Dose requirement and complications of diluted and undiluted propofol for deep sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Efficacy and safety of esketamine for sedation among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require propofol-based sedation combined with analgesics. At present, the efficacy and safety of esketamine as an adjunct to propofol for sedation during endoscopic procedures in patients remains controversial. Moreover, there is no universal agreement regarding the appropriate dose of esketamine supplementation. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of esketamine as an adjunct to propofol for sedation during endoscopic procedures in patients.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases and three clinical trial registry platforms were searched and the deadline was February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of esketamine for sedation were included by two reviewers. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate the pooled risk ratio or standardized mean difference.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with 1962 esketamine participants were included in the analysis. As an adjunct to propofol, the administration of esketamine reduced the recovery time compared to normal saline (NS). However, there was no significant difference between the opioids group and ketamine group. For propofol dosage, the administration of esketamine required a lower propofol dosage compared to the NS group and opioids group].For complications, the esketamine group had fewer complications compared to the NS group and opioid group in patients, but there were no significant differences between the esketamine group and ketamine group. Notably, the coadministration of esketamine was associated with a higher risk of visual disturbance compared to the NS group. In addition, we used subgroup analysis to investigate whether 0.2-0.5 mg/kg esketamine was effective and tolerable for patients.

CONCLUSION

Esketamine as an adjunct to propofol, is an appropriate effective alternative for sedation in participants undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, considering the possibility of its psychotomimetic effects, esketamine should be used with caution.

Evaluation of Propofol-Sparing Effect of Intravenous Lignocaine in Patients Undergoing Daycare Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures

Background Propofol is the most common sedative for endoscopies. Propofol alone may require larger doses for adequate level of sedation. Lignocaine is known for its anesthetic-sparing effect. We tested whether the addition of intravenous lignocaine to propofol-based sedation reduces its dose. Methods This prospective, randomized study was performed on 90 patients of 18 to 60 years of age, of either sex of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade-I & II, and was divided into two groups. Group L + P received IV bolus of 1.5 mg/kg 2% lignocaine over 10 minutes followed by 1.5 mg/ kg/ h infusion and group NS + P- received the equivalent volumes of normal saline in bolus and infusion. Patients were induced with fentanyl (2 µg/kg) and propofol (1 mg/kg). To maintain an adequate sedation level, a supplemental bolus of 0.5 mg /kg propofol was administered. The outcomes recorded were the total and supplemental amount of propofol administered, as well as recovery time. Results The mean supplemental propofol for group L + P and group NS + P- 37.00 ± 29.93 and 58.67 ± 19.49 mg, respectively and mean total propofol consumption was 98.22 ± 34.00 mg and 131.11 ± 23.18 mg, respectively, (p < 0.001). Mean recovery time in group L + P was also shorter (5.22 ± 2.14 versus 9.96 ± 2.14). The incidence of adverse events like gag reflux, upper airway obstruction, pain on injection, and hypotension was significantly lower in group L + P (p < 0.05). Conclusion The addition of lignocaine to propofol-based sedation reduced the overall propofol requirement at the same time maintaining hemodynamic stability, spontaneous respiration, and early recovery.

A comparison of different doses of fentanyl for patients undergoing elective colonoscopy: a randomized double-blind clinical trial

Aim To investigate analgesic and side effects of different doses of fentanyl in combination with propofol for colonoscopy. Methods This prospective randomized double-blind study conducted between 2019 and 2020 included 64 patients. Patients were randomized: Group 1 (fentanyl 0.5 μg/kg) and Group 2 (fentanyl 1.0 μg/kg) both in combination with propofol. Ramsay sedation score (RSS) was obtained at 5 with an additional dose of propofol. The primary outcome was the patient's postprocedural pain and adverse events during and after the procedure. Results The RSS means were statistically lower for Group 2 at the beginning and every 5 minutes of the procedure. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) for Group 2 (first, 5, 25 and 30 min) was significantly lower (p=0.000, and heart rate (HR) was significantly higher for Group 1 (during the entire procedure) (p=0.000) than in another group; peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2 ) was significantly lower for measurements within both groups (Group 1, 5, 10, 15 min; Group 2, 5, 10,15 min) (p=0.000 and p=0.000, respectively). Anxiety (p=0.010), weakness (p=0.000) and confusion (p=0.023) proved to be significantly higher for Group 1, and hypotension (p=0.001) for Group 2 than in another group. No statistical significance of Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAS) (p=0.501) and Aldrete recovery score (ARS) (p=0.845) was found. Conclusion There was no significance in postprocedural abdominal pain between the group of patients administered fentanyl at a dose of 0.5 μg/kg and the group of patients administered fentanyl at a dose of 1.0 μg/kg; however, prevalence of complications was more significant in the group with a fentanyl at a dose of 0.5 μg/kg.

The effectiveness of esketamine and propofol versus dezocine and propofol sedation during gastroscopy: A randomized controlled study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol is widely used in painless gastroscopy. However, sedation with propofol alone might increase the risk of respiratory and circulatory complications. This randomized clinical study compares the efficacy and safety of esketamine or dezocine combined with intravenous (IV) propofol in patients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 102 patients were enrolled in this study and randomized into two groups. All patients were adults aged 18-64 years who underwent upper gastrointestinal gastroscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups to receive esketamine (0.3 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group E) or dezocine (0.05 mg/kg) combined with propofol (group D). In both groups, the drugs were administered intravenously. The primary outcome was the dose of propofol which provided a satisfactory sedative effect, both to the endoscopist and the patients. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, side effects (such as hypotension, nausea and vomiting and agitation), and the number of adverse circulatory and respiratory events.

RESULTS

Data of 83 patients were analysed in the present study. Dosage of propofol required in group E (1.44 mg/kg ± 0.67 mg/kg) was significantly lower compared with that in group D (2.12 mg/kg ± 0.37 mg/kg) (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in recovery time, side effects, and the frequency of sedation-related adverse events between the two groups.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The study indicates that intravenous injection of propofol and esmketamine is more effective for gastroscopy. Use of esketamine reduces the total amount of propofol required in ASA I-II patients undergoing gastroscopy compared with single use of dezocine. It also provides more stable hemodynamics, without affecting the recovery time and side effects such as respiratory and circulatory adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (www.chictr.org.cn; registration number: ChiCTR2100051814) on 05/10/2021.

Safety of endoscopist-administered deep sedation with propofol in patients ASA III

INTRODUCTION

Deep sedation controlled by the endoscopist is safe in patients with low anesthetic risk (ASA I-II). However, scarce evidence is available in patients with intermediate risk (ASA III).

OBJETIVE

To evaluate the safety of deep sedation with propofol controlled by the usual endoscopy staff (endoscopist, nurse, assistant) in outpatients classified as ASA III and the risk factors for the occurrence of complications during deep sedation in these patients.

DESIGN

This observational and single-centre cross-sectional study includes consecutive patients undergoing non-complex procedures in which deep sedation is administered by the endoscopy staff. Patients were divided into group I (ASA=III) and group II (ASA<III).

RESULTS

A total of 562 patients were included, 80 (14.2%) group I. Complications related to deep sedation were more frequent in group I (23.8% vs 14.5%; p=0.036), mainly mild desaturations (13.8% vs 7.5%; p=0.058). Emergency intervention or exitus were not registered. The adjusted analysis identified age as the one independent baseline risk factor for developing global adverse events.

CONCLUSION

ASA III patients developed more sedation-related complications that ASA I-II patients. However these complications were mild and do not prevent to correctly perform the procedure.

Impact of intravenous and topical lidocaine on clinical outcomes in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of i.v. or topical lidocaine as an anaesthesia adjunct in improving clinical outcomes in patients receiving gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures under propofol sedation remains unclear.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) were searched for RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes with or without lidocaine application (i.v. or topical) in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 29 March 2021. The primary outcome was propofol dosage, while secondary outcomes included procedure time, recovery time, adverse events (e.g. oxygen desaturation), post-procedural pain, and levels of endoscopist and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Twelve trials (1707 patients) published between 2011 and 2020 demonstrated that addition of i.v. (n=7) or topical (n=5) lidocaine to propofol sedation decreased the level of post-procedural pain (standardised mean difference [SMD]=-0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.8 to -0.14), risks of gag events (risk ratio [RR]=0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.75), and involuntary movement (RR=0.4, 95% CI: 0.16-0.96). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that only i.v. lidocaine reduced propofol dosage required for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (SMD=-0.83, 95% CI: -1.19 to -0.47), increased endoscopist satisfaction (SMD=0.75, 95% CI: 0.21-1.29), and shortened the recovery time (SMD=-0.83, 95% CI: -1.45 to -0.21). Intravenous or topical lidocaine did not affect the incidence of oxygen desaturation (RR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.41-1.24) or arterial hypotension (RR=0.6, 95% CI: 0.22-1.65) and procedure time (SMD=0.21, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.51).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that i.v. or topical lidocaine appears safe to use and may be of benefit for improving propofol sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Further large-scale trials are warranted to support our findings.

Choice of sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: is monitored anesthesia care as safe as general anesthesia? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) are the 2 most common methods of sedation used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the overall safety between MAC vs. GA in ERCP.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases to identify studies reporting the use of MAC or GA as a choice of sedation for ERCP. The primary outcome was to compare the overall rate of sedation-related adverse events in MAC vs. GA groups. The secondary endpoint was to investigate the total duration of the procedure, recovery time, ERCP cannulation rates, and conversion rate of MAC to GA. The meta-analysis was performed using a Der Simonian and Laird random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies reporting on 11,592 patients were included. The overall sedation-related side-effects were similar in the GA (12.76%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.80-21.73; I2=95%) and MAC (12.08%, 95%CI 5.38-20.89; I2=99%) groups (P=0.956). Hypoxia, arrhythmias, hypotension, aspiration and other sedation-related side-effects were similar between the 2 groups. The mean duration of the procedure was longer in the MAC group, but the mean recovery time was shorter. Significant heterogeneity was noted in our meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In our meta-analysis, the overall sedation-related side-effects were similar between the MAC and GA groups. MAC could be used as a safer alternative to GA when performing ERCP. However, large multicenter randomized control trials are needed to further validate our findings.

Pre-procedure intravenous lidocaine administration on propofol consumption for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure is generally performed in patients with high comorbidity. We aimed to reduce the consumption of propofol by adding lidocaine before ERCP.

METHODS

Eighty ERCP patients with ASA I-III, aged between 45-75 years, were randomly divided into two groups. Lidocaine group (group L, n = 40), received 1-mg midazolam, 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine, and 1 mg/kg propofol intravenously. The control group (group C, n = 40) received 1-mg midazolam, saline in the same volume as the lidocaine group, and 1 mg/kg propofol intravenously. Propofol was administered with intermittent bolus doses. Propofol consumption, oropharyngeal reflex, recovery time, endoscopist satisfaction, ketamine need, and side-effects were recorded.

RESULTS

Propofol consumption during the procedure was statistically lower in group L than in the control group (157.25 ± 39.16 mg vs 228.75 ± 64.62 mg respectively, P < 0.001). Additionally, recovery time was statistically faster in group L compared with the control group (7.78 ± 3.95 min vs 11.92 ± 3.24 min respectively, P < 0.001). The oropharyngeal reflex was less in group L than control group (6/40 vs 15/40 respectively, P = 0.042). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding visual analogue scale scores and endoscopist satisfaction (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend the use of intravenous lidocaine before the ERCP procedure as it reduces propofol consumption, recovery times, and oropharyngeal reflex.

Comparing the pain of propofol via different combinations of fentanyl, sufentanil or remifentanil in gastrointestinal endoscopy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the pain on injection of propofol via different combinations of fentanyl, sufentanil or remifentanil in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Total 439 patients were randomly allocated into 6 groups. Propofol & fentanil (PF) group received 1 μg/kg fentanyl, propofol & sufentanil (PS) group received 0.1 μg/kg sufentanil and propofol & remifentanyl (PR) group received 1 μg/kg remifentanyl prior to administration of 1-2 mg/kg of propofol. The propofol & half-fentanil (Pf) group, propofol & half-sufentanil (Ps) group and propofol & half-remifentanyl (Pr) group were given 0.5 μg/kg fentanyl, 0.05 μg/kg sufentanil and 0.5 μg/kg remifentanyl, respectively and later administrated 1-2 mg/kg propofol. All patients were monitored for the blood pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and oxygen saturation (SpO2). Additionally, the pain intensity was assessed using a 4-point verbal rating scale (VRS) by professional doctors.

RESULTS

The incidence of pain due to propofol injection in Ps group (33.8%) was significantly lower than other 5 groups. The heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were maintained within the normal limits in all six groups and there was no hypotension or bradycardia encountered during the study period.

CONCLUSION

Propofol and sufentanil group was the most suitable program for painless gastroscopy.

Modified sevoflurane-based sedation technique versus propofol sedation technique: A randomized-controlled study

Background:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sevoflurane-based sedation technique for colonoscopy in geriatric patients as compared with that using propofol.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty elderly patients, who were scheduled for colonoscopy, participated in this controlled prospective study and were randomly allocated into two groups; P and S. The patients were sedated using either propofol in P group or sevoflurane in S group. Complications (including apnea, the need for airway intervention, occurrence of general anesthesia [GA], hemodynamic instability and others), the fentanyl requirement and the times of the procedure, recovery, and discharge were recorded in both groups.

Results:

The patients in P group had more frequent apnea attacks, need for airway intervention and occurrence of GA compared to the patients in S group. However, both groups were comparable regarding the other measured variables.

Conclusion:

For geriatric colonoscopy, sevoflurane can provide safe and effective sedation alternative to propofol.

Anaesthetic considerations for endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography procedures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current literature on the use of general anaesthesia and propofol deep sedation for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) procedures. Propofol is primarily an anaesthetic agent, but its use in a sedative capacity has resulted in the extensive off-label administration of this drug by gastroenterologists and other nonanaesthesia personnel. This has created controversy and enabled the gastroenterology community to gather evidence and campaign for US Food and Drug Administration approval to administer propofol to patients undergoing ERCP and other endoscopic procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

General anaesthesia appears to be a well tolerated technique for patients undergoing ERCP procedures, although there is a scarcity of publications in this field. The available evidence from prospective and retrospective cohort studies suggests a low incidence of serious outcomes (from sedation-related incidents) in patients undergoing ERCP procedures under propofol deep sedation. However, data from the American Society of Anesthesiologists closed claims analysis report suggests that endoscopy procedures performed under monitored anaesthetic care using propofol as a sedative agent can result in serious patient harm.

SUMMARY

Deep sedation with propofol, administered by anaesthesia personnel, can be used as an alternative to general anaesthesia for a select group of patients undergoing ERCP procedures. Further research is necessary to clarify the nature and parameters of deep sedation.

Sedation and monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy

The safe sedation of patients for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures requires a combination of properly trained physicians and suitable facilities. Additionally, appropriate selection and preparation of patients, suitable sedative technique, application of drugs, adequate monitoring, and proper recovery of patients is essential. The goal of procedural sedation is the safe and effective control of pain and anxiety as well as to provide an appropriate degree of memory loss or decreased awareness. Sedation practices for gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) vary widely. The majority of GIE patients are ambulatory cases. Most of this procedure requires a short time. So, short acting, rapid onset drugs with little adverse effects and improved safety profiles are commonly used. The present review focuses on commonly used regimens and monitoring practices in GIE sedation. This article is to discuss the decision making process used to determine appropriate pre-sedation assessment, monitoring, drug selection, dose of sedative agents, sedation endpoint and post-sedation care. It also reviews the current status of sedation and monitoring for GIE procedures in Thailand.

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.

Age-dependent safety analysis of propofol-based deep sedation for ERCP and EUS procedures at an endoscopy training center in a developing country

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) procedures in elderly patients are on the rise, and they play an important role in the diagnosis and management of various gastrointestinal diseases. The use of deep sedation in these patients has been established as a safe and effective technique in Western countries; however, it is uncertain if the situation holds true among Asians. The present study aimed to evaluate the age-dependent safety analysis and clinical efficacy of propofol-based deep sedation (PBDS) for ERCP and EUS procedures in adult patients at a World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO) Endoscopy Training Center in Thailand.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective review of anesthesia or sedation service records of patients who underwent ERCP and EUS procedures. All procedures were performed by staff endoscopists, and all sedations were administered by anesthesia personnel in the endoscopy room.

RESULTS

PBDS was provided for 491 ERCP and EUS procedures. Of these, 252 patients (mean age, 45.1 + 11.1 years, range 17-65 years) were in the <65 age group, 209 patients (mean age, 71.7 + 4.3 years, range 65-80 years) were in the 65-80 year-old group, and 30 patients (mean age, 84.6 + 4.2 years, range 81-97 years) were in the >80 age group. Common indications for the procedures were pancreatic tumor, cholelithiasis, and gastric tumor. Fentanyl, propofol, and midazolam were the most common sedative drugs used in all three groups. The mean doses of propofol and midazolam in the very old patients were relatively lower than in the other groups. The combination of propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl, as well as propofol and fentanyl, were frequently used in all patients. Sedation-related adverse events and procedure-related complications were not statistically significantly different among the three groups. Hypotension was the most common complication.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of the WGO Endoscopy Training Center in a developing country, PBDS for ERCP and EUS procedures in elderly patients by trained anesthesia personnel with appropriate monitoring is relatively safe and effective. Although adverse cardiovascular events, including hypotension, in this aged group is common, all adverse events were usually transient, mild, and easily treated, with no sequelae.

Anesthetic management for small bowel enteroscopy in a World Gastroenterology Organization Endoscopy Training Center

AIM

To study the anesthetic management of patients undergoing small bowel enteroscopy in the World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO) Endoscopy Training Center in Thailand.

METHODS

Patients who underwent small bowel enteroscopy during the period of March 2005 to March 2011 in Siriraj Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Center were retrospectively analyzed. The patients' characteristics, pre-anesthetic problems, anesthetic techniques, anesthetic agents, anesthetic time, type and route of procedure and anesthesia-related complications were assessed.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-four patients underwent this procedure during the study period. The mean age of the patients was 57.6 ± 17.2 years, and most were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class II (53.2%). Indications for this procedure were gastrointestinal bleeding (59.7%), chronic diarrhea (14.3%), protein losing enteropathy (2.6%) and others (23.4%). Hematologic disease, hypertension, heart disease and electrolyte imbalance were the most common pre-anesthetic problems. General anesthesia with endotracheal tube was the anesthetic technique mainly employed (50.6%). The main anesthetic agents administered were fentanyl, propofol and midazolam. The mean anesthetic time was 94.0 ± 50.5 min. Single balloon and oral (antegrade) intubation was the most common type and route of enteroscopy. The anesthesia-related complication rate was relatively high. The overall and cardiovascular-related complication rates including hypotension in the older patient group (aged ≥ 60 years old) were significantly higher than those in the younger group.

CONCLUSION

During anesthetic management for small bowel enteroscopy, special techniques and drugs are not routinely required. However, for safety reasons anesthetic personnel need to optimize the patient's condition.