Impact of flumazenil on recovery after outpatient endoscopy: a placebo-controlled trial

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.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam Compared With Placebo and Midazolam for Moderate Sedation During Bronchoscopy

BACKGROUND

While the complexity of flexible bronchoscopy has increased, standard options for moderate sedation medications have not changed in three decades. There is a need to improve moderate sedation while maintaining safety. Remimazolam was developed to address shortcomings of current sedation strategies.

METHODS

A prospective, double-blind, randomized, multicenter, parallel group trial was performed at 30 US sites. The efficacy and safety of remimazolam for sedation during flexible bronchoscopy were compared with placebo and open-label midazolam.

RESULTS

The success rates were 80.6% in the remimazolam arm, 4.8% in the placebo arm (P < .0001), and 32.9% in the midazolam arm. Bronchoscopy was started sooner in the remimazolam arm (mean, 6.4 ± 5.82 min) compared with placebo (17.2 ± 4.15 min; P < .0001) and midazolam (16.3 ± 8.60 min). Time to full alertness after the end of bronchoscopy was significantly shorter in patients treated with remimazolam (median, 6.0 min; 95% CI, 5.2-7.1) compared with those treated with placebo (13.6 min; 95% CI, 8.1-24.0; P = .0001) and midazolam (12.0 min; 95% CI, 5.0-15.0). Remimazolam registered superior restoration of neuropsychiatric function compared with placebo and midazolam. Safety was comparable among all three arms, and 5.6% of the patients in the remimazolam group had serious treatment-emergent adverse events as compared with 6.8% in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam administered under the supervision of a pulmonologist was effective and safe for moderate sedation during flexible bronchoscopy. In an exploratory analysis, it demonstrated a shorter onset of action and faster neuropsychiatric recovery than midazolam.

Practice Guidelines for Moderate Procedural Sedation and Analgesia 2018

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Quality Assurance in the Endoscopy Suite: Sedation and Monitoring

Recent development and expansion of endoscopy units has necessitated similar progress in the quality assurance of procedure sedation and monitoring. The large number of endoscopic procedures performed annually underlies the need for standardized quality initiatives focused on mitigating patient risk before, during, and immediately after endoscopic sedation, as well as improving procedure outcomes and patient satisfaction. Specific standards are needed for newer sedation modalities, including propofol administration. This article reviews the current guidelines and literature concerning quality assurance and endoscopic procedure sedation.

Delayed flumazenil injection after endoscopic sedation increases patient satisfaction compared with immediate flumazenil injection

Background/Aims

Flumazenil was administered after the completion of endoscopy under sedation to reduce recovery time and increase patient safety. We evaluated patient satisfaction after endoscopy under sedation according to the timing of a postprocedural flumazenil injection.

Methods

In total, 200 subjects undergoing concurrent colonoscopy and upper endoscopy while sedated with midazolam and meperidine were enrolled in our investigation. We randomly administered 0.3 mg of flumazenil either immediately or 15 minutes after the endoscopic procedure. A postprocedural questionnaire and next day telephone interview were conducted to assess patient satisfaction.

Results

Flumazenil injection timing did not affect the time spent in the recovery room when comparing the two groups of patients. However, the subjects in the 15 minutes injection group were more satisfied with undergoing endoscopy under sedation than the patients in the immediate injection group according to the postprocedural survey (p=0.019). However, no difference in overall satisfaction, memory, or willingness to undergo a future endoscopy was observed between the two groups when the telephone survey was conducted on the following day.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that a delayed flumazenil injection after endoscopic sedation increased patient satisfaction without prolonging recovery time, even though the benefit of the delayed flumazenil injection did not persist into the following day.

Sedation Guidelines for Gastro Intestinal Endoscopy

Effective sedation is usually a vital precursor to any successful endoscopic procedure. With advanced techniques and medications available today this component of the procedure can be dealt with safely and in an efficient manner.

[Sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Analysis of tolerance, complications and cost-effectiveness]

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Sedation of patients is an important complement to endoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to analyze tolerance, complications and cost-effectiveness in patients undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

A total of 357 patients were prospectively studied: 138 non-sedated, 116 sedated with midazolam and 103 sedated with midazolam and meperidine. Subjective tolerance, tolerance perceived by the endoscopist, complications, and cost-effectiveness were evaluated. The Chi-square test was used for the statistical analysis. P-values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Subjective tolerance was greater in patients sedated with midazolam and meperidine than in the other groups (p < 0.05). Tolerance perceived by the endoscopist was greater in the group sedated with both drugs than in the group sedated with midazolam (p < 0.05). Subjective tolerance was better in sedated men and women but there was no association between sedation and perceived tolerance according to sex. Subjective tolerance was better in sedated patients older than 70 years than in those younger than 40 years (p < 0.05). Complications were more frequent in sedated patients and the most frequent complication in all the groups studied was mild desaturation; there was a significant difference between the group sedated with midazolam and meperidine and the non-sedated group (p < 0.05). Non-sedation had the best cost-effectiveness ratio but sedation with midazolam and meperidine was the most effective alternative.

CONCLUSION

From the point of view of the endoscopist, endoscopy can be performed without sedation, although subjective tolerance is greater in patients sedated with midazolam and meperidine. Non-sedation is more cost-effectiveness than sedation but if sedation is required midazolam and meperidine achieve better results in terms of effectiveness than midazolam alone.

Utilidad en la práctica clínica habitual de la reversión tras sedación en colonoscopia ambulatoria

INTRODUCTION

Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of flumazenil in reducing recovery time in the endoscopy unit after conscious sedation with midazolam and meperidine. However, its effectiveness in routine clinical practice has not been proved and therefore its use is debated.

AIM

To determine the effectiveness of reversion with flumazenil after conscious sedation with midazolam and pethidine in outpatient colonoscopy and to evaluate its cost-effectiveness.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Two hundred consecutive outpatients scheduled for colonoscopy with conscious sedation with midazolam and pethidine in 2 endoscopy units were prospectively included. According to routine clinical practice in each unit, 100 patients were reverted with flumazenil and 100 were not. Medical and demographic data, indications for endoscopy, doses of the medications used and endoscopic findings were collected. Three weeks after the colonoscopy each patient was interviewed by telephone to determine discomfort and complications associated with the endoscopy and/or with the use of sedation. The cost-effectiveness of the use of flumazenil was analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the two groups in age (52.9 +/- 15.5 vs 52.7 +/- 18.3, p = NS), indications for colonoscopy, findings, percentage of full colonoscopies (93 vs 95%; p = NS) or in the doses of sedatives used. The recovery time in each endoscopy unit was similar (19.2 +/- 11.7 vs 15.5 +/- 10.1 minutes, p = NS). In the reversion group there were fewer patients with prolonged stays, defined as those > 20 minutes (23 vs 11%, p < 0.001). The number of patients who remembered discomfort during the colonoscopy was significantly greater in the reversion group (23 vs 13%; p < 0.05). There were no differences in the number of patients who reported discomfort in the days following the endoscopy. The best cost-effectiveness ratio was obtained for a mean stay of 25 min.

CONCLUSION

Routine use of reversion does not decrease the mean stay in the endoscopy unit but does decrease the number of prolonged stays. Unpleasant memories of the colonoscopy were more frequent in reverted patients. The effectiveness of the routine use of reversion with flumazenil after conscious sedation with midazolam and pethidine depends on the ratio between the number of daily colonoscopies and the capacity of the recovery room.

Guidelines for conscious sedation and monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy (the Shaker technique): an alternative for assessment of supraesophageal complications of gastroesophageal reflux

This article reviews problems associated with sedated endoscopy, and describes the rationale for unsedated endoscopy as an alternative. Costs, tolerability, potential for complications, and general patient and physician acceptance for unsedated endoscopy are reviewed. A new technique, the transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (the Shaker technique), is described.

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy: a safe and less costly alternative

Upper endoscopy is an integral component in the management of upper gastrointestinal disorders, but it is underutilized because of its high cost and potential complications. Unsedated transnasal endoscopy (T-EGD) is a relatively new technique using an ultrathin endoscope. Because it is better tolerated than standard upper endoscopy, it is performed with the patient unsedated, thus avoiding the associated costs and complications of conscious sedation. In this review, the technique of T-EGD and its current experience are discussed. In addition, potential future applications, special considerations, and potential pitfalls are reviewed.

The effects of gender and age on the colonoscopic examination

The data concerning the influence of gender and age on a patient's toleration of and the technical difficulty of colonoscopy are conflicting. One hundred eighty patients (108 women and 72 men) undergoing colonoscopy were categorized into three age groups: the young (aged 2040 years), the middle-aged (aged 41-60 years), and the old (aged 61-75 years). The endoscopists assessed the examination immediately after the procedure. The patients completed a questionnaire before leaving the endoscopy unit and again 2 weeks later. The women rated colonoscopy after the procedure more painful (p < 0.01) and in the repeat questionnaire more painful (p < 0.05) and more difficult (p < 0.05) than men. Also, the endoscopists judged colonoscopy to be more difficult (p < 0.001) and the time taken to reach cecum longer (p < 0.01) for women. The young experienced more discomfort than the middle-aged or the old, as evaluated after the procedure (p < 0.05). In the repeat questionnaire, the young reported more discomfort and pain than the middle-aged (p < 0.05). The endoscopists also judged the examination to be more difficult and the time taken to intubate cecum longer for the old than for the middle-aged (p < 0.05) or the young (p < 0.01). Correspondingly, the examination time was shorter among the young when compared with the middle-aged (p < 0.05) or the old (p < 0.001). The young were least willing to repeat the examination (p < 0.05). Colonoscopy is less tolerable and more difficult for women. Although colonoscopy among the old patients was technically more difficult, they tolerated the procedure better than the young.

Sedation for endoscopy

A review of the recent literature reveals an increasing published opinion in favour of unsedated endoscopy. However, recent studies show that the majority of US patients are unwilling or unable to tolerate this. In order for there to be a shift towards unsedated endoscopy, physicians will have to change patients' expectations. The indications for diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic procedures continue to expand, involving increasingly complex techniques that require a high degree of patient cooperation. There is still a need to refine the sedative regimen for these cases.

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding in the intensive care unit. The intensivist's perspective

Gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage is a common and potentially lethal medical emergency that is a common cause for intensive care unit admission. The intensivist plays an important role as a member of the medical team managing the patient with GI bleeding who is at high risk because of severe bleeding, comorbidity, or the presence of endoscopic stigmata of recent hemorrhage. This article presents the intensivist's approach to GI hemorrhage in initial patient assessment, triage, resuscitation, specialist consultation, diagnostic evaluation, and medical therapy. This article focuses on types of GI bleeding of particular concern to the intensivist, including esophageal variceal bleeding, stress-related GI bleeding, and GI bleeding associated with myocardial infarcation.