Efficacy, safety, and limitations in current practice of sedation and analgesia

Comparison Effects of Propofol-Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol-Remifentanil for Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial

Objective. To compare the effects of propofol-dexmedetomidine versus propofol-remifentanil for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). Design, Setting, and Participants. A single-center, randomized trial from August 20, 2020 to August 20, 2021, in patients undergoing EUS. Interventions. Propofol-dexmedetomidine (PD) versus propofol-remifentanil (PR). Outcome Measures. The primary outcome was the endoscopist satisfaction level. The secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, the incidence of adverse events, induction time, and time to achieve postanesthesia discharge score (PADS) ≥9. Methods. Total of 200 patients were enrolled and randomized into PD and PR groups. A bolus dose of 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine was injected intravenously for 5 min. Subsequently, a continuous infusion of 0.5 μg/kg/h for the PD group. Remifentanil was continuously infused at 1.5 μg/kg/h for the PR group. A bolus dose of 1 mg/kg propofol was administered to both groups and then continuously infused. Results. The endoscopist satisfaction level was higher in the PR group than in the PD group ( $P=0.009$ ). Patient satisfaction was not significantly different between the groups ( $P=0.738$ ). No patients required mask ventilation or tracheal intubation in both groups. All patients were relatively hemodynamically stable. The incidence of body movements during the procedure in the PD group was higher than in the PR group ( $P=0.035$ ). The induction time and time taken to achieve PADS ≥9 in the PD group were longer than in the PR group ( $P<0.05$ ). Conclusions. PR sedation can increase the satisfaction level of the endoscopist by providing faster induction time and lower body movement and that of the patient by achieving faster PADS than PD sedation. Trial registration number: http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000034987).

Discharge Readiness after Propofol with or without Dexmedetomidine for Colonoscopy

Editor’s Perspective

What We Already Know about This Topic

What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Background

Enhanced recovery protocols employ various approaches to minimize detrimental side effects of anesthetizing agents. The authors tested the hypothesis that adding low-dose dexmedetomidine to propofol for anesthesia in ambulatory colonoscopies, compared with propofol alone, would lower the propofol requirement, improve the intra-procedure hemodynamic state, and not increase time-to-discharge.

Methods

In this noninferiority, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, patients having colonoscopies received total IV anesthesia either with propofol and placebo (n = 50), or propofol and a bolus dose of dexmedetomidine, 0.3 μg/kg (n = 51). Additional propofol was administered to maintain a Bispectral Index score of 60. Following the procedure, readiness for discharge was assessed regularly using the Modified Post Anesthetic Discharge Scoring System until discharge criteria were met. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients meeting discharge criteria within 30 min from procedure end-time.

Results

Twenty-six of 51 (51%) patients receiving propofol-dexmedetomidine were ready for discharge by 30 min from procedure end time, compared with 44 of 50 (88%) receiving propofol (P &lt; 0.001). Propofol consumption was lower in subjects receiving propofol–dexmedetomidine (140 μg · kg-1 · min-1) compared to those receiving propofol (180 μg · kg-1 · min-1) with P = 0.011. The lowest mean arterial pressure decreased further from baseline in those receiving propofol–dexmedetomidine (−30%; mean decrease −30 ±10.5 mmHg) compared to propofol (−21%; mean decrease, −22 ± 14.2 mmHg) with P = 0.003. There was no difference in incidence of bradycardia, with sustained bradycardia occurring in 3 of 51 (6%) patients receiving propofol–dexmedetomidine compared to 1 of 50 (2%) patients receiving propofol (P = 0.62). No apnea episodes requiring positive-pressure ventilation occurred in either group.

Conclusions

For anesthesia in ambulatory colonoscopy, combining low-dose dexmedetomidine with propofol delayed discharge readiness and provoked hypotension compared to propofol alone.

Safety and Efficacy of Nonanesthesiologist-Administrated Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Gastric Epithelial Tumors

Objective

There is no consensus regarding administration of propofol for performing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in patients with comorbidities. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of propofol-induced sedation administered by nonanesthesiologists during ESD of gastric cancer in patients with comorbidities classified according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status.

Methods

Five hundred and twenty-two patients who underwent ESD for gastric epithelial tumors under sedation by nonanesthesiologist-administrated propofol between April 2011 and October 2017 at Dokkyo Medical University Hospital were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to the ASA physical status classification. Hypotension, desaturation, and bradycardia were evaluated as the adverse events associated with propofol. The safety of sedation by nonanesthesiologist-administrated propofol was measured as the primary outcome.

Results

The patients were classified according to the ASA physical status classification: 182 with no comorbidity (ASA 1), 273 with mild comorbidity (ASA 2), and 67 with severe comorbidity (ASA 3). The median age of the patients with ASA physical status of 2/3 was higher than the median age of those with ASA physical status of 1. There was no significant difference in tumor characteristics, total amount of propofol used, or ESD procedure time, among the 3 groups. Adverse events related to propofol in the 522 patients were as follows: hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg) in 113 patients (21.6%), respiratory depression (SpO₂ < 90%) in 265 patients (50.8%), and bradycardia (pulse rate < 50 bpm) in 39 patients (7.47%). There was no significant difference in the incidences of adverse events among the 3 groups during induction, maintenance, or recovery. No severe adverse event was reported. ASA 3 patients had a significantly longer mean length of hospital stay (8 days for ASA 1, 9 days for ASA 2, and 9 days for ASA 3, P = 0.003). However, the difference did not appear to be clinically significant.

Conclusions

Sedation by nonanesthesiologist-administrated propofol during ESD is safe and effective, even for at-risk patients according to the ASA physical status classification.

How does tolerability of double balloon enteroscopy compare to other forms of endoscopy?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastrointestinal endoscopy can be difficult for patients to tolerate. Studies on endoscopic tolerability mainly focus on gastroscopy or colonoscopy with a paucity of data on double balloon enteroscopy (DBE). We aimed to prospectively evaluate tolerability in patients undergoing several forms of endoscopy including DBE.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, gastroscopy, endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERCP), capsule endoscopy (CE) and DBE were prospectively recruited. A questionnaire recorded demographics, procedural data, patient tolerability (pain, discomfort and distress recorded on numerical rating scales) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

RESULTS

956 patients were recruited (512 women; median age 57 years). The median pain score for DBE was poor with a score of 5 compared with 1 and 0 for oesophagogastroduodenoscopy and ERCP, respectively (p<0.001). Colonoscopy and retrograde DBE scores were not dissimilar. CE was well tolerated with a median pain score of 0. Patients with DBE required significantly higher doses of sedation and analgesia than other patients. The HADS Anxiety Score was also associated with poorer tolerability.

CONCLUSIONS

DBE is poorly tolerated when compared with other forms of endoscopy despite higher doses of sedation. Increasing demand to improve tolerability of DBE in the UK may be addressed with the use of propofol.

Adverse events of conscious sedation in ambulatory spine procedures

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Interventional spine procedures are commonly performed in the ambulatory surgical setting, often using conscious sedation. The rate of adverse events with conscious sedation has not been previously assessed in the interventional spine procedure setting.

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to determine the rate of adverse events when using conscious sedation in the ambulatory interventional spine setting.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort chart review analysis was performed on all interventional spine procedures performed during one calendar year at a university-affiliated ambulatory surgery center by six nonanesthesia-trained spine interventionalists.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Of the 3,342 procedures performed that year, 2,494 charts (74.6%) were available for review.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Adverse events were documented immediately after the procedure and at a maximum 3-day follow-up phone call.

METHODS

The rate and type of adverse events were analyzed and compared between those who received conscious sedation with local anesthesia and those who received local anesthesia alone.

RESULTS

Of the 2,494 cases reviewed, 1,228 spine procedures were performed with local anesthesia and conscious sedation, and 1,266 procedures were performed with local anesthesia alone. Of these cases, 66 immediate adverse events (5.12%) were documented in the conscious sedation group, and 61 immediate adverse events (4.82%) were documented in the local anesthesia alone group. At maximum 3-day follow-up, 670 patients of the conscious sedation group were available for contact, and 699 patients were available from the local anesthesia group. Thirty-two adverse events (4.77%) were noted in the conscious sedation group, and 28 adverse events (4.00%) were noted in the local anesthesia group. Comparison of these rates found no significant statistical difference. However, patients in the local anesthesia group had a significantly higher rate of postoperative hypertension. Adverse events reported both immediately and at follow-up were determined to be mild, with no serious adverse events reported.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that mild to moderate conscious sedation in interventional spine procedures is associated with low rates of adverse events when established protocols are followed.

Balanced propofol sedation administered by nonanesthesiologists: The first Italian experience

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of a balanced approach using midazolam in combination with propofol, administered by non-anesthesiologists, in a large series of diagnostic colonoscopies.

METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy were sedated with a single dose of midazolam (0.05 mg/kg) and low-dose propofol (starter bolus of 0.5 mg/kg and repeated boluses of 10 to 20 mg). Induction time and deepest level of sedation, adverse and serious adverse events, as well as recovery times, were prospectively assessed. Cecal intubation and adenoma detection rates were also collected.

RESULTS: Overall, 1593 eligible patients were included. The median dose of propofol administered was 70 mg (range: 40-120 mg), and the median dose of midazolam was 2.3 mg (range: 2-4 mg). Median induction time of sedation was 3 min (range: 1-4 min), and median recovery time was 23 min (range: 10-40 min). A moderate level of sedation was achieved in 1561 (98%) patients, whilst a deep sedation occurred in 32 (2%) cases. Transient oxygen desaturation requiring further oxygen supplementation occurred in 8 (0.46%; 95% CI: 0.2%-0.8%) patients. No serious adverse event was observed. Cecal intubation and adenoma detection rates were 93.5% and 23.4% (27.8% for male and 18.5% for female, subjects), respectively.

CONCLUSION: A balanced sedation protocol provided a minimalization of the dose of propofol needed to target a moderate sedation for colonoscopy, resulting in a high safety profile for non-anesthesiologist propofol sedation.

Comparison of differing sedation practice for upper endoscopic ultrasound using expert observational analysis of the procedural sedation

AIM

To compare the quality between 2 commonly used sedation practices for upper endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) by using expert observational analysis of the sedation practice.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, 50 adults undergoing EUS had videotape observation of the procedural sedation: 25 received benzodiazepine/opiate administered by the endoscopy team as per the standard protocol at our institution, and 25 received propofol administered by a dedicated anesthesiologist. Quantitative analysis of the video was performed using the Dartmouth Operative Conditions Scale (DOCS). The DOCS is a tool previously developed to quantify the adequacy of procedural sedation through an objective measurement of the patient state during the sedation process. In this study, the DOCS was used in a novel way to compare the quality of sedation provided by different sedation protocols. Data were collected on patient demographics, patient and provider satisfaction, efficiency, side effects, and safety measures.

RESULTS

Videotape analysis using the DOCS revealed that 52% (13/25) of the standard group exhibited an uncontrolled patient state (significant undersedation and/or oversedation) on 1 or more occasion during their EUS procedure compared with 28% (7/25) of the propofol group. Patients in the standard group spent 7.1% of the procedure in an uncontrolled patient state, whereas patients in the propofol group experienced an uncontrolled state approximately 1.0% of the procedure time. Overall efficiency as measured by time in both the procedure room and in recovery was superior in the propofol group. These patients spent 12 less minutes on average in the procedure room and were ready for discharge in about half the time (56 minutes versus 109 minutes). The propofol group experienced significantly less in-hospital and at-home nausea and vomiting and felt back to baseline status more quickly. Finally, patient satisfaction was improved in the propofol group: 60% felt the procedure was better than anticipated versus 21% in the standard group.

CONCLUSIONS

Expert videotape analysis of the patient state during procedural sedation allows direct comparison of sedation methodologies using small numbers of patients. In our institution, endoscopist-directed sedation using a midazolam/narcotic combination for EUS proved inferior to sedation using propofol given by an anesthesiologist. Specifically, a midazolam/narcotic combination provided less effective intraprocedural conditions, was less efficient both before and after the procedure, and was less satisfactory to patients as compared with propofol. Results of this type of analysis can be used to drive appropriate system redesign and improve patient care.

Medication-free colonoscopy--factors related to pain and its assessment

AIM

This paper is a report of a study conducted to determine the possibility of performing colonoscopy without medication, elucidate the factors related to a painful colonoscopy experience and compare colonoscopy patients' reported pain assessment to nurses' and endoscopists' observations.

BACKGROUND

Sedation and pain medication are routinely administered for colonoscopies in many countries. However, medication-free colonoscopies have attracted attention because the use of medication requires a time commitment from patients and increases complications. Earlier studies show that, for instance, gender, age and pelvic operations may increase the risk of painful colonoscopy and those healthcare professionals and patients appear to assess pain differently.

METHOD

A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted in a Finnish university hospital using questionnaires developed for this study and analysed statistically. The sample of 138 colonoscopy patients, 11 nurses and 11 endoscopists was recruited in 2006.

RESULTS

Over three-quarters of patients reported mild pain or no pain at all. Patients' nervousness is a risk factor for experiencing pain during colonoscopy. Both nurses and endoscopists slightly underestimated the intensity of pain experienced by patients.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to perform colonoscopy without medication with most patients and focus sedation and pain medication on at-risk patients, especially those who are nervous. Before the procedure, nurses must devote time to discovering which patients are nervous and at risk of having a painful colonoscopy to present them for sedation. To improve pain management for patients having colonoscopy, endoscopists and nurses should participate systematically in pain education and use pain scales.

Understanding modes of moderate sedation during gastrointestinal procedures: a current review of the literature

Recommendations for routine screening for colorectal cancer with colonoscopy are likely to substantially increase the demand for provision of sedation for these procedures. Because of this burgeoning caseload and associated economic constraints, it is unlikely that anesthesiologists will be available for all such procedures, particularly those involving average-risk patients. Thus, sedative agents that can be safely administered by nonanesthesiologists, appropriately trained in monitoring and managing the patient's airway, are desperately needed. New concepts in sedation for colonoscopy include enhanced mechanisms for drug delivery such as patient-controlled sedation/analgesia and target-controlled infusion, along with the development of new drugs such as a modified cyclodextrin-based formulation of propofol and fospropofol disodium (Aquavan Injection), a water-soluble prodrug of propofol.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides an update on the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding with special attention to patient preparation, sedation, hemostatic techniques, and postprocedure care.

RECENT FINDINGS

In a large multicenter clinical trial, nurse-administered propofol sedation had a complication rate of less than 0.2%. The optimal management for an ulcer with adherent clot was confirmed by a meta-analysis to be clot removal and endoscopic treatment of the underlying lesion. A number of prospective studies have demonstrated that capsule endoscopy is the most sensitive imaging modality for identifying lesions in the small bowel and that double-balloon enteroscopy is the least invasive modality available for the management of these lesions.

SUMMARY

This update describes many recent advances in the diagnosis and management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, clearly, much work needs to be done in this field. Since propofol is not available for use in all endoscopy units, is there a better alternative for deep sedation? Rebleeding occurs in 20% of patients after endoscopic therapy, and so can we provide better outcomes with newer technologies (endoscopic suturing devices)? Finally, what is the best management for Helicobacter pylori-negative, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug-negative ulcer patients?

Review article: moderate sedation for endoscopy: sedation regimens for non-anaesthesiologists

BACKGROUND

Moderate sedation is a drug-induced depression of consciousness during which patients respond purposefully to verbal commands with or without light tactile stimulation. Moderate sedation is typically accepted in the anaesthesia community as an appropriate target for sedation by non-anaesthesiologists.

AIM

To describe drug regimens that can be successfully and safely targeted to moderate sedation for endoscopy by non-anaesthesiologists.

RESULTS

Moderate sedation can be achieved using narcotics and benzodiazepines. There is interest in some countries in propofol for endoscopy, which is often viewed as an agent for deep sedation. Indeed, propofol cannot be targeted to moderate sedation for endoscopy as a single agent because of coughing during upper endoscopy and pain withdrawal responses during colonoscopy. Pre-treatment with low doses of narcotic and/or benzodiazepine blocks these effects, allowing propofol to be targeted to moderate sedation. Fospropofol, a prodrug of propofol in clinical development, can also be targeted to moderate sedation if co-administered with narcotic.

CONCLUSION

Moderate sedation provides a safety margin when compared with deep sedation and general anaesthesia. Development of protocols that target agents such as propofol to moderate sedation will expand the sedation agents available to non-anaesthesiologists and help ensure that this expansion occurs safely.

Interventional endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review is an update of key issues in gastric interventional endoscopy. It focuses on the areas of patient preparation, endoscopic mucosal resection, gastroduodenal stenting, and endoscopic placement of enteric feeding tubes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Clopidogel (Plavix), a newer antiplatelet agent, can increase the risk of bleeding. Therefore, in selected cases, it should be held for 7-10 days prior to interventional procedures. In experienced hands, endoscopic mucosal resection (success rate, 76-100%; complication rate, 4-28%) and gastroduodenal stenting (success rate, 81-92%; complication rate, 1-17%) seem to be safe and effective techniques.

SUMMARY

The field of interventional endoscopy continues to advance and to conquer new frontiers. These advances create new problems that need to be addressed and studied by researchers, however. It is only through these types of reviews that our state of knowledge can be updated to help provide the latest information for clinicians in the field and to challenge researchers with future problems that need to be studied.