Safety of propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing colonoscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography: results of a prospective controlled study

Pre-procedural Preparation and Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease poses various challenges, a major one being procedural sedation and its associated considerations. While sedation during endoscopy can improve patient comfort, decrease anxiety, and facilitate procedural completion, in patients with advanced liver disease, it is also associated with substantial and unique risks due to alterations in drug metabolism and other factors. As such, the choice of sedative agent(s) and related logistics may require careful inter-disciplinary planning and individualized considerations. Furthermore, a large proportion of agents require dose reductions and particular monitoring of the vital signs, level of consciousness, and other indices. In the present review, we provide a contemporary overview of procedural sedation considerations, commonly used intravenous sedatives, and second-line as well as novel sedatives for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease.

Effects of Preoperative Oral Carbohydrate on Cirrhotic Patients under Endoscopic Therapy with Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Preoperative fasting causes significant perioperative discomfort in patients. Preoperative oral carbohydrate (POC) is an important element of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol, but its effect on cirrhotic patients who tend to have abnormal gastric emptying remains unclarified. We investigated the influence of POC on gastric emptying and preprocedural well-being in cirrhotic patients. A prospective, randomized, controlled study of cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices scheduled for elective therapeutic endoscopy under intravenous anesthesia was conducted. We enrolled 180 patients and divided them into three groups: those not supplemented with carbohydrates for 8 h before therapeutic endoscopy (control group) and those administered a carbohydrate beverage 2 h (2 h group) and 4 h (4 h group) before endoscopy. The residual gastric volume was quantified before anesthesia, gastric emptying was evaluated using gastric ultrasonography, and preprocedural well-being was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Preanesthesia gastric sonography scores were similar among the three groups. No patient had residual gastric volume > 1.5 ml/kg in the control and 4 h groups, but six patients (11%) had a residual gastric volume of >1.5 ml/kg in the 2 h group, hence were at a risk of regurgitation and aspiration. Moreover, VAS scores for six parameters (thirst, hunger, mouth dryness, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue) in the 2 h group and three parameters (thirst, hunger, and mouth dryness) in the 4 h group were significantly lower than those in the control group, suggesting a beneficial effect on cirrhotic patients' well-being. Preoperative gastric peristaltic and operation scores, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and in-hospital expenses were not significantly different among the three groups. Our study indicated that avoiding preoperative fasting with oral carbohydrates administered 4 h before anesthesia can be achieved in cirrhotic patients. Further studies to assess whether POC can help improve postoperative outcomes in cirrhotic patients are needed.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patient: Issues on the table

Patients with liver cirrhosis are fragile and present specific clinical hallmarks. When undergoing to gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, these subjects require an individual pre evaluation, taking into account: Level of haemostasis impairment, the individual risk of infection, the impact of sedation on hepatic encephalopathy and other factors. The overall assessment of liver function, employing common scoring systems, should be also assessed in the preprocedural phase. Beside some common general problems, regarding GI endoscopy in cirrhotic subjects, also specific issues are present for some frequent indications or procedures. For instance, despite an increased incidence of adenomas in cirrhosis, colon cancer screening remains suboptimal in subjects with this disease. Several studies in fact demonstrated liver cirrhosis as a negative factor for an adequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. On the other hand, also the routine assessment of gastroesophageal varices during upper GI endoscopy presents some concern, since important inter-observer variability or incomplete description of endoscopic findings has been reported in some studies. In this review we discussed in details the most relevant issues that may be considered while performing general GI endoscopic practice, in patient with cirrhosis. For most of these issues there are no guidelines or clear indications. Moreover until now, few studies focused on these aspects. We believe that targeting these issues with corrective measures may be helpful to develop a tailored endoscopic approach for cirrhosis, in the future.

Complications Associated With Anesthesia Services in Endoscopic Procedures Among Patients With Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Anesthesia services for endoscopic procedures have proliferated with the promise of increased comfort and safety. Cirrhosis patients are higher risk for sedation, yet limited data are available describing anesthesia complications in this population.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

This cross-sectional study utilized the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry, a multicenter quality-improvement database from 2010 to 2015. Patients with cirrhosis undergoing an endoscopy were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)/Current Procedures Terminology (CPT) codes. The outcome of interest was serious anesthesia-related complication defined as cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, drug related, patient injury, death, or unexpected admission. A mixed-effects multivariate logistic regression model determined odds ratios (ORs) between variables and serious complications, adjusting for potential confounders. In total, 9,007 endoscopic procedures were performed among patients with cirrhosis; 92% were esophagogastroduodenoscopies. The majority (81%) were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥3, and 72% had a history of hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, varices, hepatorenal syndrome, or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis identified by ICD-9/CPT codes. In total, 87 complications were reported, 33 of which were serious. Frequency of serious complications was 0.4% or 378.6 per 100,000 procedures (95% confidence interval [CI], 260.8, 531.3). The majority of serious complications were cardiovascular (21 of 33), including 15 cardiac arrests. Serious complications were significantly associated with ASA 4/5 (OR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.09, 13.57) and general anesthesia (OR, 4.71; 95% CI, 1.20, 18.50), adjusting for age, sex, ASA class, anesthesia type, inpatient status, portal hypertension history, and variable complication reporting practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesia complications among endoscopic procedures in cirrhosis are rare overall. Serious complications were predominantly cardiac and associated with sicker patients undergoing general anesthesia. The complexity of end-stage liver disease may warrant more intensive care during endoscopic procedures, including anesthesia monitoring.

Complications of Anesthesia Services in Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Despite the increased use of anesthesia services for endoscopic procedures in the United States, the risks of anesthesia-directed sedation (ADS) are unclear. We analyzed national data from multiple centers to determine patterns of use of anesthesia services and risk factors for serious complications.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study using the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry, a national quality improvement database. Univariable and bivariate analyses investigated frequencies and relationships between predefined variables and serious complications of anesthesia (cardiovascular, respiratory, neurologic, drug-related, patient injury, death, or unexpected admission). A multivariable mixed-effects model determined the odds ratios between these variables and serious complications, adjusting for confounders and varying reporting practices.

RESULTS

In total, 428,947 endoscopic procedures of adults were performed using ADS from 2010 to 2015. The population was 54.9% female with a mean age of 59.1 years, and predominantly American Society of Anesthesiologists classes 2 and 3 (74.4%). More than half of the procedures were colonoscopies (51.4%); 37.4% were esophagogastroduodenoscopies and 6.5% were endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies. A total of 4441 complications (1.09%) were reported; 1349 were serious complications (0.34%). In multivariable analysis, older age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classes 4 and 5, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, general anesthesia, cases performed on an overnight shift, and longer cases were associated independently and significantly with serious complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of data from the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry, we found ADS during endoscopy to be safe, with few serious complications (<1% of procedures). Risk of ADS complications increased with older age, more severe disease, procedure type, and case complexity.

Pre-endoscopic tachycardia predicts increased sedation dose and lower adenoma detection rate in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures: a case control study

BACKGROUND

Tachycardia prior to endoscopic procedures is commonly encountered which reflect patient anxiety status. Despite this frequent occurrence, it is unclear if in a patient with tachycardia sedation dose should be modified. The aim of our study was to assess the effect of pre-endoscopic tachycardia on sedation dose.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent upper endoscopy and colonoscopy at EMMS Nazareth hospital were performed. We excluded patients with diseases and medications affecting the heart rate.

RESULTS

A total of 2855 patients were included in the study. Two-hundred and thirty-seven patients had tachycardia before endoscopy (8.3%, group A) as compared to 2618 (group B) patients who had heart rate ≤100 beats per minute. The mean dosage of propofol in group A was significantly higher (62.6±33.2 mg vs. 57.4±29.9 mg) than in group B (P=0.01). There was no difference in the cecal intubation rate among the two groups (P=0.9). Notably, the adenoma detection rate was significantly lower among group A patients as compared to group B (13.6% vs. 22.8%, P=0.02) patients. There were no sedation related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Tachycardia prior to endoscopic procedures was associated with higher sedative dosage and lower adenoma detection rate, however no major complications were recorded. These data should be taken into consideration to optimize procedure quality.

Recovery of cognitive function after sedation with propofol for outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIM

Most endoscopies performed in the United States utilize sedation. Anesthesia provides patient comfort and improved procedural quality but adds to the complexity of scheduling routine outpatient procedures. We aimed to assess the return of cognitive function after propofol administration in patients undergoing outpatient endoscopies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cognitive recovery for patients undergoing endoscopy under monitored anesthesia care was evaluated using EncephalApp. Patients were tested before and after procedure and healthy controls were tested twice, 30 min apart. Results were tabulated in on state (on time) and off state (off time) and total time (on time + off time). The time difference between pre- and post-tests, "delta," was calculated for on, off, and total times. Wilcoxon rank test was used to check the difference in mean delta of all three test times between cases and controls and to check for statistical significance.

RESULTS

The difference in mean time between cases and controls was significant for off (P < 0.0001) and total (P = 0.0002) times. No statistically significant difference was noted in mean time for on time (P = 0.013) between cases and controls. Cognitive flexibility, a measure of on time, returned to baseline after procedural sedation even though psychomotor speed, a measure of off time and total time, had not.

CONCLUSION

Cognitive flexibility returns to baseline within 30-45 min after propofol sedation despite delayed return of psychomotor speed and reaction time.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in the cirrhotic patient

As advances in liver disease continue, including the increasing use of liver transplantation, the endoscopist needs to be familiar with the standards of care and potential complications in the management of the cirrhotic population. This includes both elective endoscopic procedures, such as screening colonoscopies and variceal banding, as well as the acutely bleeding cirrhotic patient. Peri-procedural management and standards of care for acute gastrointestinal hemorrhaging of cirrhotic patients will be emphasized. This article will focus on the plethora of data available to highlight the benefits of endoscopic intervention in the care of patients with liver disease and outline the areas of future emphasis.

Endoscopic management of post-liver transplant biliary complications

Biliary complications are being increasingly encountered in post liver transplant patients because of increased volume of transplants and longer survival of these recipients. Overall management of these complications may be challenging, but with advances in endoscopic techniques, majority of such patients are being dealt with by endoscopists rather than the surgeons. Our review article discusses the recent advances in endoscopic tools and techniques that have proved endoscopic retrograde cholangiography with various interventions, like sphincterotomy, bile duct dilatation, and stent placement, to be the mainstay for management of most of these complications. We also discuss the management dilemmas in patients with surgically altered anatomy, where accessing the bile duct is challenging, and the recent strides towards making this prospect a reality.

Intravenous hypnotic regimens in patients with liver disease; a review article

CONTEXT

The liver as an important organ in the body has many essential functions in physiological processes. One of the major activities of liver is drug metabolism. Hepatic dysfunction affecting hepatic physiological activities, especially drug metabolism can cause many problems during anesthesia and administration of different drugs to patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Studies on hepatic disorders and hypnotic anesthetics prescribed in hepatic disorders were included in this review. For this purpose, reliable databases were used.

RESULTS

Anesthesia should be performed with caution in patients with hepatic dysfunction and drugs with long half-life should be avoided in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A review of the literature on the use of hypnotic drugs in patients with liver dysfunction showed that some hypnotic drugs used during anesthesia could be safely used in patients with impaired liver function. In these patients, certain drugs should be used with caution.

The safety of nurse-administered procedural sedation compared to anesthesia care in a historical cohort of advanced endoscopy patients

BACKGROUND

In April 2010, in response to a change in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regulation placing deep sedation under hospital anesthesia services, our institution began providing anesthesia care for all advanced endoscopic procedures. Because it remains unknown whether anesthesia care reduces sedation-related complications or improves quality of care versus nurse-administered sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound patients, we retrospectively compared complications in a 5-year historical cohort before and after the policy change.

METHODS

We reviewed a historical cohort of 9598 consecutive endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound examinations for adult patients at a single institution during a 5-year period (October 2007-October 2012). We compared procedures performed before and after the policy change for the incidence of sedation, endoscopic, and total complications, and for major morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

The incidence of reported sedation-related complications was 0.38% (17 of 4514) before the policy change and 0.08% (4 of 5084) after the policy change, which was statistically significant (P = 0.002, diff = 0.3, 95% confidence interval, 0.11%-0.53%). Endoscopic complications were not significantly different before versus after: 0.66% vs 0.87% (P = 0.293, diff = 0.2, 95% confidence interval, -0.16% to 0.56%). Total complications (1.11% vs 1.00%, P = 0.618) and major morbidity and mortality (0.27% vs 0.33%, P = 0.581) did not differ between the 2 time periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesia care for advanced endoscopy in a high-risk population significantly reduced sedation complications compared with nurse-administered sedation. Endoscopic complications were unchanged. The sedation risk reduction did not reduce major morbidity, mortality, or total complications.

The safety of combined sedation with propofol plus fentanyl for endoscopy screening and endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhotic patients

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the safety of combined sedation with propofol plus fentanyl in patients with liver cirrhosis during screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (SEGD) and a secondary prophylaxis for esophageal varices, endoscopic gastrointestinal ligation (EVL).

METHODS

A total of 309 patients with liver cirrhosis were enrolled and divided into the sedated SEGD group (n = 83), the sedated EVL group (n = 137) and the conscious EVL group (n = 89), respectively, and 100 participants with no liver diseases who underwent endoscopy for gastritis were regarded as the sedated control group. Patients in the sedated groups were administrated with propofol plus fentanyl during the endoscopic procedures and their minimal hepatic encephalopathy and sedation-related complications, including aspiration, hypoxia, hypotension and bradycardia, were evaluated and compared. The assessments of patient satisfaction and patient cooperation in the sedated and the conscious EVL groups were conducted.

RESULTS

The incidences of complications during the endoscopic procedures were not significantly different among the sedated groups (20.5% in the sedated SEGD group, 22.6% in the sedated EVL group and 19.0% in the sedated control group). No minimal hepatic encephalopathy was induced in the sedated groups. More patients in the sedated EVL group were satisfactory with the procedure compared with the conscious EVL group, as evaluated by both endoscopists and the cirrhotic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A combined sedation with propofol plus fentanyl is safe for EVL as well as for SEGD in cirrhotic patients. Sedation might make it easier for endoscopists to perform procedures and might be more acceptable for cirrhotic patients.

Screening colonoscopy in liver transplant candidates: risks and findings

The indication for mandatory screening colonoscopies in liver transplant candidates is controversial. Since the introduction of MELD-based allocation, patients with advanced liver disease and often severe comorbidities are prioritized for liver transplantation (LT). This study evaluated safety and outcome of colonoscopy in this high-risk patient group. During a two-yr period, we performed 243 colonoscopies in potential LT candidates. Endoscopic findings were registered in a standardized form, and correlations with biochemical or clinical parameters were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-test and chi-square test. Only 57 patients (23.5%) had an endoscopically normal colon. Main findings were polyps (45.7%), hypertensive colopathy (24.3%), diverticulosis (21%), rectal varices (19.8%), and hemorrhoids (13.6%). In 21% of all patients, the removed polyps were diagnosed as adenomas. The prevalence of neoplastic polyps increased significantly with age: 13.6% (patients <50 yr) vs. 25% (patients ≥ 50 yr) (p = 0.03). Advanced neoplasia was found only in patients older than 40 yr. No major complications were observed; post-interventional hemorrhage was observed in 1.7% and controlled by clipping or injection therapy. In conclusion, lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is safe and effective in LT candidates. Due to the age dependency of neoplastic polyps, a screening colonoscopy should be performed in LT candidates older than 40 yr or with symptoms or additional risk factors.

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.