Propofol versus midazolam and meperidine for conscious sedation in GI endoscopy

Time and Motion at the Endoscopy Unit-A University Hospital Experience

Background/aims

An effective workflow at the endoscopy unit is important for optimal production. We conducted a time-and-motion study to identify the amount of time that patients spend during the different steps of a regular endoscopy procedure and compared propofol with midazolam sedation.

Methods

Data from 376 patients were prospectively collected. Durations of the different procedure steps were measured. Correlations between recovery times, age, and dose of sedative were calculated. Multiple regression analysis was performed to evaluate how various factors affect recovery time.

Results

The use of midazolam resulted in significantly shorter procedure duration for gastroscopy (5.1 vs 8.3 min), shorter endoscopist delay duration for either types of endoscopy (5.9 vs 8.3 min for gastroscopy and 6.7 vs 11.4 min for colonoscopy), shorter endoscopy room duration for gastroscopy (22.2 vs 30.0 min), shorter recovery time for colonoscopy (23.4 vs 27.4 min) and shorter Endoscopy Unit Duration for either type of endoscopy (77.1 vs 101.4 min for gastroscopy and 99.6 vs 123.2 min for colonoscopy). There was a weak correlation between dose of midazolam and recovery time.

Conclusions

In contrast to other studies, propofol administration leads to more time spent at different steps in the workflow at our unit. Implementing propofol sedation will not improve efficacy if other steps in the workflow are not taken into account.

Comparison of the Sedative Effect of Ketamine, Magnesium Sulfate, and Propofol in Patients Undergoing Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Double-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy provides valuable diagnostic information and intervention therapies for gastroenterologists. Therefore, various drugs have been used to induce sedation in patients undergoing endoscopy, whereas none have been considered preferred by endoscopists. In the current study, we decided to use the combination of magnesium sulfate, ketamine, and their synergistic effects for creating partial analgesia to increase the satisfaction of endoscopists and patients.

METHODS

This study is a Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial that investigates the sedative effect of ketamine, magnesium sulfate, and propofol in endoscopy. Patients were selected from individuals over 12 years old and with American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) physical status I or II. The study was performed on 210 patients classified as ASA (I have no underlying disease) or II (with underlying controlled disease). The whole group was relieved of pain through sedation according to Ramsay criteria, satisfaction with the operation, duration, recovery, nausea and vomiting, hypotension, and decreased oxygen saturation were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients were enrolled in our study, including 51 patients (midazolam and propofol), 55 patients (midazolam and ketamine), and 49 patients (midazolam and ketamine and magnesium). The results showed that preoperative heart rate, intraoperative systolic blood pressure, intraoperative diastolic blood pressure, postoperative heart rate, postoperative systolic blood pressure, and postoperative heart rate were significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The satisfaction of the endoscopic was achieved to a great extent, mainly in the group receiving midazolam and propofol and in the group receiving midazolam and ketamine. In most cases, the satisfaction of the endoscopic was acceptable, and the low satisfaction of the endoscopic was more in the group receiving midazolam. Ketamine and magnesium were observed. The two compounds midazolam-ketamine, and midazolam-propofol, have a more favorable effect than the combination of midazolam, ketamine, and magnesium.

Evaluation of pharyngeal lidocaine anesthesia for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: Double-blind randomized control trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess whether the use of topical pharyngeal anesthesia improves endoscopist- and patient-reported tolerance and satisfaction, the total dose of propofol used and the rate of adverse effects associated with this procedure.

METHODS

This double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted in patients undergoing elective oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, who met the inclusion criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to receive five squirts of lidocaine 10% spray (50 mg, n = 268) or placebo (n = 271) 3 min before starting the procedure or sedation. The main outcome measures were patient- and endoscopist-reported tolerance, and additionally, satisfaction with the procedure, adverse events and supplementary propofol used.

RESULTS

In the lidocaine group, it was twice (odds ratio [OR] 2.136, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.228-3.715) or three times (OR 3.311, 95% CI 1.623-6.757) more likely that the endoscopist rated the procedure as well tolerated and easy to intubate than as well tolerated but the patient difficult to intubate or as poorly tolerated, respectively. Further, in these patients, less propofol was used (80 vs. 100 mg, P = 0.001). Controls were more likely to cough during the intubation (OR 2.172, 95% CI 1.378-3.423) and the procedure (OR 1.989, 95% CI 1.325-2.984), as well as more likely to retch (OR 3.582, 95% CI 1.667-7.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical lidocaine may improve the procedure as rated by the endoscopist, as well as reduce the requirement for propofol and rate of adverse events such as retching and coughing. No adverse events associated with lidocaine administration were observed. ClinicalTrials registration no. NCT02733471.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Endoscopic Sedation Research: 2001-2020

Background and Aims: To evaluate endoscopic sedation research and predict research hot spots both quantitatively and qualitatively using bibliometric analysis. Methods: We extracted relevant publications from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) on 13 December 2020. We examined the retrieved data by bibliometric analysis (e.g., co-cited and cluster analysis, keyword co-occurrence) using the software CiteSpace and VOSviewer and the website of bibliometrics, the Online Analysis Platform of Literature Metrology (http://bibliometric.com/), to analyse and predict the trends and hot spots in this field. Main Results: We identified 2,879 articles and reviews on endoscopic sedation published between 2001 and 2020. Although the overall trend is increasing, with slight fluctuation in some years, there were significant increases in 2007 and 2012. In respect of the contributions on endoscopic sedation research, the United States (US) had the greatest number of publications, and it was followed by Japan and China. In addition, collaboration network analysis revealed that the most frequent collaboration was between the US and China. Six of the top ten most prolific research institutions were located in the US. The most publications on endoscopic sedation research in the past two decades were found primarily in journals on gastroenterology and hepatology. Keyword co-occurrence and co-citation cluster analysis revealed the most popular terms relating to endoscopic sedation in the manner of cluster labels; these included patient anxiety, tolerance, ketamine, propofol, hypoxia, nursing shortage, endoscopic ultrasonography, colorectal cancer, carbon dioxide insufflation, and water exchange (WE). Keyword burst detection suggested that propofol sedation, adverse event, adenoma detection rate (ADR), hypoxemia, and obesity were newly-emergent research hot spots. Conclusions: Our findings showed that hypoxia, adverse event, and ADR, along with conscious sedation and propofol sedation, have been foci of endoscopic sedation research over the past 20 years. The research focus has shifted from sedative drugs to sedative complications and endoscopy quality control, which means that there will be higher requirements and standards for sedative quality and endoscopy quality in the future.

Safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered balanced propofol sedation in patients with severe systemic disease (ASA class III)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) has been demonstrated in low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] class I and II). There are limited data regarding the safety of EDNAPS for endoscopic procedures in ASA class III patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of EDNAPS for routine outpatient endoscopy in this population.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all outpatient EGDs and colonoscopies performed with EDNAPS at the University of Utah from January 2015 to November 2018. Exclusion criteria were inpatient procedures, combined procedures, ASA IV or higher, use of continuous or bilevel positive airway pressure at the start of the procedure, or procedures performed by a nongastroenterologist. Major adverse events were defined as intubation or death. Minor adverse events were defined as hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, or need for airway interventions. Patients were stratified by procedure type and ASA I/II status and were compared with patients with ASA III status and matched according to age, gender, and the involvement of a fellow in a 3 to 1 fashion.

RESULTS

The final sample size was 18,910 colonoscopy procedures (17,205 patients) and 9178 EGD procedures (6827 patients). In both colonoscopy and EGD procedures, there were no major adverse events such as intubation, need for resuscitation, or death. The rates of any airway intervention, jaw thrust, oral nasal airway, or use of positive pressure ventilation were low in both procedure types and not different between ASA I/II and ASA III patients.

CONCLUSION

EDNAPS is safe in both ASA I/II and ASA class III patients undergoing routine outpatient endoscopy.

Medical, Political, and Economic Considerations for the Use of MAC for Endoscopic Sedation: Big Price, Little Justification?

The last few decades of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy have seen phenomenal growth. In many aspects, GI endoscopy has led the field of nonsurgical interventional medicine. In many aspects, this growth is facilitated by advancements in sedation-both drugs and techniques. Unfortunately, the topic of GI endoscopy sedation is also mired in many controversies, mainly emanating from the cost of anesthesia providers. While no one debates their role in the majority of advanced endoscopic procedures, the practice of universal propofol sedation in the USA, delivered by anesthesia providers, needs a closer look. In this review, medical, political, and economic considerations of this important topic are discussed in a very frank and honest way. While such ubiquitous propofol use has increased satisfaction of both patients and gastroenterologists, there is little justification. More importantly, going by the evidence, there is even less justification for the mandated anesthesia providers use for such delivery. Unfortunately, the FDA could not be convinced otherwise. The new drug fospropofol met the same fate. Approval of SEDASYS^®, the first computer-assisted personalized sedation system, was a step in the right direction, nevertheless an insufficient step that failed to takeoff. As a result, in spite of years of research and efforts of many august societies, the logjam of balancing cost and justification of propofol sedation has continued. We hope that recent approval of remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, and potential approval of oliceridine, a novel short-acting opioid, might be able to contain the cost without compromising the quality of sedation.

Low-dose midazolam and propofol use for conscious sedation during diagnostic endoscopy

To find the right sedation technique for different types of treatment methods and the right amount of sedatives so the chances of side effects happening can be reduced. This was a retrospective cohort analysis conducted on prospectively collected data. Patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy only (E group) were sub-divided into two subgroups: (a) Those who received 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (E-a), (b) Those who received 0.025 mg/kg of midazolam and 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (E-b). Patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with colonoscopy (EC group) were also sub-divided into three subgroups: (a) Those who received 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (EC-a), (b) Those who received 0.025 mg/kg of midazolam and 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (EC-b), (c) Those who received 25 mg (12.5 mg if body weight < 50 kg or age > 70) of meperidine and 0.025 mg/kg of midazolam along with 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (EC-c). When the level of target was not reached, 10-20 mg of propofol was additionally injected. Sedation efficacy and safety were then compared among groups. E-b and EC-b decreased the overall amount of propofol and reduced side effect of temporary hypoxemia compared to E-a and EC-a. EC-b shortened patient recovery time compared to EC-c and reduced paradoxical reaction. In terms of the patient satisfaction and patient cooperation by endoscopists, there were no significant differences between EC-b and EC-c. Concomitant use of low dosages of both propofol and midazolam is found to be useful and safe when endoscopy needs to be performed.

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.

Computerized tests to evaluate recovery of cognitive function after deep sedation with propofol and remifentanil for colonoscopy

The use of sedation for diagnostic procedures including gastrointestinal endoscopy is rapidly growing. Recovery of cognitive function after sedation is important because it would be important for most patients to resume safe, normal life soon after the procedure. Computerized tests have shown being accurate descriptors of cognitive function. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the time course of cognitive function recovery after sedation with propofol and remifentanil. A prospective observational double blind clinical study conducted in 34 young healthy adults undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy under sedation with the combination of propofol and remifentanil using a target controlled infusion system. Cognitive function was measured using a validated battery of computerized cognitive tests (Cogstate™, Melbourne, Australia) at different predefined times: prior to starting sedation (Tbaseline), and then 10 min (T10), 40 min (T40) and 120 min (T120) after the end of colonoscopy. Tests included the assessment of psychomotor function, attention, visual memory and working memory. All colonoscopies were completed (median time: 26 min) without significant adverse events. Patients received a median total dose of propofol and remifentanil of 149 mg and 98 µg, respectively. Psychomotor function and attention declined at T10 but were back to baseline values at T40 for all patients. The magnitude of psychomotor task reduction was large (d = 0.81) however 100% of patients were recovered at T40. Memory related tasks were not affected 10 min after ending sedation. Cognitive impairment in attention and psychomotor function after propofol and remifentanil sedation was significant and large and could be easily detected by computerized cognitive tests. Even though, patients were fully recovered 40 min after ending the procedure. From a cognitive recovery point of view, larger studies should be undertaken to propose adequate criteria for discharge after sedation.

Efficacy and safety of sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric cancers using a comparative trial of propofol versus midazolam

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Proper sedation is necessary for the safe and satisfactory completion of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer. This study was conducted as a comparative trial of efficacy and safety, comparing propofol-based sedation and midazolam-based sedation during ESD of early gastric cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study examined 64 lesions in 58 patients treated using ESD with midazolam plus pentazocine between July 2013 and January 2014 (group M) and 237 lesions in 216 patients treated by ESD using propofol plus pentazocine between February 2014 and December 2015 (group P). The two groups were compared in terms of the frequency of body movement during ESD as the primary outcome and in terms of the procedure time, en bloc resection rate, intraoperative change in cardiorespiratory dynamics, and postoperative awareness as the secondary outcomes. Body movement was defined as movement by a patient that required interruption of the procedure or restraint of the patient's body trunk, and addition of a sedative agent.

RESULTS

The median frequency of body movement during ESD was significantly lower in group P (0 times) than in group M (3 times) ( P  < 0.001). No significant difference was found for the mean procedure time (117 min in group P; 127 min in group M). Although no significant difference was found in the incidence of hypoxemia, bradycardia, or bradypnea, the incidence of hypotension was significantly higher in group P (31.5 %) than in group M (6.9 %) ( P  = 0.004). Patients in group P had significantly higher postoperative awareness immediately after ESD and at 1 hour after ESD ( P  = 0.002 and 0.022, respectively).

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate the efficacy and safety of propofol-based sedation for gastric ESD.

Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) position paper on the non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Propofol sedation by non-anesthesiologists in GI endoscopy, despite generally considered a safe procedure, is still a matter of debate. Benefits of propofol sedation include rapid onset of action, greater patient comfort and fast recovery with prompt discharge from the endoscopy unit. The use of propofol for sedation in GI endoscopy, preceded by dedicated training courses, has been approved by several anaesthesiologist and gastroenterologist societies but an Italian position paper taking into account the Italian law is lacking. In the present document, the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) Sedation Group, on behalf of the SIED, presents a series of updated position statements concerning propofol sedation in GI endoscopy. The paper summarizes the advantages of propofol, how it should be administered and how patients should be monitored. Moreover, details concerning proper training of non-anaesthesiologist personnel involved in its use are provided. Protocols concerning propofol use s must be shared with the hospital's anaesthesiology staff and approved by the hospital's Executive Director.

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.

Similar Risk of Cardiopulmonary Adverse Events Between Propofol and Traditional Anesthesia for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Even though propofol use for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has increased over the past decade, there is a perception that it causes a higher rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation-related adverse events associated with use of propofol vs nonpropofol agents for endoscopic procedures. We also wanted to determine the influence of duration or complexity of the procedures and endoscopist-directed (gastroenterologist) vs non-gastroenterologist-directed sedation on the outcomes.

METHODS

A search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane controlled trials registry. The following cardiopulmonary adverse events were assessed: hypoxia, hypotension, and arrhythmias. The procedures were divided into 2 groups based on the procedure length: a nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group consisting of esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and sigmoidoscopy, and an advanced endoscopic procedures group including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasonography, balloon enteroscopy, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Pooled odds ratios for complications were calculated for all the procedures combined and then separately for the 2 groups. Random-effects models were used for 2-proportion comparisons.

RESULTS

Of the 2117 citations identified, 27 original studies qualified for this meta-analysis and included 2518 patients. Of these, 1324 received propofol, and 1194 received midazolam, meperidine, pethidine, remifentanil, and/or fentanyl. Most of the included studies were randomized trials of moderate quality and nonsignificant heterogeneity (Cochran Q, 26.07; P = .13). Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled odds ratio with the use of propofol for developing hypoxia for all the procedures combined was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.07), and for developing hypotension was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.64-1.32). In the nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group, those who received propofol were 39% less likely to develop complications than those receiving traditional sedative agents (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99). There was no difference in the complication rate for the advanced endoscopic procedure group (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.34). A subgroup analysis did not show any difference in adverse events when propofol was administered by gastroenterologists or nongastroenterologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation has a similar risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events compared with traditional agents for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Propofol use in simple endoscopic procedures was associated with a decreased number of complications. When used for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures of a complex nature and longer duration, propofol was not associated with increased rates of hypoxemia, hypotension, or arrhythmias. Administration of propofol by gastroenterologists does not appear to increase the complication rates.

Safety of non-anesthesia provider administered propofol sedation in non-advanced gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAPP) administered propofol sedation in patients undergoing non-advanced gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving non-advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 608 publications, 25 [colonoscopy (9), upper GI endoscopy (5), and combined procedures (11)] were identified to meet inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Data was analyzed for hypoxia rates, airway intervention rates, and airway complication rates.

RESULTS

A total of 137,087 patients were involved. A total of 2931 hypoxia episodes (defined as an oxygen saturation below 90%) were reported with a pooled hypoxia rate of 0.014 (95% CI being 0.008-0.023). Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates and pooled airway complication rates were 0.002 (95% CI being 0.006-0.001) and 0.001 (95% CI being 0.000-0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of adverse events in patients undergoing non-advanced GI endoscopic procedures with NAPP sedation are extremely small. Similar data for anesthesia providers is not available. It is prudent for anesthesia providers to demonstrate their superiority in prospective randomized controlled trials, if they like to retain exclusive ownership over propofol sedation in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

A comparison of propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing interest in sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). Prospective randomized studies comparing sedation properties and complications of propofol and midazolam/meperidine in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) are few.

AIM

To compare propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation for UGE in terms of cardiopulmonary side effects, patient and endoscopist satisfaction and procedure-related times.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of propofol versus midazolam and meperidine in 100 patients scheduled for diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The patients were divided into propofol and midazolam/meperidine groups. Randomization was generated by a computer. Cardiopulmonary side effects (hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia), procedure-related times (endoscopy time, awake time, time to hospital discharge), and patient and endoscopist satisfaction were compared between groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the cost, endoscopy time, or demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients. Awake time and time to hospital discharge were significantly shorter in the propofol group (6.58 ±4.72 vs. 9.32 ±4.26 min, p = 0.030 and 27.60 ±7.88 vs. 32.00 ±10.54 min, p = 0.019). Hypotension incidence was significantly higher in the propofol group (12% vs. 0%, p = 0.027). The patient and endoscopist satisfaction was better with propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol may be preferred to midazolam/meperidine sedation, with a shorter awake and hospital discharge time and better patient and endoscopist satisfaction. However, hypotension risk should be considered with propofol, and careful evaluation is needed, particularly in cardiopulmonary disorders.

Propofol Versus Midazolam/Fentanyl Sedation for Colonoscopy in the Elderly Patient Population

PURPOSE

Despite current literature, data on the most effective sedation and best patient outcomes are insufficient for providing recovery time recommendations for elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy with sedation. We sought to identify the best sedation practice for shorter recovery times. Therefore, a study was conducted to examine recovery times among patients older than 65 years undergoing elective colonoscopy with intravenous sedation with either propofol or the combination of midazolam/fentanyl.

DESIGN

A retrospective descriptive, exploratory design was used.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from patients older than 65 years undergoing outpatient elective colonoscopy at our institution between January and December 2013. Recovery times were evaluated for those administered intravenous propofol or a combination of midazolam/fentanyl. Patient demographics and sedation medications were obtained from patient records. A modified Aldrete score greater than 8 was required for discharge. Recovery time was defined as the time from procedure completion to a modified Aldrete score greater than 8.

FINDINGS

Propofol sedation was associated with longer recovery times compared with sedation with a combination of midazolam and fentanyl (mean: 50 minutes versus 31 minutes, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation was not associated with shorter recovery times. Further studies are needed to validate these findings.

Propofol sedation with a target-controlled infusion pump and bispectral index monitoring system in elderly patients during a complex upper endoscopy procedure

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although the usefulness of propofol sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric neoplasms was reported previously, information is limited on its use in elderly patients. We investigated the safety and efficacy of propofol sedation with a target-controlled infusion (TCI) pump and bispectral index (BIS) monitoring system (TCI/BIS system) in elderly patients during gastric ESD.

METHODS

Included were 413 consecutive gastric ESD procedures involving 455 lesions (379 patients) performed in patients under propofol sedation with a TCI/BIS system between October 2009 and September 2013. Patients were divided into 3 groups: group A, age <70 years (n = 162); group B, age ≥70 and <80 years (n = 171); and group C, age ≥80 years (n = 80). We compared the propofol dose and adverse events (eg, hypotension and hypoxemia) during ESD.

RESULTS

Older groups required a lower target concentration of propofol (group A: median 2.1 μg/mL [interquartile range (IQR), 1.9-2.3]; group B: median 1.6 μg/mL [IQR, 1.3-1.8]; and group C: median 1.4 μg/mL [IQR, 1.2-1.6]; P < .0001). Hypotension tended to occur in the younger group, and hypoxemia occurred at a significantly higher rate in the older groups, although the number of cases was small. Low preoperative systolic blood pressure (≤125 mm Hg) was associated with hypotension (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-2.70; P = .013) and abnormal pulmonary function was associated with hypoxemia in groups B and C (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 1.01-31.5; P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients required lower doses of propofol with the TCI/BIS system than younger patients. Attention to hypoxemia is necessary in elderly patients, particularly patients with abnormal pulmonary function.

Evaluation of interventional endoscopy unit efficiency metrics at a tertiary academic medical center

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

There is an increasing demand for interventional endoscopic services and the need to develop efficient endoscopic units. The aim of this study was to analyze performance data and define metrics to improve efficiency in a single academic interventional endoscopy center. ]

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The prospective operations performance data (6-month period) of our interventional endoscopy unit (EU) was analyzed. First-case start time (FIRST) delay was defined as any time the first patient of the day entered the endoscopy room after the scheduled time. Non-endoscopy time (NET) and total time (TT) were defined as non-procedural and total time elapsed in the EU, respectively. Time-interval between successive patients (TISP) was defined as the time from one patient departure from the room until the time of arrival of the next patient in the room.

RESULTS

A total of 1421 patients underwent 1635 endoscopic procedures. FIRST was delayed (54.2 % cases) by 13.6 min (range 1 - 53), but started within 15 min of the scheduled time in 85 % of the cases. NET accounted for 9.1 hours (67.2 %) of 13.5 hours TT/day. TISP (37.1 min, range 5 - 125) comprised 54.2 % of the NET, and was delayed (> 30 min) in 49.8 % of cases. "Patient flow" processes (registration, admission, transportation, scheduling) accounted for 50.1 % of TISP delays.

CONCLUSIONS

Delays in NET, specifically TISP, rather than FIRST, were identified as a cause for decreased efficiency. "Patient flow" processes were the main reasons for delays in TISP. This study identifies potential process measures that can be used as benchmarks to improve efficiency in the EU.

Comparison of Clinical Effects of Dexketoprofen and Paracetamol Used for Analgesia in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare 50 mg dexketoprofen vs. 1 g paracetamol that were parenterally administered before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) under sedoanalgesia with comparable anaesthesia depth regarding haemodynamic, pain, narcotic analgesic requirement, recovery and post-procedural cognitive functions.

METHODS

Overall, 80 ASA I-III patients aged 18-75 years who were undergoing scheduled ERCP were randomly assigned into three groups. In all patients, the mini-mental test (MMT) was conducted before the procedure. No drug was administered to controls (Group C; n=26); patients were transferred to ERCP unite 30 min after parenteral dexketoprofen (50 mg) in group D (n=27) and paracetamol (1 g) in group P (n=27). The standard monitoring was applied. After intravenously administering loading doses of midazolam (0.02 mgkg) and propofol (1 mg kg(-1)), propofol infusion was administered at a dose of 2-4 mg kg(-1) h(-1) to maintain a bispectral index value of 50-70. Fentanyl (0.05 μg kg(-1)) was intravenously administered when patients experienced pain. Haemodynamic effects, additional analgesic requirement, adverse effects during procedure, time to reach Aldrete score of 9 and satisfaction of an endoscopist and patient were recorded. MMT was repeated 3 h after completing the procedure.

RESULTS

Fentanyl requirement during the procedure was significantly low in group D (p<0.05). Apnoea during the procedure and nausea after the procedure were least common in group D while significantly lower than group C (p<0.05). There was no significant difference with respect to MMT scores and endoscopist's satisfaction, while patient satisfaction was greater in group P.

CONCLUSION

Parenterally administered dexketoprofen provided better haemodynamic effect and pain control, thereby decreasing incidence of adverse events by reducing the requirement for narcotic analgesics.

Morbidity and mortality of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) in a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopist-Directed Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation (EDNAPS) has been evaluated in community settings rather than tertiary referral centers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A hospital-wide prospectively collected database of Medical Emergency Team Calls (METCALL), emergency responses triggered by medically unstable patients, was reviewed. Responses that followed EDNAPS were extracted and compared with a prospectively entered database of all endoscopies performed using EDNAPS over the same period.

RESULTS

A total of 33,539 endoscopic procedures (16,393 gastroscopies, 17,146 colonoscopies) were performed on 27,989 patients using EDNAPS. Intravenous drugs included midazolam (0 - 5 mg), fentanyl (0 - 100 mcg), and propofol (10 - 420 mg). Of 23 METCALLs (18 gastroscopies and 5 colonoscopies), there were 16 with ASA scores of III or higher. Indications for gastroscopy were gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage (n = 11; 8 variceal, 3 nonvariceal), dysphagia (n = 5), PEG removal (n = 1), and dyspepsia (n = 1). Fifteen of 22 patients, including all of those who had a colonoscopy, made a full recovery and returned to the ward or were discharged home. In the gastroscopy group, seven were intubated and admitted to Intensive Care, of whom six were emergency cases for gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 4 variceal, n = 2 non variceal) and one in which the indication was PEG removal. Two deaths occurred in the intubated group.

CONCLUSIONS

In a tertiary referral center, EDNAPS for low-to-moderate risk (ASA ≤ 2) patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy is very safe. Gastroscopy is associated with greater anesthetic risk than colonoscopy and those with high ASA scores needing urgent endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage are at particular risk of cardiorespiratory decompensation.

Optimization of Deep Sedation with Spontaneous Respiration for Therapeutic Endoscopy Combining Propofol and Bispectral Index Monitoring

Background/Aims. This study aimed to establish optimal propofol anesthesia for therapeutic endoscopy, which has not been established. Methodology. We retrospectively investigated data on 89 patients who underwent upper-GI endoscopic submucosal dissection or endoscopic mucosal resection under anesthesia with propofol. Examined doses of propofol were changed according to efficacy and/or adverse events and classified into 5 periods. A bispectral index (BIS) monitor was used at Period 5 to decrease the incidence of adverse events caused by oversedation. The initial dose of propofol was administered after bolus injection of pethidine hydrochloride (0.5 mg/kg), and 1.0 mL of propofol was added every minute until the patients fell asleep. Continuous and bolus infusion were performed to maintain sedation. When the patient moved or an adverse event occurred, the maintenance dose examined was increased or decreased by 5 mL/h regardless of body weight. Results. Dose combinations (introduction : maintenance) and patient numbers for each period were as follows: Period 1 (n = 27), 0.5 mg/kg : 5 mg/kg/h; Period 2 (n = 11), 0.33 mg/kg : 3.3 mg/kg/h; Period 3 (n = 7), 0.5 mg/kg : 3.3 mg/kg/h; Period 4 (n = 14), 0.5 mg/kg : 2.5 mg/kg/h; Period 5 (n = 30), 0.5 mg/kg : 2.5 mg/kg/h, using BIS monitor. During Period 5, an adverse event occurred in 10.0% of patients, which was lower than that for Periods 1–4. Conclusions. Period 5 propofol anesthesia with BIS protocol could be safe and useful for therapeutic endoscopy under deep sedation with spontaneous respiration.

The impact of chronic opioid use on colonoscopy outcomes

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic procedures are frequently performed on patients chronically on opioids, raising concerns about the safety and efficacy of conventional sedation.

AIMS

We hypothesized that chronic opioid use is associated with longer procedure times, higher dosages of sedation medications, and an increase in adverse effects.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review from June 2012 to June 2013. Patients on chronic opioids (opioids use ≥ 12 weeks) were compared to randomly selected patients matched for age, race, and sex. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors that were independently predictive of longer procedure times.

RESULTS

Patients on chronic opioids required higher doses of fentanyl (122.0 ± 45.3 vs. 105.8 ± 47.2 µg; P < 0.0001) and midazolam (5.3 ± 5.3 vs. 4.4 ± 2 mg; P = 0.0037) and were more likely to receive diphenhydramine (42.8 vs. 22.6 %; P < 0.001). The induction period (11.3 ± 8.8 vs. 7.5 ± 4.0 min), duration of procedure (39.1 ± 17.5 vs. 33.4 ± 14.1 min), and recovery times (38.7 ± 15.3 vs. 33.8 ± 12.1 min) were significantly longer for patients on chronic opioids. In the multivariate regression analysis, opioid use was an independent predictor of longer procedure duration (P < 0.05). Hypotensive episodes did not differ between groups (2.8 vs. 2.7 %; P = 0.8). However, patients on chronic opioids experienced more pain (13.4 vs. 5.9 %; P 0.001) and hypertensive episodes (8.1 vs. 2.8 %; P 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Patients on chronic opioids represent a high-risk population with longer procedural times and more discomfort, despite higher dosages of sedative agents. Prospective studies are required to define the risks and benefits of more costly alternative sedation strategies for patients on chronic opioids.

Prescribing patterns of the four most commonly used sedatives in endoscopic examination in Korea: propofol, midazolam, diazepam, and lorazepam

As the sedative use increases due to the effectiveness and relatively safe profile, the abuse potential is also increasing. This study was conducted to examine the usage of four sedative agents in endoscopic examination and to compare the propofol use with the other three sedatives. Using National Health Insurance claims data from 2008 to 2012, we identified the number of cases of conscious sedation during endoscopy using one or more of the following agents: propofol, midazolam, diazepam, and lorazepam. The general characteristics of patients and medical service providers were analyzed, and the regional and annual distributions of frequency of use were compared. We also identified patient cases with excessive number of endoscopic examinations. Among the total of 3,156,231 sedatives users, midazolam was the most commonly used agent (n=2,845,250, 90.1%). However, the largest increase in patient number, which increased from 11,410 in 2008 to 28,170 in 2012, was observed with propofol. While the majority of patients received an annual endoscopy, we identified several suspected abuse cases of patients receiving endoscopies repetitively as many as 114 times in five years. The rise of sedative use in endoscopic examinations and several patient cases of repeated sedative administration suggest a potential risk for abuse. Medical service providers should be cautious when using sedatives and carefully review each patient's medical history prior to the procedure.

Propofol alternatives in gastrointestinal endoscopy anesthesia

Although propofol has been the backbone for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy, both anesthesiologists and endoscopists are faced with situations where an alternative is needed. Recent national shortages forced many physicians to explore these options. A midazolam and fentanyl combination is the mainstay in this area. However, there are other options. The aim of this review is to explore these options. The future would be, invariably, to move away from propofol. The reason is not in any way related to the drawbacks of propofol as a sedative. The mandate that requires an anesthesia provider to administer propofol has been a setback in many countries. New sedative drugs like Remimazolam might fill this void in the future. In the meantime, it is important to keep an open eye to the existing alternatives.

Monitored anesthesia care without endotracheal intubation is safe and efficacious for single-balloon enteroscopy

BACKGROUND

General endotracheal (GET) anesthesia is often used during single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE). However, there is currently limited data regarding monitored anesthesia care (MAC) without endotracheal intubation for this procedure.

AIMS

The aim of the study was to determine the safety and efficacy of MAC sedation during SBE and to identify risk factors for adverse events.

METHODS

All patients who underwent SBE and SBE-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography between June 2011 and July 2013 at a tertiary-care referral center were studied in a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. Patients received MAC anesthesia or GET. The main outcome measurements were sedation-related adverse events, diagnostic yield, and therapeutic yield.

RESULTS

Of the 178 cases in the study, 166 cases (93 %) were performed with MAC and 12 (7 %) with GET. Intra-procedure sedation-related adverse events occurred in 17 % of cases. The most frequent event was transient hypotension requiring pharmacologic intervention in 11.8 % of procedures. In MAC cases, the diagnostic yield was 58.4 % and the therapeutic yield was 30.1 %. Anesthesia duration was strongly associated with the occurrence of a sedation-related adverse event (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

MAC is a safe and efficacious sedation approach for most patients undergoing SBE. Sedation-related complications in SBE are uncommon, but are more frequent in longer procedures.

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.

SEDASYS(®), airway, oxygenation, and ventilation: anticipating and managing the challenges

In May 2013, the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) approved SEDASYS(®), a device that enables non-anesthesia physicians to provide mild-to-moderate sedation to patients undergoing colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy. SEDASYS(®) is the first among the devices being built to provide computer-assisted personalized sedation. Although the intention of this approval is to cut the anesthesia related expenses, it is likely to create new challenges to the users-both clinical and administrative-that might even increase the cost. Deep sedation is required frequently for a successful completion of the procedure, which poses unforeseen challenges. The present review aims to provide clear information to the users regarding pre-procedure assessment, possible sedation related complications and management options.

Endoscopist-directed propofol: pros and cons

Concerns about the safety of endoscopist-directed propofol (EDP) have been voiced that propofol should be given only by healthcare professionals trained in the administration of general anesthesia. Here we discuss the safety and drawbacks of EDP for routine endoscopic procedures. Currently, both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy are well tolerated and accepted by both patients and endoscopists due to the application of sedation in most clinics worldwide. Accordingly, propofol use is increasing in many countries. It is crucial for endoscopists to be very familiar with the use of propofol or a combination of drugs. However, the controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an anesthesiologist continues. Until now, there have been no randomized control trials comparing sedation induced by propofol administered by an endoscopist or by an anesthesiologist. It might be difficult to perform this kind of study. For the convenience and safety of sedative endoscopy, it would be important that EDP be generally applied to endoscopic procedures, and for more safety, an anesthesiologist may automatically take care of particular patients at high risk of suffering from propofol side effects.

Safety analysis of endoscopist-directed propofol sedation: a prospective, national multicenter study of 24 441 patients in German outpatient practices

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Since 2008, there exists a German S3-guideline allowing non-anesthesiological administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. In this prospective, national, multicenter study, we evaluated the safety of endoscopist-administered propofol sedation (EDP) in German outpatient practices of Gastroenterology.

METHODS

In this multicenter survey of 53 ambulatory practices of Gastroenterology, we prospectively evaluated 24 441 patients that had received EDP. We recorded adverse events during the endoscopic procedure and additionally retrieved questionnaires investigating subjective parameters 24 h after the endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

In 24 441 patients 13 793 colonoscopies, 6467 esophagogastroduodenoscopies, and 4181 double examinations were performed. In this study, 52.1% of the patients received propofol mono-sedation, and 47.9% received a combination of midazolam and propofol. Major adverse events occurred in four patients (0.016%) enrolled to this study (three mask ventilations and one laryngospasm). Minor adverse events were observed in 112 patients (0.46%) with hypoxemia being the most common minor event. All patients with adverse events recovered without persistent impairment. Minor adverse events occurred more frequently in patients sedated with propofol mono compared to propofol and midazolam (P < 0.0001) and correlated with increasing propofol dosages (P < 0.001; Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.044). Twenty-four hours after the endoscopy, patients sedated with propofol plus midazolam stated a significantly reduced sensation of pain (P < 0.01) and improved symptoms of dizziness, nausea and vomiting (P < 0.001) compared to patients having received propofol mono-sedation.

CONCLUSION

Four years after the implementation of a German S3-Guideline for endoscopic sedation, we demonstrated that EDP is a safe procedure.

Safety and effectiveness of low-dose propofol sedation during and after esophagogastroduodenoscopy in child A and B cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Effective and safe sedation for patients with liver cirrhosis is problematic.

AIM

To examine the safety and effectiveness of low-dose propofol sedation during and after esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Study 1 was a prospective study in cirrhotic patients who underwent diagnostic EGD under propofol sedation. Propofol was given by bolus injection with an age-adjusted standard protocol consisting of 40 mg for patients <70 years, 30 mg for patients aged 70-89 years; additional injections of 20 mg propofol were given up to a maximum of 120 mg. The principal parameter was the occurrence of adverse events within 24 h after EGD. Secondary parameters included successful procedures, complications, and full recovery within 60 min. In Study 2, the residual effects of propofol were evaluated using a driving simulator and blood propofol concentrations in a subset of cirrhotic patients undergoing EGD and compared with healthy individuals. The principal parameter was driving ability.

RESULTS

Study 1: Consecutive cirrhotic patients were entered and all 163 successfully completed EGD. The mean dose of propofol was 46 mg (range 30-120 mg). No complications occurred. Full recovery had occurred in 100 % 60 min after the procedure. No adverse events occurred within 24 h after EGD. Study 2: There were no significant differences in blood propofol levels between cirrhotic patients (n = 21) and healthy individuals (n = 20) after sedation. In cirrhotic patients, there was no deterioration in driving ability as compared with healthy individuals.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose propofol sedation provided safe and effective sedation for EGD in cirrhotic patients with rapid recovery.

Evaluation of a new anaesthetist-led propofol sedation service for endoscopy within a UK day-case setting

INTRODUCTION

The use of propofol in endoscopy is becoming more prevalent both in Europe and North America. Potential advantages over conscious sedation include controlled deep sedation for therapeutic endoscopy and improved patient satisfaction. A new anaesthetist-led propofol-based day-case sedation service was introduced within the endoscopy unit at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital in April 2011.

AIMS

To evaluate this new service of anaesthetist-led propofol-based sedation for safety, compliance with current guidelines and satisfaction (patient, anaesthetist and endoscopist).

DESIGN

A prospective, service evaluation audit of a new, weekly, anaesthetist-led propofol-based sedation service. Administrative records, anaesthetic notes and satisfaction scores (1=very dissatisfied; 5=very satisfied; patients, anaesthetists, endoscopists) and the 'patient journey' were evaluated for 40 consecutive patients treated over 18 weeks. Outcomes were measured against current British Society of Gastroenterology/Royal College of Anaesthetists guidelines.

RESULTS

All procedures were completed (100% intention-to-treat rate), all patients were discharged on the day of the procedure and none were readmitted within 7 days. Adverse events were minor (10%) and there were no deaths within 30 days. The median satisfaction score was 5 for patients, anaesthetists and endoscopists. The additional cost for provision of such a service included the services of the anaesthetist (one programmed activity) and operating department personnel and for drugs (propofol). The demand for the service rapidly increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Anaesthetist-led propofol-assisted endoscopy is safe in a day-case endoscopy unit and is associated with high satisfaction scores for patients, anaesthetists and endoscopists. There is a high demand for this service in this UK endoscopy day-case unit.

Carbon dioxide accumulation during analgosedated colonoscopy: Comparison of propofol and midazolam

AIM: To characterize the profiles of alveolar hypoventilation during colonoscopies performed under sedoanalgesia with a combination of alfentanil and either midazolam or propofol.

METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to sedation with either propofol or midazolam in an open-labeled design using a titration scheme. All patients received 4 μg/kg per body weight alfentanil for analgesia and 3 L of supplemental oxygen. Oxygen saturation (SpO₂) was measured by pulse oximetry (POX), and capnography (PcCO₂) was continuously measured using a combined dedicated sensor at the ear lobe. Instances of apnea resulting in measures such as stimulation of the patient, a chin lift, a mask maneuver, or withholding of sedation were recorded. PcCO₂ values (as a parameter of sedation-induced hypoventilation) were compared between groups at the following distinct time points: baseline, maximal rise, termination of the procedure and 5 min after termination of the procedure. The number of patients in both study groups who regained baseline PcCO₂ values (± 1.5 mmHg) five minutes after the procedure was determined.

RESULTS: A total of 97 patients entered this study. The data from 14 patients were subsequently excluded for clinical procedure-related reasons or for technical problems. Therefore, 83 patients (mean age 62 ± 13 years) were successfully randomized to receive propofol (n = 42) or midazolam (n = 41) for sedation. Most of the patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) II [16 (38%) in the midazolam group and 15 (32%) in the propofol group] and ASA III [14 (33%) and 13 (32%) in the midazolam and propofol groups, respectively]. A mean dose of 5 (4-7) mg of IV midazolam and 131 (70-260) mg of IV propofol was used during the procedure in the corresponding study arms. The mean SpO₂ at baseline (%) was 99 ± 1 for the midazolam group and 99 ± 1 for the propofol group. No cases of hypoxemia (SpO₂ < 85%) or apnea were recorded. However, an increase in PcCO₂ that indicated alveolar hypoventilation occurred in both groups after administration of the first drug and was not detected with pulse oximetry alone. The mean interval between the initiation of sedation and the time when the PcCO₂ value increased to more than 2 mmHg was 2.8 ± 1.3 min for midazolam and 2.8 ± 1.1 min for propofol. The mean maximal rise was similar for both drugs: 8.6 ± 3.7 mmHg for midazolam and 7.4 ± 3.2 mmHg for propofol. Five minutes after the end of the procedure, the mean difference from the baseline values was significantly lower for the propofol treatment compared with midazolam (0.9 ± 3.0 mmHg vs 4.3 ± 3.7 mmHg, P = 0.0000169), and significantly more patients in the propofol group had regained their baseline value ± 1.5 mmHg (32 of 41 vs 12 of 42, P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION: A significantly higher number of patients sedated with propofol had normalized PcCO₂ values five minutes after sedation when compared with patients sedated with midazolam.

Prospective description of coughing, hemodynamic changes, and oxygen desaturation during endoscopic sedation

BACKGROUND

Deep sedation is increasingly used for endoscopy. The impact of sedation level on hemodynamic status, oxygenation, and aspiration risk is incompletely described.

AIMS

To describe the incidence of intraprocedural cough, hemodynamic changes, oxygen desaturation, and their relationship to clinical factors and sedation level.

METHODS

Detailed prospective recordings of hemodynamic changes, oxygen desaturation, and cough during 757 nonemergent endoscopic procedures done under sedation using propofol, midazolam, and/or fentanyl.

RESULTS

Thirteen percent of patients had at least one cough and 3% had prolonged cough. Cough was more common in nonsmokers (P = 0.05), upper endoscopy (P < 0.0001), with propofol (P = 0.0008), longer procedures (P = 0.0001), and hiccups (P = 0.01). The association between supine positioning during colonoscopy and cough approached significance (P = 0.06). Oxygen desaturation was rare (4%) and associated only with deep sedation (P = 0.02). Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) dropped by 7.3 and 5.6% respectively. Decreases in systolic BP were more common in whites (P = 0.03), males (P = 0.004), nonsmokers (P = 0.04), during colonoscopy (P < 0.0001), and in patients receiving midazolam and fentanyl (P = 0.01). Heart rate (HR) dropped >20% from baseline in 15% of patients and was more common during colonoscopy (P = 0.002). HR increased >20% in 20% of patients and was more common with coughing (P < 0.0001) and in younger patients (P = 0.0002). No patient required pharmacologic treatment of BP or HR.

CONCLUSIONS

We have described procedural predictors of cough that may help clinicians reduce the risk of aspiration during endoscopy. Hemodynamic changes during endoscopy are common but largely clinically insignificant.

Sedative techniques for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an uncomfortable therapeutic procedure that cannot be performed without adequate sedation or general anaesthesia. A considerable number of ERCPs are performed annually in the UK (at least 48,000) and many more worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of our review was to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of sedative or anaesthetic techniques used to facilitate the procedure of ERCP in adult (age > 18 years) patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 8); MEDLINE (1950 to September 2011); EMBASE (1950 to September 2011); CINAHL, Web of Science and LILACS (all to September 2011). We searched for additional studies drawn from reference lists of retrieved trial materials and review articles and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled studies where the main procedures performed were ERCPs. The three interventions we searched for were (1) conscious sedation (using midazolam plus opioid) versus deep sedation (using propofol); (2) conscious sedation versus general anaesthesia; and (3) deep sedation versus general anaesthesia. We considered all studies regardless of which healthcare professional administered the sedation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reviewed 124 papers and identified four randomized trials (with a total of 510 participants) that compared the use of conscious sedation using midazolam and meperidine with deep sedation using propofol in patients undergoing ERCP procedures. All sedation was administered by non-anaesthetic personnel. Due to the clinical heterogeneity of the studies we decided to review the papers from a narrative perspective as opposed to a full meta-analysis. Our primary outcome measures included mortality, major complications and inability to complete the procedure due to sedation-related problems. Secondary outcomes encompassed sedation efficacy and recovery.

MAIN RESULTS

No immediate mortality was reported. There was no significant difference in serious cardio-respiratory complications suffered by patients in either sedation group. Failure to complete the procedure due to sedation-related problems was reported in one study. Three studies found faster and better recovery in patients receiving propofol for their ERCP procedures. Study protocols regarding use of supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid administration and capnography monitoring varied considerably. The studies showed either moderate or high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results from individual studies suggested that patients have a better recovery profile after propofol sedation for ERCP procedures than after midazolam and meperidine sedation. As there was no difference between the two sedation techniques as regards safety, propofol sedation is probably preferred for patients undergoing ERCP procedures. However, in all of the studies that were identified only non-anaesthesia personnel were involved in administering the sedation. It would be helpful if further research was conducted where anaesthesia personnel were involved in the administration of sedation for ERCP procedures. This would clarify the extent to which anaesthesia personnel should be involved in the administration of propofol sedation.

Propofol vs midazolam plus fentanyl for upper gastrointestinal endomicroscopy: A randomized trial

AIM: To compare the endomicroscopic image quality of integrated confocal laser endomicroscopy (iCLE) and sedation efficacy of propofol vs midazolam plus fentanyl (M/F).

METHODS: Consecutive outpatients undergoing iCLE were prospectively recruited and randomized to the propofol group (P group) or M/F group. The patient, performing endoscopist and endoscopic assistant were blinded to the randomization. The quality of endomicroscopic images and anesthetic efficacy outcomes were blindly evaluated after iCLE examination.

RESULTS: There were significantly more good quality endomicroscopic images in the propofol group than in the M/F group (72.75% vs 52.89%, P < 0.001). The diagnostic accuracy for upper gastrointestinal mucosal lesions using confocal laser endomicroscopy favors the P group, although this did not reach statistical significance. Adverse events and patient assessment were not significantly different for M/F vs propofol except for more frequent intraprocedural recall with M/F. Procedure duration and sedation times were significantly longer in the M/F group, while the scores of endoscopist, anesthetist and assistant assessment were all significantly better in the P group.

CONCLUSION: Sedation with propofol might increase the proportion of good quality endomicroscopic images, and may result in improved procedural efficacy and diagnostic accuracy during iCLE examination.

Diazepam during endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric epithelial neoplasias

AIM: To investigate risk factors and adverse events related to high-dose diazepam administration during endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasias.

METHODS: Between February 2002 and December 2009, a total of 286 patients with gastric epithelial neoplasia underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection in our hospital. To achieve moderate sedation, 5-7.5 mg of diazepam was administered intravenously by non-anesthesiologists. Intermittent additional administration of 2.5-5 mg diazepam was performed if uncontrollable body movement of the patient was observed. All patients were classified into groups based on the required diazepam dose: low-dose (≤ 17.5 mg, n = 252) and high-dose (> 17.5 mg, n = 79).

RESULTS: Differences between the low- and high-dose diazepam groups were observed in lifetime alcohol consumption (0.30 ± 0.48 vs 0.44 ± 0.52 tons, P = 0.032), body weight (58.4 ± 10.3 vs 62.0 ± 9.9 kg, P = 0.006), tumor size (15 ± 10 vs 23 ± 18 mm, P < 0.001), lesion location (P < 0.001) and the presence of ulcerative findings (14/238 vs 18/61, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified all five variables as independently related to required diazepam dosage. In terms of adverse reactions to diazepam administration, paradoxical excitement was significantly more frequent in the high-dose diazepam group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: Intermittent administration of diazepam enabled safe completion of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection except in patients who were alcohol abusers or obese, or who showed complicated lesions.

Intraprocedural evaluation of comfort for sedated outpatient upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: the La Crosse (WI) intra-endoscopy sedation comfort score

Patient comfort is often assessed during gastrointestinal procedures to guide sedation. There are, however, no validated scales appropriate for routine comfort assessment. This study validated a single-item La Crosse (WI) intra-endoscopy sedation comfort score (L-WISC) by determining interobserver agreement and correlation with patient outcomes. The study was conducted in prospective outpatient cohorts of patients undergoing outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy at a regional healthcare medical center endoscopy unit. In Phase 1, independent assessments of 100 patients' intraprocedural comfort by the endoscopist and nurse determined interobserver agreement. In Phase 2, nurses assessed 200 patients, who were provided surveys to self-report their comfort 2 weeks postprocedure. In Phase 1, there was fair interobserver agreement (weighted κ = 0.36, with 95% confidence intervals [CI] [0.19, 0.53]). After L-WISC revisions, Phase 1 was repeated with moderate agreement (weighted κ = 0.45; 95% CI [0.31, 0.60]). In Phase 2, using the revised score, there was poor agreement (weighted κ = 0.098; 95% CI [-0.0020, 0.20]) between nurses' and patients' scores. The L-WISC is the first intraprocedural gastrointestinal comfort score appropriate for routine use to be validated with interobserver agreement and correlation with patient outcomes. It has reproducibility between endoscopists and nurses. It does not predict patient recollection of sedation comfort, but it remains unclear whether such prediction is possible with the use of amnestic sedatives. The L-WISC provides standardized levels of patient comfort to guide sedation titration routinely during outpatient endoscopy.

Wireless ambulatory pH studies: manometric or endoscopic guidance?

Wireless pH studies are widely used to assess the presence and severity of gastroesophageal reflux disease. We hypothesized that sedation or air insufflation during a preceding endoscopy may systematically alter results. A retrospective review of ambulatory pH studies completed between January 2008 and April 2010 was performed. The pH capsule was placed 6 cm above the endoscopically determined location of the squamocolumnar junction or 5 cm above the manometrically localized upper border of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). A total of 356 patients (65% women) underwent pH studies using the BRAVO system (GIVEN Imaging, Yoqneam, Israel). In 186 patients (E-P), the capsule was placed during endoscopy. In 170 patients (M-P), capsule placement was based on manometric determination of LES boundaries using pharyngeal anesthesia only. Endoscopic placement was successful in all cases, whereas two patients could not tolerate capsule insertion with topical anesthesia only. The mean recording time did not differ between the two groups (E-P: 2468 ± 38 min; M-P: 2415 ± 40 min). The number of patients with abnormal findings on day 1 but normal results for day 2 was similar with 15% for E-P compared with 11% for M-P. However, there was a significant difference in total acid exposure times between days 1 and 2 for endoscopically (day 1: 7.3 ± 1.2; day 2: 4.8 ± 0.5; P < 0.01), but not manometrically based placement (day 1: 7.7 ± 0.7; day 2: 7.2 ± 0.6). There was no difference in the number of symptoms between days or groups (E-P day 1:13.4 ± 1.3; E-P day 2: 16.0 ± 1.6; M-P day 1: 14.1 ± 2.1; M-P day 2: 15.7 ± 2.0). Similarly, the symptom sensitivity index did not differ significantly between days and groups (E-P: day 1: 4.1 ± 0.5; day 2: 5.9 ± 0.8; M-P: day 5.3 ± 0.8; day 2: 5.7 ± 0.8). The majority of patients tolerate insertion of a wireless pH monitoring capsule without sedation. Unsedated placement did not negatively affect total recording times. Although endoscopy resulted in higher acid exposure on day one it did not significantly increase the overall fraction of abnormal tests. If confirmed in prospective studies, the more consistent findings and a potential to lower cost favor manometrically guided capsule placement.

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.

Nurse-administered propofol sedation is safe for patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing routine endoscopy: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) is now in widespread use. The safety profile of NAPS for routine endoscopic procedures in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is unknown.

AIMS

To compare outcomes of patients with and without OSA undergoing routine endoscopic procedures with NAPS and standard conscious sedation (CS) with benzodiazepines and narcotics.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study.

RESULTS

A total of 215 patients were placed in one of four groups: OSA patients undergoing endoscopy with NAPS, OSA patients undergoing endoscopy with standard CS, non-OSA patients undergoing endoscopy with NAPS, and non-OSA patients undergoing endoscopy with standard CS. Procedures were generally accomplished faster with NAPS. There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates or overall outcomes in patients with OSA when compared to non-OSA patients when either NAPS or CS was utilized.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine endoscopic procedures using NAPS are safe in patients with documented OSA, with complication rates comparable to when using CS. NAPS helped to decrease procedure times in general.

[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.

A randomized controlled trial of endoscopist vs. anaesthetist-administered sedation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Endoscopist-administered propofol sedation for colonoscopy has not been compared to anaesthetist-administered deep sedation in clinical trials. Our aim was to compare patients' satisfaction and safety during these two sedation modalities.

METHODS

90 adult patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized into Group A, Endoscopist-administered propofol sedation and Group B, anaesthetist-administered deep sedation. Group A patients received an initial dose of 30-50 mg of intravenous propofol; additional doses were injected by the endoscopist using a pre-programmed pump. Global satisfaction was measured on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

The average satisfaction scores after examination completion amongst group were not statistically different (90.8 mm for Group A vs. 89 mm for Group B). Group A patients expressed more frequently a good level of satisfaction (95% vs. 75%; p=0.03) and willingness to undergo further colonoscopies under the same conditions (95% vs. 79%; p=0.02). Total duration time and procedural difficulty did not differ between the groups. Group A received a lower total propofol dose than Group B (94 mg vs. 260 mg) and experienced fewer side-effects (16 vs. 3, respectively; p < 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopist-administered propofol sedation for colonoscopy offered a better level of satisfaction and fewer side-effects than anaesthetist-administered deep sedation.

Computer-assisted personalized sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: a comparative, multicenter randomized study

BACKGROUND

The SEDASYS System is an investigational computer-assisted personalized sedation system integrating propofol delivery with patient monitoring to enable endoscopist/nurse teams to safely administer propofol.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of the SEDASYS System to the current standard of care for sedation during routine endoscopic procedures.

DESIGN

Nonblinded multicenter randomized comparative study.

SETTING

Four ambulatory surgery centers, 3 endoscopy centers, and 1 academic center in the United States.

PATIENTS

One thousand American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I to III adults undergoing routine colonoscopy or EGD.

INTERVENTIONS

Sedation with the SEDASYS System (SED) and sedation with each site's current standard of care (CSC; benzodiazepine/opioid combination).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Area under the curve of oxygen desaturation was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included patient satisfaction, clinician satisfaction, level of sedation, and patient recovery time.

RESULTS

Four hundred ninety-six patients were randomized to SED and 504 to CSC. Area under the curve of oxygen desaturation was significantly lower for SED (23.6 s·%) than for CSC (88.0 s·%; P = .028). Patients were predominately minimally to moderately sedated in both groups. SED patients were significantly more satisfied than CSC patients (P = .007). Clinician satisfaction was greater with SED than with CSC (P < .001). SED patients recovered faster than CSC patients (P < .001). The incidence of adverse events was 5.8% in the SED group and 8.7% in the CSC group.

LIMITATIONS

Nonblinded.

CONCLUSIONS

The SEDASYS System could provide endoscopist/nurse teams a safe and effective on-label means to administer propofol to effect minimal to moderate sedation during routine colonoscopy and EGD.