Balanced propofol sedation administered by nonanesthesiologists: The first Italian experience

Impact of endoscopist experience, patient age and comorbidities on dose of sedation and sedation-related complications by endoscopic ultrasound

AIM

The aim of the study is to investigate the influence of endosonographer experience and patient-related factors on the dose of sedation and sedation-related complications during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

METHODS

Our retrospective analysis included EUS investigations performed between 2015 and 2018 at our institution. Sedation-related complications were defined as cardiorespiratory instability with oxygen saturation drop below 90% or prolonged low blood pressure or bradycardia.

RESULTS

In total, 537 EUS examinations were analyzed (37.3% interventional). The median dose of propofol and midazolam were: 140 (30-570) and 3(1-7) mg, respectively. Sedation-related complications were documented in 1.8% of cases. All patients had transient, nonfatal respiratory insufficiency. Totally, 60% of the patients who developed complications were >75 years and 70% were male. The presence of cardiac and/or pulmonary comorbidities was associated with an OR = 8.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-41.7] and American Society of Anesthesiologists class III with an OR = 7.64 (95% CI, 1.60-36.3) for the occurrence of sedation-related complications. Endosonographer experience did not influence the rate of sedation-related complications. In both diagnostic and interventional EUS, patients with comorbidities and older age received significantly less sedation. Experienced endosonographers used less sedation than trainees.

CONCLUSION

Endosonographer experience, patient age and the presence of comorbidities had a significant influence on sedation dose. Sedation-related complications occurred only in 1.8% of cases.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of Dexmedetomidine/Ketamine with Propofol/Fentanyl for sedation in colonoscopy patients: A double-blinded randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

In this double-blinded randomized clinical trial, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine [DK] with propofol and fentanyl [PF] for sedation in colonoscopy patients.

METHODS

In this study, 64 patients who underwent colonoscopy were randomized into two groups: 1) A, which received PF, and 2) B, which received DK for sedation. Among 64 patients, 31 patients were included in PF, and 33 patients were included in the DK group. Both groups were similar in terms of demographics. Patients' sedation score (based on Ramsay sedation scale) and vital signs were recorded at 2, 5, 10, and 15 minutes. Complications including apnea, hypotension, hypoxia, nausea, and vomiting, along with gastroenterologist satisfaction and patients' pain score (based on Wong-Baker faces pain assessment scale), were recorded by a checklist. Data were analyzed by SPSS v.18 software, using chi-square, independent t-tests, and repeated measures analysis with p<0.05 as the criterion for significant differences.

RESULTS

The mean score of sedation was 4.82±0.49 in the DK group and 5.22±0.45 in the PF group [p value=0.001]. Serious complications, including hypotension [p value=0.005] and apnea [p value=0.10] were significantly higher in the PF group. Satisfaction of gastroenterologist [p value= 0.400] and patients' pain score [p value = 0.900] were similar among groups.

CONCLUSION

Combination of DK provides sufficient sedation with fewer complications in comparison with PF in colonoscopy patients.

Combination of propofol and dezocine to improve safety and efficacy of anesthesia for gastroscopy and colonoscopy in adults: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Gastroscopy and colonoscopy are important and common endoscopic methods for the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal and colorectal diseases. However, endoscopy is usually associated with adverse reactions such as nervousness, nausea, vomiting, choking cough, and pain. Severe discomfort, such as vomiting, coughing, or body movement, may lead to aggravation of a pre-existing condition or even interruption of examination or treatment, especially in some critically ill patients with physiological dysfunction (e.g., cardiovascular or respiratory disease). The optimal methods for inducing analgesia and sedation in endoscopy are areas of ongoing debate; nevertheless, determining an appropriate regimen of sedation and analgesia is important.

AIM

To evaluate the effects of propofol combined with dezocine, sufentanil, or fentanyl in painless gastroscopy and colonoscopy.

METHODS

Four hundred patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups for anesthesia: intravenous dezocine, sufentanil, fentanyl, or saline. Propofol was administered intravenously for induction and maintenance of anesthesia.

RESULTS

The dosage of propofol in the dezocine group was significantly lower than those in other groups (P < 0.01). Bispectral index and Steward score (0-6 points, an unresponsive, immobile patient whose airway requires maintenance to a fully recovered patient) after eye opening in the dezocine group were significantly higher than those in other groups (P < 0.01). Awakening time and postoperative pain score (0-10 points, no pain to unbearable pain) in the dezocine group were significantly lower than those in other groups (P < 0.01). Mean arterial pressure and pulse oxygen saturation in the dezocine group were significantly more stable at various time points (before dosing, disappearance of eyelash reflex, and wakeup) than those in other groups (P < 0.01). The rates of hypopnea, jaw thrust, body movements, and usage of vasoactive drugs in the dezocine group were significantly lower than those in other groups (P < 0.01). Additionally, the rates of reflex coughing, nausea, and vomiting were not statistically different between the four groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The combination of propofol and dezocine can decrease propofol dosage, reduce the risk for the development of inhibitory effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, increase analgesic effect, decrease body movement, shorten awakening time, and improve awakening quality.

A clinical trial comparing propofol versus propofol plus midazolam in diagnostic endoscopy of patients with a low anesthetic risk

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

propofol and midazolam are two of the most commonly used sedatives in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). The objective of this study was to evaluate these two sedation regimens administered to patients who underwent an UGE with regard to security, efficiency, quality of exploration and patient response.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

a prospective, randomized and double-blind study was performed which included 83 patients between 18 and 80 years of age of a low anesthetic risk (ASA - American Society of Anesthesiologists- I-II) who underwent a diagnostic UGE. Patients were randomized to receive sedation with either placebo plus propofol (group A) or midazolam plus propofol (group B).

RESULTS

in group A, 42 patients received a placebo bolus (saline solution) and on average up to 115 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. In group B, 41 patients received 3 mg of midazolam and an average of up to 83 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. There were no significant differences in the adverse effects observed in either group and all adverse events were treated conservatively. The patients in group B (midazolam plus propofol) entered the desired sedated state more quickly with no variation in the overall time of the exploration. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups and the patients were equally satisfied regardless of the sedatives they received.

CONCLUSIONS

the use of midazolam plus propofol as a sedative does not affect the overall exploration time, a lower dose of propofol can be used and it is as safe as administering propofol as a monotherapy while providing the same level of both exploration quality and patient approval.

Incidental diagnosis of very small rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms: when should endoscopic submucosal dissection be performed? A single ENETS centre experience

PURPOSE

The management of small (≤5 mm) rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms (r-NENs), incidentally removed during colonoscopy, still remains under debate.

METHODS

All consecutive patients affected by r-NENs from January 2013 to December 2017 were studied. The inclusion criteria were: (1) patients having an incidental pathological diagnosis of very small (≤5 mm) polypoid r-NENs; (2) patients treated with a standard polypectomy as first-line therapy and (3) patients treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as salvage therapy. The primary endpoint was to identify the factors related to residual disease after a standard polypectomy. The secondary endpoint was to calculate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), grading and size in predicting residual disease.

RESULTS

Starting from a prospective database of 123 consecutive patients affected by r-NENs, only 31 met the inclusion criteria. A final pathological examination of an ESD specimen showed residual disease in 7 out of 31 patients (22.6%). A multivariate analysis showed that the size of the polyps was the only independent factor related to residual disease with an odds ratio of 8.7 ± 7.5 (P = 0.013) for each millimetre. The accuracy of EUS, grading and tumour size (3.1 mm cut-off point) and area under the curves were 0.661 ± 0.111, 0.631 ± 0.109 and 0.821 ± 0.109, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

When the r-NEN polyp was larger than 3 mm, ESD was indicated. Unlike the size of the tumour, grading and EUS features did not accurately predict residual disease.

Effect of conscious sedation with midazolam and fentanyl on the overall quality of colonoscopy: a prospective and randomized study

INTRODUCTION

a prospective, randomized study was performed to assess the influence of conscious sedation on the overall quality of colonoscopy, simultaneously quantifying its effect on the scientific quality, perceived quality and patient safety.

METHODS

patients referred for a colonoscopy were included in the study and were randomized to receive or not receive sedation. Demographic data, indication for colonoscopy, cecal intubation, introduction and withdrawal time, resected adenomas and complications during the exploration were collected. Thirty days later, a satisfaction questionnaire was performed (GHAA 9-me) and patients were asked about complications after the examination.

RESULTS

a total of 5,328 patients were included, the average age was 62 ± 15.22 years, 47% were male, 3,734 were sedated and 1,594 were not sedated. The sedated patients had a shorter endoscope insertion time (7'20 ± 2'15 min vs 6'15 ± 3'12 min, p < 0.019), a higher rate of cecal intubations (96% vs 88%, p < 0.05), longer withdrawal time (7'20 ± 2'15 min vs 6'15 ± 3'12 min, p < 0.01) and higher adenoma detection rates (22% vs 17%, p < 0.05). The use of sedation reduced discomfort during and after the exploration, without increasing the complications. The satisfaction questionnaire score was higher (23.6 ± 1.5 vs 16.6 ± 4.8, p < 0.001) in the sedated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

superficial sedation not only reduces patient discomfort but also improves the overall quality of the colonoscopy. Therefore, we must consider the use of sedation as an essential part of colonoscopy.

The current capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea

Background/Aims

Little is known for the capacity and quality of colonoscopy, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines in Korea. This study aimed to investigate the present and potential colonoscopic capacity, colonoscopic quality, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines in Korea.

Methods

We surveyed representative endoscopists of 72 endoscopy units from June to August 2015, using a 36-item questionnaire regarding colonoscopic capacity, quality, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines of each hospitals.

Results

Among the 62 respondents who answered the questionnaire, 51 respondents were analyzed after exclusion of 11 incomplete answers. Only 1 of 3 of endoscopy units can afford to perform additional colonoscopies in addition to current practice, and the potential maximum number of colonoscopies per week was only 42. The quality of colonoscopy was variable as reporting of quality indicators of colonoscopy were considerably variable (29.4%–94.1%) between endoscopy units. Furthermore, there are substantial gaps in the adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines, as concordance rate for guideline recommendation was less than 50% in most scenarios.

Conclusions

The potential capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea was suboptimal. Considering suboptimal reporting of colonoscopic quality indicators and low adherence rate for colonoscopy surveillance guidelines, quality improvement of colonoscopy should be underlined in Korea.

National Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program Remains Suboptimal in Korea

Background/Aims

We evaluated the characteristics of the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) and opinions regarding the National Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program (NEQIP).

Methods

We surveyed physicians performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy screenings as part of the NCSP via e-mail between July and August in 2015. The 32-item survey instrument included endoscopic capacity, sedation, and reprocessing of endoscopes as well as opinions regarding the NEQIP.

Results

A total of 507 respondents were analyzed after the exclusion of 40 incomplete answers. Under the current capacity of the NCSP, the typical waiting time for screening endoscopy was less than 4 weeks in more than 90% of endoscopy units. Performance of endoscopy reprocessing was suboptimal, with 28% of respondents using unapproved disinfectants or not knowing the main ingredient of their disinfectants and 15% to 17% of respondents not following reprocessing protocols. Agreement with the NEQIP was optimal, because only 5.7% of respondents did not agree with NEQIP; however, familiarity with the NEQIP was suboptimal, because only 37.3% of respondents were familiar with the NEQIP criteria.

Conclusions

The NEQ-IP remains suboptimal in Korea. Given the suboptimal performance of endoscopy reprocessing and low familiarity with the NEQIP, improved quality in endoscopy reprocessing and better understanding of the NEQIP should be emphasized in Korea.

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

BACKGROUND/AIMS

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical study of anesthetization by dezocine combined with propofol for indolent colonoscopy

AIM: To assess the use of dezocine combined with propofol for the anesthetization of patients undergoing indolent colonoscopy.

METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of patients undergoing indolent colonoscopy in the Xinjiang People’s Hospital was conducted from April 1 to April 30, 2015. The survey collected patient general information and anesthesia data, including overall medical experience and pain management. Thirty minutes after colonoscopy surgery, samples of venous blood were collected and the biochemical indicators of gastrointestinal function were analyzed.

RESULTS: There were 98 female and 62 male respondents. Indolent colonoscopy was found to be more suitable for mid to older-aged patients. The necessary conditions for the diagnosis of digestive diseases were required in 65 of the 73 inpatients. Adverse reactions to the intraoperative process included two cases of body movement and two cases of respiratory depression. Gastrin and vasoactive intestinal peptide levels were slightly increased. However, somatostatin and endothelin levels were slightly decreased.

CONCLUSION: This study revealed that dezocine combined with propofol can be successfully used for the anesthetization of indolent colonoscopy patients without pain and should be widely used.

Current role of non-anesthesiologist administered propofol sedation in advanced interventional endoscopy

Complex and lengthy endoscopic examinations like endoscopic ultrasonography and/or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography benefit from deep sedation, due to an enhanced quality of examinations, reduced discomfort and anxiety of patients, as well as increased satisfaction for both the patients and medical personnel. Current guidelines support the use of propofol sedation, which has the same rate of adverse effects as traditional sedation with benzodiazepines and/or opioids, but decreases the procedural and recovery time. Non-anesthesiologist administered propofol sedation has become an option in most of the countries, due to limited anesthesiology resources and the increasing evidence from prospective studies and meta-analyses that the procedure is safe with a similar rate of adverse events with traditional sedation. The advantages include a high quality of endoscopic examination, improved satisfaction for patients and doctors, as well as decreased recovery and discharge time. Despite the advantages of non-anesthesiologist administered propofol, there is still a continuous debate related to the successful generalization of the procedures.

Cardiopulmonary safety of propofol versus midazolam/meperidine sedation for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study

Background:

Different levels of pharmacological sedation ranging from minimal to general anesthesia are often used to increase patient tolerance for a successful colonoscopy. However, sedation increases the risk of respiratory depression and cardiovascular complications during colonoscopy.

Objectives:

We aimed to compare the propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation methods for colonoscopy procedures with respect to cardiopulmonary safety, procedure-related times, and patient satisfaction.

Patients and Methods:

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, in which 124 consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient diagnostic colonoscopies were divided into propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation groups (n: 62, m/f ratio: 26/36, mean age: 46 ± 15 for the propofol group; n: 62, m/f ratio: 28/34, mean age: 49 ± 15 for the midazolam/meperidine group) by computer-generated randomization. The frequency of cardiopulmonary events (hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia), procedure-related times (duration of colonoscopy, time to cecal intubation, time to ileal intubation, awakening time, and time to hospital discharge) and patients’ evaluation results (pain assessment, quality of sedation, and recollection of procedure) were compared between the groups.

Results:

There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients, the frequency of hypotension, hypoxemia or bradycardia, cecal and ileal intubation times, and the duration of colonoscopy. The logistic regression analysis indicated that the development of cardiopulmonary events was not associated with the sedative agent used or the characteristics of the patients. The time required for the patient to be fully awake and the time to hospital discharge was significantly longer in the propofol group (11 ± 8 and 37 ± 11 minutes, respectively) than the midazolam/meperidine group (8 ± 6 and 29 ± 12 minutes, respectively) (P = 0.009 and P < 0.001, respectively). The patient satisfaction rates were not significantly different between the groups; however, patients in the propofol group experienced more pain than patients in the midazolam/meperidine group (VAS score: 0.31 ± 0.76 vs. 0 ± 0; P = 0.002).

Conclusions:

Midazolam/meperidine and propofol sedation for colonoscopy have similar cardiopulmonary safety profiles and patient satisfaction levels. Midazolam/meperidine can be preferred to propofol sedation due to a shorter hospital length of stay and better analgesic activity.

Propofol use in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound

Compared to standard endoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are often lengthier and more complex, thus requiring higher doses of sedatives for patient comfort and compliance. The aim of this review is to provide the reader with information regarding the use, safety profile, and merits of propofol for sedation in advanced endoscopic procedures like ERCP and EUS, based on the current literature.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Factors associated with adenoma detection rate and diagnosis of polyps and colorectal cancer during colonoscopy in France: results of a prospective, nationwide survey

Introduction

Colonoscopy can prevent deaths due to colorectal cancer (CRC) through early diagnosis or resection of colonic adenomas. We conducted a prospective, nationwide study on colonoscopy practice in France.

Methods

An online questionnaire was administered to 2,600 French gastroenterologists. Data from all consecutive colonoscopies performed during one week were collected. A statistical extrapolation of the results to a whole year was performed, and factors potentially associated with the adenoma detection rate (ADR) or the diagnosis of polyps or cancer were assessed.

Results

A total of 342 gastroenterologists, representative of the overall population of French gastroenterologists, provided data on 3,266 colonoscopies, corresponding to 1,200,529 (95% CI: 1,125,936-1,275,122) procedures for the year 2011. The indication for colonoscopy was CRC screening and digestive symptoms in 49.6% and 38.9% of cases, respectively. Polypectomy was performed in 35.5% of cases. The ADR and prevalence of CRC were 17.7% and 2.9%, respectively. The main factors associated with a high ADR were male gender (p=0.0001), age over 50 (p=0.0001), personal or family history of CRC or colorectal polyps (p<0.0001 and p<0.0001, respectively), and positive fecal occult blood test (p=0.0005). The prevalence of CRC was three times higher in patients with their first colonoscopy (4.2% vs. 1.4%; p<0.0001).

Conclusions

For the first time in France, we report nationwide prospective data on colonoscopy practice, including histological results. We found an average ADR of 17.7%, and observed reduced CRC incidence in patients with previous colonoscopy.

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol versus midazolam and propofol, titrated to moderate sedation, for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) is controversial due to deep sedation concerns.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of moderate sedation with two different NAAP regimens for colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial allocating 135 consecutive outpatients to placebo (group P) or midazolam 2 mg (group M+P) before NAAP targeted to moderate sedation. Depth of sedation every 2 min throughout the procedure, propofol doses, recovery times, complications and patient and endoscopist satisfaction were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 84 % of assessments of the depth of sedation were moderate. Mean induction (76 [40-150] vs. 53 [30-90]) and total propofol doses (mg) (136 [60-270] vs. 104 [50-190]) were significantly higher for group P (p < 0.001). However, deep sedation was significantly more prevalent in group M+P in minutes 4 (16 vs. 1 %, p = 0.05), 6 (20 vs. 3.5 %, p = 0.046) and 8 (17 vs. 1.8 %, p = 0.06) of the procedure, coinciding with midazolam peak action. From minute 8 on, moderate sedation was significantly deeper for M+P (p = 0.002). Early recovery time (6.8 min vs. 5.2, p = 0.007), but not discharge time (10.4 min vs. 9.8, p = 0.5), was longer for M+P. Pain perception (P 1.03 vs. M+P 0.3, p = 0.009) and patient satisfaction scores (P 9.4 vs. M+P 9.8, p = 0.047) were better for M+P. No major complications occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation was feasible with both NAAP regimens. Drug synergy in the midazolam plus propofol sedation regimen promotes a deeper and longer moderate sedation, improving patient satisfaction rates but prolonging early recovery time (Clinical Trials gov NCT01428882).

Safety and effectiveness of propofol sedation during and after outpatient colonoscopy

AIM: To study the safety and effectiveness of propofol sedation for outpatient colonoscopy.

METHODS: Propofol was given by bolus injection with an age-adjusted standard protocol consisting of 60 mg for patients < 70 years old, 40 mg for patients age 70-89 years, and 20 mg for those ≥ 90 years, and additional injections of 20 mg propofol were given up to a maximum of 200 mg. The principal parameters were the occurrence of adverse events within 24 h after colonoscopy and overall satisfaction for this procedure. Secondary parameters included successful procedure, respiratory depression, and other complications.

RESULTS: Consecutive patients were entered prospectively and all 2101 entered successfully completed outpatient colonoscopy. The mean dose of propofol used was 96.4 mg (range 40-200 mg). Younger patients required higher doses of propofol than older patients (20-40 years vs≥ 61 years: 115.3 ± 32 mg vs 89.7 ± 21 mg, P < 0.001). Transient supplemental oxygen supply was needed by five patients (0.2%); no other complications occurred. The questionnaires were completed by 1820 (87%) of 2101 patients and most rated their overall satisfaction as excellent (80%) or good (17%). The majority (65%) of patients drove home or to their office after their colonoscopy. Most (99%) were willing to repeat the same procedure. No incidents occurred within 24 h after colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION: Propofol sedation using a dose < 200 mg proved both safe and practical for outpatient colonoscopy.

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation for colonoscopy is safe and effective: a prospective Spanish study over 1000 consecutive exams

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Propofol is increasingly being used in sedated colonoscopy. This paper assesses the safety and efficacy of nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol in a large series of colonoscopies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective registry of consecutive American Society of Anesthetics (ASA) class I and II outpatients undergoing colonoscopy was carried out. Propofol, administered by a nurse under an endoscopist's supervision, was the sole sedative agent used.

RESULTS

Of the 1000 patients (563 women/437 men, mean age 57, range 8-89 years) included in the study, 57.4% showed ASA I and 42.6% ASA II characteristics. The cecal intubation rate was 96.9%. 48.2% of the procedures were for therapeutic purposes. The mean propofol dose was 177 mg (range 50-590 mg). Doses correlated inversely with patient age (r=-0.38; P<0.001) and were lower in ASA II patients (P<0.001) and in diagnostic (rather than therapeutic) exams (P<0.001). The average recovery time (from extracting the colonoscope to patient discharge) was 18.6 min (range 4-75) and longer in ASA II patients (P=0.05). A pulse oximetry saturation of less than 90% and a decrease in systolic blood pressure of more than 20 mmHg were observed in 24 (2.4%) and 385 (35.8%) patients, respectively. Both events were more frequent in patients older than 65 years (P<0.05); the latter was more common in ASA II patients.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy under endoscopist-controlled propofol sedation in low-risk patients is safe and effective, allowing for a complete exploration, although patients at least 65 years old and/or classified as ASA II are more likely to present a decrease in blood pressure and have a prolonged recovery time.