A randomized double-blind trial of anesthesia provided for colonoscopy by university-degreed anesthesia nurses in Greece: safety and efficacy

Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation Training Curricula and Propofol Administration in Digestive Endoscopy Procedures: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Although efficacy and safety of nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol and nurse-administered propofol sedation practices have been amply demonstrated in patients at low American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status risk, they are still severely limited. To date, it is quite difficult to find a protocol or a shared training program. The aim of the study was to verify requirements, types of training, and operating methods described in the literature for the administration of propofol by a nurse. A scoping review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and in line with Arksey and O'Malley's framework, within four main databases of biomedical interest: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. We selected studies published during the last 20 years, including only nurses not trained in anesthesia. Seventeen articles were eligible. Despite the differences between the training and administration methods, efficacy and safety of deep sedation managed by trained nurses were comparable, just like when sedation was administered by certified registered nurse anesthetists. Training programs have been investigated in detail by only a small number of studies, although its efficacy and safety have been widely demonstrated. It is important, then, to collect evidence that allows developing of unified international guidelines for training methods to offer safe and cost-effective quality sedation.

Hypotension during propofol sedation for colonoscopy: an exploratory analysis

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative and postoperative hypotension occur commonly and are associated with organ injury and poor outcomes. Changes in arterial blood pressure (BP) during procedural sedation are not well described.

METHODS

Individual patient data from five trials of propofol sedation for colonoscopy and a clinical database were pooled and explored with logistic and linear regression. A literature search and focused meta-analysis compared the incidence of hypotension with propofol and alternative forms of procedural sedation. Hypotensive episodes were characterised by the original authors' definitions (typically systolic BP <90 mm Hg).

RESULTS

In pooled individual patient data (n=939), 36% of procedures were associated with episodes of hypotension. Longer periods of propofol sedation and larger propofol doses were associated with longer-lasting and more-profound hypotension. Amongst 380 patients for whom individual BP measurements were available, 107 (28%) experienced systolic BP <90 mm Hg for >5 min, and in 89 (23%) the episodes exceeded 10 min. Meta-analysis of 18 RCTs identified an increased risk ratio for the development of hypotension in procedures where propofol was used compared with the use of etomidate (two studies; n=260; risk ratio [RR] 2.0 [95% confidence interval: 1.37-2.92]; P=0.0003), remimazolam (one study; n=384; RR 2.15 [1.61-2.87]; P=0.0001), midazolam (14 studies; n=2218; RR 1.46 [1.18-1.79]; P=0.0004), or all benzodiazepines (15 studies; n=2602; 1.67 [1.41-1.98]; P<0.00001). Hypotension was less likely with propofol than with dexmedetomidine (one study; n=60; RR 0.24 [0.09-0.62]; P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Hypotension is common during propofol sedation for colonoscopy and of a magnitude and duration associated with harm in surgical patients.

Propofol versus midazolam with or without short-acting opioids for sedation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in colonoscopy; however, its benefits over midazolam (± short-acting opioids) are not well quantified. The objective of this study was to compare safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes of propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids) in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library (to July 30, 2018) for randomized controlled trials of colonoscopies performed with propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids). We pooled odds ratios for cardiorespiratory outcomes using mixed-effects conditional logistic models. We pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) for patient and endoscopist satisfaction and efficiency outcomes using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Nine studies of 1427 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in cardiorespiratory outcomes (hypotension, hypoxia, bradycardia) between sedative groups. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups, with most patients reporting willingness to undergo a future colonoscopy with the same sedative regimen. In the meta-analysis, patients sedated with propofol had greater satisfaction than those sedated with midazolam (± short-acting opioids) (SMD, .54; 95% confidence interval [CI], .30-.79); however, there was considerable heterogeneity. Procedure time was similar between groups (SMD, .15; 95% CI, .04-.27), but recovery time was shorter in the propofol group (SMD, .41; 95% CI, .08-.74). The median difference in recovery time was 3 minutes, 6 seconds shorter in patients sedated with propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

Both propofol and midazolam (± short-acting opioids) result in high patient satisfaction and appear to be safe for use in colonoscopy. The marginal benefits to propofol are small improvements in satisfaction and recovery time.

Bispectral index monitoring of sedation depth during endoscopy: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The Bispectral Index (BIS) provides an objective measure of the level of sedation and general anesthesia. We performed this meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomized clinical trials to clarify whether BIS monitoring is helpful in enhancing intraprocedual safety, shortening procedure duration or promoting recovery during sedation for endoscopic procedures.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) databases, reference lists of articles as well as relevant articles from "Google Scholar" were searched until May 31st, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BIS with clinical signs for titration of sedation depth during endoscopy were screened and identified if they reported one of the following outcome measures: intraprocedual safety (hemodynamic stability and cardiorespiratory complications such as hypoxia, hypertension/hypotension, and bradycardia/tachycardia), procedure duration, recovery time and patient/endoscopist's satisfaction.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twelve studies with 13 RCTs recruiting 1372 patients were identified with great inter-trial heterogeneity. Meta-analysis found that BIS monitoring of sedation depth was associated with lower incidences of intraprocedural hypoxia (P=0.009) compared with clinical signs which was not confirmed by TSA. Meta-analysis and TSA found that the endoscopic procedure duration (P=0.143), recovery time (P=0.083), satisfaction scores from both the cases (P=0.085) and endoscopists (P=0.125) and the incidences of hypertension/ hypotension (P=0.639) or heart rates (P=0.201) were similar between BIS and control group.

CONCLUSIONS

More high-quality large-sampled RCTs are needed to confirm whether BIS monitoring for endoscopy sedation helps reduce intraprocedural hypoxia. BIS monitoring fails to shorten procedure duration, promote recovery or boost satisfaction among patients and endoscopists.

No increased risk of perforation during colonoscopy in patients undergoing propofol versus traditional sedation: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The safety of propofol sedation during colonoscopy remains unclear, and we performed a meta-analysis to assess the risk of perforation in patients undergoing propofol vs. traditional sedation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CBM, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched up to December 2016. Two reviewers independently assessed abstract of those searched articles. Data about perforation condition in propofol and traditional sedation groups were extracted and combined using the random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies were included in the current meta-analysis. Compared to traditional sedation, propofol sedation did not increase the risk of perforation (RD = - 0.00, 95% CI - 0.00~0.00, p = 0.98; subgroup analysis: OR = 1.30, 95% CI 0.83~2.05, p = 0.25).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that propofol sedation did not increase the risk of perforation compared to traditional sedation during colonoscopy.