Special topics in procedural sedation: clinical challenges and psychomotor recovery

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation: A New Paradigm for Gastrointestinal Procedural Sedation

INTRODUCTION

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation (NAPCIS) is a new nonanesthesia propofol delivery method for gastrointestinal endoscopy. NAPCIS is adopted from the computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) protocol. We evaluated the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of NAPCIS in low-risk subjects.

METHODS

Between December 2016 and July 2017, patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at our center were compared against 2 historical control groups of similar patients who had undergone procedures with CAPS or midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation.

RESULTS

The mean age of the NAPCIS cohort (N = 3,331) was 55.2 years (45.8% male) for 945 esophagogastroduodenoscopies and 57.8 years (48.7% male) for 2,386 colonoscopies. The procedural success rates with NAPCIS were high (99.1%-99.2%) and similar to those seen in 3,603 CAPS (98.8%-99.0%) and 3,809 MF (99.0%-99.3%) controls. NAPCIS recovery times were shorter than both CAPS and MF (24.8 vs 31.7 and 52.4 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). On arrival at the recovery unit, 86.6% of NAPCIS subjects were recorded as "Awake" compared with 82.8% of CAPS and 40.8% of MF controls (P < 0.001). Validated clinician and patient satisfaction scores were generally higher for NAPCIS compared with CAPS and MF subjects. For NAPCIS, there were only 4 cases of oxygen desaturation requiring transient mask ventilation and no serious sedation-related complications. These low complication rates were similar to those seen with CAPS (8 cases of mask ventilation) and MF (3 cases).

DISCUSSION

NAPCIS seems to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy in low-risk patients.

Comparison of the Effects of Midazolam/Fentanyl, Midazolam/Propofol, and Midazolam/Fentanyl/Propofol on Cognitive Function After Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Drugs used for sedation/analgesia during gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, including midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol, result in short-term, reversible decline in cognitive function. This prospective cohort trial aimed to identify the sedative/analgesic regimen associated with the least impairment of cognition at the time of discharge.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective GI endoscopy were included. Patients investigated at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, received midazolam/fentanyl (M/F), whereas patients investigated at the Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Sydney, received midazolam/fentanyl/propofol (M/F/P) or midazolam/propofol (M/P). Patients underwent a computerized neurocognitive test, the CogState Brief Battery, before sedation and at discharge.

RESULTS

Patients in the M/F group who received gastroscopy (n=22) were administered midazolam 3.36 mg (±0.79 mg) and fentanyl 61.36 μg (±16.77 μg), those who received colonoscopy (n=50) were administered midazolam 3.98 mg (±1.06 mg) and fentanyl 74.50 μg (±24.48 μg), and those who received gastroscopy/colonoscopy (n=28) were administered midazolam 4.82 mg (±1.41 mg) and fentanyl 94.64 μg (±24.35 μg). Patients in the M/F/P group who received colonoscopy (n=45) were administered midazolam 2.77 mg (±0.55 mg), fentanyl 45.11 μg (±25.78 μg), and propofol 148.64 mg (±57.65 mg), and those who received gastroscopy/colonoscopy (n=36) were administered midazolam 2.64 mg (±0.472 mg), fentanyl 35.28 μg (±19.16 μg), and propofol 168.06 mg (±60.75 mg). Nineteen patients in the M/P group who received gastroscopy (n=19) were administered midazolam 2.37 mg (±0.04 mg) and propofol 13.68 mg (±37.74 mg). Neurocognitive scores were significantly lower in the postprocedure test compared with baseline scores for detection, identification, and one card learning (P<0.001). Postprocedure detection test scores were significantly impaired in the M/F group compared with the M/F/P and M/P groups. Predictors of poorer neurocognitive function were midazolam dosage >3 mg (P<0.006) and fentanyl dosage >50 μg (P<0.009).

CONCLUSION

The use of propofol in GI endoscopy allows for less exposure to midazolam and fentanyl and is associated with improved cognition at the time of discharge.

Computer-Assisted Propofol Sedation for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Is Effective, Efficient, and Safe

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) allows non-anesthesiologists to administer propofol for gastrointestinal procedures in relatively healthy patients. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use, we report our 1-year experience with CAPS for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

METHODS

Between September 2014 and August 2015, 926 outpatients underwent elective EGDs with CAPS at our center. All EGDs were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of CAPS. Procedural success rates, procedure times, and recovery times were compared against corresponding historical controls done with midazolam and fentanyl sedation from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in CAPS patients were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 56.7 years (45% male); 16.2% of the EGDs were for variceal screening or Barrett's surveillance and 83.8% for symptoms. The procedural success rates were similar to that of historical controls (99.0% vs. 99.3%; p = 0.532); procedure times were also similar (6.6 vs. 7.4 min; p = 0.280), but recovery time was markedly shorter (31.7 vs. 52.4 min; p < 0.001). There were 11 (1.2%) cases of mild transient oxygen desaturation (< 90%), 15 (1.6%) cases of marked agitation due to undersedation, and 1 case of asymptomatic hypotension. In addition, there were six (0.6%) patients with more pronounced desaturation episodes that required brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no other serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

CAPS appears to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing sedation for EGD in healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical controls.

Safety and Effectiveness of Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation in Outpatients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy are common outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures that frequently use sedation. We aimed to identify a protocol that combines safety with cost effectiveness.

METHODS

We collected data from consecutive outpatients (age, 20-98 y) who underwent diagnostic EGD (n = 117,661) or colonoscopy (n = 32,550) with propofol sedation from January 2006 through December 2016. Propofol was administered by a nurse via bolus injection using an age-adjusted standard protocol, up to a total of 200 mg. The primary outcome measure was occurrence of adverse events within 24 hours. Secondary outcome measures included rates of procedure success, respiratory depression, and other procedure-related adverse events.

RESULTS

The median dose of propofol administered for EGD was 77 mg (range, 20-160 mg) and for colonoscopy was 99 mg (range, 40-200 mg). Among patients undergoing EGD, those younger than 41 years required 1.5-fold more propofol than patients 61-80 years old. The only adverse event was the transient need for supplemental oxygen supply, required by 1950 patients (1.3%): 1689 undergoing EGD (1.4%) and 261 undergoing colonoscopy (0.8%). Patients were discharged after 60 minutes and at least 66,250 patients (44%) drove themselves from the hospital. None experienced a traffic accident within 24 hours after receiving propofol sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse-administered propofol monosedation using an age-adjusted standard protocol up to a maximal of 200 mg is safe and practical for outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction

Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used, but propofol sedation is becoming more popular because its unique pharmacokinetic properties make endoscopy almost painless, with a very predictable and rapid recovery process. There is controversy as to whether propofol should be administered only by anesthesia professionals (monitored anesthesia care) or whether properly trained non-anesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation. The deployment of non-anesthesia administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall health care costs without sacrificing sedation quality. This review will discuss efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction issues with various modes of sedation for non-advanced, non-emergent endoscopic procedures, mainly esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy.

The First US Clinical Experience With Computer-Assisted Propofol Sedation: A Retrospective Observational Comparative Study on Efficacy, Safety, Efficiency, and Endoscopist and Patient Satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) is now approved for moderate sedation of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I and II patients undergoing routine endoscopy. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS for routine clinical use, we compared patient and endoscopist satisfaction with CAPS versus midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective outpatient upper endoscopy and colonoscopy with CAPS were compared with concurrent patients sedated with MF. The primary end points were patient satisfaction (measured by the validated Patient Sedation Satisfaction Index [PSSI]), and endoscopist satisfaction (Clinician Sedation Satisfaction Index [CSSI]). Secondary end points included procedural success rates, polyp detection rates, adverse events, and procedure/recovery times. Multivariable regression was used for comparative analysis.

RESULTS

CAPS was utilized to sedate 244 patients, of whom 55 underwent upper endoscopy, 173 colonoscopy, and 16 double procedures. During the same period, 75 upper endoscopies, 223 colonoscopies, and 30 doubles were performed with MF on similar patients. For upper endoscopy, the procedural success rate was 98.2% for CAPS versus 98.7% for MF (P = .96), whereas for colonoscopy, the success rate was 98.9% vs 98.8% (P = .59). Colonoscopic polyp detection rate was 54.5% for CAPS and 59.3% for MF (P = .67). Procedure times were similar between CAPS and MF. For CAPS, the mean recovery time was 26.4 vs 39.1 minutes for MF (P < .001). One CAPS patient required mask ventilation, 4 experienced asymptomatic hypotension or desaturation, and 5 experienced marked agitation resulting from undersedation. For MF, 5 patients had hypotension or desaturation, and 8 experienced undersedation. For colonoscopy, the CAPS group had higher PSSI scores for sedation adequacy, the recovery process and global satisfaction, and higher CSSI scores for ease of sedation administration, the recovery process and global satisfaction. For upper endoscopy and doubles, the CAPS CSSI score was higher for the recovery process only. All P values were adjusted for confounding by using regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk patients, CAPS appears to be effective and efficient. CAPS is associated with higher satisfaction than MF for colonoscopies and, to a lesser extent, upper endoscopies.

One year experience with computer-assisted propofol sedation for colonoscopy

AIM

To report our one-year experience with computer assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) for colonoscopy as the first United States Medical Center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use.

METHODS

Between September 2014 and August 2015, 2677 patients underwent elective outpatient colonoscopy with CAPS at our center. All colonoscopies were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of the CAPS system, with the assistance of a specially trained nurse. Procedural success rates, polyp detection rates, procedure times and recovery times were recorded and compared against corresponding historical measures from 2286 colonoscopies done with midazolam and fentanyl from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in the CAPS group were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 59.9 years (48.7% male); 31.3% were ASA I, 67.3% ASA II and 1.4% ASA III. 45.1% of the colonoscopies were for screening, 31.5% for surveillance, and 23.4% for symptoms. The mean propofol dose administered was 250.7 mg (range 16-1470 mg), with a mean fentanyl dose of 34.1 mcg (0-100 mcg). The colonoscopy completion and polyp detection rates were similar to that of historical measures. Recovery times were markedly shorter (31 min vs 45.6 min, P < 0.001). In CAPS patients, there were 20 (0.7%) cases of mild desaturation (< 90%) treated with a chin lift and reduction or temporary discontinuation of the propofol infusion, 21 (0.8%) cases of asymptomatic hypotension (< 90 systolic blood pressure) treated with a reduction in the propofol rate, 4 (0.1%) cases of marked agitation or discomfort due to undersedation, and 2 cases of pronounced transient desaturation requiring brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no sedation-related serious adverse events such as emergent intubation, unanticipated hospitalization or permanent injury.

CONCLUSION

CAPS appears to be a safe, effective and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for colonoscopy in relatively healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical measures. There were few adverse events, and no serious adverse events, related to CAPS.

Acupuncture to improve tolerance of diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy in patients without systemic sedation: results of a single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial (DRKS00000164)

Background

Sedation prior to esophagogastroduodenoscopy is widespread and increases patient comfort. However, it demands additional trained personnel, accounts for up to 40 % of total endoscopy costs and impedes rapid hospital discharge. Most patients lose at least one day of work. 98 % of all serious adverse events occurring during esophagogastroduodenoscopy are ascribed to sedation. Acupuncture is reported to be effective as a supportive intervention for gastrointestinal endoscopy, similar to conventional premedication. We investigated whether acupuncture during elective diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy could increase the comfort of patients refusing systemic sedation.

Methods

We performed a single-center, double-blinded, placebo-controlled superiority trial to compare the success rates of elective diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies using real and placebo acupuncture. All patients aged 18 years or older scheduled for elective, diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy who refused systemic sedation were eligible; 354 patients were randomized. The primary endpoint measure was the rate of successful esophagogastroduodenoscopies. The intervention was real or placebo acupuncture before and during esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Successful esophagogastroduodenoscopy was based on a composite score of patient satisfaction with the procedure on a Likert scale as well as quality of examination, as assessed by the examiner.

Results

From February 2010 to July 2012, 678 patients were screened; 354 were included in the study. Baseline characteristics of the two groups showed a similar distribution in all but one parameter: more current smokers were allocated to the placebo group. The intention-to-treat analysis included 177 randomized patients in each group. Endoscopy could successfully be performed in 130 patients (73.5 %) in the real acupuncture group and 129 patients (72.9 %) in the placebo group. Willingness to repeat the procedure under the same conditions was 86.9 % in the real acupuncture group and 87.6 % in the placebo acupuncture group.

Conclusions

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation is safe and can successfully be performed in two-thirds of patients. Patients planned for elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation do not benefit from acupuncture of the Sinarteria respondens (Rs) 24 Chengjiang middle line, Pericard (Pc) 6 Neiguan bilateral, or Dickdarm (IC) 4 Hegu bilateral, according to traditional Chinese medicine meridian theory.

Trial registration

DRKS00000164. Registered on 10 December 2009.

On the Horizon: The Future of Procedural Sedation

Sedation plays an integral part in endoscopy. By achieving patient comfort, it allows for a better examination and enhances patient satisfaction. Various medications have been used, propofol being the current favorite. With emphasis on patient safety and quality of endoscopy, various new medications in different combinations are being used to achieve adequate sedation and not escalate the cost of the procedure. With the advent of newer medications and newer modalities to administer these medications, there is need for more specialized training for the endoscopist to feel comfortable while using these medications.