Guidelines for sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy

The efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Propofol is a commonly utilized anesthetic for painless colonoscopy, but its usage is occasionally limited due to its potential side effects, including cardiopulmonary suppression and injection pain. To address this limitation, the novel compound ciprofol has been proposed as a possible alternative for propofol. This study sought to determine whether there are any differences in the safety and efficacy of propofol and ciprofol for painless colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Single-centre, class A tertiary hospital, November 2021 to November 2022.

PATIENTS

Adult, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I to II and body mass index of 18 to 30 kg m-2 patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Consecutive patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive sedation for colonoscopy with ciprofol (group C) or propofol (group P).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the success rate of colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes were onset time of sedation, operation time, recovery time and discharge time, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, side effects (e.g. injection pain, myoclonus, drowsiness, dizziness, procedure recall, nausea and vomiting) and incidence rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

No significant difference was found in the success rate of colonoscopy between the two groups (ciprofol 96.3% vs. propofol 97.6%; mean difference - 1.2%, 95% CI: -6.5% to 4.0%, P = 0.650). However, group C showed prolonged sedation (63.4 vs. 54.8 s, P < 0.001) and fully alert times (9 vs 8 min, P = 0.013), as well as reduced incidences of injection pain (0 vs. 40.2%, P < 0.001), respiratory depression (2.4% vs. 13.4%, P = 0.021) and hypotension (65.9% vs. 80.5%, P = 0.034). Patients satisfaction was also higher in Group C (10 vs 9, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol can be used independently for colonoscopy. When comparing the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and propofol, a 0.4 mg kg-1 dose of ciprofol proved to be equal to a 2.0 mg kg-1 dose of propofol, with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction during the procedure.

The EC50 of propofol with different doses of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the dose-response relationship between dexmedetomidine and propofol in sedating patients and to determine the optimal dosage of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred fifty patients were divided into 5 groups, each receiving a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 µg/kg) or saline, with propofol for sedation. The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol was calculated using the modified Dixon up-and-down approach. Adverse effects, vital signs, procedure, and recovery times were recorded.

RESULTS

The EC50 of propofol in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, D0.8, and D1.0 were 3.02, 2.44, 1.97, 1.85, and 1.83 µg/mL, respectively. Heart rate in the dexmedetomidine groups decreased more than the NS group (P < .001). The mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the NS group experienced a decline compared to groups D0.8 and D1.0 when the plasma concentration and effect-site concentration reached equilibrium. Additionally, the respiratory rate was found to be lower in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, and D0.8 (P < .05). Recovery time in groups D0.8 and D1.0 was longer than the NS group (P < .05). Bruggemann comfort scales score was higher in group D1.0 (P < .05). No significant difference was found in the incidences of hypotension and bradycardia, and the dose of ephedrine and atropine. Respiratory depression was significantly reduced in groups D0.8 and D1.0 compared to the NS group.

CONCLUSION

A single dose of 0.6 to 0.8 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine should be recommended in combination with propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. And the EC50 of propofol is 1.97 to 1.85 µg/mL.

The Effects of Music Therapy on Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy in a Tertiary Care Hospital at Karachi, Pakistan: A Comparative Study

A colonoscopy is a procedure commonly used for the diagnosis of colorectal diseases but may be associated with high levels of anxiety and discomfort, which can lead to complications during sedation and decreased patient comfort and cooperation. This study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Karachi to assess the effectiveness of music therapy on pre-procedural anxiety, sedation requirements, pain, and procedure duration among patients undergoing colonoscopies. This comparative study included 110 outpatients. The intervention arm received non-lyrical soft music through earphones before and during the colonoscopy procedure, while the control group did not receive any music. In the intervention arm, significant reductions were seen in pre-procedural anxiety scores (p < 0.001), physiological measures (p < 0.001), sedation doses (p < 0.001), and procedure durations (p < 0.05). Control arm showed an increase in heart rate and systolic blood pressure (p < 0.001). Pain scores were similar for both groups. Music therapy is an effective tool to reduce patient anxiety pre- procedure. It is a simple, safe, and noninvasive relaxing intervention that could be used as an adjunct to sedative medications before and during the colonoscopy procedure.

Thoracic impedance pneumography in propofol-sedated patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A prospective, randomized trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of an ECG-based method called thoracic impedance pneumography to reduce hypoxic events in endoscopy.

DESIGN

This was a single center, 1:1 randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

The trial was conducted during the placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).

PATIENTS

173 patients who underwent PEG placement were enrolled in the present trial. Indication was oncological in most patients (89%). 58% of patients were ASA class II and 42% of patients ASA class III.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized in the standard monitoring group (SM) with pulse oximetry and automatic blood pressure measurement or in the intervention group with additional thoracic impedance pneumography (TIM). Sedation was performed with propofol by gastroenterologists or trained nurses.

MEASUREMENTS

Hypoxic episodes defined as SpO2 < 90% for >15 s were the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were minimal SpO2, apnea >10s/>30s and incurred costs.

MAIN RESULTS

Additional use of thoracic impedance pneumography reduced hypoxic episodes (TIM: 31% vs SM: 49%; p = 0.016; OR 0.47; NNT 5.6) and elevated minimal SpO2 per procedure (TIM: 90.0% ± 8.9; SM: 84.0% ± 17.6; p = 0.007) significantly. Apnea events >10s and > 30s were significantly more often detected in TIM (43%; 7%) compared to SM (1%; 0%; p < 0.001; p = 0.014) resulting in a time advantage of 17 s before the occurrence of hypoxic events. As a result, adjustments of oxygen flow were significantly more often necessary in SM than in TIM (p = 0.034) and assisted ventilation was less often needed in TIM (2%) compared with SM (9%; p = 0.053). Calculated costs for the additional use of thoracic impedance pneumography were 0.13$ (0.12 €/0.11 £) per procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional thoracic impedance pneumography reduced the quantity and extent of hypoxic events with less need of assisted ventilation. Supplemental costs per procedure were negligible.

KEY WORDS

thoracic impedance pneumography, capnography, sedation, monitoring, gastrointestinal endoscopy, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol has a favourable efficacy profile in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, however adverse events remain frequent. Emerging evidence supports remimazolam use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares remimazolam and propofol, both combined with a short-acting opioid, for sedation of adults in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy-, safety-, and satisfaction-related outcomes between remimazolam and propofol, both combined with short-acting opioids, for sedation of adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We performed sensitivity analyses, subgroup assessments by type of short-acting opioid used and age range, and meta-regression analysis using mean patient age as a covariate. We used R statistical software for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

We included 15 trials (4516 subjects). Remimazolam was associated with a significantly lower sedation success rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.991; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.984-0.998; high-quality evidence) and a slightly longer induction time (mean difference [MD] 9 s; 95% CI 4-13; moderate-quality evidence), whereas there was no significant difference between the sedatives in other time-related outcomes. Remimazolam was associated with significantly lower rates of respiratory depression (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.30-0.56; high-quality evidence), hypotension (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.35-0.51; moderate-quality evidence), hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.12-0.52; high-quality evidence), and bradycardia (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30-0.58; high-quality evidence). There was no difference in patient (MD 0.41; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence) and endoscopist satisfaction (MD -0.31; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.04; high-quality evidence) between both drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam has clinically similar efficacy and greater safety when compared with propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopies.

Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation of acupuncture points improves tolerance in adults undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGDS) is the most common diagnostic procedure for upper gastrointestinal diseases. It often causes discomfort and anxiety, which are only mitigated by systemic sedation. However, sedation poses additional risks of adverse cardiopulmonary events, increased medical costs, and prolonged recovery. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation of acupuncture points (Acu-TENS) is a non-invasive and innovative approach that induces analgesic effect during endoscopy. This trial is the first to be reported in English that explores the potential of Acu-TENS to increase patient tolerance during non-sedated elective diagnostic OGDS.

METHODS

A double-blinded randomized controlled trial involving 348 subjects was conducted at a tertiary hospital to evaluate the success rate of OGDS with Acu-TENS. Subjects aged 18-75 years scheduled for their first elective diagnostic OGDS were randomized into the intervention (Acu-TENS) and placebo arms. OGDS success was assessed based on subjects' satisfaction ratings on a Likert scale and procedure's technical adequacy. Secondary measures included subjects' willingness to undergo future OGDS under similar conditions, procedure duration, and the endoscopist's perceived ease of the procedure.

RESULTS

OGDS success rates were significantly higher with Acu-TENS (77.8%) than with the placebo (68.0%; odds ratio [OR] 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-2.66, p = 0.043). Subjects who received Acu-TENS expressed higher willingness for future OGDS (78.9%) than those who received the placebo (68.6%; OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.04-2.79, p = 0.031). Procedure duration were significantly shorter in the intervention arm (6.0 min) than in the placebo arm (10.0 min; p = 0.002). No adverse effects were reported, and endoscopists perceived similar procedure ease in both arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Acu-TENS improved OGDS success and enhanced patients' experiences during non-sedated OGDS. It demonstrated safety with no side effects and reduced the procedure completion time. It could be used as an adjunct in non-sedated diagnostic OGDS.

Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation in patients susceptible to hypoxemia during procedural sedation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hypoxemia is one of the most common adverse events during colonoscopy, particularly among patients who are diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) or are overweight. Consequently, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) ventilation for patients with high-risk hypoxemia during colonoscopy with sedation.

METHODS

In this trial, 127 patients who met the eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to the BPAP oxygen group and nasal cannula (NC) group. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoxemia.

RESULTS

Compared with the use of NC, BPAP ventilation exhibited a significant reduction in the incidence of hypoxemia, decreasing it from 23.8% to 6.3% (absolute risk difference, 17.5%; 95% confidence interval, 5.4-29.6; P = .006). Importantly, BPAP ventilation prevented the occurrence of severe hypoxemia (9.5% vs 0%; absolute risk difference, 9.5%; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-16.7; P = .035). In addition, the BPAP group required fewer airway interventions (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In individuals with OSA or overweight status, the use of BPAP ventilation during colonoscopy significantly reduced the incidence of hypoxemia. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2300073193.).

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine for gastroscopy: a double-blinded, randomized cross-over study in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVES

The benefits of topical pharyngeal anesthesia for gastroscopy remain under debate. Articaine, a local anesthetic with fast onset and offset of action as well as low systemic toxicity, could be a promising choice for topical anesthesia. The objective of this study was to assess whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine is beneficial in sedated gastroscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized double-blinded cross-over study included nine volunteers who underwent two gastroscopies under conscious sedation. One was performed with topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine and the other with placebo. Hemodynamic parameters including autonomic nervous system state were recorded prior to and during the endoscopic procedure. The endoscopist and the volunteer assessed the endoscopy after the examination.

RESULTS

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine resulted in less discomfort during esophageal intubation and higher patient satisfaction with the procedure. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine did not increase satisfaction or facilitate the procedure as rated by the endoscopist. There were no clinically relevant differences in hemodynamic parameters.

CONCLUSION

The use of articaine for topical pharyngeal anesthesia results in less intubation-related discomfort and better satisfaction.

Effect of esketamine on the ED50 of propofol for successful insertion of ureteroscope in elderly male patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol is effective and used as a kind of routine anesthetics in procedure sedative anesthesia (PSA) for ureteroscopy. However, respiratory depression and unconscious physical activity always occur during propofol-based PSA, especially in elderly patients. Esketamine has sedative and analgesic effects but without risk of cardiorespiratory depression. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether esketamine can reduce the propofol median effective dose (ED50) for successful ureteroscope insertion in elderly male patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

49 elderly male patients undergoing elective rigid ureteroscopy were randomly divided into two groups: SK Group (0.25 mg/kg esketamine+propofol) and SF Group (0.1 µg/kg sufentanil+propofol). Patients in both two groups received propofol with initial bolus dose of 1.5 mg/kg after sufentanil or esketamine was administered intravenously. The effective dose of propofol was assessed by a modified Dixon's up-and-down method and then was adjusted with 0.1 mg/kg according to the previous patient response. Patients' response to ureteroscope insertion was classified as "movement" or "no movement". The primary outcome was the ED50 of propofol for successful ureteroscope insertion with esketamine or sufentanil. The secondary outcomes were the induction time, adverse events such as hemodynamic changes, hypoxemia and body movement were also measured.

RESULT

49 patients were enrolled and completed this study. The ED50 of propofol for successful ureteroscope insertion in SK Group was 1.356 ± 0.11 mg/kg, which was decreased compared with that in SF Group, 1.442 ± 0.08 mg/kg (P = 0.003). The induction time in SK Group was significantly shorter than in SF Group (P = 0.001). In SK Group, more stable hemodynamic variables were observed than in SF Group. The incidence of AEs between the two groups was not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

The ED50 of propofol with esketamine administration for ureteroscope insertion in elderly male patients is 1.356 ± 0.11 mg/kg, significantly decreased in comparsion with sufentanil.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, No: ChiCTR2300077170. Registered on 1 November 2023. Prospective registration. http://www.chictr.org.cn .

Clinical and endoscopic characteristics of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in Egypt: a nationwide multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Egypt faces a significant public health burden due to chronic liver diseases (CLD) and peptic ulcer disease. CLD, primarily caused by Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, affects over 2.9% of the population nationwide, with regional variations. Steatotic liver disease is rapidly emerging as a significant contributor to CLD, especially in urban areas. Acid-related disorders are another widespread condition that can significantly impact the quality of life. These factors and others significantly influence the indications and findings of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed in Egypt.

AIM

We aimed to evaluate the clinico-demographic data, indications, and endoscopic findings in Egyptian patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in various regions of Egypt.

METHODS

This study employed a retrospective multicenter cross-sectional design. Data was collected from patients referred for gastrointestinal endoscopy across 15 tertiary gastrointestinal endoscopy units in various governorates throughout Egypt.

RESULTS

5910 patients aged 38-63 were enrolled in the study; 75% underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), while 25% underwent a colonoscopy. In all studied patients, the most frequent indications for EGD were dyspepsia (19.5%), followed by hematemesis (19.06%), and melena (17.07%). The final EGD diagnoses for the recruited patients were portal hypertension-related sequelae (60.3%), followed by acid-related diseases (55%), while 10.44% of patients had a normally apparent endoscopy. Male gender, old age, and the presence of chronic liver diseases were more common in patients from upper than lower Egypt governorates. Hematochezia (38.11%) was the most reported indication for colonoscopy, followed by anemia of unknown origin (25.11%). IBD and hemorrhoids (22.34% and 21.86%, respectively) were the most prevalent diagnoses among studied patients, while normal colonoscopy findings were encountered in 18.21% of them.

CONCLUSION

This is the largest study describing the situation of endoscopic procedures in Egypt. our study highlights the significant impact of regional variations in disease burden on the utilization and outcomes of GI endoscopy in Egypt. The high prevalence of chronic liver disease is reflected in the EGD findings, while the colonoscopy results suggest a potential need for increased awareness of colorectal diseases.

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Balanced propofol sedation is extensively used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) are common. In various clinical settings, the combination of dexmedetomidine with opioids and benzodiazepines has provided effective sedation with increased safety. The aim of this investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during ERCP.

METHODS

Forty-one patients were randomly divided into two groups: the dexmedetomidine (DEX) group and the propofol (PRO) group. Patients in the DEX group received an additional bolus of 0.6 μg kg-1 dexmedetomidine followed by a dexmedetomidine infusion at 1.2 μg kg-1 h-1, whereas the PRO group received 1-2 mg kg-1 of propofol bolus followed by a propofol infusion at 2-3 mg kg-1 h-1. During ERCP, the primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for > 10 s). Other intraoperative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes, including respiratory depression (respiratory rate of < 10 bpm min-1), hypotension (MAP < 65 mmHg), and bradycardia (HR < 45 beats min-1).

RESULTS

The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared to the PRO group (0% versus 28.6%, respectively; P = 0.032). Patients in the PRO group exhibited respiratory depression more frequently than patients in the DEX group (35% versus 81%, respectively; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in terms of hypotension and bradycardia episodes between groups. During the procedures, the satisfaction scores of endoscopists and patients, as well as the pain and procedure memory scores of patients were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with propofol, dexmedetomidine provided adequate sedation safety with no adverse effects on sedation efficacy during ERCP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200061468, 25/06/2022.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen reduced hypoxemia in patients undergoing gastroscopy under general anesthesia at ultra-high altitude: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hypoxemia can occur in people at ultra-high altitude (above 3500 m) even at rest, and patients undergoing gastroscopy under general anesthesia have higher risk of hypoxemia. Supplementary oxygen via standard nasal cannula (SNC) is the standard of care for most patients who undergo gastroscopy under general anesthesia, which provides oxygen flow up to 15 L/min. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) could deliver oxygen at a rate up to 60 L/min, which is recommended by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines. We speculated that the benefit with HFNC is more prominent in high-altitude areas, and aimed to compare the incidence of hypoxemia during gastroscopy under general anesthesia at ultra-high altitude with oxygen supply via either HFNC or SNC.

METHODS

The trial was registered at at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100045513; date of registration on 18/04/2021). Adult patients undergoing gastroscopy with anesthesia (estimated duration of anesthesia at ≥ 15 min) were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive HFNC oxygen or SNC oxygen. The primary outcome was hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for any duration). Secondary outcomes included severe hypoxemia (SpO2 < 75% for any duration or SpO2 < 90% but ≥ 75% for ≥ 60 s) and hypotension, as defined by reduction of mean arterial blood pressure by ≥ 25% from the baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 262 patients were enrolled: 129 in the HFNC group and 133 in the SNC group. All patients received the designated intervention. Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test and χ2 test were employed in the study. The rate of hypoxemia was 9.3% (12/129) in the HFNC group versus 36.8% (49/133) in the SNC group [risk ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.25(0.14-0.45); P < 0.001). The HFNC group also had lower rate of severe hypoxemia [0.0% (0/129) versus 11.3% (15/133); risk ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.03(0.00-0.55); P < 0.001, respectively]. The rate of hypotension did not differ between the 2 groups [22.5% (29/129) in HFNC group versus 21.1% (28/133) in SNC group; risk ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.07(0.67-1.69) ; P = 0.779].

CONCLUSION

HFNC oxygen reduced the incidence of hypoxemia during anesthesia in adult patients undergoing gastroscopy at ultra-high altitude.

Evaluation of a novel disposable endoscope for retroflexed endoscopic rubber band ligation of internal hemorrhoids: a randomized pilot study

PURPOSE

Retroflexed endoscopic rubber band ligation (ERBL) for treating Grade II and III internal hemorrhoids using disposable endoscopes has not been previously assessed. We therefore compared the safety and effectiveness of ERBL for internal hemorrhoids using novel disposable endoscopes versus traditional reusable endoscopes.

METHODS

This prospective randomized controlled trial involved 42 patients who underwent ERBL for Grade II and III internal hemorrhoids using either a disposable endoscope (n = 21) or a reusable endoscope (n = 21). Safety was assessed by the incidence of equipment failure, device-related adverse events, and in-procedure stability of vital signs. Effectiveness was assessed by the postoperative therapeutic effect, feasibility of retroflexed ERBL, and incidence of complications.

RESULTS

In terms of safety, no life-threatening events, equipment failure, or device-related adverse effects occurred during the procedures in either group. The rate of diastolic blood pressure stability was significantly different between the two groups (P = .049), but the rates of systolic blood pressure and heart rate stability were similar. In terms of effectiveness, the therapeutic effects on postoperative Day 30 were similar in both groups. Image clarity and endoscopic flexibility in the disposable endoscope group were mildly inferior to those in the reusable endoscope group, but without statistical significance. Matching between the endoscope and ligating device was 100% in both groups. The incidence of complications on postoperative Days 1 and 10 was not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with reusable endoscopes, disposable endoscopes are equally safe, feasible, and reliable in ERBL for internal hemorrhoids.

Analysis of the detection rate and clinical characteristics of early gastric cancer by painless gastroscopy and ordinary gastroscopy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the difference of early gastric cancer (EGC) detection rate and endoscopic characteristics between painless and ordinary electronic gastroscopy, and summarize the clinical data of gastric cancer (GC) patients.

METHODS

Clinical data of 72,000 patients who underwent gastroscopy in the First People Hospital of Huzhou (Zhejiang, China) from January 2016 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into painless gastroscopy group (observation group, 36,000 cases) and ordinary gastroscopy group (control group, 36,000 cases) according to the examination methods. The detection rate of EGC between the 2 groups and the endoscopic characteristics of EGC lesions between the 2 groups were compared, and the clinical data of GC were summarized.

RESULTS

Painless gastroscopy is safer than ordinary gastroscopy. The detection rate of GC and EGC in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < .05); the difference between the 2 groups in the detection rate of advanced GC was not statistically significant. The average length of EGC lesions in the observation group was significantly shorter than that in the control group (P < .05). The proportion of EGC with lesion length <2.0 cm in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < .05). The proportion of EGC lesions with type II morphology, normal or pallor mucosal color, and no rupture in mucosa in the control group were significantly lower than that in the observation group, respectively (P < .05). The proportion of EGC distributed in the cardia, fundus and corpus was higher in the observation group than in the control group (P < .05). The incidence of helicobacter pylori (HP) infection, precancerous diseases, first-degree relatives of GC patients, and risk factors in patients with GC was significantly higher than that in non-GC patients (P < .05), multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that these were independent influencing factors for the occurrence of GC.

CONCLUSION

Painless gastroscopy can effectively improve the screening and diagnostic efficiency of EGC, especially for EGC lesions that are not easy to expose the site, small in size, superficial, without obvious mucosal color change or without mucosal breakage. Therefore, the value of painless gastroscopy in EGC screening is worth further promotion and research.

Place of high-flow nasal oxygen in nonoperating room anesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article aims to assess the utility of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy in nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

The number of procedural interventions under deep sedation in NORA is still increasing. Administration of oxygen is recommended to prevent hypoxemia and is usually delivered with standard oxygen through nasal cannula or a face mask. HFNO is a simple alternative with a high warmed humidified flow (ranging from 30 to 70 l/min) with a precise fraction inspired of oxygen (ranging from 21 to 100%). Compared to standard oxygen, HFNO has demonstrated efficacy in reducing the incidence of hypoxemia and the need for airway maneuvers. Research on HFNO has primarily focused on its application in gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. Yet, it has also shown promising results in various other procedural interventions including bronchoscopy, cardiology, and endovascular procedures. However, the adoption of HFNO prompted considerations regarding cost-effectiveness and environmental impact.

SUMMARY

HFNO emerges as a compelling alternative to conventional oxygen delivery methods for preventing hypoxemia during procedural interventions in NORA. However, its utilization should be reserved for patients at moderate-to-high risk to mitigate the impact of cost and environmental factors.

Efficacy and safety of esketamine for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Objective

The role of esketamine in pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy is still unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of esketamine for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

Clinical trials of esketamine for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy were searched in eight common databases, up to October 2023. These clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). The risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as the effect sizes for dichotomous variables and continuity variables, respectively. When the heterogeneity test showed I2 < 50%, the fixed effects model was used for the meta-analysis and TSA; Otherwise, the random effects model was used for them.

Results

In terms of efficacy endpoints, the meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo or blank, esketamine significantly decreased recovery time by 2.34 min (WMD -2.34; 95% Confidence interval [CI] -3.65, -1.02; p = 0.0005) and propofol consumption by 0.70 mg/kg (WMD -0.70; 95% CI -0.98, -0.43; p < 0.00001), and increased mean heart rate by 4.77 beats/min (WMD 4.77; 95% CI 2.67, 6.87; p < 0.00001) and mean arterial pressure by 3.10 mmHg (WMD 3.10; 95% CI 1.52, 4.67; p = 0.0001), while induction time and mean blood oxygen remained comparable. TSA indicated conclusive evidence for these benefits. In terms of safety endpoints, the meta-analysis revealed that esketamine significantly reduced involuntary movements by 59% (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.22, 0.76; p = 0.005) and choking by 51% (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.26, 0.92; p = 0.03), while significantly increasing dizziness by 98% (RR 1.98; 95% CI 1.11, 3.56; p = 0.02) and there were no significant differences in total adverse events, respiratory depression, and vomiting. TSA demonstrated conclusive evidence for involuntary movements and dizziness. Low-dose analysis showed that esketamine at ≤0.3 mg/kg significantly reduced recovery time, propofol consumption and involuntary movements, and significantly increasing mean heart rate, with no increase in dizziness. The Begg's test (p = 0.327) and the Egger's test (p = 0.413) indicated no significant publication bias, yet the funnel plot suggested potential publication bias.

Conclusion

Esketamine is an effective adjuvant anesthesia for children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, the general dose of esketamine may increase the risk of dizziness, which can be avoided by administering a low dose (≤0.3 mg/kg).

Bispectral index monitoring for sedation in scheduled adult colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients should be closely monitored during procedures under sedation outside the operating room, but it is unclear which type of monitoring is best. We investigated the efficacy and safety of BIS monitoring vs conventional monitoring for sedation during colonoscopy.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind clinical trial in 180 patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to 1) the BIS group or 2) a control group, in which sedation was monitored with a BIS monitor or the Ramsay Sedation Score, respectively. The primary outcome was the rate of sedation-induced adverse events in both groups. Secondary outcomes were the characteristics of patients who developed adverse events, and time during colonoscopy when these events occurred, propofol and remifentanil dosage, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Univariate analysis showed fewer cardiopulmonary complications in the BIS group (41.11% vs 57.78% in controls; p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis found a significantly higher risk of adverse events in older patients (95% CI, 1.013-1.091; p = 0.0087) and in men (95% CI, 1.129-7.668; p = 0.0272). These events were observed at the hepatic flexure. No significant differences between propofol or remifentanil dosage, use of rescue medication, and patient satisfaction were observed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that BIS monitoring during sedation in scheduled colonoscopies reduces adverse respiratory events. Although its routine use in sedation does not appear to be warranted, clinicians should take steps to identify patients with a higher risk of complications who might benefit from this type of monitoring.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose esketamine for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy in adults: a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis

Object: The benefits of low-dose esketamine for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy remain unclear. As such, the present study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose esketamine for this procedure. Methods: Seven common databases were searched for clinical studies investigating low-dose esketamine for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. Subsequently, a meta-analysis was performed to synthesize and analyze the data extracted from studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Results: Meta-analysis revealed that, compared with propofol, low-dose esketamine in combination with propofol significantly reduced recovery time by 0.56 min (mean difference [MD] -0.56%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.05, p = 0.03), induction time by 9.84 s (MD -9.84, 95% CI -12.93 to -6.75, p < 0.00001), propofol dosage by 51.05 mg (MD -51.05, 95% CI -81.53 to -20.57, p = 0.01), and increased mean arterial pressure by 6.23 mmHg (MD 6.23, 95% CI 1.37 to 11.08, p = 0.01). Meanwhile, low-dose esketamine reduced injection pain by 63% (relative risk [RR] 0.37, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.49, p < 0.00001), involuntary movements by 40% (RR 0.60, 95% Cl 0.42 to 0.85, p < 0.005), choking by 42% (RR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.38 to 0.88, p = 0.01), bradycardia by 68% (RR 0.32, 95% Cl 0.18 to 0.58, p = 0.0002), hypotension by 71% (RR 0.29, 95% Cl 0.21 to 0.40, p < 0.00001), respiratory depression by 63% (RR 0.37, 95% 0.26 to 0.51, p < 0.00001), additional cases of propofol by 53% (RR 0.47, 95% Cl 0.29 to 0.77, p = 0.002), and increased hypertension by 1000% (RR 11.00, 95% Cl 1.45 to 83.28, p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in mean heart rate, mean oximetry saturation, delirium, dizziness, vomiting, tachycardia, and hypoxemia. Subgroup analyses revealed that, compared with other dose groups, 0.25 mg/kg esketamine afforded additional benefits in recovery and induction time, mean arterial pressure, involuntary movements, hypoxemia, and respiratory depression. Conclusion: Low-dose esketamine was found to be safe and effective for providing anesthesia during gastrointestinal endoscopy, with 0.25 mg/kg identified as the optimal dose within the dosage ranges examined. However, caution should be exercised when administering this drug to patients with inadequate preoperative blood pressure control.

Endoscopic features with associated histological and molecular alterations in serrated polyps with dysplasia: Retrospective analysis of a tertiary case series

BACKGROUND

Serrated polyps are incompletely understood lesions and include serrated sessile lesion (SSL) without or with dysplasia and traditional serrated adenoma (TSA).

AIMS

We investigated prevalence and characteristics of serrated lesions, especially SSL with dysplasia (mixed polyps).

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed data from consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy at a tertiary care center. Endoscopic and histopathological characteristics of identified lesions were studied. SSLs with dysplasia were molecularly analyzed for mutations and microsatellite instability.

RESULTS

Among 1147 patients, a total of 436 polyps were found, including 288 adenomas (66.1 %) and 114 serrated lesions (SLDR 26.2 %). PDR was 34.5 % and ADR was of 30.2 %. Serrated lesions included 75 hyperplastic polyps (17.2 %), 24 SSLs without dysplasia (5.5 %), 6 SSLs with dysplasia (mixed polyps) (1.4 %) and 9 TSA (2.1 %). The mixed polyps were evaluated molecularly: these analyses found no KRAS mutation, a single NRAS mutation in one lesion, the Val600Glu BRAF mutation in four lesions in both their serrated non-dysplastic and dysplastic areas, and microsatellite instability in four lesions, limited to the dysplastic areas.

CONCLUSION

Our single-center experience confirms the high prevalence of serrated lesions, a part of which are SSL with dysplasia. These lesions seem to carry specific molecular alterations.

Propofol sedation does not improve measures of colonoscopy quality but increase cost - findings from a large population-based cohort study

Background

Propofol is often used for sedation during colonoscopy. We assessed the impact of propofol sedation on colonoscopy related quality metrics and cost in a population-based cohort study.

Methods

All colonoscopies performed at 21 hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada, during an 18-month period, from April 1, 2017 to October 31, 2018, using either propofol or conscious sedation were evaluated. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and secondary outcomes were sessile serrated polyp detection rate (ssPDR), polyp detection rate (PDR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and perforation rate. Binary outcomes were assessed using a modified Poisson regression model adjusted for clustering and potential confounders based on patient, procedure, and physician characteristics.

Findings

A total of 46,634 colonoscopies were performed, of which 16,408 (35.2%) received propofol and 30,226 (64.8%) received conscious sedation. Compared to conscious sedation, the use of propofol was associated with a lower ADR (24.6% vs. 27.0%, p < 0.0001) but not ssPDR (5.0% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.26), PDR (40.5% vs 40.4%, p = 0.79), CIR (97.1% vs. 96.8%, p = 0.15) or perforation rate (0.04% vs. 0.06%, p = 0.45). On multi-variable analysis, propofol sedation was not associated with any differences in ADR (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.74-1.10, p = 0.30), ssPDR (RR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.90-1.60, p = 0.22), PDR (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.90-1.11, p = 0.99), or CIR (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.26, p = 0.99). The additional cost associated with propofol sedation was $12,730,496 for every 100,000 cases.

Interpretation

The use of propofol sedation was not associated with improved colonoscopy related quality metrics but increased costs. The routine use of propofol for colonoscopy should be reevaluated.

Funding

None.

Quality Standards in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Can Deep Sedation Influence It?

Introduction

According to the guideline published by ESGE/UEG, a high-quality esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) implies the application of some criteria that enable better healthcare outcomes. Although intra-procedural performance measures are dependent on patient factors, there is no reference to sedation practices in the guideline mentioned above.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate whether deep sedation influences EGD performance measures established by ESGE/UEG.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study, with a prospective enrollment, that considered for inclusion consecutive patients referred for EGD. Two questionnaires were used to assess performance measures and patient satisfaction after EGD.

Results

Sedation had a statistically significant impact on most quality indicators, including complete examination (77.2% without sedation vs. 97.8% with sedation), inspection time (6.17 ± 3.45 vs. 8.39 ± 2.67 min), photodocumentation (78% vs. 97.8%), biopsies (39.3% vs. 60.7%), and patient satisfaction (5.42 ± 2.93 vs. 9.1 ± 1.19). The main reason for an incomplete procedure was patient intolerance (82.6%).

Discussion

Deep sedation of patients submitted to EGD proved to be a determinant in the applicability of the ESGE/UEG quality indicators. Patient intolerance was eliminated in the group with sedation, enhancing procedure completeness, adequate pathology identification, management, and consequently, the effectiveness of the exam.

Conclusion

Sedation administration should be considered in patients undergoing EGD since it ensures a high-quality procedure.

Efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for curative endoscopic resection in colorectum: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Curative endoscopic resection is widely used to treat colonic polyps and early stage cancers. The anesthetic strategy commonly involves the use of propofol combined with a small dose of opioids for sedation. Adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events such as hypotension often occur when attempting to achieve the necessary level of sedation. Several studies have suggested its advantages owing to the anesthetic, analgesic, and sympathomimetic properties of esketamine. However, there are no reports on curative colorectal endoscopic resection. We designed this randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for sedation in patients undergoing curative colorectal endoscopic resection.

METHODS

A total of 166 patients who underwent curative colorectal endoscopic resection were randomly assigned to groups A (propofol + fentanyl) or E (propofol + esketamine). Ideal sedation was assessed using the MOAA/S scale and was achieved using TCI-propofol with different doses of fentanyl and esketamine. The propofol consumption and vasoactive drug dosages were recorded. Sedation-related times, adverse events, and satisfaction were recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 160 patients, the total propofol consumption was significantly lower in group E (n = 81) (300 mg) than in group A (n = 79) (350 mg). Hypotension and bradycardia were significantly lower in Group E than in Group A. The groups showed no significant differences in other adverse events, induction time, recovery time, or patient or endoscopist satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Compared to fentanyl, esketamine helps decrease propofol consumption and increases cardiovascular stability during curative colorectal endoscopic resection in American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I-III patients without affecting anesthesia, patient and endoscopist satisfaction, or other adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was retrospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( www.chictr.org.cn ; registration number: ChiCTR2300069014 on 03/03/2023).

Effect of moderate versus deep sedation on recovery following outpatient gastroscopy in older patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation is increasingly performed in older patients, the optimal level of sedation remains open to debate. In this study, our objective was to compare the effects of moderate sedation (MS) and deep sedation (DS) on recovery following outpatient gastroscopy in elderly patients.

METHODS

In this randomized, partially blinded, controlled trial, we randomly divided 270 patients older than 60 years who were scheduled for elective outpatient gastroscopy into the MS or DS group based on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale. The primary outcome was the duration of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Secondary outcomes included the duration of the total hospital stay, frequency of retching, bucking, and body movements during the examination, endoscopist and patient satisfaction, and sedation-associated adverse events during the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 264 patients completed the study, of whom 131 received MS and 133 received DS. MS was associated with a shorter PACU stay [16.15 ± 9.01 min vs. 20.02 ± 11.13 min, P < 0.01] and total hospital stay [27.32 ± 9.86 min vs. 30.82 ± 12.37 min, P < 0.05], lesser hypoxemia [2.3% (3/131) vs. 12.8% (17/133), P < 0.01], use of fewer vasoactive drugs (P < 0.001), and more retching (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the incidence of bucking and body movements or endoscopist and patient satisfaction between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared to deep sedation, moderate sedation may be a preferable choice for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade I-III elderly patients undergoing outpatient gastroscopies, as demonstrated by shorter PACU stays and total hospital stays, lower sedation-associated adverse events, and similar levels of endoscopist and patient satisfaction.

Quality indicators of endoscopic ultrasound in the pancreatobiliary system: a brief review of current guidelines

Since its development, the use of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the pancreas and the biliary tract has become increasingly important. The accuracy of EUS varies depending on the experience of the endoscopist. Hence, quality control measures using appropriate indicators are required to reduce these variations. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy have announced the EUS quality indicators. Here, we reviewed the quality indicators of the EUS procedure in the current published guidelines.

Baseline Cannabinoid Use Is Associated with Increased Sedation Requirements for Outpatient Endoscopy

Background and Aims: Given the underlying properties of cannabinoids, we aimed to assess associations between cannabinoid use and sedation requirements for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted at three endoscopy units. Adult outpatients undergoing EGD or colonoscopy with endoscopist-directed conscious sedation (EDCS) were given questionnaires on cannabinoid use and relevant parameters. Outcomes included intraprocedural midazolam, fentanyl, and diphenhydramine use, procedural tolerability, and adverse events. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to yield adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of outcomes. Results: A total of 419 patients were included. Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with high midazolam use, defined as ≥5 mg, during EGD (AOR 2.89, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.19-7.50), but not during colonoscopy (AOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41-1.91). Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with the administration of any diphenhydramine during EGD (AOR 3.04, 95% CI: 1.29-7.30) with a similar nonsignificant trend for colonoscopy (AOR 2.36, 95% CI: 0.81-7.04). Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with increased odds of requiring high total sedation, defined as any of midazolam ≥5 mg, fentanyl ≥100 mcg, or any diphenhydramine during EGD (AOR 3.72, 95% CI: 1.35-11.68). Cannabinoid use was not independently associated with fentanyl use, intraprocedural awareness, discomfort, or adverse events. Conclusions: Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with higher sedation use during endoscopy with EDCS, particularly with midazolam and diphenhydramine. Given increasingly widespread cannabinoid use, endoscopists should be equipped with optimal sedation strategies for this population. As part of the informed consent process, cannabis users should be counseled that they may require higher sedation doses to achieve the same effect.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Ketamine and Moderate Sedation for Outpatient Endoscopy in Adults

INTRODUCTION

Ketamine is an effective sedative agent in a variety of settings due to its desirable properties including preservation of laryngeal reflexes and lack of cardiovascular depression. We hypothesized that ketamine is an effective alternative to standard moderate sedation (SMS) regimens for patients undergoing endoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing ketamine to SMS for outpatient colonoscopy or esophagogastroduodenoscopy at Brooke Army Medical Center. The ketamine group received a 1-mg dose of midazolam along with ketamine, whereas the SMS group received midazolam/fentanyl. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction measured using the Patient Satisfaction in Sedation Instrument, and secondary outcomes included changes in hemodynamics, time to sedation onset and recovery, and total medication doses.

RESULTS

Thirty-three subjects were enrolled in each group. Baseline characteristics were similar. Endoscopies were performed for both diagnostic and screening purposes. Ketamine was superior in the overall sedation experience and in all analyzed categories compared to the SMS group (P = .0096). Sedation onset times and procedure times were similar among groups. The median ketamine dose was 75 mg. The median fentanyl and midazolam doses were 150 mcg and 5 mg, respectively, in SMS. Vital signs remained significantly closer to the physiological baseline in the ketamine group (P = .004). Recovery times were no different between the groups, and no adverse reactions were encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine is preferred by patients, preserves hemodynamics better than SMS, and can be safely administered by endoscopists. Data suggest that ketamine is a safe and effective sedation option for patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03461718).

Effects of adding adjuvants to propofol on the post-anesthesia cognitive function in patients undergoing gastroscopy/colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to elucidate the effects of propofol plus adjuvants on postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

Studies published up to September 2023 on the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Sinomed, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Clinictrials.gov websites were searched. Binary summary of results was used for meta-analyses.

RESULTS

We included 18 studies (2691 patients). The combined sedation did not affect the processing speed (ES = 0.02, 95%CI: -0.01, 0.04; I2 = 79.3%, p < 0.001), attention (ES = 0.02, 95%CI: -0.02, 0.05; I2 = 95.0%, p < 0.001), nor working memory (ES = 0.02, 95%CI: -0.03, 0.06; I2 = 94.4%, p < 0.001) in CogState brief battery tool. A significant effect of combined sedation was observed in the domain of visual learning in CogState tool (ES = -0.03, 95%CI: -0.04, -0.02; I2 = 15.8%, p = 0.306). The TDT (ES = 4.96, 95%CI: 2.92, 7.00) indicates that combined sedation would increase error rates in the tests of cognitive function. The DSST (ES = 0.16, 95% CI: -0.44, 0.75) shown that combined sedation does not affect cognitive function. In addition, an insignificant difference in patient satisfaction between combined sedation and propofol alone was observed (ES = -0.03, 95%CI: -0.09, 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The available evidence suggests that propofol combined with adjuvants may affect POCD but not patient satisfaction.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY2023110092.

Measuring Size of Colorectal Polyps Using a Virtual Scale Endoscope or Visual Assessment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of polyp size measurements using a virtual scale endoscope (VSE) with an integrated laser-based adaptive scale function and visual assessment (VA) during colonoscopies.

METHODS

We conducted a single-blinded, prospective randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients (aged 45-80 years) undergoing screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopies were randomly assigned (1:1) into 2 groups. In the intervention group, all detected polyps were measured for size using VSE; in the control group, all polyps were measured using VA. Size measurements were compared with a reference standard of digital caliper measurement immediately post polypectomy. The primary outcome was the relative accuracy of real-time VSE measurement compared with VA. Secondary outcomes included the mean differences and the correlations between VSE or VA sizes and the reference standard of measurement.

RESULTS

Overall, 230 patients were enrolled and randomized. The relative size measurement accuracy of VSE was 84% in 118 polyps, which was significantly higher than that of VA (105 polyps; 68.4%, P < 0.001). VSE resulted in a significantly higher percentage of size measurements within 25% of true size compared with VA (81.4% vs 41%, P < 0.001). VSE had a significantly lower percentage for >5-mm polyps incorrectly sized as 1-5 mm compared with VA (13.5% vs 57.1%; P < 0.001) and a significantly lower percentage for >3-mm polyps incorrectly sized as 1-3 mm compared with VA (11.3% vs 56.5%; P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

VSE significantly improves the size measurement accuracy of colorectal polyps during colonoscopies compared with VA and results in fewer misclassifications at relevant decision-making size thresholds.

Supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation improves oxygenation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE

Hypoxia is one of the most frequent adverse events under deep sedation in the semiprone position. We hypothesized that supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation (SJOV) via Wei nasal jet tube (WNJ) can reduce the incidence of hypoxia in patients under deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

A total of 171 patients were divided into three groups: N group, supplementary oxygen via a nasopharyngeal airway (4-6 L/min); W group, supplementary oxygen via WNJ (4-6 L/min); WS group, SJOV via WNJ. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse events, including sedation-related adverse events [SRAEs, hypoxemia (SpO2 = 75-89% lasted less than 60 s); severe hypoxemia (SpO2 < 75% at any time or SpO2 < 90% lasted more than 60 s] and subclinical respiratory depression (SpO2 = 90-95%). Other intraoperative and post-operative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Compared with the N group, the incidence of hypoxemia and subclinical respiratory depression in the WS group was significantly lower (21% vs. 4%, P = 0.005; 27% vs. 6%, P = 0.002). Compared with Group W, the incidence of hypoxemia and subclinical respiratory depression in Group WS was also significantly less frequent (20% vs. 4%, P = 0.009; 21% vs. 6%, P = 0.014). No severe hypoxia occurred in the group WS, while four and one instances were observed in the group N and group W respectively. There were no significant differences in other adverse events among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

SJOV can effectively improve oxygenation during ERCP in deeply sedated semiprone patients.

Effective doses of ciprofol combined with alfentanil in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion, a prospective, single-arm, single-center study

BACKGROUND

Ciprofol is a novel intravenous sedative and anesthetic. Studies have shown that it features a rapid onset of action, a fast recovery time, slight inhibition of respiratory and cardiovascular functions, and a low incidence of adverse reactions. This study aims to explore the median effective dose (ED50) and the 95% effective dose (ED95) of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion when combined with a low dose of alfentanil, and to evaluate its safety, to provide a reference for the rational use of ciprofol in clinical practices.

METHODS

We included 25 patients aged 18-64 years of either sex who underwent gastroscopy under intravenous general anesthesia, with a Body Mass Index (BMI) 18-28 kg/m2, and an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I or II. In this study, the dose-finding strategy of ciprofol followed a modified Dixon's up-and-down method with an initial dose of 0.30 mg/kg and an increment of 0.02 mg/kg. Ciprofol was administered after intravenous injection of 7 µg/kg of alfentanil, and 2 min later a gastroscope was inserted. When the insertion response of one participant was positive (including body movement, coughing, and eye opening), an escalation of 0.02 mg/kg would be given to the next participant; otherwise, a de-escalation of 0.02 mg/kg would be administered. The study was terminated when negative response and positive response alternated 8 times. A Probit model was used to calculate the ED50 and ED95 of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion when combined with alfentanil. Patients' recovery time, discharge time, vital signs and occurrence of adverse reactions were recorded.

RESULTS

The ED50 of single-dose intravenous ciprofol injection with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil in inhibiting gastroscope insertion responses was 0.217 mg/kg, and the ED95 was 0.247 mg/kg. Patients' recovery time and discharge time were 11.04 ± 1.49 min and 9.64 ± 2.38 min, respectively. The overall incidence of adverse reactions was 12%.

CONCLUSION

The ED50 of ciprofol combined with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil in inhibiting gastroscope insertion responses was 0.217 mg/kg, and the ED95 was 0.247 mg/kg. Ciprofol showed a low incidence of anesthesia-related adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2200061727).

How to implement adverse events as a quality indicator in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Quality improvement through the registration of endoscopy-related adverse events (AEs) has been recognized by major international endoscopy societies as an important quality indicator. The theory behind this is easier to approve than its implementation in daily practice. The results of many valuable attempts have been published in the literature, mainly highlighting the diverse hurdles trying to capture events related to endoscopy and the sedation used for endoscopic procedures. The current review discusses the difficulties encountered attempting to register AEs and incidents related to endoscopic procedures. Government-driven and financed health-care databases with automated coupling of specific data seem the only efficient way to implement endoscopy-related AEs and outcomes on a prospective and complete basis. This will not only allow continuous confidential feedback to endoscopists in relation to the pooled national benchmark data, but also follow-up in time through data-driven credentialing aiming to progressively optimize these benchmark data.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on outcomes in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (GEPs) are frequently employed for the diagnosis and treatment of various gastrointestinal ailments. While propofol sedation is widely used during these procedures, there is a concern regarding its potential negative effects. Intravenous (IV) lidocaine has been suggested as an add-on to propofol sedation for GEPs, but current evidence on its efficiency and safety is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of IV lidocaine on outcomes in patients receiving propofol during GEPs.

METHODS

Electronic databases were screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published up to 31 March 2023, investigating the effectiveness of intravenous lidocaine addition to propofol sedation during GEPs.

RESULTS

A total of 12 RCTs involving 712 patients that received IV lidocaine and propofol for GEF and 719 patients that received propofol were analyzed. Adding IV lidocaine to propofol sedation led to significant reduction in pain after the procedure (standardized mean difference (SMD) =  - 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]; - 1.51 to - 0.32), decreased propofol usage (SMD =  - 0.89; 95% CI, - 1.31 to - 0.48), lower recovery time (SMD =  - 0.95 min; 95% CI, - 1.48 to - 0.43), and decreased pain score (SMD =  - 0.91; 95% CI, - 1.51 to - 0.32). The overall rate of adverse events was markedly less in the lidocaine group than in the control group (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.99).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that IV lidocaine improves patient outcomes by reducing post-procedural pain, decreasing propofol usage, shortening recovery time, and lowering pain scores. This study provides compelling evidence supporting the use of intravenous lidocaine as an adjunct to propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. However, further research is necessary to optimize the use of lidocaine and fully understand its long-term effects.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation Training Curricula and Propofol Administration in Digestive Endoscopy Procedures: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Although efficacy and safety of nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol and nurse-administered propofol sedation practices have been amply demonstrated in patients at low American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status risk, they are still severely limited. To date, it is quite difficult to find a protocol or a shared training program. The aim of the study was to verify requirements, types of training, and operating methods described in the literature for the administration of propofol by a nurse. A scoping review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and in line with Arksey and O'Malley's framework, within four main databases of biomedical interest: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. We selected studies published during the last 20 years, including only nurses not trained in anesthesia. Seventeen articles were eligible. Despite the differences between the training and administration methods, efficacy and safety of deep sedation managed by trained nurses were comparable, just like when sedation was administered by certified registered nurse anesthetists. Training programs have been investigated in detail by only a small number of studies, although its efficacy and safety have been widely demonstrated. It is important, then, to collect evidence that allows developing of unified international guidelines for training methods to offer safe and cost-effective quality sedation.

Bridging the Gap: Investigating the Link between Inflammasomes and Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction

Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a cluster of cognitive problems that may arise after surgery. POCD symptoms include memory loss, focus inattention, and communication difficulties. Inflammasomes, intracellular multiprotein complexes that control inflammation, may have a significant role in the development of POCD. It has been postulated that the NLRP3 inflammasome promotes cognitive impairment by triggering the inflammatory response in the brain. Nevertheless, there are many gaps in the current literature to understand the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and develop future therapy. This review article underlines the limits of our current knowledge about the NLRP3 (NOD-, LRR- and pyrin domain-containing protein 3) inflammasome and POCD. We first discuss inflammasomes and their types, structures, and functions, then summarize recent evidence of the NLRP3 inflammasome's involvement in POCD. Next, we propose a hypothesis that suggests the involvement of inflammasomes in multiple organs, including local surgical sites, blood circulation, and other peripheral organs, leading to systemic inflammation and subsequent neuronal dysfunction in the brain, resulting in POCD. Research directions are then discussed, including analyses of inflammasomes in more clinical POCD animal models and clinical trials, studies of inflammasome types that are involved in POCD, and investigations into whether inflammasomes occur at the surgical site, in circulating blood, and in peripheral organs. Finally, we discuss the potential benefits of using new technologies and approaches to study inflammasomes in POCD. A thorough investigation of inflammasomes in POCD might substantially affect clinical practice.

Finding the ideal sedative: a non-inferiority study of remimazolam vs propofol in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) requires an ideal sedative that provides a predictable action duration and meets safety requirements. We compared the efficacies and safeties of remimazolam and propofol in patients who had undergone ERCP.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, single-blind, single-center study, we compared the performances of remimazolam and propofol for inpatient ERCP. Study medications were administered under the supervision of an endoscopist. One hundred and ten patients scheduled to undergo ERCP were randomly assigned to receive remimazolam or propofol. The primary endpoint was a composite of successful completion of the procedure and no requirement for rescue medication. Secondary endpoints included sedation efficacy, recovery time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of the 110 patients randomized, 108 underwent sedation, and ERCP (53 received remimazolam and 55 propofol). The primary endpoint was met for remimazolam and propofol in 100% of patients in both arms. Incidences and frequencies of emergent adverse events, including desaturation, requiring treatment were comparable in both arms. However, ERCP was started sooner in the propofol arm (mean, 63.18 ± 16.56 s) than in the remimazolam arm (75.23 ± 32.27 s; P-value = 0.02). Time to full alertness after ERCP was also significantly shorter in the propofol arm (304.18 ± 146.25 vs 448.34 ± 224.09 s; P-value <0.001).

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam is not inferior to propofol in achieving successful ERCP completion without rescue medication. Incidences of adverse events were comparable. Remimazolam is a safe and effective alternative to propofol for ERCP sedation, expanding options for clinicians and improving patient outcomes.

Safety of endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk collective

INTRODUCTION

 Worldwide, gastrointestinal endoscopies are predominantly performed under sedation. National and international guidelines and recommendations contain very different specifications for the use of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. These differences come from specific requirements for staffing during endoscopy.

AIM

 The aim of the study is to evaluate whether endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance is not inferior to endoscopist-guided sedation with additional sedation assistance with respect to the rate of sedation-associated complications in a defined low-risk population (low-risk procedure and low-risk patient).

METHODS

 Prospective, multicenter, randomized study.

RESULTS

 27 German study centers participated in the study. A total of 30 569 endoscopies were recorded during the study period from 1.8.2015 to 10.3.2020. The final data analysis included 28 673 examinations (64.1 % esophagosgastroduodenoscopies and 35.9 % colonoscopies). In 307 (1.1 %) examinations, 322 sedation-associated complications occurred. Of these, 321 (1.1 %) were minor complications and one (0.003 %) was a major complication. There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of sedation-associated complications between endoscopist-guided sedation with versus without additional sedation assistance. Within the legal framework, a "shadow" sedation assistant was present in the study group without sedation assistance. This assistant intervened because of sedation-associated complications in 101 (0.7 %) of the endoscopies.

CONCLUSION

 The study documents the safety of propofol-based endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk population. In 98.9 % of all endoscopies, no sedation-associated complication occurred or it was so minimal that no intervention (e. g., increase of oxygen supply) was necessary. The study cannot answer to what extent a serious complication was avoided by the active intervention of the "shadow" sedation assistance in the group without sedation assistance.The study proves in a randomized, prospective design that sedation in low-risk endoscopy (low-risk patient, low-risk procedure) can be performed as endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance, without demonstrably accepting a reduction in safety.

Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of sedation with DEX during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with a view to providing evidence-based references for clinical decision-making. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEX with different sedatives comparators (such as propofol, midazolam, and ketamine) for sedation in a variety of adult gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 1 July 2022. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were used for continuous outcomes or dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and a random-effect model was selected regardless of the significance of the heterogeneity. Results: Forty studies with 2,955 patients were assessed, of which 1,333 patients were in the DEX group and 1,622 patients were in the control (without DEX) group. The results suggested that the primary outcomes of sedation level of DEX are comparable to other sedatives, with similar RSS score and patient satisfaction level, and better in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of body movements or gagging (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.97; p = 0.04; I2 = 68%), and a reduced additional requirement for other sedatives, and increased endoscopist satisfaction level (SMD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.77; p = 0.03; I2 = 86%). In terms of secondary outcomes of adverse events, DEX may benefit patients in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of hypoxia (RR:0.34; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.55; p < 0.0001; I2 = 52%) and cough (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54; p = 0.0004; I2 = 0%), no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, while an increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 2.12 to 4.48; p < 0.00001; I2 = 6%). Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that DEX is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its benefits for patients in some clinical outcomes. Remarkably, DEX is comparable to midazolam and propofol in terms of sedation level. In conclusion, DEX provides an additional option in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced.

Effects of Music on Anxiety, Pain, and Comfort in Patients Undergoing Upper Endoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Although upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is an important diagnostic procedure in the detection of diseases, it can cause discomfort and anxiety in patients. This study is a randomized controlled trial conducted to determine the effects of listening to music on the anxiety, pain, and comfort levels of patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The patients were randomly divided into the intervention group ( n = 40), who listened to music for 45 minutes before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, and the control group ( n = 40), which did not receive any intervention other than routine nursing care. It was observed that the pain and anxiety levels of the patients who listened to music before the procedure decreased, and their comfort levels and ease of the procedure increased. In order to reduce the pain and anxiety of patients who will undergo upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, increase the success of the procedure, and facilitate patient-doctor cooperation, encouraging patients to listen to music while awaiting the procedure can be effective.

Comparison of anesthetic effects of different doses of alfentanil combined with ciprofol in elderly patients undergoing ERCP: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTS

Patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are often old and poor in physical fitness. The purpose of this study was to investigate the anesthetic effect of different doses of alfentanil combined with ciprofol in elderly patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

In this clinical trial, 137 patients, who were candidates for ERCP were randomly divided into three groups. Group A were given 0.15 μg/kg/min of alfentanil in maintenance stage, Group B were given 0.25 μg/kg/min and Group C were given 0.35 μg/kg/min. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO2) of the patients at each time point including the entry into the operation room (T0), at the beginning of surgery(T1), 10 min after surgery(T2), 20 min after surgery(T3), 30 min after surgery(T4),endoscopy withdrawal (T5) were recorded. Adverse events(including respiratory depression, body movement and hypoxemia),the dosage of ciprofol, the time of operation time and awakening were recorded.

RESULTS

Compared with Group A, MAP and HR in Group B and Group C was decreased during T1-T5 (P < 0.05). Compared with group B, MAP and HR in group C was decreased during T1-T5 (P < 0.05). Compared with Group A and Group C,the number of adverse reactions of Group B was decreased(P < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in surgical time among the three groups(P > 0.05),but a statistically significant difference in recovery time (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The adverse events of alfentanil 0.25μg/kg/min combined with ciprofol were low, and the anesthetic effect was the best.

Optimal timing of simethicone administration prior to upper endoscopy: A multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims Simethicone is useful as premedication for upper endoscopy because of its antifoaming effects. We aimed to evaluate the effect of timing of simethicone administration on mucosal visibility. Patients and methods In this multicenter, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study, patients scheduled for upper endoscopy were randomized to receive 40 mg simethicone at the following time points prior to the procedure: 20 to 30 minutes (early group), 0 to 10 minutes (late group) or 20 mg simethicone at both time points (split-dose group). Images were taken from nine predefined locations in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum before endoscopic flushing. Each image was scored on mucosal visibility by three independent endoscopists on a 4-point scale (lower scores indicating better visibility), with adequate mucosal visibility defined as a score ≤ 2. Primary outcome was the percentage of patients with adequate total mucosal visibility (TMV), reached if all median subscores for each location were ≤ 2. Results A total of 386 patients were included (early group: 132; late group: 128; split-dose group: 126). Percentages of adequate TMV were 55%, 42%, and 61% in the early, late, and split-dose group, respectively ( P < 0.01). Adequate TMV was significantly higher in the split-dose group compared to the late group ( P < 0.01), but not compared to the early group ( P = 0.29). Differences between groups were largest in the stomach, where percentages of adequate mucosal visibility were higher in the early (68% vs 53%, P = 0.03) and split-dose group (69% vs 53%, P = 0.02) compared to the late group. Conclusions Mucosal visibility can be optimized with early simethicone administration, either as a single administration or in a split-dose regimen.

Additional information obtained from mucosal biopsies is limited after pan-enteric capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn's disease

Background and study aims Pan-enteric capsule endoscopy (CE) is an emerging alternative to ileo-colonoscopy for diagnosing Crohn's disease (CD). However, CE does not offer the opportunity to take biopsies to support the diagnosis. This study examined the additional information obtained with mucosal biopsies and the feasibility of CE as a single diagnostic procedure. Patients and methods This retrospective study was based on a prospective, blind multicenter trial in which patients with suspected CD were examined with ileo-colonoscopy plus segmental biopsies and CE. Histopathological findings were compared to the result of CE. Results A total of 107 patients with a complete CE were included in the analysis. CE was consistent with CD in 44 patients (41.1%) and ulcerative colitis in 10 patients (9.3%). Histopathology confirmed the result of CE in 39.3% of patients and added new diagnostic information in 6.5% of patients. A CE consistent with CD was histologically confirmed in 20.5% of patients. Biopsies most often showed non-specific inflammation (61.4%). Only one patient with a normal CE had a specific histological diagnosis (microscopic colitis). Biopsies altered the diagnosis of ulcerative colitis to CD in two patients, and in two patients with a normal CE, biopsies showed CD or ulcerative colitis. In one patient with lymphoma in the terminal ileum and cecum, CE was misinterpreted as CD. Conclusions In patients with suspected CD and an evident result of CE, the additional information obtained from biopsies is limited, and CE as a single diagnostic procedure might be feasible in selected patients. Biopsies are warranted, however, in patients with an atypical endoscopic appearance or suspected malignancy.

A scale to measure the worry level in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy with sedation: Development, reliability, and validity

Objective

This study aims to develop a scale to measure the worry level of patients who will undergo gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy with deep sedation, and to provide scientific references to alleviate their worries.

Method

Based on literature review, panel discussion, patient interview and expert consultation, we developed the first version of the scale. After two pre-investigations, the formal version of the scale was formed, and the reliability and validity were tested on 1389 respondents. Reliability was assessed by Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was tested by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the Spearman correlations analysis.

Results

The scale was composed of four dimensions: financial and time costs, sedation, examination, and psychology. It has 15 items. Reliability and validity were acceptable. The Cronbach's alpha of the whole scale was 0.959 and all the factor loadings were > 0.50. The Spearman correlations of the inter-dimensions ranged from 0.614 to 0.836, and the correlation coefficients between the dimensions and the total score were 0.795 to 0.957. The correlation coefficient between the total scale score and the APAIS was 0.833.

Conclusions

This scale has good validity and reliability, which is useful for physicians and medical institutions to take appropriate measures to reduce patients' worries.

Informed consent for endoscopic procedures: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

All endoscopic procedures are invasive and carry risk. Accordingly, all endoscopists should involve the patient in the decision-making process about the most appropriate endoscopic procedure for that individual, in keeping with a patient's right to self-determination and autonomy. Recognition of this has led to detailed guidelines on informed consent for endoscopy in some countries, but in many no such guidance exists; this may lead to variations in care and exposure to risk of litigation. In this document, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) sets out a series of statements that cover best practice in informed consent for endoscopy. These statements should be seen as a minimum standard of practice, but practitioners must be aware of and adhere to the law in their own country. 1:  Patients should give informed consent for all gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures for which they have capacity to do so. 2:  The healthcare professional seeking consent for an endoscopic procedure should ensure that the patient has the capacity to consent to that procedure. 3:  For patients who lack capacity, healthcare personnel should at all times try to engage with people close to the patient, such as family, friends, or caregivers, to achieve consensus on the appropriateness of performing the procedure. 4:  Where a patient lacks capacity to provide informed consent, the best interest decision should be clearly documented in the medical record. This should include information about the capacity assessment, reason(s) that the decision cannot be delayed for capacity recovery (or if recovery is not expected), who has been consulted, and where relevant the form of authority for the decision. 5:  There should be a systematic and transparent disclosure of the expected benefits and harms that may reasonably affect patient choice on whether or not to undergo any diagnostic or interventional endoscopic procedure. Information about possible alternatives, as well as the consequences of doing nothing, should also be provided when relevant. 6:  The information provided on the benefit and harms of an endoscopic procedure should be adapted to the procedure and patient-specific risk factors, and the preferences of the patient should be central to the consent process. 7:  The consent discussion should be undertaken by an individual who is familiar with the procedure and its risks, and is able to discuss these in the context of the individual patient. 8:  Patients should confirm consent to an endoscopic procedure in a private, unrushed, and non-coercive environment. 9:  If a patient requests that an endoscopic procedure be discontinued, the procedure should be paused and the patient's capacity for decision making assessed. If a competent patient continues to object to the procedure, or if a conclusive determination of capacity is not feasible, the examination should be terminated as soon as it is safe to do so. 10: Informed consent should be sufficiently detailed to cover all findings that can be reasonably anticipated during an endoscopic examination. The scope of this consent should not be expanded, nor a patient's implicit consent for additional interventions assumed, unless failure to proceed with such interventions would result in immediate and predictable harm to the patient.

Patient Safety during Propofol Sedation before and after Implementation of Capnography Monitoring

Endoscopic procedures are routinely applied to cancer screening programs and surveillance. The preferred technique is usually deep sedation with propofol being a convenient agent allowing for a quicker patient recovery while maintaining a similar safety profile compared to traditional agents. However, adverse events, including respiratory depression and consequent undesirable cardiovascular side effects, may occur. The goal of this work is to evaluate the patient safety impact of adding capnography during endoscopic procedures under deep propofol sedation. Data were retrospectively collected from patients undergoing deep, procedural sedation for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in October 2019 to January 2021 in a single Turkish university hospital. Included in the analysis were all adult patients classified by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) as I-IV, who were scheduled for GI endoscopy utilizing propofol alone or in combination. Data on 1840 patients were collected, of whom 1610 (730 pre- and 880 post-capnography implemention) met inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was a change in the composite incidence of mild oxygen desaturation (SpO2 75-90% for <60 s), severe oxygen desaturation (SpO2 < 75% anytime or <90% for >60 s), bradycardia (<60 ppm), and tachycardia (>25% from baseline). Without capnography, on average, 7.5 events of the primary endpoint were observed per 100 procedures and 2.9 with additional capnography monitoring (p < 0.001). A significant reduction was observed for mild oxygen desaturation, with a resulting odds ratio of 0.25 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.46). ASA I patients had the highest difference in combined incidence of any oxygen desaturation of 5.85% in the pre-capnography group and 0.64% in the post-capnography group. Although procedural sedation using propofol is not associated with severe adverse events, the incidence of composite adverse events could be reduced with the addition of capnography monitoring.

Effectiveness and safety of an atropine/midazolam and target controlled infusion propofol-based moderate sedation protocol during percutaneous endoscopic transgastric jejunostomy procedures in Parkinson's disease: a real-life retrospective observational study

Patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), often elderly with various comorbidities, may require a continuous intestinal infusion of carbidopa/levodopa gel by the placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) with a jejunal tube (PEG-J) to improve their motor outcome and quality of life. However, it is unclear what is the best procedural sedation protocol for PEG-J procedures. Fifty patients with PD and indication for PEG-J procedure (implantation, replacement, removal) underwent, from 2017 to 2022, a sedation protocol characterized by premedication with atropine (0.01 mg/Kg i.v.), midazolam (0.015-0.03 mg/Kg i.v.) and induction with bolus propofol (0.5-1 mg/Kg i.v.) as well as, finally, sedation with continuous infusion propofol (2-5 mg/Kg/h i.v.) by Target Controlled Infusion (TCI) technique. Ninety-eight per cent of patients experienced no intraprocedural or peri-procedural adverse events. All the procedures were technically successful. A good discharge time was recorded. The vital parameters recorded during the procedure did not vary significantly. A PEG-J procedure conducted within 30 min showed a significant advantage over end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2). Indeed, the latter showed some predictive behavior (OR: 1.318, 95% CI 1.075-1.615, p = 0.008). In the real world, this sedation protocol showed a good safety and effectiveness profile, even with reduced doses of midazolam and a TCI propofol technique in moderate sedation.

The efficacy of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation with a target-controlled infusion system during double-balloon endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

The sedation method used during double-balloon endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (DB-ERCP) differs among countries and/or facilities, and there is no established method. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) sedation using a target-controlled infusion (TCI) system during DB-ERCP.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted between May 2017 and December 2020 at an academic center. One hundred and fifty-six consecutive patients who underwent DB-ERCP were sedated by gastroenterologists using diazepam (n = 77) or propofol with a TCI system (n = 79), depending on the period. The primary endpoint was a comparison of poor sedation rates between the two groups. Poor sedation was defined as a condition requiring the use of other sedative agents or discontinuation of the procedure. Secondary endpoints were sedation-related adverse events and risk factors for poor sedation.

RESULTS

Poor sedation occurred significantly more often in the diazepam sedation group (diazepam sedation, n = 12 [16%] vs. propofol sedation, n = 1 [1%]; P = 0.001). Vigorous body movements (3 or 4) (diazepam sedation, n = 40 [52%] vs. propofol sedation, n = 28 [35%]; P = 0.038) and hypoxemia (< 85%) (diazepam sedation, n = 7 [9%] vs. propofol sedation, n = 1 [1%]; P = 0.027) occurred significantly more often in the diazepam sedation group. In the multivariate analysis, age < 70 years old (OR, 10.26; 95% CI, 1.57-66.98; P = 0.015), BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (OR, 11.96; 95% CI, 1.67-85.69; P = 0.014), and propofol sedation (OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01-0.58; P = 0.015) were associated factors for poor sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

NAAP sedation with the TCI system during DB-ERCP was safer and more effective than diazepam sedation.

Effect of ciprofol on swallowing function in patients undergoing painless gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Gastroscopy is one of the most commonly used diagnostic modalities for upper gastrointestinal disorders. This study compared the effect of ciprofol and propofol on swallowing function during painless gastroenteroscopy.

METHODS

This was a single-center, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Three hundred sixty-eight patients undergoing painless gastroscopy were included in this study and randomly divided into 2 groups: the propofol group (PRO group, n = 183) and the ciprofol group (CIP group, n = 185). Sufentanil, ciprofol, and propofol are used to anesthetize the patients, and the effects of different solutions on these patients are compared and analyzed. The patient's general condition, vocal cord adduction reflex, dysphagia severity score, penetration and aspiration scale score, vital signs at different times, complications, recovery time (minutes), residence time in the resuscitation room (minutes), and adverse reactions were recorded.

RESULTS

During the examination, the incidence of severe swallowing dysfunction in CIP group was lower than that in PRO group (P < .05). The BP in CIP group was higher than that in PRO Group (P < .05). The HR of CIP group was lower than that of PRO Group (P < .05). SpO2 in CIP group was higher than that in PRO Group (P < .05). The recovery time of CIP group was longer than that of PRO Group, and the postanesthesia care unit stay time of PRO group was longer than that of CIP group(P < .05). The incidence of respiratory depression, hypotension and cough in CIP group was lower than that in PRO Group (P < .05). The incidence of injection pain in CIP group was lower than that in PRO Group (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with propofol, ciprofol has less inhibition on swallowing function, less impact on hemodynamics, less respiratory depression, and less injection pain, which is more suitable for painless gastroscopy.