Optimal procedural sequence for same-day bidirectional endoscopy with moderate sedation: A prospective randomized study

Comparison of propofol-based sedation and midazolam sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy conducted by pediatric gastroenterologists

Objectives

The effectiveness and safety of propofol-based sedation and midazolam sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy were compared.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the cases of pediatric patients (≤15 years old) who had undergone bidirectional endoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and colonoscopy by pediatric gastroenterologists. Demographic data, indications, sedatives/dosages, clinical outcomes, endoscopic findings, adverse events, and total patient time requirements (total time in which patients stay in our hospital) were compared in the two sedation groups.

Results

Ninety-one children (51 boys, 40 girls, mean age 13 years, range 9-15) treated at our hospital were enrolled. Propofol alone or in combination with midazolam and/or pentazocine was administered to 51 patients (propofol-based sedation group). Midazolam alone or in combination with pentazocine was administered to the other 40 patients (midazolam sedation group). In the propofol group, the following mean doses were used: propofol, 96 mg (range 40-145 mg); midazolam, 4.9 mg (range 3-5 mg); and pentazocine, 7.5 mg. In the midazolam group, the mean doses of midazolam and pentazocine were 6.2 mg (range 4-10 mg) and 15 mg, respectively. All procedures were successfully completed by pediatric gastroenterologists. The total procedure times and endoscopic findings were similar in the two groups, but the median patient time requirement in the propofol group was significantly shorter versus the midazolam group (7.3 h vs. 8.4 h, p < 0.001). No adverse events occurred in either group.

Conclusions

Propofol-based sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy was safely and effectively performed by pediatric gastroenterologists, and its patient time requirement was shorter than that for midazolam sedation.

APAGE Position Statements on Green and Sustainability in Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The APAGE Position Statements aimed to provide guidance to healthcare practitioners on clinical practices aligned with climate sustainability.

METHODS

A taskforce convened by APAGE proposed provisional statements. Twenty-two gastroenterologists from the Asian Pacific region participated in online voting and consensus was assessed through an anonymized and iterative Delphi process.

RESULTS

There were five sections that addressed the rationale for climate action, the importance of adopting principles of waste management, clinical practice, gastrointestinal endoscopy, and issues related to advocacy and research. Sixteen statements achieved consensus and included the following: 1. APAGE recommends adopting prompt measures to reduce the carbon footprint of clinical practice due to the importance of climate action and its health cobenefits. 5. APAGE recommends adherence to professional clinical guidelines to optimize clinical care delivery in gastroenterology and hepatology to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures and tests. 8. APAGE recommends an emphasis on health promotion, disease prevention, and appropriate screening and surveillance, when resources are available, to reduce the environmental impact of managing more advanced diseases that require more intensive resources. 12. APAGE recommends that technological advances in endoscopic imaging and artificial intelligence, when available, be used to improve the precision of endoscopic diagnosis to reduce the risk of missed lesions and need for unnecessary biopsies. 13. APAGE recommends against the routine use of single-use endoscopes.

CONCLUSION

The position statements provide guidance to healthcare practitioners on clinical practices in gastroenterology, hepatology, and endoscopy that promote climate sustainability.

Optimal Sequencing in Same-Day Bidirectional Endoscopy: A Tertiary US Healthcare Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Same-day performance of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy is called bidirectional endoscopy (BDE). BDE is commonly performed, but the optimal sequence for which procedure to do first is not well established. This is the first study in the US to investigate the optimal sequence for BDE.

METHODS

We performed a cohort study of patients with same-day BDE (2003-2018) at our institution. The two study groups were (1) EGD followed by colonoscopy (UL) and (2) Colonoscopy followed by EGD (LU). Endpoints included procedure duration, extent reached, sedation, and diagnostic yield.

RESULTS

22,905 patients underwent BDE, with complete data available for 16,538. 14,325 underwent UL, and 2213 underwent LU. For diagnostic indications, the LU group was more likely to require opiates (OR 2.8, CI 2.5-3.3, p < 0.001), benzodiazepines (OR 3.0, CI 2.6-3.4, p < 0.001), antihistamines (OR 1.5, CI 1.2-1.8, p < 0.001), while less likely to require anesthesia (OR 0.33, CI 0.28-0.39, p < 0.001). Similar results were found for surveillance indication of endoscopy and in screening colonoscopy, with no differences in EGD screening indications. Total Procedure duration: UL had shorter total procedure duration (23.2 vs. 28.8 min; p < 0.001), EGD duration (5.4 vs. 6.5 min; p < 0.001), and colonoscopy duration (17.9 vs. 22.3 min; p < 0.001). Diagnostic yield: UL and LU sequences had comparable polyp detection rates (37.6% vs. 38.1%, p = 0.65) with similar adenoma detection rates (ADR).

CONCLUSION

Performing EGD first resulted in shorter procedure times and a reduced likelihood of requiring opioids and benzodiazepines, with no differences regarding procedure-related adverse events or diagnostic yield.

Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy

GI endoscopy is highly resource-intensive with a significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste generation. Sustainable endoscopy in the context of climate change is now the focus of mainstream discussions between endoscopy providers, units and professional societies. In addition to broader global challenges, there are some specific measures relevant to endoscopy units and their practices, which could significantly reduce environmental impact. Awareness of these issues and guidance on practical interventions to mitigate the carbon footprint of GI endoscopy are lacking. In this consensus, we discuss practical measures to reduce the impact of endoscopy on the environment applicable to endoscopy units and practitioners. Adoption of these measures will facilitate and promote new practices and the evolution of a more sustainable specialty.

Comparison of three sedation models for same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

We investigated the most beneficial propofol sedation model for same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy (BDE).

METHODS

Asymptomatic participants scheduled for same-day painless BDE examination from October 2020 to September 2021 were randomized to three groups: sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by unsedated colonoscopy (Group A); sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by sedated colonoscopy (Group B); and sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by sedated insertion colonoscopy (Group C). Patient discomfort, colonoscopy performance, doses of propofol, cardiovascular stress, anesthesia resuscitation, and sedation-related adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 3200 participants were analyzed. Baseline demographics, patient discomfort, cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate and sedation-related adverse events were similar in the three groups. Propofol dose was the lowest in Group A (137.65 ± 36.865 mg) compared with Group B (177.71 ± 40.112 mg, P < 0.05) and Group C (161.63 ± 31.789 mg, P < 0.05). Decline in vital signs was most obvious in Group B during the procedure (P < 0.05). Recovery time was the shortest in Group A (5.01 ± 1.404 min) compared with Group B (9.51 ± 2.870 min, P < 0.05) and Group C (5.83 ± 2.594 min, P < 0.05); discharge time was the shortest in Group A (3.53 ± 1.685 min) compared with Group B (11.29 ± 5.172 min, P < 0.05) and Group C (6.47 ± 2.338 min, P < 0.05). Adenomas per positive patient of Group A (2.29 ± 1.055) and Group C (2.28 ± 0.931) were more than that in Group B (2.11 ± 0.946, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by unsedated colonoscopy is the superior model for same-day painless BDE with the benefits of satisfactory patient comfort, reduced sedation dose, less cardiovascular stress, faster recovery, shorter discharge time and high colonoscopy quality.

Comparison of Procedural Sequences in Sedated Same-Day Bidirectional Endoscopy with Water-Exchange Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Previous studies have favored esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) followed by colonoscopy as the optimal sequence in bidirectional endoscopy (BDE) with air insufflation. However, the optimal sequence in same-day BDE with WE colonoscopy is unclear. Methods: A total of 200 patients undergoing BDE with propofol sedation from May 2018 to January 2021 were randomized to either the EGD-first group (n = 100) or the colonoscopy-first group (n = 100). Results: The EGD-first group required a longer cecal-intubation time (median 16.0 min vs. 13.7 min, p < 0.001) and a lower Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score (8.5 vs. 9, p = 0.030) compared with the colonoscopy-first group. However, the EGD-first group needed a significantly lower dose of propofol (200 mg vs. 250 mg, p < 0.001) and a shorter recovery time (7 min vs. 13.5 min, p < 0.001), resulting in a shorter turnover time of the endoscopy room (39.5 min vs. 42.6 min, p = 0.004). There were no differences in the sedation-related adverse events, patients’ satisfaction scores, adenoma-detection rates, or the outcomes of EGD between the two groups. Conclusions: During propofol-sedated BDE, EGD followed by WE colonoscopy was more efficient with a shorter turnover time despite a longer cecal-intubation time (NCT03638713).

Optimal sequences of same-visit bidirectional endoscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Same-visit colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) have become common. Recent studies showed conflicting results regarding the performance, safety, and efficacy of different sequences. We conducted this meta-analysis to determine the most favorable performance and discomfort between an EGD followed by colonoscopy (E-C) and colonoscopy followed by EGD (C-E).

METHODS

The authors searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Outcomes of interest were performance (including cecal intubation time, adenoma detection rate, and polyp detection rate), discomfort score (patients and endoscopists; Likert scale), and sedation uses. Pooled mean differences (MD) or odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The authors found that there was significantly lower sedative use including fentanyl (14.70; 95% Cl: 8.20-21.20) and propofol (15.58; 95% Cl: 3.27-27.89) in the E-C group compared with the C-E group. There was a significantly better discomfort score in patients and endoscopists after both procedures in the E-C group than in the C-E group with pooled MD of 0.64 points (95% Cl: 0.09-1.20) and 0.47 (95% Cl: 0.05-0.90), respectively. There were no differences in cecal intubation time, adenoma detection rate, or polyp detection rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study found that the discomfort score was better in the E-C group. However, there was no difference in polyp and adenoma detection. Therefore, the E-C group is the optimal sequence.

Comparison of procedural sequence in same-day bidirectional endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of procedural sequence in same-day bidirectional endoscopy.

METHODS

We searched OVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the procedural sequences in same-day bidirectional endoscopy, including esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. The sedative and analgesic doses required, discomfort and satisfaction scores, procedure time, recovery time, adenoma detection rate, and failed cecal intubation were evaluated. Adverse effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular complications, were also assessed.

RESULTS

We included six studies, with 1,848 patients in total. The requirement for sedative treatment was significantly lesser in the EGD-colonoscopy sequence than in the colonoscopy-EGD sequence (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.54 to -0.24; p = 0.12; I2 = 49%). Discomfort, scored by patients during the EGD procedure, was significantly lesser in the EGD-colonoscopy sequence than in the colonoscopy-EGD sequence (SMD, -0.45; 95% CI, -0.80 to -0.09; p = 0.02; I2 = 73%), while it was comparable during colonoscopy between the two sequences. Recovery time was significantly shorter in the EGD-colonoscopy sequence than in the colonoscopy-EGD sequence (SMD, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.30; p = 0.28; I2 = 21%). Total procedure duration, EGD, colonoscopy, cecal intubation time and incidence, incidences of pathologic findings, and adenoma detection were comparable between the two sequences. There was no significant difference in the incidences of desaturation, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and tachycardia between the two sequences.

CONCLUSION

When conducting same-day bidirectional endoscopy, EGD followed by colonoscopy is the most beneficial sequence to be used because patients require lower sedative doses, recover faster, and report lesser discomfort.

Feasibility of sedation on demand in Taiwan using water exchange and air insufflation: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Completion of colonoscopy without sedation eliminates sedation cost and complications. Reported in the United States and Europe, on-demand sedation is not routine practice in Taiwan. Water exchange (WE), characterized by infusion and nearly complete removal of infused water during insertion, reduces insertion pain compared to air insufflation (AI) during colonoscopy. We evaluated the feasibility of on-demand sedation in Taiwan. In a randomized controlled trial of WE vs AI colonoscopy, we also aimed to determine if WE augmented the implementation by reducing insertion pain and decreasing sedation requirement.

METHODS

This prospective patient-blinded study randomized patients to AI or WE (75 patients/group) to aid insertion. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients completing without sedation.

RESULTS

In the AI and WE groups, 76.0% and 93.3% (P = 0.006) completed without need for sedation, respectively. The WE group had lower insertion pain score (mean [SD]) (4.0 [2.9] vs 2.1 [2.6], P < 0.001), lower doses of propofol (25.7 [52.7] mg vs 9.1 [35.6] mg, P = 0.012), and less time in the recovery room (3.4 [7.4] vs 1.5 [5.5], P = 0.027) than the AI group. Patient satisfaction scores and willingness to repeat if needed in the future were similar.

CONCLUSION

On-demand sedation was feasible in Taiwan. The completion rate without sedation was high in patients (76.0% with standard AI) open to the option (no prior intent to receive the standard of full or minimal sedation). WE augmented the implementation by reducing insertion pain and decreasing sedation requirement without adversely affecting patient satisfaction or willingness to repeat.

Adverse events associated with bidirectional endoscopy with midazolam and pethidine

Same-day bidirectional endoscopy has been reported to reduce recovery time, and procedure-related cost. The safety of bidirectional endoscopy vs colonoscopy only, while using midazolam and pethidine, has never been evaluated. We reviewed 1,202 consecutive patients who underwent bidirectional endoscopy or colonoscopy only with administration of midazolam and pethidine in Toyoshima Ensdoscopy Clinic. We compared the clinical characteristics and adverse events associated with method of endoscopy (colonoscopy only vs bidirectional endoscopy). Furthermore, multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to study the role of age, sex, use of sedative, polypectomy, and bidirectional endoscopy in adverse events. In the bidirectional endoscopy group, the doses of pethidine and midazolam, and the incidence rates of hypoxia and posto-endoscopic nausea were significantly higher. On multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio = 1.061, p<0.001), use of pethidine (odds ratio = 4.311, p = 0.003), and bidirectional endoscopy (odds ratio = 3.658, p<0.001) were independently associated with hypoxia. On multivariate analysis, female sex (odds ratio = 10.25, p = 0.027) and bidirectional endoscopy (odds ratio = 6.051, p = 0.022) were independently associated with post-endoscopic nausea. In conclusion, bidirectional endoscopy could increase hypoxia in elderly patients using pethidine and post-endoscopic nausea in female patients.

Risk of Renal Injury After the Use of Polyethylene Glycol for Outpatient Colonoscopy: A Prospective Observational Study

GOAL

The goal of this study was to estimate the risk of renal injury after the use of 3-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) before outpatient colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND

Population-based studies showed that the use of PEG was associated with renal injury, but this association has not been confirmed by prospective study.

STUDY

Patients ≥40 years of age with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥30 mL/min were screened for enrollment. Laboratory data were collected before, during, and after the colonoscopies. Patients with a ≥30% increase in baseline serum creatinine levels were followed until a peak level was detected. Renal injury included acute renal dysfunction (ARD) and acute kidney injury (AKI), defined as a 30% to 49% increase and ≥50% increase in creatinine levels compared with the baseline, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 1163 patients (mean age, 55.7 y) completed the study. Baseline and first postcolonoscopy laboratory data were obtained an average of 17.0 days before and 17.3 days after the colonoscopies were performed, respectively. Renal injury was identified in 32 patients; 26 patients (2.2%) had ARD, and 6 patients (0.5%) had AKI. All patients with renal injury recovered fully during follow-up. In the subgroup analysis, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) before colonoscopy was statistically associated with the development of AKI (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-35.5; P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study showed that the use of PEG was associated with a small risk of renal injury. NSAIDs use was statistically associated with AKI in the context of colonoscopy for which PEG was used for bowel preparation.

Sequence of same-day upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy does not affect total procedure' time or medication use: A randomized trial

Background and Aim

Same‐day double upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is frequently performed due to overlapping indications. However, it is unclear whether an upper–lower (U‐L) or lower–upper (L‐U) sequence is optimal. We analyzed the effect of sequence on total procedure time and sedation use.

Methods

A total of 100 patients scheduled for same‐day double endoscopy were randomized to the U‐L or L‐U sequence arm. Primary outcomes, mean total procedure time, and sedative dosages were compared using a t‐test. We also explored associations of the primary outcomes with patient‐related and procedure‐related factors.

Results

Comparing U‐L and L‐U sequences, mean total procedure time was 41.9 (16.2) versus 43.0 (14.5) min (P = 0.73), diphenhydramine dose 5.5 (15.4) versus 4.5 (14.0) mg (P = 0.74), fentanyl dose 71.5 (119.3) versus 77.6 (164.02) μg (P = 0.83), midazolam dose 1.6 (2.5) versus 1.4 (2.7) mg (P = 0.69), and propofol dose 437.4 (351.4) versus 444.5 (256.0) mg (P = 0.91), respectively. Total procedure and upper endoscopy times were significantly longer with trainee presence (P = 0.0002) and shorter with conscious sedation (P = 0.003). Upper endoscopy time was longer with higher body mass index (P = 0.001), and lower endoscopy time was longer in patients with cirrhosis or chronic kidney disease (P = 0.002 and 0.009, respectively). Time between procedures was significantly longer in the L‐U sequence (7.4 [2.9] vs 5.3 [1.1] min, [P < 0.001]). The study had 80% power to detect an 8 min difference in total procedure time.

Conclusions

The sequence of same‐day double gastrointestinal endoscopy does not affect total procedure time or medication use. Longer total procedure and upper endoscopy times were associated with trainee presence and use of conscious sedation.

Gastroscopy Should Come Before Colonoscopy Using CO2 Insufflation in Same Day Bidirectional Endoscopies: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and Aims

Same day bidirectional endoscopies (esophagogastroduodenoscopies [EGD]s and colonoscopies) are routinely performed. However, the best sequence of procedures is unknown, as is whether the use of carbon dioxide (CO₂) affects the preferred sequence of procedures. This study aims to determine the preferred sequence of procedures and choice of insufflation gas (air or CO₂) in patients undergoing same day bidirectional endoscopies.

Methods

Two hundred adults with a clinical indication for same day bidirectional endoscopies were randomized equally into four groups: A1 (EGD first, CO₂ as insufflator); A2 (EGD first, air as insufflator); B1 (colonoscopy first, CO₂ as insufflator); and B2 (colonoscopy first, air as insufflator). All procedures were performed with conscious sedation (Midazolam/Fentanyl). The primary outcome was patients’ overall comfort/satisfaction with the procedures and sedation received, as assessed by questionnaires and validated scoring scales (Nurse-Assessed Patient Comfort Score [NAPCOMS], La Crosse [WI]) collected during the procedures, before discharge, and on day 7 postprocedure.

Results

Two hundred patients were randomized, with data available for 186. Mean Midazolam dose between groups was significantly less in the EGD first groups (P=0.01). During the procedures, no differences were found in patients’ comfort as per the nurse reported NAPCOMS scores (P=0.19) or the Lacrosse (WI) endoscopy scores (P=0.05). On postprocedure days 0 and 7, no differences were found in the patients’ reported Lacrosse (WI) scores, nausea, sore throat, dizziness, satisfaction with sedation or overall level of procedural satisfaction (P>0.05 for each). However, bloating and discomfort were significantly lower in the CO₂ arms (P<0.001).

Conclusions

This randomized controlled trial using validated patient comfort scoring assessments for same day bidirectional endoscopies demonstrated that the sequence of procedures affects the sedation used but does not affect overall patient comfort or satisfaction. Lesser sedation is needed in the EGD first group, and less postprocedural abdominal pain/discomfort and bloating is seen with CO₂ insufflation.