SEDASYS(®), airway, oxygenation, and ventilation: anticipating and managing the challenges

A Comprehensive Analysis and Review of Artificial Intelligence in Anaesthesia

In the field of anaesthesia, artificial intelligence (AI) has become a game-changing technology. Applications of AI include keeping records, monitoring patients, calculating and administering drugs, and carrying out mechanical procedures. This article explores the current uses, challenges, and prospective applications of AI in anaesthesia practices. This review discusses AI-supported systems like anaesthesia information management systems (AIMS), mechanical robots for carrying out procedures, and pharmacological models for drug delivery. AIMS has helped in automated record-keeping, predicting bad events, and monitoring the vital signs of the patient. Their application has a vital role in improving the efficacy of anaesthesia management and patient safety. The application of AI in anaesthesia comes with its own unique difficulties. Noteworthy obstacles include issues with data quantity and quality, technical limitations, and moral and legal dilemmas. The key to overcoming these barriers is to set guidelines for the ethical use of AI in healthcare, improve the reliability and comprehension of AI systems, and certify the health data precision and security. AI has very bright potential. Exciting future directions include developments in AI and machine learning thus development of new applications, and the possible enhancement in training and education. Potential research areas include the application of AI to chronic disease management, pain management, and the reinforcement of anaesthesiologists' education. AI could be used to design authentic lifelike training simulations and individualized student feedback systems, hence transforming anaesthesia education and training methodology. For this review, we conducted a PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Database search in 2022-2023 and retrieved articles on AI and its uses in anaesthesia. Recommendations for future research and development include strengthening the safety and reliability of health data, building a better understanding of AI systems, and looking into new areas of use. The power of AI can be used to innovate anaesthesia practices by concentrating on these areas.

Emerging Approaches in Intravenous Moderate and Deep Sedation

Successful pharmacological innovations that have made a difference in daily practice are rare in the world of anesthesia and sedation. After many years of research, it seems that we finally have two new drug innovations that are likely to change the paradigm of moderate and deep sedation. These are oliceridine and remimazolam. Both have been in development for over a decade. Oliceridine was synthesized in a lab as an entirely new molecule. It is a biased μ- receptor agonist that acts preferentially on the G-protein pathway (which is responsible for analgesia). At least in lower doses, it has minimal effect on the beta-arrestin pathway, which is responsible for unwanted effects of μ-opioid receptor activation such as respiratory depression and gastrointestinal dysfunction. Like any other μ- receptor agonist, it produces appropriate dose-dependent analgesia. Remimazolam is structurally similar to midazolam; however, it has an additional ester linkage that delivers the kinetics of remifentanil. As a result, while pharmacodynamically identical to midazolam, remimazolam is metabolized by ester hydrolysis and subsequently its elimination is rapid and predictable. The present review discusses the two drugs in detail with a particular emphasis on their potential role in moderate and deep sedation.

Medical, Political, and Economic Considerations for the Use of MAC for Endoscopic Sedation: Big Price, Little Justification?

The last few decades of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy have seen phenomenal growth. In many aspects, GI endoscopy has led the field of nonsurgical interventional medicine. In many aspects, this growth is facilitated by advancements in sedation-both drugs and techniques. Unfortunately, the topic of GI endoscopy sedation is also mired in many controversies, mainly emanating from the cost of anesthesia providers. While no one debates their role in the majority of advanced endoscopic procedures, the practice of universal propofol sedation in the USA, delivered by anesthesia providers, needs a closer look. In this review, medical, political, and economic considerations of this important topic are discussed in a very frank and honest way. While such ubiquitous propofol use has increased satisfaction of both patients and gastroenterologists, there is little justification. More importantly, going by the evidence, there is even less justification for the mandated anesthesia providers use for such delivery. Unfortunately, the FDA could not be convinced otherwise. The new drug fospropofol met the same fate. Approval of SEDASYS^®, the first computer-assisted personalized sedation system, was a step in the right direction, nevertheless an insufficient step that failed to takeoff. As a result, in spite of years of research and efforts of many august societies, the logjam of balancing cost and justification of propofol sedation has continued. We hope that recent approval of remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, and potential approval of oliceridine, a novel short-acting opioid, might be able to contain the cost without compromising the quality of sedation.

Use of computer-assisted drug therapy outside the operating room

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The number of procedures performed in the out-of-operating room setting under sedation has increased many fold in recent years. Sedation techniques aim to achieve rapid patient turnover through the use of short-acting drugs with minimal residual side-effects (mainly propofol and opioids). Even for common procedures, the practice of sedation delivery varies widely among providers. Computer-based sedation models have the potential to assist sedation providers and offer a more consistent and safer sedation experience for patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Target-controlled infusions using propofol and other short-acting opioids for sedation have shown promising results in terms of increasing patient safety and allowing for more rapid wake-up times. Target-controlled infusion systems with real-time patient monitoring can titrate drug doses automatically to maintain optimal depth of sedation. The best recent example of this is the propofol-based Sedasys sedation system. Sedasys redefined individualized sedation by the addition of an automated clinical parameter that monitors depth of sedation. However, because of poor adoption and cost issues, it has been recently withdrawn by the manufacturer.

SUMMARY

Present automated drug delivery systems can assist in the provision of sedation for out-of-operating room procedures but cannot substitute for anesthesia providers. Use of the available technology has the potential to improve patient outcomes, decrease provider workload, and have a long-term economic impact on anesthesia care delivery outside of the operating room.

Is Unsedated Colonoscopy Gaining Ground Over Sedated Colonoscopy?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a prevalent cancer with high global incidence and a leading cause of cancer death worldwide. CRC screening is important for early cancer detection and prevention. Most premalignant adenomas can be identified and removed before they become malignant. Colonoscopy plays a vital role in reducing the risk for developing CRC. Although screening programs with colonoscopy have been implemented in many countries and considered beneficial for a number of people, this technique is generally associated with anxiety, embarrassment, pain, and discomfort, resulting in lack of adherence to the recommended screening guidelines. In the US, colonoscopy is mostly performed under sedation, thereby causing amnesia and analgesia. In contrast to sedated colonoscopy, which has been associated with some disadvantages, unsedated colonoscopy exhibits advantages and has been preferred over sedated colonoscopy in numerous cancer centers worldwide. This review enumerates the features of sedated and unsedated colonoscopy with the use of the current relevant evidence-based literature. Unsedated colonoscopy can be a reasonable option for routine and unscheduled CRC screening.

Airway Management During Upper GI Endoscopic Procedures: State of the Art Review

With the growing popularity of propofol mediated deep sedation for upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures, challenges are being felt and appreciated. Research suggests that management of the airway is anything but routine in this setting. Although many studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated the safety of propofol sedation administered by registered nurses under the supervision of gastroenterologists (likely related to the lighter degrees of sedation than those provided by anesthesia providers and is under medicolegal controversy in the United States), there is no agreement on the optimum airway management for procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Failure to rescue an airway at an appropriate time has led to disastrous consequences. Inability to evaluate and appreciate the risk factors for aspiration can ruin the day for both the patient and the health care providers. This review apprises the reader of various aspects of airway management relevant to the practice of sedation during upper GI endoscopy. New devices and modification of existing devices are discussed in detail. Recognizing the fact that appropriate monitoring is important for timely recognition and management of potential airway disasters, these issues are explored thoroughly.

Propofol and non-propofol based sedation for outpatient colonoscopy-prospective comparison of depth of sedation using an EEG based SEDLine monitor

Propofol is a popular anesthetic sedative employed in colonoscopy. It is known to increase the patient satisfaction and improve throughput. However, there are concerns among the clinicians with regard to the depth of sedation, as a deeper degree of sedation is known to increase the incidence of aspiration and other adverse events. So we planned to compare the depth of sedation between propofol and non-propofol based sedation in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy, as measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG) based monitor SEDLine monitor (SedlineInc., San Diego, CA). The non-randomized prospective observational study was performed in the outpatient gastroenterology suite of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Patients included ASA class I-III aged more than 18 years scheduled for colonoscopy under Propofol or non-propofol based sedation. After an institutional review board approval, a written consent was obtained from prospective patients. Sedation (propofol or non-propofol based) was administered by either a certified nurse anesthetist under the supervision of an anesthesiologist (propofol) or a registered endoscopy nurse under the guidance of the endoscopist performing the procedure (non-propofol sedation). Depth of sedation was measured with an EEG based SEDLine monitor. The sedation providers were blinded to the patient state index-the indicator of depth of sedation. PSI (patient state index-SEDLine reading) was documented at colonoscope insertion, removal and at the return of verbal responsiveness after colonoscope withdrawal. Sedation spectrum was retrieved from the data stored on the SEDLine monitor. Patients sedated with propofol experience significantly deeper degrees of sedation at all times during the procedure. Additionally, during significant part of the procedure, they are at PSI levels associated with deep general anesthesia. The group that received propofol was more deeply sedated and had lower PSI values. Lighter propofol titration protocols may lead to improved patient care such as lowering risk of aspiration and hypotension. The role of processed EEG monitors such as the SEDLine monitor to improve sedation protocols remains to be determined. Trial registration We obtained an ethical clearance from the Institute. No trial registration was mandated, as no interventional drug or investigational device were used during the study.

Safety of Non-anesthesia Provider-Administered Propofol (NAAP) Sedation in Advanced Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures: Comparative Meta-Analysis of Pooled Results

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAAP)-administered propofol sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures with those of anesthesia provider (AAP).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 519 publications, 26 were identified to meet inclusion criteria (10 AAPs and 16 NAAPs) and were analyzed. Data were analyzed for hypoxia rate, airway intervention rates, endoscopist, and patient satisfaction scores and total propofol administered.

RESULTS

Total number of procedures in NAAP and AAP groups was 3018 and 2374, respectively. Pooled hypoxia (oxygen saturation less than 90 %) rates were 0.133 (95 % CI 0.117-0.152) and 0.143 (95 % CI 0.128-0.159) in NAAP and AAP, respectively. Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates were 0.035 (95 % CI 0.026-0.047) and 0.133 (95 % CI 0.118-0.150), respectively. Pooled patient satisfaction rate, pooled endoscopist satisfaction rate, and mean propofol administered dose for NAAP were 7.22 (95 % CI 7.17-7.27), 6.03 (95 % CI 5.94-6.11), and 251.44 mg (95 % CI 244.39-258.49) in that order compared with 9.82 (95 % CI 9.76-9.88), 9.06 (95 % CI 8.91-9.21), and 340.32 mg (95 % CI 327.30-353.33) for AAP.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety of NAAP sedation compared favorably with AAP sedation in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures. However, it came at the cost of decreased patient and endoscopist satisfaction.

Goudra ventilating bite block to reduce hypoxemia during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

We describe the airway management of a patient presenting for ERCP with a bite block that allows positive pressure ventilation.