Colonoscopy without sedation: Patient factors alone are less likely to influence its uptake

Assessment of pain between sedated and unsedated colonoscopy: Double-blind randomized clinical trail

Background

Colonoscopy plays a vital role for the diagnosis and treatment of colonic diseases but can be associated with anxiety and discomfort or pain. We tested whether unsedated colonoscopy impacts quality indicators and investigated predictors of pain during colonoscopy.

Materials and Methods

This randomized controlled trial was performed on candidates for elective colonoscopy at AL Zahra Hospital, Isfahan at 2018-2019. Balanced block randomization was used to allocate 275 cases into two groups. At finally, 124 patients in case and 122 patients in control group enrolled in analysis. Patients in the sedation group received midazolam with/out pethidine before colonoscopy. Pain intensity in rectal examination (PIREX), preprocedural anxiety, pain intensity during colonoscopy, hemodynamics, duration of colonoscopy, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, bloating within 24 h after colonoscopy, and willingness to repeat colonoscopy were assessed and compared between two groups.

Results

Compared to the group with sedation, cecal intubation time was shorter and bloating was less frequent (7% vs. 16%, P = 0.02) in the unsedated group. There was no difference between the two groups regarding polyp detection rate, cecal detection rate, and willingness to repeat colonoscopy. Pain during rectal examination was significantly associated with pain during colonoscopy (P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval; 0.5-1.3).

Conclusion

The assessment of pain intensity during rectal examination may help to identify patients who can benefit from sedation during colonoscopy. Colonoscopy with sedation does not seem to have a negative impact on colonoscopy quality indicators, and may even reduce cecal intubation time and bloating following procedure.

Anesthesia for GI endoscopy in the era of COVID-19

As a result of COVID-19, the last few weeks have necessitated a reevaluation of the sedation paradigm for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. Routine screening and some surveillance procedures have taken a backseat and likely to remain so until a vaccine or effective treatment becomes available. Anesthesia providers and endoscopists are required to adapt to this new reality rapidly. The general aim of sedation remains the same-patient comfort, reduced hypoxia, prevention of aspiration along with rapid recovery, and discharge. The present review focuses on necessary modification to reduce the risk of virus contagion for both patients (from health-care providers) and vice versa. A preprocedure evaluation and consenting should be modified and provided remotely. Unsedated GI endoscopy, sedation with minimal respiratory depression, and modification of general anesthesia are explored. Challenges with supplemental oxygen administration and monitoring are addressed. Guidelines for appropriate use of personal protective equipment are discussed. Measures for limiting aerosolization are deliberated.

A Prospective Study of Factors Associated with Abdominal Pain in Patients during Unsedated Colonoscopy Using a Magnifying Endoscope

Objective With the advent of endoscopic treatment, the detailed diagnosis of colorectal neoplasms made using magnifying colonoscopy has become increasingly important. However, insertion difficulty causes pain in unsedated colonoscopy. The aim of this prospective observational study was to clarify the factors associated with a patient's pain in unsedated colonoscopy using a magnifying endoscope. Methods Patient pain was assessed using a numerical rating scale (0-10) immediately after the procedure. We defined 5 as mild enough pain that patients would not be reluctant to undergo another colonoscopy. Acceptable pain was defined as 5 or less and severe pain was defined as 8 to 10. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed using the pain scale score as a dependent variable. Results A total of consecutive 600 patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopies were evaluated to assess their abdominal pain. The completion rate was 99.5% (597/600). The mean pain scale score was 3.88±2.38. The rate of acceptable pain was 80.5% (483/600). The rate of severe pain was 6.7% (40/600) including the incomplete cases. A comparison of polyp-positive and polyp-negative cases revealed no marked difference in patient pain (3.82±2.24 vs. 3.94±2.49, respectively; p=0.590) or insertion time (6.62±3.98 vs. 6.29±4.21, p=0.090), while more observation time was needed in polyp-positive cases than in polyp-negative ones (16.30±4.95 vs. 13.08±4.69, p<0.01). Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses revealed that an older age, colectomy, antispasmodic agent use, and a small-diameter endoscope were significant factors associated with less patient pain. In particular, a small-diameter endoscope induces significantly more acceptable pain than a non-small diameter endoscope [85.63% (274/320) vs. 73.93% (207/280), p=0.00003]. Conclusion Unsedated colonoscopy using a magnifying endoscope by an expert may result in acceptable pain levels. The use of an antispasmodic agent, particularly hyoscine N-butyl bromide, and a small-diameter endoscope are recommended for reducing abdominal pain during unsedated colonoscopy.

Medical, Political, and Economic Considerations for the Use of MAC for Endoscopic Sedation: Big Price, Little Justification?

The last few decades of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy have seen phenomenal growth. In many aspects, GI endoscopy has led the field of nonsurgical interventional medicine. In many aspects, this growth is facilitated by advancements in sedation-both drugs and techniques. Unfortunately, the topic of GI endoscopy sedation is also mired in many controversies, mainly emanating from the cost of anesthesia providers. While no one debates their role in the majority of advanced endoscopic procedures, the practice of universal propofol sedation in the USA, delivered by anesthesia providers, needs a closer look. In this review, medical, political, and economic considerations of this important topic are discussed in a very frank and honest way. While such ubiquitous propofol use has increased satisfaction of both patients and gastroenterologists, there is little justification. More importantly, going by the evidence, there is even less justification for the mandated anesthesia providers use for such delivery. Unfortunately, the FDA could not be convinced otherwise. The new drug fospropofol met the same fate. Approval of SEDASYS^®, the first computer-assisted personalized sedation system, was a step in the right direction, nevertheless an insufficient step that failed to takeoff. As a result, in spite of years of research and efforts of many august societies, the logjam of balancing cost and justification of propofol sedation has continued. We hope that recent approval of remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, and potential approval of oliceridine, a novel short-acting opioid, might be able to contain the cost without compromising the quality of sedation.