Nurse-assisted propofol sedation: the jury is in!

Propofol versus traditional sedative methods for colonoscopy in a low-resource setting

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

We set out to determine the safety and efficacy of the use of three sedative regimens, namely propofol alone, propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids and benzodiazepine with opioids in Nigerian patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy at a Nigerian tertiary hospital.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 120 patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were assigned prospectively to one of the three treatment regimens. Patients in Group A (n = 40) received propofol alone (PRO), Group B (n = 40) received propofol with midazolam and/or fentanyl and Group C (n = 40) received opioids and midazolam (fentanyl and midazolam - conscious sedation). Study outcome measures include the level of sedation, length of the procedure, sedation/recovery time, patient satisfaction and adverse events.

RESULTS

Patients receiving PRO alone received higher doses of PRO compared with PRO and additives (P = 0.043). The overall procedure and sedation duration were similar in both PRO containing groups but statistically significantly shorter than the conscious sedation group (P < 0.0001, P < 0.006). The recovery time was statistically shorter in the PRO additives group compared to the other two groups (P < 0.0001). While the drop in blood pressure was similar in all the groups (P = 0.227), the occurrence of hypoxaemia was higher in the PRO containing groups (P < 0.0001). Overall physicians and patients pain assessment scores were statistically different in the three groups (both P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that PRO sedation is safe when used for outpatient diagnostic colonoscopy in low-resource settings with better patients and physician satisfaction. The synergistic sedative effect of midazolam and/or opioids combined with PRO help reducing the dose of PRO used with better recovery.

The role of capnography in endoscopy patients undergoing nurse-administered propofol sedation: a randomized study

OBJECTIVE. Standard benzodiazepine/opioid cocktail has proven inferior to propofol sedation during complicated endoscopic procedures and in low-tolerance patients. Propofol is a short-acting hypnotic with a potential risk of respiratory depression at levels of moderate to deep sedation. The existing literature on capnography for endoscopy patients sedated with nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) is limited. Can the addition of capnography to standard monitoring during endoscopy with NAPS reduce the number, duration, and level of hypoxia. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This study was a randomized controlled trial with an intervention group (capnography) and a control group (without capnography). Eligible subjects were consecutive patients for endoscopy at Gentofte Hospital compliant with the criteria of NAPS. RESULTS. Five hundred and forty patients, 263 with capnography and 277 without capnography, were included in the analysis. The number and total duration of hypoxia was reduced by 39.3% and 21.1% in the intervention group compared to the control group (p > 0.05). No differences in actions taken against insufficient respiration were found. Changes in end-tidal carbon dioxide (R = 0.177, p-value < 0.001) and respiratory rate (R = 0.092, p-value < 0.001) were correlated to oxygen saturation (SpO2) up to 36 s prior to changes in SpO2. CONCLUSIONS. Capnography seems to reduce the number and duration of hypoxia in NAPS patients (p > 0.05). Capnography is able to detect insufficient respiration that may lead to hypoxia prior to changes in pulse oximetry. However, due to a limited clinical benefit and additional costs associated with capnography, we do not find capnography necessary during the use of NAPS.

Balanced propofol sedation versus propofol monosedation in therapeutic pancreaticobiliary endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Prolonged or complex endoscopic procedures are frequently performed under deep sedation. However, no studies of therapeutic ERCP have yet compared the use of balanced propofol sedation (BPS) to propofol alone, titrated to moderate levels of sedation.

AIM

This prospective, randomized, double-blind study was planned to compare the sedation efficacy and safety of BPS (propofol in combination with midazolam and fentanyl) and propofol monosedation in therapeutic ERCP and EUS.

METHODS

BPS, or propofol monosedation titrated to a moderate level of sedation, was performed by trained registered nurses under endoscopist supervision. The main outcome measurements included sedation efficacy focusing on recovery time, sedation safety, endoscopic procedure outcomes, and complications.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in sedation efficacy, safety, procedure outcomes, and complications, with the exception of recovery time. Mean recovery time (standard deviation) was 18.37 (7.86) min in BPS and 13.4 (6.24) min in propofol monosedation (P < 0.001). In a safety analysis, cardiopulmonary complication rates related to BPS and propofol monosedation were 7.8 % (8/102) and 9.6 % (10/104), respectively (P = 0.652). No patient required assisted ventilation or permanent termination of a procedure in either group. Technical success of the endoscopic procedures was 96.3 and 97.2 %, respectively (P = 0.701). Endoscopic procedure-related complications and outcomes did not differ depending on sedation procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol monosedation by trained, registered sedation nurses under supervision resulted in a more rapid recovery time than BPS. There were no differences in the sedation safety, endoscopic procedure outcomes, and complications between BPS and propofol monosedation.

Incidence of propofol injection pain and effect of lidocaine pretreatment during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Propofol has been used in the past for sedation in upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. This study aimed to measure the incidence of propofol injection pain and evaluate the effect of lidocaine on pain caused during sedative upper GI endoscopic examinations.

METHODS

Subjects scheduled to undergo sedative diagnostic upper GI endoscopy were randomly assigned to lidocaine and placebo groups. Pretreatment with a bolus of 1% lidocaine 2 ml or normal saline 2 ml into the largest dorsal vein of the non-dominant hand was followed by propofol administration. Pain intensity was estimated by an examiner blinded to the group assignment using a four-point verbal rating scale. A score of 1-3 was regarded as pain.

RESULTS

A total of 121 patients (males, 69; age, 58.6 ± 12.1 years) completed the study; 61 and 60 subjects were randomly assigned to the lidocaine and placebo groups, respectively. The incidence of pain during upper GI endoscopy was 60%. The lidocaine group showed a lower incidence of pain than the placebo group (37.7% vs. 60.0%, P = 0.018). The lidocaine group perceived significantly less pain than the placebo group (median pain score, 0 vs. 1, P = 0.008). Only lidocaine pretreatment was an independently associated factor against pain perception (OR, 0.380; 95% CI, 0.177-0.815; P = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment using lidocaine was found to be effective in reducing propofol injection-induced pain. However, its usefulness for GI endoscopic procedures in daily clinical practice needs further evaluation because of the low intensity of pain.

Sedation, analgesia, and monitoring

Endoscopic procedures are common and sedation is frequently used to minimize anxiety and discomfort, reduce the potential for physical injury during the procedure, and improve overall patient tolerability and satisfaction. In this article, the authors review the variety of options for sedation and analgesia available to the gastroenterologist or surgical endoscopist.

Anesthesiology and gastroenterology

A successful population-based colorectal cancer screening requires efficient colonoscopy practices that incorporate high throughput, safety, and patient satisfaction. There are several different modalities of nonanesthesiologist-administered sedation currently available and in development that may fulfill these requirements. Modern-day gastroenterology endoscopic procedures are complex and demand the full attention of the attending gastroenterologist and the complete cooperation of the patient. Many of these procedures will also require the anesthesiologist's knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience to ensure optimal procedure results and good patient outcomes. The goal of this review is (1) to provide a gastroenterology perspective on the use of propofol in gastroenterology endoscopic practice, and (2) to describe newer GI endoscopy procedures that gastroenterologists perform that might involve anesthesiologists.

The difficult-to-sedate patient in the endoscopy suite

More than 20 million endoscopic procedures are performed in the United States annually. More than 98% of these endoscopies are performed with sedation. This includes both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Sedation reduces a patient's anxiety and discomfort, often improving their satisfaction with the procedure. Sedation creates a relaxed patient and a relaxed procedure environment allowing for a successful endoscopic examination.

Sedation with propofol for interventional endoscopic procedures: a risk factor analysis

OBJECTIVE

Propofol sedation for mainly diagnostic endoscopic procedures has proved safe in recent trials, with no need for endotracheal intubation. However, there is evidence that cardiorespiratory side effects occur more frequently and that assisted ventilation may be necessary if propofol sedation is performed for interventional endoscopic procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Over a 6-year period, all adverse events (defined as premature termination of the procedure due to sedation-related events or either the need for assisted ventilation or admission to ICU) occurring during 9547 endoscopic interventions (UGI, n = 5.374, ERCP, n = 3.937, EUS, n=236) under propofol sedation were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 135 adverse events (1.4%) were documented. Assisted ventilation was necessary in 40 patients (0.4%); 9 patients required endotracheal intubation (0.09%); 28 needed further monitoring on the ICU (0.3%); and 4 patients died, 3 potentially due to sedation-related side effects (mortality, 0.03%). Independent risk factors for sedation-related side effects were emergency endoscopic examinations and a total propofol dose >100 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventional endoscopy under propofol sedation is not risk-free. Increased attention must be focused on close monitoring of vital parameters, particularly when undertaking long-lasting interventions and emergency procedures.

Propofol sedation during endoscopic procedures: how much staff and monitoring are necessary?

BACKGROUND

Propofol has been shown to be safe for nonanesthetist use during GI endoscopy. However, published studies involved propofol administration by an additional nurse or used specialized patient monitoring or were carried out in tertiary hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

Considering the downward pressure on reimbursement for endoscopic procedures, we asked how much staff and monitoring is necessary for safe use of propofol.

SETTING

Two private gastroenterology practices.

PATIENTS AND DESIGN

A total of 27,061 endoscopic procedures (14,856 EGDs and 12,205 colonoscopies) were prospectively assessed regarding patient characteristics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, dosage of propofol, fall of oxygen saturation below 90%, need to increase nasal oxygen administration above 2 L/min, and need for assisted ventilation.

INTERVENTION

Propofol was administered by the endoscopy nurse supervised by the endoscopist. Patient monitoring consisted of only pulse oximetry and clinical assessment.

RESULTS

The mean propofol dose for EGD was 161 mg (range 50-650 mg). During colonoscopy patients received a mean propofol dose of 116 mg (30-500 mg) in addition to 25 mg of meperidine. Oxygen saturation fell below 90% (lowest 74%) in 623 procedures (2.3%), normalizing within less than 30 seconds by stimulating the patient and increasing the nasal oxygen flow to 4 to 10 L/min. Six patients (ASA III) required mask ventilation for less than 30 seconds. No endotracheal intubation was necessary.

LIMITATIONS

There was no further follow-up regarding adverse events after patient discharge from the endoscopy unit.

CONCLUSIONS

An endoscopy team, consisting of 1 physician endoscopist and 1 endoscopy nurse, can safely administer propofol sedation for GI endoscopy in a practice setting without additional staff or specialized monitoring.