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

Modified Manual Chest Compression for Prevention and Treatment of Respiratory Depression in Patients Under Deep Sedation During Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Two Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

We aimed to determine the preventive and therapeutic efficacy of modified manual chest compression (MMCC), a novel noninvasive and device-independent method, in reducing oxygen desaturation events in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation.

METHODS

A total of 584 outpatients who underwent deep sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were enrolled. In the preventive cohort, 440 patients were randomized to the MMCC group (patients received MMCC when their eyelash reflex disappeared, M1 group) or control group (C1 group). In the therapeutic cohort, 144 patients with oxygen desaturation of a Sp o2 < 95% were randomized to MMCC group (patients who subsequently received MMCC, M2 group) or the conventional treatment group (C2 group). The primary outcomes were the incidence of desaturation episodes with an Sp o2 < 95% for the preventive cohort and the time spent below 95% Sp o2 for the therapeutic cohort. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of gastroscopy withdrawal and diaphragmatic pause.

RESULTS

In the preventive cohort, MMCC reduced the incidence of desaturation episodes <95% (14.4% vs 26.1%; RR, 0.549; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.815; P = .002), gastroscopy withdrawal (0% vs 2.29%; P = .008), and diaphragmatic pause at 30 seconds after propofol injection (74.5% vs 88.1%; RR, 0.846; 95% CI, 0.772-0.928; P < .001). In the therapeutic cohort, patients who received MMCC had a significantly shorter time spent below 95% Sp o2 (40 [20-69] seconds vs 91 [33-152] seconds, median difference [95% CI], -39 [-57 to -16] seconds, P < .001), a lower incidence of gastroscopy withdrawal (0% vs 10.4%, P = .018), and more enhanced diaphragmatic movement at 30 seconds after Sp o2 <95% (1.11 [0.93-1.4] cm vs 1.03 [0.7-1.24] cm; median difference [95% confidence interval], 0.16 [0.02-0.32] cm; P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

MMCC may exert preventive and therapeutic effects against oxygen desaturation events during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Efficacy of lidocaine injection method for esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection: single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative body movements are one of the causes of difficulty in performing esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) under conscious sedation. The use of local anesthetics as local injection materials during ESD may overcome this difficulty. We clinically evaluated the lidocaine injection method (LIM) in the submucosa during esophageal ESD.

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Patients who underwent esophageal ESD under conscious sedation from June 2018 to May 2021 were included in this study. In the LIM group, lidocaine was used for submucosal injection during ESD; in the control group, ESD was performed without lidocaine. The primary outcome was the presence of body movements.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were enrolled and randomized in a 1:1 ratio in two groups. The incidence of body movements was significantly lower in the LIM group (12% [3/25]) than in the control group (48% [12/25]; P = 0.01). The median additional dose of midazolam was 2 mg (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.5-4 mg) in the LIM group and 4 mg (IQR: 3-6 mg) in the control group, which was significantly lower in the LIM group (P < 0.01). The median visual analog scale score for endoscopist satisfaction was 7 (IQR: 5-8) in the LIM group and 5 (IQR: 4-6.5) in the control group, which was significantly higher in the LIM group.

CONCLUSIONS

LIM during esophageal ESD reduced body movements while decreasing the level of sedation. Therefore, LIM during esophageal ESD is an option for maintaining good sedation (UMIN000032804).

Asystole-induced Bradycardia by Dexmedetomidine during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Although dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a widely used analgesic and sedative agent for endoscopic procedures, cardiovascular complications, such as bradycardia and hypotension, are frequently experienced. We herein report the first case of asystole-induced bradycardia due to DEX during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). An 81-year-old man without cardiovascular diseases was referred for gastric carcinoma. ESD was started after administering a loading dose of DEX followed by a continuous maintenance infusion of DEX. The patient's heart rate gradually decreased, and then cardiac arrest occurred. DEX has a risk of cardiac arrest, so bradycardia should not be underestimated during sedation with DEX.

Risk Factors for Fever After Esophageal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Its Derived Technique

Background

Fever is one of the postoperative adverse events of endoscopic submucosal dissection and its derived technique, but the probability and risk factors of postoperative fever are still unclear. The aim of the current study was to investigate the incidence and risk factors of postoperative fever after esophageal lesion removal.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of 446 patients who underwent esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection and its derived technique between January 2014 and January 2020. Cases included in this study were divided into fever and non-fever groups.

Results

Postoperative fever developed in 135 patients (30.3%). The median (range) highest fever temperature was 38 (37.8–38.4)°C, the median (range) duration of fever was 1 (1–2) day, and 127 (94.1%) patients developed fever within 24 h after operation. Through logistic regression analysis, factors associated with postoperative fever were age (OR: 1.740, 95% CI: 1.005–3.013, p = 0.048), lesion size (OR: 2.007, 95% CI: 1.198–3.362, p = 0.008), operation time (OR: 3.007, 95% CI: 1.756–5.147, p < 0.001) and nasogastric tube placement (OR: 1.881, 95% CI: 1.165–3.037, p = 0.010), while prophylactic antibiotics (OR: 0.181, 95% CI: 0.082–0.401, p < 0.001) were negatively associated with fever.

Conclusions

Age ≥52 years old, lesion size ≥19 mm, operation time ≥37 min, and nasogastric tube placement are risk factors for postoperative fever after esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection and its derived technique, prophylactic antibiotic use after operation may help reduce fever rate. Attention should be paid to such patients to minimize the risk of postoperative fever.

Academy of Medicine, Singapore clinical guideline on the use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting

INTRODUCTION

In Singapore, non-anaesthesiologists generally administer sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The drugs used for sedation in hospital endoscopy centres now include propofol in addition to benzodiazepines and opiates. The requirements for peri-procedural monitoring and discharge protocols have also evolved. There is a need to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline on the safe and effective use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting.

METHODS

The Academy of Medicine, Singapore appointed an expert workgroup comprising 18 gastroenterologists, general surgeons and anaesthesiologists to develop guidelines on the use of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The workgroup formulated clinical questions related to different aspects of endoscopic sedation, conducted a relevant literature search, adopted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and developed recommendations by consensus using a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

The workgroup made 16 recommendations encompassing 7 areas: (1) purpose of sedation, benefits and disadvantages of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (2) pre-procedural assessment, preparation and consent taking for sedation; (3) Efficacy and safety of drugs used in sedation; (4) the role of anaesthesiologist administered sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (5) performance of sedation; (6) post-sedation care and discharge after sedation; and (7) training in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy for non-anaesthesiologists.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations serve to guide clinical practice during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-anaesthesiologists in the hospital setting.

Evaluation of long-term survival in patients with severe comorbidities after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is becoming widely popular as a less invasive treatment option for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. However, data on long-term survival after esophageal ESD in patients with severe comorbidities are limited. This study aimed to evaluate long-term survival after ESD in such patients.

METHODS

Altogether, 584 consecutive patients underwent esophageal ESD at our institution from May 2004 to September 2016. Based on the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification system, patients were grouped according to severe (ASA-PS ≥ 3) or non-severe comorbidities (ASA-PS 1/2). The overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and risk factors for mortality were compared between the groups using a propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

In a matched cohort of 69 pairs, the 5-year OS rate was poorer in ASA-PS 3 patients than in ASA-PS 1/2 patients (63.9% vs. 92.5%, P < 0.01), while the 5-year DSS rate was similar between the groups (100% vs. 100%). The mortality rate was significantly higher in ASA-PS 3 patients than in ASA-PS 1/2 patients (hazard ratio 3.47; 95% confidence interval 1.79-6.74; P < 0.01). Death due to exacerbation of comorbidities was significantly more frequent in ASA-PS 3 patients than in ASA-PS 1/2 patients (42.4% vs. 8.3%, P < 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Because of the exacerbation of comorbidities, patients with severe comorbidities had poorer long-term outcomes after esophageal ESD than those with non-severe comorbidities. Further studies will be necessary to evaluate esophageal ESD in patients with severe comorbidities.

Repeated Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Esophageal Neoplasia Located Close to a Previous Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Scar

INTRODUCTION:

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) could become a standard treatment for early stage esophageal neoplasia. Recurrence sometimes develops close to a previous ESD scar. These lesions are predictably difficult to treat with ESD because of severe fibrosis. We evaluated the clinical outcomes of ESD for esophageal neoplasia located close to a previous ESD scar.

METHODS:

This was a retrospective observational study in a single institution. A total of 549 consecutive patients with 927 esophageal lesions were treated with ESD. The primary outcomes were resectability and adverse events of esophageal neoplasia located close to previous ESD scars (ESD scar group) than in primary esophageal ESD (primary group). Furthermore, predictive factors of perforation were examined.

RESULTS:

A total of 545 primary and 29 ESD scars in consecutive patients were evaluated. En bloc and complete (R0) resection rates in the ESD scar group were lower than those in the primary group (79.3% vs 98.3%, P < 0.01 and 75.9% vs 93.4%, P < 0.01). Perforations occurred more frequently in the ESD scar group (10.3% vs 2.0%, P = 0.03). The ESD scar group was a predictive factor for perforation (odds ratio = 10.37, 95% confidence interval: 2.15–49.94, P = 0.004). There were similar results for inverse probability of treatment weighting methods (odds ratio = 6.78, 95% confidence interval: 1.40–32.98, P = 0.018).

DISCUSSION:

ESD for esophageal neoplasia located close to a previous ESD scar was difficult to completely resect and increased the likelihood of perforation but could be a treatment option.

Anesthetic strategy for obese patients during gastroscopy: deep sedation or conscious sedation? A prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to compare the incidence of SpO₂ values < 95% and < 90% of the obese patients between conscious sedation and deep sedation and whether conscious sedation was superior to the deep sedation for obese patients during diagnostic gastroscopy.

METHODS

Obese patients undergoing diagnostic gastroscopy were randomly assigned to two different intervention groups: group CS (conscious sedation) or group DS (deep sedation). Group CS patients were managed by conscious sedation [Modified Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) at 4-5] protocol, and group DS patients were managed by deep sedation (MOAA/S at ≤ 2) protocol. Propofol and sufentanil (0.1 and 0.05 mg/kg) were, respectively, infused for sedation and analgesia in CS and DS protocols. The primary endpoints were to compare the incidence of SpO₂ values < 95% and < 90% of the patients between the two groups. The incidence of successful sedation, satisfaction scores of patients and endoscopist were assessed as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

115 obese patients (59 in group CS and 56 in group DS) were enrolled in this study. The incidences of SpO₂ < 95% and < 90% in group CS (42.4% and 6.8%) were significantly lower than those in group DS (69.6% and 19.6%, with P = 0.003 and 0.041, respectively). The incidence of successful sedation was similar between groups (86.4% vs 89.3%, P = 0.641). Patient satisfaction scores and endoscopist satisfaction scores were both similar between groups (P = 0.548 and 0.171).

CONCLUSION

Conscious sedation with propofol and sufentanil (0.1 mg/kg) reduced the incidence of hypoxic events without affecting gastroscopy procedure and satisfaction compared with the deep sedation for obese patients during diagnostic gastroscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR-1900024894; registration date, July 31, 2019. http://www.chictr.org.cn .

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

Perforation of a Gastric Tear during Esophageal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection under General Anesthesia

Mallory-Weiss tears (MWT) are occasionally encountered during endoscopic procedures. Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely performed under general anesthesia to avoid unexpected body movements. We present the case of a 68-year-old woman with squamous cell carcinoma. Although ESD was performed under general anesthesia, a gastric perforation at the MWT caused by gastric inflation was observed after the procedure. The perforation was closed endoscopically, and she was discharged without any sequelae. Although general anesthesia is useful for esophageal ESD, it should be noted that it can cause MWT, and in rare cases, gastric perforation, due to gastric inflation during the procedure.

Predictive factors for difficult endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal neoplasia including failure of en bloc resection or perforation

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is accepted as the standard treatment for early-stage esophageal neoplasia. However, esophageal perforation may occur, leading to mediastinitis and pneumothorax, which occasionally require emergency surgery. Moreover, failure of en bloc resection causes local recurrence. However, studies on the predictors of such difficulties during ESD are limited. Hence, we evaluated the predictors associated with the difficulty of ESD for esophageal neoplasia including failure of en bloc resection or perforation.

METHODS

Data of 549 consecutive patients who were treated with ESD between May 2004 and March 2016 at a single institution were retrospectively studied. Exclusion criteria were the presence of metachronous esophageal neoplasia or missing data. The primary outcome was determining the predictors associated with the difficulty of ESD for esophageal neoplasia including failure of en bloc resection or perforation.

RESULTS

Altogether, 543 patients with 736 lesions were evaluated. Failure of en bloc resection occurred in 6 patients (1.1%) with 6 lesions, and perforation occurred in 11 patients (2.0%) with 11 lesions (1.5%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that large lesion diameter (odds ratio [OR] 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-1.84; p < 0.001) and previous chemoradiotherapy (OR 5.24; 95% CI 1.52-18.06; p = 0.009) were independent predictive factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger lesions and previous chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer increased the risk for failure of en bloc resection or perforation in patients who underwent esophageal ESD.

Efficacy of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Esophageal Neoplasms under General Anesthesia

Background/Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

GA shortens the procedure time of esophageal ESD.

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.

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.

The Comparison of Midazolam and Propofol in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Midazolam and propofol are both used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of midazolam versus propofol on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy are included. Two investigators have independently searched for articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials involving 552 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with midazolam sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy, propofol sedation results in higher endoscopist satisfaction scores during gastrointestinal endoscopy than midazolam [standard mean difference (Std. MD)=-0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI)=-1.05 to -0.37; P<0.0001), but the comparison shows no remarkable influence on patient satisfaction scores between midazolam and propofol (Std. MD=-0.34; 95% CI=-0.88 to 0.20; P=0.21), procedure time (Std. MD=0.14; 95% CI=-0.13 to 0.42; P=0.31), hypoxia [risk ratio (RR)=0.86; 95% CI=0.53-1.38; P=0.53), and bradycardia (RR=1.05; 95% CI=0.54-2.06; P=0.89). In addition, propofol shows higher incidence of hypotension than midazolam (RR=0.58; 95% CI=0.34-0.99; P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with midazolam sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, propofol sedation results in higher endoscopist satisfaction scores, but may increase the incidence of hypotension.

Dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation with colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled study

Objective

Conscious sedation for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has not been standardized, and there are no studies of sedation for colorectal ESD.

Methods

We conducted a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial to clarify the usefulness of DEX during colorectal ESD. In total 80 patients with colorectal ESD from April 2016 to May 2017 were assigned to the placebo group or the DEX group (40 cases each). The primary outcome was patient satisfaction (visual analogue scale: VAS). Secondary outcomes were evaluated for 13 factors, including patient pain level (VAS), endoscopist satisfaction (VAS), objective patient pain level viewed from the endoscopist’s perspective (VAS), rate of patient response, rate of side effects, etc., from the patient’s and endoscopist’s perspectives.

Results

Patient satisfaction was 8.4 and 9.1 (P = 0.018) in the placebo group and the DEX group, respectively. Secondary outcomes of patient pain level, endoscopist satisfaction, objective patient pain level from the endoscopist’s perspective for the placebo and DEX groups were 1.2 and 0.4 (P = 0.045), 8.2 and 9.3 (P < 0.001), and 1.2 and 0.5 (P = 0.002), respectively. All of these were significantly positive results (more comfortable and less pain) in the DEX group. The rate of a patient response was 100% in all cases. The side effects (hypoxia/bradycardia/hypotension) were 0%/0%/0% and 7.5%/7.5%/5% (P = 0.030). However, these rates were less than the reported side effect occurrence rate, and no additional medication was needed.

Conclusion

DEX enables conscious sedation, and is useful not only for patient and endoscopist satisfaction but also for pain relief. DEX is an effective sedation method for colorectal 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.