Sedation-analgesia in elective colonoscopy: propofol-fentanyl versus propofol-alfentanil

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.

Esophagoduodenoscopy or colonoscopy: which should be done first?

Objectives

Esophagoduodenoscopy and colonoscopy can be done as bidirectional endoscopy in the same session. The aim of this study was to compare anesthetic requirements and hemodynamic effects in esophagoduodenoscopy or colonoscopy done first for bidirectional endoscopy.

Material and Methods

Eighty patients, aged 18-70 years with an American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification (ASA) as I-III, were included randomly into this study. The patients were allocated into two groups: Group C: first colonoscopy followed by esophagoduodenoscopy. Group E: first esophagoduodenoscopy followed by colonoscopy. All patients received standard anesthesia with 1 µg/kg fentanyl and 1 mg/kg propofol. Demographical variables, Heart rate SpO₂, Ramsey Sedation Score were recorded every 10 minutes. Total propofol consumption, retching during esophagoduodenoscopy and time to reach cecum were also recorded. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction were questioned.

Results

Retching during esophagoduodenoscopy was not statistically significantly different in both groups. Total procedure duration and esophagoduodenoscopy duration were statistically significant longer in Group E. Complication frequency was higher in Group E. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction were lower in Group E. There was no difference in time to reach the cecum and the recovering period. Additional propofol dose was increased in Group E.

Conclusion

Regarding shorter procedural duration, lower consumption amount of propofol and fewer complications, it could be a better choice to start bidirectional procedure with colonoscopy first.

A randomized controlled trial for measuring effects on cognitive functions of adding ketamine to propofol during sedation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of adding ketamine to propofol on cognitive functions in patients undergoing sedation for colonoscopy.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blinded, and controlled study, 200 patients were randomly allocated to ketamine/propofol admixture group (Group KP, n = 100), and propofol group (Group P, n = 100). Patients in Group KP received 0.25 mg/kg of ketamine and 0.5 mg/kg of propofol. Patients in Group P received 0.5 mg/kg propofol. Cognitive functions were measured using CogState battery before and after the colonoscopy procedure. Ninety five patients in Group KP and 92 patients in Group P had completed the CogStates tests and were included in the data analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with before procedure baseline, the performance on detection and identification tasks were significantly impaired after the procedure in both Group KP (P = .004, P = .001) and Group P patients (P = .005, P < .001). However, one-card learning accuracy and One-back memory was only impaired in Group KP patients (P = .006, P = .040) after the endoscopy but left intact in Group P patients. Group KP patients showed more severe impairment in one-card learning accuracy compared with Group P patients (P = .044). Group KP patients have better 5 minutes MAP (P = .005) and were also less likely to suffer from complications such as respiratory depression (P = .023) and hypotension (P = .015). OAA/S scores, BIS, MAP, complications, recovery times, and endoscopist and patient satisfaction were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Although adding ketamine to propofol for sedation in colonoscopy provided fewer complications such as respiratory depression and hypotension, it also causes more impairment in cognitive functions.

Screening individuals' experiences of colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy; a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

The standard investigation in colorectal cancer screening (optical colonoscopy [OC]) has a less invasive alternative with the colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The experiences of screening individuals are needed to support a decision aid (DA) and to provide a patient view in future health technology assessments (HTA). We aimed to explore the experiences of CCE at home and OC in an outpatient clinic by screening participants who experienced both investigations on the same bowel preparation.

METHODS

In a mixed methods study, Danish screening individuals with a positive immunological fecal occult blood test (FIT) were consecutively included and underwent both CCE and OC in the same bowel preparation. They answered questionnaires about discomfort during CCE, delivered at home, and during a following OC in the outpatient clinic. Data were calculated in percentages and Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for comparisons. Among the 253 included patients, 10 participants were selected for a semi-structured interview about their experiences of the two examinations. The analysis and interpretation of the transcribed data were inspired by Ricoeur.

RESULTS

Questionnaire data were received from 239 participants and revealed significant less discomfort during the CCE than the OC. Interview data included explained discomfort elements in two categories: 'The examination' and 'The setting'. Compared to OC, the CCE was experienced with less pain, embarrassment and invasiveness, but presented challenges and disadvantages as well, i.e., a large camera capsule to swallow, a longer waiting time for test results after CCE and an additional OC, if pathologies were found. The home setting for CCE delivery made the participants feel less like they were ill or patients less restricted and that they received more personal care, but could induce technical challenges.

CONCLUSION

In screening individuals, CCE at home was associated with significantly less discomfort compared to OC at a hospital, and multiple reasons for this was identified.

Safety of applying midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation combination under the supervision of endoscopy nurse with patient-controlled analgesia pump in colonoscopy

AIM

To compare the results of midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation performed by an endoscopy nurse and anaesthetist during colonoscopy in terms of patient satisfaction and safety.

METHODS

American Statistical Association (ASA) I-II 60 patients who underwent colonoscopy under sedation were randomly divided into two groups: sedation under the supervision of an anaesthetist (SSA) and sedation under the supervision of an endoscopy nurse (SSEN). Both groups were initially administered 1 mg midazolam, 50 mg ketamine and 30-50 mg propofol. Continuation of sedation was performed by the anaesthetist in the SSA group and the nurse with a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump in the SSEN group. The total propofol consumption, procedure duration, recovery times, pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and satisfaction score of the patients, and side effects were recorded. In addition, the patients were asked whether they remembered the procedure and whether they would prefer the same method in the case of re-endoscopy.

RESULTS

Total propofol consumption in the SSEN group was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than that in the SSA group. When the groups were compared in terms of VAS score, recovery time, patient satisfaction, recall of the procedure, re-preference for the same method in case of re-endoscopy, and side effects, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the two groups. No long-term required intervention side effects were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy sedation in ASA I-II patients can be safely performed by an endoscopy nurse using PCA pump with the incidence of side effects and patient satisfaction levels similar to sedation under anaesthetist supervision.

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.

Patient-controlled sedation with propofol/remifentanil versus propofol/alfentanil for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy, a randomized, controlled double-blind study

CONTEXT

Many techniques are used for sedation of colonoscopies. Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) is utilizing many drugs or drug combinations.

AIMS

The aim of this study is to compare the safety and feasibility of propofol/remifentanil versus propofol/alfentanil given to sedate patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopies through a patient-controlled technique.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

Controlled randomized and double-blind study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 80 patients were randomly divided into two groups; PA group received a combination of propofol/alfentanil and PR group received propofol/remifentanil combination. Patients were monitored for heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), oxygen saturation, and Ramsay sedation scale (RSS). Times of the following events were recorded; initiation of sedation, insertion and removal of the colonoscope, recovery and discharge. Five intervals were calculated; time to sedation, procedure time, postprocedure time, procedure room time, and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) time. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction scores were obtained.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Unpaired Student's t-test was used to compare between the two groups. Paired Student's t-test was used to compare baseline readings with readings after 30 min of sedation in the same group when needed.

RESULTS

Both groups showed slowing of the HR and decrease in mean arterial BP. HR and mean arterial BP were significantly lower 5 and 10 min after initiation of sedation in PR group when compared with PA group. Both HR and mean arterial BP returned to presedation readings 30 min after initiation of sedation in PR group but not in PA group. No differences between the two groups concerning oxygen saturation, RSS, endoscopist and patient satisfaction scores. Postprocedure and PACU times were significantly prolonged in PA group.

CONCLUSION

PCS with either remifentanil/propofol or alfentanil/propofol for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy is safe and feasible. Remifentanil/proofol has more beneficial advantages in this setting secondary to its more rapid clearance.