Bispectral index monitoring for nurse-administered propofol sedation during upper endoscopic ultrasound: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

Effectiveness Assessment of Bispectral Index Monitoring Compared with Conventional Monitoring in General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objective. The Bispectral Index (BIS) is utilized to guide the depth of anesthesia monitoring during surgical procedures. However, conflicting results regarding the benefits of BIS for depth of anesthesia monitoring have been reported in numerous studies. The purpose of this meta-analysis and systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of BIS for depth of anesthesia monitoring. Search Methods. A systematic search of Ovid-MEDLINE, Cochrane, and PubMed was conducted from inception to April 20, 2023. Clinical trial registers and grey literature were also searched, and reference lists of included studies, as well as related review articles, were manually reviewed. Selection Criteria. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials without gender or age restrictions. The control groups used conventional monitoring, while the intervention groups utilized BIS monitoring. The exclusion criteria included duplicates, reviews, animal studies, unclear outcomes, and incomplete data. Data Collection and Analysis. Two independent reviewers screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality, with analyses conducted using R 4.0 software. Main Results. Forty studies were included. In comparison to the conventional depth of anesthesia monitoring, BIS monitoring reduced the postoperative cognitive dysfunction risk (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73∼0.99, P = 0.04), shortened the eye-opening time (MD = -1.34, 95% CI: -2.06∼-0.61, P < 0.01), orientation recovery time (MD = -1.99, 95% CI: -3.62∼-0.36, P = 0.02), extubation time (MD = -2.54, 95% CI: -3.50∼-1.58, P < 0.01), and postanesthesia care unit stay time (MD = -7.11, 95% CI: -12.67∼-1.55, P = 0.01) and lowered the anesthesia drug dosage (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI: -0.63∼-0.15, P < 0.01). Conclusion. BIS can be used to effectively monitor the depth of anesthesia. Its use in general anesthesia enhances the effectiveness of both patient care and surgical procedures.

Advances in Analgosedation and Periprocedural Care for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The number and complexity of endoscopic gastrointestinal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is globally increasing. Procedural analgosedation during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has become the gold standard of gastrointestinal endoscopies. Patient satisfaction and safety are important for the quality of the technique. Currently there are no uniform sedation guidelines and protocols for specific gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and there are several challenges surrounding the choice of an appropriate analgosedation technique. These include categories of patients, choice of drug, appropriate monitoring, and medical staff providing the service. The ideal analgosedation technique should enable the satisfaction of the patient, their maximum safety and, at the same time, cost-effectiveness. Although propofol is the gold standard and the most used general anesthetic for endoscopies, its use is not without risks such as pain at the injection site, respiratory depression, and hypotension. New studies are looking for alternatives to propofol, and drugs like remimazolam and ciprofol are in the focus of researchers' interest. New monitoring techniques are also associated with them. The optimal technique of analgosedation should provide good analgesia and sedation, fast recovery, comfort for the endoscopist, patients' safety, and will have financial benefits. The future will show whether these new drugs have succeeded in these goals.

Propofol and Remifentanil Sedation for Bronchial Thermoplasty: A Prospective Cohort Trial

BACKGROUND

Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) is a rapidly emerging bronchoscopic treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. Different sedation strategies are currently used, ranging from mild midazolam sedation to general anesthesia requiring tracheal intubation.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and both patients' and bronchoscopists' satisfaction with propofol and remifentanil sedation administered by specialized sedation anesthesiology nurses during BT in severe asthma patients.

METHODS

A prospective observational cohort study in BT-treated severe asthma patients of the TASMA trial was designed. Patients were asked to rate their overall BT procedure satisfaction and tolerance with propofol/remifentanil sedation using a visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 10. Similarly, bronchoscopists were asked to rate patient cooperation and tolerance. Sedation-associated adverse events and the number of BT activations were recorded.

RESULTS

Thirty-two BT procedures in 13 severe asthma patients were performed under moderate target-controlled infusion (TCI) propofol/remifentanil sedation. Patients' median VAS scores were as follows: overall satisfaction 9.6 (interquartile range [IQR] 8.5-10.0), dyspnea 0.0 (IQR 0.0-0.6), pain 0.1 (IQR 0.0-1.0), cough 0.5 (IQR 0.0-2.1), and anxiety 0.1 (IQR 0.0-0.7). Bronchoscopists' median VAS scores were as follows: overall patient cooperation 9.1 (IQR 8.5-9.6), dyspnea 0.3 (IQR 0.0-0.9), pain 0.2 (IQR 0.0-1.3), cough 1.2 (IQR 0.7-2.0), and discomfort 0.6 (IQR 0.3-1.5). All patients were willing to undergo the procedure again and would recommend this form of sedation to their best friend. One case of conversion to general anesthesia occurred and no serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation with propofol and remifentanil TCI provided by specialized sedation anesthesiology nurses is feasible and safe and results in high satisfaction rates of both patients and bronchoscopists.

Bispectral Index Monitoring Reduces the Dosage of Propofol and Adverse Events in Sedation for Endobronchial Ultrasound

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend monitoring the anesthetic depth of sedation during respiratory endoscopy by using clinical scales despite their subjective nature and the potential change in the level of sedation caused by frequent stimulation. Monitoring by means of the bispectral index (BIS) has shown its utility in reducing the use of drugs and their adverse events in general anesthesia, but evidence in prolonged sedation is insufficient.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate BIS in patients undergoing endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS).

METHODS

A randomized cohort study of 90 patients with mediastinal lymph node involvement and/or lung or mediastinal lesions for whom EBUS was indicated, comparing the modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation scale clinical evaluation (n = 45) versus the BIS evaluation (n = 45) of sedation with propofol-remifentanil, was conducted in order to evaluate the clinical parameters, doses used, adverse events, and tolerance of the procedure.

RESULTS

We found a shorter waking time and a significantly lower dose of total propofol in the BIS group. Significantly fewer overall adverse events were recorded in the BIS group and included desaturation, hypotension, and bradypnea. Tolerance was better in the BIS group. No significant differences were found in terms of cough, memory of the procedure, or the level of difficulty of EBUS on the part of the pulmonologists.

CONCLUSIONS

BIS monitoring of sedation in EBUS makes it possible to reduce the dosage of propofol, thereby shortening the waking time and reducing adverse events. This form of monitoring should be taken into consideration in the future for systematic use in prolonged sedation, as in the case of EBUS.

Extended Monitoring during Endoscopy

Gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation has improved procedural and patient outcomes but is associated with attendant risks of oversedation and hemodynamic compromise. Therefore, close monitoring during endoscopic procedures using sedation is critical. This monitoring begins with appropriate staff trained in visual assessment of patients and analysis of basic physiologic parameters. It also mandates an array of devices widely used in practice to evaluate hemodynamics, oxygenation, ventilation, and depth of sedation. The authors review the evidence behind monitoring practices and current society recommendations and discuss forthcoming technologies and techniques that are poised to improve noninvasive monitoring of patients under endoscopic sedation.

Depth of anaesthesia monitoring during procedural sedation and analgesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Processed electroencephalogram-based depth of anaesthesia monitoring devices provide an additional method to monitor level of consciousness during procedural sedation and analgesia. The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether using a depth of anaesthesia monitoring device improves the safety and efficacy of sedation.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (CENTRAL; Medline; CINAHL) were searched up to May 2015.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials that compared use of a depth of anaesthesia monitoring device to a control group who received standard monitoring during procedural sedation and analgesia were included. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment (Cochrane risk of bias tool) were performed by two reviewers. Safety outcomes were hypoxaemia, hypotension and adverse events. Efficacy outcomes were amount of sedation used, duration of sedation recovery and rate of incomplete procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 16 trials (2138 participants) were included. Evidence ratings were downgraded to either low or moderate quality due to study limitations and imprecision. Meta-analysis of 8 trials (766 participants) found no difference in hypoxaemia (RR 0.87; 95% CI=0.67-1.12). No statistically significant difference in hypotension was observed in meta-analysis of 8 trials (RR 0.96; 95% CI=0.54-1.7; 942 participants). Mean dose of propofol was 51mg lower for participants randomised to depth of anaesthesia monitoring (95% CI=-88.7 to -13.3mg) in meta-analysis of results from four trials conducted with 434 participants who underwent interventional endoscopy procedures with propofol infusions to maintain sedation. The difference in recovery time between depth of anaesthesia and standard monitoring groups was not clinically significant (standardised mean difference -0.41; 95% CI=-0.8 to -0.02; I²=86%; 8 trials; 809 participants).

CONCLUSIONS

Depth of anaesthesia monitoring did impact sedation titration during interventional procedures with propofol infusions. For this reason, it seems reasonable for anaesthetists to utilise a depth of anaesthesia monitoring device for select populations of patients if it is decided that limiting the amount of sedation would be beneficial for the individual patient. However, there is no need to invest in purchasing extra equipment or training staff who are not familiar with this technology (e.g. nurses who do not routinely use a depth of anaesthesia monitoring device during general anaesthesia) because there is no high quality evidence suggestive of clear clinical benefits for patient safety or sedation efficacy.

Bispectral Index Versus Standard Monitoring in Sedation for Endoscopic Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Bispectral index (BIS ) monitoring has been used as an objective measurement tool for sedation depth and has been proposed as a guidance to reduce the risk of intraprocedural over-sedation. However, the results of several studies evaluating the benefits of BIS monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy were not consistent.

AIMS

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the reduction in total consumption of administrated propofol and recovery time under BIS during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, WEB of SCIENCE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for articles published through March 2015. After screening, the reviewers extracted information on 11 randomized controlled trials. A total of 1039 patients (526 in BIS and 513 in non-BIS group) were included in this study.

RESULTS

Meta-analyses showed that the total propofol consumption (the pooled standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.28 to -0.01) was significantly lower in the BIS group than in the non-BIS group, although mean propofol consumption was not significantly different. Recovery time (the pooled SMD: -0.04 [95% CI -0.46 to 0.38, P = 0.85]), procedure time (the pooled SMD: 0.13 [95% CI -0.03 to 0.29, P = 0.11]), adverse events, and satisfaction-related outcomes were not significantly superior in the BIS group when compared with the non-BIS group.

CONCLUSIONS

This first meta-analysis showed that BIS monitoring appears to be an effective and safe method for avoiding unnecessary administration of propofol and for providing adequate sedation during endoscopic procedures.

The role of capnography in endoscopy patients undergoing nurse-administered propofol sedation: a randomized study

OBJECTIVE. Standard benzodiazepine/opioid cocktail has proven inferior to propofol sedation during complicated endoscopic procedures and in low-tolerance patients. Propofol is a short-acting hypnotic with a potential risk of respiratory depression at levels of moderate to deep sedation. The existing literature on capnography for endoscopy patients sedated with nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) is limited. Can the addition of capnography to standard monitoring during endoscopy with NAPS reduce the number, duration, and level of hypoxia. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This study was a randomized controlled trial with an intervention group (capnography) and a control group (without capnography). Eligible subjects were consecutive patients for endoscopy at Gentofte Hospital compliant with the criteria of NAPS. RESULTS. Five hundred and forty patients, 263 with capnography and 277 without capnography, were included in the analysis. The number and total duration of hypoxia was reduced by 39.3% and 21.1% in the intervention group compared to the control group (p > 0.05). No differences in actions taken against insufficient respiration were found. Changes in end-tidal carbon dioxide (R = 0.177, p-value < 0.001) and respiratory rate (R = 0.092, p-value < 0.001) were correlated to oxygen saturation (SpO2) up to 36 s prior to changes in SpO2. CONCLUSIONS. Capnography seems to reduce the number and duration of hypoxia in NAPS patients (p > 0.05). Capnography is able to detect insufficient respiration that may lead to hypoxia prior to changes in pulse oximetry. However, due to a limited clinical benefit and additional costs associated with capnography, we do not find capnography necessary during the use of NAPS.

Deep sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens

AIM

To compare deep sedation with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

After obtaining approval of the research ethics committee and informed consent, 200 patients were evaluated and referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive propofol-fentanyl or midazolam-fentanyl (n = 100/group). We assessed the level of sedation using the observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score and bispectral index (BIS). We evaluated patient and physician satisfaction, as well as the recovery time and complication rates. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software and included the Mann-Whitney test, χ² test, measurement of analysis of variance, and the κ statistic.

RESULTS

The times to induction of sedation, recovery, and discharge were shorter in the propofol-fentanyl group than the midazolam-fentanyl group. According to the OAA/S score, deep sedation events occurred in 25% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 11% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.014). Additionally, deep sedation events occurred in 19% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 7% of the midazolam-fentanyl group according to the BIS scale (P = 0.039). There was good concordance between the OAA/S score and BIS for both groups (κ = 0.71 and κ = 0.63, respectively). Oxygen supplementation was required in 42% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 26% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.025). The mean time to recovery was 28.82 and 44.13 min in the propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl groups, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no severe complications in either group. Although patients were equally satisfied with both drug combinations, physicians were more satisfied with the propofol-fentanyl combination.

CONCLUSION

Deep sedation occurred with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl, but was more frequent in the former. Recovery was faster in the propofol-fentanyl group.

Low effect-site concentration of propofol target-controlled infusion reduces the risk of hypotension during endoscopy in a Taiwanese population

OBJECTIVE

Target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol is an effective way of delivering propofol during endoscopy. However, the ideal effect-site concentration (Ce) of propofol has not yet been defined in an Asian population. This study aimed to determine the ideal Ce of propofol in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy in a Taiwanese population.

METHODS

A total of 121 consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic endoscopy were recruited for this study. The endoscopic procedure was carried out within 1 h. TCI of propofol was utilized during the procedure. All patients received the same regimen to induce conscious sedation, including a bolus of midazolam (0.04 mg/kg) and fentanyl (0.5 μg/kg). The Ce of propofol was calculated using the Schneider model. Patients were randomly assigned to either the low Ce group (1.5-2.5 μg/mL) or high Ce group (3.0-4.0 μg/mL). Their cardiovascular and respiratory events were monitored during the procedure and the patients' post-procedure satisfaction was evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean requirement for propofol was 232.02 mg in the low Ce group and 329.56 mg in the high Ce group, respectively (P < 0.0001). No unexpected event was observed in either group. However, more episodes of hypotension were observed in the high Ce group (P = 0.026). The post-procedure satisfaction rate between the two groups was comparable.

CONCLUSION

A low Ce of propofol TCI (1.5-2.5 μg/mL) achieved adequate anesthesia, reduced the risk of hypotension, and attained a high satisfaction rate in a Taiwanese population undergoing diagnostic painless endoscopy.

Balanced propofol sedation versus propofol monosedation in therapeutic pancreaticobiliary endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Prolonged or complex endoscopic procedures are frequently performed under deep sedation. However, no studies of therapeutic ERCP have yet compared the use of balanced propofol sedation (BPS) to propofol alone, titrated to moderate levels of sedation.

AIM

This prospective, randomized, double-blind study was planned to compare the sedation efficacy and safety of BPS (propofol in combination with midazolam and fentanyl) and propofol monosedation in therapeutic ERCP and EUS.

METHODS

BPS, or propofol monosedation titrated to a moderate level of sedation, was performed by trained registered nurses under endoscopist supervision. The main outcome measurements included sedation efficacy focusing on recovery time, sedation safety, endoscopic procedure outcomes, and complications.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in sedation efficacy, safety, procedure outcomes, and complications, with the exception of recovery time. Mean recovery time (standard deviation) was 18.37 (7.86) min in BPS and 13.4 (6.24) min in propofol monosedation (P < 0.001). In a safety analysis, cardiopulmonary complication rates related to BPS and propofol monosedation were 7.8 % (8/102) and 9.6 % (10/104), respectively (P = 0.652). No patient required assisted ventilation or permanent termination of a procedure in either group. Technical success of the endoscopic procedures was 96.3 and 97.2 %, respectively (P = 0.701). Endoscopic procedure-related complications and outcomes did not differ depending on sedation procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol monosedation by trained, registered sedation nurses under supervision resulted in a more rapid recovery time than BPS. There were no differences in the sedation safety, endoscopic procedure outcomes, and complications between BPS and propofol monosedation.

Efficacy of Bispectral Index Monitoring for Midazolam and Meperidine Induced Sedation during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Propofol induced sedation with bispectral index (BIS) monitoring has been reported to lead to higher satisfaction in patients and endoscopists during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures. There are no data, however, regarding the efficacy of midazolam and meperidine (M/M) induced sedation with BIS monitoring during ESD. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether M/M induced sedation with BIS monitoring could improve satisfaction and reduce the dose of M/M required during ESD.

METHODS

Between September 2009 and January 2010, 56 patients were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to a BIS group (n=28) and a non-BIS group (n=28). Patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores were assessed using the visual analog scale (0 to 100) following the ESD.

RESULTS

The mean satisfaction scores did not significantly differ between the BIS and non-BIS groups (92.3±16.3 vs 93.3±15.5, p=0.53) or endoscopists (83.1±15.4 vs 80.0±16.7, p=0.52). Although the mean meperidine dose did not differ (62.5±27.6 vs 51.0±17.3, p=0.18) between the two groups, the mean dose of midazolam in the non-BIS group was lower than in the BIS group (6.8±2.0 vs 5.4±2.1, p=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

BIS monitoring during ESD did not increase the satisfaction of endoscopists or patients and did not lead to an M/M dose reduction. These results demonstrate that BIS monitoring provides no additional benefit to M/M induced sedation during ESD.

Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopist-directed propofol sedation (EDP) remains controversial. We sought to update the safety experience of EDP and estimate the cost of using anesthesia specialists for endoscopic sedation.

METHODS

We reviewed all published work using EDP. We contacted all endoscopists performing EDP for endoscopy that we were aware of to obtain their safety experience. These complications were available in all patients: endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and death.

RESULTS

A total of 646,080 (223,656 published and 422,424 unpublished) EDP cases were identified. Endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and deaths were 11, 0, and 4, respectively. Deaths occurred in 2 patients with pancreatic cancer, a severely handicapped patient with mental retardation, and a patient with severe cardiomyopathy. The overall number of cases requiring mask ventilation was 489 (0.1%) of 569,220 cases with data available. For sites specifying mask ventilation risk by procedure type, 185 (0.1%) of 185,245 patients and 20 (0.01%) of 142,863 patients required mask ventilation during their esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy, respectively (P < .001). The estimated cost per life-year saved to substitute anesthesia specialists in these cases, assuming they would have prevented all deaths, was $5.3 million.

CONCLUSIONS

EDP thus far has a lower mortality rate than that in published data on endoscopist-delivered benzodiazepines and opioids and a comparable rate to that in published data on general anesthesia by anesthesiologists. In the cases described here, use of anesthesia specialists to deliver propofol would have had high costs relative to any potential benefit.