Acute sedation-associated complications in GI endoscopy (ProSed 2 Study): results from the prospective multicentre electronic registry of sedation-associated complications

Poor risk-benefit ratio of gastrointestinal endoscopy for screening prior to heart or lung transplantation

BACKGROUND

Routine pre-transplant evaluations for heart or lung recipients often include upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopies. However, given that these patients frequently have significant and multiple comorbidities, the risk-benefit ratio of endoscopy with sedation remains uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and/or colonoscopy as part of the pre-transplant evaluation for heart (HTX) or lung transplantation (LuTX) at our center over a 10-year period. All procedures were performed with either anesthesiologist-assisted sedation or general anesthesia (72%) or physician-assisted sedation (28%). The primary outcomes included the prevalence of pre/neoplastic lesions and the rate of adverse events, classified according to the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 315 patients (70% male, median age 55 years) were included, with ASA grades 3 (31%) and 4 (69%). Of these, 90% underwent both EGD and colonoscopy. While no neoplasia or findings relevant to transplantation were detected on EGD, a single rectal malignant pedunculated polyp was identified and curatively removed via colonoscopy (G2 pT1 L0 V0 R0). The adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy was 25%, including a 7% rate of advanced adenomas, with six additional lesions (< 10 mm) exhibiting high-grade dysplasia. Conversely, severe adverse events occurred in 2.5% of cases, involving both cardiovascular and colonoscopy-related complications. These included two cases of severe hypotension and bradyarrhythmia requiring cardiovascular resuscitation, with one resulting in death (0.3% mortality). Additionally, one splenic rupture, two colonic perforations, and two cases of severe post-polypectomy bleeding were observed.

CONCLUSION

The routine requirement for upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy as a screening measure before heart or lung transplantation should be reconsidered due to its unfavorable risk-benefit profile. An individualized approach should be taken.

HFNC Oxygen Therapy vs COT in Prolonged Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Inside the ICU: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Study

Aims and background

Hypoxemia is a common and serious complication occurring during deep sedation for prolonged upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). We evaluated and compared the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy vs conventional nasal cannula oxygen therapy (COT) in preventing hypoxemia in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and who underwent prolonged (>15 minutes) UGE under deep sedation.

Materials and methods

Seventy patients aged 20-60 years with American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) I, II, or III who were admitted to the ICU and were scheduled for an anticipated prolonged UGE were included. They were randomly assigned to be administered either oxygen through a standard nasal cannula (COT group) or oxygen through an HFNC (HFNC group). The primary outcome was any occurrence of at least moderate hypoxemic episodes [oxygen saturation (SpO2) < 90%] of any duration.

Results

Regarding the occurrence of hypoxemic episodes, 18 patients (51.4%) in the COT group experienced hypoxemia with 11 (31.4%) experiencing mild hypoxemia, six (17.1%) experiencing moderate hypoxemia, and only one patient (2.9%) experienced severe hypoxemia, with a total of seven patients (20.0%) whose SpO2 was <90%. Conversely, only two patients (5.7%) in the HFNC group had mild hypoxemia, and no patients had SpO2 < 90%. Additionally, nine patients in the COT group experienced clinically significant hypoxemia, whereas no patients in the HFNC group (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy was safe, well tolerated, and significantly decreased the incidence of hypoxemic episodes, compared to COT, among high-risk ICU patients who underwent prolonged UGE under propofol deep sedation.(Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID: NCT06350864).

How to cite this article

Mohamed AM, Selima WZ. HFNC Oxygen Therapy vs COT in Prolonged Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Inside the ICU: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(3):223-229.

Single-agent versus combination regimens containing propofol: a retrospective cohort study of recovery metrics and complication rates in a hospital-based endoscopy suite

BACKGROUND

Anesthesiologists are often tasked with overseeing sedation in non-surgical settings. We aim to determine whether adding adjuvant sedatives to propofol affects the recovery times and complication rates after endoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults (≥18) who received propofol while undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and/or colonoscopy (COL) at a large academic institution over a four-year period. Patients receiving propofol alone were compared against patients receiving propofol in combination with midazolam, fentanyl, ketamine, or dexmedetomidine. The primary outcome was PACU length of stay, adjusted for age, sex, and ASA Score. Secondary outcomes included incidence of PACU postoperative nausea and vomiting, hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90%), bradycardia (HR < 60 bpm), and escalation of care (hospital admission), reported in adjusted odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Across the study period, 28,532 cases were included. Colonoscopies performed under propofol+fentanyl sedation were associated with significantly longer PACU LOS compared to propofol alone. Adjusted mean PACU LOS was significantly longer in patients receiving adjuvant fentanyl, compared to propofol alone (p < 0.01) and propofol + dexmedetomidine (p < 0.01). Patients receiving propofol alone exhibited a 9.4% incidence of bradycardia, 16.0% hypoxia, 0.89% PONV, and 0.40% hospitalization. Adjuvant fentanyl use was associated with higher odds of hypoxia across all procedure types (p < 0.05). Adjuvant dexmedetomidine was associated with higher rates of bradycardia, but lower rates of hypoxia, PONV, and hospitalization (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of fentanyl, combining propofol with other sedatives was not associated with longer recovery times. The incidence of complications differed significantly with the use of adjuvant fentanyl or dexmedetomidine.

[The updated S3 guidelines: sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy : Innovations and relevant aspects for the routine]

In 2023 the third revision of the S3 guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy was presented. As with the two previous versions of the guidelines, the relevant and current literature was reviewed and evaluated by a group of experts from various specialist societies under the guidance of the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS). In addition to confirming some of the older recommendations, a number of recommendations were revised or newly added. A brief overview of the current version of the S3 guidelines is provided with a focus on relevant changes.

Outcomes of anesthesia-supported versus endoscopist-driven sedation modalities: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of anesthesia has become commonplace in many procedural settings. The goal of this study is to compare sedation modalities used by endoscopists and anesthesiologists in the endoscopy suite, particularly with respect to recovery time and adverse events.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study including adults (≥18 years of age) undergoing outpatient EGD and/or colonoscopy at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida between October 1st, 2018 and December 31st, 2022. Cases were classified as using propofol only, propofol ± adjuvants (PA; including dexmedetomidine, ketamine, fentanyl, and midazolam), general anesthesia (GA) with endotracheal tube, or fentanyl/midazolam (FM) only. The primary outcome was length of stay (LOS) in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), hypoxemia (Spo2 risk 90%), bradycardia (heart rate <60 bpm), and escalation of care (hospital admission).

RESULTS

The analysis included 56,361 cases. Among patients who received FM sedation, the mean PACU LOS was 52.01, 49.68, and 53.24 minutes for EGD, colonoscopy, and combined procedures, respectively. This was significantly higher than the mean PACU LOS for GA (44.65, 41.41, and 41.92 minutes, respectively), for PA (32.35, 35.75, and 33.42 minutes, respectively), and for propofol (31.63, 32.61, and 33.29 minutes, respectively; P < .0001). Of patients receiving FM, 8.39% experienced bradycardia, 6.12% experienced hypoxia, 0.24% experienced PONV, and 0.05% were hospitalized. These were substantially lower than the rates for other sedation groups, and odds ratios were significantly lower than 1.00 (P < .05) in 30 of 36 comparisons across procedural, sedative, and outcome categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation achieved with FM correlated with a lower rate of adverse events but a significantly longer PACU LOS compared with propofol, PA, or GA.

Sedated and unsedated gastroscopy has no influence on the outcomes of patients with gastric cancer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Different anesthetic drugs and techniques may affect survival outcomes for gastric cancer (GC) after surgery. In this study, we investigated the association between sedated and unsedated gastroscopy on survival outcomes in patients with GC after surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients who were diagnosed with GC by gastroscopy and underwent gastrectomy from January 2013 to December 2017. They were grouped based on the examination modality: propofol-based sedated gastroscopy or unsedated gastroscopy. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline variables. Survival outcomes and distant metastases were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

Finally, 673 patients were enrolled, 160 in the sedated gastroscopy group and 513 in the unsedated gastroscopy group. After PSM, there were 160 patients in each group. There was no significant difference in overall survival outcomes in the sedated gastroscopy group compared to the unsedated gastroscopy group before PSM (HR = 0.761, 95% CI: 0.531-1.091, P = 0.139) or after PSM (HR = 0.874, 95% CI: 0.564-1.355, P = 0.547). There was no significant difference in the incidence of distant metastases between the two groups before PSM (16.9% vs. 20.7%, P = 0.294) or after PSM (16.9% vs. 23.8%, P = 0.126). To confirm that our patients behaved similarly to other studies, we performed a multivariate analysis and the results showed that sex, pathological TNM stage, Borrmann type, adjuvant treatment, and surgical resection range were all independent factors affecting survival outcomes in our patients.

CONCLUSION

Our results showed no significant difference in the effects of sedated gastroscopy vs. unsedated gastroscopy on survival outcomes or distant metastases of patients after gastrectomy for GC.

Deep sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients. Subgroup analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is increasingly performed under sedation in older patients. Aging has implications in increasing the morbidity and the risk of complications related to sedation. The aim of this study is to assess the difference in complications between patients aged 65 to 74 years and those aged over 75 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective study was designed. Patients older than 65 years under deep sedation were included. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess complications in the propofol-sedated gastroscopy and propofol- and fentanyl-sedated colonoscopy groups.

RESULTS

1,225 sedations were performed and 97.3 % of endoscopic procedures were completed. Desaturation occurred in 121 patients (9.9 %) with no significant differences between the two groups, 71 patients in the 65-74 age group and 50 in the ≥75 age group (9.2 % vs 10.9 %; p = 0.336). Major complications requiring intervention occurred in 68 patients (5.6 %), 46 in the 65-74 age group and 22 in the ≥75 age group (6.0 % vs 4.8 %; p = 0.385). Age contributed to the development of complications in gastroscopy under propofol sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications of gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation in patients older than 65 years are mostly not serious. Deep sedation in patients aged 75 years and older is not associated with more complications than in patients aged 65 to 74 years.

Emerging strategies in outpatient endoscopy sedation management: Recent trends and developments

In this article we comment on the article by Walayat et al. Outpatient endoscopy has become vital in modern healthcare, providing efficient diagnostic and therapeutic interventions with minimal patient disruption. This study highlighted the key developments in sedation management, focusing on risk stratification and procedural settings to enhance safety. The findings demonstrate that a rigorous triage tool effectively reduces adverse events related to sedation and reversals. By identifying patients at higher risk, this tool helps mitigate complications during procedures. Importantly, appropriate risk stratification allows complex procedures to be performed under conscious sedation, significantly improving patient outcomes and optimizing resource allocation, particularly in constrained healthcare environments.

Efficacy and safety of supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation to minimize sedation-related hypoxemia: a meta-analysis with GRADE approach

INTRODUCTION

Hypoxemia is a common complication of sedation. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation (SJOV) in preventing hypoxemia during sedative procedures.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared SJOV with conventional oxygen therapy in sedated patients were searched in five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI], and Google Scholar) from their inception to March 2024. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who developed hypoxia (SpO2 < 90%). The secondary outcomes included subclinical respiratory depression (90% ≤ SpO2 < 95%), severe hypoxemia (SpO2 < 75%), airway interventions, adverse events, hemodynamics, propofol dosage, and procedure time. The certainty of evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Twelve trials (n = 3058) were included in the analysis. The evidence suggests that SJOV results in a large reduction in the risk of hypoxemia (risk ratio [RR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.36; low certainty) and subclinical respiratory depression (RR, 0.40; low certainty) compared with the control. SJOV likely resulted in a large reduction in the risk of severe hypoxemia (RR, 0.22; moderate certainty). In addition, it may result in a large reduction in the need for jaw lift (RR, 0.22; low certainty) and mask ventilation (RR, 0.13; low certainty). The risk of sore throat probably increases with SJOV (RR, 1.71; moderate certainty), whereas SJOV may result in little to no difference in nasal bleeding (RR, 1.75; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of SJOV on hemodynamics (very low certainty) and procedure time (very low certainty). SJOV probably resulted in little to no difference in sedative doses between the groups (moderate certainty).

CONCLUSION

According to the GRADE approach, SJOV likely results in a large reduction in the risk of severe hypoxemia but probably increases the risk of sore throat. Compared with the control, evidence suggests that SJOV results in a large reduction in the risk of hypoxemia, subclinical respiratory depression, and the need for airway manipulation, with little to no difference in nasal bleeding. The integration of SJOV into clinical practice may help minimize hypoxemic events in at-risk patients.

Bispectral index monitoring for sedation in scheduled adult colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients should be closely monitored during procedures under sedation outside the operating room, but it is unclear which type of monitoring is best. We investigated the efficacy and safety of BIS monitoring vs conventional monitoring for sedation during colonoscopy.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind clinical trial in 180 patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to 1) the BIS group or 2) a control group, in which sedation was monitored with a BIS monitor or the Ramsay Sedation Score, respectively. The primary outcome was the rate of sedation-induced adverse events in both groups. Secondary outcomes were the characteristics of patients who developed adverse events, and time during colonoscopy when these events occurred, propofol and remifentanil dosage, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Univariate analysis showed fewer cardiopulmonary complications in the BIS group (41.11% vs 57.78% in controls; p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis found a significantly higher risk of adverse events in older patients (95% CI, 1.013-1.091; p = 0.0087) and in men (95% CI, 1.129-7.668; p = 0.0272). These events were observed at the hepatic flexure. No significant differences between propofol or remifentanil dosage, use of rescue medication, and patient satisfaction were observed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that BIS monitoring during sedation in scheduled colonoscopies reduces adverse respiratory events. Although its routine use in sedation does not appear to be warranted, clinicians should take steps to identify patients with a higher risk of complications who might benefit from this type of monitoring.

Comparison of Remimazolam and Propofol in Recovery of Elderly Outpatients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized, Non-Inferiority Trial

Purpose

We designed this trial to compare the recovery time of remimazolam and propofol in elderly patients undergoing painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Patients and Methods

In this randomized, non-Inferiority trial, 360 patients aged 65 years or older, scheduled for elective outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy, were randomly assigned to the remimazolam combined with fentanyl (RF) group or the propofol combined with fentanyl (PF) group. The primary outcome was the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay time, defined as the time from the end of the examination to scoring 9 points using the Modified Post-Anesthetic Discharge Scoring System (MPADSS) criteria. Secondary outcomes included sedation-related adverse events, recall, injection pain, as well as postoperative Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) scores at 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month postoperatively.

Results

A total of 351 patients completed the study, with 174 receiving remimazolam and 177 receiving propofol. The PACU stay time in RF group was non-inferior to that in PF group [14 (11, 18) vs 13 (10, 17), mean difference 1 (95% confidence interval 0, 2), P=0.084 for noninferiority]. However, remimazolam was associated with lower rate of hypoxemia [4.7% (8/180) vs 12.4% (22/180), P=0.011], reduced use of vasoactive drugs [1 (0, 1) vs 1 (1, 2), P<0.001], less injection pain [2 (1.2%) vs 35 (21.3%), P<0.001], and lower recall [20 (11.8%) vs 36 (20.3%), P=0.034]. There were no differences in the QoR-15 scores and PSQI scores at postoperative 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month between groups.

Conclusion

This non-inferiority study revealed that in elderly outpatients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, remimazolam achieved recovery times comparable to propofol, with fewer associated complications.

Etomidate Combined with Propofol versus Remimazolam for Sedation in Elderly Patients During Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial

Purpose

Remimazolam is a novel short-acting benzodiazepine used for sedation and general anesthesia. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate in elderly patients who underwent diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Patients and Methods

A total of 120 patients aged 60-75 years were randomly allocated to one of two groups. Remifentanil 0.3μg/kg was used for analgesia. Patients were administered remimazolam besylate 7 mg (R group) or etomidate 0.1 mg/kg combined with 1% propofol 0.5 mg/kg (EP group) for induction, supplemental repeated doses were given as needed. Some time metrics, vital signs, adverse events were evaluated. Patients' Mini-cog score and recovery questionnaires were compared.

Results

Compared to the EP group, the induction time was slightly longer in the R group (1.50 VS 1.15 minutes) (P<0.05), the time spent in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) was shorter (15.17 VS 17.40 minutes) (P<0.05). Compare with EP group, SBP was lower in R group at T15 and T25 time point, but heart rate was higher in T2, T3, T5 (P< 0.05). The Mini-Cog score was higher after the procedure (2.83 VS 2.58) (P<0.05). The incidence of respiratory adverse events was higher in the EP group than R group (18.3% VS 5.0%, P < 0.05). The most common adverse event in R group was hiccups. The sedation satisfaction rate and degree of amnesia were higher in the R group (66.7% VS 11.7%) (P < 0.05), and the effect on patient's life within 24 hours was lower (12.0% VS 30.5%) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The safety and efficacy of remimazolam besylate are not inferior to those of etomidate combined with propofol, rendering it a safe option for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy in ASA I-II elderly patients, but care should be taken to monitor the occurrence of hiccups.

Thoracic impedance pneumography in propofol-sedated patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A prospective, randomized trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of an ECG-based method called thoracic impedance pneumography to reduce hypoxic events in endoscopy.

DESIGN

This was a single center, 1:1 randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

The trial was conducted during the placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).

PATIENTS

173 patients who underwent PEG placement were enrolled in the present trial. Indication was oncological in most patients (89%). 58% of patients were ASA class II and 42% of patients ASA class III.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized in the standard monitoring group (SM) with pulse oximetry and automatic blood pressure measurement or in the intervention group with additional thoracic impedance pneumography (TIM). Sedation was performed with propofol by gastroenterologists or trained nurses.

MEASUREMENTS

Hypoxic episodes defined as SpO2 < 90% for >15 s were the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were minimal SpO2, apnea >10s/>30s and incurred costs.

MAIN RESULTS

Additional use of thoracic impedance pneumography reduced hypoxic episodes (TIM: 31% vs SM: 49%; p = 0.016; OR 0.47; NNT 5.6) and elevated minimal SpO2 per procedure (TIM: 90.0% ± 8.9; SM: 84.0% ± 17.6; p = 0.007) significantly. Apnea events >10s and > 30s were significantly more often detected in TIM (43%; 7%) compared to SM (1%; 0%; p < 0.001; p = 0.014) resulting in a time advantage of 17 s before the occurrence of hypoxic events. As a result, adjustments of oxygen flow were significantly more often necessary in SM than in TIM (p = 0.034) and assisted ventilation was less often needed in TIM (2%) compared with SM (9%; p = 0.053). Calculated costs for the additional use of thoracic impedance pneumography were 0.13$ (0.12 €/0.11 £) per procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional thoracic impedance pneumography reduced the quantity and extent of hypoxic events with less need of assisted ventilation. Supplemental costs per procedure were negligible.

KEY WORDS

thoracic impedance pneumography, capnography, sedation, monitoring, gastrointestinal endoscopy, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Safety and tolerability outcomes of nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol using target-controlled infusion in routine GI endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) is increasingly accepted, but data are limited on drug administration using target-controlled infusion (TCI) in clinical practice. TCI adjusts the drug infusion based on patient-specific parameters, maintaining a constant drug dose to reduce the risk of adverse events (AEs) because of drug overdosing and to enhance patient comfort. The aims of this study were to assess the rate of AEs and to evaluate patient satisfaction with NAAP using TCI in a retrospective cohort of 18,302 procedures.

METHODS

Low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists score I and II) undergoing outpatient GI endoscopic procedures, including EGDs and colonoscopies, were sequentially enrolled at IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) between May 2019 and November 2021.

RESULTS

Data from 7162 EGDs and 11,140 colonoscopies were analyzed. Mean patient age was 59.1 ± 14.8 years, and mean body mass index was 24.9 ± 3.7 kg/m2. The male-to-female ratio was equal at 8798 (48.1%):9486 (51.9%). AEs occurred in 240 procedures (1.3%) out of the total cohort, with no differences between EGDs and colonoscopies (100 [1.4%] and 140 [1.2%], respectively; P = .418). Most patients (15,875 [98.9%]) indicated they would likely repeat the procedure with the same sedation protocol. Age (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.03; P < .008) was the only independent factor associated with overall AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

NAAP using TCI is an effective and safe sedation method for routine endoscopy. The proper propofol dosage based on individual patients and the presence of trained operators are crucial for NAAP sedation management.

Efficacy and safety of three-dimensional magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal and small bowel examination

BACKGROUND

Magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy (MACE) showed the feasibility for upper gastrointestinal examination. To further enhance the performance of conventional MACE, it is necessary to provide quality-improved and three-dimensional images. The aim of this clinical study was to determine the efficacy and safety of novel three-dimensional MACE (3D MACE) for upper gastrointestinal and small bowel examination at once.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-center, non-randomized, and sequential examination study (KCT0007114) at Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital. Adult patients who visited for upper endoscopy were included. The study protocol was conducted in two stages. First, upper gastrointestinal examination was performed using 3D MACE, and a continuous small bowel examination was performed by conventional method of capsule endoscopy. Two hours later, an upper endoscopy was performed for comparison with 3D MACE examination. The primary outcome was confirmation of major gastric structures (esophagogastric junction, cardia/fundus, body, angle, antrum, and pylorus). Secondary outcomes were confirmation of esophagus and duodenal bulb, accuracy for gastric lesions, completion of small bowel examination, 3D image reconstruction of gastric lesion, and safety.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were finally enrolled. The examination time of 3D MACE was 14.84 ± 3.02 minutes and upper endoscopy was 5.22 ± 2.39 minutes. The confirmation rate of the six major gastric structures was 98.6% in 3D MACE and 100% in upper endoscopy. Gastric lesions were identified in 43 patients during 3D MACE, and 40 patients during upper endoscopy (Sensitivity 0.97). 3D reconstructed images were acquired for all lesions inspected by 3D MACE. The continuous small bowel examination by 3D MACE was completed in 94.5%. 3D MACE showed better overall satisfaction (3D MACE 9.55 ± 0.79 and upper endoscopy 7.75 ± 2.34, p<0.0001). There were no aspiration or significant adverse event or capsule retention in the 3D MACE examination.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel 3D MACE system is more advanced diagnostic modality than the conventional MACE. And it is possible to perform serial upper gastrointestinal and small bowel examination as a non-invasive and one-step test. It would be also served as a bridge to pan-endoscopy.

Association between time from esophageal food impaction to endoscopy and adverse events

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Guidelines recommend emergent or urgent EGD for esophageal food impaction (EFI), but data on how time to EGD impacts the risk of adverse events remain limited. We determined whether EFI-to-EGD time was associated with adverse events.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study of patients with endoscopically confirmed EFI, adverse events were classified as esophageal (mucosal tear, bleeding, perforation) or extraesophageal (aspiration, respiratory compromise, hypotension, arrhythmia). Esophageal perforation and extraesophageal adverse events requiring intensive care unit admission were classified as serious adverse events. Baseline characteristics, event details, and procedural details were compared between patients with and without adverse events. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess for an association between EFI-to-EGD time and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 188 patients with EFI, 22 (12%) had any adverse event and 2 (1%) had a serious adverse event. Patients with adverse events were older and more likely to have an esophageal motility disorder, to tolerate secretions at presentation, and to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score. EFI-to-EGD time was similar in those with and without adverse events. On multivariable analysis, EFI-to-EGD time was not associated with adverse events (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% confidence interval, .97-1.04] for 1-hour increments; odds ratio, 1.03 [95% confidence interval, .86-1.24] for 6-hour increments). Results were similar after stratifying by eosinophilic esophagitis status and after adjusting for possible confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Because the time from EFI to EGD is not associated with adverse events, emergent EGD for EFI may be unnecessary, and other considerations may determine EGD timing.

Effect of moderate versus deep sedation on recovery following outpatient gastroscopy in older patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation is increasingly performed in older patients, the optimal level of sedation remains open to debate. In this study, our objective was to compare the effects of moderate sedation (MS) and deep sedation (DS) on recovery following outpatient gastroscopy in elderly patients.

METHODS

In this randomized, partially blinded, controlled trial, we randomly divided 270 patients older than 60 years who were scheduled for elective outpatient gastroscopy into the MS or DS group based on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale. The primary outcome was the duration of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Secondary outcomes included the duration of the total hospital stay, frequency of retching, bucking, and body movements during the examination, endoscopist and patient satisfaction, and sedation-associated adverse events during the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 264 patients completed the study, of whom 131 received MS and 133 received DS. MS was associated with a shorter PACU stay [16.15 ± 9.01 min vs. 20.02 ± 11.13 min, P < 0.01] and total hospital stay [27.32 ± 9.86 min vs. 30.82 ± 12.37 min, P < 0.05], lesser hypoxemia [2.3% (3/131) vs. 12.8% (17/133), P < 0.01], use of fewer vasoactive drugs (P < 0.001), and more retching (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the incidence of bucking and body movements or endoscopist and patient satisfaction between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared to deep sedation, moderate sedation may be a preferable choice for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade I-III elderly patients undergoing outpatient gastroscopies, as demonstrated by shorter PACU stays and total hospital stays, lower sedation-associated adverse events, and similar levels of endoscopist and patient satisfaction.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Safety of endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk collective

INTRODUCTION

 Worldwide, gastrointestinal endoscopies are predominantly performed under sedation. National and international guidelines and recommendations contain very different specifications for the use of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. These differences come from specific requirements for staffing during endoscopy.

AIM

 The aim of the study is to evaluate whether endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance is not inferior to endoscopist-guided sedation with additional sedation assistance with respect to the rate of sedation-associated complications in a defined low-risk population (low-risk procedure and low-risk patient).

METHODS

 Prospective, multicenter, randomized study.

RESULTS

 27 German study centers participated in the study. A total of 30 569 endoscopies were recorded during the study period from 1.8.2015 to 10.3.2020. The final data analysis included 28 673 examinations (64.1 % esophagosgastroduodenoscopies and 35.9 % colonoscopies). In 307 (1.1 %) examinations, 322 sedation-associated complications occurred. Of these, 321 (1.1 %) were minor complications and one (0.003 %) was a major complication. There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of sedation-associated complications between endoscopist-guided sedation with versus without additional sedation assistance. Within the legal framework, a "shadow" sedation assistant was present in the study group without sedation assistance. This assistant intervened because of sedation-associated complications in 101 (0.7 %) of the endoscopies.

CONCLUSION

 The study documents the safety of propofol-based endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk population. In 98.9 % of all endoscopies, no sedation-associated complication occurred or it was so minimal that no intervention (e. g., increase of oxygen supply) was necessary. The study cannot answer to what extent a serious complication was avoided by the active intervention of the "shadow" sedation assistance in the group without sedation assistance.The study proves in a randomized, prospective design that sedation in low-risk endoscopy (low-risk patient, low-risk procedure) can be performed as endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance, without demonstrably accepting a reduction in safety.

Feasibility of Continuous Monitoring of Endoscopy Performance and Adverse Events: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

We integrated a standardized questionnaire focusing on adverse events and performance measures in gastrointestinal endoscopy as a mandatory component of the electronical medical record.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted using prospectively collected data on quality parameters and adverse events (AEPM) for all diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic procedures at our center between 2018 and 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 7532 consecutive endoscopic procedures were performed in 5035 patients. The proportion of high-risk examinations and high-risk patients was 20% and 23%, respectively. Severe adverse events (AEs, n = 21) occurred in 0.3% of procedures and significantly more often in patients with an ASA score > II (0.6%, p < 0.01). We observed no long-term morbidity after severe AEs. Mortality was 0.03% (n = 2). Following screening colonoscopy (n = 242), four endoscopists documented AEPM in more than 98% of the examinations. The cecal intubation rate was 97%, and the mean adenoma detection rate 60%. The quality of lavage was documented in 97% (rated as good in 70% and moderate in 24%).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of adverse events is significantly increased in patients with an ASA score > II, which should be considered when choosing treatment methods and precautionary measures. Continuous recording of AEPM can be effectively integrated into the clinical reporting process, enabling analysis of the data and feedback to be provided to endoscopists.

Phase II study comparing nasal pressure monitoring with capnography during invasive endoscopic procedures: a single-center, single-arm trial

Nasal pressure signal is commonly used to evaluate obstructive sleep apnea. This study aimed to assess its safety for respiratory monitoring during sedation. A total of 45 adult patients undergoing sedation with propofol and fentanyl for invasive endoscopic procedures were enrolled. While both nasal pressure and capnograph signals were continuously recorded, only the nasal pressure signal was displayed. The primary outcome was the incidence of oxygen desaturation below 90%. The secondary outcomes were the ability to predict the desaturation and incidence of harmful events and false alarms, defined as an apnea waveform lasting more than 3 min without desaturation. Of the 45 participants, 43 completed the study. At least one desaturation event occurred in 12 patients (27.9%; 95% confidence interval 15.3-43.7%). In these 12 patients, more than half of the desaturation events were predictable in 9 patients by capnography and 11 patients by nasal pressure monitoring (p = 0.59). In the 43 patients, false alarms were detected in 7 patients with capnography and 11 patients with nasal pressure monitoring (p = 0.427). Harmful events unrelated to nasal pressure monitoring occurred in 2 patients. Nasal pressure monitoring is safe and possibly useful for respiratory monitoring despite false alarms during sedation.

An interpretable artificial neural network model for predicting hypoxemia via an online tool in adult (18-64) patients during esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Background

The hypoxemia risk in adult (18-64) patients treated with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under sedation often poses a dilemma for anesthesiologists. We aimed to establish an artificial neural network (ANN) model to solve this problem, and introduce the Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) algorithm to further improve the interpretability.

Methods

The relevant data of patients underwent routine anesthesia-assisted EGD were collected. Elastic network was used to filter the optimal features. Airway-ANN and Basic-ANN models were established based on all collected indicators and remaining variables excluding airway assessment indicators, respectively. The performance of Basic-ANN, Airway-ANN and STOP-BANG was evaluated by the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) on temporal validation set. The SHAP was used for revealing the predictive behavior of our best model.

Results

999 patients were eventually included. The AUPRC value of Airway-ANN model was significantly higher than Basic-ANN model in the temporal validation set (0.532 vs 0.429, P < 0.05). And the performance of both two ANN models was significantly better than that of STOP-BANG score (both P < 0.05). The Airway-ANN model was deployed to the cloud (http://njfh-yxb.com.cn:2022/airway_ann).

Conclusion

Our online interpretable Airway-ANN model achieved satisfying ability in identifying the hypoxemia risk in adult (18-64) patients undergoing EGD.

Complications of diagnostic upper Gastrointestinal endoscopy: common and rare - recognition, assessment and management

A clear understanding of the potential complications or adverse events (AEs) of diagnostic endoscopy is an essential component of being an endoscopist. Creating a culture of safety and prevention of AEs should be part of routine endoscopy practice. Appropriate patient selection for procedures, informed consent, periprocedure risk assessments and a team approach, all contribute to reducing AEs. Early recognition, prompt management and transparent communication with patients are essential for the holistic and optimal management of AEs. In this review, we discuss the complications of diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, including their recognition, treatment and prevention.

Usefulness of discharge standards in outpatients undergoing sedative endoscopy: a propensity score-matched study of the modified post-anesthetic discharge scoring system and the modified Aldrete score

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of discharge standards in outpatients undergoing sedative endoscopy by comparing the modified post-anesthetic discharge scoring system (MPADSS) and the modified Aldrete score.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 376 outpatients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy under midazolam sedation; 181 outpatients were assessed regarding discharge after sedative endoscopy using the MPADSS (group M), and 195 patients were assessed by the modified Aldrete score (group A). The clinical characteristics, types of endoscopy, endoscopic outcomes, and anesthesia outcomes were evaluated between the two groups. We compared discharge score, recovery time, and adverse events using propensity-score matching.

Results

Propensity-score matching created 120 matched pairs. The proportion of patients who had a recovery time within 60 min after endoscopy was significantly higher in group A than that in group M (42.5% versus 25.0%, respectively; P < 0.01). The proportion of patients who required > 120 min of recovery time after endoscopy was significantly lower in group A than that in group M (0.0% versus 5.0%, respectively; P = 0.03). However, significantly more patients had drowsiness at discharge in group A compared with group M (19.1% versus 5.0%, respectively; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the adverse event rate within 24 h of discharge between the groups.

Conclusions

Patients assessed by the modified Aldrete score were allowed to discharge earlier than those assessed by the MPADSS. However, a patient’s level of consciousness should be assessed carefully, especially in patients who visit the hospital alone.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-022-02549-7.

Effects of intravenous lidocaine on hypoxemia induced by propofol-based sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures: study protocol for a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

Background

Oxygen-desaturation episodes, blood pressure drops, and involuntary body movement are common problems that occur in propofol-based sedation in the procedure of painless gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. As a widely used analgesic adjuvant, intravenous lidocaine can reduce the consumption of propofol during ERCP or colonoscopy. However, it is still unknown how lidocaine affects the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes and cardiovascular events, and involuntary movement during painless GI endoscopy. Therefore, we aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of intravenous lidocaine in propofol-based sedation for GI endoscopy.

Methods

We will conduct a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, saline-controlled trial. A total number of 300 patients undergoing painless GI procedures will be enrolled and randomly divided into the lidocaine group (Group L) and the control group (Group C). After midazolam and sufentanil intravenous injection, a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine was immediately injected and followed by a continuous infusion of 4 mg/kg/h in the lidocaine group, whereas the same volumes of saline solution in the control group. Then, propofol was titrated to produce unconsciousness during the procedure. The primary outcome will be the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes. Secondary outcomes will be the incidence of involuntary body movement, discomfort symptoms, propofol consumption, endoscopist, and patient satisfaction.

Discussion

Propofol-based deep sedation without intubation is widely used in painless GI endoscopy. However, adverse events such as hypoxemia often occur clinically. We expect to assess the effect of lidocaine on reducing the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes, cardiovascular events, and involuntary body movement. We believe that the results of this trial will provide an effective and safe method for painless GI endoscopy.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100053818. Registered on 30 November 2021.

High flow nasal cannula for patients undergoing bronchoscopy and gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

High flow nasal cannula is gaining increasingly used in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. We undertook this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) could effectively minimize the risk of hypoxemia as compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT).

Methods

We performed a comprehensive search of Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and Web of Science. Studies involving the application of HFNC during endoscopic procedures were identified.

Results

We included 15 randomized controlled trials (7 bronchoscopy, 8 gastrointestinal endoscopy). Patients receiving HFNC during endoscopic procedures had a significantly lower risk of hypoxemia (defined as SpO2 &lt; 90%) versus COT group (risk ratio = 0.32; 95%CI (0.22–0.47), 13 studies, 4,093 patients, moderate-quality evidence, I2 = 48.82%, P &lt; 0.001). The lowest SpO2 was significantly higher in HFNC group (mean difference = 4.41; 95%CI (2.95–5.86), 9 studies, 1,449 patients, moderate-quality evidence, I2 = 81.17%, P &lt; 0.001) than those receiving COT. No significant difference was detected between groups in end-procedure partial pressure of CO2 (standard mean difference  =  −0.18; 95%CI (−0.52–0.15), 5 studies, 238 patients, moderate-quality evidence, I2 = 42.25%, P = 0.29). Patients receiving HFNC were associated a lower need for airway intervention (risk ratio = 0.45; 95%CI (0.24–0.84), 8 studies, 2,872 patients, moderate-quality evidence, I2 = 85.97%, P = 0.01) and less procedure interruption (risk ratio = 0.36; 95%CI (0.26–0.51), 6 studies, 1,562 patients, moderate-quality evidence, I2 = 0.00%, P &lt; 0.001). The overall intubation rate after endoscopy was 0.20% in both group, with no difference detected (risk ratio = 1.00; 95%CI (0.30–3.35), 7 studies, 2,943 patients, low-quality evidence, I2 = 0.00%, P = 1.00).

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis found moderate to low evidence that the application of HFNC was associated with improved oxygenation, decreased need for airway intervention, and reduced procedure interruption in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. Future larger sample and high-quality studies are warranted to confirm our result and further investigate the effectiveness of HFNC in patients at risk.

Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022298032.

Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygenation on the Prevention of Hypoxia During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Elderly Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Hypoxia is the most frequently occurring adverse effect during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) under sedation; thus, oxygen must be properly supplied to prevent a reduction of oxygen saturation. In this study, we intend to verify the preventive effect for hypoxia during ERCP, using a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), in elderly patients.

METHODS

As a multicenter prospective randomized trial, patients who underwent ERCP with propofol-based sedation were randomly assigned into two groups: Patients in the HFNC group were supplied with oxygen via an HFNC, and those in the standard nasal cannula group were supplied with oxygen via a low-flow nasal cannula. The co-primary end points were the lowest oxygen saturation rate and hypoxia during the overall procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 187 patients (HFNC group: 95; standard nasal cannula group: 92) were included in the analysis. Unexpected hypoxia events were more frequently observed among patients in the standard nasal cannula group than among patients in the HFNC group (13% vs. 4%, odds ratio 3.41, 95% confidence interval 1.06-11.00, p = 0.031). The mean of the lowest oxygen saturation rate during ERCP was significantly lower in the standard nasal cannula group than in the HFNC group (95% vs. 97%, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Oxygen supplementation with an HFNC can prevent oxygen desaturation and hypoxia events in patients undergoing ERCP under sedation. Trial registration Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS; KCT0004960).

The risk of unexpected hospital admissions and primary care visits after an elective day-case gastroscopy: a cohort study within England

AIM

To determine the excess of acute medical contacts following a day-case diagnostic gastroscopy.

METHODS

Cohort study using English linked primary, secondary care and death registry electronic health data. We included 277,535 diagnostic day-case gastroscopies in 225,304 people between 1998 and 2016 and followed up for 30 days. 1,383,535 30-day periods without a gastroscopy within 991,249 people frequency matched on year, gender and decade of birth. Non-cancer deaths, emergency non-cancer admissions and cardio, vascular or respiratory (CVR) primary care consultations were identified and adjusted for each other as competing risks. Outcomes related to possible indications for gastroscopy were censored.

RESULTS

5.1% of day-case diagnostic gastroscopies were followed by emergency hospital admission, 0.4% for a CVR diagnosis. Adjusted for age, sex, morbidity, time trends, indications and competing risks, there was a 0.1% excess of CVR-related hospital admissions compared to controls. This reduced to 0.05% (95% confidence interval 0.04-0.06%) in people under 40 years without morbidity and increased to 1.1% (0.6%-1.6%) in people over 90 years with high comorbidity. Similarly, by 30 days, 3.8% had a primary care consultation for a CVR problem, with an excess after adjustment ranging from 0.13% (0.11%-0.16%) to 0.31% (0.14%-0.50%). Overall numbers needed to harm ranged from 1 in 294 gastroscopies to 1 in 67 gastroscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

There was an excess of vascular and respiratory events associated with a diagnostic gastroscopy. In younger patients, this risk manifested as an increase in primary care consultations while in older patients there was an increase in emergency hospital admissions.

Efficacy and Safety of Deep Sedation and Anaesthesia for Complex Endoscopic Procedures—A Narrative Review

Propofol sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures is a widespread technique at present, which generates controversy worldwide when anaesthetic or non-anaesthetic personnel administer this form of sedation. There is some evidence for safe administered propofol sedation by non-anaesthetic personnel in patients undergoing endoscopy procedures, but there are only few randomised trials addressing the safety and efficacy of propofol in patients undergoing advanced procedures. A serious possible consequence of propofol sedation is the rapid and unpredictable progression from deep sedation to general anaesthesia mostly when elderly and frail patients are involved in the diagnosis or treatment of various neoplasia. This situation requires rescue measures with skilled airway management. The aim of this paper is to review the safety and efficacy aspects of sedation techniques, with special reference to propofol administration covering the whole patient journey, including preassessment, sedation options and discharge when advanced endoscopic procedures are performed.

Anesthesiology trainees performing flexible scope intubation in spontaneously breathing patients in the left lateral position and the supine position: a prospective randomized trial

Background

Flexible scope intubation is an important airway management skill that requires hands-on training in a real airway. We compared flexible scope intubation by trainees between patients in the left lateral and supine positions.

Methods

Forty patients aged 20 to 80 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I to III were scheduled for elective surgery under general endotracheal anesthesia in Ramathibodi Hospital from February 2020 to June 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to be intubated in one of two positions: supine (Group S) or left lateral (Group L). Trainees performed flexible scope intubation in sedated patients under the supervision of an attending anesthesiologist. Intubation success, time to successful intubation, number of attempts, airway adjustment maneuvers, and hemodynamic changes were compared between groups.

Results

Patient characteristics did not differ between groups except for Mallampati airway classification. The rate of successful intubation on the first attempt and intubation time did not significantly differ between groups. The proportion of patients who required a jaw thrust during intubation was significantly lower in Group L (10.5% vs. 85%; P < 0.01). Blood pressure and oxygen saturation declined in both groups after intubation. The relative risk of desaturation in patients in the left lateral position compared with the supine position was 0.44 (0.1649–1.1978).

Conclusion

The rate of successful flexible scope intubation on the first attempt and intubation time did not differ between the groups. The proportion of patients who required a jaw thrust maneuver was significantly lower in patients in the left lateral position.

Trial registration

https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/ (TCTR20200208001) on 08/02/2020.

Validation of the EVendo score for the prediction of varices in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Screening endoscopy for varices may be deferred when the calculated EVendo score is ≤3.90. This novel score has not been validated in an external cohort. This study aimed to assess the performance of the EVendo score and compare it with the Baveno VI criteria.

METHODS

We identified and calculated this score in all cirrhotic patients who underwent screening endoscopy for the first time with laboratory tests and liver stiffness measurements within 6 months of the endoscopy date.

RESULTS

In total, 103 patients were included. An EVendo score of ≤3.90 identified patients with no gastroesophageal varices (GEV) and varices needing treatment (VNT) with sensitivities of 82% and 83% and specificities of 57% and 34%, respectively. The negative predictive value for VNT was 94%. A comparison with the Baveno VI criteria in Child-Turcotte-Pugh-A patients showed spared endoscopy and missed VNT rates with EVendo score cutoffs of ≤3.9 and ≤4.5 and the Baveno VI criteria of 25%, 33%, and 16.6% and 1.7%, 1.7%, and 0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EVendo score is reliable in clinical practice for predicting GEV and VNT. The number of spared endoscopies was higher than that with the Baveno VI criteria; however, there were more missed VNT cases.

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.

Controversies in ERCP: Indications and preparation

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss the pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. The first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites before ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis, and other related technical topics. In the second part, specific procedural ERCP-techniques including precut techniques and its timing as well as management algorithms are discussed. In addition, controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

A plea for a unified approach to sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy in Romania: results from a prospective multicentric trial

Background. Adequate sedation is a prerequisite for quality endoscopic examination of the digestive tract. We aimed to evaluate the current practices and safety profile of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Romania and its impact on the technical success of the procedure and procedure-related adverse events.

Methods. We conducted a prospective, multicentric, observational study including all patients undergoing digestive endoscopic procedures under various degrees of sedation. We collected data regarding the endoscopic procedure, type and degree of sedation, drug regimens, personnel in charge of sedation, and relevant patient related information. The main study outcome was the rate of sedation-related adverse events; secondary study outcomes included procedure-related adverse events and the impact of sedation on procedure success.

Results. 1,043 consecutive endoscopic procedures from eight Romanian endoscopy units were included in our study. Sedation regimens were highly variable between participating centers, with 566 (54%) of procedures being performed under sedation provided by an anaesthesiologist. Sedation-related adverse events occurred in 40 cases (3.8%), most of them were mild respiratory and cardiovascular events and all reversed spontaneously.

On multivariate analysis, male gender, procedure type (endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) and deep sedation were risk factors for complications. The endoscopy unit, ASA status, age and type of sedative did not influence the complication rate.

Conclusion. In conclusion, sedation for endoscopic procedures is generally safe, despite a high variability in sedation practices between centers in Romania. Establishing a national guideline on sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy will ensure consistent and safe practice for these procedures.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Current practice and future research

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has evolved from a primarily diagnostic to therapeutic procedure in hepatobiliary and pancreatic disease. Most commonly, ERCPs are performed for choledocholithiasis with or without cholangitis, but improvements in technology and technique have allowed for management of pancreatic duct stones, benign and malignant strictures, and bile and pancreatic leaks. As an example of necessity driving innovation, the new disposable duodenoscopes have been introduced into practice. With the advantage of eliminating transmissible infections, they represent a paradigm shift in quality improvement within ERCP. With procedures becoming more complicated, the necessity for anesthesia involvement and safety of propofol use and general anesthesia has become better defined. The improvements in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) have allowed for direct bile duct access and EUS facilitated bile duct access for ERCP. In patients with surgically altered anatomy, selective cannulation can be performed with overtube-assisted enteroscopy, laparoscopic surgery assistance, or the EUS-directed transgastric ERCP. Cholangioscopy and pancreatoscopy use has become ubiquitous with defined indications for large bile duct stones, indeterminate strictures, and hepatobiliary and pancreatic neoplasia. This review summarizes the recent advances in infection prevention, quality improvement, pancreaticobiliary access, and management of hepatobiliary and pancreatic diseases. Where appropriate, future research directions are included in each section.

Comparative Safety Profiles of Sedatives Commonly Used in Clinical Practice: A 10-Year Nationwide Pharmacovigilance Study in Korea

This study aims to compare the prevalence and seriousness of adverse events (AEs) among sedatives used in critically ill patients or patients undergoing invasive procedures and to identify factors associated with serious AEs. Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of sedative-related AEs voluntarily reported to the Korea Adverse Event Reporting System from 2008 to 2017 was performed. All AEs were grouped using preferred terms and System Organ Classes per the World Health Organization-Adverse Reaction Terminology. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with serious events. Among 95,188 AEs, including 3132 (3.3%) serious events, the most common etiologic sedative was fentanyl (58.8%), followed by pethidine (25.9%). Gastrointestinal disorders (54.2%) were the most frequent AEs. The most common serious AE was heart rate/rhythm disorders (33.1%). Serious AEs were significantly associated with male sex; pediatrics; etiologic sedative with etomidate at the highest risk, followed by dexmedetomidine, ketamine, and propofol; polypharmacy; combined sedative use; and concurrent use of corticosteroids, aspirin, neuromuscular blockers, and antihistamines (reporting odds ratio > 1, p < 0.001 for all). Sedative-induced AEs are most frequently reported with fentanyl, primarily manifesting as gastrointestinal disorders. Etomidate is associated with the highest risk of serious AEs, with the most common serious events being heart rate/rhythm disorders.

Prospective, randomized comparison of two supplemental oxygen methods during gastroscopy with propofol mono-sedation in obese patients. World J Clin Cases 2021;9:5479-5489. [PMID: 34307602 PMCID: PMC8281412 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i20.5479]

BACKGROUND

Hypoxemia is a common complication in obese patients during gastroscopy with sedation. The Wei nasal jet tube (WNJT) is a new special nasopharyngeal airway with the ability to provide supraglottic jet ventilation and oxygen insufflation via its built-in wall channels. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the WNJT vs a nasal cannula for supplemental oxygen during gastroscopy with propofol mono-sedation in obese patients.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of the WNJT vs a nasal cannula for supplemental oxygen during gastroscopy with propofol mono-sedation in obese patients.

METHODS

A total of 103 obese patients with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or more undergoing elective gastroscopy under propofol mono-sedation were randomly assigned to receive supplemental oxygen at 5 L/min through either a WNJT (WNJT group, n = 51) or a nasal cannula (nasal cannula group, n = 52). The lowest pulse oxygen saturation (SpO₂) and mild and severe hypoxemia during gastroscopy were recorded. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia.

RESULTS

The lowest SpO₂ during gastroscopy with propofol mono-sedation was significantly increased in the WNJT group compared with the nasal cannula group. The incidence of mild hypoxemia and total incidence of hypoxemia were significantly lower in the WNJT group than in the nasal cannula group. Other than a higher incidence of epistaxis in the WNJT group, the occurrence of adverse events was similar between the devices. While neither device demonstrated a statistically significant difference in satisfaction among patients, the WNJT did result in improved satisfaction among anesthetists and physicians.

CONCLUSION

During gastroscopy with propofol mono-sedation in obese patients, the WNJT, when compared with a nasal cannula for supplemental oxygen, can significantly reduce the occurrence of hypoxemia and improve both arterial oxygenation and satisfaction among anesthetists and physicians. The use of the WNJT may, however, lead to epistaxis in a few patients. In view of this clinically acceptable risk-benefit ratio, the WNJT may be recommended as an alternative tool for supplemental oxygen for the prevention of hypoxemia during gastroscopy with propofol mono-sedation in obese patients.

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding: results from the prospective German electronic registry of nearly 11 000 endoscopies (ALGK GI-bleeding registry)

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Gastrointestinal bleeding is frequently observed in the German population. However, recent epidemiological data are not available. This study aimed to elucidate gastrointestinal bleeds under real-life conditions in 3 German hospitals. By using a standardized electronic documentation system, a large number of consecutive endoscopies could be established, thus offering representative data.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 From June 2017 to December 2018, all upper and lower gastrointestinal tract endoscopies were recorded consecutively in the 3 hospitals. The electronic documentation system used included a case report form for storing data on bleeding as obligatory input for completion of the endoscopy report. In the case of gastrointestinal bleeding, specific data on the bleeding source and intensity, as well as individual characteristics, were documented.

RESULTS

 A total of 10 948 consecutive endoscopies were recorded, and 10 904 could be analyzed. Signs of gastrointestinal bleeding were found in 863 patients (7.9 % of all endoscopies performed), 538 patients with an intake of hemostasis-affecting drugs, and 325 patients without (62.3 % and 37.7 %, respectively). Platelet inhibitors and anticoagulants were the most frequently used hemostasis-affecting medication. There was a significant increase in age from patients without bleeding (median 68.5 years) to patients with bleeding (73.5 years) and to patients with bleeding who took hemostasis-affecting medication (80.4 years). Among the patients, 257 (29.8 %) and 606 (70.2 %) presented with major and minor bleeding, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

 About 8 % of all patients undergoing upper or lower gastrointestinal endoscopy reveal signs of bleeding. A considerable number are older patients taking hemostasis-affecting drugs.

Confocal laser endomicroscopy under propofol-based sedation for early gastric cancer and pre-cancerous lesions is associated with better diagnostic accuracy: a retrospective cohort study in China

Background

Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) has advantages in detecting gastric neoplastic lesions, meanwhile it requires strict patient cooperation. Sedation could improve patient cooperation and quality of endoscopy. However, sedation is still not very popular in some resource-limited countries and regions. The purpose of this study was to compare propofol-based sedated versus un-sedated CLE in the value of diagnosing early gastric cancer (EGC) and precancerous lesions.

Methods

A retrospective, cohort, single center study of 226 patients who underwent CLE between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017 was performed. Patients enrolled were allocated into the propofol-based sedated group (n = 126) and the un-sedated group (n = 100). The comparison of validity and reliability of CLE for identifying EGC and precancerous lesions between the two groups was performed through analyzing CLE diagnosis and pathological diagnosis. Reporting followed the STROBE guidelines.

Results

The area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of diagnosing EGC in the sedated group was 0.97 (95 % CI: 0.95 to 0.99), which was higher than that in the un-sedated group (0.88 (95 % CI: 0.80 to 0.97), P = 0.0407). CLE with sedation performed better than without sedation in diagnosing intraepithelial neoplasia and intestinal metaplasia (P = 0.0008 and P = 0.0001, respectively). For patients considered as high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia or EGC by endoscopists, they would not get biopsy during CLE but receive endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) subsequently, and the misdiagnosis rate of CLE was 0 % in the sedated group and 27.59 % (95 % CI: 10.30–44.91 %) in the un-sedated group (P = 0.006).

Conclusions

Propofol based sedation was associated with improved diagnostic value of CLE for detecting EGC as well as precancerous lesions (intraepithelial neoplasia OR intestinal metaplasia).

Capability of processed EEG parameters to monitor conscious sedation in endoscopy is similar to general anaesthesia

Background

Reliable and safe sedation is a prerequisite for endoscopic interventions. The current standard is rather safe, yet, an objective device to measure sedation depth is missing. To date, anaesthesia monitors based on processed electroencephalogram (EEG) have not been utilised in conscious sedation.

Objective

To investigate EEG parameters to differentiate consciousness in endoscopic propofol sedation.

Methods

In total, 171 patients aged 21–83 years (ASA I–III) undergoing gastrointestinal and bronchial endoscopy were enrolled. Standard monitoring and a frontotemporal two‐channel EEG were recorded. The state of consciousness was identified by repeated requests to squeeze the investigator's hand.

Results

In total, 1132 state‐of‐consciousness (SOC) transitions were recorded in procedures ranging from 5 to 69 min. Thirty‐four EEG parameters from the frequency domain, time‐frequency domain and complexity measures were calculated. Area under the curve ranged from 0.51 to 0.82 with complexity and optimised frequency domain parameters yielding the best results.

Conclusion

Prediction of the SOC with processed EEG parameters is feasible, and the results for sedation in endoscopic procedures are similar to those reported from general anaesthesia. These results are insufficient for a clinical application, but prediction capability may be increased with optimisation and modelling.

Electroencephalogram (EEG)‐based anaesthesia monitors, like the Bispectral Index, have been investigated as an adjunct to monitor propofol sedation in the endoscopy ward. These studies showed very limited benefit.

Capability of processed EEG parameters to differentiate the state of consciousness (SOC) in endoscopy is similar to general anaesthesia.

However, artefacts arising from the less controlled endoscopy environment as compared to anaesthesia limit their use in sedation monitoring.

The Bispectral Index and its underlying parameters are ineffective in the determination of the SOC in sedation during endoscopic procedures.

Clinical efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen in patients undergoing ERCP under sedation

Hypoxemia can occur during endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) and it is difficult to achieve adequate ventilation with the prone position. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has been recommended to be more effectively help ventilation than conventional low flow oxygen. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of HFNO during sedated ERCP and to identify predictors of desaturation during ERCP. The investigated variables were age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists classes (ASA), duration of exam, and sedative used for midazolam or/and propofol of 262 patients with sedated ERCP. The differences between categorical and continuous variables were analyzed using the Student's t test and the chi-square test. Desaturation (SpO2 ≤ 90%) occurred in 9(3.4%) patients among 262 patients during sedated ERCP. The variables found to predict desaturation were older age (p < 0.01), higher sedation dose for midazolam or propofol (p < 0.01), and use of midazolam (p < 0.01). Desaturation rate was lower during sedated ERCP with HFNO compared to the preliminary study with conventional low flow nasal oxygen. Patients with older age, higher sedation dose, or the use of midazolam might require close monitoring for desaturation and hypoventilation by nursing staff. The study shows the use of high-flow nasal oxygen reduces the incidence of desaturation during ERCP.