Creation of a score to predict risk of high conscious sedation requirements in patients undergoing endoscopy

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.

Automated electronic health record-based application for sedation triage in routine colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nearly all routine endoscopy procedures are performed using moderate sedation (MS) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). In this article, we describe how we improved decision-making and decreased practitioners' cognitive burden for choosing between MAC and MS by using patient data in an automated application within the electronic health record (EHR).

METHODS

In our practice, we choose between MS or MAC for routine GI procedures according to written anesthesia-use guidelines and practitioner preferences. To expedite our decision-making for MS versus MAC, we developed an Excel (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Wash, USA)-based tool from patient demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, and medication use extracted from the EHR. The data points from Excel were then implemented in the automated application in the EHR to predict the type of sedation for GI procedures.

RESULTS

Before use of the new application, nurses spent an average of 4 minutes and gastroenterology practitioners spent 5 minutes reviewing the EHR to determine the appropriate sedation (MS or MAC). After the application was implemented, the use of MS substantially increased. Time spent reviewing the EHR was reduced to 2 minutes. The rate of adverse events for MS (.5%) versus MAC (.6%) was comparable and low overall.

CONCLUSIONS

The EHR-based application, which automates and standardizes determination of sedation type, is a highly beneficial tool that eliminates subjectivity in decision-making, thus allowing for appropriate use of MAC. Adverse event rates and sedation failure did not increase with use of the application. With the increased use of MS over MAC, healthcare costs for the more-expensive MAC sedation should also decrease.

Demographic and clinical factors associated with variations in opioid administration using conscious sedation during HDR brachytherapy for cervical cancer

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES To examine patient characteristics that predispose to higher opioid administration during tandem and ovoid (T&O) high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy. METHODS A single-institution retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent brachytherapy for cervical cancer. Patients were included if they received at least one fraction of HDR T&O brachytherapy with analgesia administration recorded in the Medication Administration Record. Fentanyl dose was dichotomized as "low" (mean <125 μg per fraction), or "high" (mean ≥ 125 μg per fraction). Descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression analysis were performed comparing mean opioid dose per fraction with demographic and clinical information. RESULTS From July 2014 through May 2020, 113 patients underwent 531 T&O HDR brachytherapy fractions with oral benzodiazepine and intravenous opioid fentanyl for conscious sedation. The median opioid dose per fraction was 100 μg fentanyl (range 0-250 μg). Using multiple logistic regression analysis, younger age (OR 1.071, p = 0.002) and higher BMI (OR 1.091, p = 0.019) were associated with increased opioid administration during brachytherapy. Black women received less opioid during brachytherapy when compared to White women (OR 0.296, p = 0.047). FIGO stage, ECOG score, smoking status, prior narcotic use, prior illicit drug use, parity, prior cervical procedure, Smit sleeve placement, and distance to treatment center were not associated with high opioid dose. CONCLUSION Cervical cancer patients who are younger or have higher BMI receive more narcotic analgesia during HDR brachytherapy whereas Black women received less narcotic analgesia, irrespective of age and BMI. This underscores the immediate need to address how pain is assessed and managed during brachytherapy.

The Role of Clinical Characteristics in Stratifying Sedation Risk: A Cohort Study

Background

Determination of sedation type during gastrointestinal procedures is generally based on risk assessment via the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification system, but the reliance of anesthesia risk on clinical factors remains largely uninvestigated. We aim to determine the association between various clinical factors and choice of sedation type during gastrointestinal procedures.

Methods

This single-center, retrospective cohort study used electronic medical records to identify patients receiving colonoscopy or endoscopy at Rhode Island Hospital. The electronic medical record was queried for history of alcohol abuse, opioid abuse, polysubstance abuse, prescriptions for psychotropic or opioid medications and ASA classification. Logistic regression was used to measure how patient characteristics correlated with sedation type.

Results

Totally, 2,033 patients were included in the study; 1,080 patients received moderate sedation and 853 received monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Three hundred fifty-four (60.2%) MAC patients had a history of alcohol abuse compared to 234 (39.8%) moderate sedation patients (P < 0.2334); 178 (62.9%) MAC and 105 (37.1%) moderate sedation patients had a history of opioid abuse (P < 0.001); 203 (73.6%) MAC and 73 (26.4%) moderate sedation patients had a history of polysubstance abuse (P < 0.001); and 815 (75.1%) MAC patients had psychiatric comorbidities versus 270 (24.9%) in the moderate sedation group (P < 0.001). In the MAC cohort, alcohol, opioid, polysubstance abuse and psychiatric history were associated with previous failure of moderate sedation (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

For a subset of patients, clinical factors including alcohol, opioid, polysubstance abuse and psychiatric history, in addition to ASA classification, play an important role in sedation management.

Sedation - Effects of disorders of abuse on therapeutic efficacy (SEDATE): A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The impact of alcohol or opioid use disorders on medication dosing for procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED) is unclear, as most of the literature is from gastrointestinal endoscopy. Exploring how these patient factors affect sedative and analgesic medications may inform more nuanced sedation strategies in the emergency department.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart-review cohort study across five EDs from 2015 to 2020. Included were adult patients who underwent procedural sedation in the ED, categorized into three a priori groups: alcohol use disorder (AUD), opioid use disorder (OUD), and individuals with neither (non-SUD). Wilcoxon test was used to compare the time-averaged dose of agents between groups. Logistic regression was used to model multi-agent sedations. The propofol time-averaged dose was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included other agents, sedation duration, and switching to other agents.

RESULTS

2725 sedations were included in the analysis. 59 patients had a history of AUD, and 40 had a history of OUD. Time-averaged doses of medications did not differ significantly between AUD and non-SUD patients. Likewise, patients with OUD did not receive different doses of medications compared to non-SUD. The propofol doses for non-SUD, AUD, and OUD were 0.033 IQR 0.04; 0.042 IQR 0.05; and 0.058 IQR 0.04 mg/kg*min, respectively. Sedation duration was not different across groups. Having AUD or OUD is not associated with increased odds of requiring multiple sedative agents.

CONCLUSION

Although sedation in patients with AUD or OUD may be associated with significant case bias, these patient factors did not significantly alter outcomes compared to the general population. This study suggests there is no evidence to proactively adjust medication strategy in ED patients with AUD or OUD.

Identifying who best tolerates moderate sedation: Results from a national database of gastrointestinal endoscopic outcomes

BACKGROUND

With increasing volume and cost of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, the proper selection of patients for moderate sedation becomes increasingly relevant. The current literature lacks consistent findings that allow for appropriate selection of patients for moderate sedation.

AIM

To analyze a nationwide registry of patients to identify patient and procedural factors associated with lower sedation requirements for endoscopy.

METHODS

The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative National Endoscopic Database was queried to assess adult patients undergoing moderate sedation for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy from 2008 to 2014. Patients were stratified into two groups [low dose (LD) and high dose sedation] based on sedation requirements. Anthropometric, procedural, and anesthesia data were compared, and multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with LD sedation.

RESULTS

Of the 371102 patients included in the study, 63137 where stratified into the LD sedation group and 307965 were in the high dose group. Moderate sedation was managed primarily by endoscopists (50%) and anesthesia providers (47%). Patients undergoing EGDs and procedures performed in the inpatient setting, in ambulatory surgery centers, intensive care units or hospital wards, required less sedation than colonoscopies, outpatient procedures and procedures done in endoscopy suites, respectively (P < 0.0001 for all). On multivariable analysis, factors predictive of tolerance with lower sedation requirements for EGDs and colonoscopies were female gender, age ≥ 50, non-White race, Hispanic descent, body mass index ≤ 25 kg/m², and higher American Society of Anesthesia Class (P < 0.0001 for all).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians should consider these patient profiles in determining which patients will better tolerate moderate sedation vs those better suited for alternative sedation methods.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients Who Are Difficult to Sedate

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients who chronically use alcohol, marijuana, or opioids, or suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), can be difficult to sedate with midazolam and fentanyl, and often are referred for monitored anesthesia care during endoscopy. Nurse-administered propofol continuous infusion sedation (NAPCIS), which confers the benefit of propofol-based sedation without the added expense of anesthesia, is effective and safe for sedation of healthy patients. We investigated whether NAPCIS also is effective for patients who are difficult to sedate.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent upper endoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at a single center from January 2018 through April 2018. We reviewed records from patients who were heavy users of alcohol (n = 105), daily users of marijuana (n = 267) or opioids (n = 178), had a diagnosis of PTSD (n = 91), or were none of these (controls, n = 786). We compared mean fentanyl and propofol doses (adjusted for body weight), procedure and recovery times, procedure success rates, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Compared with the controls, the marijuana group required higher mean adjusted sedative doses for colonoscopies (0.6 vs 0.4 mcg/kg fentanyl and 5.0 vs 4.7 mg/kg propofol; P ≤ .025 for both) and upper endoscopies (0.8 vs 0.3 mcg/kg fentanyl and 3.7 vs 3.2 mg/kg propofol; P ≤ .021 for both), the PTSD group required a higher dose of fentanyl for colonoscopies (0.6 vs 0.4 mcg/kg; P = .009), and the alcohol group required a higher dose of fentanyl for upper endoscopies (0.7 vs 0.3 mcg/kg; P < .001). Procedure success rates were high (95.1%-100%) and did not differ significantly between the difficult-to-sedate groups and controls; mean procedure times (7.0-9.0 minutes for upper endoscopies, 21.1-22.9 minutes for colonoscopies) and recovery times (22.5-29.6 minutes) also were similar among groups. Upper endoscopies were associated with lower sedative doses and shorter procedure and recovery times than colonoscopies. Sedation-related adverse events were rare in all groups (only 26 cases total), and there were no serious complications or deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

NAPCIS seems to be a safe and effective means of providing sedation for endoscopy to patients who may be difficult to sedate owing to alcohol, marijuana, or opioid use, or PTSD.