Practice recommendations for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy

Effects of ciprofol on respiratory-related adverse incidence in patients with obesity during painless gastroscopy: a prospective, randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Ciprofol is an intravenous anesthetic agent which in low doses produces sedation. It was developed via structural modification of propofol. Ciprofol is claimed to reduce respiratory depression. The object of the present study was to investigate whether or not ciprofol did actually reduce respiratory depression or not in patients with obesity undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 84 patients with obesity scheduled for gastroscopy were enrolled. The participants were randomly allocated to receive sedation with ciprofol (group C) or propofol (group P). The primary outcome was the incidence of respiratory-related adverse events (AEs), whereas the secondary outcomes were the incidence of further intraoperative and postoperative AEs; procedure and anesthesia success rates; Narcotrend index (NI); induction dosage; procedure time; recovery time; discharge time; and satisfaction ratings from the patients, anesthesiologists, and endoscopists.

RESULTS

The incidence of respiratory-related AEs was significantly lower in group C than in group P (17.5% vs. 57.5%; P < 0.001). The occurrence of hypotension and movement during procedural events in group C was markedly reduced compared with that in group P (P = 0.024 and 0.007, respectively). No notable differences were observed in the occurrence of additional AEs or in the success rates of the procedure and anesthesia between the two groups (P > 0.05). The three-point satisfaction levels were comparable between the groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

0.4 mg/kg of ciprofol provides anesthesia comparable with 2.0 mg/kg of propofol. However, it is related to reduced respiratory-related AEs and hypotension during gastroscopy in patients with obesity; thus, ciprofol is preferred to propofol for anesthesia in obese patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (KYLS20230625; first registration date: 29/06/2023).

Differences in colonoscopy performance among four endoscopy centers in Western Norway: Influence of case-mix

Background and study aims

Unmodifiable patient factors such as age, sex, and indication (case-mix) may influence colonoscopy performance. In this study, we explored how case-mix affected polyp detection, cecal intubation, and pain on a center level.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was performed on data from four centers in Western Norway registered in the national endoscopy quality registry, Gastronet, in 2020 and 2021. We extracted demographics, indication, and the performance measures cecal intubation rate (CIR), proportion of at least one polyp ≥ 5 mm in size per colonoscopy (PDR-5), and pain. We also analyzed the explanatory variables bowel preparation, withdrawal time, and sedation/analgesia.

Results

First colonoscopies in 14,765 patients were included. Median age was 60 years (interquartile range 46-71) and 54% were women. Case-mix differed between centers and significantly influenced performance measures. Increased PDR-5 was associated with higher age and male sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.37). The indication surveillance had the highest PDR-5 (44.9%, 95% CI 42.6-47.1) and inflammatory bowel disease the lowest (14.6%, 95% CI 12.3-16.8). CIR decreased with increasing age. Men had less pain (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.27-0.39). Among indications, surveillance and IBD had higher CIRs and less pain. Performance measures differed among centers, even after adjustment for case-mix and other known explanatory variables such as sedation/analgesia and bowel preparation.

Conclusions

Case-mix influenced performance measures. Although we showed center differences in performance, other factors, such as individual endoscopist skills, probably influence performance measures. Our study demonstrates the importance of considering case-mix when assessing colonoscopy performance.

Impact of Immersive Virtual Reality During Outpatient Sedation-Free Colonoscopy: A Randomized Prospective Controlled Study

Background and Aims

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for accurate exploration of the colon. Thus, it must be performed as efficiently as possible. The patient's tolerance considerably affects the quality of sedation free examinations. Pharmacological sedation can solve this issue; however, it can expose to significant adverse events. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of immersive virtual reality (VR) during sedation-free colonoscopy.

Methods

We conducted a prospective controlled study including outpatients presenting for unsedated colonoscopy. Patients were randomized into Group 1: colonoscopy with VR headset and Group 2: without intervention. Anxiety, comfort, and pain were respectively evaluated by State-Trait Anxiety inventory (STAI), Gloucester scale and the verbal rating scale (VRS).

Results

In total, 63 patients were included: intervention group G1 (n = 33) and control group G2 (n = 30). A slightly lower time to caecal intubation was noted in the intervention group without significant difference (G1 = 19 min vs. G2 = 26 min, p = 0.07). Patients with VR mask expressed lower levels of post-procedural anxiety than those in the control group (mean STAI G1 = 47 vs. G2 = 53, p < 0.01) and a significant decrease in the STAI score compared to pre-endoscopy values (8 vs. 4 points, p < 0.01). The per-procedural pain assessed by VRS was significantly lower in the patients using VR (Mean G1 = 0.44 vs. G2 = 1.32, p < 0.01). Moreover, endoscopic examination was found to be more comfortable with VR based on the Gloucester scale p < 0.01.

Conclusions

Immersive VR technology is a promising, noninvasive and well-accepted tool for improving tolerance by reducing colonoscopy induced pain and anxiety allowing an optimized examination.

Unsedated or On-Demand Minimally Sedated Water-Aided Outpatient Colonoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: A Step Forward or Backward? Experience from Daily Practice in a Regional (Nonacademic) Hospital

Background: By using optimal insertion techniques with water infusion and dynamic position changes, pain during colonoscopy is greatly reduced and the procedures can usually be performed without sedation. We investigated whether the excellent results with water-aided colonoscopy reported by experts are reproducible in daily practice in a regional hospital. Methods: During the year 2023, 500 consecutive outpatients 50-75 years old presenting for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance could choose between unsedated or on-demand minimally sedated colonoscopy, moderate sedation with midazolam, or deep sedation with propofol. A total of 57% opted for unsedated colonoscopy, and of those patients, 250 consecutive patients were included. The primary outcome was the feasibility of the procedure. Cecal intubation rate (CIR), pain scores, use of midazolam, and willingness to repeat future procedures in the same way were registered periprocedural. Additional outcomes were cecal intubation time (CIT), detection rate of lesions, polyp resection rate, rate of adequate bowel preparation, and volume of water aspirated during insertion. Results: 250 consecutive sedation-free or on-demand minimally sedated water-based colonoscopies were analyzed. The CIR was 98%. A total of 96.5% completed without sedation and 5% of the procedures were perceived as moderately painful, but none had severe pain. The willingness to repeat was 97%. The mean CIT was 8.2 min. Conclusions: Using water-aided insertion techniques, comfortable sedation-free, or on-demand minimally sedated colonoscopy in daily practice in a regional hospital is feasible in the vast majority of patients presenting for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance, and the willingness to repeat is very high.

Comparison of Synergistic Sedation with Midazolam and Propofol Versus Midazolam and Pethidine in Colonoscopies: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study

Colonoscopy is a key procedure for the early detection of colorectal cancer. Despite its importance, the discomfort associated with colonoscopy often requires sedation, and the ideal sedation regimen remains to be determined. In this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned to two different sedation protocols. Group A received a combination of midazolam and propofol, while group B was given midazolam and pethidine. The study analyzed data from 51 patients, with 23 in group A and 28 in group B. The incidence of adverse events was similar across both groups. Additionally, no significant differences were observed in cecal intubation times or total procedure durations. Notably, group A had a lower frequency of required postural changes (1.0±.7 vs. 1.5±0.7, p=0.02) and a reduced rate of manual compression (52.2% vs. 82.1%, p=0.02). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding subjective pain or overall satisfaction. Both sedation regimens were found to be safe and effective. The midazolam and propofol combination was associated with a smoother procedure, evidenced by fewer postural adjustments and less manual compression needed during colonoscopy.

Unsedated colonoscopy utilizing virtual reality distraction: a pilot-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Sedation increases colonoscopy risks and prolongs recovery time. We examined whether virtual reality (VR) can substitute for sedation. The primary outcome was the overall satisfaction of patients who underwent colonoscopy with VR headset compared with patients who underwent standard sedation. Pain during the procedure, polyp detection rate (PDR), colonoscopy duration, post-colonoscopy adverse events, post-colonoscopy recovery, time-to-return to daily functions, and turnaround time at the endoscopy unit were secondary outcomes.

METHODS

The study was approved by Sheba Medical Center's ethics committee IRB number 21-8177-SMC. Sixty patients were sequentially enrolled in a 1:1 ratio to either standard sedated colonoscopy or VR-unsedated procedure, and all patients signed a written informed consent. 28/30 patients successfully completed the colonoscopy using VR headset. Overall satisfaction score was comparable between the groups.

RESULTS

There was no difference between VR and controls in colonoscopy duration, or PDR. VR patients had numerically lower rate of post-colonoscopy adverse events than controls. The proportion of VR patients who reported resuming daily activities on the day of the procedure was significantly higher than in the control group. The VR group patients spent significantly less time in the hospital compared to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

VR technology can provide adequate substitution for sedation for most patients undergoing colonoscopy and offers comparable patient satisfaction and faster return to daily activities.

Brazilian Consensus on the Application of Thermal Ablation for Treatment of Thyroid Nodules: A Task Force Statement by the Brazilian Society of Interventional Radiology and Endovascular Surgery (SOBRICE), Brazilian Society of Head and Neck Surgery (SBCCP), and Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM)

There is increasing interest in ultrasound-guided ablation treatments for thyroid diseases, including benign and malignant ones. Surgeons, radiologists, and endocrinologists carry out these treatments, and various organizations within these specialties have recently released multiple international consensus statements and clinical practice standards. The aim of the present consensus statement is to provide guidance, cohesion, and standardization of best practices for thermal ablation procedures of thyroid nodules. The statement includes the indications for these procedures, preprocedural evaluations, technical aspects of the procedures, posttreatment care, follow-up, complications, and training recommendations. This document was written by a panel of specialists from the Brazilian Society of Interventional Radiology and Endovascular Surgery (SOBRICE), the Brazilian Society of Head and Neck Surgery (SBCCP), and the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM). The statement does not aim to provide criteria for assessing the capability of specialists to perform the procedure. Instead, it aims to promote the standardization of best practices to reduce potential adverse outcomes. Additionally, it strives to enhance the delivery of high-quality care and the widespread adoption of these technologies on a national level. The recommendations collectively serve as a guidebook for applying best practices in thyroid ablation.

[Ultrasound-guided ablation techniques for thyroid lesions]

Ultrasound-guided ablation techniques have been increasingly introduced into routine treatment of thyroid lesions as a complement to existing surgical therapies and radioiodine treatment. In cystic or predominantly cystic lesions instillation therapy (ethanol/polidocanol ablation) has yielded good results. Novel thermal ablation techniques, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), laser ablation (LA) and high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), induce irreversible cellular effects by locally applying temperatures ≥ 60 °C to the targeted thyroid region. Lesions causing local symptoms or focal hyperfunctionality can thus be selectively treated under continuous sonographic monitoring. While a considerable body of evidence supports the efficacy and safety of various local ablative techniques, future challenges lie in initiating comparative prospective trials and in standardizing clinical practice, training and continuous quality assessment on a regional and superregional level. In the future, it shall be indicated to include local ablative techniques - so far not known to all patients in Germany - into the informed decision-making process as a suitable alternative or supplement to existing therapies.

Patient Safety during Propofol Sedation before and after Implementation of Capnography Monitoring

Endoscopic procedures are routinely applied to cancer screening programs and surveillance. The preferred technique is usually deep sedation with propofol being a convenient agent allowing for a quicker patient recovery while maintaining a similar safety profile compared to traditional agents. However, adverse events, including respiratory depression and consequent undesirable cardiovascular side effects, may occur. The goal of this work is to evaluate the patient safety impact of adding capnography during endoscopic procedures under deep propofol sedation. Data were retrospectively collected from patients undergoing deep, procedural sedation for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in October 2019 to January 2021 in a single Turkish university hospital. Included in the analysis were all adult patients classified by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) as I-IV, who were scheduled for GI endoscopy utilizing propofol alone or in combination. Data on 1840 patients were collected, of whom 1610 (730 pre- and 880 post-capnography implemention) met inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was a change in the composite incidence of mild oxygen desaturation (SpO2 75-90% for <60 s), severe oxygen desaturation (SpO2 < 75% anytime or <90% for >60 s), bradycardia (<60 ppm), and tachycardia (>25% from baseline). Without capnography, on average, 7.5 events of the primary endpoint were observed per 100 procedures and 2.9 with additional capnography monitoring (p < 0.001). A significant reduction was observed for mild oxygen desaturation, with a resulting odds ratio of 0.25 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.46). ASA I patients had the highest difference in combined incidence of any oxygen desaturation of 5.85% in the pre-capnography group and 0.64% in the post-capnography group. Although procedural sedation using propofol is not associated with severe adverse events, the incidence of composite adverse events could be reduced with the addition of capnography monitoring.

Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy may be effective at mitigating negative experiences and perceptions of the procedure, but research to characterise the extent and features of studies of these interventions is limited.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review searching multiple databases for peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials conducted in adults investigating a non-pharmacological intervention to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy. Study characteristics were tabulated and summarised narratively and graphically.

RESULTS

We screened 5939 citations and 962 full texts, and included 245 publications from 39 countries published between 1992 and 2022. Of these, 80.8% were full publications and 19.2% were abstracts. Of the 41.9% of studies reporting funding sources, 11.4% were unfunded. The most common interventions were carbon dioxide and/or water insufflation methods (33.9%), complementary and alternative medicines (eg, acupuncture) (20.0%), and colonoscope technology (eg, magnetic scope guide) (21.6%). Pain was as an outcome across 82.0% of studies. Studies most often used a patient-reported outcome examining patient experience during the procedure (60.0%), but 42.9% of studies included an outcome without specifying the time that the patient experienced the outcome. Most intraprocedural patient-reported outcomes were measured retrospectively rather than contemporaneously, although studies varied in terms of when outcomes were assessed.

CONCLUSION

Research on non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy is unevenly distributed across types of intervention and features high variation in study design and reporting, in particular around outcomes. Future research efforts into non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy should be directed at underinvestigated interventions and developing consensus-based guidelines for study design, with particular attention to how and when outcomes are experienced and measured.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

42020173906.

Comparison of adenoma detection in different colorectal segments between deep-sedated and unsedated colonoscopy

To investigate if deep-sedated colonoscopy affects adenoma detection in certain colorectal segment. Review of colonoscopy reports, electronic images and medical records of individuals underwent screening colonoscopy with or without propofol sedation between October 2020 and March 2021 from seven hospitals in China. A total of 4500 individuals were analyzed. There was no significant difference in ADR between deep-sedated colonoscopy and unsedated colonoscopy [45.4% vs. 46.3%, P > 0.05]. The APP of deep-sedated colonoscopy was lower than unsedated colonoscopy (1.76 ± 0.81 vs. 2.00 ± 1.30, P < 0.05). Both average number of adenomas and luminal distention score of splenic flexure and descending colon were lower in deep-sedated colonoscopy (P < 0.05), and average number of adenomas was positively correlated with an improved distension score in splenic flexure and descending colon (splenic flexure r = 0.031, P < 0.05; descending colon r = 0.312, P < 0.05). Linear regression model showed deep-sedated colonoscopy significantly affected luminal distention of splenic flexure and descending colon as well as average number of adenomas detected in splenic flexure (P < 0.05). Deep-sedated colonoscopy decreased adenoma detection in splenic flexure and the luminal distention of splenic flexure and descending colon compared with unsedated colonoscopy.

Measuring optimal ultrasound speed using endoscopic ultrasound in patients with chronic pancreatitis, including early stage

OBJECTIVES

Ultrasound speed (USS) correction improves image quality by estimating the optimal USS correcting the deviation from a predetermined USS. This study assessed USS differences between chronic pancreatitis (CP), early CP (ECP), and normal pancreas when using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). The usefulness of measuring optimal USS was evaluated for patients with CP, including early stage patients.

METHODS

This study enrolled 116 consecutive patients for whom USS was measured using an EUS system. The USS correction principle is generation of a B-mode image by changing the USS in all ranges while correcting the delay in the received data. Final diagnoses were made according to the Japanese diagnostic criteria for CP in 2019. They were classified as CP, ECP, or normal. We compared USS applied for these three groups.

RESULTS

The medians and ranges of USS values for patients in the normal, ECP, and CP groups were 1506.0 (1407-1600) m/s, 1580.0 (1520-1630) m/s, and 1574.0 (1537-1610) m/s, respectively. The USS values of the ECP and CP groups were significantly higher than those of the normal group (P < 0.001). Analyses of the receiver operating characteristic curve in the normal pancreas, ECP, and CP revealed the area as 0.957, with specificity and sensitivity of 95.9% and 87.5%, respectively, using the USS of 1535 m/s as a cut-off.

CONCLUSION

Measurement of USS might be particularly useful for distinguishing between normal and ECP imaging.

Colonoscopy: an evidence-based approach

Colonoscopy is an invasive, endoscopic procedure undertaken to visualise the inner lumen of the colon and is used for a variety of diagnostic purposes. The procedure is increasingly performed by nurse endoscopists. This article provides an overview of the indications and contraindications for colonoscopy and describes various elements of the procedure, including consent, sedation and bowel preparation within the context of the evidence base. The article also discusses patient care before, during and after the procedure.

Academy of Medicine, Singapore clinical guideline on the use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting

INTRODUCTION

In Singapore, non-anaesthesiologists generally administer sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The drugs used for sedation in hospital endoscopy centres now include propofol in addition to benzodiazepines and opiates. The requirements for peri-procedural monitoring and discharge protocols have also evolved. There is a need to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline on the safe and effective use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting.

METHODS

The Academy of Medicine, Singapore appointed an expert workgroup comprising 18 gastroenterologists, general surgeons and anaesthesiologists to develop guidelines on the use of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The workgroup formulated clinical questions related to different aspects of endoscopic sedation, conducted a relevant literature search, adopted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and developed recommendations by consensus using a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

The workgroup made 16 recommendations encompassing 7 areas: (1) purpose of sedation, benefits and disadvantages of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (2) pre-procedural assessment, preparation and consent taking for sedation; (3) Efficacy and safety of drugs used in sedation; (4) the role of anaesthesiologist administered sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (5) performance of sedation; (6) post-sedation care and discharge after sedation; and (7) training in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy for non-anaesthesiologists.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations serve to guide clinical practice during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-anaesthesiologists in the hospital setting.

Radiofrequency ablation and related ultrasound-guided ablation technologies for treatment of benign and malignant thyroid disease: An international multidisciplinary consensus statement of the American Head and Neck Society Endocrine Surgery Section with the Asia Pacific Society of Thyroid Surgery, Associazione Medici Endocrinologi, British Association of Endocrine and Thyroid Surgeons, European Thyroid Association, Italian Society of Endocrine Surgery Units, Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology, Latin American Thyroid Society, and Thyroid Nodules Therapies Association

BACKGROUND

The use of ultrasound-guided ablation procedures to treat both benign and malignant thyroid conditions is gaining increasing interest. This document has been developed as an international interdisciplinary evidence-based statement with a primary focus on radiofrequency ablation and is intended to serve as a manual for best practice application of ablation technologies.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to guide statement development and generation of best practice recommendations. Modified Delphi method was applied to assess whether statements met consensus among the entire author panel.

RESULTS

A review of the current state of ultrasound-guided ablation procedures for the treatment of benign and malignant thyroid conditions is presented. Eighteen best practice recommendations in topic areas of preprocedural evaluation, technique, postprocedural management, efficacy, potential complications, and implementation are provided.

CONCLUSIONS

As ultrasound-guided ablation procedures are increasingly utilized in benign and malignant thyroid disease, evidence-based and thoughtful application of best practices is warranted.

Women require routine opioids to prevent painful colonoscopies: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Women are at high risk for painful colonoscopy. Pain, but also sedation, are barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In a randomised controlled trial, we compared on-demand with pre-colonoscopy opioid administration to control pain in women at CRC screening age.

METHODS

Women, aged 55-79 years, attending colonoscopy at two Norwegian endoscopy units were randomised 1:1:1 to (1) fentanyl on-demand, (2) fentanyl prior to colonoscopy, or (3) alfentanil on-demand. The primary endpoint was procedural pain reported by the patients on a validated four-point Likert scale and further dichotomized for the study into painful (moderate or severe pain) and non-painful (slight or no pain) colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints were: willingness to repeat colonoscopy, adverse events, cecal intubation time and rate, and post-procedure recovery time.

RESULTS

Between June 2017 and May 2020, 183 patients were included in intention-to-treat analyses in the fentanyl on-demand group, 177 in the fentanyl prior to colonoscopy group, and 179 in the alfentanil on-demand group. Fewer women receiving fentanyl prior to colonoscopy reported a painful colonoscopy compared to those who were given fentanyl on-demand (25.2% vs. 44.1%, p < .001). There was no difference in the proportion of painful colonoscopies between fentanyl on-demand and alfentanil on-demand (44.1% vs. 39.5%, p = .40). No differences were observed for adverse events or any of the other secondary endpoints between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Fentanyl prior to colonoscopy provided better pain control than fentanyl or alfentanil on-demand. Fentanyl before colonoscopy should be recommended to all women at screening age. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550). Norwegian Medicines Agency (16/16266-13). EU Clinical Trials Register (EUDRACTNR. 2016-005090-13).

Anesthetic strategy for obese patients during gastroscopy: deep sedation or conscious sedation? A prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to compare the incidence of SpO₂ values < 95% and < 90% of the obese patients between conscious sedation and deep sedation and whether conscious sedation was superior to the deep sedation for obese patients during diagnostic gastroscopy.

METHODS

Obese patients undergoing diagnostic gastroscopy were randomly assigned to two different intervention groups: group CS (conscious sedation) or group DS (deep sedation). Group CS patients were managed by conscious sedation [Modified Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) at 4-5] protocol, and group DS patients were managed by deep sedation (MOAA/S at ≤ 2) protocol. Propofol and sufentanil (0.1 and 0.05 mg/kg) were, respectively, infused for sedation and analgesia in CS and DS protocols. The primary endpoints were to compare the incidence of SpO₂ values < 95% and < 90% of the patients between the two groups. The incidence of successful sedation, satisfaction scores of patients and endoscopist were assessed as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

115 obese patients (59 in group CS and 56 in group DS) were enrolled in this study. The incidences of SpO₂ < 95% and < 90% in group CS (42.4% and 6.8%) were significantly lower than those in group DS (69.6% and 19.6%, with P = 0.003 and 0.041, respectively). The incidence of successful sedation was similar between groups (86.4% vs 89.3%, P = 0.641). Patient satisfaction scores and endoscopist satisfaction scores were both similar between groups (P = 0.548 and 0.171).

CONCLUSION

Conscious sedation with propofol and sufentanil (0.1 mg/kg) reduced the incidence of hypoxic events without affecting gastroscopy procedure and satisfaction compared with the deep sedation for obese patients during diagnostic gastroscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR-1900024894; registration date, July 31, 2019. http://www.chictr.org.cn .

Non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The patient experience is a critical dimension of colonoscopy quality. Sedative and analgesic drugs are commonly used to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy, with predominant regimens being deep sedation, typically achieved with propofol, and moderate sedation, typically achieved with an opioid and a benzodiazepine. However, non-pharmacological interventions exist that may be used to improve patient experience. Furthermore, by identifying non-pharmacological interventions to increase the quality of patient experience under moderate sedation, jurisdictions facing rising use of deep sedation for colonoscopy and its significant associated costs may be better able to encourage patients and clinicians to adopt moderate sedation. Advancing either of these aims requires synthesising the evidence and raising awareness around these non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review will be conducted that searches multiple electronic databases from inception until 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating what, if any, non-pharmacological interventions are effective compared with placebo or usual care for improving the patient experience of routine colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation. Two reviewers will independently perform a three-stage screening process and extract all study data using piloted forms. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2.0. Where multiple studies evaluate a single intervention, evidence will be quantitatively synthesised using pairwise meta-analysis, otherwise narrative syntheses will be undertaken.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This is a review of existing literature not requiring ethics approval. The review findings will be included in future efforts to develop an implementation strategy to reduce the use of deep sedation for routine colonoscopy. They will also be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and contribute to a doctoral thesis.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020173906.