Comparison of propofol deep sedation versus moderate sedation during endosonography

Impact of endoscopist experience, patient age and comorbidities on dose of sedation and sedation-related complications by endoscopic ultrasound

AIM

The aim of the study is to investigate the influence of endosonographer experience and patient-related factors on the dose of sedation and sedation-related complications during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

METHODS

Our retrospective analysis included EUS investigations performed between 2015 and 2018 at our institution. Sedation-related complications were defined as cardiorespiratory instability with oxygen saturation drop below 90% or prolonged low blood pressure or bradycardia.

RESULTS

In total, 537 EUS examinations were analyzed (37.3% interventional). The median dose of propofol and midazolam were: 140 (30-570) and 3(1-7) mg, respectively. Sedation-related complications were documented in 1.8% of cases. All patients had transient, nonfatal respiratory insufficiency. Totally, 60% of the patients who developed complications were >75 years and 70% were male. The presence of cardiac and/or pulmonary comorbidities was associated with an OR = 8.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-41.7] and American Society of Anesthesiologists class III with an OR = 7.64 (95% CI, 1.60-36.3) for the occurrence of sedation-related complications. Endosonographer experience did not influence the rate of sedation-related complications. In both diagnostic and interventional EUS, patients with comorbidities and older age received significantly less sedation. Experienced endosonographers used less sedation than trainees.

CONCLUSION

Endosonographer experience, patient age and the presence of comorbidities had a significant influence on sedation dose. Sedation-related complications occurred only in 1.8% of cases.

A novel value-based scoring system for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a single-centre comparative study of plastic and lumen-apposing metal stents (NOVA study)

OBJECTIVE

Healthcare resources are finite. Value in healthcare can be defined as patient health outcomes achieved per monetary unit spent. Attempts have been made to quantify the value of luminal endoscopy, but there is little in the medical literature describing the value of the complex therapeutic endoscopic activity. This study aimed to characterise the value of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) with either plastic or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs).

METHODS

This is a single-centre, retrospective-prospective comparative study of 39 patients, who underwent EUS-guided PFC drainage between 2009 and 2018. Procedure value was calculated using the formula Q/(T/C), where Q is the quality of procedure adjusted for complications, T procedure duration and C is the complexity adjustment. Quality and complexity were estimated on a 1-4 Likert scale based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria. Time (in minutes) was recorded from the patient entering and leaving the procedure room. Endoscopy time calculated from procedure time was considered a surrogate marker of cost as individual components of procedure cost were not itemized.

RESULTS

Of 39 identified patients who underwent EUS-guided PFC drainage, 11 received double pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs) and 28 received LAMSs. The two groups were comparable in age, gender and aetiology. Nearly 40% of the LAMS interventions were considered high value but only 11% of the plastic stent interventions achieved the same. The difference predominantly was due to a higher rate of complications and longer procedure time.

CONCLUSION

In this single-centre study, EUS-guided PFC drainage using LAMS was found to be a higher value procedure compared to the use of DPPS.

Moderate versus deep sedation in adults undergoing colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing effectiveness and safety of moderate and deep sedation during colonoscopy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Central and Google scholar in May 2017 and updated in March 2018 to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness and safety of moderate and deep sedation during colonoscopy. The quality of studies was assessed using the "Risk of bias" tool. The primary endpoints were defined as patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction, incidence of recall and incidence of desaturation. Recovery time was also evaluated. Review Manager and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 919 patients from three studies were included in the final analysis. The combined analysis did not reveal any differences in patient satisfaction between moderate and deep sedation (RR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.04; P_chi² = 0.06; I² = 65%; number needed to treat to harm [NNTH] = 15.6; 95% CI: NNTH 7.8 to ∞ to number needed to treat to benefit [NNTB] = 3078.0), physician satisfaction (RR = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.02 to 6.95; P_chi² < 0.001; I² = 100%; NNTB = 1.6; 95% CI: 1.5 to 1.8), incidence of recall (RR = 5.82; 95% CI: 0.51 to 66.48; P_chi² = 0.11; I² = 60%; NNTH = 11.0; 95% CI: 7.5 to 20.5) or recovery time (mean difference = -6.77; 95% CI: -16.21 to 2.67; P_chi² < 0.001; I² = 99%). However, incidence of desaturation was higher in the deep group than in the moderate group (RR = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.99; P_chi² = 0.48; I² = 0%; NNTB = 56.7; 95% CI: 31.6 to 273.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation showed comparable safety and effectiveness to deep sedation with respect to patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction, incidence of recall and recovery time.

Pulmonary aspiration during procedural sedation: a comprehensive systematic review

Background

Although pulmonary aspiration complicating operative general anaesthesia has been extensively studied, little is known regarding aspiration during procedural sedation.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive, systematic review to identify and catalogue published instances of aspiration involving procedural sedation in patients of all ages. We sought to report descriptively the circumstances, nature, and outcomes of these events.

Results

Of 1249 records identified by our search, we found 35 articles describing one or more occurrences of pulmonary aspiration during procedural sedation. Of the 292 occurrences during gastrointestinal endoscopy, there were eight deaths. Of the 34 unique occurrences for procedures other than endoscopy, there was a single death in a moribund patient, full recovery in 31, and unknown recovery status in two. We found no occurrences of aspiration in non-fasted patients receiving procedures other than endoscopy.

Conclusions

This first systematic review of pulmonary aspiration during procedural sedation identified few occurrences outside of gastrointestinal endoscopy, with full recovery typical. Although diligent caution remains warranted, our data indicate that aspiration during procedural sedation appears rare, idiosyncratic, and typically benign.

Safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy with conscious sedation in obstructive sleep apnea

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety of conscious sedation in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed from inception until March 1, 2015. In an effort to include unpublished data, abstracts from prior gastroenterological society meetings as well as other reference sources were interrogated. After study selection, two authors utilizing a standardized data extraction form collected the data independently. Any disagreements between authors were resolved by consensus among four authors. The methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa tool for observational studies. The primary variables of interest included incidence of hypoxia, hypotension, tachycardia, and bradycardia. Continuous data were summarized as odds ratio (OR) and 95%CI and pooled using generic inverse variance under the random-effects model. Heterogeneity between pooled studies was assessed using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

Initial search of MEDLINE and EMBASE identified 357 citations. A search of meeting abstracts did not yield any relevant citations. After systematic review and exclusion consensus meetings, seven studies met the a priori determined inclusion criteria. The overall methodological quality of included studies ranged from moderate to low. No significant differences between OSA patients and controls were identified among any of the study variables: Incidence of hypoxia (7 studies, 3005 patients; OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.73-1.11; P = 0.47; I² = 0%), incidence of hypotension (4 studies, 2125 patients; OR = 1.10; 95%CI: 0.75-1.60; P = 0.63; I² = 0%), incidence of tachycardia (3 studies, 2030 patients; OR = 0.94; 95%CI: 0.53-1.65; P = 0.28; I² = 21%), and incidence of bradycardia (3 studies, 2030 patients; OR = 0.88; 95%CI: 0.63-1.22; P = 0.59; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSION

OSA is not a significant risk factor for cardiopulmonary complications in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures with conscious sedation.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound sedation in the United Kingdom: Is life without propofol tolerable?

There is compelling evidence to support the quality, cost effectiveness and safety profile of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). However in the United Kingdom, it is recommended that the administration and monitoring of propofol sedation for endoscopic procedures should be the responsibility of a dedicated and appropriately trained anaesthetist only. The majority of United Kingdom EUS procedures are performed with opiate and benzodiazepine sedation rather than anaesthetist led propofol lists due to anaesthetist resource availability. We sought to prospectively determine the tolerability and safety of EUS with benzodiazepine and opiate sedation in single United Kingdom centre. Two hundred consecutive patients undergoing either EUS or oesophago-gastroduodenoscopy (OGD) with conscious sedation were prospectively recruited with a 1:1 enrolment ratio. Patients completed questionnaires pre and post procedure detailing anticipated and actual pain experienced on a 1-10 visual analogue scale. Demographics, procedure duration, sedation doses and willingness to repeat the procedure were also recorded. EUS procedures lasted significantly longer than OGDs (15 min vs 6 min, P < 0.0001), however, there was no difference in anticipated pain scores between the groups (EUS 3.37/10 vs OGD 3.47/10, P = 0.46). Pain scores indicated EUS was better tolerated than OGD (1.16/10 vs 1.88/10, P = 0.03) although higher doses of sedation were used for EUS procedures. There were no complications identified in either group. We feel our study demonstrates that the tolerability of EUS with opiate and benzodiazepine sedation is acceptable.

Clinical analysis of moderate-to-deep-sedation by nonmedical sedation practitioners in 597 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether moderate-to-deep sedation with propofol and alfentanil can be administered safely by nonmedical sedation practitioners, and the outcomes of this practice in the Netherlands. We retrospectively analyzed the occurrence of sedation-related complications in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this study, 597 adult patients consecutively underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. The health status of the patients was screened according to a standardized protocol, and the patients were sedated by trained nonmedical sedation practitioners. Their vital signs were continuously monitored and recorded. All patients received oxygen, and the depth of sedation was continuously assessed and recorded. Mild and severe complications were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

All patients recovered uneventfully, and no mortality occurred. Overall, of the 597 sedated patients, 85 had mild and 4 had severe complications. Hypoxemia and upper airway obstruction, which were easily managed by trained nonmedical sedation practitioners, were the most common events. Hypotension was rare. No signs or symptoms suggestive of aspiration were reported.

CONCLUSION

Moderate-to-deep sedation has been and continues to be a risky medical procedure. Serious complications of propofol/opioid-based sedation, especially respiratory and cardiovascular adverse events, may occur. These complications need to be recognized rapidly and appropriately managed. Our study shows that well-trained nonmedical sedation practitioners can be entrusted to take responsibility for the safe administration of moderate-to-deep sedation.

Considerable Variability of Procedural Sedation and Analgesia Practices for Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures in Europe

Background/Aims:

The use of moderate to deep sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has increased in Europe considerably. Because this level of sedation is a risky medical procedure, a number of international guidelines have been developed. This survey aims to review if, and if so which, quality aspects have been included in new sedation practices when compared to traditional uncontrolled sedation practices.

Methods:

A questionnaire was sent to the National Associations of Nurse Anesthetists in Europe and the National Delegates of the European Section and Board of Anaesthesiology from January 2012 to August 2012.

Results:

Huge variation in practices for moderate to deep sedation were identified between and within European countries in terms of safety, type of practitioners, responsibilities, monitoring, informed consent, patient satisfaction, complication registration, and training requirements. Seventy-five percent of respondents were not familiar with international sedation guidelines. Safe sedation practices (mainly propofol-based moderate to deep sedation) are rapidly gaining popularity.

Conclusions:

The risky medical procedure of moderate to deep sedation has become common practice for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Safe sedation practices requiring adequate selection of patients, adequate monitoring, training of sedation practitioners, and adequate after-care, are gaining attention in a field that is in transition from uncontrolled sedation care to controlled sedation care.

High efficacy with deep nurse-administered propofol sedation for advanced gastroenterologic endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Whereas data on moderate nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) efficacy and safety for standard endoscopy is abundant, few reports on the use of deep sedation by endoscopy nurses during advanced endoscopy, such as Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) are available and potential benefits or hazards remain unclear. The aims of this study were to investigate the efficacy of intermittent deep sedation with propofol for a large cohort of advanced endoscopies and to provide data on the safety.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All available data from patients sedated with intermittent deep NAPS for ERCP, EUS or double balloon enteroscopy (DBE, since the method was implemented in May 2007 through December 2012 were included for evaluation in a retrospective case-control design.

RESULTS

Data from 1899 patients undergoing 1899 procedures were included for evaluation. All but one procedure were completed with intermittent deep NAPS. The mean propofol dose was 397 mg (SD: 232.4) and the infusion rate was 23.9 mg/kg. The frequency of hypoxia was 4.3 % and 20 patients needed assisted ventilation (1.1 %). Anesthesiologic support was requested eight times (0.4 %). One patient was intubated due to suspected aspiration.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermittent deep NAPS for advanced endoscopies in selected patients provided an almost 100 % success rate. However, the rate of hypoxia, hypotension and respiratory support was high compared with previously published data, but the method was still assessed as safe.

Cardiopulmonary safety of propofol versus midazolam/meperidine sedation for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study

Background:

Different levels of pharmacological sedation ranging from minimal to general anesthesia are often used to increase patient tolerance for a successful colonoscopy. However, sedation increases the risk of respiratory depression and cardiovascular complications during colonoscopy.

Objectives:

We aimed to compare the propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation methods for colonoscopy procedures with respect to cardiopulmonary safety, procedure-related times, and patient satisfaction.

Patients and Methods:

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, in which 124 consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient diagnostic colonoscopies were divided into propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation groups (n: 62, m/f ratio: 26/36, mean age: 46 ± 15 for the propofol group; n: 62, m/f ratio: 28/34, mean age: 49 ± 15 for the midazolam/meperidine group) by computer-generated randomization. The frequency of cardiopulmonary events (hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia), procedure-related times (duration of colonoscopy, time to cecal intubation, time to ileal intubation, awakening time, and time to hospital discharge) and patients’ evaluation results (pain assessment, quality of sedation, and recollection of procedure) were compared between the groups.

Results:

There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients, the frequency of hypotension, hypoxemia or bradycardia, cecal and ileal intubation times, and the duration of colonoscopy. The logistic regression analysis indicated that the development of cardiopulmonary events was not associated with the sedative agent used or the characteristics of the patients. The time required for the patient to be fully awake and the time to hospital discharge was significantly longer in the propofol group (11 ± 8 and 37 ± 11 minutes, respectively) than the midazolam/meperidine group (8 ± 6 and 29 ± 12 minutes, respectively) (P = 0.009 and P < 0.001, respectively). The patient satisfaction rates were not significantly different between the groups; however, patients in the propofol group experienced more pain than patients in the midazolam/meperidine group (VAS score: 0.31 ± 0.76 vs. 0 ± 0; P = 0.002).

Conclusions:

Midazolam/meperidine and propofol sedation for colonoscopy have similar cardiopulmonary safety profiles and patient satisfaction levels. Midazolam/meperidine can be preferred to propofol sedation due to a shorter hospital length of stay and better analgesic activity.

Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for advanced endoscopic procedures: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The optimum method for sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures is not known. Propofol deep sedation has a faster recovery time than traditional sedative agents, but may be associated with increased complication rates. The aim of the present study was to pool data from all available studies to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of propofol with traditional sedative agents for advanced endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials updated as of January 2013 were searched. Main outcome measures were procedure duration, recovery time, incidence of complications (hypotension, hypoxia), sedation level, patient cooperation and amnesia during advanced endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasonography, and deep small bowel enteroscopy.

RESULTS

Nine prospective randomized trials with a total of 969 patients (485 propofol, 484 conscious sedation) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled mean difference in procedure duration between propofol and traditional sedative agents was -2.3 min [95% CI: -6.36 to 1.76, P = 0.27], showing no significant difference in procedure duration between the two groups. Pooled mean difference in recovery time was -30.26 min [95% CI: -46.72 to -13.80, P < 0.01], showing significantly decreased recovery time with propofol. There was also no significant difference between the two groups with regard to hypoxia and hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol for advanced endoscopic procedures is associated with shorter recovery time, better sedation and amnesia level without an increased risk of cardiopulmonary complications. Overall patient cooperation was also improved with propofol sedation.

Complication rate of endosonography (endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound): a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Endosonography [endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration and endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided transbronchial needle aspiration] is increasingly used for lung cancer staging and the assessment of sarcoidosis. Serious adverse events (SAE) have been reported in case reports, but the true incidence of complications is yet unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the rate of SAE related to endosonography and to investigate associated risk factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane libraries were searched for eligible references up to April 2012 and these included studies reporting on linear EUS or EBUS for the analysis of mediastinal/hilar nodal or central intrapulmonary lesions. Case series describing complications were excluded. Reported complications were classified into SAE or minor adverse events (AE).

RESULTS

190 studies met the inclusion criteria. Information on follow-up was missing in half of the studies. In 16,181 patients, 23 SAE (0.14%) and 35 AE (0.22%) were reported. No mortality was observed. SAE were more frequent in patients investigated with EUS (0.30%) than in those investigated with EBUS (0.05%). Infectious SAE were most prevalent (0.07%) and predominantly occurred in patients with cystic lesions and sarcoidosis. In lung cancer patients, complications were rare.

DISCUSSION

Endosonography for intrathoracic nodal assessment seems safe for lung cancer patients and mortality has not been reported. For cystic lesions and sarcoidosis, there may be a small, but nonnegligible risk of infectious complications. The true incidence of SAE might be higher as accurate documentation of complications is missing in most studies.

Does sedation type affect colonoscopy perforation rates?

BACKGROUND

Sedation with propofol is gaining popularity. It is unclear whether sedation with propofol is associated with colonoscopic perforation.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare perforation rates during colonoscopy using sedation with or without propofol.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective case series study.

SETTINGS

Data from a tertiary center were analyzed. Demographics, method of sedation, and type of endoscopic procedure performed were collected.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent a colonoscopy from January 2003 to October 2012 were analyzed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Perforation rate expressed per 10,000 colonoscopies was measured.

RESULTS

A total of 118,004 colonoscopies were performed during the study period, with 48 perforations (0.041% or 4.1 per 10,000). Overall, the use of propofol was associated with a 2.5 times increased rate of perforation (6.9 vs 2.7 per 10,000; p = 0.0015). Similarly, in patients undergoing therapeutic colonoscopies, there was a 3.4-times increased risk of perforation associated with the use of propofol (8.7 vs 2.6 per 10,000; p = 0.0016). However, in patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopies, there was no significantly increased risk of perforation with the use of propofol (4.2 vs 2.9 per 10,000; p = 0.64). In univariate and multivariate analyses, there were no differential perforation risks on the basis of sex, but each decade increase in age was associated with an increased risk of perforation. In those patients having a therapeutic colonoscopy, age (per decade) and propofol use were independently and significantly associated with an increased perforation risk, with adjusted ORs of 1.32 (p = 0.04) and 3.38 (p = 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study with the potential for selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that propofol administration is associated with an increased risk of colonoscopic perforation among patients undergoing a therapeutic colonoscopy; however, this association was not evident in patients undergoing a diagnostic colonoscopy. Further studies, such as a prospective, randomized clinical trial, should be done to further evaluate this association.

Stepwise sedation for elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

AIM

To investigate stepwise sedation for elderly patients with mild/moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy.

METHODS

Eighty-six elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD and 82 elderly patients without COPD scheduled for upper GI endoscopy were randomly assigned to receive one of the following two sedation methods: stepwise sedation involving three-stage administration of propofol combined with midazolam [COPD with stepwise sedation (group Cs), and non-COPD with stepwise sedation (group Ns)] or continuous sedation involving continuous administration of propofol combined with midazolam [COPD with continuous sedation (group Cc), and non-COPD with continuous sedation (group Nc)]. Saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2), blood pressure, and pulse rate were monitored, and patient discomfort, adverse events, drugs dosage, and recovery time were recorded.

RESULTS

All endoscopies were completed successfully. The occurrences of hypoxemia in groups Cs, Cc, Ns, and Nc were 4 (9.3%), 12 (27.9%), 3 (7.3%), and 5 (12.2%), respectively. The occurrence of hypoxemia in group Cs was significantly lower than that in group Cc (P < 0.05). The average decreases in value of SpO2, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure in group Cs were significantly lower than those in group Cc. Additionally, propofol dosage and overall rate of adverse events in group Cs were lower than those in group Cc. Finally, the recovery time in group Cs was significantly shorter than that in group Cc, and that in group Ns was significantly shorter than that in group Nc (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The stepwise sedation method is effective and safer than the continuous sedation method for elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD during upper GI endoscopy.

Sedation and monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy

The safe sedation of patients for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures requires a combination of properly trained physicians and suitable facilities. Additionally, appropriate selection and preparation of patients, suitable sedative technique, application of drugs, adequate monitoring, and proper recovery of patients is essential. The goal of procedural sedation is the safe and effective control of pain and anxiety as well as to provide an appropriate degree of memory loss or decreased awareness. Sedation practices for gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) vary widely. The majority of GIE patients are ambulatory cases. Most of this procedure requires a short time. So, short acting, rapid onset drugs with little adverse effects and improved safety profiles are commonly used. The present review focuses on commonly used regimens and monitoring practices in GIE sedation. This article is to discuss the decision making process used to determine appropriate pre-sedation assessment, monitoring, drug selection, dose of sedative agents, sedation endpoint and post-sedation care. It also reviews the current status of sedation and monitoring for GIE procedures in Thailand.

Risk factors and prognosis of pulmonary complications after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired pneumonia after an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can prolong the patient's stay in the hospital, leading to greater healthcare costs. However, little is known of the characteristics and risk factors associated with this complication.

AIMS

To analyze the clinical features of pneumonia after ESD and to suggest a treatment plan.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study in which the cases of 1,661 consecutive patients who underwent ESD for 1,725 lesions between January 2008 and June 2011 were reviewed.

RESULTS

Of the 1,661 patients who underwent ESD during the study period, 38 were subsequently diagnosed with pneumonia, and an additional 18 patients exhibited lung consolidation, based on chest radiography, without respiratory signs or symptoms. The remaining 1,605 patients showed neither lung consolidation on chest radiography nor respiratory signs/symptoms. Continuous propofol infusion with intermittent or continuous administration of an opioid [odds ratio (OR) 4.498, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.267-8.923], a procedure time of >2 h (OR 2.900, 95 % CI 1.307-6.439), male gender (OR 2.835, 95 % CI 1.164-6.909), and age >75 years (OR 2.765, 95 % CI 1.224-6.249) were independent risk factors for pneumonia after ESD. In patients with only lung consolidation (without respiratory signs and symptoms), the length of hospital stay and prognosis were not affected by antibiotics use.

CONCLUSIONS

Deep sedation under continuous propofol infusion with opioid injection during ESD may be a risk factor for pneumonia.

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.

Diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography: Assessment of safety and prevention of complications

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has gained wide acceptance as an important, minimally invasive diagnostic tool in gastroenterology, pulmonology, visceral surgery and oncology. This review focuses on data regarding risks and complications of non-interventional diagnostic EUS and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). Measures to improve the safety of EUS und EUS-FNB will be discussed. Due to the specific mechanical properties of echoendoscopes in EUS, there is a low but noteworthy risk of perforation. To minimize this risk, endoscopists should be familiar with the specific features of their equipment and their patients’ specific anatomical situations (e.g., tumor stenosis, diverticula). Most diagnostic EUS complications occur during EUS-FNB. Pain, acute pancreatitis, infection and bleeding are the primary adverse effects, occurring in 1% to 2% of patients. Only a few cases of needle tract seeding and peritoneal dissemination have been reported. The mortality associated with EUS and EUS-FNB is 0.02%. The risks associated with EUS-FNB are affected by endoscopist experience and target lesion. EUS-FNB of cystic lesions is associated with an increased risk of infection and hemorrhage. Peri-interventional antibiotics are recommended to prevent cyst infection. Adequate education and training, as well consideration of contraindications, are essential to minimize the risks of EUS and EUS-FNB. Restricting EUS-FNB only to patients in whom the cytopathological results may be expected to change the course of management is the best way of reducing the number of complications.

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.

Balanced Propofol Sedation in Patients Undergoing EUS-FNA: A Pilot Study to Assess Feasibility and Safety

Introduction and aims. Balanced propofol sedation (BPS) administered by gastroenterologists has gained popularity in endoscopic procedures. Few studies exist about the safety of this approach during endosonography with fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). We assessed the safety of BPS in EUS-FNA. Materials and methods. 112 consecutive patients, referred to our unit to perform EUS-FNA, from February 2008 to December 2009, were sedated with BPS. A second gastroenterologist administered the drugs and monitorized the patient. Results. All the 112 patients (62 males, mean age 58.35) completed the examination. The mean dose of midazolam and propofol was, respectively, of 2.1 mg (range 1–4 mg) and 350 mg (range 180–400). All patients received oxygen with a mean flux of 4 liter/minute (range 2–6 liters/minute). The mean recovery time after procedure was 25 minutes (range 18–45 minutes). No major complications related to sedation were registered during all procedures. The oxygen saturation of all patients never reduced to less than 85%. Blood systolic pressure during and after the procedure never reduced to less than 100 mmHg. Conclusions. In our experience BPS administered by non-anaesthesiologists provided safe and successful sedation in patients undergoing EUS-FNA.

Propofol-based deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedure in sick elderly patients in a developing country

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of propofol-based deep sedation (PBDS) for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure in sick (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] physical status III-IV) and nonsick (ASA physical status I-II) elderly patients in a teaching hospital in Thailand.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective review of the anesthesia or sedation service records of elderly patients who underwent ERCP procedures from October 2007 to September 2008. All patients were classified into two groups according to the ASA physical status. In group A, the patients had ASA physical status I-II, while in group B, the patients had ASA physical status III-IV. The primary outcome variable of the study was the successful completion of the procedure. The secondary outcome variables were sedation-related adverse events during and immediately after the procedure.

RESULTS

There were 158 elderly patients who underwent ERCP procedure by using PBDS during the study period. Of these, 109 patients were in group A and 49 patients were in group B. There were no significant differences in age, gender, weight, duration of ERCP, indication of procedure, and the mean dose of fentanyl, propofol, and midazolam between the two groups. All patients in both groups successfully completed the procedure except eight patients in group A and three patients in group B (P = 0.781). Overall, respiratory and cardiovascular adverse events in both groups were not significantly different. All adverse events were easily treated, with no adverse sequelae.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of a developing country, PBDS for ERCP procedure in sick elderly patients by trained anesthetic personnel with appropriate monitoring was safe and effective. The clinical efficacy of this technique in sick elderly patients was not different or worse than in nonsick elderly patients. Serious adverse events were rare in our population.