Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during endoscopic submucosal dissection

Addition of Dexmedetomidine to the Anesthesia Regimen Attenuates Pain and Improves Early Recovery After Esophageal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

Postoperative pain is a common yet often underestimated complication following esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), with limited strategies for effective management. This prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial assessed the effects of adding dexmedetomidine (DEX) to the anesthesia regimen on postoperative pain and early recovery in patients undergoing esophageal ESD.

Methods

In total, 60 patients scheduled for elective esophageal ESD under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to the DEX or control group. The DEX group received an intravenous loading dose of DEX at 1 μg/kg for 10 min, followed by a continuous intravenous infusion of 0.6 µg/kg/h, which was stopped 30 min before the end of the procedure. The control group received normal saline as a placebo. The study's primary outcome was the incidence of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain scores, hemodynamic parameters, the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), patient satisfaction, and lengths of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and hospital.

Results

The incidence of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain in the DEX group was significantly lower than that in the control group (absolute difference: -33.4%; OR: 0.250; 95% CI: 0.085-0.731, P = 0.01). Pain scores at 1 h postoperatively (0.5[2.0] vs 3.0[1.3], P = 0.003) were significantly lower in the DEX group. Additionally, morphine dosage in the PACU (0[0] vs 1.0[2.0] P = 0.004) was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared with the control group. In the DEX group, the incidence and severity of PONV were significantly decreased and the length of PACU stay was shorter than in the control group (P < 0.01). However, the rates of intraoperative hypotension, tachycardia, and bradycardia were similar between the two groups. Patient satisfaction and length of hospital stay were also comparable.

Conclusion

Adding DEX to the anesthesia regimen for esophageal ESD significantly attenuates postoperative pain and improves early recovery outcomes.

Effects of remimazolam tosilate on gastrointestinal hormones and gastrointestinal motility in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation: a randomized control trial

PURPOSE

To investigate the impacts of remimazolam tosilate on gastrointestinal hormones and motility in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation.

METHODS

A total of 262 American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I or II patients, aged 18-65 years, scheduled for gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation, were randomly allocated into two groups (n = 131 each): the remimazolam tosilate group (Group R) and the propofol group (Group P). Patients in Group R received 0.2-0.25 mg/Kg remimazolam tosilate intravenously, while those in Group P received 1.5-2.0 mg/kg propofol intravenously. The gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed when the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scores were ≤3. The primary endpoints included the endoscopic intestinal peristalsis rating by the endoscopist; serum motilin and gastrin levels at fasting without gastrointestinal preparation (T0), before gastrointestinal endoscopy (T1), and before leaving the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (T2); and the incidences of abdominal distension during Post Anesthesia Care Unit.

RESULTS

Compared with Group P, intestinal peristalsis rating was higher in Group R (P < .001); Group R showed increased motilin and gastrin levels at T2 compared with Group P (P < .01). There was a rise in motilin and gastrin levels at T1 and T2 compared with T0 and at T2 compared with T1 in both groups (P < .01). The incidence of abdominal distension was lower in Group R (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with propofol used during gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation, remimazolam tosilate mildly inhibits the serum motilin and gastrin levels, potentially facilitating the recovery of gastrointestinal motility.

Efficacy, safety, and impact on procedural outcomes of local anesthesia in endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has revolutionized the treatment of early stage gastrointestinal cancers. However, ESD can be associated with increased postprocedural pain and higher complication rates. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of local anesthesia.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of local anesthesia in ESD procedures. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess study quality. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4, with summary measures expressed as pooled odds ratios (OR) or mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Four randomized controlled trials with 296 patients undergoing ESD procedures were included. The use of local anesthesia did not significantly impact procedural time (mean difference = -2.05, 95% CI = -9.29, 5.18, I2 = 30%, P = 0.58). Lastly, the use of local anesthesia did not increase the risk of bleeding or other adverse events (P > 0.05) and decreased the incidence of bradycardia (OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.95; I2 = 0%; P = 0.04).

Conclusion

Our study found that the use of local anesthesia did not significantly affect the procedural time of ESD. However, it effectively reduced postoperative pain in some trials with no risk of increased incidence of adverse events.

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Balanced propofol sedation is extensively used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) are common. In various clinical settings, the combination of dexmedetomidine with opioids and benzodiazepines has provided effective sedation with increased safety. The aim of this investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during ERCP.

METHODS

Forty-one patients were randomly divided into two groups: the dexmedetomidine (DEX) group and the propofol (PRO) group. Patients in the DEX group received an additional bolus of 0.6 μg kg-1 dexmedetomidine followed by a dexmedetomidine infusion at 1.2 μg kg-1 h-1, whereas the PRO group received 1-2 mg kg-1 of propofol bolus followed by a propofol infusion at 2-3 mg kg-1 h-1. During ERCP, the primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for > 10 s). Other intraoperative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes, including respiratory depression (respiratory rate of < 10 bpm min-1), hypotension (MAP < 65 mmHg), and bradycardia (HR < 45 beats min-1).

RESULTS

The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared to the PRO group (0% versus 28.6%, respectively; P = 0.032). Patients in the PRO group exhibited respiratory depression more frequently than patients in the DEX group (35% versus 81%, respectively; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in terms of hypotension and bradycardia episodes between groups. During the procedures, the satisfaction scores of endoscopists and patients, as well as the pain and procedure memory scores of patients were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with propofol, dexmedetomidine provided adequate sedation safety with no adverse effects on sedation efficacy during ERCP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200061468, 25/06/2022.

Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of sedation with DEX during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with a view to providing evidence-based references for clinical decision-making. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEX with different sedatives comparators (such as propofol, midazolam, and ketamine) for sedation in a variety of adult gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 1 July 2022. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were used for continuous outcomes or dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and a random-effect model was selected regardless of the significance of the heterogeneity. Results: Forty studies with 2,955 patients were assessed, of which 1,333 patients were in the DEX group and 1,622 patients were in the control (without DEX) group. The results suggested that the primary outcomes of sedation level of DEX are comparable to other sedatives, with similar RSS score and patient satisfaction level, and better in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of body movements or gagging (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.97; p = 0.04; I2 = 68%), and a reduced additional requirement for other sedatives, and increased endoscopist satisfaction level (SMD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.77; p = 0.03; I2 = 86%). In terms of secondary outcomes of adverse events, DEX may benefit patients in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of hypoxia (RR:0.34; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.55; p < 0.0001; I2 = 52%) and cough (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54; p = 0.0004; I2 = 0%), no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, while an increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 2.12 to 4.48; p < 0.00001; I2 = 6%). Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that DEX is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its benefits for patients in some clinical outcomes. Remarkably, DEX is comparable to midazolam and propofol in terms of sedation level. In conclusion, DEX provides an additional option in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced.

Effects of dexmedetomidine in non-operating room anesthesia in adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) is a modality of anesthesia that can be done under general anesthesia or procedural sedation or/and analgesia. In this particular setting, a level-2 sedation, such as the one provided by DEX, is beneficial. We aimed to study the effects and safety of DEX in the different NORA settings in the adult population.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Interventions using DEX only or DEX associated with other sedative agents, in adults (18 years old or more), were included. Procedures outside the NORA setting and/or without a control group without DEX were excluded. MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, LILACS, and SciELO were searched. The primary outcome was time until full recovery. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and respiratory complications and other adverse events, among others.

RESULTS

A total of 97 studies were included with a total of 6,706 participants. The meta-analysis demonstrated that DEX had a higher time until full recovery (95% CI = [0.34, 3.13] minutes, a higher incidence of hypotension (OR = 1.95 [1.25, 3.05], p = 0.003, I2 = 39%) and bradycardia (OR = 3.60 [2.29, 5.67], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), and a lower incidence of desaturation (OR = 0.40 [0.25, 0.66], p = 0.0003, I² = 60%).

CONCLUSION

DEX in NORA procedures in adults was associated with a lower incidence of amnesia and respiratory effects but had a long time to recovery and more hemodynamic complications.

Conscious Sedation Methods for Blepharoplasty in Day Surgery

Midazolam and fentanyl, in combination, are the most commonly used medications for conscious sedation in day aesthetic surgeries. Dexmedetomidine is popularly used in the sedation protocol of our hospital due to its reduced respiratory depression. However, its sedation benefits in facial aesthetic surgeries, like blepharoplasty, have not been well-evaluated. We retrospectively compared individuals sedated with midazolam and fentanyl bolus injection (N = 137) and those sedated with dexmedetomidine infusion (N = 113) to determine which is more suitable for blepharoplasty with a mid-cheek lift. The total amount of local anesthetic (p < 0.001), postoperative pain (p = 0.004), ketoprofen administration (p = 0.028), and the number of hypoxia episodes (p < 0.001) and intraoperative hypertension (p = 0.003) were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group. Hypoxia severity (p < 0.001) and minor hematoma formation (p = 0.007) were also significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group. Sedation with dexmedetomidine infusion is associated with less hematoma formation than sedation with midazolam and fentanyl bolus pattern due to hemodynamic stability and analgesic effects. Dexmedetomidine infusion may be a good alternate sedative for lower blepharoplasty.

Advances in Analgosedation and Periprocedural Care for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The number and complexity of endoscopic gastrointestinal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is globally increasing. Procedural analgosedation during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has become the gold standard of gastrointestinal endoscopies. Patient satisfaction and safety are important for the quality of the technique. Currently there are no uniform sedation guidelines and protocols for specific gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and there are several challenges surrounding the choice of an appropriate analgosedation technique. These include categories of patients, choice of drug, appropriate monitoring, and medical staff providing the service. The ideal analgosedation technique should enable the satisfaction of the patient, their maximum safety and, at the same time, cost-effectiveness. Although propofol is the gold standard and the most used general anesthetic for endoscopies, its use is not without risks such as pain at the injection site, respiratory depression, and hypotension. New studies are looking for alternatives to propofol, and drugs like remimazolam and ciprofol are in the focus of researchers' interest. New monitoring techniques are also associated with them. The optimal technique of analgosedation should provide good analgesia and sedation, fast recovery, comfort for the endoscopist, patients' safety, and will have financial benefits. The future will show whether these new drugs have succeeded in these goals.

Endo-anesthesia: a primer

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has witnessed a Cambrian explosion of techniques, indications, and expanding target populations. GI endoscopy encompasses traditional domains that include preventive measures, palliation, as alternative therapies in patients with prohibitive risks of more invasive procedures, and indicated primary treatments. But, it has expanded to include therapeutic and diagnostic interventional endosonography, luminal endoscopic resection, third space endotherapy, endohepatology, and endobariatrics. The lines between surgery and endoscopy are blurred on many occasions within this paradigm. Moreover, patients with high degrees of co-morbidity and complex physiology require more nuanced peri-endoscopic management. The rising demand for endoscopy services has resulted in the development of endoscopy referral centers that offer these invasive procedures as directly booked referrals for regional and rural patients. This further necessitates specialized programs to ensure appropriate evaluation, risk stratification, and optimization for safe sedation and general anesthesia if needed. This landscape is conducive to the organic evolution of endo-anesthesia to meet the needs of these focused and evolving practices. In this primer, we delineate important aspects of endo-anesthesia care and provide relevant clinical and logistical considerations pertaining to the breadth of procedures.

Comparison Effects of Propofol-Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol-Remifentanil for Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial

Objective. To compare the effects of propofol-dexmedetomidine versus propofol-remifentanil for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). Design, Setting, and Participants. A single-center, randomized trial from August 20, 2020 to August 20, 2021, in patients undergoing EUS. Interventions. Propofol-dexmedetomidine (PD) versus propofol-remifentanil (PR). Outcome Measures. The primary outcome was the endoscopist satisfaction level. The secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, the incidence of adverse events, induction time, and time to achieve postanesthesia discharge score (PADS) ≥9. Methods. Total of 200 patients were enrolled and randomized into PD and PR groups. A bolus dose of 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine was injected intravenously for 5 min. Subsequently, a continuous infusion of 0.5 μg/kg/h for the PD group. Remifentanil was continuously infused at 1.5 μg/kg/h for the PR group. A bolus dose of 1 mg/kg propofol was administered to both groups and then continuously infused. Results. The endoscopist satisfaction level was higher in the PR group than in the PD group ( $P=0.009$ ). Patient satisfaction was not significantly different between the groups ( $P=0.738$ ). No patients required mask ventilation or tracheal intubation in both groups. All patients were relatively hemodynamically stable. The incidence of body movements during the procedure in the PD group was higher than in the PR group ( $P=0.035$ ). The induction time and time taken to achieve PADS ≥9 in the PD group were longer than in the PR group ( $P<0.05$ ). Conclusions. PR sedation can increase the satisfaction level of the endoscopist by providing faster induction time and lower body movement and that of the patient by achieving faster PADS than PD sedation. Trial registration number: http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000034987).

Moderate sedation with dexmedetomidine-remifentanil is safer than deep sedation with propofol-remifentanil for endobronchial ultrasound while providing comparable quality: a randomized double-blind trial

OBJECTIVE

We compared dexmedetomidine-remifentanil vs. propofol-remifentanil in terms of safety and quality during sedation for Endobronchial ultrasonography (EBUS).

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind trial. Outpatients undergoing EBUS randomly received 1 μg/kg/hour dexmedetomidine or a target concentration of 2.5 μg/mL propofol, both combined with remifentanil initially targeted at 1.5 ng/mL and subsequently titrated. Additional sedatives were restricted. The primary outcome was the need for airway rescue interventions to treat oxygen desaturation.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients received dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and 27 received propofol-remifentanil. Airway rescue interventions were fewer in the dexmedetomidine group vs. the propofol one (23 vs. 76% patients, relative risk 3.21 (95% CI 1.55-6.64, P < 0.002)). Desaturation in the dexmedetomidine group was always resolved by increasing nasal oxygen flow, whereas additional interventions were needed in 60% of patients receiving propofol. Hypotension was more frequent in the propofol group, while hypertension, bradycardia and coughing were similar in both. Bronchoscopists' and patients' satisfaction were similar, although in the dexmedetomidine group two patients needed additional sedatives and two patients would not repeat the sedation technique.

CONCLUSION

Moderate sedation with dexmedetomidine-remifentanil for EBUS is safer than deep sedation with propofol-remifentanil but it would occasionally need additional sedatives to ensure patient satisfaction.

Safety and efficacy of pentazocine–midazolam combination for pain and anxiety relief in radiofrequency ablation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Background and Aim

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) therapy is frequently used as first‐line treatment for small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). RFA is often associated with pain; however, no definitive solution has been established for its relief. We retrospectively analyzed the safety and efficacy of the combination of pentazocine and midazolam to relieve pain experienced by HCC patients undergoing RFA.

Methods

We studied 77 patients with 98 HCCs treated with RFA between January 2015 and August 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: the sedative‐free group, which included those who received pentazocine alone, and the pentazocine–midazolam group, which included those who received a combination of pentazocine and midazolam. The degrees of analgesia and sedation were evaluated using the numerical rating scale (NRS) and the Richmond Agitation‐Sedation Scale (RASS), respectively. Other parameters such as treatment time, awakening time, midazolam dosage, vital signs, local recurrence rate, and time to recurrence were also examined.

Results

The median NRS score and RASS score were significantly lower in the pentazocine–midazolam group. Ninety‐five percent of patients in the pentazocine–midazolam group had no memory of the RFA session. The treatment time and awakening time were prolonged for the pentazocine–midazolam group. No significant differences in oxygen saturation, recurrence rates, and time to local recurrence were observed between groups.

Conclusion

A combination of pentazocine and midazolam is safe and effective for pain and anxiety relief experienced by patients undergoing RFA for local treatment of HCC.

Pre-procedural Preparation and Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease poses various challenges, a major one being procedural sedation and its associated considerations. While sedation during endoscopy can improve patient comfort, decrease anxiety, and facilitate procedural completion, in patients with advanced liver disease, it is also associated with substantial and unique risks due to alterations in drug metabolism and other factors. As such, the choice of sedative agent(s) and related logistics may require careful inter-disciplinary planning and individualized considerations. Furthermore, a large proportion of agents require dose reductions and particular monitoring of the vital signs, level of consciousness, and other indices. In the present review, we provide a contemporary overview of procedural sedation considerations, commonly used intravenous sedatives, and second-line as well as novel sedatives for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease.

Effect of Intraoperative Magnesium Sulfate Administration on Blood Glucose Control following Total Joint Arthroplasty in Patients with Diabetes

Magnesium deficiency, which is known to be highly prevalent among patients with diabetes, has been associated with insulin resistance and poor glucose control. Here, we aimed to investigate the effects of intraoperative magnesium administration on postoperative glucose control in patients with diabetes. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with type 2 diabetes who had undergone total joint arthroplasty at a tertiary hospital, where intraoperative magnesium sulfate injections were frequently performed for postoperative analgesia. The patients were grouped based on whether treated with magnesium or not (magnesium vs. control groups). We investigated postoperative blood glucose levels and sliding scale insulin requirements. After propensity matching, 170 patients were allotted to each group. Both the mean glucose level and the incidence of a mean glucose level of >200mg/dL were significantly lower in the magnesium group than in the control group (p = 0.040 and 0.013, respectively). There was also a lower insulin requirement in the magnesium group (p = 0.043). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that magnesium treatment was significantly related to a less frequent incidence of a mean blood glucose level of >200 mg/dL (p = 0.047). This study demonstrated that magnesium sulfate infusion was associated with an improved postoperative blood glucose profile in patients with diabetes.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation protocols with the use of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The study was aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different sedation protocols of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil for percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects (ASD) under transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) guidance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From March 2020 to January 2021, of 114 patients screened, 59 ASD patients scheduled for percutaneous closure under TTE guidance were randomly allocated into the dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (D-R) group (n = 29) and the propofol-remifentanil (P-R) group (n = 30). The incidence of hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events, arterial blood gas analysis, induction and recovery time, pain score, infusion rate of remifentanil, satisfaction of the surgeon and patient, additional sedatives were collected for analysis and comparison.

RESULTS

The induction time was longer in the D-R group than that in the P-R group (17.66 ± 2.65 min vs 11.43 ± 1.48 min; difference, 6.22 min; 95% CI 5.10 to 7.35; P < 0.001). No differences were observed in the 2 groups in terms of the additional sedatives, infusion rate of remifentanil, pain score, recovery time (P > 0.05). There was no difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events (6 [20.7%] vs 4 [13.3%]; difference, 7.4%; 95% CI - 11.7 to 26.5%; P = 0.506). Respiratory adverse events occurred in 1 patient (3.4%) in the D-R group, and 8 patients (26.7%) in the P-R group (difference, 23.3%; 95% CI 6.2 to 40.5%; P = 0.026). The incidence of hypercapnia was significantly lower in the D-R group (4 [13.8%]) than in the P-R group (13 [43.3%]; difference, 29.5%; 95% CI 7.8 to 51.2%; P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Except for more rapid the induction time and higher the surgeon satisfaction score in the propofol-remifentanil protocol, the efficacy was similar between two sedation protocols. The hemodynamic stability was comparable, the dexmedetomidine-remifentanil protocol had superior airway security due to fewer hypercapnia and respiratory adverse events.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine Administered in Two Different Modes Under Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in Plastic Surgery

Background

Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a highly selective α2-adrenergic receptor agonist, is now widely used in procedural sedation and analgesia. This study was designed to observe and compare the efficacy and safety of DEX administered in two different modes.

Methods

In total, 100 patients were randomly divided into two groups to receive intravenous DEX 1 µg/kg over 15 min followed by 0.4–0.7 µg/kg/h infusion or DEX 1 µg/kg over 30 min followed by 0.4–0.7 µg/kg/h infusion. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate (RR), bispectral index (BIS), Ramsay Sedation Scores (RSS scores), the lowest respiratory rates (LRR), incidences of respiratory adverse events and frequencies of body movements were recorded. Recovery time, recall of intraoperative events, pain scores in PACU and satisfaction of patients and surgeons were assessed.

Results

The BIS at time points from 5 min after anesthesia to the end of surgery in the intervention group were significantly higher (p < 0.05). The RSS scores at time points from 5 min after anesthesia to immediately after induction with DEX were significantly higher in the intervention group (p < 0.05). The HR at time points from the beginning of surgery to 30 min after local anesthesia, the MAP at time points from 30 min after local anesthesia to the end of surgery, and the RR at time points from 5 min after anesthesia to the end of surgery were significantly higher in the intervention group (p < 0.05). Patients in the intervention group had higher LRR, lower incidences of respiratory adverse events, and shorter recovery time (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine infused with a loading dose over 30 min had less impact on patients’ hemodynamics and respiration and could shorten the recovery time after anesthesia in procedural sedation and analgesia.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: ChiCTR1900027958.

Stimulating peristalsis improves esophagogastric junction observation during sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children and adolescents

Background and study aims

Sedation impairs full visualization of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) and Z line (the squamocolumnar junction) during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). The aim of this study was to determine whether induction of esophageal peristalsis could improve the ability to evaluate the Z line in children and adolescents.

Patients and methods

Study 1: Consecutive patients (10-15 years) undergoing EGD with propofol or midazolam sedation were enrolled. The proportion of Z line observed was compared between the two groups. Study 2: The effect of an air infusion near the EGJ following deflation of the stomach to induce esophageal peristalsis was investigated in the patients (15-18 years), undergoing EGD with propofol sedation. The proportion of Z line observed was compared between the stimulated group and control group.

Results

Study 1: 149 patients were evaluated; 87 received propofol (43 boys; average age 13.2 years (range, 10-15)) and 62 received midazolam (30 boys; average age 12.8 years (range, 10-15)). The proportion of the Z line visualized was low but was greater with propofol vs. midazolam sedation (36.8% vs 16.1%, P=0.0059). Study 2: 102 patients were evaluated; 62 had induction of peristalsis (34 boys; average age 16.2 years (range, 15-18)) and 40 controls (20 boys; average age 16.8 years (range, 15-18)). Complete visualization of the Z line achieved in 95% (59 of 62) following induction of peristalsis vs. 37.5% (15 of 40) of controls (P>0.001).

Conclusions

Induction of esophageal peristalsis greatly improved visualization of the Z line during sedated EGD in children and adolescents.

Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine/Ketamine with Propofol/Fentanyl for Sedation in Colonoscopy Patients: A Doubleblinded 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.

Comparison of Respiratory Effects between Dexmedetomidine and Propofol Sedation for Ultrasound-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation of Hepatic Neoplasm: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Patient’s cooperation and respiration is necessary in percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We compared the respiratory patterns of dexmedetomidine and propofol sedation during this procedure. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups: the continuous infusions of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (DR group) or the propofol-remifentanil (PR group). We measured the tidal volume for each patient’s respiration during one-minute intervals at five points and compared the standard deviation of the tidal volumes (SDvt) between the groups. Sixty-two patients completed the study. SDvt at 10 min was not different between the groups (DR group, 108.58 vs. PR group, 149.06, p = 0.451). However, SDvt and end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO₂) level of PR group were significantly increased over time compared to DR group (p = 0.004, p = 0.021; ß = 0.14, ß = −0.91, respectively). Heart rate was significantly decreased during sedation in DR group (p < 0.001, ß = −2.32). Radiologist satisfaction was significantly higher, and the incidence of apnea was lower in DR group (p = 0.010, p = 0.009, respectively). Compared with propofol-remifentanil, sedation using dexmedetomidine-remifentanil provided a lower increase of the standard deviation of tidal volume and EtCO₂, and also showed less apnea during RFA of HCC.

Influence of Sedation on the Detection Rate of Early Cancer and Precancerous Lesions During Diagnostic Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopies: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

The influence of sedation on the endoscopic detection rate of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) early cancer (EC) and precancerous lesions, including high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) and low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, has not been assessed. The aim of this research is to assess whether the use of sedation can help improve the detection rate of UGI EC and precancerous lesions. The second objective is to evaluate its potential influencing factors.

METHODS

The study includes 432,202 patients from a multicenter database from January 2012 to July 2019. Information on endoscopic findings and histology biopsies was obtained from endoscopy quality-control system. Associations of sedation with the detection rate of EC and precancerous lesions were assessed.

RESULTS

The sedation group has a higher detection rate of UGI EC and HGIN compared with the no-sedation group, whereas the detection rate of low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia was similar between the 2 groups. There were more cases examined by using staining, image enhancement, or magnifying techniques in the sedation group (P < 0.001). And, the mean observation time was also longer in the sedation group (P < 0.001). The type 0-IIb esophageal HGIN and EC cases were significantly increased in the sedation group. No significant difference was detected on lesion subtypes for gastric HGIN and EC according to the Paris classification. More gastric HGIN and EC were detected at gastric body in the sedation group (P = 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Sedation may improve the endoscopic detection rate of EC and HGIN in the UGI tract probably through enhancing the use of accessary endoscopic techniques, prolonging observation time, and taking more biopsies in different locations (see Visual Abstract, Supplementary Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/AJG/B926).

The Effects of Propofol or Dexmedetomidine Sedation on Postoperative Recovery in Elderly Patients Receiving Lower Limb Surgery under Spinal Anesthesia: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Propofol and dexmedetomidine are the two most popular intravenous sedatives during anesthesia. However, data comparing the effects of these two sedatives during spinal anesthesia on postoperative recovery are still insufficient. We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients aged ≥65 years who underwent orthopedic surgery under spinal anesthesia between March 2012 and February 2017. The patients were allocated into two groups according to the intraoperative sedatives: the propofol group and dexmedetomidine group. We analyzed the incidence of postoperative delirium, analgesic requirement, and rescue anti-emetic treatment. A total of 1045 patients were included in the analysis. After propensity score matching with the propofol group, the dexmedetomidine group showed a lower incidence of postoperative delirium (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07–0.56; p = 0.011). Postoperative analgesic and anti-emetic requirement were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.156 and 0.245, respectively). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that intraoperative sedation, age, preoperative albumin level, and hip surgery were significantly associated with the incidence of postoperative delirium. This study showed that intraoperative dexmedetomidine sedation under spinal anesthesia during lower limb surgery is associated with a lower incidence of postoperative delirium compared with propofol sedation.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol administration during sedation-guided upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine and ketamine popular sedative agents that result in minimal respiratory depression and the presence of analgesic activity. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of a dexmedetomidine-propofol combination and a ketamine-propofol combination during upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy.

METHODS

The study commenced after receiving approval from the local ethics committee. Patients between 18 and 60 years in the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II groups were included. Patients who had severe organ disease, who had allergies to the study drugs, and who refused to participate were excluded. Cases were randomized into a dexmedetomidine-propofol group (Group D, n = 30) and a ketamine-propofol group (Group K, n = 30). Cardiac monitoring, peripheral oxygen saturation, and bispectral index (BIS) monitoring were performed. Group D received 1 mg/kg dexmedetomidine + 0.5 mg/kg propofol intravenous (IV) bolus, 0.5 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine + 0.5 mg/kg/h propfol infusion. Group K received 1 mg/kg ketamine + 0.125 mL/kg propofol iv bolus, 0.25 mg/kg/h ketamine + 0.125 mL/kg/h propfol infusion. Patients were followed up with a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) of ≥4. Means, standard deviations, lowest and highest frequency values, and ratio values were used for descriptive statistics, and the SPSS 22.0 program was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

In Group K, recovery time and mean blood pressure (MBP) values were significantly shorter. Furthermore, coughing rate, pulse, and BIS values were higher than in Group D (P < .05). Although there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of endoscopic tolerance and endoscopist satisfaction, we observed that the dexmedetomidine group experienced more comfortable levels of sedation.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol combinations may be suitable and safe for endoscopy sedation due to their different properties. It was observed that the dexmedetomidine-propfol combination was superior in terms of sedation depth and that the ketamine-propofol combination was superior in terms of early recovery. As a result, we suggest the dexmedetomidine-propofol combination for upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy sedation due to hemodynamic stability and minimal adverse effects.

Recent Developments in Drugs for GI Endoscopy Sedation

Providing sedation for patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy continues to be a debated topic in both anesthesia and gastroenterology circles. Sedation approaches are widely varied across the globe. While propofol administration is embraced by more endoscopists and patients, its administration evolves controversy. Whereas trained nurses and gastroenterologists are allowed to administer propofol for GI endoscopy sedation in Europe and Asia, it is the sole privilege of anesthesia providers in the USA. However, the costs of anesthesia providers are significant and threaten to derail the screening colonoscopy practice. Efforts were made by both drug and device manufacturers to find alternatives. Fospropofol was one such effort that did not live up to the expectations due to respiratory depressant properties that were similar to propofol. Use of a new tool to administer propofol in the form of Sedasys® was the next experiment that tried to find alternative to anesthesia providers. The device did not succeed due to inadequate sedation. The latest effort is remimazolam, a new benzodiazepine that has quicker recovery profile. In the interim, many drug combinations such as propofol-dexmedetomidine and propofol-ketamine are improving the safety without compromising the quality of sedation. This review attempts to discuss the new drug innovations and drug combinations of existing sedatives for the benefit of readers.

Effect of sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol on gastrointestinal motility in lipopolysaccharide-induced endotoxemic mice

Background

Sepsis often accompanies gastrointestinal motility disorder that contributes to the development of sepsis in turn. Propofol and dexmedetomidine, as widely used sedatives in patients with sepsis, are likely to depress gastrointestinal peristalsis. We queried whether propofol or dexmedetomidine, at sedative doses, aggravated sepsis-induced ileus.

Methods

Sedative/Anesthetic Scores and vital signs of lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced endotoxemic mice were measured during sedation with propofol or dexmedetomidine. Endotoxemic mice were divided into 10% fat emulsion, propofol, saline, and dexmedetomidine group. The gastric emptying, small intestinal transit, tests of colonic motility, gastrointestinal transit and whole gut transit were evaluated at 15 mins and 24 h after intraperitoneal injection of sedatives/vehicles respectively.

Results

40 mg·kg^− 1propofol and 80 μg·kg^− 1 dexmedetomidine induced a similar depth of sedation with comparable vital signs except that dexmedetomidine strikingly decreased heart rate in endotoxemic mice. Dexmedetomidine markedly inhibited gastric emptying (P = 0.006), small intestinal transit (P = 0.006), colonic transit (P = 0.0006), gastrointestinal transit (P = 0.0001) and the whole gut transit (P = 0.034) compared with the vehicle, whereas propofol showed no depression on all parts of gastrointestinal motility 15 mins after administration. The inhibitive effects of dexmedetomidine in these tests vanished 24 h after the administration.

Conclusions

Deep sedation with dexmedetomidine, but not propofol, significantly inhibited gastrointestinal peristalsis in endotoxemic mice while the inhibitory effect disappeared 24 h after sedation. These data suggested that both propofol and dexmedetomidine could be applied in septic patients while dexmedetomidine should be used cautiously in patients with cardiac disease or ileus.

The radiation environment of anaesthesiologists in the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography room

Anaesthesiologists are increasingly involved in nonoperating room anaesthesia (NORA) for fluoroscopic procedures. However, the radiation exposure of medical staff differs among NORA settings. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the radiation environment generated by fluoroscopic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and the radiation exposure of anaesthesiologists. The dose area product (DAP), radiation entrance dose (RED), and fluoroscopy time (FT) according to the procedures and monthly cumulative radiation exposure were analysed at two sites (neck and wrist) from 363 procedures in 316 patients performed within 3 months. The total RED and DAP were 43643.1 mGy and 13681.1 Gy cm2, respectively. DAP and RED (r = 0.924) were strongly correlated and DAP and FT (r = 0.701) and RED and FT (r = 0.749) were moderately correlated. The radiation environment per procedure varied widely, DAP and RED per FT were the highest during stent insertion with esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Monthly cumulative deep dose equivalents at the wrist and neck ranged between 0.31-1.27 mSv and 0.33-0.59 mSv, respectively, but they were related to jaw thrust manipulation (r = 0.997, P = 0.047) and not to the radiation environment. The anaesthesiologists may be exposed to high dose of radiation in the ERCP room, which depends on the volume of procedures performed and perhaps the anaesthesiologists' practice patterns.

Anesthetic management for medialization laryngoplasty using concurrent infusions of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol versus controls

PURPOSE

Medialization laryngoplasty (ML) ± arytenoid adduction (AA) surgery poses a unique anesthetic challenge that requires periods of deep sedation and patient cooperation with phonation to assess voice function. The purpose of this study was to assess if the protocolized administration of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol (DRP) is associated with reduced procedural duration and administration of other sedating medications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective 2:1 case matched study design; matched on age, sex, body mass index, AA, and surgical revision status. Data was obtained from the electronic medical record of a tertiary referral center. Cases underwent ML ± AA using DRP. Control subjects underwent surgery ML ± AA without DRP.

RESULTS

58 DRP cases (43.1% AA) were matched with 116 control patients (44.8% AA). DRP was associated with decreases in fentanyl dose (50 [25, 100] vs. 100 [50, 150] mcg; p < 0.01), incidence and dose of midazolam (4 [6.9%] vs. 70 [60.3%]; p < 0.01; 1 [1, 1] vs. 2 [2, 2]; p < 0.02), operative duration (131 ± 33 vs. 160 ± 50 min; p < 0.01), and anesthetic duration (182 ± 35 vs. 219 ± 60.3 min; p < 0.01). When adjusted for timeline, it was observed that case duration was declining prior to DRP introduction; this trend persisted after DRP introduction. Hypopnea was more common with DRP (14 [24.1%] vs. 7 [6.0%]; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

DRP was associated with a substantial decrease in opioid and benzodiazepine administration. A reduction in procedural duration over time was also observed.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol at different sedation depths during drug-induced sleep endoscopy: A randomized trial

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of dexmedetomidine and propofol on airway dynamics, cardiorespiratory system, and emergence following drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, single-blinded study.

METHODS

Sixty patients age 18 to 65 years in American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status groups 1 and 2 scheduled to undergo DISE were randomly allocated to either Group P (N = 30; receiving propofol infusion at 50-150 μg/kg/min) or Group D (N = 30; receiving dexmedetomidine bolus of 1 μg/kg followed by infusion at 0.5-1.0 μg/kg/hr). DISE was done at light sleep and deep sleep. Airway obstruction at tongue base was recorded as primary outcome. Airway obstruction at velum, oropharyngeal lateral wall, and epiglottis level during light and deep sedation, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, time to attain sufficient sedation, time for emergence from sedation, and any adverse events during DISE with the two study drugs were recorded as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

There was a greater degree of obstruction at the tongue base level (P = 0.001) and Oropharynx level (P = 0.017) in Group P compared with Group D during deep sedation. Increase in airway obstruction from light to deep sleep was seen with propofol at the oropharynx (P = 0.0185) and tongue base (P = 0.0108) levels. Two patients (6.6%) in Group D and 10 patients (33.3%) in Group P showed oxygen saturation below the minimum oxygen saturation recorded during polysomnography. Time to open eyes to call after stopping sedation was significantly less in Group P (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine shows a lesser degree of airway collapse and higher oxygen saturation levels at greater sedation depth during DISE. Propofol has a faster onset and emergence from sedation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1b Laryngoscope, 130:257-262, 2020.

Anesthetic Management for Medialization Laryngoplasty Performed Under Concurrent Dexmedetomidine, Remifentanil, and Propofol Infusions

INTRODUCTION

Type I thyroplasty, or medialization larygoplasty (ML), is a procedure which improves the voice by medializing a vocal fold with a permanent implant. Anesthetic management of these cases is challenging because patients can require periods of deep sedation followed by fully awake moments for phonation to assess the implant size. We present our experience of ML with or without arytenoid adduction (AA) using a multimodal anesthetic regimen consisting of concurrent infusions of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series of patients anesthetized using this protocol from June 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017.

RESULTS

Seventy-five consecutive ML with or without AA patients anesthetized with dexmedetomidine and remifentanil infusions were identified, of which 74 (98.7%) also received concurrent propofol infusions. Mean duration of sedation was 190.9 ± 36.9 minutes and surgery was 139 ± 35.3 minutes. Transient hypopnea treated with supplemental oxygen complicated 18 (24%) cases and bradycardia requiring pharmacologic treatment complicated 3 (4%) cases. There were no other adverse anesthetic complications. One patient required surgical re-exploration due to postsurgical bleeding after the initial hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort, a combination of remifentanil, dexmedetomidine and propofol infusions was well tolerated without serious adverse perioperative events.

Effects of small-dose remifentanil combined with index of consciousness monitoring on gastroscopic polypectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial

BACKGROUND

With the development of painless diagnosis and treatment, remifentanil, a synthetic opioid agonist, is increasingly used in gastroscopy for its rapid, short-term, and potent analgesic effect. However, the dosage of remifentanil used in endoscopy is unclear. Index of consciousness (IOC) is a new anesthesia depth-monitoring indicator that can be divided into index of consciousness 1 (IOC₁) and index of consciousness 2 (IOC₂); IOC₁ is used for estimating a patient's sedation state, whereas IOC₂ reflects analgesic depth. We hypothesized that combining with IOC₁ and IOC₂ monitoring may be helpful to identify an optimal remifentanil dosage in gastroscopic polypectomy.

METHODS

One hundred twenty patients scheduled for gastroscopic polypectomy were enrolled and were randomly assigned to remifentanil 2 ng/mL (group R2), 4 ng/mL (group R4), or 6 ng/mL (group R6), and 40 cases were in each group. During the anesthesia period, remifentanil was kept at the initial given concentration but propofol was adjusted according to IOC₁. The primary outcomes were the dosage of propofol and remifentanil. The secondary outcomes were the variety of IOC₁ and IOC₂, patients' awakening time, and peri-operative adverse reactions such as hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, body movements, hypoxemia, therapy interruption, nausea, vomiting, aspiration, and intra-operative awareness.

RESULTS

With the increasing dosage of remifentanil, the propofol dosage and patients' awakening time decreased significantly, the morbidity of hypertension and body movements also declined, but the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, and hypoxemia rose. In group R2, the value of IOC₂ remained above 50 during the treatment. However, IOC₂ dropped to below 30 at the beginning of the gastroscopy in group R6, and there was statistical difference in hypoxemia between groups R2 and R6 (P <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

With the help of IOC monitoring, we found that a target concentration of remifentanil 4 ng/mL is comparatively ideal in patients under gastroscopic polypectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Register: ChiCTR-OOD-16009489 , on October 19, 2016.

Dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation with colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

Conscious sedation for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has not been standardized, and there are no studies of sedation for colorectal ESD.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial to clarify the usefulness of DEX during colorectal ESD. In total 80 patients with colorectal ESD from April 2016 to May 2017 were assigned to the placebo group or the DEX group (40 cases each). The primary outcome was patient satisfaction (visual analogue scale: VAS). Secondary outcomes were evaluated for 13 factors, including patient pain level (VAS), endoscopist satisfaction (VAS), objective patient pain level viewed from the endoscopist's perspective (VAS), rate of patient response, rate of side effects, etc., from the patient's and endoscopist's perspectives.

RESULTS

Patient satisfaction was 8.4 and 9.1 (P = 0.018) in the placebo group and the DEX group, respectively. Secondary outcomes of patient pain level, endoscopist satisfaction, objective patient pain level from the endoscopist's perspective for the placebo and DEX groups were 1.2 and 0.4 (P = 0.045), 8.2 and 9.3 (P < 0.001), and 1.2 and 0.5 (P = 0.002), respectively. All of these were significantly positive results (more comfortable and less pain) in the DEX group. The rate of a patient response was 100% in all cases. The side effects (hypoxia/bradycardia/hypotension) were 0%/0%/0% and 7.5%/7.5%/5% (P = 0.030). However, these rates were less than the reported side effect occurrence rate, and no additional medication was needed.

CONCLUSION

DEX enables conscious sedation, and is useful not only for patient and endoscopist satisfaction but also for pain relief. DEX is an effective sedation method for colorectal ESD.

Comparing outcomes for endoscopic submucosal dissection between Eastern and Western countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To compare endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) outcomes between Eastern and Western countries.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and EBM reviews to identify studies published between 1990 and February 2016. The primary outcome was the efficacy of ESD based on information about either curative resection, en bloc or R0 resection rates. Secondary outcomes were complication rates, local recurrence rates and procedure times.

RESULTS

Overall, 238 publications including 84318 patients and 89512 gastrointestinal lesions resected using ESD were identified. 90% of the identified studies reporting ESD on 87296 lesions were conducted in Eastern countries and 10% of the identified studies reporting ESD outcomes in 2216 lesions were from Western countries. Meta-analyses showed higher pooled percentage of curative, en bloc, and R0 resection in the Eastern studies; 82% (CI: 81%-84%), 95% (CI: 94%-96%) and 89% (CI: 88%-91%) compared to Western studies; 71% (CI: 61%-81%), 85% (CI: 81%-89%) and 74% (CI: 67%-81%) respectively. The percentage of perforation requiring surgery was significantly greater in the Western countries (0.53%; CI: 0.10-1.16) compared to Eastern countries (0.01%; CI: 0%-0.05%). ESD procedure times were longer in Western countries (110 min vs 77 min).

CONCLUSION

Eastern countries show better ESD outcomes compared to Western countries. Availability of local ESD expertise and regional outcomes should be considered for decision making to treat gastrointestinal lesions with ESD.

Efficacy of a Dexmedetomidine-Remifentanil Combination Compared with a Midazolam-Remifentanil Combination for Conscious Sedation During Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blinded Preliminary Trial

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine as a conscious sedative exhibits both analgesia and respiratory sparing effects.

AIMS

We evaluated and compared the sedative effect and the safety of a dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (DR) regimen with a midazolam-remifentanil (MR) combination during the endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) requiring conscious sedation.

METHODS

One-hundred and ninety-eight patients were randomized and divided into two groups. A bolus of midazolam (0.05 mg kg^-1) was injected intravenously for MR group, and dexmedetomidine (1 μg kg^-1) was pumping for 10 min for DR group. Next, an initial loading dose of 1 μg kg^-1 and 0.05-0.2 μg kg^-1 min^-1 of remifentanil was administered in all patients. Hemodynamic and respiratory changes, Ramsay Sedation Scale, Visual Analogue Scale, endoscopist and patient satisfaction were assessed. Furthermore, adverse events as well as recovery time and discharge time were rated.

RESULTS

Patient satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the DR group compared with MR group. The occurrence of desaturation was statistically higher, and the operation time was longer in the MR group. Although no statistically significant values could be determined between the two groups about amnesia and need of additional drug, the DR group was found to require a significantly reduced amount of extra midazolam. Furthermore, nausea during catheterization of oropharynx was found to be more pronounced in the DR group.

CONCLUSIONS

The dexmedetomidine-remifentanil protocol provided a parallel sedative efficacy and improved respiratory sparing effects. The higher patient satisfaction scores potentially offer a more reproducible ERCP quality. Adding dexmedetomidine to remifentanil can be used safely as a conscious sedation method during ERCP.

Practice Guidelines for Moderate Procedural Sedation and Analgesia 2018

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Can sedation using a combination of propofol and dexmedetomidine enhance the satisfaction of the endoscopist in endoscopic submucosal dissection?

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 The aim of this pilot randomized controlled trial was to evaluate and compare the satisfaction of the endoscopist along with the effectiveness and safety of sedation between sedation protocol using a combination of propofol (PF) and dexmedetomidine (DEX) (Combination group) and sedation protocol using PF alone (PF group) during gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-eight patients with gastric neoplasias scheduled for gastric ESD were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two groups. The satisfaction scores of the endoscopists and the parameters for the effectiveness and safety of sedation were evaluated by comparisons between the two groups.

RESULTS

The satisfaction scores of the endoscopists, which were measured using a visual analogue scale, were significantly higher in the Combination group than in the PF group (88 vs. 69, P  = 0.003). The maintenance dose of PF was lower in the Combination group than in the PF group (2 mg/kg/h vs. 5 mg/kg/h, P  < 0.001), and the number of rescue PF injections was fewer in the Combination group than in the PF group (2 times vs. 6 times, P  < 0.001). The incidence of bradycardia (defined as a pulse rate ≤ 45 bpm) in the Combination group was higher than that in the PF group (37.9 % vs. 10.3 %, P  = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that gastroenterologist-directed sedation using a combination of PF and DEX during gastric ESD can enhance the satisfaction levels of endoscopists by providing stable sedation with an acceptable safety profile.

Dexmedetomidine vs propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Several randomized controlled trials have compared sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy, with contradictory results. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials that compared dexmedetomidine with propofol.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database for randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We identified six eligible randomized trials from the database search, and compared the effect of propofol versus dexmedetomidine with respect to: (a) patient's satisfaction level, (b) body movement or gagging, (c) cardiopulmonary complications, and (d) change in heart rate. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled risk difference (RD) or weighted mean difference (WMD).

RESULTS

Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the patient's satisfaction level (WMD: -0.678, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.149 to -0.207, p = 0.0048), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. The pooled RD for developing body movement or gagging when using dexmedetomidine was 0.107 (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.305, p = 0.288), with no significant differences. Compared with propofol, the pooled RD for hypotension, hypoxia, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were -0.029 (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.05), -0.080 (95% CI: -0.178 to 0.018), and 0.022 (95% CI: -0.027 to 0.07), respectively, with no significant differences. Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the heart rate (WMD: -10.41, 95% CI: -13.77 to -7.051, p ≤ 0.0001), without significant heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

In gastrointestinal endoscopy, patient satisfaction level was higher in propofol administration, when compared to dexmedetomidine. The risk of complications was similar.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol during drug-induced sleep endoscopy and sedation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present study is to review the international literature, using a systematic review, for studies comparing propofol and dexmedetomidine for drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) or sedation in which there is a description of the effect of the agents on the upper airway and associated variables (e.g., vital signs, sedation scores).

METHODS

This is a systematic review through October 4, 2016. PubMed/MEDLINE and four additional databases were accessed for this study.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty studies were screened, 79 were downloaded, and 10 met criteria. The majority of the studies identified dexmedetomidine as the preferred pharmacologic agent for DISE due to an overall safer and more stable profile based upon hemodynamic stability. However, propofol provided greater airway obstruction with oxygen desaturations. With either agent, the degree of obstruction in the upper airway lacks some degree of validity as to whether the obstructions accurately represent natural sleep or are simply a drug-induced effect.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine and propofol have their advantages and disadvantages during DISE. Generally, dexmedetomidine was preferred and seemed to provide a more stable profile based upon cardiopulmonary status. However, propofol has a quicker onset, has a shorter half-life, and can demonstrate larger degrees of obstruction, which might more accurately reflect what happens during REM sleep. Additional research is recommended.

Dexmedetomidine in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is the gold standard in the examination and the treatment of the diseases of gastrointestinal system, but the disadvantage of being painful process. At this point the sedative and analgesic agents may be important. Dexmedetomidine is a new sedoanalgesic agent which is alternative to benzodiazepines and opioids. It has analgesia, amnesia, sedative and anxiolytic properties. The use of dexmedetomidine as the sole anesthetic agent and as the adjuvant analgesic agent has been published but has not been approved because of the inconsistency of efficacy and safety. The author has been collected the published papers in the literature. This article is aimed to describe the use of dexmedetomidine in various gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.