Use of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a nationwide survey in Spain

National survey on sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in 2758 Chinese hospitals

BACKGROUND

Although sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is widely used in China, the characteristics of sedation use, including regional distribution, personnel composition, equipment used, and drug selection, remain unclear. The present study aimed to provide insights into the current practice and regional distribution of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in China.

METHODS

A questionnaire consisting of 19 items was distributed to directors of anaesthesiology departments and anaesthesiologists in charge of endoscopic sedation units in mainland China through WeChat.

RESULTS

The results from 2758 participating hospitals (36.7% of the total) showed that 9 808 182 gastroscopies (69.3%) and 4 353 950 colonoscopies (30.7%), with a gastroscopy-to-colonoscopy ratio of 2.3, were conducted from January to December 2016. Sedation was used with 4 696 648 gastroscopies (47.9%) and 2 148 316 colonoscopies (49.3%), for a ratio of 2.2. The most commonly used sedative was propofol (61.0% for gastroscopies and 60.4% for colonoscopies). Haemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO₂) was monitored in most patients (96.1%). Supplemental oxygen was routinely administered, but the availability of other equipment was variable (anaesthesia machine in 64.9%, physiological monitor in 84.4%, suction device in 72.3%, airway equipment in 75.5%, defibrillator in 32.7%, emergency kit in 57.0%, and difficult airway kit in 20.8% of centres responding).

CONCLUSIONS

The sedation rate for gastrointestinal endoscopy is much lower in China than in the USA and in Europe. The most commonly used combination of sedatives was propofol plus an opioid (either fentanyl or sufentanil). Emergency support devices, such as difficult airway devices and defibrillators, were not usually available.

Effect of conscious sedation with midazolam and fentanyl on the overall quality of colonoscopy: a prospective and randomized study

INTRODUCTION

a prospective, randomized study was performed to assess the influence of conscious sedation on the overall quality of colonoscopy, simultaneously quantifying its effect on the scientific quality, perceived quality and patient safety.

METHODS

patients referred for a colonoscopy were included in the study and were randomized to receive or not receive sedation. Demographic data, indication for colonoscopy, cecal intubation, introduction and withdrawal time, resected adenomas and complications during the exploration were collected. Thirty days later, a satisfaction questionnaire was performed (GHAA 9-me) and patients were asked about complications after the examination.

RESULTS

a total of 5,328 patients were included, the average age was 62 ± 15.22 years, 47% were male, 3,734 were sedated and 1,594 were not sedated. The sedated patients had a shorter endoscope insertion time (7'20 ± 2'15 min vs 6'15 ± 3'12 min, p < 0.019), a higher rate of cecal intubations (96% vs 88%, p < 0.05), longer withdrawal time (7'20 ± 2'15 min vs 6'15 ± 3'12 min, p < 0.01) and higher adenoma detection rates (22% vs 17%, p < 0.05). The use of sedation reduced discomfort during and after the exploration, without increasing the complications. The satisfaction questionnaire score was higher (23.6 ± 1.5 vs 16.6 ± 4.8, p < 0.001) in the sedated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

superficial sedation not only reduces patient discomfort but also improves the overall quality of the colonoscopy. Therefore, we must consider the use of sedation as an essential part of colonoscopy.

Comparison of the effects and side-effects of sedation with propofol versus midazolam plus pethidine in patients undergoing endoscopy in Imam Khomeini Hospital, Ahvaz

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is an invasive and diagnostic procedure that causes the patients considerable pain, discomfort, and anxiety. Therefore, various types of sedation and analgesia techniques have been used during the procedure.

AIM

To compare the effects and side-effects of sedation with propofol versus midazolam plus pethidine in patients undergoing endoscopy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a randomised controlled double-blind clinical trial study conducted on 272 patients undergoing diagnostic and treatment endoscopy and colonoscopy in Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahvaz between 2017 and 2018. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Patients in the first group (n = 136) received propofol with midazolam and ketamine, and the second group (n = 136) received pethidine and midazolam. Study outcome measures included the recovery time, patient satisfaction, quality of sedation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The occurrence of complications was higher in the propofol group (25% vs. 0%; p = 0.0001). No serious adverse events were observed in the study groups. Overall patient satisfaction and quality of sedation assessment scores in the propofol group were significantly better than those seen in the pethidine-midazolam group (p = 0.012 and p = 0.001, respectively). Recovery time was statistically shorter in the propofol-midazolam group (6.05 ±1.62 min) compared to the pethidine-midazolam group (6.72 ±2.21 min) (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol-midazolam can provide better sedation, patient satisfaction, and recovery than pethidine-midazolam during endoscopy. Therefore, it can be recommended in patients scheduled for diagnostic and treatment endoscopy.

Plasma concentration based response surface model predict better than effect-site concentration based model for wake-up time during gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation

BACKGROUND

Sedation for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy is characterized by rapid patient induction and emergence. The drugs midazolam and alfentanil have long been used for procedural sedation; however, the relationship between plasma or effect-site concentrations (Cp or Ce, respectively) and emergence remains unclear. The aim of this study is to develop patient wake-up prediction models for both Cp and Ce using response surface modeling, a pharmacodynamics tool for assessing patients' responses.

METHODS

The Observer's Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) score was used to monitor sedation depth during the examinations. Concentration pairs of midazolam and alfentanil were calculated for each of Cp and Ce using pharmacokinetic simulation software. Response surface models were developed using the Greco construct. Temporal analysis was done by comparing model-predicted wake-up time with true patient wake-up time.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients with an average body mass index of 21.85 ± 2.3 kg/m² were pooled for analysis. The average duration of examination were 2.9 ± 1.4 min for EGD and 6.6 ± 2.7 min for colonoscopy. Seventy-five concentration pairs of midazolam and alfentanil were obtained for each Cp and Ce. The Cp-based Greco response surface model showed significant synergy between midazolam and alfentanil and was a better predictor of patient wake-up time, with an average deviation of 1.0 ± 3.9 min, while the Ce model show time deviation greater than 20 min.

CONCLUSION

The early phases of drug distribution are unique and complicated by nonsteady-state concentrations, and our study revealed that Ce-based wake-up time prediction is more difficult under these circumstances.

Prospective study of the factors associated with poor tolerance to ambulatory colonoscopy under conscious sedation

BACKGROUND

conscious sedation with benzodiazepines and opiates for colonoscopy is a widespread clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

to determine the patient's tolerance to colonoscopy and identify the factors associated with lower tolerance.

METHODS

a prospective, single-center, descriptive study of patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy under conscious sedation. The pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale with a score of 0 to 100 and also qualitatively.

RESULTS

three hundred patients with a median age of 54 years completed the study (p25-75: 45-64); 138 were men (46%). Tolerance was good in 273 cases (91%). The median value of tolerance was 13 (p25-p75: 4-33). Pain was considered as mild in 215 (71.7%), moderate in 57 (19%) and intense in 28 (9.3%). In the univariate study, greater pain was associated with females, anxiety, the indication for the procedure, the length of time and difficulty of the examination, and the doses of sedatives. In the multivariate study, both the indication (OR 2.92, 95% CI = 1.03-8.2, p < 0.05) and the difficulty of the examination (OR 4.68, 95% CI = 1.6-13.6, p < 0.01) were significant. Complications were found in 16 patients (5.3%), although all of them were insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

tolerance of patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy under conscious sedation is good in most cases and complications are infrequent and minor. A worse tolerance to the test is associated with women patients, individuals with anxiety prior to colonoscopy, indication, difficult and longer exploration and lower doses of sedatives.

Effect of propofol combined with opioids on cough reflex suppression in gastroscopy: study protocol for a double-blind randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The best methods for inducing analgesia and sedation for gastroscopy are still debated but finding an adequate regimen of sedation/analgesia is important. Stimulation of the larynx under sedation can cause reflex responses. Propofol with opioids has been recommended for gastroscopy sedation but the effects on cough reflex suppression remain unclear. This trial will evaluate the effects of propofol combined with small doses of dezocine, oxycodone, sufentanil or fentanyl for gastroscopy. We hypothesise that better performance may be obtained with a combination of propofol and oxycodone. We will observe the incidence and degree of reflex coughing and gagging under sedation when using propofol combined with one of the above drugs or propofol alone.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This will be a prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. ASA I-II level patients aged 18-65 years and scheduled for gastroscopy will be included. It is planned that 500 subjects will be randomised to intravenously receive 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.5-0.8 μg/kg fentanyl (fentanyl group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.05-0.08 μg/kg sufentanil (sufentanil group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.04-0.05 mg/kg dezocine (dezocine group), 2-2.2 mg/kg propofol plus 0.04-0.05 mg/kg oxycodone (oxycodone group), or 2.4-3 mg/kg propofol plus 2-2.5 mL saline (control group) for sedation. The primary endpoint is the incidence and degree of reflex coughing and gagging. The secondary endpoints include the occurrence of discomfort or side effects, the use of jaw thrust, assisted ventilation or additional propofol, recovery time, duration of procedure and Steward score.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee for Clinical Research of Zhongda Hospital, Affiliated to Southeast University (No. 2015ZDSYLL033.0). The results of the trial will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Register (No. ChiCTR-ICR-15006952).

TRIAL STATUS

At the time of manuscript submission, the study was in the recruitment phase.

ERCP development in the largest developing country: a national survey from China in 2013

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The ERCP volume in developed countries has decreased recently, whereas the ERCP trend is unknown in developing countries. This study aimed to evaluate the ERCP development in China between 2006 and 2012.

METHODS

All hospitals performing ERCP in mainland China in 2012 participated in an online survey. Data on ERCP infrastructure, volume, indication, and adverse events were collected and compared with those in a previous national survey and in developed countries.

RESULTS

From 2006 to 2012 the number of hospitals performing ERCP in China increased from 470 to 1156. The total ERCP volume increased from 63,787 to 195,643, of which >95% were therapeutic. The ERCP rate in China (14.4 per 100,000 inhabitants) in 2012 was still much lower than that in developed countries. There was significant imbalance between different regions (1.3-99.1 per 100,000 inhabitants). The median ERCP volume per hospital decreased from 80 (interquartile range [IQR], 31-150) in 2006 to 52 (IQR, 20-146) in 2012. The median volume of the 686 hospitals that started ERCP after 2006 was 31.5 (IQR, 11-82). The post-ERCP adverse event rate in 2012 was comparable between hospitals in terms of volume (≥500 or <500 per year: 5.8% vs 5.6%) and practice durations (starting ERCP before or after 2006: 5.5% vs 5.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

ERCP has developed considerably in China in recent years. Despite low annual volume, the hospitals starting ERCP after 2006 have acceptable adverse event rates and will be promising and important sources of ERCP development in China.

Survey of Anaesthetists' Practice of Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

We conducted a survey of Australian specialist anaesthetists about their practice of sedation for elective and emergency gastroscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and colonoscopy. A 24-item survey was emailed to 1,000 anaesthetists in August 2015. Responses were received from 409 anaesthetists (response rate = 41%) with responses from 395 anaesthetists analysed. Pulse oximetry and oxygen administration were routine for all procedures for all respondents. Blood pressure was routinely measured by most respondents during gastroscopy (elective = 88%; emergency = 97%), ERCP (elective = 99%; emergency = 99%) and colonoscopy (elective = 91%; emergency = 98%). The airway was routinely managed with jaw lift or oral or nasal airway by 99%, 76% and 97% of respondents during gastroscopy, ERCP and colonoscopy, whereas in emergency procedures endotracheal intubation was routine in 49%, 64% and 17% of procedures. Propofol was routinely administered by 99% of respondents for gastroscopy and 100% of respondents for ERCP and colonoscopy. A maximum depth of sedation in which patients were unresponsive to painful stimulation was targeted by the majority of respondents for all procedures except for elective gastroscopy. These results may be used to facilitate comparison of practice in Australia and overseas, and give an indication of compliance by Australian anaesthetists with the relevant Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists guideline.

Belching during gastroscopy and its association with gastroesophageal reflux disease

Belching may result from transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation; therefore, it has been proposed that belching may be a manifestation of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This study was conducted to investigate the frequency of belching during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and its association with GERD. A retrospective review was performed on prospectively collected clinical and endoscopic data from 404 subjects who underwent EGD without sedation from December 2012 to May 2013 in a training hospital in Korea. All detectable belching events during endoscopy were counted. Frequency and severity of belching events were compared between the group with and without GERD using an ordinal logistic regression model. There were 145 GERD patients (26 erosive reflux disease and 119 nonerosive reflux disease [NERD]). In the multivariable analysis, GERD was significantly associated with a higher frequency of belching events (odds ratio = 6.59, P < 0.001). Central obesity, female, and younger age were also risk factors for frequent belching during EGD. Subgroup analyses were performed in subjects without erosive reflux disease (n = 378) and NERD (n = 293). NERD was also a predictive factor for frequent belching during EGD (odds ratio = 6.61, P < 0.001), and the frequency of belching was significantly correlated with GERD severity according to the Los Angeles classification (P < 0.05). Frequent belching during EGD was associated with GERD, including NERD. Future research should focus on its adjuvant role in the diagnosis of GERD/NERD and the necessity for applying differentiated endoscopy strategies for GERD patients, leading to less discomfort during EGD in patients at risk for intolerability.

Endoscopic sedation and monitoring practices in Portugal: a nationwide web-based survey

BACKGROUND

National surveys have been used to obtain information on sedation and monitoring practices in endoscopy in several countries.

AIMS

To provide data from Portugal and query the Portuguese endoscopists on nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 31-item web survey was sent to all 490 members of the Portuguese Society of Gastroenterology.

RESULTS

A total of 129 members (26%) completed the questionnaire; 57% worked in both public and private practice. Most performed esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation (public - 70%; private - 57%) and colonoscopies with sedation (public - 64%; private - 69%). Propofol was the most commonly used agent for colonoscopy, especially in private practice (52 vs. 33%), and it provided the best satisfaction (mean 9.6/10). A total of 94% chose propofol as the preferred sedation for routine colonoscopy. Nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol was performed only by four respondents; however, 71% reported that they would consider its use, given adequate training. Pulse oximetry is monitored routinely (99%); oxygen supplementation is administered by 81% with propofol and 42% with traditional sedation. Most (82%) believed that propofol sedation may increase the uptake of endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

The use of sedation is routine practice in colonoscopy, but not esophagogastroduodenoscopy. The preferred agent is propofol and it is used almost exclusively by anesthesiologists.

[Characteristics of deep sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed by intensivists]

OBJECTIVE

To determine tolerance, pain intensity, percentage of tests completed successfully and complications of deep sedation controlled by intensivists during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

DESIGN

A one-year, prospective observational study was carried out.

SETTING

Department of Intensive Care intervention in the Endoscopy Unit of Hospital Universitario del Tajo (Spain).

PATIENTS

Subjects over 15 years of age subjected to endoscopic procedures under deep sedation.

RESULTS

A total of 868 patients were sedated during the study period, with the conduction of 1010 endoscopic procedures. The degree of tolerance was considered adequate («Very good»/«Good») in 96.9% of the patients (95%CI: 95.7-98.1%), with a median score of 0 on the pain visual analog scale. A total of 988 endoscopic procedures were successfully completed (97.8%; 95%CI: 96.9-98.8%): 675 colonoscopies (97.1%) and 305 endoscopies (99.7%). Complications were recorded in 106 patients (12.2%; 95%CI: 10.0-14.5%). The most frequent being desaturation (6.1%), rhythm disturbances (5.1%) and hypotension (2.4%).

CONCLUSION

Gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures under sedation controlled by intensivists are well tolerated and satisfactory for the patient, and are successfully completed in a very large percentage of cases. The procedures are associated with frequent minor complications that are resolved successfully.

Valsalva retinopathy following esophagogastroduodenoscopy under propofol sedation: A case report

We report a case of Valsalva retinopathy associated with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under propofol sedation. A 43-year-old woman who had no previous history of systemic or ocular disease presented with a complaint of decreased vision in her left eye, which developed one day after EGD under propofol sedation. According to the referring physician, the patient had experienced multiple sustained Valsalva maneuvers during EGD. The fundus examination of the left eye showed a large preretinal hemorrhage surrounded by multiple small retinal hemorrhages in the posterior pole. One month later, fundus examination revealed a floating organized vitreous hemorrhage. The pars plana vitrectomy was performed to treat persistent vitreous hemorrhage. One month after vitrectomy, fundus examination showed normal retina and the patient’s vision recovered to 20/20. Valsalva maneuver can occur during EGD under sedation, and Valsalva retinopathy should be considered as a possible cause. Valsalva retinopathy should be included in the differential diagnosis when a patient complains of blurred vision following EGD.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Patients with ASA physical status I-II undergoing elective upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly allocated to receive dexmedetomidine or midazolam for conscious sedation. Continuous peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) and numeric rating scale pain scores were recorded before, during and after the procedure. Patients completed a post-procedure satisfaction questionnaire.

RESULTS

Patients in the midazolam group (n = 30) experienced a significant decrease in MAP during sedation compared with pre-sedation values. Patients in the dexmedetomidine group (n = 30) had significantly higher SpO2 and RSS scores during sedation than those in the midazolam group. Overall satisfaction was higher in the dexmedetomidine group than the midazolam group. There were no clinically significant complications in either group.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine has a good safety profile and is an effective sedative for use in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

One-day versus two-day cleansing for colon capsule endoscopy: a prospective randomized pilot study

BACKGROUND

Standard bowel cleansing for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) requires a liquid diet and bowel laxatives for at least 2 days, which is a major drawback of this procedure and affects tolerance and acceptability.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the quality of colon cleanliness achieved with one-day versus two-day bowel preparation in outpatients undergoing CCE.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group I (one-day schedule, n=20) received a fiber-free diet and 3 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) on day 0; group II (two-day schedule, n=20) received a liquid diet and 3 L of PEG in the evening of day -1, and 1L of PEG in the early morning of day 0. In both groups, the patients received 15 mg bisacodyl on day -1 and one or two additional sodium phosphate (NaP) boosters following capsule ingestion. Each colon segment was assessed for cleanliness using a four-point grading scale (excellent=1, good=2, fair=3, and poor=4). For the final analysis, colon cleanliness was rated as adequate (good or excellent) or inadequate (fair or poor).

RESULTS

Overall colon cleanliness was adequate in 94% (CI 91-97) of patients in group I versus 80% (CI 72-88) in group II (P=0.27). No significant differences were observed in the per-segment quality of colon cleansing between the two groups. CCE reached the rectum in 80% (CI 73-87) of patients in group I versus 75% (CI 67-83) in group II (p=0.59).

CONCLUSION

The quality of colon cleanliness achieved with one-day bowel preparation is equivalent to that of the standard two-day schedule in patients undergoing CCE.

Classification of patients who experience a higher distress level to transoral esophagogastroduodenoscopy than to transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy

BACKGROUND

In Japanese routine clinical practice, endoscopy is generally carried out without sedation. The present study aimed to identify the factors essential for appropriate selection of transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (TN-EGD) as an alternative to unsedated transoral esophagogastroduodenoscopy (TO-EGD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Subjects in this prospective cohort study comprised consecutive outpatients who underwent EGD at a single center. Factors predicting TO-EGD-induced distress were evaluated on a visual analog scale (VAS) and analyzed. Patients were classified into a two-layered system on the basis of these predictive factors, and the severity of distress between the TN-EGD and TO-EGD groups was compared using VAS and the change in the rate-pressure product as subjective and objective indices, respectively.

RESULTS

In total, 728 outpatients (390 male, 338 female; mean age, 63.1 ± 0.5 years; TO-EGD group, 630; TN-EGD group, 98)met the inclusion criteria. Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed that age <65 years (P < 0.01; odds ratio [OR], 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.52), gender (female; P < 0.01; OR,1.97; 95% CI, 1.34-2.91), marital status (single; P < 0.01; OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.18-3.27), and anxiety towards TO-EGD (P < 0.001; OR, 3.62; 95% CI, 2.44-5.37) were independently associated with intolerance. Both indices were significantly higher in the TO-EGD subgroup than in the TN-EGD subgroup in the high predictive class, but not in the low predictive class.

CONCLUSION

Predictive factors for detecting intolerance to unsedated TO-EGD may be useful to appropriately select patients who transpose unsedated TO-EGD to TN-EGD.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation for colonoscopy is safe and effective: a prospective Spanish study over 1000 consecutive exams

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Propofol is increasingly being used in sedated colonoscopy. This paper assesses the safety and efficacy of nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol in a large series of colonoscopies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective registry of consecutive American Society of Anesthetics (ASA) class I and II outpatients undergoing colonoscopy was carried out. Propofol, administered by a nurse under an endoscopist's supervision, was the sole sedative agent used.

RESULTS

Of the 1000 patients (563 women/437 men, mean age 57, range 8-89 years) included in the study, 57.4% showed ASA I and 42.6% ASA II characteristics. The cecal intubation rate was 96.9%. 48.2% of the procedures were for therapeutic purposes. The mean propofol dose was 177 mg (range 50-590 mg). Doses correlated inversely with patient age (r=-0.38; P<0.001) and were lower in ASA II patients (P<0.001) and in diagnostic (rather than therapeutic) exams (P<0.001). The average recovery time (from extracting the colonoscope to patient discharge) was 18.6 min (range 4-75) and longer in ASA II patients (P=0.05). A pulse oximetry saturation of less than 90% and a decrease in systolic blood pressure of more than 20 mmHg were observed in 24 (2.4%) and 385 (35.8%) patients, respectively. Both events were more frequent in patients older than 65 years (P<0.05); the latter was more common in ASA II patients.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy under endoscopist-controlled propofol sedation in low-risk patients is safe and effective, allowing for a complete exploration, although patients at least 65 years old and/or classified as ASA II are more likely to present a decrease in blood pressure and have a prolonged recovery time.

The sedation increases the acceptance of repeat colonoscopies

AIM

The aim of this research was to assess how the use of sedation during colonoscopy influences patient anxiety, fear, satisfaction, and acceptance of repeat examinations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective case-control study quantifying the anxiety and fears of patients appointed for colonoscopy, comparing patients who had undergone previous colonoscopies with sedation (cases) with patients who had undergone previous colonoscopies without sedation and patients who had never had a colonoscopy before (controls). Following the examination, patients answered a satisfaction survey and were asked whether they would be willing to undergo future colonoscopies.

RESULTS

The study included 2016 patients (average age 50.05 ± 14.44 years; 47% men). Of these, 1270 patients (63%) were undergoing colonoscopy for the first time and 746 (37%) had undergone the procedure before; in the latter group, 313 patients (42%) had been provided sedation, whereas 433 (58%) had not. Patients who had been sedated for prior colonoscopies assigned significantly lower scores than patients who had undergone previous colonoscopies without sedation and those undergoing the procedure for the first time both in the anxiety survey (3.3 ± 2.5 vs. 7.5 ± 2.8 vs. 10.3 ± 3.5; P<0.01) and in the fears survey (7.1 ± 3.0 vs. 14 ± 2.8 vs. 20.3 ± 4.5; P<0.01). Satisfaction survey scores were significantly higher among sedated patients than among nonsedated patients (22.8 ± 2.7 vs. 18.6 ± 2.3). The percentage of sedated patients who would be willing to undergo colonoscopy again was significantly higher than that of nonsedated patients (70 vs. 25%; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Sedation reduces the anxiety and fear of undergoing a repeat colonoscopy and improves both patient satisfaction and the acceptability of future procedures.

Propofol, the preferred sedation for screening colonoscopy, is underused. Results of an international survey

BACKGROUND

The use of propofol during colonoscopy has become more widespread. To increase availability while maintaining quality and decreasing costs, European Guidelines have been issued for non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP). We aimed to assess the current use of propofol during screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

International survey.

RESULTS

Eighty-four questionnaires were collected from endoscopists practicing in 29 countries. Practices were most often located in high-volume community hospitals (Italy, Belgium, Spain, Netherlands in half cases). An anesthesiologist was regularly present in the Endoscopy Unit of 69.0% survey respondents. In low-risk (ASA classification, 1-2) patients, propofol, benzodiazepine+opioids and benzodiazepine alone were used in 45%, 31% and 14% of screening colonoscopies, respectively. Propofol was associated with the highest endoscopist satisfaction (score on a 10-point visual analogue scale, 9.2±1.2 vs. 5.5±1.9 and 4.7±2.0 for benzodiazepine+opioids and benzodiazepine alone, respectively; P<0.0001). NAAP was used by 29.9% of respondents in 9 countries and approximately two-thirds of other endoscopists would consider implementing NAAP. Main reasons for not considering NAAP implementation were medico-legal issues and cost.

CONCLUSION

Propofol provides the highest endoscopist satisfaction but it is used in less than half of screening colonoscopies. Propofol is administered by non-anesthesiologists in one-third of settings; its implementation is foreseen by a majority of endoscopists who do not currently use it.

Impact of anesthesia on patient and endoscopist satisfaction after colonoscopy — A pilot study

Introduction

Colonoscopy is a standard diagnostic tool for the investigation and surveillance of diseases affecting the colon. The procedure can be uncomfortable and sometimes very painful, resulting in increased cecal intubation time and lower completion rate. However, it seems to be apparent that anesthesia for this procedure increases patient satisfaction; data are lacking about the impact of anesthesia on the technical performance of colonoscopic examination.

Aim

In our observational survey, we studied patients undergoing colonoscopy with or without anesthesia. We compared patient satisfaction, difficulties in endoscopy, and the impact of anesthesia on the examination room occupancy.

Methods

We enrolled 60 patients undergoing elective, outpatient colonoscopy because of various reasons. The patients were able to choose between anesthesia and sedation. Difficulties in colonoscopy were evaluated by the endoscopist's rating and by the time to cecal intubation. We assessed patient satisfaction by a numeric rating scale.

Results

We observed that neither the duration of colonoscopy nor the time spent in the examination room was different in the two groups (p 0.825, 0.998). There was a significant improvement in both patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores in patients undergoing anesthesia (p 0.0007).

Conclusion

We found that during colonoscopy, compared to sedation, anesthesia increases both endoscopist and patient satisfaction without prolonged occupation of the examination room.

Sedation and monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A nationwide web survey in Italy

BACKGROUND

Best strategy of sedation/analgesia in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is still debated.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

To evaluate sedation and monitoring practice among Italian gastroenterologists and to assess their opinion about non-anaesthesiologist propofol administration.

METHODS

A 19-item survey was mailed to all 1192 members of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED). For each respondent were recorded demographic data, medical specialty, years of practise and practise setting.

RESULTS

A total of 494 SIED members returned questionnaires, representing a response rate of 41.4%. The most employed sedation pattern was benzodiazepines for oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDS) in 50.8% of procedures, benzodiazepines plus opioids for colonoscopy and enteroscopy in 39.5% and 35.3% of procedures, respectively, propofol for endoscopic retrograde colangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in 42.3% and 35.6% of procedures, respectively. With regard to propofol use, 66% respondents stated that propofol was exclusively administered by anaesthesiologists. However, 76.9% respondents would consider non-anaesthesiologist propofol administration after appropriate training. Pulse oximetry is the most employed system for procedural monitoring. Supplemental O(2) is routinely administered by 39.3% respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of sedation has become a standard practise during GI endoscopy in Italy. Pattern varies for each type of procedure. Pulse oximetry is the most employed system of monitoring. Administration of propofol is still directed by anaesthesiologists.

[An established anesthesia team-care model: over 12000 cases in a digestive endoscopy unit]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The growing demand for digestive and other endoscopic procedures outside the operating room, both in terms of type of endoscopy and number of patients, requires reorganization of the anesthesiology department's workload. We describe 2 years of our hospital digestive endoscopy unit's experience with a now well-established care model involving both anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

After previously reviewing the medical records of outpatients and conducting a telephone interview about state of health, nurse anesthetists administered a combination of propofol and remifentanil through a target-controlled infusion system under an anesthesiologist's direct supervision.

RESULTS

The ratio of anesthesiologists to nurses ranged from 1:2 to 1:3 according to the complexity of the examination procedure. Over 12000 endoscopies (simple to advanced) in a total of 11853 patients were performed under anesthesia during the study period. Airway management maneuvers were required by 4.9% of the patients; 0.18% required bag ventilation for respiratory depression, and 0.084% required bolus doses of a vasopressor to treat hypotension or atropine to treat bradycardia. The procedure had to be halted early in 9 patients (0.07%). No patient required orotracheal intubation and none died. Nor were any complications related to sedation recorded.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that this care model can safely accommodate a large caseload in anesthesia at an optimum level of quality.

How best to approach endoscopic sedation?

Sedation is the drug-induced reduction of a patient's consciousness. The aim of sedation in endoscopic procedures is to increase the patient's comfort and to improve endoscopic performance, especially in therapeutic procedures. The most commonly used sedation regimen for conscious sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy is still the combination of benzodiazepines with opioids. However, the use of propofol has increased enormously in the past decade and several studies show advantages of propofol over the traditional regimes in terms of faster recovery time. It is important to be aware that the complication rate of endoscopies increases when sedation is used; therefore, a thorough risk evaluation before the procedure and monitoring during the procedure must be performed. In addition, properly trained staff and emergency equipment should be available. The best approach to sedation in endoscopy is to choose a sedation regimen for the individual patient, tailored according to the clinical risk assessment and the anxiety level of the patient, as well as to the type of planned endoscopic procedure.

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy

Propofol sedation by non-anaesthesiologists is an upcoming sedation regimen in several countries throughout Europe. Numerous studies have shown the efficacy and safety of this sedation regimen in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Nevertheless, this issue remains highly controversial. The aim of this evidence- and consensus-based set of guideline is to provide non-anaesthesiologists with a comprehensive framework for propofol sedation during digestive endoscopy. This guideline results from a collaborative effort from representatives of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). These three societies have endorsed the present guideline.The guideline is published simultaneously in the Journals Endoscopy and European Journal of Anaesthesiology.

Sedation issues in quality colonoscopy

The subject of endoscopic sedation for colonoscopy remains controversial because of unresolved questions concerning the relative benefits, risks, and cost of service. There is also disagreement about the most appropriate sedation drug(s), delegation of responsibility for drug administration, and patient monitoring. This article examines recent trends in endoscopic sedation; the impact of sedation on the quality, safety, and patient tolerability of colonoscopy; and reviews the economic implications of current sedation practices.

The changing faces of endoscopic sedation

The practice of sedation for digestive endoscopy continues to evolve throughout the world. In many countries, there is a trend for increased utilization of sedation during routine endoscopic procedures. Sedation improves patient satisfaction with endoscopy and the willingness to comply with screening guidelines and it improves the quality of examination. Moderate sedation, using a benzodiazepine and an opioid, remains the standard method of sedation in most areas of the world, although propofol, a short-acting hypnotic agent, is being used increasingly in some countries. Controversy regarding the feasibility of endoscopist-directed propofol administration continues, in spite of overwhelming evidence supporting this practice. In the USA, recent revisions in policy by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services may threaten the practice of endoscopist-directed propofol administration. In this article, future trends in sedation practice, including fospropofol and computer-assisted personalized sedation, are discussed.