intergroup difference in the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, or hypoxemia was observed. Midazolam was associated with the deterioration of psychometric scores for a longer period than propofol.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that Propofol sedation for endoscopy provides more rapid sedation and recovery than midazolam does. The risk of sedation-related side effects for propofol does not differ significantly from that of midazolam. The efficacy of propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy is superior to those of midazolam.

Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Propofol has been suggested to be superior to benzodiazepines when used as a sedative agent for endoscopic examination. The aim of the present study was to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of propofol sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi database were searched in order to identify randomized trials eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) of developing restlessness, full awakening at 1 h post-ESD, hypoxia, and hypotension.

RESULTS

We identified three randomized trials (298 patients) from the database search. Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled OR of restlessness and full awakening at 1 h post-ESD with propofol sedation were 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-0.81) and 8.59 (95% CI: 4.29-17.2), respectively, without significant heterogeneity. Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled OR of hypoxia and hypotension with propofol sedation were 1.13 (95% CI: 0.58-2.21) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.25-3.41), respectively, indicating no significant differences between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Propofol sedation during ESD is more effective as compared with traditional sedative agent. The risk of complications is similar.

Non-anesthesiologist administrated propofol (NAAP) during endoscopic submucosal dissection for elderly patients with early gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Propofol is rapidly increasing in use in many countries because endoscopists and patients report greater satisfaction with propofol than with conventional sedatives. However, propofol infusion during lengthy endoscopic procedures in elderly patients is still controversial. We investigated the safety of gastroenterologist-guided propofol sedation in elderly patients who underwent gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) at a single center.

METHODS

We reviewed 121 medical records of patients who underwent gastric ESD. We compared retrospectively the details of propofol usage, hemodynamics, and re-sedation in the elderly group to those in a younger group.

RESULTS

No significant differences in patients' baseline characteristic including ASA classification between elderly and younger groups were shown. The average maintenance dose and total dose of propofol infusion could be similarly administrated in both groups. Seven adverse events (5.8 %) occurred at the time of propofol bolus injection. Although 3 cases (2.5 %) of hypotension (systolic blood pressure <80 mmHg), 8 cases (6.6 %) of desaturation (blood oxygen saturation <90 %) and 1 case (0.8 %) of bradycardia (pulse rate <40) were found during the maintenance of propofol infusion, there were no statistically significant differences in the elderly and younger groups. All events were immediately resolved without any intervention. No patients developed a re-sedated condition.

CONCLUSION

Gastroenterologist-guided propofol sedation during gastric ESD may be acceptable even in the elderly with ASA classification I/II under careful monitoring of vital signs and oxygen saturation.

Propofol sedation during endoscopic treatment for early gastric cancer compared to midazolam

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been proposed as the gold standard in the treatment of early gastric cancer because it facilitates a more accurate histological assessment and reduces the risk of tumor recurrence. However, the time course of ESD for large gastric tumors is frequently prolonged because of the tumor size and technical difficulties and typically requires higher doses of sedative and pain-controlling drugs. Sedative or anesthetic drugs such as midazolam or propofol are used during the procedure. Therapeutic endoscopy of early gastric cancers can often be performed with only moderate sedation. Compared with midazolam, propofol has a very fast onset of action, short plasma half-life and time to achieve sedation, faster time to recovery and discharge, and results in higher patient satisfaction. For overall success, maintaining safety and stability not only during the procedure but also subsequently in the recovery room and ward is necessary. In obese patients, it is recommended that the injected dose be based on a calculated standard weight. Cooperation between gastroenterologists, surgeons, and anesthesiologists is imperative for a successful ESD procedure.

Bispectral index monitoring during anesthesiologist-directed propofol and remifentanil sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically difficult and lengthy procedure requiring optimal depth of sedation. The bispectral index (BIS) monitor is a non-invasive tool that objectively evaluates the depth of sedation. The purpose of this prospective randomized controlled trial was to evaluate whether BIS guided sedation with propofol and remifentanil could reduce the number of patients requiring rescue propofol, and thus reduce the incidence of sedation- and/or procedure-related complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 180 patients who underwent the ESD procedure for gastric adenoma or early gastric cancer were randomized to two groups. The control group (n=90) was monitored by the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scale and the BIS group (n=90) was monitored using BIS. The total doses of propofol and remifentanil, the need for rescue propofol, and the rates of complications were recorded.

RESULTS

The number of patients who needed rescue propofol during the procedure was significantly higher in the control group than the BIS group (47.8% vs. 30.0%, p=0.014). There were no significant differences in the incidence of sedation- and/or procedure-related complications.

CONCLUSION

BIS-guided propofol infusion combined with remifentanil reduced the number of patients requiring rescue propofol in ESD procedures. However, this finding did not lead to clinical benefits and thus BIS monitoring is of limited use during anesthesiologist-directed sedation.

A second-look endoscopy may not reduce the bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric epithelial neoplasm

Background

Gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has gradually come to be recommended as the optimal treatment for early gastric cancer; however, one of the primary issues is postoperative bleeding. Although second-look endoscopy is conventionally performed to reduce the risk of postoperative bleeding, its benefit has not yet been clearly elucidated. The objective of this study was to elucidate the benefit of second-look endoscopy.

Methods

A total of 459 lesions in patients were underwent gastric ESD from May 2004 to April 2013 at our hospital were included in the analysis. The patients were divided into those who had bleeding within 24 hours after ESD (immediate bleeding) and those in whom bleeding occurred 24 hours or more after the procedure (delayed bleeding); the underlying disease, age, lesion site, diameter of the resected specimen, and lesion diameter were analyzed to identify the risk factors for postoperative bleeding after ESD.

Results

Post-ESD immediate or delayed bleeding occurred in 23 of the 459 cases (5.0%). Second-look endoscopy was performed in 210 of 447 cases (47.0%) excluding 12 cases with immediate bleeding; in the remaining 237 of the 447 cases (53.0%), it was not performed. Post-ESD delayed bleeding occurred in 6 of the 210 cases (2.9%) and 5 of the 237 cases (2.1%), with no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Overall, the following factors were identified as the risk factors for postoperative bleeding: young age (P = 0.005), lesions in the L segment (P = 0.042), and large size of the resected specimen (P = 0.005). The risk factors identified in the immediate bleeding group were lesions in the L segment (P = 0.032), large size of the resected specimen (P < 0.001), and large tumor size (P = 0.011), and those in the delayed bleeding group were young age (P = 0.013) and concomitant renal disease (P = 0.011).

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that second-look endoscopy after gastric ESD may not be useful for preventing postoperative bleeding.

Evaluation of Pharyngeal Function between No Bolus and Bolus Propofol Induced Sedation for Advanced Upper Endoscopy

This study aimed to assess pharyngeal function between no bolus and bolus propofol induced sedation during gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection. A retrospective study was conducted involving consecutive gastric cancer patients. Patients in the no bolus group received a 3 mg/kg/h maintenance dose of propofol after the initiation of sedation without bolus injection. All patients in the bolus group received the same maintenance dose of propofol with bolus 0.5 mg/kg propofol injection. Pharyngeal functions were evaluated endoscopically for the first 5 min following the initial administration of propofol. Fourteen patients received no bolus propofol induction and 13 received bolus propofol induction. Motionless vocal cords were observed in 2 patients (14%) in the no bolus group and 3 (23%) in the bolus group. Trachea cartilage was not observed in the no bolus group but was apparent in 6 patients (46%) in the bolus group (P < 0.01). Scope stimulated pharyngeal reflex was observed in 11 patients (79%) in the no bolus group and in 3 (23%) in the bolus group (P < 0.01). Propofol induced sedation without bolus administration preserves pharyngeal function and may constitute a safer sedation method than with bolus.

Recommended sedation and intraprocedural monitoring for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is associated with a longer treatment time and a higher risk of patient discomfort than conventional procedures. Adequate, safe sedation is therefore essential. Sedation can cause adverse effects such as hypoxemia and hypotension, requiring continuous intraoperative and postoperative monitoring of blood pressure, use of the electrocardiogram, and arterial blood oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry. A physician and a nurse solely responsible for sedating and monitoring the patient should be present during treatment.A combination of benzodiazepines and analgesics are generally used for sedation, but new sedatives such as propofol and dexmedetomidine hydrochloride are expected to be useful agents. Endoscopists should become more familiar with sedatives, analgesics, and emergency procedures in the future.

Sedation methods can determine performance of endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with gastric neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Although proper sedation is mandatory for endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), there is no research investigating the effects of sedation on ESD performance and complications. We aimed to evaluate the relationship among sedation methods, clinical outcomes, and complications after ESD for gastric neoplasia.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed clinical data of 1,367 patients with 1,485 lesions who had undergone ESD for gastric adenoma or early gastric cancer at our tertiary teaching hospital in Seoul, Korea, between January 2008 and May 2011. Of these, 1,035 lesions in 958 patients were included in the intermittent midazolam/propofol injection by endoscopists (IMIE) group, and 450 lesions in 409 patients were included in the continuous propofol infusion with opioid administration by anesthesiologists (CPIA) group.

RESULTS

En bloc resection and complete resection rates were higher in the CPIA group than in the IMIE group (CPIA vs. IMIE; en bloc resection, 99.8 and 95.0 %, P < 0.001; complete resection, 94.2 and 88.3 %, P < 0.001). Duration of procedure was shorter in the CPIA group than in the IMIE group (CPIA vs. IMIE; 48.2 ± 32.5 and 57.6 ± 41.3 min, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, sedation method was an independent factor associated with en bloc resection and complete resection. Additionally, sedation with CPIA was not a risk factor for bleeding (P = 0.403) or perforation (P = 0.474); however, aspiration pneumonia developed more frequently in patients sedated with CPIA (CPIA vs. IMIE, 4.4 and 1.5 %, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation with CPIA can improve ESD performance.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

The use of propofol as a sedative agent in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with traditional sedative agents.

METHODS

RCTs comparing the effects of propofol and traditional sedative agents during gastrointestinal endoscopy were found on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Cardiopulmonary complications (i.e., hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmia, and apnea) and sedation profiles were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two original RCTs investigating a total of 1,798 patients, of whom 912 received propofol only and 886 received traditional sedative agents only, met the inclusion criteria. Propofol use was associated with shorter recovery (13 studies, 1,165 patients; WMD -19.75; 95% CI -27.65, 11.86) and discharge times (seven studies, 471 patients; WMD -29.48; 95% CI -44.13, -14.83), higher post-anesthesia recovery scores (four studies, 503 patients; WMD 2.03; 95% CI 1.59, 2.46), better sedation (nine studies, 592 patients; OR 4.78; 95% CI 2.56, 8.93), and greater patient cooperation (six studies, 709 patients; WMD 1.27; 95% CI 0.53, 2.02), as well as more local pain on injection (six studies, 547 patients; OR 10.19; 95% CI 3.93, 26.39). Effects of propofol on cardiopulmonary complications, procedure duration, amnesia, pain during endoscopy, and patient satisfaction were not found to be significantly different from those of traditional sedative agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol is safe and effective for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures and is associated with shorter recovery and discharge periods, higher post-anesthesia recovery scores, better sedation, and greater patient cooperation than traditional sedation, without an increase in cardiopulmonary complications. Care should be taken when extrapolating our results to specific practice settings and high-risk patient subgroups.

Safety and efficacy of deep sedation with propofol alone or combined with midazolam administrated by nonanesthesiologist for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection

Background/Aims

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is accepted as a treatment for gastric neoplasms and usually requires deep sedation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy profiles of deep sedation induced by continuous propofol infusion with or without midazolam during ESD.

Methods

A total of 135 patients scheduled for ESDs between December 2008 and June 2010 were included in this prospective study and were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the propofol group or the combination group (propofol plus midazolam).

Results

The propofol group reported only one case of severe hypoxemia with no need of mask ventilation or intubation. Additionally, 18 cases of mild hypotension were observed in the propofol group, and 11 cases were observed in the combination group. The combination group had a lower mean total propofol dose (378 mg vs 466 mg, p<0.012), a longer mean recovery time (10.5 minutes vs 7.9 minutes, p=0.027), and a lower frequency of overall adverse events (32.8% vs 17.6%, p=0.042).

Conclusions

Deep sedation induced by continuous propofol infusion was shown to be safe during ESD. The combination of continuous propofol infusion and intermittent midazolam injection can decrease the total dose and infusion rate of propofol and the overall occurrence of adverse events.

Effective training system in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Although colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is superior to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in en bloc resection rate, it is technically quite difficult because of the anatomical and histological characteristics of the colorectal wall. This difficulty prevents wide spread of the technique. Establishment of the training system for colorectal ESD is necessary to standardize training and to achieve wider acceptance of this technique. Herein, we describe our training system for colorectal ESD, and assess the validity of the training system for colorectal ESD, based on the clinical outcomes and learning curve of trainees. Our training system for colorectal ESD would help the spread of this procedure.

Learning curve for endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric cancer based on trainee experience

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There have been few previous reports on endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) learning curve for early gastric cancer (EGC) so we retrospectively assessed this subject based on experience of our trainees.

METHODS

Trainees in our center start performing ESDs for lesions in lower third of stomach with hands-on support by experts during first 10 cases and then perform ESDs by themselves primarily with verbal guidance from experts. They are gradually assigned to perform ESDs in middle and upper thirds of stomach. From January 1999 to December 2008, 464 EGC patients, who underwent ESD performed by 13 trainees, were assessed by dividing ESD cases into five training periods (A, 1-10; B, 11-20; C, 21-30; D, 31-40; and E, 41-50). We compared data from B to C, D and E.

RESULTS

Lesions in lower third were A/59%, B/57%, C/55%, D/36% and E/40% with B significantly higher than D (p<0.01) and E (p<0.05). Mean tumor sizes were A/13.9 ± 7.5mm, B/18.3 ± 11.4mm, C/19.0 ± 12.5mm, D/19.3 ± 11.7 mm and E/16.8 ± 10.3mm. En-bloc resection rate was 100% in every period. Delayed bleeding / perforation rates were A/0%/1.8%, B/2.8%/1.9%, C/1.9%/2.9%, D/1.1%/0% and E/2.1%/2.1%, respectively. Lower third procedure times were A/76 ± 39, B/90 ± 61, C/70 ± 48, D/60 ± 50 and E/55 ± 26 minutes with B significantly longer than D and E (p<0.05). Middle and upper third procedure times were A/104 ± 80, B/115 ± 68, C/106 ± 67, D/134 ± 86 and E/96 ± 55 minutes.

CONCLUSION

Step-by-step training was highly effective with 100% en-bloc resection rate and few complications. Learning curve point for our trainees to acquire performing ESD in lower third of stomach was 30 cases.