Registered nurse-administered sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedure

Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation Training Curricula and Propofol Administration in Digestive Endoscopy Procedures: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Although efficacy and safety of nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol and nurse-administered propofol sedation practices have been amply demonstrated in patients at low American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status risk, they are still severely limited. To date, it is quite difficult to find a protocol or a shared training program. The aim of the study was to verify requirements, types of training, and operating methods described in the literature for the administration of propofol by a nurse. A scoping review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and in line with Arksey and O'Malley's framework, within four main databases of biomedical interest: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. We selected studies published during the last 20 years, including only nurses not trained in anesthesia. Seventeen articles were eligible. Despite the differences between the training and administration methods, efficacy and safety of deep sedation managed by trained nurses were comparable, just like when sedation was administered by certified registered nurse anesthetists. Training programs have been investigated in detail by only a small number of studies, although its efficacy and safety have been widely demonstrated. It is important, then, to collect evidence that allows developing of unified international guidelines for training methods to offer safe and cost-effective quality sedation.

Operational outcomes of propofol sedation versus fentanyl, midazolam and diphenhydramine sedation for endoscopies and colonoscopies at an academic medical center

BACKGROUND

On July 1st, 2021, the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) implemented new sedation protocols in the luminal gastrointestinal (GI) suite. GI proceduralist supervised, Nurse Administered Sedation with fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine (NAS) sedation was transitioned to Monitored Anesthesia Care with propofol under physician anesthesiologist supervision (MAC).

OBJECTIVE

To determine if there are statistically significant reductions in Sedation-Start to Scope-In time (SSSI) when using Monitored Anesthesia Care with propofol (MAC) versus Nurse Administered Sedation with fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine (NAS). Secondary objectives were to determine if statistically significant improvements to other operational times, quality measures, and satisfaction metrics were present.

METHOD

This study was a retrospective analysis of a natural experiment resultant of a change from NAS to MAC sedation protocols. Outcomes for NAS protocols from 1/1/21-6/30/21 were compared to outcomes of MAC protocols from the dates 8/1/21-10/31/21. Results were analyzed using Quasi-Poisson regression analysis and stratified based on upper GI, lower GI, and combined procedures. Patient demographic data including age, biological sex, comorbidities, and BMI, were adjusted for in the analysis. ASA matching was not performed as nursing sedation does not use ASA classifications. Pre-anesthesia co-morbidities were assessed via evaluation of a strict set of comorbidities abstracted from the electronic medical record. Perioperative operational outcomes include Sedation Start to Scope-In (SSSI), In-Room to Scope-In Time (IRSI), Scope Out to Out of Room (SOOR), Total Case Length (TCL), and Post Anesthesia Care Unit Length of Stay (PACU LOS). Quality outcomes include PACU Administered Medications (PAM), and Clinician Satisfaction Scores (CSS).

RESULTS

A total of 5,582 gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic cases (upper, lower, and combined endoscopies) were observed. Statistically significant decreases in SSSI of 2.5, 2.1, and 2.2 minutes for upper, lower, and dual GI procedures were observed when using MAC protocols. A statistically significant increase in satisfaction scores of 47.0 and 19.6 points were observed for nurses and proceduralists, respectively, when using MAC.

CONCLUSION

MAC protocols for endoscopic GI procedures at UCH led to statistically significant decreases in the time required to complete procedures thus increasing operational efficiency.

Colonoscopy: an evidence-based approach

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

Patient-Controlled Sedation Versus Clinician-Administered Sedation for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) has been explored as a sedation method in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), yet a comprehensive review article on this topic is lacking. We performed a systematic review to compare PCS against clinician-administered sedation. The primary objectives are to compare the sedative dosage used and the sedation depth, while secondary objectives are to compare sedation failure rates, clinician intervention rates, and patient satisfaction. A systematic literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Database using the terms "ERCP," "Sedation," "Patient-controlled," and related terms. Randomized controlled trials comparing PCS against clinician-administered sedation in adults undergoing ERCP were included. Articles without English full texts were excluded. Studies were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for quality assessment of individual included trials. This systematic review is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020198647). A total of 2619 articles were identified from the literature search. A total of 2615 articles were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. Four articles (comprised of 4 independent trials involving 425 patients) were included in analysis. When compared with clinician-administered sedation, PCS in ERCP may lead to lower propofol dosage used and lower sedation depth. The sedation failure rates appear to be higher in PCS, whereas lower rates of airway maneuvers are required. No significant difference was observable for patient satisfaction rates between PCS and clinician-administered sedation. The included studies demonstrated unclear to high risk of bias, particularly in randomization, incomplete outcome data, and outcome measurement. PCS appears to be a feasible option for sedation in ERCP. Nonetheless, large-scale, high-quality trials will be required before PCS can be regularly implemented in ERCP.

Propofol vs midazolam sedation for elective endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, LILACS databases. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) were included. The outcomes studied were procedure time, recovery time, discharge time, and adverse events (bradycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3,576 records. Out of these, 8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients (302 in the propofol group and 294 in the midazolam group) were included for the final analysis. Procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups (MD: 0.25, 95%CI: -0.64 to 1.13, P = 0.59). Recovery time (MD: -8.19, 95%CI: -10.59 to -5.79, P < 0.00001). and discharge time were significantly less in the propofol group (MD: -12.98, 95%CI: -18.46 to -7.50, P < 0.00001). Adverse events were similar in both groups (RD: 0.02, 95%CI: 0-0.04, P = 0.58). Moreover, no significant difference was found for bradycardia (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.16), hypotension (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.17), and hypoxemia (RD: 0.00, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.04, P = 0.93). Five studies had low risk of bias, two demonstrated some concerns, and one presented high risk. The quality of the evidence was very low for procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events; while low for discharge time.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs show that propofol has shorter recovery and patient discharge time as compared to midazolam with a similar rate of adverse events. These results suggest that propofol should be the preferred agent for sedation in patients with cirrhosis.