Sub-clinical hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhotic patients is not aggravated by sedation with propofol compared to midazolam: a randomized controlled study

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on extrahepatic abdominal surgery in patients with cirrhosis and advanced chronic liver disease

Extrahepatic surgery in patients with cirrhosis of the liver represents a growing clinical challenge due to the increasing prevalence of chronic liver disease and improved long-term survival of these patients. The presence of cirrhosis significantly increases the risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality following abdominal surgery. Advances in preoperative risk stratification, surgical techniques, and perioperative care have led to better outcomes, yet integration of these improvements into routine clinical practice is needed. These clinical practice guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for the assessment and perioperative management of patients with cirrhosis undergoing extrahepatic surgery. An individualised patient-centred risk assessment by a multidisciplinary team including hepatologists, surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and other support teams is essential.

Endoscopy Sedation Challenges in Patients With Hepatic Encephalopathy: A Focused Review on Propofol and Selective Use of Benzodiazepines

BACKGROUND

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) presents a significant challenge in gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation due to impaired liver function, which alters drug metabolism and increases the risk of adverse effects. In the absence of clear guidelines and specific biomarkers for diagnosis and assessment of HE, there is insufficient evidence to formulate standardized protocols for management, diagnosis, and sedation during endoscopy.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

Rigid protocols for sedation are difficult to implement due to wide variation in patient age, comorbidities, and disease severity, which creates a "gray zone." This leaves decisions heavily reliant on the clinician's preference or experience, patient characteristics, and institutional protocols. This review highlights the strengths and limitations of propofol, midazolam, and remimazolam in efforts to improve sedation strategies for endoscopic procedures in patients with HE.

DATA SOURCES

A review was conducted using PubMed and Scopus databases, keeping in view recent publications. Only primary research studies were considered for this review. Inclusion was based on the relevance of patient side effects, sedation outcomes, and safety profiles, with a particular focus on gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures and their implications in HE.

RESULTS

Propofol remains preferred in patients with HE, demonstrating manageable cardiovascular and respiratory events without worsening encephalopathy. However, its safety requires careful consideration in this high-risk population. The combination of propofol with adjuncts, such as esketamine, has shown potential in mitigating adverse effects and optimizing sedation protocols in challenging cases. Midazolam, though historically used, is not recommended in HE due to exacerbation of encephalopathy and unfavorable safety profiles. While remimazolam shows promise, no evidence in HE populations precludes definitive conclusions about its efficacy and safety.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should focus on optimizing sedation protocols according to the needs of HE patients, including tools for risk stratification and guidelines considering individual patient profiles. Furthermore, studies must be performed to evaluate remimazolam's outcomes and safety profiles, both as a standalone sedative and in combination with other agents.

Position paper on perioperative management and surgical risk in the patient with cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

Management of the patient with cirrhosis of the liver that requires surgical treatment has been relatively unexplored. In Mexico, there is currently no formal stance or expert recommendations to guide clinical decision-making in this context.

AIMS

The present position paper reviews the existing evidence on risks, prognoses, precautions, special care, and specific management or procedures for patients with cirrhosis that require surgical interventions or invasive procedures. Our aim is to provide recommendations by an expert panel, based on the best published evidence, and consequently ensure timely, quality, efficient, and low-risk care for this specific group of patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven recommendations were developed that address preoperative considerations, intraoperative settings, and postoperative follow-up and care.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment and care of patients with cirrhosis that require major surgical or invasive procedures should be overseen by a multidisciplinary team that includes the anesthesiologist, hepatologist, gastroenterologist, and clinical nutritionist. With respect to decompensated patients, a nephrology specialist may be required, given that kidney function is also a parameter involved in the prognosis of these patients.

Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnostic and procedural sedation

Safe and effective sedation depends on various factors, such as the choice of sedatives, sedation techniques used, experience of the sedation provider, degree of sedation-related education and training, equipment and healthcare worker availability, the patient's underlying diseases, and the procedure being performed. The purpose of these evidence-based multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines is to ensure the safety and efficacy of sedation, thereby contributing to patient safety and ultimately improving public health. These clinical practice guidelines comprise 15 key questions covering various topics related to the following: the sedation providers; medications and equipment available; appropriate patient selection; anesthesiologist referrals for high-risk patients; pre-sedation fasting; comparison of representative drugs used in adult and pediatric patients; respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and sedation depth monitoring during sedation; management of respiratory complications during pediatric sedation; and discharge criteria. The recommendations in these clinical practice guidelines were systematically developed to assist providers and patients in sedation-related decision making for diagnostic and therapeutic examinations or procedures. Depending on the characteristics of primary, secondary, and tertiary care institutions as well as the clinical needs and limitations, sedation providers at each medical institution may choose to apply the recommendations as they are, modify them appropriately, or reject them completely.

Anesthesia in patients with chronic liver disease: An updated review

Anesthesia in chronic liver disease patients can be challenging because of the medications given or interventions performed and their effects on liver physiology. Also, the effects of liver disease on coagulation and metabolism should be considered carefully. This review focuses on anesthesia in patients with different chronic liver disease stages. A literature search was performed for Scopus and PubMed databases for articles discussing different types of anesthesia in patients with chronic liver disease, their safety, usage, and risks. The choice of anesthesia is of crucial importance. Regional anesthesia, especially neuroaxial anesthesia, may benefit some patients with liver disease, but coagulopathy should be considered. Regional anesthesia provides optimum intraoperative relaxation and analgesia that extends to the postoperative period while avoiding the side effects of intravenous anesthetics and opioids. Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of anesthetic medications must guard against complications related to overdose or decreased metabolism. The choice of anesthesia in chronic liver disease patients is crucial and could be tailored according to the degree of liver compensation and the magnitude of the surgical procedure.

General anesthesia in patients with hepatic encephalopathy and acute variceal bleeding undergoing endoscopic treatment: A retrospective study

The management of cirrhotic patient with encephalopathy and acute variceal bleeding (AVB) remains a clinical challenge with a high mortality. Early endoscopic therapies are frequently applied in patients with AVB. However, the application of general anesthesia in endoscopic surgery for patients with hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is pretty challenging. The present study aimed to evaluate the possible effect of general anesthesia with tracheal intubation on patient complicated with encephalopathy and AVB during endoscopic procedure. Thirty-six cirrhotic patients with encephalopathy and AVB were retrospectively studied, 14 patients underwent endoscopic treatment under general anesthesia with tracheal intubation, and 22 patients received pharmacological treatment, or and endoscopic therapy without general anesthesia served as the control group. Routine clinical and laboratory data were collected. The total mortality rate was 13.9% (5/36), 2 (14.3%) in the anesthesia group, 3 (13.6%) in the control group. The child-Pugh class of death cases were all grade C, 3 (60%) of them were in the stage IV of HE. The stage of HE was all improved in the 2 groups, 12 (85.8 %) patients were totally recovered from consciousness disturbance in the anesthesia group and 16 (72.7 %) in the control group respectively, the difference between the 2 groups was not significant (P>0.05). Except the death cases, there were still 3 patients in the control group had impaired consciousness at discharge. Child-Pugh score, Child-Pugh class and the stage of HE in the anesthesia group were significantly improved at discharge compared with those before operation. General anesthesia does not aggravate the severity of encephalopathy, and endoscopic treatment under general anesthesia with tracheal intubation is effective for HE patients complicated with AVB.

Liver Fat Storage Is a Better Predictor of Coronary Artery Disease than Visceral Fat

Fatty liver is one aspect of metabolic syndrome. The roles and contributions of fatty liver and visceral fat storage to coronary artery disease (CAD) are not clear. This study measured associations among visceral fat storage, fatty liver, insulin resistance, atherosclerosis, and CAD. Patients were divided into three groups: excess visceral fat (visceral fat area >330 ± 99 cm2), non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and a control group. The definition of fatty liver is liver minus spleen density greater than or equal to -10. We defined early atherosclerosis as intima-media thickness of the common carotid artery >7 mm in men and >0.65 mm in women, measured with Doppler ultrasound. Visceral fat area was defined using CT (>330 ± 99 cm2). Insulin-resistance biomarkers (HOMA), CRP, and oxidant-antioxidant status (MDA-Paraoxonase) were also measured. Patients with high liver or visceral fat showed higher coronary plaque prevalence (50% (p < 0.001), 38% (p < 0.01), respectively vs. 25% in the control group), higher prevalence of coronary stenosis (30% (p < 0.001), 22% (p < 0.01) vs. 11% in the control group), higher intimal thickening (0.98 ± 0.3 (p< 0.01), 0.86 ± 0.1 (p < 0.01) vs. 0.83 ± 0.1 in the control group), higher HOMA (4.0 ± 3.0 (p < 0.005), 3.0 ± 1.0 (p < 0.001) vs. 1.5 ± 1.2 in the control group), and higher triglyceride levels (196.8 ± 103 (p < 0.005), 182.6 ± 90.87 (p < 0.005) vs. 145 ± 60 in the control group). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that fatty liver predicted CAD (OR 2.7, 95% CI 2.3-4.9, p < 0.001) independently of visceral fat storage (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.2-2.8, p < 0.001). Liver fat storage is a strong independent risk factor for CAD and carotid atherosclerosis and contributes more than visceral fat storage.

Low-dose propofol as a solo agent for sedation in postoperative ventilated liver transplant recipients: A preliminary observational study

Background and Aims

Propofol is a commonly used sedative agent, in a dose of 1.5-4.5 mg.kg-1.h-1. Following liver transplantation (LT), drug metabolism may be altered due to liver mass, altered hepatic blood flow, reduced levels of serum proteins, and liver regeneration. Thus, we hypothesized that propofol requirements in this group of patients would be different as compared to the standard dose. This study evaluated the dose of propofol used for sedation in electively ventilated living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients.

Material and Methods

After patients were shifted to the postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) following LDLT surgery, propofol infusion was started at a dose of 1 mg.kg-1.h-1 and titrated to maintain a bispectral index (BIS) value of 60-80. No other sedatives such as opioids or benzodiazepines were used. Dose of propofol, noradrenaline, and arterial lactate levels were noted 2 hourly.

Results

The mean propofol dose required in these patients was 1.02 ± 0.26 mg.kg-1.h-1. Noradrenaline was gradually tapered off and stopped within 14 h of shifting to ICU. The mean duration between the time of cessation of propofol infusion till extubation was 2.06 ± 1.44 h. Propofol dose did not correlate with respective lactate levels, ammonia levels, or graft-to-recipient weight ratio.

Conclusion

The dose range of propofol required for postoperative sedation in LDLT recipients was lower than the conventional dose.

The 50% and 95% effective doses of remimazolam tosilate with adjuvant sufentanil for sedation in patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing oesophagogastric varices screening endoscopy

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Sedation is routinely provided for patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Remimazolam tosilate is a novel and short-acting sedative agent that has been used for sedation during endoscopic procedures. The optimal dose of remimazolam in gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients with liver cirrhosis has not been elucidated.

BACKGROUND

To determine the effective dose of remimazolam tosilate with adjuvant sufentanil for sedation in patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing oesophagogastric varices screening endoscopy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients aged 18-65 years with liver cirrhosis undergoing screening endoscopy for oesophagogastric varices were recruited. Sufentanil 0.15 μg/kg was given intravenously at 2 min before administration of remimazolam tosilate. The initial dose of remimazolam was 0.1 mg/kg and adjusted by 0.025 mg/kg as a step size, based on the Dixon and Massay up-and-down sequential method. Inclusion of patients was stopped after eight crossovers and the calculated median effective dose (ED₅₀ ) of remimazolam for successful endoscopy was obtained by calculating the mean of midpoint of all crossovers. Furthermore, a probit regression was applied to establish the dose-response curve of remimazolam and further assess the 95% effective dose (ED₉₅ ) of remimazolam.

RESULTS

The calculated ED₅₀ of remimazolam for successful endoscopy using the mean of midpoint of all crossovers was 0.097 mg/kg (95% CI, 0.004-0.099 mg/kg). Using the probit regression analysis, the ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ of remimazolam for successful endoscopy was 0.097 mg/kg (95% CI, 0.004-0.099 mg/kg) and 0.107 mg/kg (95% CI, 0.103-0.336 mg/kg), respectively. No adverse events were observed throughout the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study suggests that the ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ of remimazolam tosilate with adjuvant sufentanil for sedation in liver cirrhosis patients undergoing oesophagogastric varices screening endoscopy was 0.097 and 0.107 mg/kg, respectively.

Academy of Medicine, Singapore clinical guideline on the use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting

INTRODUCTION

In Singapore, non-anaesthesiologists generally administer sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The drugs used for sedation in hospital endoscopy centres now include propofol in addition to benzodiazepines and opiates. The requirements for peri-procedural monitoring and discharge protocols have also evolved. There is a need to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline on the safe and effective use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting.

METHODS

The Academy of Medicine, Singapore appointed an expert workgroup comprising 18 gastroenterologists, general surgeons and anaesthesiologists to develop guidelines on the use of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The workgroup formulated clinical questions related to different aspects of endoscopic sedation, conducted a relevant literature search, adopted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and developed recommendations by consensus using a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

The workgroup made 16 recommendations encompassing 7 areas: (1) purpose of sedation, benefits and disadvantages of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (2) pre-procedural assessment, preparation and consent taking for sedation; (3) Efficacy and safety of drugs used in sedation; (4) the role of anaesthesiologist administered sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (5) performance of sedation; (6) post-sedation care and discharge after sedation; and (7) training in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy for non-anaesthesiologists.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations serve to guide clinical practice during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-anaesthesiologists in the hospital setting.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patient: Issues on the table

Patients with liver cirrhosis are fragile and present specific clinical hallmarks. When undergoing to gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, these subjects require an individual pre evaluation, taking into account: Level of haemostasis impairment, the individual risk of infection, the impact of sedation on hepatic encephalopathy and other factors. The overall assessment of liver function, employing common scoring systems, should be also assessed in the preprocedural phase. Beside some common general problems, regarding GI endoscopy in cirrhotic subjects, also specific issues are present for some frequent indications or procedures. For instance, despite an increased incidence of adenomas in cirrhosis, colon cancer screening remains suboptimal in subjects with this disease. Several studies in fact demonstrated liver cirrhosis as a negative factor for an adequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. On the other hand, also the routine assessment of gastroesophageal varices during upper GI endoscopy presents some concern, since important inter-observer variability or incomplete description of endoscopic findings has been reported in some studies. In this review we discussed in details the most relevant issues that may be considered while performing general GI endoscopic practice, in patient with cirrhosis. For most of these issues there are no guidelines or clear indications. Moreover until now, few studies focused on these aspects. We believe that targeting these issues with corrective measures may be helpful to develop a tailored endoscopic approach for cirrhosis, in the future.

Dexmedetomidine alleviates neuroinflammation, restores sleep disorders and neurobehavioral abnormalities in rats with minimal hepatic encephalopathy

The occurrence and progress of minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) is closely related to the inflammatory response; however, inflammation contributes to behavioral abnormalities and sleep disorders. Dexmedetomidine has anti-inflammatory effects against various diseases. Whether dexmedetomidine improves MHE and the underlying mechanism is yet unclear. The present study aimed to explore the effects of dexmedetomidine on sleep structure, neurobehavior, and brain morphology of MHE rats and investigate its underlying mechanism. A rat MHE model was established by intraperitoneal injection of thioacetamide (TAA). Dexmedetomidine or yohimbine was administered intraperitoneally to investigate the role of α2 adrenoreceptor in the protection conferred by dexmedetomidine. The 24-h sleep, neurobehavioral changes, the liver function, blood ammonia and morphological changes of the liver and brain were assessed. Also, the microglia, astrocytes, neurons, the expression of pro-inflammatory factors (IL-1β, TNF-α, IL-18), and NLRP3 inflammasomes were detected. The results showed that marked sleep disorders, cognitive impairment, anxiety, abnormal liver function and pathological damage of liver and brain were detected in the MHE rats. The microglia in the prefrontal cortex was highly activated along with the increased expression of pro-inflammatory factors and NLRP3 inflammasomes. Interestingly, dexmedetomidine improved above indicators, however, yohimbine significantly abolished the protection of dexmedetomidine. These findings showed that dexmedetomidine restored the changes in the sleep disorders and neurobehavior in rats and reduced brain damage. The mechanism might be partially related to the activation of α2 adrenergic receptors, reduction of neuroinflammatory response, and inhibition of the activation of microglia and NLRP3/Caspase1 signaling pathway.

Update on pharmacotherapy of hepatic encephalopathy

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a central nervous system disease caused by serious liver diseases or various portal vein systemic circulation abnormalities. The pathogenesis and pathophysiology of HE have not been fully elucidated yet, and among others, the most important is still the theory of ammonia intoxication proposed in the 1930s. Therefore, reducing blood ammonia is currently the main therapeutic strategy for HE, along with improving nervous system function. Thanks to the clarification of the mechanism underlying ammonia-induced brain cell injury in recent years, researchers have proposed some novel therapeutic targets and related drugs. This work will make a brief summary regarding the update of HE drugs with regard to ammonia reduction, nervous system improvement, and intervention of ammonia toxicity targets.

Clinical outcomes of sedation during emergency endoscopic band ligation for variceal bleeding: Multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Few studies have directly compared the efficacy of sedated- and un-sedated endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for acute variceal bleeding. We aimed to determine whether sedation during EVL in patients with variceal bleeding is safe and effective.

METHODS

We analyzed data from patients who underwent EVL for acute variceal bleeding according to sedation in six hospitals of Hallym University Medical Center. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as a failure to control bleeding, death during EVL, or rebleeding within 5 days. Secondary endpoints included the procedure time, adverse events, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Of 1,300 patients who were included, only 430 (33.1%) received sedation during EVL. Propofol alone was used for sedation in 85% of sedated-EVLs. The mean procedure time in the sedation group was shorter than that of the non-sedation group (12.4 ± 9.5 min versus 13.8 ± 9.4 min, P = 0.010). The proportion of treatment failure did not differ between the groups (7.4% versus 9.1%, P = 0.374). In the multivariable analysis, an AIMS65 score ≥2 and blood transfusion within 72 hours were associated with treatment failure of EVL; however, the use of sedation was not (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.96 [0.60-1.51]). Adverse events during EVL and hepatic encephalopathy did not differ between the two groups. Sedation also did not affect the 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [95% CI] = 0.99 [0.66-1.47]).

CONCLUSION

Sedation reduced the procedure time of EVL. Sedation is safe to use during EVL for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

Propofol vs midazolam sedation for elective endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, LILACS databases. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) were included. The outcomes studied were procedure time, recovery time, discharge time, and adverse events (bradycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3,576 records. Out of these, 8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients (302 in the propofol group and 294 in the midazolam group) were included for the final analysis. Procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups (MD: 0.25, 95%CI: -0.64 to 1.13, P = 0.59). Recovery time (MD: -8.19, 95%CI: -10.59 to -5.79, P < 0.00001). and discharge time were significantly less in the propofol group (MD: -12.98, 95%CI: -18.46 to -7.50, P < 0.00001). Adverse events were similar in both groups (RD: 0.02, 95%CI: 0-0.04, P = 0.58). Moreover, no significant difference was found for bradycardia (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.16), hypotension (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.17), and hypoxemia (RD: 0.00, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.04, P = 0.93). Five studies had low risk of bias, two demonstrated some concerns, and one presented high risk. The quality of the evidence was very low for procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events; while low for discharge time.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs show that propofol has shorter recovery and patient discharge time as compared to midazolam with a similar rate of adverse events. These results suggest that propofol should be the preferred agent for sedation in patients with cirrhosis.

Propofol alone prevents worsening hepatic encephalopathy rather than midazolam alone or combined sedation after esophagogastroduodenoscopy in compensated or decompensated cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to determine which type and dose of sedative drugs should be given to cirrhotic patients with compensation or decompensation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to prevent hepatic encephalopathy (HE) after sedation.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of cirrhotic patients consecutively admitted to the hospital and conducted a number connection test (NCT) before and 2 h after EGD with moderate sedation. Sedation was performed using either propofol alone, midazolam alone, or combined propofol + midazolam.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients were admitted for a screening EGD. The NCT before and after sedation were not significantly different in the propofol alone (pre-NCT = 47.3 ± 19.71 seconds vs. post-NCT = 49.4 ± 21.79 seconds, P = 0.6389). In the midazolam alone (pre-NCT = 50.3 ± 20.56 vs. post-NCT = 63.7 ± 33.17, P = 0.0021) and in the combined propofol + midazolam (pre-NCT = 47.4 ± 20.99 vs. post-NCT = 60.0 ± 30.79, P = 0.0002), NCT were significantly delayed. The propofol alone group received 52.3 ± 16.31 mg (0.82 ± 0.29 mg/kg). In 45 (67.2%) decompensated patients, only the propofol alone was not significantly different between pre-NCT (49.2 ± 22.92) and post-NCT (52.3 ± 24.90) (P = 0.4548). Serum sodium level was significantly correlated with delta-NCT (r = 0.3594, P = 0.0028).

CONCLUSION

Propofol alone could be the best sedation strategy for cirrhotic patients with compensation or decompensation without aggravation of covert or overt HE. Hyponatremia could be a risk factor for developing or worsening HE after EGD with sedation.

Neurologic Safety of Etomidate-Based Sedation during Upper Endoscopy in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis Compared with Propofol: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

(1) Background: Although etomidate-based sedation is an effective and safe protocol in endoscopic procedures, there is a lack of evidence regarding the safety of etomidate in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC). This study aimed to compare the neurologic safety and efficacy of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation in patients with LC. (2) Methods: From December 2017 to December 2019, consecutive cirrhotic patients who underwent sedative endoscopy using either etomidate or propofol were randomly recruited. The primary endpoint was the number connection test (NCT), and the secondary endpoints included factors for the safety of sedatives during endoscopy. (3) Results: 63 patients were enrolled in each of the etomidate and propofol groups. The NCT times were significantly lower in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. Furthermore, severe or very severe degree of encephalopathy was higher in the propofol group but was not significantly different. Pharmacological properties and the overall incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between the groups. (4) Conclusion: Etomidate-based sedation exacerbates neither subclinical nor overt hepatic encephalopathy. It guarantees efficacies similar to those of propofol regarding rapid sedation, fast recovery, and early discharge, with no increased risk of adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events in patients with LC.

Sedation During Endoscopy in Patients with Cirrhosis: Safety and Predictors of Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

Sedation during endoscopy in cirrhotic patients is typically via moderate sedation, most commonly using a combination of a benzodiazepine (i.e., midazolam) and narcotic (i.e., fentanyl) or with propofol using monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Here, we examined the safety of moderate sedation and MAC in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy from a large academic medical center between 2010 and 2014 examined extensive clinical data including the following: past history, physical findings, laboratory results, and procedural adverse events. Adverse events were defined a priori and included hypoxia, hypotension, bleeding, and death.

RESULTS

We identified 2618 patients with cirrhosis who underwent endoscopic procedures; the mean age was 56 years, 36% were female, the mean Child-Pugh score was 9.3 (IQR: 8, 11), and Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 3.2 (IQR: 1, 4); 1157 had MAC; and 1461 had moderate sedation. There was no difference in the frequency of adverse events in MAC and moderate sedation groups, with a total of 15 adverse events (7/1157 MAC and 8/1461 moderate sedation). The most common procedure performed was esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD, n = 1667) and was associated with 10 adverse events. Overall, adverse events included bradycardia (1), hypoxia (7), bleeding (5), laryngospasm (1), and perforation (1). The frequency was similar for EGD, ERCP, and colonoscopy-each at a rate of 0.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy appeared to be similar with moderate sedation or MAC, and the frequency was the same for different types of procedures.

Safety profile of sedative endoscopy including cognitive performance in liver cirrhosis: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

The indiscriminate use of sedative drugs during endoscopy can pose multiple risks including cognitive impairment in advanced liver cirrhosis. However, the data are scarce regarding which sedative drugs are safest in these populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety profiles including cognitive performance among midazolam, propofol, and combination therapy in advanced cirrhotic patients. This double-blind randomized controlled study included 60 consecutive advanced cirrhotic patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The Stroop application was used to screen for cognitive impairment. Patients were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups, midazolam, propofol, or the combination group, and underwent Stroop test before and two hours after the completion of endoscopy. Hemodynamic safety and the subjective satisfaction score were also evaluated. Patients did not show significant changes in on-time or off-time on the Stroop test before and two hours after sedatives, and there was no significant difference among the 3 treatment groups. Also, there were no significant vital sign changes after sedatives. Time-to-recovery was longest in midazolam group, and patient awakening and patient memory were highest in propofol group. However, all 3 groups showed no difference in patient satisfaction, but the combination group was more preferred in terms of subjective satisfaction by physicians. Factors affecting worsened Stroop speed after sedatives were older age, low education level and high MELD score. All sedative methods using midazolam, propofol, or combination therapy showed similar safety profile in advanced cirrhosis, and were not associated with increased risk of cognitive impairment.

Chinese guidelines on management of hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhosis

The Chinese Society of Hepatology developed the current guidelines on the management of hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhosis based on the published evidence and the panelists' consensus. The guidelines provided recommendations for the diagnosis and management of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) including minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) and overt hepatic encephalopathy, emphasizing the importance on screening MHE in patients with end-stage liver diseases. The guidelines emphasized that early identification and timely treatment are the key to improve the prognosis of HE. The principles of treatment include prompt removal of the cause, recovery of acute neuropsychiatric abnormalities to baseline status, primary prevention, and secondary prevention as soon as possible.

Safety and effectiveness of midazolam for cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopic variceal ligation

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is an established treatment for esophageal variceal bleeding. Midazolam (MDZ) is most commonly used for sedation during endoscopic procedures. However, adverse events (AEs) may occur more frequently in patients with cirrhosis due to altered MDZ metabolism.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 325 patients with cirrhosis who received EVL.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in treatment outcome and procedure time among 151 patients in the MDZ group and 169 patients in the non-MDZ group. Desaturation (23.2% vs. 7.7%, p<0.01), bradycardia (22.5% vs. 17.2%, p=0.03), and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) (6.6% vs. 0.6%, p<0.01) were more common in the MDZ group than in the non-MDZ group. Logistic regression analyses revealed that an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of ≥2 (p<0.01) and the use of MDZ (p<0.01) were associated with the development of overall AEs. An ECOG score of ≥2 (p=0.01), high serum creatinine level (p=0.02), and the use of MDZ (p<0.01) were significant risk factors for HE.

CONCLUSION

Extreme caution should be taken when sedating patients with cirrhosis receiving EVL due to the AEs associated with the use of MDZ.

Recovery of cognitive function after sedation with propofol for outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIM

Most endoscopies performed in the United States utilize sedation. Anesthesia provides patient comfort and improved procedural quality but adds to the complexity of scheduling routine outpatient procedures. We aimed to assess the return of cognitive function after propofol administration in patients undergoing outpatient endoscopies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cognitive recovery for patients undergoing endoscopy under monitored anesthesia care was evaluated using EncephalApp. Patients were tested before and after procedure and healthy controls were tested twice, 30 min apart. Results were tabulated in on state (on time) and off state (off time) and total time (on time + off time). The time difference between pre- and post-tests, "delta," was calculated for on, off, and total times. Wilcoxon rank test was used to check the difference in mean delta of all three test times between cases and controls and to check for statistical significance.

RESULTS

The difference in mean time between cases and controls was significant for off (P < 0.0001) and total (P = 0.0002) times. No statistically significant difference was noted in mean time for on time (P = 0.013) between cases and controls. Cognitive flexibility, a measure of on time, returned to baseline after procedural sedation even though psychomotor speed, a measure of off time and total time, had not.

CONCLUSION

Cognitive flexibility returns to baseline within 30-45 min after propofol sedation despite delayed return of psychomotor speed and reaction time.

Propofol is a more effective and safer sedative agent than midazolam in endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of sedation during endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) for esophageal varices (EVs) in patients with liver cirrhosis remains unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety between propofol- and midazolam-based sedation for EIS.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with EVs were prospectively and randomly assigned to midazolam-based (Midazolam group) or propofol-based (Propofol group) sedation. All patients underwent a number connection test (NCT) to evaluate minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) on the day before and at 2 and 24 hours following EIS. The primary endpoint was exacerbation of MHE after EIS, which was defined as deterioration of the NCT. The secondary endpoints were postoperative awareness, technical success rate, frequency of body movement, patient and operator satisfaction, cardiorespiratory dynamics during EIS, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Exacerbations of MHE at 2 hours after EIS compared with those before EIS were not significantly different between the two groups. In both groups, the deterioration of NCT scores before and 2 hours after EIS was observed (Propofol group: 60.0 vs. 70.0 s, P = 0.026; Midazolam group: 42.5 vs. 67.0 s, P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in awareness, technical success rate, or patient satisfaction. However, the frequency of body movement in the Propofol group was significantly lower than that in the Midazolam group (1 vs. 4, P = 0.045), and operator satisfaction in the Propofol group was significantly higher than that in the Midazolam group (P = 0.016). No adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol-based sedation exacerbated MHE after EIS similarly to midazolam-based sedation in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, propofol-based sedation provided stable sedation with a lower frequency of body movements and high operator satisfaction.

Hepatic Encephalopathy in Patients in Lviv (Ukraine)

Background and Objectives

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) research has long been impeded by the vague definition of this disabling complication of liver failure. This article provides an overview of the etiology and impact of HE on neuromuscular functions as well as its role in the development of infections and anemia.

Materials and Methods

This was a descriptive study conducted in 36 patients with HE. Close monitoring of these patients was done by checking on several parameters.

Results

The etiological distribution: alcohol (67%), hepatitis C virus (HCV; 17%), HCV and alcohol (8%), hepatitis B virus (HBV; 3%), HBV and alcohol (3%), HBV and HCV (6%), and cryptogenic (3%). The laboratory results indicated an elevation of De Ritis level in 69% of cases and in 92% of total bilirubin values. The Halstead-Reitan (H-R) test score with regards to gender indicated that more than half of the patients had a score of 2, while only few cases received the scores 3 and 4. The frequency of H-R score with regards to Child-Pugh score showed the significant preponderance of Child-Pugh score of 7–9 (B): 58.3% compared to others groups of results, and these results indicated patients’ poor prognosis.

Conclusion

Findings showed the preponderance of female patients towards developing HE and the poor survival rate of patients older than 65 years. Alcohol and hepatitis C were the main causes associated with the development of HE. The neurological assessment marked the preponderance of Child-Pugh grades B and C and also the prevalence in female patients with neuropsychological disabilities through the assessment of H-R test.

Pharmacokinetic Analysis of Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion Models in Chinese Patients with Hepatic Insufficiency

Background

Effects of liver dysfunction on target-controlled infusion (TCI) with Marsh parameters of propofol remain poorly documented. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of propofol TCI in a cohort of Chinese patients with severe hepatic insufficiency.

Material/Methods

We assigned 32 patients who underwent liver transplantation to 3 groups according to Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score. Anesthesia, preceding liver transplantation, was induced and maintained with TCI of 3 μg/mL propofol. Plasma propofol concentration was assessed. Propofol TCI system performance was analyzed in terms of error size, bias, and divergence. Data on plasma propofol concentrations were analyzed, and population pharmacokinetic parameters of propofol were fitted by NONMEM software.

Results

In the CTP C group, measured concentrations of propofol were much higher than those of predictive concentrations, with significantly higher overshoots compared to CTP A patients. Overall, TCI system performance was significantly lower in CTP C patients. Linear regression equations of Cm vs. Cp and a regression model of pharmacokinetics were obtained.

Conclusions

Propofol TCI device performance with Marsh parameters was clinically acceptable in CTP A patients but may not be suitable for patients with severe hepatic impairment.

Anesthetic Management for Prolonged Incidental Surgery in Advanced Liver Disease

In spite of advances in perioperative management, operative procedures in patients with chronic liver disease pose a significant challenge for the anesthesiologist due to multisystem involvement, high risk of postoperative hepatic decompensation, and mortality. We describe the anesthetic management of an elderly patient with advanced liver disease (model for end-stage liver disease 16) for prolonged abdominal surgery. The use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring, point-of-care biochemical, and hematological surveillance coupled with prompt correction of all abnormalities was responsible for good outcome. The patient's inguinal swellings turned out to be extensions of a large peritoneal mesothelioma, necessitating a large abdominal incision and blood loss. Analgesia was provided by bilateral transversus abdominis plane blocks, which helped to reduce opioid use and rapid extubation.

Benzodiazepines and risk for hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis and ascites

Background

There is limited evidence to support the belief that benzodiazepines increase cirrhosis patients' risk of hepatic encephalopathy (HE).

Objective

We aimed to examine the association between benzodiazepine use and HE development in cirrhosis patients.

Methods

We used data on 865 cirrhosis patients with ascites from three trials to study the effect of benzodiazepine use on development of first-time HE. For each patient, we classified periods of benzodiazepine use by the number of days since initiation. We used Cox regression to compare the risk of HE in current benzodiazepine users vs. non-users adjusting for confounders.

Results

Cirrhosis patients were not at increased risk of HE for the first two days of benzodiazepine use, but then faced a five-fold increased risk of HE during days 3 to 10 of benzodiazepine use. The risk of HE was not increased for those who had been using benzodiazepines for more than 28 days.

Conclusion

Cirrhosis patients who had begun using benzodiazepines between 3 and 10 days previously had a markedly increased risk of developing first-time HE. Cirrhosis patients who had been using benzodiazepines for just one or two days or continued use for more than 28 days did not have such an excess risk.

Similar Risk of Cardiopulmonary Adverse Events Between Propofol and Traditional Anesthesia for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Even though propofol use for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has increased over the past decade, there is a perception that it causes a higher rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation-related adverse events associated with use of propofol vs nonpropofol agents for endoscopic procedures. We also wanted to determine the influence of duration or complexity of the procedures and endoscopist-directed (gastroenterologist) vs non-gastroenterologist-directed sedation on the outcomes.

METHODS

A search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane controlled trials registry. The following cardiopulmonary adverse events were assessed: hypoxia, hypotension, and arrhythmias. The procedures were divided into 2 groups based on the procedure length: a nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group consisting of esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and sigmoidoscopy, and an advanced endoscopic procedures group including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasonography, balloon enteroscopy, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Pooled odds ratios for complications were calculated for all the procedures combined and then separately for the 2 groups. Random-effects models were used for 2-proportion comparisons.

RESULTS

Of the 2117 citations identified, 27 original studies qualified for this meta-analysis and included 2518 patients. Of these, 1324 received propofol, and 1194 received midazolam, meperidine, pethidine, remifentanil, and/or fentanyl. Most of the included studies were randomized trials of moderate quality and nonsignificant heterogeneity (Cochran Q, 26.07; P = .13). Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled odds ratio with the use of propofol for developing hypoxia for all the procedures combined was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.07), and for developing hypotension was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.64-1.32). In the nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group, those who received propofol were 39% less likely to develop complications than those receiving traditional sedative agents (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99). There was no difference in the complication rate for the advanced endoscopic procedure group (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.34). A subgroup analysis did not show any difference in adverse events when propofol was administered by gastroenterologists or nongastroenterologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation has a similar risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events compared with traditional agents for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Propofol use in simple endoscopic procedures was associated with a decreased number of complications. When used for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures of a complex nature and longer duration, propofol was not associated with increased rates of hypoxemia, hypotension, or arrhythmias. Administration of propofol by gastroenterologists does not appear to increase the complication rates.

[Evaluation and treatment of the critically ill cirrhotic patient]

Cirrhotic patients often develop severe complications requiring ICU admission. Grade III-IV hepatic encephalopathy, septic shock, acute-on-chronic liver failure and variceal bleeding are clinical decompensations that need a specific therapeutic approach in cirrhosis. The increased effectiveness of the treatments currently used in this setting and the spread of liver transplantation programs have substantially improved the prognosis of critically ill cirrhotic patients, which has facilitated their admission to critical care units. However, gastroenterologists and intensivists have limited knowledge of the pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of these complications and of the prognostic evaluation of critically ill cirrhotic patients. Cirrhotic patients present alterations in systemic and splanchnic hemodynamics, coagulation and immune dysfunction what further increase the complexity of the treatment, the risk of developing new complications and mortality in comparison with the general population. These differential characteristics have important diagnostic and therapeutic implications that must be known by general intensivists. In this context, the Catalan Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology requested a group of experts to draft a position paper on the assessment and treatment of critically ill cirrhotic patients. This article describes the recommendations agreed upon at the consensus meetings and their main conclusions.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in the cirrhotic patient

As advances in liver disease continue, including the increasing use of liver transplantation, the endoscopist needs to be familiar with the standards of care and potential complications in the management of the cirrhotic population. This includes both elective endoscopic procedures, such as screening colonoscopies and variceal banding, as well as the acutely bleeding cirrhotic patient. Peri-procedural management and standards of care for acute gastrointestinal hemorrhaging of cirrhotic patients will be emphasized. This article will focus on the plethora of data available to highlight the benefits of endoscopic intervention in the care of patients with liver disease and outline the areas of future emphasis.

Propofol versus midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is often achieved using propofol or midazolam in general population. However, impaired protein synthesis, altered drug metabolism, and compromised hepatic blood flow in patients with liver cirrhosis might affect the pharmacokinetics of sedatives, placing cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy at a greater risk of adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess comparative efficacies and safety of propofol and midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy.

METHODS

Randomized, controlled trials comparing propofol with midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were selected. We performed the meta-analysis, using a random-effect model, the Review Manager, Version 5.2, statistical software package (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Five studies between 2003 and 2012, including 433 patients, were included. Propofol provided a shorter time to sedation (weight mean difference: -2.76 min, 95% confidence interval: -3.00 to -2.51) and a shorter recovery time (weight mean difference -6.17 min, 95% confidence interval: -6.81 to -5.54) than midazolam did. No intergroup difference in the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, or hypoxemia was observed. Midazolam was associated with the deterioration of psychometric scores for a longer period than propofol.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that Propofol sedation for endoscopy provides more rapid sedation and recovery than midazolam does. The risk of sedation-related side effects for propofol does not differ significantly from that of midazolam. The efficacy of propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy is superior to those of midazolam.

Intensive care unit management of patients with liver failure

Acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) usually mandate management within an intensive care unit (ICU). Even though the conditions bear some similarities, precipitating causes, and systemic complications management practices differ. Although early identification of ALF and ACLF, improvements in ICU management, and the widespread availability of liver transplantation have improved mortality, optimal management practices have not been defined. This article summarizes current ICU management practices and identifies areas of management that require further study.

Endoscopic band ligation and esophageal stents for acute variceal bleeding

Patients with portal hypertension and esophageal varices are at risk of bleeding due to a progressive increase in portal pressure that may rupture the variceal wall. Appropriate treatment with initial general measures, such as resuscitation, a restrictive transfusion policy, antibiotic prophylaxis, pharmacologic therapy with vasoconstrictors, and endoscopic therapy with endoscopic band ligation are mandatory. However, 10% to 15% of patients fail initial endoscopic therapy and thus rescue therapies are needed. This article reviews the current endoscopic strategies with band ligation and esophageal stents for patients with acute variceal bleeding.

The safety of combined sedation with propofol plus fentanyl for endoscopy screening and endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhotic patients

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the safety of combined sedation with propofol plus fentanyl in patients with liver cirrhosis during screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (SEGD) and a secondary prophylaxis for esophageal varices, endoscopic gastrointestinal ligation (EVL).

METHODS

A total of 309 patients with liver cirrhosis were enrolled and divided into the sedated SEGD group (n = 83), the sedated EVL group (n = 137) and the conscious EVL group (n = 89), respectively, and 100 participants with no liver diseases who underwent endoscopy for gastritis were regarded as the sedated control group. Patients in the sedated groups were administrated with propofol plus fentanyl during the endoscopic procedures and their minimal hepatic encephalopathy and sedation-related complications, including aspiration, hypoxia, hypotension and bradycardia, were evaluated and compared. The assessments of patient satisfaction and patient cooperation in the sedated and the conscious EVL groups were conducted.

RESULTS

The incidences of complications during the endoscopic procedures were not significantly different among the sedated groups (20.5% in the sedated SEGD group, 22.6% in the sedated EVL group and 19.0% in the sedated control group). No minimal hepatic encephalopathy was induced in the sedated groups. More patients in the sedated EVL group were satisfactory with the procedure compared with the conscious EVL group, as evaluated by both endoscopists and the cirrhotic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A combined sedation with propofol plus fentanyl is safe for EVL as well as for SEGD in cirrhotic patients. Sedation might make it easier for endoscopists to perform procedures and might be more acceptable for cirrhotic patients.

Is propofol safe when administered to cirrhotic patients during sedative endoscopy?

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In patients with liver cirrhosis, drugs acting on the central nervous system can lead to hepatic encephalopathy and the effects may be prolonged. Recently, misuse of propofol has been reported and the associated risk of death have become an issue. Propofol is commonly used during sedative endoscopy; therefore, its safety in high-risk groups must be further investigated. We performed a pilot study of the safety and efficacy of propofol during endoscopy in Korean patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed under sedation with propofol along with careful monitoring in 20 patients with liver cirrhosis and 20 control subjects. The presence or development of hepatic encephalopathy was assessed using the number connection test and neurologic examination.

RESULTS

Neither respiratory depression nor clinically significant hypotension were observed. Immediate postanesthetic recovery at 5 and 10 minutes after the procedure was delayed in the cirrhotic patients compared with the control group; however, at 30 minutes, the postanesthetic recovery was similar in both groups. Baseline psychomotor performance was more impaired in cirrhotic patients, but propofol was not associated with deteriorated psychomotor function even in cirrhotic patients with a minimal hepatic encephalopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation with propofol was well tolerated in cirrhotic patients. No newly developed hepatic encephalopathy was observed.

Safety and effectiveness of low-dose propofol sedation during and after esophagogastroduodenoscopy in child A and B cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Effective and safe sedation for patients with liver cirrhosis is problematic.

AIM

To examine the safety and effectiveness of low-dose propofol sedation during and after esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Study 1 was a prospective study in cirrhotic patients who underwent diagnostic EGD under propofol sedation. Propofol was given by bolus injection with an age-adjusted standard protocol consisting of 40 mg for patients <70 years, 30 mg for patients aged 70-89 years; additional injections of 20 mg propofol were given up to a maximum of 120 mg. The principal parameter was the occurrence of adverse events within 24 h after EGD. Secondary parameters included successful procedures, complications, and full recovery within 60 min. In Study 2, the residual effects of propofol were evaluated using a driving simulator and blood propofol concentrations in a subset of cirrhotic patients undergoing EGD and compared with healthy individuals. The principal parameter was driving ability.

RESULTS

Study 1: Consecutive cirrhotic patients were entered and all 163 successfully completed EGD. The mean dose of propofol was 46 mg (range 30-120 mg). No complications occurred. Full recovery had occurred in 100 % 60 min after the procedure. No adverse events occurred within 24 h after EGD. Study 2: There were no significant differences in blood propofol levels between cirrhotic patients (n = 21) and healthy individuals (n = 20) after sedation. In cirrhotic patients, there was no deterioration in driving ability as compared with healthy individuals.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose propofol sedation provided safe and effective sedation for EGD in cirrhotic patients with rapid recovery.

GABAergic transmission in hepatic encephalopathy

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE)(1) is a neuropsychiatric disorder caused by chronic or acute liver failure. Nearly thirty years ago a hypothesis was formulated explaining the neuropathology of HE by increased GABAergic tone. Recent progress in the GABAA-receptor (GABAAR) molecular pharmacology and biochemistry as well as the physiology of GABAergic transmission provided better understanding of GABA's role in health and disease. A detailed analysis of neuronal populations and their GABAergic afferents affected in HE is still missing. The slow progress in understanding the pathology of GABAergic transmission in HE is due to the high complexity of brain circuitries controlled by multiple types of GABAergic interneurons and the large variety of GABAAR, which are differently affected by pathological conditions and not yet fully identified. The mechanisms of action of the GABAAR agonist taurine, allosteric positive modulators (inhibitory neurosteroids, anaesthetics, benzodiazepines and histamine) and inhibitors of the GABAAR (excitatory neurosteroids, Ro15-4513) are discussed with respect to HE pathophysiology. Perspectives for GABAergic drugs in the symptomatic treatment of HE are suggested.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

The use of propofol as a sedative agent in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with traditional sedative agents.

METHODS

RCTs comparing the effects of propofol and traditional sedative agents during gastrointestinal endoscopy were found on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Cardiopulmonary complications (i.e., hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmia, and apnea) and sedation profiles were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two original RCTs investigating a total of 1,798 patients, of whom 912 received propofol only and 886 received traditional sedative agents only, met the inclusion criteria. Propofol use was associated with shorter recovery (13 studies, 1,165 patients; WMD -19.75; 95% CI -27.65, 11.86) and discharge times (seven studies, 471 patients; WMD -29.48; 95% CI -44.13, -14.83), higher post-anesthesia recovery scores (four studies, 503 patients; WMD 2.03; 95% CI 1.59, 2.46), better sedation (nine studies, 592 patients; OR 4.78; 95% CI 2.56, 8.93), and greater patient cooperation (six studies, 709 patients; WMD 1.27; 95% CI 0.53, 2.02), as well as more local pain on injection (six studies, 547 patients; OR 10.19; 95% CI 3.93, 26.39). Effects of propofol on cardiopulmonary complications, procedure duration, amnesia, pain during endoscopy, and patient satisfaction were not found to be significantly different from those of traditional sedative agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol is safe and effective for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures and is associated with shorter recovery and discharge periods, higher post-anesthesia recovery scores, better sedation, and greater patient cooperation than traditional sedation, without an increase in cardiopulmonary complications. Care should be taken when extrapolating our results to specific practice settings and high-risk patient subgroups.

The influence of the severity of chronic virus-related liver disease on propofol requirements during propofol-remifentanil anesthesia

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of chronic virus- related liver disease severity on propofol requirements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, 48 male patients with chronic hepatitis B infection were divided into three groups according to Child-Turcotte-Pugh classification of liver function (groups A, B, and C with mild, moderate and severe liver disease, respectively). After intubation, propofol concentration was adjusted by ± 0.3 μg/mL increments to maintain bispectral index in the range of 40-60. Target propofol concentrations at anesthesia initiation, pre-intubation and pre-incision were recorded.

RESULTS

The initial concentration used in group C was significantly lower than that used in group A or B (p<0.05), whereas no difference was observed between groups A and B. At pre-intubation, the actual required concentration of propofol increased significantly (3.2 μg/mL) in group A (p<0.05), which lead to significant differences between the groups (p<0.05). At pre-incision, the requirements for propofol decreased significantly in both groups A and B (3.0 μg/mL and 2.7 μg/mL, respectively) compared with those at pre-intubation (p<0.05), and were significantly different for all three groups (p<0.05), with group C demonstrating the lowest requirement (2.2 μg/mL). The required concentrations of propofol at pre-incision were similar to those at induction.

CONCLUSION

In this study, propofol requirements administered by target-controlled infusion to maintain similar depths of hypnosis were shown to depend on the severity of chronic virus-related liver dysfunction. In other words, patients with the most severe liver dysfunction required the least amount of propofol.