Efficacy of propofol sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD): assessment with prospective data collection

Characteristics of cases for which esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection under general anesthesia is recommended

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) performed under general anesthesia can potentially provide more stable treatment in difficult cases than that under sedation. We evaluated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of ESD performed under general anesthesia compared with those under propofol sedation and discussed the cases in which general anesthesia is recommended.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 292 lesions in 265 consecutive patients undergoing esophageal ESD at Yamaguchi University Hospital from 2013 to 2023 were included in this retrospective study.

RESULTS

ESD was performed under general anesthesia for 92 lesions in 81 patients and under propofol sedation for 200 lesions in 184 patients. Tumor long-axis diameter was larger (39.8 ± 14.4 mm vs. 32.4 ± 9.9 mm, p < 0.01) and dissection speed was faster (10.5 ± 5.9 mm2/min vs. 7.5 ± 4.2 mm2/min, p < 0.01) in the general anesthesia group versus the sedation group. In the sedation group, a treatment history of pharyngeal cancer was significantly associated with a slower dissection speed (p = 0.037). The sedation group showed higher frequencies of hypoxemia (0% vs 9.8%, p < 0.01), interruption due to body movement (0% vs 13%, p < 0.01), and acute adverse events (21.7% vs 33.5%, p = 0.05). A treatment history of pharyngeal cancer was shown to be the significant factor contributing to acute adverse events (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

Esophageal ESD under general anesthesia can be a treatment option in patients with difficulty in performing stable procedures with propofol sedation. Especially in patients with a treatment history of pharyngeal cancer in whom ESD is more difficult to be performed and who are at higher risk for acute adverse events, general anesthesia can be considered.

Remimazolam for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A comprehensive review

Worldwide, a majority of routine endoscopic procedures are performed under some form of sedation to maximize patient comfort. Propofol, benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used. However, in recent years, Remimazolam is gaining immense popularity for procedural sedation in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. It is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2020 for use in procedural sedation. Remimazolam has shown a favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile in terms of its non-specific metabolism by tissue esterase, volume of distribution, total body clearance, and negligible drug-drug interactions. It also has satisfactory efficacy and has achieved high rates of successful sedation in GI endoscopy. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that the efficacy of Remimazolam is non-inferior to Propofol, which is currently a gold standard for procedural sedation in most parts of the world. However, the use of Propofol is associated with hemodynamic instability and respiratory depression. In contrast, Remimazolam has lower incidence of these adverse effects intra-procedurally and hence, may provide a safer alternative to Propofol in procedural sedation. In this comprehensive narrative review, highlight the pharmacologic characteristics, efficacy, and safety of Remimazolam for procedural sedation. We also discuss the potential of Remimazolam as a suitable alternative and how it can shape the future of procedural sedation in gastroenterology.

The hemodynamic stability of remimazolam compared with propofol in patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection: A randomized trial

Objective

Hypotension is common in propofol anesthesia. Whether remimazolam could reduce intraoperative hypotension remains unknown. We therefore tested the primary hypothesis that remimazolam reduces the incidence of intraoperative hypotension compared with propofol in adult patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) surgery.

Materials and methods

We conducted a prospective trial to compare patients who received either remimazolam or propofol bolus induction and thereafter intravenous infusion. The hemodynamic parameters were measured using CNAP® Monitor 500 system. Our primary analysis was to compare the incidence of hypotension defined as systolic blood pressure below 90 mmHg between remimazolam and propofol during the whole anesthesia period.

Results

The incidence of hypotension decreased by 50%, from 67.9% in propofol group to 32.1% in remimazolam group (p &lt; 0.01). Patients received less amount of intraoperative phenylephrine in the remimazolam group than the propofol group (0 [0–40] μg vs. 80 [0–200] μg, p &lt; 0.01). Time-weighted average and cumulative time of hypotension was lower in remimazolam group compared with propofol group (p &lt; 0.05). Cardiac output continuously measured by CNAP was preserved much better in remimazolam group compared with propofol group (p = 0.01), while systemic vascular resistance did not differ between the groups. The median time from discontinuation until full alertness was 4 [3–11.8] min in the remimazolam group compared with 15 [12.0–19.8] min in the propofol group (p &lt; 0.01).

Conclusion

Remimazolam has better hemodynamic stability than propofol in adult patients undergoing ESD surgery. The benefits of remimazolam on hemodynamic stability and hypotension prevention may be partly contributed to its better preservation of cardiac output.

Clinical Trial Registration

[http://www.chictr.org.cn/com/25/showproj.aspx?proj=61104], identifier [ChiCTR2000037975].

Intraoperative Vitamin C Reduces the Dosage of Propofol in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Replacement

Purpose

Propofol is commonly used as an intravenous anesthetic in surgical patients. However, its usage is associated with adverse effects. Auxiliary medication can reduce the dose of intravenous anesthetics. Hence, we investigated whether vitamin C could lower propofol dosage in elderly patients undergoing total knee replacement surgery.

Patients and Methods

The trial was carried out in PLA General Hospital in Beijing, China. We enrolled patients aged ≥50 years who were undergoing unilateral total knee arthroplasty with total intravenous anesthesia combined with lumbar sciatic nerve block. The patients were randomly assigned to either the vitamin C (Vc) group (0.067 g/kg) or the control group (an equivalent dose of normal saline). Nerve block was done for all the patients before the general anesthesia. The same depth of anesthesia was maintained during the operation. We compared the propofol dosage and adverse events (eg hypotension) during anesthesia between the two groups. This study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, www.chictr.org.cn, number ChiCTR-TRC-16010112.

Results

There were significant differences in the total infusion dose (Vc group: 704.3 ± 188.6 mg; control group: 888.6 ± 232.7 mg; p = 0.016) and the average maintenance dose of propofol (Vc group: 5.8 ± 1.0 mg/kg/h; control group: 6.9 ± 1.6 mg/kg/h; p = 0.013). But there were no significant differences in the induction dose of propofol (control group: 90 mg, range 80-115 mg; Vc group: 100 mg, range 90-110 mg, p = 0.379) between the Vc and control groups. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the hemodynamics and the incidence of intraoperative hypotension.

Conclusion

Vitamin C can reduce the dosage of propofol in patients undergoing total knee replacement.

Efficacy of sedation with dexmedetomidine plus propofol during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

During endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal cancer, patient body movement can sometimes occur, which may cause discontinuation of the procedure. Propofol and dexmedetomidine have recently been found to be useful sedatives for endoscopic submucosal dissection. This study investigated whether sedation using propofol plus dexmedetomidine can suppress the patient's body movements during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection and compared this combination with sedation using propofol alone.

METHODS

This was a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial. Patients with superficial esophageal cancers who underwent esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection at Yokohama City University Hospital were prospectively enrolled and were randomly assigned to the propofol and the propofol plus dexmedetomidine groups. The primary endpoint was the incidence of restlessness. The secondary endpoints were the satisfaction score, maintenance dose of propofol, and number of rescue propofol injections.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients (propofol group: n = 33; combination group: n = 33) were included. The combination group had a significantly lower incidence of restlessness than the propofol group (3.0% vs 27.3%, P = 0.02). In the combination group, the satisfaction scores of the endoscopists were significantly higher, the maintenance dose of propofol was significantly lower, and the number of rescue propofol injections was lower than those in the propofol group (3.0% vs 18.2%, P < 0.001). Although the incidence of bradycardia was significantly higher in the combination group (30.3% vs 3.0%, P < 0.01), no serious adverse effects occurred.

CONCLUSION

The propofol plus dexmedetomidine combination provided excellent sedation that effectively suppressed the patient's body movements during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Incidence rates, risk factors, and outcomes of aspiration pneumonia after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The risk and prognosis of aspiration pneumonia (AP) after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are inconsistent among studies. We aim to estimate the incidence, risk factors, and outcome of AP in patients after gastric ESD.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge were searched for relevant articles from inception until April 2020. Data involving the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes were extracted. Pooled incidence, odds ratios (ORs), or standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Forty records involving 48 674 subjects were finally included. The pooled incidence of AP after gastric ESD was 1.9% (95% CI, 1.2-2.7) via the double arcsine transformation method and 1.6% (1.1-2.5%) via the logit transformation method. Risk factors analyses revealed that old age (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.99-3.18), comorbid pulmonary disease (2.49; 1.66-3.74), comorbid cerebrovascular disease (2.68; 1.05-6.85), remnant stomach (4.91; 1.83-13.14), sedation with propofol (2.51; 1.48-4.28), and long procedural duration (count data: 5.20, 1.25-21.7; measurement data: 1.01, 1.01-1.02) were related to the occurrence of AP. Patients with AP had a longer hospital stay (SMD, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.25-0.87) than those without AP.

CONCLUSIONS

About 1.9% (1.2-2.7%) of the patients who receive gastric ESD may develop AP, resulting in prolonged hospital stay. More attention should be paid in patients who are older; have comorbidities such as pulmonary diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, or gastric remnant; or require a long procedural duration or deep sedation with propofol.

Comparison of general anesthesia and conscious sedation in procedure-related complications during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has a favorable outcome, compared to esophagectomy, for early esophageal neoplasia. Recent studies used general anesthesia for esophageal ESD to minimize complications due to insufficient sedation and patient movement. We aimed to evaluate the safety of general anesthesia in comparison with conscious sedation provided by anesthesiologists for esophageal ESD.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of 158 patients who underwent esophageal ESD under general anesthesia or conscious sedation provided by anesthesiologists. We evaluated the incidence of procedure-related complications, including perforation, post-ESD bleeding, cardiopulmonary adverse events (arrhythmia, hypotension, and hypoxemia), procedure failure, stricture, and new lung consolidation after ESD. Cases of frank perforation, post-ESD bleeding requiring a vigorous diagnostic approach, and cardiopulmonary adverse events were regarded as acute complications of ESD.

RESULTS

Acute complications occurred only in the conscious sedation group (8/83 [9.6%] vs. 0/75 [0.0%]; p value = 0.007). The numbers of patients with frank perforation, post-ESD bleeding, and cardiopulmonary adverse events were four, one, and three, respectively. Moreover, new lung consolidation after ESD developed only in the conscious sedation group (7/83 [8.4%] vs. 0/75 [0.0%]; p value = 0.014). ESD failed in four patients in the conscious sedation group. The incidences of stricture that required stent insertion and hospital stay after ESD were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

General anesthesia is associated with a lower incidence of acute procedure-related complications in esophageal ESD compared to conscious sedation provided by anesthesiologists. Therefore, we recommend general anesthesia as a safer option for esophageal ESD.

Review on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection focusing on the technical aspect

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables removal of broad-based colorectal polyps or lateral spreading tumors with a higher rate of en bloc resection and a lower risk of local recurrence. However, it is technically demanding. Over the past 20 years, various equipment and innovative techniques have been developed to reduce the difficulty of ESD. The information in the literature is scattered. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive review on the setup and technical aspects of colorectal ESD.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database and systemically reviewed all original and review articles related to colorectal ESD. Further manual search according to reference lists of identified articles were done. The selected articles were categorized and reviewed. Original figures were created to help readers understand some of the ESD techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 216 articles were identified, in which 25 of them were review articles and 191 of them were original articles. They were categorized and reviewed. An in-depth appraisal of the setting, equipment, and technical aspects of colorectal ESD was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ESD is a technically demanding procedure that requires expert endoscopic skills, it can be mastered. With good peri-procedural preparation, sufficient knowledge of the equipment, and thorough understanding of the useful endoscopic tricks and maneuvers, colorectal ESD can be performed smoothly and safely.

Safety and Efficacy of Nonanesthesiologist-Administrated Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Gastric Epithelial Tumors

Objective

There is no consensus regarding administration of propofol for performing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in patients with comorbidities. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of propofol-induced sedation administered by nonanesthesiologists during ESD of gastric cancer in patients with comorbidities classified according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status.

Methods

Five hundred and twenty-two patients who underwent ESD for gastric epithelial tumors under sedation by nonanesthesiologist-administrated propofol between April 2011 and October 2017 at Dokkyo Medical University Hospital were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to the ASA physical status classification. Hypotension, desaturation, and bradycardia were evaluated as the adverse events associated with propofol. The safety of sedation by nonanesthesiologist-administrated propofol was measured as the primary outcome.

Results

The patients were classified according to the ASA physical status classification: 182 with no comorbidity (ASA 1), 273 with mild comorbidity (ASA 2), and 67 with severe comorbidity (ASA 3). The median age of the patients with ASA physical status of 2/3 was higher than the median age of those with ASA physical status of 1. There was no significant difference in tumor characteristics, total amount of propofol used, or ESD procedure time, among the 3 groups. Adverse events related to propofol in the 522 patients were as follows: hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg) in 113 patients (21.6%), respiratory depression (SpO₂ < 90%) in 265 patients (50.8%), and bradycardia (pulse rate < 50 bpm) in 39 patients (7.47%). There was no significant difference in the incidences of adverse events among the 3 groups during induction, maintenance, or recovery. No severe adverse event was reported. ASA 3 patients had a significantly longer mean length of hospital stay (8 days for ASA 1, 9 days for ASA 2, and 9 days for ASA 3, P = 0.003). However, the difference did not appear to be clinically significant.

Conclusions

Sedation by nonanesthesiologist-administrated propofol during ESD is safe and effective, even for at-risk patients according to the ASA physical status classification.

Comparison of propofol with midazolam in endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Interruption of sedation due to a poor response to modified neuroleptanalgesia (m-NLA) with midazolam often occurs during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) because most patients have a history of heavy alcohol intake. Recently, propofol has been used feasibly and safely during endoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to clarify the efficacy and safety of propofol compared with that of midazolam during ESD for ESCC.

METHODS

This was a single-blind, randomized controlled trial in a single center. Patients with ESCC scheduled for ESD were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the propofol group and the midazolam group. The main outcome was the incidence of discontinuation of the procedure due to a poor response to sedation. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for a poor response to sedation.

RESULTS

Between April 2014 and October 2015, 132 patients (n = 66 per group) who underwent ESD for ESCC were enrolled in this study. The incidence of discontinuation due to a poor response to sedation in the propofol and midazolam groups was 0% (0/66) and 37.9% (25/66), respectively (p < 0.01). Multivariate analyses revealed that use of midazolam [Odds ratio (OR), 7.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.64-21.92; p < 0.01] and age (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98; p < 0.01) were risk factors for a poor response to sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that, compared with midazolam, propofol is a more efficient sedative for m-NLA during ESD for ESCC.

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

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Safety and Effectiveness of Endoscopist-Directed Nurse-Administered Sedation during Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is routinely performed in treating gastric neoplasia and requires long-term higher levels of sedation. Endoscopist-directed nurse-administered sedation (EDNAS) has not been well studied in ESD. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of EDNAS for ESD.

METHODS

Patients treated with ESD for gastric tumors between 2013 and 2015 were retrospectively collected. Patients were divided into a midazolam-treated group (M group) and a midazolam plus propofol-treated group (MP group). Clinical outcome, safety, effectiveness, adverse events of ESD, and adverse events of sedation were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 209 collected patients, 83 were in the M group and 126 were in the MP group. Of all patients, 67 patients had the circulatory adverse event during the ESD procedure. Sedation method was the only significant risk factor (M versus MP: 2.17 (1.14-4.15), p = 0.019). In analysis of MP subgroups, 47 patients suffered an adverse event from sedation, and current smoking was the only significant association factor for adverse event (0.15 (0.03-0.68), p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

In performing ESD, the effect of sedation is reduced in smoking patients. EDNAS may be acceptable for ESD under careful monitoring of vital sign and oxygen saturation.

Association between CT-Diagnosed Pneumonia and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Gastric Neoplasms

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This prospective cohort study aimed to elucidate the incidence and characteristics of pneumonia associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of gastric neoplasms using CT.

METHODS

We included consecutive 188 patients with gastric neoplasms treated with ESD. All patients underwent CT before ESD and the day after ESD. Pneumonia associated with ESD was defined as lung ground glass opacity or consolidation by CT the day after ESD.

RESULTS

In 188 patients, 28 patients had diabetes mellitus. Pneumonia was observed by CT in 21 patients (11.2%) after ESD. Of those, 7 patients had diabetes mellitus. By univariate analysis, compared with patients with non-pneumonia complications, risk factors for pneumonia were significantly increased in patients with diabetes mellitus (p = 0.01) and in those who underwent a long procedure time (p = 0.02). By multivariate analysis, pneumonia was significantly increased in patients with diabetes mellitus (OR 4.06, 95% CI 1.35-12.19) and in those who underwent a long procedure time (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of CT-diagnosed pneumonia associated with ESD was relatively high. Furthermore, it was revealed that diabetes mellitus and a long procedure time were risk factors of CT-diagnosed pneumonia.

Safety of Target-Controlled Propofol Infusion by Gastroenterologists in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Resection

BACKGROUND

A target-controlled infusion (TCI) of a propofol system uses a pharmacokinetic model to achieve and maintain a selected target blood propofol concentration. The aim of this study was to assess whether the propofol TCI system could be safely used by gastroenterologists in patients undergoing endoscopic resection including endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) compared with a manually controlled infusion (MCI) system.

METHODS

A total of 431 patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopy (178 ESD and 253 EMR) were consecutively included from November 2011 to August 2014. The patients were divided into the MCI (271) and TCI (160) propofol infusion groups. We compared adverse event rates in MCI and TCI groups and assessed independent risk factors for adverse events.

RESULTS

The total sedation-related adverse event rate was 5.8 % (25/431). Most of the events were minor, and the rate of major events was 0.5 % (2/431). There was no significant difference in adverse event rate between the MCI and TCI groups [5.5 % (15/271) vs. 6.3 % (10/160); P = 0.759]. In univariate analysis, the propofol infusion time was significantly associated with adverse events (94.88 vs. 59.45 min, P = 0.017). In the multivariate analysis, there were no significant factors associated with adverse events. TCI was not an independent risk factor for adverse events despite the fact that the TCI had a longer duration of infusion and higher total infusion dose (95 % CI, 0.343-2.216; P = 0.773).

CONCLUSIONS

TCI of propofol by gastroenterologists may provide safe sedation in patients undergoing ESD and EMR under careful respiratory monitoring.

Application of clip traction in endoscopic submucosal dissection to the treatment of early esophageal carcinoma and precancerous lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

It is usually difficult to obtain a good view of the dissection plane during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of clip traction in ESD for the treatment of early esophageal carcinoma (EEC) or precancerous lesions.

METHODS

This is a case-matched comparative study. We selected 100 EEC patients who had undergone ESD. Fifty cases underwent ESD without clip traction (non-clip group), and 50 cases underwent ESD with clip traction (clip group). The patient-related variables, dissection time, data regarding muscularis propria injury, etc. were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

ESD was successful in all cases without complication. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to age, gender, the longitudinal diameter of the lesions, etc. Wide visual field exposure of the submucosal tissue below the lesion was obtained by applying clip traction. The dissection time of ESD was shorter in the clip group than in the non-clip group [22.02 (6.77) min vs 26.48 (12.56); P = 0.018] when the extent of lesion was less than half of the circumference of the esophagus; otherwise, there was no difference between the two groups (P = 0.252). Moreover, the muscularis propria injuries in the clip group were obviously less than the non-clip group (10 vs 30 %, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Clip traction can decrease the rate of muscularis propria injury and shorten the dissection time. It is recommended as a safe and effective auxiliary procedure for the treatment of esophageal ESD.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Feasibility of deep sedation with a combination of propofol and dexmedetomidine hydrochloride for esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sedation with a combination of propofol (PF) and dexmedetomidine (DEX) compared with sedation with benzodiazepines in esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed clinical data for 40 consecutive patients who had undergone esophageal ESD at the Yokohama City University Hospital between July 2012 and August 2014. Of these patients, 20 were sedated with benzodiazepines (conventional group) and another 20 patients were sedated with a combination of PF and DEX (combination group). Parameters for efficacy and safety of sedation were evaluated by comparisons between the two groups.

RESULTS

Median procedural times in the combination group were shorter than those in the conventional group (61 min vs. 89 min, P = 0.03), and the percentage of patients who showed restlessness in the combination group was significantly lower than that in the conventional group (25% vs. 65%, P = 0.025). Incidences of hypotension and bradycardia in the combination group were higher than those in the conventional group (60% vs. 15%, P = 0.008, and 60% vs. 15%, P = 0.008, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study suggests that a combination of PF and DEX may provide stable deep sedation with less body movement than benzodiazepines during esophageal ESD.

Usefulness of Acoustic Monitoring of Respiratory Rate in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Aim. The study assessed the usefulness of a recently developed method for respiratory rate (RR) monitoring in patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) under deep sedation. Methods. Study subjects comprised 182 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer or gastric cancer undergoing ESD. The usefulness of acoustic RR monitoring was assessed by retrospectively reviewing the patients' records for age, gender, height, weight, past history, serum creatinine, RR before ESD, and total dose of sedative. Results. Respiratory suppression was present in 37.9% of (69/182) patients. Continuous monitoring of RR led to detection of respiratory suppression in all these patients. RR alone was decreased in 24 patients, whereas both RR and blood oxygen saturation were decreased in 45 patients. Univariate analysis showed female gender, height, weight, and RR before treatment to be significantly associated with respiratory suppression. Multivariate analysis showed RR before treatment to be the only significant independent predictor [odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73–0.95, and P = 0.006] of respiratory suppression. Conclusion. In this study, the difference in RR before treatment between patients with and without respiratory suppression was subtle. Therefore, we suggest that acoustic RR monitoring should be considered in patients undergoing ESD under sedation to prevent serious respiratory complications.

Safety of gastroenterologist-guided sedation with propofol for upper gastrointestinal therapeutic endoscopy in elderly patients compared with younger patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Propofol sedation for elderly patients during time-consuming endoscopic procedures is controversial. Therefore, we investigated the safety of using propofol in elderly patients during upper gastrointestinal therapeutic endoscopy.

METHODS

The medical records of 160 patients who underwent therapeutic endoscopic procedures under gastroenterologist-guided propofol sedation at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. The subjects were divided into two groups a younger group, patients <75 years old; and an elderly group, patients ≥75 years old. The two groups were compared with respect to the therapeutic regimen, circulatory dynamics, and presence/absence of discontinuation of propofol treatment.

RESULTS

Although the number of patients with liver dysfunction was higher in the elderly group, there were no other significant differences in the baseline characteristics, including the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, between the elderly and younger groups. The average maintenance rate of continuous propofol infusion was lower in the elderly patients. No statistically significant differences were found in the occurrence of adverse events between the elderly and younger groups. None of the patients returned to a re-sedated state after the initial recovery from sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroenterologist-guided propofol sedation in elderly patients can be safely achieved in the same manner as that in younger patients, even for time-consuming upper gastrointestinal therapeutic endoscopic procedures.

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

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

Assessing the stability and safety of procedure during endoscopic submucosal dissection according to sedation methods: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is routinely performed under sedation, the difference in ESD performance according to sedation method is not well known. This study attempted to prospectively assess and compare the satisfaction of the endoscopists and patient stability during ESD between two sedation methods.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-four adult patients scheduled for ESD were sedated by either the IMIE (intermittent midazolam/propofol injection by endoscopist) or CPIA (continuous propofol infusion by anesthesiologist) method. The primary endpoint of this study was to compare the level of satisfaction of the endoscopists between the two groups. The secondary endpoints included level of satisfaction of the patients, patient's pain scores, events interfering with the procedure, incidence of unintended deep sedation, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

Level of satisfaction of the endoscopists was significantly higher in the CPIA Group compared to the IMIE group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 63.2% vs. 87.2%, P=0.001). The incidence of unintended deep sedation was significantly higher in the IMIE Group compared to the CPIA Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; 17.1% vs. 5.1%, P=0.018) as well as the number of patients showing spontaneous movement or those requiring physical restraint (IMIE vs. CPIA; spontaneous movement; 60.5% vs. 42.3%, P=0.024, physical restraint; 27.6% vs. 10.3%, P=0.006, respectively). In contrast, level of satisfaction of the patients were found to be significantly higher in the IMIE Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 85.5% vs. 67.9%, P=0.027). Pain scores of the patients, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Continuous propofol and remifentanil infusion by an anesthesiologist during ESD can increase the satisfaction levels of the endoscopists by providing a more stable state of sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01806753.

Usefulness of the thread-traction method in esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection: randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To assess the usefulness of the thread-traction method (TT method) in esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

METHODS

A total of 40 lesions that were scheduled to be treated by esophageal ESD were included in the study. The TT method was used for 20 lesions (group TT) and conventional ESD was used for 20 lesions (group C) after randomization. The hook-knife method was used in all cases. In group TT, after circumferential mucosal incision, a clip with thread was attached to the oral edge of the lesion.

RESULTS

ESD was carried out in all cases. Effective countertraction was created by the TT method, and it was possible to carry out an efficient dissection operation. Significant shortening of dissection time was achieved in group TT compared with group C (19.8 min vs 31.8 min, P = 0.044). Mean number of local injections during dissection was significantly less in group TT compared with that in group C (0.6 times vs 2.2 times, P < 0.001). As for the amount of local injection, group TT required significantly less compared with group C (2.6 mL vs 7.5 mL, P < 0.01). No complications were encountered.

CONCLUSION

The TT method in esophageal ESD was safe and contributed to shortening of dissection time. The TT method is expected to become widespread as a safe and useful procedure.

Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Propofol has been suggested to be superior to benzodiazepines when used as a sedative agent for endoscopic examination. The aim of the present study was to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of propofol sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi database were searched in order to identify randomized trials eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) of developing restlessness, full awakening at 1 h post-ESD, hypoxia, and hypotension.

RESULTS

We identified three randomized trials (298 patients) from the database search. Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled OR of restlessness and full awakening at 1 h post-ESD with propofol sedation were 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-0.81) and 8.59 (95% CI: 4.29-17.2), respectively, without significant heterogeneity. Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled OR of hypoxia and hypotension with propofol sedation were 1.13 (95% CI: 0.58-2.21) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.25-3.41), respectively, indicating no significant differences between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Propofol sedation during ESD is more effective as compared with traditional sedative agent. The risk of complications is similar.

Propofol sedation during endoscopic treatment for early gastric cancer compared to midazolam

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been proposed as the gold standard in the treatment of early gastric cancer because it facilitates a more accurate histological assessment and reduces the risk of tumor recurrence. However, the time course of ESD for large gastric tumors is frequently prolonged because of the tumor size and technical difficulties and typically requires higher doses of sedative and pain-controlling drugs. Sedative or anesthetic drugs such as midazolam or propofol are used during the procedure. Therapeutic endoscopy of early gastric cancers can often be performed with only moderate sedation. Compared with midazolam, propofol has a very fast onset of action, short plasma half-life and time to achieve sedation, faster time to recovery and discharge, and results in higher patient satisfaction. For overall success, maintaining safety and stability not only during the procedure but also subsequently in the recovery room and ward is necessary. In obese patients, it is recommended that the injected dose be based on a calculated standard weight. Cooperation between gastroenterologists, surgeons, and anesthesiologists is imperative for a successful ESD procedure.

Bispectral index monitoring during anesthesiologist-directed propofol and remifentanil sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically difficult and lengthy procedure requiring optimal depth of sedation. The bispectral index (BIS) monitor is a non-invasive tool that objectively evaluates the depth of sedation. The purpose of this prospective randomized controlled trial was to evaluate whether BIS guided sedation with propofol and remifentanil could reduce the number of patients requiring rescue propofol, and thus reduce the incidence of sedation- and/or procedure-related complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 180 patients who underwent the ESD procedure for gastric adenoma or early gastric cancer were randomized to two groups. The control group (n=90) was monitored by the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scale and the BIS group (n=90) was monitored using BIS. The total doses of propofol and remifentanil, the need for rescue propofol, and the rates of complications were recorded.

RESULTS

The number of patients who needed rescue propofol during the procedure was significantly higher in the control group than the BIS group (47.8% vs. 30.0%, p=0.014). There were no significant differences in the incidence of sedation- and/or procedure-related complications.

CONCLUSION

BIS-guided propofol infusion combined with remifentanil reduced the number of patients requiring rescue propofol in ESD procedures. However, this finding did not lead to clinical benefits and thus BIS monitoring is of limited use during anesthesiologist-directed sedation.

Recommended sedation and intraprocedural monitoring for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is associated with a longer treatment time and a higher risk of patient discomfort than conventional procedures. Adequate, safe sedation is therefore essential. Sedation can cause adverse effects such as hypoxemia and hypotension, requiring continuous intraoperative and postoperative monitoring of blood pressure, use of the electrocardiogram, and arterial blood oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry. A physician and a nurse solely responsible for sedating and monitoring the patient should be present during treatment.A combination of benzodiazepines and analgesics are generally used for sedation, but new sedatives such as propofol and dexmedetomidine hydrochloride are expected to be useful agents. Endoscopists should become more familiar with sedatives, analgesics, and emergency procedures in the future.

Sedation methods can determine performance of endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with gastric neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Although proper sedation is mandatory for endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), there is no research investigating the effects of sedation on ESD performance and complications. We aimed to evaluate the relationship among sedation methods, clinical outcomes, and complications after ESD for gastric neoplasia.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed clinical data of 1,367 patients with 1,485 lesions who had undergone ESD for gastric adenoma or early gastric cancer at our tertiary teaching hospital in Seoul, Korea, between January 2008 and May 2011. Of these, 1,035 lesions in 958 patients were included in the intermittent midazolam/propofol injection by endoscopists (IMIE) group, and 450 lesions in 409 patients were included in the continuous propofol infusion with opioid administration by anesthesiologists (CPIA) group.

RESULTS

En bloc resection and complete resection rates were higher in the CPIA group than in the IMIE group (CPIA vs. IMIE; en bloc resection, 99.8 and 95.0 %, P < 0.001; complete resection, 94.2 and 88.3 %, P < 0.001). Duration of procedure was shorter in the CPIA group than in the IMIE group (CPIA vs. IMIE; 48.2 ± 32.5 and 57.6 ± 41.3 min, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, sedation method was an independent factor associated with en bloc resection and complete resection. Additionally, sedation with CPIA was not a risk factor for bleeding (P = 0.403) or perforation (P = 0.474); however, aspiration pneumonia developed more frequently in patients sedated with CPIA (CPIA vs. IMIE, 4.4 and 1.5 %, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation with CPIA can improve ESD performance.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

Feasibility and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection of esophageal or gastric carcinomas under general anesthesia

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the feasibility and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of esophageal or gastric carcinomas under general anesthesia.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

ESD removal of esophageal or gastric carcinomas was performed in 59 patients under midazolam sedation (control group), and in 46 patients under general anesthesia (GA group). The procedural times, perioperative complications and patient's satisfaction with the procedures were recorded.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in age (65 ± 12 vs. 58 ± 11), male gender (43.5 vs. 49.2%), types or location or the size of the carcinomas (30 ± 6 vs. 28 ± 7 mm) between the control and GA groups (p > 0.05). The mean procedural time in the GA group was shorter than in the control group (42.5 ± 5.5 vs. 79.0 ± 13.2 min, p = 0.01). The combined gastric perforation and postprocedural bleeding rate in the GA group was lower than in the control group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.06). In the GA group, all patients rated the procedural experience as satisfactory, while in the control group, 38 (64.5%) rated the experience as satisfactory (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ESD under general anesthesia was associated with a shorter procedure time and a high rate of patient's satisfaction with the procedures.

Safety and efficacy of deep sedation with propofol alone or combined with midazolam administrated by nonanesthesiologist for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection

Background/Aims

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is accepted as a treatment for gastric neoplasms and usually requires deep sedation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy profiles of deep sedation induced by continuous propofol infusion with or without midazolam during ESD.

Methods

A total of 135 patients scheduled for ESDs between December 2008 and June 2010 were included in this prospective study and were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the propofol group or the combination group (propofol plus midazolam).

Results

The propofol group reported only one case of severe hypoxemia with no need of mask ventilation or intubation. Additionally, 18 cases of mild hypotension were observed in the propofol group, and 11 cases were observed in the combination group. The combination group had a lower mean total propofol dose (378 mg vs 466 mg, p<0.012), a longer mean recovery time (10.5 minutes vs 7.9 minutes, p=0.027), and a lower frequency of overall adverse events (32.8% vs 17.6%, p=0.042).

Conclusions

Deep sedation induced by continuous propofol infusion was shown to be safe during ESD. The combination of continuous propofol infusion and intermittent midazolam injection can decrease the total dose and infusion rate of propofol and the overall occurrence of adverse events.