Gastroenterologist-administered propofol for therapeutic upper endoscopy with graphic assessment of respiratory activity: a case series

Deep Sedation or Paracervical Block for Daycare Gynecological Procedures: A Prospective, Comparative Study

Context:

Many minor gynecological procedures are done for diagnostic and therapeutic reasons. A balance has to be struck between ability to discharge a patient at the earliest with minimum procedure-related discomfort to ensure patient safety as well as satisfaction.

Aim:

This prospective randomized study was designed to compare deep sedation versus paracervical block for minor gynecological surgeries comparing the time to discharge readiness, pain after the procedure, and overall patient satisfaction.

Setting and Design:

This prospective randomized comparative study was conducted at a tertiary level hospital after institutional ethics committee approval and registry of trial at CTRI (India).

Methods:

Seventy young women underwent minor gynecological procedures under these two modes of anesthesia. Time to discharge readiness from hospital to home was assessed using modified postanesthesia discharge score system (PADSS). Pain after procedure as well as patient satisfaction was evaluated. Patients were also asked whether they would recommend the same anesthetic technique for the procedure in the future. Answers were noted on a Likert scale.

Results:

Patients were ready to be discharged faster in deep sedation group compared to paracervical block group based upon modified PADSS score (1 h 9.6 min vs. 1 h 18 min) (P = 0.005). Pain in the perioperative period was analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA and found to be significantly lesser in deep sedation group when considered till 80 min after surgery. The mean satisfaction score in patients who underwent deep sedation was 91.24 (standard deviation [SD] 2.8) compared to patients given paracervical block which was low at 64.67 (SD 15.8). All patients given deep sedation were ready to recommend the anesthesia technique as compared to only 53.3% of patients who were given paracervical block.

Conclusions:

Deep sedation may be preferred over paracervical block for daycare minor gynecological procedures.

Sedation in the Ambulatory Endoscopy Center: Optimizing Safety, Expectations and Throughput

In the United States, sedation and analgesia are the standard of practice when endoscopic procedures are performed in the ambulatory endoscopy center. Over the last 30 years, there has been a dramatic shift of endoscopic procedures from the hospital outpatient department to ambulatory endoscopy centers. This article will discuss sedation and analgesia in the ambulatory endoscopy center as it relates to optimizing safety, patient expectations, and efficiency.

Usefulness of Acoustic Monitoring of Respiratory Rate in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Aim. The study assessed the usefulness of a recently developed method for respiratory rate (RR) monitoring in patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) under deep sedation. Methods. Study subjects comprised 182 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer or gastric cancer undergoing ESD. The usefulness of acoustic RR monitoring was assessed by retrospectively reviewing the patients' records for age, gender, height, weight, past history, serum creatinine, RR before ESD, and total dose of sedative. Results. Respiratory suppression was present in 37.9% of (69/182) patients. Continuous monitoring of RR led to detection of respiratory suppression in all these patients. RR alone was decreased in 24 patients, whereas both RR and blood oxygen saturation were decreased in 45 patients. Univariate analysis showed female gender, height, weight, and RR before treatment to be significantly associated with respiratory suppression. Multivariate analysis showed RR before treatment to be the only significant independent predictor [odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73–0.95, and P = 0.006] of respiratory suppression. Conclusion. In this study, the difference in RR before treatment between patients with and without respiratory suppression was subtle. Therefore, we suggest that acoustic RR monitoring should be considered in patients undergoing ESD under sedation to prevent serious respiratory complications.

Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for advanced endoscopic procedures: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The optimum method for sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures is not known. Propofol deep sedation has a faster recovery time than traditional sedative agents, but may be associated with increased complication rates. The aim of the present study was to pool data from all available studies to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of propofol with traditional sedative agents for advanced endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials updated as of January 2013 were searched. Main outcome measures were procedure duration, recovery time, incidence of complications (hypotension, hypoxia), sedation level, patient cooperation and amnesia during advanced endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasonography, and deep small bowel enteroscopy.

RESULTS

Nine prospective randomized trials with a total of 969 patients (485 propofol, 484 conscious sedation) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled mean difference in procedure duration between propofol and traditional sedative agents was -2.3 min [95% CI: -6.36 to 1.76, P = 0.27], showing no significant difference in procedure duration between the two groups. Pooled mean difference in recovery time was -30.26 min [95% CI: -46.72 to -13.80, P < 0.01], showing significantly decreased recovery time with propofol. There was also no significant difference between the two groups with regard to hypoxia and hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol for advanced endoscopic procedures is associated with shorter recovery time, better sedation and amnesia level without an increased risk of cardiopulmonary complications. Overall patient cooperation was also improved with propofol sedation.

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.

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.

Gastroenterologist-guided sedation with propofol for endoscopic ultrasonography in average-risk and high-risk patients: a prospective series

OBJECTIVE

Only a few reports have addressed non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), but none specifically in high-risk patients. Our aim was to study the application of a propofol sedation protocol for EUS in average-risk and high-risk patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study including 446 patients referred for EUS. We analyzed the induction time, procedure duration, recovery times, and patients' comfort and safety. Sedation was administered by a trained nurse, under the guidance of the endoscopist. We continuously monitored vital signs as well as patient cooperation and tolerance. Complications, patient, and endoscopist satisfaction were analyzed.

RESULTS

No major complications occurred. The rate of minor complications was 9%, the most frequent being hypoxemia (8%). One hundred and thirty-eight high-risk patients were included [American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) III-IV]. Average-risk patients received higher propofol doses (202.9 ± 84.8 vs. 164.8 ± 84.3; P=0.003). No differences were found in the rate of complications or procedure-related variables. Overall patient and endoscopist satisfaction was excellent. The logistic regression model identified propofol doses (P=0.02) as a risk factor and ASA-I classification (P=0.03) as a protective factor for the appearance of complications.

CONCLUSION

Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for upper EUS in high-risk and average-risk patients is safe and could be routinely offered to high-risk and elderly patients.

Nurse-administered propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: first Nordic results from implementation of a structured training program

INTRODUCTION

Proper training to improve safety of NAPS (nurse-administered propofol sedation) is essential.

OBJECTIVE

To communicate our experience with a training program of NAPS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2007, a training program was introduced for endoscopists and endoscopy nurses in collaboration with the Department of Anaesthesiology. During a 2.5-year period, eight nurses were trained. Propofol was given as monotherapy. The training program for nurses consisted of a 6-week course including theoretical and practical training whereas the training program for endoscopists consisted of 2.5 h of theory. Patients were selected based on strict criteria including patients in ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) group I-III.

RESULTS

2527 patients undergoing 2.656 gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures were included. The patients were ASA group I, II and III in 34.7%, 56% and 9,3%, respectively. Median dose of propofol was 300 mg. No mortality was noted. 119 of 2527 patients developed short lasting hypoxia (4.7%); 61 (2.4%) needed suction; 22 (0.9%) required bag-mask ventilation and 8 (0.3%) procedures had to be discontinued. In 11 patients (0.4%), anesthetic assistance was called due to short lasting desaturation. 34 patients (1.3%) experienced a change in blood pressure greater than 30%.

CONCLUSION

NAPS provided by properly trained nurses according to the present protocol is safe and only associated with a minor risk (short lasting hypoxia 4.7%). National or international structured training programs are at present few or non-existing. The present training program has documented its value and is suggested as the basis for the current development of guidelines.

Balanced Propofol Sedation in Patients Undergoing EUS-FNA: A Pilot Study to Assess Feasibility and Safety

Introduction and aims. Balanced propofol sedation (BPS) administered by gastroenterologists has gained popularity in endoscopic procedures. Few studies exist about the safety of this approach during endosonography with fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). We assessed the safety of BPS in EUS-FNA. Materials and methods. 112 consecutive patients, referred to our unit to perform EUS-FNA, from February 2008 to December 2009, were sedated with BPS. A second gastroenterologist administered the drugs and monitorized the patient. Results. All the 112 patients (62 males, mean age 58.35) completed the examination. The mean dose of midazolam and propofol was, respectively, of 2.1 mg (range 1–4 mg) and 350 mg (range 180–400). All patients received oxygen with a mean flux of 4 liter/minute (range 2–6 liters/minute). The mean recovery time after procedure was 25 minutes (range 18–45 minutes). No major complications related to sedation were registered during all procedures. The oxygen saturation of all patients never reduced to less than 85%. Blood systolic pressure during and after the procedure never reduced to less than 100 mmHg. Conclusions. In our experience BPS administered by non-anaesthesiologists provided safe and successful sedation in patients undergoing EUS-FNA.

Balanced propofol sedation for therapeutic GI endoscopic procedures: a prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND

There are few controlled studies on balanced propofol sedation (BPS) for therapeutic endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of BPS (propofol in combination with midazolam and meperidine) with conventional sedation (midazolam and meperidine) in patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopic procedures.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, single-blinded study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care referral center.

PATIENTS

This study involved 222 consecutive patients undergoing therapeutic EGD or ERCP from July 2009 to March 2010.

INTERVENTION

Conventional sedation or BPS by trained registered nurses under endoscopist supervision.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Rates of sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications and interruption of the procedures, procedure-related times, and assessments of health care providers (endoscopists and sedation nurses) and patients.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the BPS and conventional groups in the rates of cardiopulmonary complications (8.8% [9/102] vs 5.8% [6/104], respectively) and transient interruption of procedures (2.9% [3/102] vs 0% [0/104], respectively). No patient required assisted ventilation or premature termination of a procedure. BPS provided significantly higher health care provider satisfaction (mean±SD 10-cm visual analog scale [VAS] score) compared with conventional sedation (endoscopists: 7.57±2.61 vs 6.55±2.99, respectively; P=.011; sedation nurses: 7.86±2.31 vs 6.67±2.90, respectively; P=.001). Patient cooperation was significantly better in the BPS group (VAS; endoscopists: 7.24±2.97 vs 6.27±3.09, P=.024; sedation nurses: 7.75±2.30 vs 6.54±2.99, P=.001).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center and single-blinded study.

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional sedation, BPS provides higher health care provider satisfaction, better patient cooperation, and similar adverse event profiles in patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopic procedures.

Comparison of propofol deep sedation versus moderate sedation during endosonography

BACKGROUND

The purposes of this study are: (1) to prospectively evaluate clinically relevant outcomes including sedation-related complications for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures performed with the use of propofol deep sedation administered by monitored anesthesia care (MAC), and (2) to compare these results with a historical case-control cohort of EUS procedures performed using moderate sedation provided by the gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients referred for EUS between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2002 were enrolled. Complication rates for EUS using MAC sedation were observed and also compared with a historical case-control cohort of EUS patients who received meperidine/midazolam for moderate sedation, administered by the GI endoscopist. Logistic regression analysis was used to isolate possible predictors of complications.

RESULTS

A total of 1,000 patients underwent EUS with propofol sedation during the period from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002 (mean age 64 years, 53% female). The distribution of EUS indications based on the primary area of interest was: 170 gastroduodenal, 92 anorectal, 508 pancreaticohepatobiliary, 183 esophageal, and 47 mediastinal. The primary endpoint of the study was development of sedation-related complications occurring during a performed procedure. A total of six patients experienced complications: duodenal perforation (one), hypotension (one), aspiration pneumonia (one), and apnea requiring endotracheal intubation (three). The complication rate with propofol was 0.60%, compared with 1% for the historical case-control (meperidine/midazolam moderate sedation) group.

CONCLUSIONS

There does not appear to be a significant difference between complication rates for propofol deep sedation with MAC and meperidine/midazolam administered for moderate sedation.

Estudo comparativo de eficácia e segurança entre propofol e midazolam durante sedação para colonoscopia

OBJETIVO: Comparar a segurança e a eficácia do propofol com a do midazolam na sedação profunda durante colonoscopias. MÉTODOS: Sessenta e seis pacientes foram submetidos à colonoscopias e estudados prospectivamente. Um total de 50 pacientes recebeu 3,25 mg.kg-1 de peso de propofol. No grupo controle de 16 pacientes foi administrado 2,05 mg.kg-1 de peso de midazolam. A dose de manutenção foi titulada de acordo com a necessidade. Os parâmetros cardiovasculares e respiratórios observados foram a saturação de oxigênio, pressão arterial sistólica e diastólica e frequência cardíaca. Após o procedimento foi realizado um questionário sobre intercorrências como dor, desconforto e satisfação após a colonoscopia, utilizando uma escala visual de zero a dez. Foi aplicado o teste t de Student para a análise estatística. RESULTADOS: A amostra foi similar com relação às variáveis idade, peso, sexo e condição física. Houve diferença estatística significativa para os parâmetros saturação de oxigênio do sangue e pressão arterial sistólica entre os dois grupos. Não houve diferença estatística significativa para os parâmetros pressão arterial diastólica e pulso. Apesar das diferenças nos parâmetros cardiovasculares e respiratórios, não houve repercussões hemodinâmicas significativas. Não houve diferença estatística no parâmetro dor e satisfação. Os pacientes que apresentaram agitação (25%) no grupo midazolam, relataram mais desconforto (p=0,038). CONCLUSÃO: As variações nos parâmetros cardiovasculares e respiratórios, mesmo com diferenças significativas entre os grupos, não causaram repercussões clínicas significativas nos dois grupos, caracterizando a segurança na sedação profunda. A sedação com midazolam ou propofol não está associada a níveis de dor e satisfação diferentes entre os dois grupos. O grupo midazolan referiu significativamente mais desconforto que o grupo propofol.

Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopist-directed propofol sedation (EDP) remains controversial. We sought to update the safety experience of EDP and estimate the cost of using anesthesia specialists for endoscopic sedation.

METHODS

We reviewed all published work using EDP. We contacted all endoscopists performing EDP for endoscopy that we were aware of to obtain their safety experience. These complications were available in all patients: endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and death.

RESULTS

A total of 646,080 (223,656 published and 422,424 unpublished) EDP cases were identified. Endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and deaths were 11, 0, and 4, respectively. Deaths occurred in 2 patients with pancreatic cancer, a severely handicapped patient with mental retardation, and a patient with severe cardiomyopathy. The overall number of cases requiring mask ventilation was 489 (0.1%) of 569,220 cases with data available. For sites specifying mask ventilation risk by procedure type, 185 (0.1%) of 185,245 patients and 20 (0.01%) of 142,863 patients required mask ventilation during their esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy, respectively (P < .001). The estimated cost per life-year saved to substitute anesthesia specialists in these cases, assuming they would have prevented all deaths, was $5.3 million.

CONCLUSIONS

EDP thus far has a lower mortality rate than that in published data on endoscopist-delivered benzodiazepines and opioids and a comparable rate to that in published data on general anesthesia by anesthesiologists. In the cases described here, use of anesthesia specialists to deliver propofol would have had high costs relative to any potential benefit.

Bispectral index monitoring for nurse-administered propofol sedation during upper endoscopic ultrasound: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

Bispectral index monitoring (BIS) is a quantitative assessment of brain cortical activity. The aim of this study was to determine if BIS-guided nurse-administered propofol sedation would decrease by > or = 20% both recovery time and propofol dose compared to standard propofol sedation for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Prospectively, eligible outpatients were randomized to BIS-guided or standard propofol sedation during EUS. Propofol was given by nurses in intermittent boluses with sedation targeted at a BIS score of < 65-75. For the control group, the nurse was blinded to BIS scores and sedation was titrated to a modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation scale (MOAA/S) score < or = 3. Of 50 patients enrolled, data for 44 randomized to BIS-guidance (n = 24) and the control group (n = 20) were evaluated. Between the BIS-guided and control group there was no difference between the mean procedure duration, total propofol dose, recovery time, mean intraoperative MOAA/S, and mean BIS score. Compared to standard propofol sedation for EUS, BIS-guided propofol sedation offers no significant decrease in postprocedure recovery times or propofol doses.

Nurse-administered propofol sedation compared with midazolam and meperidine for EUS: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The utility of nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) compared with midazolam and meperidine (M/M) for EUS is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To compare recovery times, costs, safety, health personnel, and patient satisfaction of NAPS and M/M for EUS.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial.

SETTING

Tertiary-referral hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana.

PATIENTS

Outpatients referred for EUS.

INTERVENTIONS

Sedation with M/M or NAPS. The patient and recovery nurse were blinded; however, the sedating nurse, endoscopist, and recording research nurse were unblinded to the sedatives used. A capnography, in addition to standard monitoring, was used. A questionnaire and visual analog scale assessed patient, endoscopist, and sedating nurse satisfaction.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Recovery times, costs, safety, health personnel, and patient satisfaction in both groups.

RESULTS

Eighty consecutive patients were randomized to NAPS (n = 40) or M/M (n = 40). More patients in the propofol group were current tobacco users; patient demographics, procedures performed, mean procedure length, and the overall frequency of adverse events were otherwise similar. Compared with M/M, NAPS was associated with a faster induction of sedation (2.3 vs 5.7 minutes, respectively; P = .001) and full recovery time (29 vs 49 minutes, respectively; P = .001), higher postprocedure patient satisfaction, and quicker anticipated return to baseline function. At discharge, total costs (recovery plus medications) were similar between the propofol ($406) and M/M groups ($399; P = .79).

LIMITATION

Low-risk patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with M/M, NAPS for an EUS offered a faster sedation induction and full recovery time, higher postprocedure patient satisfaction, and a quicker anticipated return to baseline function. Total costs were similar between the groups.

An assessment of computer-assisted personalized sedation: a sedation delivery system to administer propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Demand for colonoscopy and EGD procedures is increasing. Impediments to performing these examinations persist. Patients perceive these procedures as unpleasant and painful. The use of suboptimal sedatives results in inefficiency in endoscopy practices. Improving sedation methods utilizing precise control of preferred sedatives may increase patient satisfaction and practice efficiency.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to demonstrate the feasibility of computer-assisted personalized sedation (CAPS) for facilitating the precise administration of propofol by endoscopist/nurse teams, achieving minimal to moderate sedation in subjects undergoing routine endoscopies.

DESIGN

Open label, single-center studies.

SETTING

Endoscopy clinics in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Gent, Belgium.

SUBJECTS

Twenty-four adults per center; 12 colonoscopies, 12 EGDs.

INTERVENTIONS

Propofol sedation with CAPS by endoscopist/registered nurse care teams.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sedation level measured by modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (MOAA/S), recovery time measured from endoscope removal until Aldrete >/= 12, dosage of propofol, oxygen saturation, and safety assessments.

RESULTS

Subjects responded to mild tactile and verbal stimuli MOAA/S = 5, 4, 3, or 2) 99% of the time. Mean propofol doses in the United States and Belgium were 65.4 and 72.1 mg, respectively. Mean recovery times were 29 and 10 seconds, respectively. Oxygen desaturation occurred in only 6% of subjects. No device-related adverse events occurred.

LIMITATION

Open-label design.

CONCLUSIONS

Using CAPS, the endoscopist/nurse teams precisely controlled the administration of propofol achieving minimal to moderate sedation in subjects undergoing colonoscopy and EGD procedures. Mean propofol dosage was low and post-procedure recovery times were rapid. The device performed well when operated by the endoscopist/nurse team, with no device-related adverse events.

Nurse-administered propofol sedation for upper endoscopic ultrasonography

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist regarding the safety of nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) for advanced endoscopy.

AIMS

To evaluate the frequency of and the risk factors for complications associated with NAPS for upper endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

METHODS

Consecutive upper EUS examinations using NAPS were retrospectively identified. Clinical data and adverse events were recorded. Univariate and multivariable repeated measures logistic regression models were used to identify independent risk factors for complications.

RESULTS

Among 806 EUS procedures, the mean procedure duration, time for sedation induction, and postprocedure recovery time were: 34 +/- 20 min, 3.6 +/- 1.4 min, and 27 +/- 23 min, respectively. A decline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) to <90 mm Hg occurred in 104 patients (13%). Six patients (0.7%) had a decline in oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) to <90%. Four patients (0.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-1.27) required assisted positive pressure ventilation. There were no major complications. The minor complication rate from sedation was 21% (95% CI 17.2-25.3). All of the complications were clinically insignificant. Overall complication risk was not related to age, dose, or procedure time. Sedation-related complication rates for advanced experience-level (> or =100 NAPS procedures) nurses were lower compared to the least-experienced (< or =30 NAPS procedures) nurses (17.2%vs 25.4%, odds ratio [OR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

NAPS for upper EUS is safe and may be performed without major complications. Four patients (0.5%) required assisted ventilation. Minor complications occurred in 21% of patients, but were not associated with patient age, propofol dose, or procedure time.

Mask adaptor--a novel method of positive pressure ventilation during propofol deep sedation for upper GI endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Propofol dosages required for upper GI endoscopy are often high enough to pose serious risks of respiratory depression. Stopping the procedure and bag ventilating a patient until the propofol wears off may be a safer management because traditional mask ventilation is not available.

OBJECTIVE

We introduce the mask adaptor for upper GI endoscopy (MAUGE), a new method of positive pressure ventilation during upper GI endoscopy, and assessed its feasibility and safety.

DESIGN

Subjects received propofol 1.5 to 2.5 mg/kg injection followed by repeated doses of 20 to 30 mg if necessary.

SETTING

Tertiary hospital.

PATIENTS

Thirty patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists class I to III, undergoing upper GI endoscopy and requesting sedation.

INTERVENTIONS

After connecting the MAUGE to the anesthetic ventilation circuit and mask, the endoscope was inserted into the patient's digestive tract through the channel for endoscopes in the MAUGE and through the mask. Oxygen was supplied to the respiratory tract through the channel for gas in the MAUGE and through the mask by using positive pressure ventilation by bag-valve-mask ventilation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Heart rate, noninvasive blood pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide tension, oxygen saturation, respiratory waveform.

RESULTS

Oxygen saturation was more than 95% throughout the endoscopy in all patients. Positive ventilation was achieved in all patients and consistent with thoracic wall movement and respiratory waveforms shown by capnography.

LIMITATIONS

The MAUGE cannot seal the respiratory tract. Patients in high risk for aspiration should not be considered candidates for using the MAUGE.

CONCLUSIONS

By use of the MAUGE, positive pressure ventilation was efficaciously achieved, and desaturation and carbon dioxide retention were effectively avoided during the upper GI endoscopy procedure.

Practice efficiency and economics: the case for rapid recovery sedation agents for colonoscopy in a screening population

GOAL

To determine rapidly acting agents' impact on practice efficiency and cost for outpatient colonoscopy in a screening population.

BACKGROUND

Propofol-mediated endoscopic sedation is popular due to rapid sedation onset and superior recovery profile compared with sedation with an opioid and benzodiazepine. There are few data on the impact of this type of sedation on the economics and efficiency of an endoscopy unit.

STUDY

A provider-perspective economic model assessed the ability of propofol and fospropofol disodium (Aquavan, GPI 15715, MGI Pharma) to increase practice efficiency and determined break-even costs based on current colonoscopy reimbursement levels. Reimbursement inputs by practice setting, costs, and recovery profiles-taken from published literature examining time to discharge-were used to populate the model. To measure robustness of model results to changes in base case inputs, sensitivity analyses were performed. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, inputs were varied simultaneously and randomly for 1000 iterations to determine 95% confidence intervals (CI) for break-even costs.

RESULTS

In the time to complete 1 colonoscopy with midazolam/meperidine, 1.76 colonoscopies can be completed with propofol and 1.91 colonoscopies can be completed with fospropofol disodium. This efficiency benefit produced a break-even cost for rapid recovery agents of $71.53 (95% CI: $38.39, $105.67) in a hospital outpatient clinic and $61.48 (95% CI: $41.33, $108.99) in an ambulatory surgical center. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated the break-even cost of these agents was most sensitive to operating costs and time to discharge ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid recovery agents for colonoscopy can improve practice efficiency and offer economic advantages over traditional sedation.

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.

Sedation in endoscopic practice

Sedation impacts every aspect of endoscopy practice--the quality fo the examination, the satisfaction of endoscopist and of patient, the efficiency and cost of delivering services, and the compliance of patients with surveillance guidelines. New sedation agents and improved patient-monitoring and drug-delivery technologies are challenging traditional practices. Increasing demand for endoscopic services, shrinking reimbursements, and competing diagnostic technologies are prompting recognition that new approaches to sedation can improve practice efficiency and patient outcome. This article discusses new developments in endoscopic sedation and their implications for practice management.

Cardiopulmonary complications of ERCP in older patients

BACKGROUND

Biochemical markers of ERCP-related myocardial injury have not previously been investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate ERCP-related cardiac troponin I (cTnI) release, myocardial ischemia, hemodynamic changes, and arterial hypoxemia in a series of consecutive patients according to age and to determine their relationship to preexisting cardiovascular risk factors (RF) and the development of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary teaching hospital, Canberra, Australia.

PATIENTS

Data were collected on 130 consecutive ERCPs performed on 100 unselected patients (aged 18-93 years) by one endoscopist. Patients were divided into two groups: 65 years of age and older (group 1, n = 53; 27 women) and less than 65 years of age (group 2, n = 47; 33 women).

INTERVENTIONS

ERCP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Cardiovascular RFs were identified, and electrocardiogram (ECG), cTnI, creatine kinase (CK), amylase, and lipase were measured before and 24 hours after ERCP. Oxygen saturation (SpO(2)), heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), and ECG were monitored continuously during each procedure.

RESULTS

New ECG changes (ischemia, arrhythmias) occurred in 24% of procedures in group 1 and in 9.3% in group 2 (p = 0.168), and episodic arterial hypoxemia (SpO(2) < 90%) in 16.2% (group 1) and 21.4% (group 2) (p = 0.596). A post-ERCP rise in cTnI levels was documented in 6 patients in the older group. Two of these patients died: one from acute myocardial infarction and one from undiagnosed ascending aortic aneurysm. A cTnI rise was not related to any comorbid conditions, total number of RFs, hemodynamic or ECG changes, or arterial desaturation. In patients with a new cTnI rise, the duration of ERCP was significantly longer (59.5 vs. 26.4 minutes, p = 0.026), being 30 minutes or longer in 5 of 6 patients. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was associated with desaturation (relative risk [RR] = 5.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.2, 32.0], p = 0.027) and myocardial ischemia/injury (RR = 4.4; 95% CI [1.4, 7.8]; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the majority of older patients tolerated ERCP well, in 8% of procedures, most of which were prolonged (>30 minutes), myocardial injury, as defined by the release of cTnI, occurred. Desaturation and myocardial ischemia/injury were associated with post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Deep sedation occurs frequently during elective endoscopy with meperidine and midazolam

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although moderate (conscious) sedation is intended during elective gastrointestinal endoscopy, unintended levels of deep sedation occur. The aims of this study were to prospectively evaluate the incidence and risk factors of deep sedation during elective endoscopy with meperidine and midazolam intended to maintain a level of moderate sedation.

METHODS

Eighty American Society of Anesthesiology class 1-2, outpatients presenting for elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) were offered enrollment. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were administered according to a standardized protocol. Hemodynamic parameters and levels of sedation were assessed and recorded by a single observer at 3-min intervals. The Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale (ranging 1-5) is a subjective sedation assessment scale used to assess sedation levels. Occurrence of deep sedation, defined by MOAA/S 1-2, was recorded. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to assess predictors of deep sedation.

RESULTS

Deep sedation occurred in 54/80 (68%) patients for a total of 204/785 (26%) of total sedation assessments. The percentage of deep sedation episodes of all sedation-level observations by procedure was 26% for EGD, 11% for colonoscopy, 35% for ERCP, and 29% for EUS. Deep sedation occurred at least once in 60% of EGD, 45% of colonoscopy, 85% of ERCP, and 80% of EUS. Multivariable analysis showed that only ERCP and EUS were independent risk factors of deep sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Deep sedation occurs frequently during elective endoscopy with meperidine and midazolam used with the intent of moderate sedation. ERCP and EUS are risk factors for the occurrence of deep sedation, independent of sedation dose or length of procedure.

Target-controlled propofol infusion during monitored anesthesia in patients undergoing ERCP

BACKGROUND

A target-controlled infusion system automatically adjusts the rate of infusion of propofol to maintain a desired (target) concentration. The aim of this study was to determine whether administration of propofol with a target-controlled infusion system could improve the sedation of patients undergoing ERCP.

METHODS

A total of 205 consecutive patients undergoing ERCP were sedated by using a propofol target-controlled infusion system by an anesthesiologist. The target plasma concentration of propofol ranged from 2 to 5 microg/mL. A bolus dose of fentanyl (50-100 mcg) was administered if signs of insufficient analgesia were observed at the maximum target concentration of propofol allowed. The technical difficulty of ERCP was graded on a scale from 1 (least difficult) to 5 (most difficult).

RESULTS

The mean dosages of propofol and fentanyl administered were 465 (245) mg and 59 (23) mcg, respectively. The total dose of propofol administered and the mean duration of ERCP were related to the degree of difficulty of the procedure. No severe complication was observed; mean time to discharge was 31 (12) minutes. Time to discharge was not influenced by the difficulty of ERCP or by the total dose of propofol administered.

CONCLUSIONS

A target-controlled infusion system for administration of propofol provides safe and effective sedation during ERCP. Further studies are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness and the safety profile for infusion of propofol with a target-controlled infusion system by a nonanesthesiologist during ERCP.

Extended/advanced monitoring techniques in gastrointestinal endoscopy

The practice of sedation and analgesia is under increasing scrutiny by numerous regulatory agencies, with the aim of making these procedures safer and reducing the incidence of cardiopulmonary complications during GI endoscopy. As we move toward more evidence-based medicine, new technologies will have to be assessed in a manner that demonstrates their efficacy and utility in clinical practice. Although there have been no controlled studies examining whether more intensive monitoring during endoscopy improves outcomes, extended monitoring with capnography seems to offer an advantage over conventional monitoring in that, by providing a real-time indication of any change in adequate ventilation before oxygen desaturation occurs, it can detect early phases of respiratory depression, which can allow a more precise and safer titration of medications. There is a close agreement among experts that capnography may reduce the risk of adverse outcomes during deep sedation; therefore, its use should be required for patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures with the potential for deep sedation. Extended monitoring with capnography should also be endorsed whenever propofol is considered as an alternative to standard sedation with a benzodiazepine or narcotic. Our understanding of the clinical application of techniques for monitoring of depth of sedation is in its infancy, and its full contribution to the practice of endoscopy has yet to be determined. Their potential role in improving sedation practice during endoscopy needs to be confirmed by controlled trials. If we consider the lack of proven efficacy of these emerging monitoring techniques in reducing the adverse outcomes associated with sedation and analgesia, the importance of appropriate monitoring cannot be overemphasized. However, it is vital for the endoscopist to be thoroughly familiar with the type of sedation chosen, to be able to recognize the various levels of sedation, and, above all, to rescue patients should they unintentionally progress to a deeper level of sedation than intended.

Propofol: a gastroenterologist's perspective

The use of propofol for GI endoscopy has left the realm of experimentation and is now a viable alternative to standard sedation and analgesia. In the hands of appropriately trained gastroenterologists and registered nurses, propofol has been shown to be superior to standard sedation and analgesia in terms of patient satisfaction and comfort and shorter recovery parameters. Comparative studies have found it to be as safe as the regimens that are used for standard sedation and analgesia. Its narrow therapeutic window demands that specially trained personnel who are not directly involved in the endoscopic procedure administer it. Cost-effectiveness data suggest that propofol is superior to conventional sedation and analgesia, even with the use of added personnel.The importance of pre-procedural assessment and appropriate monitoring cannot be overemphasized. The endoscopist must have a thorough knowledge of the pharmacology of the agents used for sedation and the training necessary to recognize and manage over sedation. Numerous regulatory groups are carefully scrutinizing the practice of sedation and analgesia. It seems that ventilatory monitoring will be required for at least a subset of patients. Although hypercapnia and apnea can be reliably measured, the most important questions to be answered are if such monitoring affects patient outcomes and which patients are at risk for apnea and alveolar hypoventilation.

Patient-controlled versus nurse-administered sedation with propofol during colonoscopy. A prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol, is well tolerated and reduces recovery time and staff required during endoscopic interventions. "Who" administers the drug proves economically crucial. With the aim of maintaining safety, medical quality, and patient satisfaction, this study investigates PCS versus nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) in a cohort of consecutive patients.

METHODS

One hundred and fourteen patients, aged 22-90 yr, undergoing only colonoscopy participated in this prospective randomized trial. Patients were randomly assigned to either PCS or NAPS. If patients declined randomization for different reasons of reluctance to PCS they were assigned to a standard nurse-sedated control group. All patients received pethidine presedation for analgesia. Visual analogue scales followed patient anxiety level, tolerability, pain, and satisfaction, and endoscopist's assessment of the procedure.

RESULTS

Given the choice, 35% of the patients who were rather younger and more anxious declined randomization to PCS. The mean total dose of propofol needed in this group was higher, but the patients had a tendency to rate the global tolerance and the pain of the examination as less comfortable compared to the two randomized groups. Self-administration of propofol created a significantly different drug profile and higher medication costs. With regard to the safety parameters there was no difference between PCS and NAPS. In their global assessments, the patients and endoscopists tended to prefer NAPS.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual patient characteristics and attitudes toward self-control are crucial for PCS. While being a viable option for patients who are able and willing to handle, this technique is not applicable in a considerable portion of everyday patients.

Review article: registered nurse-administered propofol sedation for endoscopy

Propofol has several attractive properties that render it a potential alternative sedative agent for endoscopy. Compared with meperidine and midazolam, it has an ultra-short onset of action, short plasma half-life, short time to achieve sedation, faster time to recovery and discharge, and results in higher patient satisfaction. Shorter times to achieve sedation enhance efficiency in the endoscopy unit. Multiple studies have documented the safe administration of propofol by non-anaesthesiologists. Administration by registered nurses is more cost-effective than administration by anaesthesiologists. However, the administration of propofol by a registered nurse supervised only by the endoscopist is controversial because the drug has the potential to produce sudden and severe respiratory depression. More information is needed on how training nurses and endoscopists should proceed to give propofol, as well as the optimal level of monitoring to ensure the safety of nurse-administered propofol.

Propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Propofol is under evaluation as a sedative for endoscopic procedures. We compared nurse-administered propofol to midazolam plus fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive propofol or midazolam plus fentanyl, administered by a registered nurse and supervised only by an endoscopist. Endpoints were patient satisfaction, procedure and recovery times, neuropsychologic function, and complications.

RESULTS

The mean dose of propofol administered was 277 mg; mean doses of midazolam and fentanyl were 7.2 mg and 117 microg, respectively. Mean time to sedation was faster with propofol (2.1 vs. 6.1 min; P<0.0001), and depth of sedation was greater (P<0.0001). Patients receiving propofol reached full recovery sooner (16.5 vs. 27.5 min; P=0.0001) and were discharged sooner (36.5 vs. 46.1 min; P=0.01). After recovery, the propofol group scored better on tests reflective of learning, memory, working memory span, and mental speed. Six minor complications occurred in the propofol group: 4 episodes of hypotension, 1 episode of bradycardia, and 1 rash. Five complications occurred with the use of midazolam and fentanyl: one episode of oxygen desaturation requiring mask ventilation and 4 episodes of hypotension. Patients in the propofol vs. midazolam and fentanyl groups reported similar degrees of overall satisfaction using a 10-cm visual analog scale (9.3 vs. 9.4, P>0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse-administered propofol resulted in several advantages for outpatient colonoscopy compared with midazolam plus fentanyl, but did not improve patient satisfaction.

Nurse-administered propofol versus midazolam and meperidine for upper endoscopy in cirrhotic patients

OBJECTIVES

Upper GI endoscopy is often performed in patients with chronic liver disease to screen for esophageal and gastric varices. Propofol is currently under evaluation as an alternative to the combination of midazolam and meperidine for sedation during endoscopic procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare nurse-administered propofol to midazolam and meperidine for sedation in patients with chronic liver disease undergoing diagnostic upper GI endoscopy.

METHODS

Twenty outpatients who had known chronic liver disease (Child-Pugh class A or B) and were undergoing variceal screening were randomized to receive propofol or midazolam plus meperidine for sedation. Administration of sedation was performed by a registered nurse and supervised by the endoscopist. Outcome measures studied were induction and recovery times, efficacy and safety of sedation, patient satisfaction, and return to baseline function.

RESULTS

The mean dose of propofol and meperidine/midazolam administered was 203 mg (SD 43.7, range 150-280) and 71.3 mg (SD 17.7, range 50-100)/5.3 mg (SD 0.9, range 3.0-6.0), respectively. The mean time to achieve adequate sedation was 3.6 min (SD 1.2) for the propofol group in comparison to 7.3 min (SD 2.8) for the meperidine/midazolam group (p<0.05). Procedure times between the groups were similar: propofol, 3.9 min (SD 1.9); midazolam/meperidine, 2.7 min (SD 0.8) (p=0.11). The level of sedation achieved by the propofol group was greater (p=0.0001). Time to full recovery was faster in the propofol group: 34.9 min (SD 10.3) versus 51.6 min (SD 18.4) (p<0.05). The mean time to reach a maximal level of alertness on the Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale for the propofol group was 15 min (SD 3.6) versus 29 min (SD 10.5) (p=0.001). Although both groups recorded a high level of satisfaction, patients receiving propofol expressed greater overall mean satisfaction with the quality of their sedation at the time of discharge (p<0.05), and reported a return to baseline function sooner in the majority of cases. Propofol achieved comparable levels of efficacy and safety to meperidine/midazolam in our study group. Both were well tolerated with minimal complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation administered by registered nurses in the setting of adequate patient monitoring is efficacious and well tolerated in patients with liver disease who are undergoing variceal screening by upper endoscopy. Patients were more satisfied with the quality of sedation, and return to baseline function was usually sooner compared to results achieved with midazolam/meperidine. Propofol offers advantages over meperidine/midazolam in cirrhotic patients.

Propofol for endoscopic sedation: A protocol for safe and effective administration by the gastroenterologist

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in the use of propofol, an ultrashort-acting hypnotic agent, for sedation during endoscopic examinations. A protocol was developed for administration of propofol, combined with small doses of midazolam and meperidine, for endoscopic sedation under the direction of a gastroenterologist. Initial experience with using this protocol is described.

METHODS

A total of 819 consecutive endoscopic examinations under sedation with propofol, midazolam, and meperidine (or fentanyl), in adherence with the sedation protocol, were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

There were 638 colonoscopies and 181 EGDs; 89% of patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II. Mean dosages of medications were: propofol 63 (33.5) mg, meperidine 48 (7.2) mg, and midazolam 1 (0.12) mg. The dose of propofol was inversely correlated with age and ASA class, and positively correlated with patient weight and duration of examination. Hypotension (>20 mm Hg decline in either systolic or diastolic blood pressure) developed in 218 (27%) patients, and hypoxemia (oxygen saturation <90%) developed in 75 (9%). All episodes of hypotension and hypoxemia were transient, and no patient required administration of a pharmacologic antagonist or assisted ventilation. The average time for recovery after colonoscopy and after EGD was, respectively, 25 minutes and 28 minutes. All EGDs and 98% of colonoscopies were completed successfully.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of this initial experience, it is believed that propofol, potentiated by small doses of midazolam and meperidine, can be safely and effectively administered under the direction of a gastroenterologist. Additional research will be necessary to determine whether propofol is superior to the current methods of sedation.

Nurse-administered propofol sedation without anesthesia specialists in 9152 endoscopic cases in an ambulatory surgery center

Narcotics and benzodiazepines are commonly used for sedation for endoscopy in the United States. Propofol has certain advantages over narcotics and benzodiazepines, but its use is often controlled by anesthesia specialists. This report describes our experience with dosage, safety, patient satisfaction, and discharge time with nurse-administered propofol sedation in 9152 endoscopic cases. The study was performed in a private practice ambulatory surgery center in Medford, Oregon. With the assistance of an anesthesiologist, we developed a protocol for administration of propofol in routine endoscopic cases, in which propofol was given by registered nurses under the supervision of endoscopists or gastroenterologists. We then applied the protocol with 9152 patients. There were seven cases of respiratory compromise (three prolonged apnea, three laryngospasm, one aspiration requiring hospitalization), all associated with upper endoscopy. Five patients required mask ventilation, but none required endotracheal intubation. There were seven colonic perforations (<1 per 1000 colonoscopies), of which three may have involved forceful sigmoid disruption. Of patients who had previously received narcotic or benzodiazepine sedation, 84% preferred propofol. Gastroenterologists strongly preferred propofol. The mean time from completion of procedures to discharge in a sample of 100 patients was 18 min.Nurse-administered propofol sedation in an ambulatory surgery center was safe and resulted in high levels of patient satisfaction and rapid postprocedure recovery and discharge.

Safety of propofol for conscious sedation during endoscopic procedures in high-risk patients-a prospective, controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Propofol, a rapidly-acting hypnotic agent, is increasingly being used for endoscopic sedation. Serious adverse effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular depression, make many endoscopists reluctant to use propofol in critically ill patients. This study characterizes propofol's safety profile in consecutive high-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] classes III and IV) compared with matched subjects (ASA classes I and II).

METHODS

During a 19-month period, 1370 at risk-patients were sedated with propofol, of whom 47% (614 ASA III, 28 ASA IV) were age matched with 642 consecutive patients of the same gender and age assigned to ASA classes I and II and undergoing the same endoscopic procedures (395 gastroscopies, 201 colonoscopies, 14 combined). Registered nurses performed all sedations by propofol dose titration while carefully monitoring arterial oxygen saturation, heart rate, and blood pressure.

RESULTS

No major complications occurred among the critically ill patients. There was, however, an increased risk for a short relevant oxygen desaturation (<90%) of 3.6% for ASA III and IV versus 1.7% for ASA I and II (p = 0.036). In four versus one case, short mask ventilation was necessary. Also, a greater proportion of patients showed a > or =5% oxygen saturation decrease. There was no pronounced influence on arterial pressure or heart rate and no perforations in 336 colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

With careful monitoring, propofol sedation during GI endoscopies is safe, even for high-risk patients. Considering their higher comorbidity and tendency toward oxygen desaturation, they need particularly careful monitoring, and the required dose is, on mean, 10-20% lower than in ASA classes I and II.

A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy

OBJECTIVES

Medicare beneficiaries now have access to screening colonoscopy (SC). For colon cancer screening to be fruitful, SC must become more acceptable to a broad segment of this population. However, we currently lack knowledge of which aspects of SC have an impact on patient acceptance. The aims of this study were: 1) to identify the features of SC that are most important in deterring participation, and 2) to prioritize and to compare the perceptions of never-screened individuals with those of individuals previously screened for colon cancer.

METHODS

Questionnaires were distributed to 300 outpatients at Mayo Clinic, Rochester (150 never-screened patients; 150 previously screened patients). The survey instrument addressed domains of the Health Belief Model and colon cancer risk perception. Patients ranked the three most important barriers to SC and answered general knowledge questions on colon cancer.

RESULTS

Response rates of never-screened (84%) and screened (88%) patients were similar. Never-screened patients were less likely to have a regular primary physician (80% vs 95%, p = 0.0003) and were less likely to have undergone a prior screening mammography (87% vs 96% of women, p = 0.02) compared with screened patients. The four most reported deterrents to SC ("volume of bowel preparation," "adequate analgesia," "no recommendation from primary physician," and "embarrassment") were ranked similarly by both groups. Never-screened patients had less understanding of the incidence and treatment outcomes of colon cancer.

CONCLUSION

Colon cancer screening behavior seems to be associated with having a regular primary physician, as well as other cancer screening behaviors. Knowledge of colon cancer is the most reliable discriminator of prior screening status. There does not seem to be any difference in the preferences expressed by never-screened and screened patients with respect to the aspects of colonoscopy that they find objectionable.

The role of esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the diagnosis and management of upper gastrointestinal disorders

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy has revolutionized the clinical management of upper gastrointestinal diseases. Millions of EGDs are performed annually in the United States for many indications, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, abdominal pain, dysphagia, or surveillance of premalignant lesions. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is very safe, with a low risk of serious complications such as perforation, cardiopulmonary arrest, or aspiration pneumonia. It is a highly sensitive and specific diagnostic test, especially when combined with endoscopic biopsy. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is increasingly being used therapeutically to avoid surgery. New endoscopic technology such as endosonography, endoscopic sewing, and the endoscopic videocapsule will undoubtedly extend the frontiers and increase the indications for endoscopy.

An initial investigation of efficiency in endoscopy delivery

OBJECTIVE

The demand for endoscopic services is increasing rapidly. Of the several potential mechanisms to improve the supply of endoscopic procedures, improved efficiency in the endoscopy unit has received little attention.

METHODS

We invited 20 experienced endoscopists to participate in an initial evaluation of endoscopy efficiency, in which they were observed performing procedures in their own unit. Procedure volume per unit time was used as the measure of efficiency. Medical directors and head nurses at each endoscopy unit were interviewed regarding factors they perceived as most important in limiting procedure volume.

RESULTS

There was a greater than 3-fold variation in procedure volume score between the least efficient and most efficient endoscopists. The clearest trend predicting procedure volume score was short room turnover time (p = 0.0004). There was a trend toward improved procedure volume among endoscopists using another professional to sedate their patients and using two procedure rooms. The surveys of medical directors and head nurses suggested that multiple factors contribute to limiting procedure volume, but on average each perceived number of available doctors is the least important factor in limiting volume.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving the efficiency of some endoscopists appears to be an important potential mechanism to meet the rising demand for endoscopic services. Increasing the resources that provide the opportunity for efficiency may be an important mechanism for increasing the availability of endoscopic services. Specific measures associated with improved efficiency include reduced room turnover times, and possibly use of two rooms per endoscopist and sedation by persons other than the endoscopist.

Gastroenterologist-administered propofol versus meperidine and midazolam for advanced upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Propofol is increasingly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its rapid recovery profile. There has been no prospective, randomized comparison of gastroenterologist-administered propofol to meperidine and midazolam for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography. Additionally, its cost-effectiveness has not been studied.

METHODS

Seventy-five randomized patients received either gastroenterologist-administered propofol (n = 38) or meperidine/midazolam (n = 37) for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography. Monitoring with capnography allowed for rapid titration of propofol at the earliest signs of respiratory depression. Visual analogue scales measured tolerance and satisfaction. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed by using return to baseline for both activity and food intake 24 hours after the procedure as the effectiveness measure.

RESULTS

The groups had similar physiological outcomes and satisfaction. Patients receiving propofol had shorter recovery times (P < 0.001) and a higher recovery of both baseline activity level and dietary intake 24 hours after the procedure (P = 0.028). With incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, gastroenterologist-administered propofol cost an additional $403.00 per additional patient at 100% of baseline for both activity level and food intake when compared with standard sedation and analgesia. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the only model in which propofol administration would become the dominant strategy was with its administration by a registered nurse.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroenterologist-administered propofol using monitoring with capnography is similar to meperidine/midazolam for both physiological outcomes and patient/endoscopist satisfaction. Propofol leads to significantly improved recovery of baseline activity and food intake 24 hours after the procedure. Our model suggests that propofol would be more cost-effective than meperidine and midazolam for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography if registered nurse administration were possible.

Laryngeal mask airway--a novel method of airway protection during ERCP: comparison with endotracheal intubation

BACKGROUND

ERCP sometimes requires deep sedation and rarely general anesthesia with airway protection. The laryngeal mask airway device is placed perorally to create a seal over the larynx. Unlike endotracheal intubation, no tube traverses the vocal cords, thus reducing airway stimulation and obviating the need to administer muscle relaxants. The feasibility of using the laryngeal mask airway during ERCP was evaluated and recovery times compared for patients undergoing ERCP with the laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal intubation.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, anesthesia records were reviewed for anesthesiologist-assisted ERCP procedures performed during a 30-month period. Demographics, procedure duration, and time from endoscope removal to extubation were abstracted. Either propofol or inhalation agents were used for anesthesia in all patients.

OBSERVATIONS

Anesthesiologists administered sedation for 41 ERCPs. The airway was managed in 12 patients with endotracheal intubation and the laryngeal mask airway in 20 patients. Six patients underwent laryngeal mask airway insertion and removal while prone. A therapeutic duodenoscope was passed beyond the laryngeal mask airway with little or no resistance in all cases. Repositioning the laryngeal mask airway during the procedure was required in 1 case. Laryngeal mask airway use was associated with shorter extubation time compared with endotracheal intubation (7.2 vs. 12 min.; p = 0.004). There were no airway complications.

CONCLUSION

ERCP can be performed while using the laryngeal mask airway for airway protection. The laryngeal mask airway can be placed with the patient prone, obviating the need to change position. Laryngeal mask airway shortens extubation time compared with endotracheal intubation.

Propofol versus midazolam/meperidine for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists

BACKGROUND

Propofol is under evaluation as a sedative for endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

Eighty outpatients (ASA Class I or II) undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either propofol or midazolam plus meperidine, administered by a nurse and supervised by an endoscopist. Endpoints were patient satisfaction, procedure and recovery times, neuropsychological function, and complications.

RESULTS

The mean dose of propofol administered was 218 mg; mean doses of midazolam and meperidine were, respectively, 4.7 mg and 89.7 mg. Mean time to sedation was faster in the propofol patients (2.1 min vs. 7.0 min; p < 0.0001), and depth of sedation was greater (p < 0.0001). On average, after the procedure, the propofol patients could stand at the bedside sooner (14.2 vs. 30.2 min), reached full recovery faster (14.4 vs. 33.0 min), and were discharged sooner (40.5 vs. 71.1 min) (all p < 0.0001). Patients who received propofol also expressed greater overall mean satisfaction on a 10-point visual analog scale (9.3 vs. 8.6; p < 0.05). At discharge, the propofol group had better scores on tests reflective of learning, memory, working memory span, and mental speed. Four patients in the midazolam/meperidine group developed minor complications (1 hypotension and bradycardia, 2 hypotension alone, and 1 tachycardia) and 1 patient in the propofol group had oxygen desaturation develop during an episode of epistaxis.

CONCLUSION

For outpatient colonoscopy, propofol administered by nurses and supervised by endoscopists has several advantages over midazolam plus meperidine and deserves additional investigation.

Automated graphic assessment of respiratory activity is superior to pulse oximetry and visual assessment for the detection of early respiratory depression during therapeutic upper endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Recommendations from the American Society of Anesthesiologists suggest that monitoring for apnea using the detection of exhaled carbon dioxide (capnography) is a useful adjunct in the assessment of ventilatory status of patients undergoing sedation and analgesia. There are no data on the utility of capnography in GI endoscopy, nor is the frequency of abnormal ventilatory activity during endoscopy known. The aims of this study were to determine the following: (1) the frequency of abnormal ventilatory activity during therapeutic upper endoscopy, (2) the sensitivity of observation and pulse oximetry in the detection of apnea or disordered respiration, and (3) whether capnography provides an improvement over accepted monitoring techniques.

METHODS

Forty-nine patients undergoing therapeutic upper endoscopy were monitored with standard methods including pulse oximetry, automated blood pressure measurement, and visual assessment. In addition, graphic assessment of respiratory activity with sidestream capnography was performed in all patients. Endoscopy personnel were blinded to capnography data. Episodes of apnea or disordered respiration detected by capnography were documented and compared with the occurrence of hypoxemia, hypercapnea, hypotension, and the recognition of abnormal respiratory activity by endoscopy personnel.

RESULTS

Comparison of simultaneous respiratory rate measurements obtained by capnography and by auscultation with a pretracheal stethoscope verified that capnography was an excellent indicator of respiratory rate when compared with the reference standard (auscultation) (r = 0.967, p < 0.001). Fifty-four episodes of apnea or disordered respiration occurred in 28 patients (mean duration 70.8 seconds). Only 50% of apnea or disordered respiration episodes were eventually detected by pulse oximetry. None were detected by visual assessment (p < 0.0010).

CONCLUSIONS

Apnea/disordered respiration occurs commonly during therapeutic upper endoscopy and frequently precedes the development of hypoxemia. Potentially important abnormalities in respiratory activity are undetected with pulse oximetry and visual assessment.

Safety of propofol administered by registered nurses with gastroenterologist supervision in 2000 endoscopic cases

OBJECTIVES

Propofol has certain advantages over benzodiazepines plus narcotics as sedation for endoscopy. In a few centers, propofol has reportedly been used in endoscopic procedures and administered by nurses supervised by gastroenterologists without attendance by anesthesiologists or nurse anesthetists.

METHODS

As part of our continuous quality improvement program, we prospectively recorded the doses of propofol and adverse reactions to the drug in our initial 2000 cases. In all cases propofol was administered by nurses who were supervised by gastroenterologists, with no involvement by an anesthesia specialist.

RESULTS

The 2000 cases included 2222 procedures. There were five episodes of oxygen desaturation to <85%, four of which seemed to be related to excessive administration of propofol and were treated by brief (< 1 min) periods of mask ventilation. No patient required endotracheal intubation or hospital admission, or suffered long-term sequelae from propofol administration. There were no perforations in 977 colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol can be given safely by appropriately trained nurses under supervision by endoscopists. Technology that allows immediate detection of apnea would likely further improve its safety.

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.