Conscious sedation and cardiorespiratory safety during colonoscopy

Polyps are detected more often in early colonoscopies

OBJECTIVE

To examine the time variation in polyp detection for colonoscopies performed in a tertiary hospital and to explore independent factors that predict polyp detection rate (PDR).

METHODS

Data on all patients who underwent colonoscopy for the diagnostic purpose at our endoscopy center in Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University from January 2021 to December 2021 were reviewed. The start time of included colonoscopies for eligible patients was recorded. PDR and polyps detected per colonoscopy (PPC) were calculated. The endoscopists' schedules were classified into full-day and half-day shifts according to their participation in the morning and afternoon colonoscopies.

RESULTS

Data on a total of 12116 colonoscopies were analyzed, with a PDR of 38.03% for all the patients and 46.38% for patients ≥50 years. PDR and PPC significantly decreased as the day progressed (both p < .001). For patients ≥50 years, PDR declined below 40% at 13:00-13:59 and 16:00-16:59. The PDR in the morning was higher than that in the afternoon for both half-day (p = .019) and full-day procedures (p < .001). In multivariate analysis, start time, patient gender, age, conscious sedation, and bowel preparation quality significantly predicted PDR (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The polyp detection declined as the day progressed. A continuous work schedule resulted in a subpar PDR. Colonoscopies performed in the morning had a higher PDR than that in the afternoon. Patient gender, age, conscious sedation, and bowel preparation quality were identified as the independent predictors of PDR.

Local Anesthesia versus Conscious Sedation among Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation-A Propensity Score Analysis

BACKGROUND

Conscious sedation (CS) has been used successfully to treat patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and as such is considered the standard anesthesia method. The local anesthesia (LA) only approach may be feasible and safe thanks to improvements in operators' experience.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate differences between LA only versus CS approaches on short- and long-term outcomes among patients undergoing TAVI.

METHODS

We performed a propensity score analysis on 1096 patients undergoing TAVI for severe AS. Two hundred and seventy-four patients in the LA group were matched in a ratio of 1:3 with 822 patients in the CS group. The primary outcome was a 1-year mortality rate. Secondary outcomes included procedural and peri-procedural complication rates and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Patients in the CS group had significantly higher rates of grade 2-3 acute kidney injury and were more likely to have had new left bundle branch block and high-degree atrioventricular block. Patients who underwent TAVI under CS had significantly higher in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates compared to LA (1.6% vs. 0.0% p-value = 0.036 and 8.5% vs. 3.3% p-value = 0.004, respectively). Kaplan-Meier's survival analysis showed that the cumulative probability of 1-year mortality was significantly higher among subjects undergoing CS compared to patients LA (p-value log-rank = 0.024). Regression analysis indicated that patients undergoing CS were twice more likely to die of at 1-year when compared to patients under LA (HR 2.18, 95%CI 1.09-4.36, p-value = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

As compared to CS, the LA-only approach is associated with lower rates of peri-procedural complications and 1-year mortality rates.

Effects of transcutaneous electrical acupuncture point stimulation on peripheral capillary oxygen saturation in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy with sedation: a prospective randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

This study investigated whether transcutaneous electrical acupuncture point stimulation (TEAS) at PC6 can reduce the proportion of elderly patients experiencing a drop of ⩾4% in peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO₂) while undergoing colonoscopy under sedation.

METHODS

A total of 32 elderly patients (aged ⩾ 65 years) scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either real or sham TEAS (treatment or control groups, respectively). Each patient received oxygen (2 L/min) delivered routinely via nasal cannula. The treatment group was given TEAS at PC6 for 20 min at 2 Hz frequency and 6 mA intensity; the control group underwent the same procedures but with zero frequency/intensity. SpO₂ and other physiological parameters were measured prior to sedation and colonoscopy (baseline) and at seven other timepoints through departure from recovery. Depth of anesthesia was measured using a Narcotrend monitor.

RESULTS

Significantly fewer patients in the treatment group experienced a ⩾4% decrease from baseline SpO₂ (2/16) than patients in the control group (10/16; p = 0.004). The two groups were comparable with regard to respiratory rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate.

CONCLUSION

TEAS applied at PC6 with 2 Hz frequency was feasible and may be helpful in reducing the rate of hypoxia in elderly patients during colonoscopy.Trial registration number: NCT03775122 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Unsedated Colonoscopy: Impact on Quality Indicators

BACKGROUND

In the USA, sedation is commonly used for colonoscopies; though colonoscopy can be successfully performed without sedation, outcomes data in this setting are scarce.

AIMS

To determine patient characteristics associated with undergoing unsedated colonoscopy and whether adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR) differ between sedated and unsedated colonoscopy.

METHODS

Using a single-center electronic endoscopy database, we identified patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy between 2011 and 2018 with or without sedation. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine factors associated with unsedated colonoscopy, CIR, and ADR.

RESULTS

We identified 24,795 patients who underwent colonoscopy during the study period. Of these, 179 patients (0.7%) underwent unsedated colonoscopy. ADR was 27.4% in sedated and 21.2% in unsedated colonoscopies (p = 0.06); CIR was 95.8% in sedated and 85.5% in unsedated patients (p < 0.01). On multivariable analysis, male sex (OR 2.06, CI 1.52-2.79) and suboptimal bowel preparation (OR 1.75, CI 1.24-2.45) were associated with undergoing unsedated colonoscopy, while higher BMI was inversely associated with unsedated colonoscopy (BMI 25-29.9: OR 0.44, CI 0.25-0.77). On multivariable analysis, colonoscopy with sedation was associated with CIR (OR 3.79, CI 2.39-6.00) and ADR (OR 1.45, OR 1.00-2.10).

CONCLUSION

We found that undergoing outpatient colonoscopy with sedation as opposed to no sedation was significantly associated with a higher CIR and ADR. Our findings suggest sedation is necessary to meet current CIR and ADR guidelines; however, given the potential cost and safety benefits of unsedated colonoscopy, further investigation into methods to improve patient selection and colonoscopy quality indicators is warranted.

Acute hemiparesis and status epilepticus following endoscopic esophageal balloon dilation: is it really a stroke?

A 68-year-old gentleman was referred for elective upper gastrointestinal endoscopy on a background of dysphagia and esophageal candidiasis. A benign peptic stricture was noted, managed with balloon dilation without apparent immediate complication. At completion, however, the patient became confused and agitated, with no improvement despite the reversal of sedation. Two hours later, with all investigations for suspected complications including perforation, negative, he developed acute left-sided hemiparesis. Urgent computed tomography brain and angiogram were both normal. A diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke was made, and the patient was thrombolysed in the Intensive Care Unit. No improvement of the stroke was observed. Seven hours later, the patient developed generalized tonic-clonic seizures that required phenytoin infusion and subsequent intubation and ventilation. The following morning, magnetic resonance imaging brain did not reveal features of a stroke, but instead diffuse cortical and white matter edema in the right frontal lobe, consistent with atypical, unilateral Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome (PRES). Signs and symptoms resolved rapidly over the course of several days, and after one month the patient made a complete clinical and radiological recovery. To our knowledge, this is the only case of PRES to arise in the setting of endoscopy and esophageal dilation.

Midazolam for sedation before procedures

BACKGROUND

Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.

Practice patterns of sedation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Sedative and analgesic medications have been used routinely for decades to provide patient comfort, reduce procedure time, and improve examination quality during colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate trends of sedation during colonoscopy in the United States.

SETTING

Endoscopic data repository of U.S. gastroenterology practices (Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, CORI database from 2000 until 2013).

PATIENTS

The study population was made up of patients undergoing a total of 1,385,436 colonoscopies.

INTERVENTIONS

Colonoscopy without any intervention or with mucosal biopsy, polypectomy, various means of hemostasis, luminal dilation, stent placement, or ablation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Dose of midazolam, diazepam, fentanyl, meperidine, diphenhydramine, promethazine, and propofol used for sedation during colonoscopy.

RESULTS

During the past 14 years, midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol have become the most commonly used sedatives for colonoscopy. Except for benzodiazepines, which were dosed higher in women than men, equal doses of sedation were given to female and male patients. White patients were given higher doses than other ethnic groups undergoing sedation for colonoscopy. Except for histamine-1 receptor antagonists, all sedative medications were given at lower doses to patients with increasing age. The dose of sedatives was higher in colonoscopies associated with procedural interventions or of long duration.

LIMITATIONS

Potential for incomplete or incorrect documentation in the database.

CONCLUSION

The findings reflect on colonoscopy practice in the United States during the last 14 years and provide an incentive for future research on how sex and ethnicity influence sedation practices.

Effect of midazolam on cardiopulmonary function during colonoscopy with conscious sedation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Conscious sedation of patients with midazolam reduces anxiety and pain and improves colonoscopy success rates. However, it may lead to adverse effects such as hypoxia and hypotension. The present study investigated the effects of midazolam on cardiopulmonary function during colonoscopy with conscious sedation.

METHODS

Between January 2011 and September 2011, 126 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled and divided into two groups: (i) sedation with midazolam (midazolam group, n=65); and (ii) no sedation (control group, n=61). Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO(2) ), were recorded before, during and after the endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

In the midazolam group, SBP and DBP decreased more during colonoscopy than in the control group. However, the frequency of a significant change in SBP was similar in both groups. During colonoscopy, HR and SpO(2) decreased significantly in the midazolam group compared to those in the control group. SpO(2) levels returned to normal after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Midazolam induced decreases in SBP, DBP, HR and SpO(2) during colonoscopy. Clinically significant changes in SBP, HR, and SpO(2) , however, were similar in the midazolam and control groups. These results suggest that midazolam has a tolerable effect on cardiopulmonary function and may be safely used during colonoscopy.

Complications of colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is a relatively invasive modality for the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal disease and for the prevention or early detection of colorectal neoplasia. Millions of colonoscopies are performed each year in the United States by endoscopists with varying levels of skill in colons that present varying levels of challenge. Although better scope technology has made colonoscopy gentler and more accurate, the sheer number of examinations performed means that complications inevitably occur. This article considers the most common complications of colonoscopy, and advises how to minimize their incidence and how to treat them if they do occur.

Acupuncture transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation reduces discomfort associated with barostat-induced rectal distension: A randomized-controlled study

AIM: To explore the effectiveness of acupuncture transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (Acu-TENS), a non-invasive modality in reduction of rectal discomfort during barostat-induced rectal distension.

METHODS: Forty healthy subjects were randomized to receive 45 min of either Acu-TENS or placebo-TENS (no electrical output) over acupuncture points Hegu (large-intestine 4), Neiguan (pericardium 6) and Zusanli (stomach 36). A balloon catheter attached to a dual-drive barostat machine was then inserted into the subjects’ rectum. A step-wise (4 mmHg) increase in balloon pressure was induced until maximal tolerable or 48 mmHg. Visual analogue scale and a 5-point subjective discomfort scale (no perception, first perception of distension, urge to defecate, discomfort/pain and extreme pain) were used to assess rectal discomfort at each distension pressure. Blood beta-endorphin levels were measured before, immediately after intervention, at 24 mmHg and at maximal tolerable distension pressure.

RESULTS: There was no difference in the demographic data and baseline plasma beta-endorphin levels between the two groups. Perception threshold levels were higher in the Acu-TENS group when compared to the placebo group, but the difference reached statistical significance only at the sensations “urge to defecate” and “pain”. The distension pressures recorded at the “urge to defecate” sensation for the Acu-TENS and placebo-TENS groups were 28.0 ± 4.5 mmHg and 24.6 ± 5.7 mmHg, respectively (P = 0.043); and the pressures recorded for the “pain” sensation for these two groups were 36.0 ± 4.2 mmHg and 30.5 ± 4.3 mmHg respectively (P = 0.002). Compared to the placebo group, a higher number of participants in the Acu-TENS group tolerated higher distension pressures (> 40 mmHg) (65% in Acu-TENS vs 25% in placebo, P = 0.02). The plasma beta-endorphin levels of the Acu-TENS group were significantly higher than that of the placebo group at barostat inflation pressure of 24 mmHg (1.31 ± 0.40 ng/mL vs 1.04 ± 0.43 ng/mL, P = 0.044) and at maximal inflation pressure (1.46 ± 0.53 ng/mL vs 0.95 ± 0.38 ng/mL, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION: Acu-TENS reduced rectal discomfort during barostat-induced rectal distension and concurrently associated with a rise in beta-endorphin level.

STOP questionnaire to screen for hypoxemia in deep sedation for young and middle-aged colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hypoxemia is the most common unexpected cardiopulmonary complication that is used as a surrogate for severe complications in colonoscopy. The aim of the present study was to access the STOP Questionnaire to screen for hypoxemia in deep sedation for colonoscopy in young and middle-aged outpatients.

METHODS

Outpatients aged 18-65 with ASA class I or II who were to undergo elective colonoscopy with deep sedation were offered participation. Before sedation, the patients were given the STOP Questionnaire, a brief survey that stratifies patients into high or low risk of hypoxemia. Data on pulse oxygen saturation (SpO(2) ) were collected during sedation. Hypoxemia was defined as SpO(2)<95% anytime during the procedure, regardless of episode duration. We estimated the score of the STOP Questionnaire and the incidence of hypoxemia.

RESULTS

A total of 210 consecutive outpatients were offered enrollment. Thirteen (6.2%) patients had hypoxemia. Thirty-two (15.2%) patients were scored to be at high risk of hypoxemia, of whom 10 had hypoxemia. Results of analyzing the STOP Questionnaire for the incidence of hypoxemia were sensitivity 76.9%, specificity 88.8%, Youden's index 0.658, consistency rate 88%, kappa value 0.39, positive predictive value 31.3%, negative predictive value 98.3%, and area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve 0.935 (P<0.001, 95% CI 0.879-0.991).

CONCLUSIONS

STOP Questionnaire is a validated and easy-to-use screening tool for hypoxemia in outpatient colonoscopy. It has high sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value.

Posterior lingual lidocaine: A novel method to improve tolerance in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

AIM: To evaluate the effect of posterior lingual lidocaine swab on patient tolerance to esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the ease of performance of the procedure, and to determine if such use will reduce the need for intravenous sedation.

METHODS: Eighty patients undergoing diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy in a tertiary care medical center were randomized to either lidocaine swab or spray. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were given as needed during the procedure.

RESULTS: Patients in the lidocaine swab group (SWG) tolerated the procedure better than those in the spray group (SPG) with a median tolerability score of 2 (1, 4) compared to 4 (2, 5) (P < 0.01). The endoscopists encountered less difficulty performing the procedures in the SWG with lower median difficulty scores of 1 (1, 5) compared to 4 (1, 5) in the SPG (P < 0.01). In addition, the need for intravenous sedation was also lower in the SWG compared to the SPG with fewer patients requiring intravenous sedation (13/40 patients vs 38/40 patients, respectively, P < 0.01). The patients in the SWG were more satisfied with the mode of local anesthesia they received as compared to the SPG. In addition, the endoscopists were happier with the use of lidocaine swab.

CONCLUSION: The use of a posterior lingual lidocaine swab in esophagogastroduodenoscopy improves patient comfort and tolerance and endoscopist satisfaction and decreases the need for intravenous sedation.

Quality assurance in endoscopy nursing

Since the 1960s quality assurance has become an integral part of medicine and nursing. The aims of quality assurance cover patient and staff safety and satisfaction, economical factors and the implementation of health care policy. Endoscopy units can be established in hospitals, primary care or ambulatory endoscopy centres. The quality of endoscopy facilities should be the same irrespective where endoscopy is carried out. Endoscopy staff is responsible for individualised, comprehensive patient care, technical assistance including reprocessing, documentation and management of endoscopy units. Quality criteria for endoscopy nursing cover pre, intra and post procedure care. However, a complete separation between clinical medical and nursing outcome criteria is often difficult in Endoscopy, as the clinical interventions are a combination of both medical and nursing actions. It is the combined effort of all staff with the support from the health care provider that leads to a high quality of patient care in Endoscopy.

Electroacupuncture in reduction of discomfort associated with barostat-induced rectal distension--a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

This pilot study aims to explore the effectiveness of electroacupuncture in reduction of colorectal discomfort caused by Barostat-induced rectal distension.

METHOD

Subjects scheduled for a colonoscopy screening procedure were recruited and randomized to receive either electroacupuncture (EA) or sham acupuncture (SA) (short stud instead of needle) for 45 min to acupuncture points Hegu (LI4), Neiguan (PC6), and Zusanli (ST36). A balloon catheter attached to the Dual Drive Barostat machine was then inserted into the subjects' rectal region. Colorectal discomfort after each incremental pressure (4 mmHg) rise was assessed by visual analog and a four-point subjective discomfort scale. Blood beta-endorphin level was measured before, immediately after acupuncture, at 24 mmHg, and at maximal tolerable inflation pressure.

RESULTS

Forty subjects completed the study. Rectal discomfort was reported at a higher inflation pressure in the EA group compared to the SA group (p < 0.05). Twelve subjects in the EA group were able to tolerate the maximal inflation pressure (48 mmHg) compared to only four in the SA group. Beta-endorphin levels increased significantly in the EA group but not in the SA group.

CONCLUSION

Electroacupuncture appeared to be effective in reduction of colorectal discomfort during Barostat-induced rectal distension. The role of electroacupuncture during colonoscopy warrants further investigation.

Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions

BACKGROUND

Placebo interventions are often claimed to substantially improve patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes in many clinical conditions, but most reports on effects of placebos are based on studies that have not randomised patients to placebo or no treatment. Two previous versions of this review from 2001 and 2004 found that placebo interventions in general did not have clinically important effects, but that there were possible beneficial effects on patient-reported outcomes, especially pain. Since then several relevant trials have been published.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary aims were to assess the effect of placebo interventions in general across all clinical conditions, and to investigate the effects of placebo interventions on specific clinical conditions. Our secondary aims were to assess whether the effect of placebo treatments differed for patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes, and to explore other reasons for variations in effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2008), EMBASE (1980 to March 2008), PsycINFO (1887 to March 2008) and Biological Abstracts (1986 to March 2008). We contacted experts on placebo research, and read references in the included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised placebo trials with a no-treatment control group investigating any health problem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Trials with binary data were summarised using relative risk (a value of less than 1 indicates a beneficial effect of placebo), and trials with continuous outcomes were summarised using standardised mean difference (a negative value indicates a beneficial effect of placebo).

MAIN RESULTS

Outcome data were available in 202 out of 234 included trials, investigating 60 clinical conditions. We regarded the risk of bias as low in only 16 trials (8%), five of which had binary outcomes.In 44 studies with binary outcomes (6041 patients), there was moderate heterogeneity (P < 0.001; I(2) 45%) but no clear difference in effects between small and large trials (symmetrical funnel plot). The overall pooled effect of placebo was a relative risk of 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.99). The pooled relative risk for patient-reported outcomes was 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.00) and for observer-reported outcomes 0.93 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.02). We found no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in four clinical conditions that had been investigated in three trials or more: pain, nausea, smoking, and depression, but confidence intervals were wide. The effect on pain varied considerably, even among trials with low risk of bias.In 158 trials with continuous outcomes (10,525 patients), there was moderate heterogeneity (P < 0.001; I(2) 42%), and considerable variation in effects between small and large trials (asymmetrical funnel plot). It is therefore a questionable procedure to pool all the trials, and we did so mainly as a basis for exploring causes for heterogeneity. We found an overall effect of placebo treatments, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.17). The SMD for patient-reported outcomes was -0.26 (95% CI -0.32 to -0.19), and for observer-reported outcomes, SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.24 to -0.02). We found an effect on pain, SMD -0.28 (95% CI -0.36 to -0.19)); nausea, SMD -0.25 (-0.46 to -0.04)), asthma (-0.35 (-0.70 to -0.01)), and phobia (SMD -0.63 (95% CI -1.17 to -0.08)). The effect on pain was very variable, also among trials with low risk of bias. Four similarly-designed acupuncture trials conducted by an overlapping group of authors reported large effects (SMD -0.68 (-0.85 to -0.50)) whereas three other pain trials reported low or no effect (SMD -0.13 (-0.28 to 0.03)). The pooled effect on nausea was small, but consistent. The effects on phobia and asthma were very uncertain due to high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in the seven other clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more: smoking, dementia, depression, obesity, hypertension, insomnia and anxiety, but confidence intervals were wide.Meta-regression analyses showed that larger effects of placebo interventions were associated with physical placebo interventions (e.g. sham acupuncture), patient-involved outcomes (patient-reported outcomes and observer-reported outcomes involving patient cooperation), small trials, and trials with the explicit purpose of studying placebo. Larger effects of placebo were also found in trials that did not inform patients about the possible placebo intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find that placebo interventions have important clinical effects in general. However, in certain settings placebo interventions can influence patient-reported outcomes, especially pain and nausea, though it is difficult to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting. The effect on pain varied, even among trials with low risk of bias, from negligible to clinically important. Variations in the effect of placebo were partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted and how patients were informed.

Cardiorespiratory changes during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

To determine the changes in oxygen saturation, blood pressure and heart rate during various endoscopic procedures and to find out the risk factors for these changes.

METHODS

Forty patients without cardiorespiratory disorders were recruited. Oxygen saturation, blood pressure and pulse rate were monitored during endoscopy using pulse oximeter and automated blood pressure monitor. These were recorded from baseline until 5 minutes after the procedure. The important variables, which were evaluated in relation to these changes, included age, gender, duration of the procedure and drug/dosages.

RESULTS

Baseline mean oxygen saturation was 96.8 +/- 1.55%. It decreased significantly to 94.53 +/- 3.30%(p= 0.002) during insertion of probe. Mild to moderate hypoxia was found in 19 (47.5%) patients. Severe hypoxia was found in 5 (12.5%) patients. The variables that reached statistical significance for desaturation were age greater than 50 years and duration longer than 27 minutes. Changes in pulse rate were significant post-sedation, during probe insertion, during scoping, at removal of probe and immediately post-procedure (p < 0.02). The mean change in systolic blood pressure was not significant throughout the procedure when compared to baseline, however 14 (35%) patients developed transient hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

Mild to moderate hypoxia is common during endoscopic procedures and of no serious consequence. However severe hypoxia is less common. We recommend a non-invasive monitoring in patients with age greater than 50 years and procedure longer than 27 minutes.

Methods of reducing discomfort during colonoscopy

In the United States sedation for colonoscopy is usual practice. Unsedated colonoscopy is limited to a small proportion of unescorted patients and those with a personal preference for no sedation. Over 80% of patients who accept the option of as-needed sedation can complete colonoscopy without sedation. Colonoscopy in these unsedated patients is performed with techniques similar to those used in the sedated patients. Uncontrolled observations indicate willingness to repeat colonoscopy amongst these patients was correlated significantly with low discomfort score during the examination. Methods reported to minimize patient discomfort or enhance cecal intubation during sedated or unsedated colonoscopy included use of pediatric colonoscope, variable stiffness colonoscope, gastroscope, and inhalation of nitrous oxide or insufflation of carbon dioxide, hypnosis, music, audio distraction, or simply allowing the patients to participate in administration of the medication. Research focusing on confirming the efficacy of a simple inexpensive nonmedication dependent method for minimizing discomfort will likely improve the outcome of care and more importantly will ensure compliance with future surveillance in patients accepting the unsedated option.

Lidocaine lollipop as single-agent anesthesia in upper GI endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Conscious sedation is usually achieved during EGD by a combination of intravenous benzodiazepines and opiates; however, these have potential serious adverse effects. The addition of topical oropharyngeal anesthetics such as lidocaine may be useful. Recent data suggest that the administration of topical lidocaine by means of a lollipop is effective for endotracheal intubation and bronchoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a lidocaine lollipop as single-agent anesthesia for EGD and to determine whether its use reduces the need for intravenous sedatives and analgesics.

DESIGN

Single-blinded, randomized, prospective study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

50 patients undergoing diagnostic EGD.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to either lidocaine lollipop or lidocaine spray. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were administered during the procedure as needed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The success and safety of local anesthesia by lidocaine lollipop in addition to the need for intravenous sedation.

RESULTS

Patients were equally randomized between the lollipop and the spray groups. The lollipop group had less gag reflex, accommodated scope introduction more, and tolerated the procedure better. Thirty-two percent of patients receiving the lollipop required sedation compared with 96% of patients in the spray group (P < .001). The majority in the lollipop group were satisfied with their mode of anesthesia compared with the spray group.

CONCLUSIONS

Lidocaine lollipop is a promising form of local oropharyngeal anesthesia for EGD. Its use resulted in sparing the use of intravenous sedation. It is well tolerated and safe and may be particularly important in the elderly, patients with comorbidities, and office-based endoscopy.

Understanding modes of moderate sedation during gastrointestinal procedures: a current review of the literature

Recommendations for routine screening for colorectal cancer with colonoscopy are likely to substantially increase the demand for provision of sedation for these procedures. Because of this burgeoning caseload and associated economic constraints, it is unlikely that anesthesiologists will be available for all such procedures, particularly those involving average-risk patients. Thus, sedative agents that can be safely administered by nonanesthesiologists, appropriately trained in monitoring and managing the patient's airway, are desperately needed. New concepts in sedation for colonoscopy include enhanced mechanisms for drug delivery such as patient-controlled sedation/analgesia and target-controlled infusion, along with the development of new drugs such as a modified cyclodextrin-based formulation of propofol and fospropofol disodium (Aquavan Injection), a water-soluble prodrug of propofol.

Nurses' knowledge and skills in colonoscopy patients' pain management

AIM

This study aimed to describe the knowledge and skills of nurses in managing pain during colonoscopy procedures.

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is a procedure to diagnose diseases of the intestine, and patients consider it even painful. However, few studies have described patients' pain management during the colonoscopy procedure.

DESIGN

A quantitative survey design was used. The data were collected from colonoscopy nurses with a self-completed semi-structured questionnaire developed for the study.

METHODS

The hospitals performing colonoscopies in Finland, with the exception of the ones where the questionnaire was pilot-tested, were included in the study (n = 12). The optional sample was drawn by mailing questionnaires (n = 147) to endoscopy units to be filled in by three colonoscopy nurses during 2002. The response rate was 79% (n = 116).

RESULTS

The majority of nurses used versatile non-pharmacological methods of managing pain and had practice-based knowledge of pain management during the colonoscopy procedure, but pain education and the acquisition of new professional knowledge were rarely reported. Pain scales were not in use and ethical conversation was lacking among the endoscopy staff in most (95%) hospitals.

CONCLUSION

The study showed that colonoscopy nurses used numerous non-pharmacological methods, but only rarely acquired professional knowledge. There was a lack of pain scales and ethical conversation in the participating endoscopy units.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The results can be used to improve the treatment of pain during colonoscopy procedures and endoscopy nurses' education. Nurses should be motivated by education and ethical conversation. Future studies should aim to analyse patients' own evaluation of pain during the colonoscopy procedure. The applicability of the existing pain scales and non-pharmacological methods should be tested in practice.

Single use of fentanyl in colonoscopy is safe and effective and significantly shortens recovery time

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy remains an uncomfortable examination and many patients prefer to be sedated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous administration of fentanyl in titrated doses compared with intravenous administration of the well-known midazolam in titrated doses.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-six patients scheduled for ambulatory colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either 25 mcg fentanyl (Fentanyl group, n = 66, 35 females, mean age = 61.5 years) and titrated up to 50 mcg or 2 mg midazolam (Midazolam group, n = 60, 33 females, mean age = 63.2 years) and titrated up to 5 mg. Patients graded discomfort on a scale from 0 to 4 and pain on a scale from 0 to 10. Success of the procedure, time to cecum, complications, and recovery time for each patient were independently recorded.

RESULTS

Mean discomfort scores were 0.4 in the Fentanyl group and 1.0 in the Midazolam group (p = 0.002). Similarly, mean scores for pain and anus to cecum time were lower in the Fentanyl group than in the Midazolam group [2.59 vs. 4.43 (p = 0.002) and 8.7 vs. 12.9 min (p = 0.012), respectively]. No adverse events were reported in the Fentanyl group, while in the Midazolam group a decrease in oxygen saturation was noted in 23/60 (35%) patients. Mean recovery time was 5.6 min in the Fentanyl group and 16 min in the Midazolam group (p = 0.014). Mean dosage was 36 mcg for fentanyl and 4.6 mg for midazolam.

CONCLUSION

Administration of fentanyl in low incremental doses is sufficient to achieve a satisfactory level of comfort during colonoscopy.

Less patient discomfort by one-man colonoscopy examination

A randomised prospective trial compared safety and patient tolerance for one-man method with two-man method undergoing colonoscopy. Eighty patients were randomized to 1 of 2 groups: the two-man method group (n = 40); or the one-man method group (n = 40). All colonoscopic examinations were performed by the same endoscopist to reduce skill-based variation. Patient tolerance for colonoscopy was evaluated with a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 for painless to 5 for maximal pain. Cardiopulmonary parameters were recorded during the procedure. Patients receiving one-man method had lower pain score than two-man method. The length of the scope reach to the cecum was shorter in the one-man group than the two-man group. The patients underwent two-man colonoscopy had higher maximum increase in heart rate during the procedure compared with one-man group. One-man colonoscopy can improve patient tolerance and reduces patient pain by decreasing the redundancy of colonoscope during the procedure.

Comparison of radiologists' confidence in excluding significant colorectal neoplasia with multidetector-row CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema

The aim of this study was to compare the confidence of experienced radiologists in excluding colonic neoplasia with CT colonography (CTC) compared with barium enema. 78 patients (median age 70 years, range 61-87 years, 44 women) underwent same day CTC and barium enema. Two radiologists experienced in reporting barium enema assessed whether the examination had excluded a polyp 6 mm or greater as "yes", "probably" or "no" for each of 6 colonic segments. Two different radiologists experienced in CTC independently performed the same assessment on the CT datasets. Responses were compared using a paired exact test. Formal barium enema and CT reports were compared with any endoscopic examination performed within 1 year. Studies reporting polyps 6 mm+ in patients not subsequently undergoing endoscopy were reviewed by two independent observers. Radiologists stated they had confidently excluded a significant lesion in 314 (71%) and 382 (86%) of 444 segments with barium enema and CTC, respectively (p<0.001). Confidence was significantly higher with CTC in the in the descending and ascending colon (p = 0.02 and p<0.001, respectively), and caecum (p<0.001). 22 patients underwent some form of endoscopy. Of five patients with proven colorectal neoplasia (including two with cancer), CTC and barium enema correctly identified five and three, respectively. In 56 patients not undergoing endoscopy, CTC reported 17 polyps 6 mm+, of which 16 were retrospectively classified as definite or probable. 11 could not be identified on the barium enema, even in retrospect. Confidence in excluding polyps 6 mm or larger is significantly greater with CT colonography particularly in the proximal colon.

Age effect on efficacy and side effects of two sedation and analgesia protocols on patients going through cardioversion: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Cardioversion (CV), a painful procedure, requires sedation and analgesia. Although several sedation agents currently are in use for CV, data on age-specific efficacy and side effects of midazolam and propofol have been limited.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and side effects of midazolam and propofol in patients of two different age groups, younger than 65 years and 65 years and over, who were going through CV.

METHODS

Seventy consented patients with CV indications caused by atrial fibrillation were included in this clinical trial. The participants were placed into four groups by using a stratified randomization method: patients aged younger than 65 years who were receiving midazolam (n = 12) or propofol (n = 11) and patients 65 years and over who were receiving midazolam (n = 25) or propofol (n = 22). Medications were administered by slow intermittent bolus injections. During CV, time to reach Ramsay Sedation Scale level 5 (RSS-5; induction time); time to reach RSS-2 (recovery time); and side effects including desaturation, apnea, and changes in hemodynamic parameters were recorded by a person blinded to the patient treatment allocation.

RESULTS

Mean induction time was similar in all four groups. Mean recovery time (min +/- SD) was shorter in both propofol groups when compared with both midazolam groups: 18.8 (+/- 4.06) and 40.33 (+/- 20.8) in the group younger than 65 years and 18.2 (+/- 5.12) and 54.2 (+/- 20.85) in the group 65 years or older, respectively (p < 0.001). Older participants in each medication group needed less medication than younger patients. There were no hemodynamic differences between the groups. Desaturation was higher in both midazolam groups as compared with individuals in the age-matched propofol groups (both p < 0.05). Patient reactions were less in propofol groups with similar joules during CV procedures than were those in the midazolam groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol appears to be a better choice for CV sedation in elders because of its short recovery time, fewer side effects, and its more comfortable sedative effect.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Characteristics of??Medications Used for Moderate Sedation

The ability to deliver safe and effective moderate sedation is crucial to the ability to perform invasive procedures. Sedative drugs should have a quick onset of action, provide rapid and clear-headed recovery, and be easy to administer and monitor. A number of drugs have been demonstrated to provide effective sedation for outpatient procedures but since each agent has its own limitations, a thorough knowledge of the available drugs is required to choose the appropriate drug, dose and/or combination regimen for individual patients. Midazolam, propofol, ketamine and sevoflurane are the most frequently used agents, and all have a quick onset of action and rapid recovery. The primary drawback of midazolam is the potential for accumulation of the drug, which can result in prolonged sedation and a hangover effect. The anaesthetics propofol and sevoflurane have recently been used for sedation in procedures of short duration. Although effective, these agents require monitored anaesthesia care. Ketamine is an effective agent, particularly in children, but there is concern regarding emergence reactions. AQUAVAN injection (fospropofol disodium), a phosphorylated prodrug of propofol, is an investigational agent possessing a unique and distinct pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile. Compared with propofol emulsion, AQUAVAN is associated with a slightly longer time to peak effect and a more prolonged pharmacodynamic effect. Advances in the delivery of sedation, including the development of new sedative agents, have the potential to further improve the provision of moderate sedation for a variety of invasive procedures.

Diphenhydramine as an adjunct to sedation for colonoscopy: a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous benzodiazepines in combination with opiates are used to achieve moderate sedation for colonoscopy. Although effective, these agents have potential adverse effects, such as respiratory depression and hypotension. Diphenhydramine hydrochloride possesses central nervous system depressant effects that theoretically could provide a synergistic effect for sedating patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess the efficacy of adding diphenhydramine hydrochloride as an adjunct to improve sedation and to reduce the amount of standard sedatives used during colonoscopy.

DESIGN

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

The study was conducted in a university hospital with an active GI fellowship training program.

PATIENTS

The study group comprised 270 patients undergoing screening/diagnostic/therapeutic colonoscopy were enrolled.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive either 50 mg of diphenhydramine or placebo, given intravenously 3 minutes before starting conscious sedation with intravenous midazolam and meperidine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The main outcome measure was anesthetic effect as assessed by the endoscopy team and by the patient; quantity of adjunctive sedatives to achieve adequate sedation.

RESULTS

Of 270 patients, data were analyzed for 258 patients, with 130 patients in the diphenhydramine group and 128 patients in the placebo group. There was a 10.1% reduction in meperidine usage and 13.7% reduction in midazolam usage in favor of the diphenhydramine group. The mean evaluation scores as judged by the faculty, the fellows, and the nurses were statistically significant in favor of the diphenhydramine group. In addition, patient scores for overall sedation and pain level favored the group that received diphenhydramine.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous diphenhydramine given before initiation of standard sedation offers a significant benefit to conscious sedation for patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Premedication with intravenous ketorolac trometamol (Toradol) in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a prospective double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized trial to investigate the effect of ketorolac trometamol (KT) administered intravenously as premedication in colonoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred and forty patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either 60 mg of KT (KT group (KTG), n=70) or placebo (normal saline group (NSG), n=70) intravenously as premedication 30 min prior to procedure. Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) was used as the mode of sedation. Outcome measures included patient self-assessed pain score in a 10-cm unscaled visual analog scale (VAS), endoscopist assessment of patient pain score in VAS, patient's willingness to repeat colonoscopy, administered and demanded doses of PCS, patient satisfaction score in VAS, and hemodynamic changes during and after the procedure.

RESULTS

The mean patient self-assessed pain score (SD) during procedure was significantly lower in KTG than NSG: 5.08 (2.74) vs 6.62 (2.45); p=0.001. The mean endoscopist assessment of patient pain score (SD) was significantly lower in KTG than NSG as well: 3.99 (2.80) vs 5.28 (2.71); p=0.006. More patients in KTG were willing to repeat procedure as compared with NSG (80.0%vs 57.1%; p=0.004). No significant difference was found in the administered and demanded doses of PCS, mean satisfactory scores and hemodynamic changes in both groups. No serious complication related to intravenous (IV) KT was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with IV KT (Toradol) improves pain control during colonoscopy with no associated serious complications.

Intra-individual comparison of patient acceptability of multidetector-row CT colonography and double-contrast barium enema

AIMS

To compare the subjective acceptability of CT colonography in comparison with barium enema in older symptomatic patients, and to ascertain preferences for future colonic investigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study population comprised 78 persons aged 60 years or over with symptoms suggestive of colorectal neoplasia, who underwent CT colonography followed the same day by barium enema. A 25-point questionnaire was administered after each procedure and an additional follow-up questionnaire a week later. Responses were compared using Wilcoxon matched pairs testing, Mann-Whitney test statistics and binomial exact testing.

RESULTS

Participants suffered less physical discomfort during CT colonography (p = 0.03) and overall satisfaction was greater compared with barium enema (p = 0.03). On follow-up, respondents reported significantly better tolerance of CT colonography (p = 0.002), and were less prepared to undergo barium enema again (p < 0.001). Of 52 subjects expressing an opinion, all preferred CT to barium enema.

CONCLUSION

Patient satisfaction was higher with CT colonography than barium enema. CT colonography caused significantly less physical discomfort and was overwhelmingly preferred by patients.

Who is willing to undergo endoscopy without sedation: patients, nurses, or the physicians?

OBJECTIVES

Some studies suggest that the majority of the United States population is now willing to undergo unsedated endoscopy. We studied the willingness of patients, nurses, and physicians to undergo endoscopy without sedation.

METHODS

Adult patients presenting to us for outpatient endoscopy at two large tertiary care level 1 trauma hospitals were asked to fill out a survey questionnaire recording their demographic information, prior experience with endoscopy and sedation, and whether they were willing to undergo unsedated endoscopy. Their anxiety level was assessed using the Beck Anxiety Inventory. After the endoscopic procedure, patients were asked whether they had any change in their decision regarding unsedated endoscopy. A random convenience sample of physicians and nurses were also given a questionnaire asking about their experience with endoscopy and whether they were willing to undergo such procedures without sedation.

RESULTS

A total of 127 patients, 117 nurses, and 51 physicians participated in the study. Only 19.5% of patients were willing to undergo upper endoscopy without sedation. Among patients, the willingness dropped to 6.75% postprocedurally. Results were similar for colonoscopy. Physicians were least likely to agree to an unsedated procedure (2.2%). Gastroenterology (GI) nurses were more likely to undergo unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (39.3%) as opposed to non-GI nurses (7.1%, P < 0.001). 19.6% of GI nurses agreed to unsedated colonoscopy versus 0% in the non-GI group (P = 0.001). Preprocedure anxiety level was not found to be a predictor for willingness to undergo unsedated endoscopy. Female patients were more likely to forego sedation preprocedurally (OR = 5.75; 95% CI = 2.05-16.2). However, postprocedurally, gender was no longer a significant predictor. Similarly, among the nurses and physicians, neither age nor gender was a significant predictor of willingness to undergo unsedated endoscopy. Patients with a high school (OR = 0.01; 95% CI = 0.01-0.06) or associates degree (OR = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.01-0.35) were less likely to forego sedation.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to reports from some major medical centers, the current study found that most patients as well as medical professionals were unwilling to undergo endoscopy without sedation.

Is the placebo powerless? Update of a systematic review with 52 new randomized trials comparing placebo with no treatment

BACKGROUND

It is widely believed that placebo interventions induce powerful effects. We could not confirm this in a systematic review of 114 randomized trials that compared placebo-treated with untreated patients.

AIM

To study whether a new sample of trials would reproduce our earlier findings, and to update the review.

METHODS

Systematic review of trials that were published since our last search (or not previously identified), and of all available trials.

RESULTS

Data was available in 42 out of 52 new trials (3212 patients). The results were similar to our previous findings. The updated review summarizes data from 156 trials (11 737 patients). We found no statistically significant pooled effect in 38 trials with binary outcomes, relative risk 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.89-1.01). The effect on continuous outcomes decreased with increasing sample size, and there was considerable variation in effect also between large trials; the effect estimates should therefore be interpreted cautiously. If this bias is disregarded, the pooled standardized mean difference in 118 trials with continuous outcomes was -0.24 (-0.31 to -0.17). For trials with patient-reported outcomes the effect was -0.30 (-0.38 to -0.21), but only -0.10 (-0.20 to 0.01) for trials with observer-reported outcomes. Of 10 clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more, placebo had a statistically significant pooled effect only on pain or phobia on continuous scales.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence of a generally large effect of placebo interventions. A possible small effect on patient-reported continuous outcomes, especially pain, could not be clearly distinguished from bias.

Risk management regarding sedation/analgesia

Because the definition of standard of care changes with time, it is difficult to predict whether any given technique or practice will be ultimately viewed as the next advance in care or will be discarded as unnecessary or cumbersome. It is too early to tell whether deep sedation/analgesia with propofol or some other ultrashort acting anesthetic will emerge as the sedative/analgesic of choice for routine endoscopic practice. It seems that deep sedation with propofol provides some advantages over current narcotic/benzodiazepine combinations in many circumstances, but potential risks exist. Further information, including careful documentation of the complications that occur with this and similar agents, be they attributable to the drug or the level of sedation, are eagerly awaited. For now, it seems prudent to continue to recommend that the level of sedation/analgesia be appropriate to the perceived need and that patients continue to have their procedures performed with safety, comfort, and competence as the overriding concerns.

Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions

BACKGROUND

Placebo interventions are often claimed to improve patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes, but this belief is not based on evidence from randomised trials that compare placebo with no treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of placebo interventions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to 2002), EMBASE (1980 to 2002), Biological Abstracts (1986 to 2002), and PsycLIT (1887 to 2002). We contacted experts on placebo research, and read references in the included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised placebo trials with a no-treatment control group investigating any health problem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Outcome data were available in 156 out of 182 included trials, investigating 46 clinical conditions. We found no statistically significant pooled effect of placebo in 38 studies with binary outcomes (4284 patients), relative risk 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.01). The pooled relative risk for patient-reported outcomes was 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.03) and for observer-reported outcomes 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.03). There was heterogeneity (P=0.01) but the funnel plot was symmetrical. There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in the four clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more: pain, nausea, smoking, and depression, but confidence intervals were wide. We found an overall effect of placebo treatments in 118 trials with continuous outcomes (7453 patients), standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.24 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.17). The SMD for patient-reported outcomes was -0.30 (95% CI -0.38 to -0.21), whereas no statistically significant effect was found for observer-reported outcomes, SMD -0.10 (95% CI -0.20 to -0.01). There was heterogeneity (P<0.001) and large variability in funnel plot results even for big trials. There was an apparent effect of placebo interventions on pain (SMD -0.25 (95% CI -0.35 to-0.16)), and phobia (SMD -0.63 (95% CI -1.17 to -0.08)); but also a substantial risk of bias. There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in eight other clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more: nausea, smoking, depression, overweight, asthma, hypertension, insomnia and anxiety, but confidence intervals were wide.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence that placebo interventions in general have clinically important effects. A possible small effect on continuous patient-reported outcomes, especially pain, could not be clearly distinguished from bias.

Cardiovascular Effects at Multi–Detector Row CT Colonography Compared with Those at Conventional Endoscopy of the Colon

PURPOSE

To compare the cardiovascular effects of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and conventional endoscopy in a group of patients undergoing both procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 144 patients underwent CT colonography followed by flexible sigmoidoscopy (40 patients) or colonoscopy (104 patients). Pulse, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation were measured before, during, and after the procedures. Forty patients also underwent continuous Holter electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring. Periprocedural pain was assessed by using a handheld counting device. Outcome variables were assessed by using a combination of paired t testing and multilevel linear regression.

RESULTS

When a spasmolytic was not used, CT colonography was associated with only a small increase in oxygen saturation (P =.03), while use of a spasmolytic caused an increase in pulse (mean increase, 19.9 beats per minute; P <.001) and diastolic blood pressure (mean increase, 5 mm Hg; P <.001). Compared with that at CT, oxygen saturation decreased significantly during and after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy (mean decrease after colonoscopy with sedation, 1.0%; P <.001). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure also decreased during and after colonoscopy (mean systolic decrease after colonoscopy with sedation, 16.6 mm Hg, P <.001; mean diastolic decrease after colonoscopy with sedation, 7.5 mm Hg, P <.001). Patients were 30.3 times more likely to develop bradycardia after endoscopy (95% CI: 2.65, 346; P =.006). Ventricular couplets were significantly higher at endoscopy than at CT in patients with a history of cardiac disease (odds ratio: 72.5 and 95% CI: 4.56, 1,153 at CT vs odds ratio: 14.6 and 95% CI: 0.96, 222 at endoscopy; P =.002). Patients were 1.89 times more likely to register pain during colonoscopy than during CT (95% CI: 1.06, 3.38; P =.03).

CONCLUSION

CT colonography had no significant cardiovascular effect other than spasmolytic-induced tachycardia. Endoscopy-and colonoscopy in particular-causes cardiovascular effects that are largely related to sedation. CT colonography is less painful than colonoscopy and is comparable to flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Complication rates of colonoscopy in an Australian teaching hospital environment

BACKGROUND

Quality assurance is an important part of health-care delivery. With the high level of awareness relating to adverse events from medical care, demonstration of a high standard of practice in gastroenterology is desirable.

AIMS

To determine the incidence of significant complications or death within 30 days of an outpatient colonoscopy, and confirm that these are in keeping with international standards.

METHODS

A retrospective audit of linked endoscopy and other hospital databases and selected medical records was carried out, based on reports of 30,463 colonoscopies performed between 5 September 1989 and 31 December 1999 in the three Western Australian public teaching hospitals.

RESULTS

A total of 23,508 colonoscopies was performed on an outpatient basis between 5 September 1989 and 31 December 1999. Post-procedural complications identified (and incidence) were: bleeding episodes 49 (0.21%), colonic perforation 23 (0.1%), abdominal pain 22 (0.09%), and others 19 (0.08%). A total of 196 patients died within 30 days of undergoing colonoscopy (0.83%), although only three deaths were attributable to the procedure itself (incidence 0.01%). Two were inpatients at the time of the procedure (outpatient mortality rate 0.004%). The combined incidence of bleeding and perforation was not significantly different between consultant endoscopists and unassisted trainees (incidence 0.21% vs 0.20%, P=0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of bleeding and perforation is similar to other reported series and reflects procedures performed by personnel with a wide range of endoscopic experience. The incidence of complications was not greater for trainees compared with consultant endoscopists. All bleeding episodes and the majority of perforations were associated with a therapeutic intervention. Diagnostic colonoscopy in particular is a very safe procedure.

Risk stratification and safe administration of propofol by registered nurses supervised by the gastroenterologist: a prospective observational study of more than 2000 cases

BACKGROUND

Conscious sedation is standard for GI endoscopy. Propofol increasingly is used as an alternative drug to avoid unwanted effects of the commonly used benzodiazepines. Although propofol in the hands of nonanesthesiologists is still controversial, this study characterized the safety profile of propofol administered by nurses under supervision of the gastroenterologist.

METHODS

All patients undergoing any endoscopic procedure between September 2000 and December 2001 in the gastroenterology department of an academic tertiary medical center were eligible for inclusion in this prospective observational study. Sedation was voluntary. Demographic data, type of endoscopic procedure, and clinical features were recorded. A structured personal history led to a 5-class risk stratification based on the criteria of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. A total of 3475 procedures were performed in 2574 patients using propofol administered by registered nurses.

RESULTS

No major complications occurred because of the use of propofol, but overall decreases in the mean values for oxygen saturation (-2%), arterial pressure (-18%), and pulse rate (-10%) were observed. Severe respiratory depression requiring intervention occurred in less than 0.3% of all patients given propofol.

CONCLUSION

The administration of propofol by registered nurses, with careful monitoring under the supervision of the gastroenterologist, is safe for conscious sedation during GI endoscopic procedures.

Electroacupuncture analgesia for colonoscopy. a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

A study was undertaken to compare the effectiveness of acupuncture in reducing patient's discomfort and anxiety during colonoscopy with a standard sedation protocol.

METHODS

Thirty patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive acupuncture, sham, or no acupuncture. A verbal rating scale was used to measure patient's pain when the endoscope reached four scheduled positions. Midazolam was administered at baseline and again anytime patients complained of "severe" pain. The amount of midazolam administered was recorded. A verbal rating scale was used to assess patient's satisfaction with the level of sedation achieved.

RESULTS

Pain level was lower, although not significantly, in the acupuncture group. Midazolam boluses were required in three patients with acupuncture (30%), eight in the sham group (80%), and nine in the control group (90%) (p = 0.01). Six patients in the acupuncture group (60%) reported optimum acceptance of colonoscopy compared with only one in the sham group (10%) and none in the control group (0%) (p = 0.016). Satisfaction scores, assessed 24-72 h after colonoscopy, were extremely high (median score 90 of 100) in the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture may decrease the demand for sedative drugs during colonoscopy by reducing discomfort and anxiety of the patient and the well-known adverse effects of pharmacologic sedation.

Sedation and analgesia

In the United States sedation and analgesia is the standard of practice when performing upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Many of these endoscopic procedures are performed in ambulatory endoscopy centers, including ambulatory surgery centers. This article reviews new Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations standards for sedation and analgesia, drugs used for sedation and analgesia (including side effects), patient assessment and monitoring (before, during, and postprocedure), and discharge of patients from the ambulatory endoscopy center.

Endoscopy in the elderly patient

In the elderly who require endoscopy for diagnosis and /or intervention, the endoscopist should be aware of the special risks related to the presence of concomitant systemic diseases. This is especially pertinent in the use of sedatives and analgesics due to the altered physiological functions related to ageing. This can be further complicated by the fact that elderly patients are often prescribed multiple drugs, which makes for the possibility of serious drug interactions. Endoscopy is a minimally invasive technique that is safer than conventional surgery in many conditions. The endoscopist must take into consideration the important factors related to quality of life, as well as the wishes of the patients and their families. The endoscopist must be sympathetic to their wishes and realize when investigation and treatment are not appropriate.

Anesthesia for diagnostic procedures

Anesthetists and other providers are seeing an increased demand for sedation or anesthesia for challenging patients undergoing diagnostic procedures. Regardless of the specialty of the provider, proper attention must be paid to patient evaluation, monitoring, and drug dosage. The present review summarizes recommendations regarding sedation, as well as recent literature on sedation and anesthesia for endoscopy, radiology, pediatric oncology procedures, and pediatric electroencephalography.