Efficacy and safety of nurse-administered propofol sedation during emergency upper endoscopy for gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective study

Safety and Efficacy of Sedation During Emergency Endoscopy for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This study aimed to compare patients with and without sedation during emergency endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) and to clarify the safety and efficacy of sedation in emergency endoscopy.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected 389 patients who underwent emergency endoscopy for UGIB at Ureshino Medical Center from 2016 to 2021. Patients were divided into two groups: sedation group during emergency endoscopy and nonsedation group. Clinical characteristics, patient status on admission, and UGIB etiology were evaluated. Treatment outcomes and adverse events were evaluated using propensity score matching (PSM), and risk factors for mortality from UGIB were investigated using Cox multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The sedation group was significantly younger, composed of a higher proportion of males, and had chronic liver disease. Blood pressure and hemoglobin level on admission were significantly higher in the sedation group. The main cause of bleeding was peptic ulcer, which was significantly higher in the nonsedation group. PSM created 133 matched pairs. The success rate of endoscopic hemostasis was similar in both groups, and procedure time was significantly shorter in the sedation group than in the nonsedation group (17.6 ± 10.0 versus 20.2 ± 10.2 min, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in adverse events between groups. Cox multivariate analyses revealed that red blood cell transfusion [hazard ratio (HR) 4.45, P < 0.02] and rebleeding (HR 3.30, P = 0.03) were associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality from UGIB.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation reduced the procedure time during emergency endoscopy for UGIB. Sedation during emergency endoscopy for UGIB is acceptable for safe endoscopic procedures.

Safety of endoscopist-administered deep sedation with propofol in patients ASA III

INTRODUCTION

Deep sedation controlled by the endoscopist is safe in patients with low anesthetic risk (ASA I-II). However, scarce evidence is available in patients with intermediate risk (ASA III).

OBJETIVE

To evaluate the safety of deep sedation with propofol controlled by the usual endoscopy staff (endoscopist, nurse, assistant) in outpatients classified as ASA III and the risk factors for the occurrence of complications during deep sedation in these patients.

DESIGN

This observational and single-centre cross-sectional study includes consecutive patients undergoing non-complex procedures in which deep sedation is administered by the endoscopy staff. Patients were divided into group I (ASA=III) and group II (ASA<III).

RESULTS

A total of 562 patients were included, 80 (14.2%) group I. Complications related to deep sedation were more frequent in group I (23.8% vs 14.5%; p=0.036), mainly mild desaturations (13.8% vs 7.5%; p=0.058). Emergency intervention or exitus were not registered. The adjusted analysis identified age as the one independent baseline risk factor for developing global adverse events.

CONCLUSION

ASA III patients developed more sedation-related complications that ASA I-II patients. However these complications were mild and do not prevent to correctly perform the procedure.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

Clinical outcomes of sedation during emergency endoscopic band ligation for variceal bleeding: Multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Few studies have directly compared the efficacy of sedated- and un-sedated endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for acute variceal bleeding. We aimed to determine whether sedation during EVL in patients with variceal bleeding is safe and effective.

METHODS

We analyzed data from patients who underwent EVL for acute variceal bleeding according to sedation in six hospitals of Hallym University Medical Center. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as a failure to control bleeding, death during EVL, or rebleeding within 5 days. Secondary endpoints included the procedure time, adverse events, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Of 1,300 patients who were included, only 430 (33.1%) received sedation during EVL. Propofol alone was used for sedation in 85% of sedated-EVLs. The mean procedure time in the sedation group was shorter than that of the non-sedation group (12.4 ± 9.5 min versus 13.8 ± 9.4 min, P = 0.010). The proportion of treatment failure did not differ between the groups (7.4% versus 9.1%, P = 0.374). In the multivariable analysis, an AIMS65 score ≥2 and blood transfusion within 72 hours were associated with treatment failure of EVL; however, the use of sedation was not (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.96 [0.60-1.51]). Adverse events during EVL and hepatic encephalopathy did not differ between the two groups. Sedation also did not affect the 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [95% CI] = 0.99 [0.66-1.47]).

CONCLUSION

Sedation reduced the procedure time of EVL. Sedation is safe to use during EVL for variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

Pulmonary aspiration during procedural sedation: a comprehensive systematic review

Background

Although pulmonary aspiration complicating operative general anaesthesia has been extensively studied, little is known regarding aspiration during procedural sedation.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive, systematic review to identify and catalogue published instances of aspiration involving procedural sedation in patients of all ages. We sought to report descriptively the circumstances, nature, and outcomes of these events.

Results

Of 1249 records identified by our search, we found 35 articles describing one or more occurrences of pulmonary aspiration during procedural sedation. Of the 292 occurrences during gastrointestinal endoscopy, there were eight deaths. Of the 34 unique occurrences for procedures other than endoscopy, there was a single death in a moribund patient, full recovery in 31, and unknown recovery status in two. We found no occurrences of aspiration in non-fasted patients receiving procedures other than endoscopy.

Conclusions

This first systematic review of pulmonary aspiration during procedural sedation identified few occurrences outside of gastrointestinal endoscopy, with full recovery typical. Although diligent caution remains warranted, our data indicate that aspiration during procedural sedation appears rare, idiosyncratic, and typically benign.

Procedural sedation by advanced care paramedics for emergency gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

At the QEII Health Sciences Centre Emergency Department (ED) in Halifax, Nova Scotia, advanced care paramedics (ACPs) perform procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) for many indications, including orthopedic procedures. We have begun using ACPs as sedationists for emergent upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy. This study compares ACP-performed ED PSA for UGI endoscopy and orthopedic procedures in terms of adverse events, airway intervention, vasopressor requirement, and PSA medication use.

METHODS

A data set was built from an ED PSA quality control database matching 61 UGI endoscopy PSAs to 183 orthopedic PSAs by propensity scores calculated using age, gender, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification. Outcomes assessed were hypotension (systolic BP30 sec), vomiting, arrhythmias, death, airway intervention, vasopressor requirement, and PSA medication use.

RESULTS

UGI endoscopy patients experienced hypotension more frequently than orthopedic patients (OR=4.11, CI: 2.05-8.22) and required airway repositioning less often (OR=0.24, CI: 0.10-0.59). They received ketamine more frequently (OR=15.7, CI: 4.75-67.7) and fentanyl less often (OR=0.30, CI: 0.15-0.63) than orthopedic patients. Four endoscopy patients received phenylephrine, and one required intubation. No patient died in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

In ACP-led sedation for UGI endoscopy and orthopedic procedures, adverse events were rare with the notable exception of hypotension, which was more frequent in the endoscopy group. Only endoscopy patients required vasopressor treatment and intubation. We provide preliminary evidence that ACPs can manage ED PSA for emergent UGI endoscopy, although priorities must shift from pain control to hemodynamic optimization.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Outcomes of Propofol Sedation During Emergency Endoscopy Performed for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

Although propofol-based sedation can be used during emergency endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), there is a potential risk of sedation-related adverse events, especially in patients with variceal bleeding.

AIM

We compared adverse events related to propofol-based sedation during emergency endoscopy between patients with non-variceal and variceal bleeding.

METHODS

Clinical records of patients who underwent emergency endoscopy for UGIB under sedation were reviewed. Adverse events, including shock, hypoxia, and paradoxical reaction, were compared between the non-variceal and variceal bleeding groups.

RESULTS

Of 703 endoscopies, 539 and 164 were performed for non-variceal and variceal bleeding, respectively. Shock was more common in patients with variceal bleeding compared to those with non-variceal bleeding (12.2 vs. 3.5%, P < 0.001). All patients except one recovered from shock after normal saline hydration, and emergency endoscopy could be finished without interruption in most cases. The incidence of hypoxia and paradoxical reaction did not differ based on the source of bleeding (non-variceal bleeding vs. variceal bleeding: hypoxia, 3.5 vs. 1.8%, P = 0.275; paradoxical reaction interfering with the procedure, 4.1 vs. 5.5%, P = 0.442).

CONCLUSIONS

Although shock was more common in patients with variceal bleeding compared to those with non-variceal bleeding, most cases could be controlled without procedure interruption. Paradoxical reaction, rather than shock or hypoxia, was the most common cause of procedure interruption in patients with variceal bleeding, but the rate did not differ between patients with non-variceal and variceal bleeding.

Morbidity and mortality of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) in a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopist-Directed Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation (EDNAPS) has been evaluated in community settings rather than tertiary referral centers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A hospital-wide prospectively collected database of Medical Emergency Team Calls (METCALL), emergency responses triggered by medically unstable patients, was reviewed. Responses that followed EDNAPS were extracted and compared with a prospectively entered database of all endoscopies performed using EDNAPS over the same period.

RESULTS

A total of 33,539 endoscopic procedures (16,393 gastroscopies, 17,146 colonoscopies) were performed on 27,989 patients using EDNAPS. Intravenous drugs included midazolam (0 - 5 mg), fentanyl (0 - 100 mcg), and propofol (10 - 420 mg). Of 23 METCALLs (18 gastroscopies and 5 colonoscopies), there were 16 with ASA scores of III or higher. Indications for gastroscopy were gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage (n = 11; 8 variceal, 3 nonvariceal), dysphagia (n = 5), PEG removal (n = 1), and dyspepsia (n = 1). Fifteen of 22 patients, including all of those who had a colonoscopy, made a full recovery and returned to the ward or were discharged home. In the gastroscopy group, seven were intubated and admitted to Intensive Care, of whom six were emergency cases for gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 4 variceal, n = 2 non variceal) and one in which the indication was PEG removal. Two deaths occurred in the intubated group.

CONCLUSIONS

In a tertiary referral center, EDNAPS for low-to-moderate risk (ASA ≤ 2) patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy is very safe. Gastroscopy is associated with greater anesthetic risk than colonoscopy and those with high ASA scores needing urgent endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage are at particular risk of cardiorespiratory decompensation.

Target Controlled Infusion for non-anaesthesiologist propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: The first double blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Target Controlled Infusion is a sophisticated tool for providing optimal sedation regimen avoiding under or oversedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

AIMS

To compare standard moderate sedation vs. non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trial of 70 consecutive colonoscopies and 70 consecutive esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD). Standard group (n=70), received fentanyl (1 μg/kg)+midazolam (0.03-0.04 mg/kg) or midazolam only; propofol group (n=70), received fentanyl (1 μg/kg)+propofol Target Controlled Infusion (1.2-1.6 μg/ml) or propofol Target Controlled Infusion only. Discharge time, endoscopist satisfaction and patient satisfaction were recorded in all endoscopies.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy: discharge time was significantly shorter in the propofol than the standard group (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 5 ± 10.2 min, respectively; P=0.03). Endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher (98.3 ± 11.4/100 vs. 87.2±12/100; P=0.001); patient satisfaction was significantly higher (95 ± 9.3/100 vs. 85.5 ± 14.4/100; P=0.002) in the propofol compared to the standard group. EGD: discharge time was not significantly different in the propofol and standard groups (1.1 ± 0.7 vs. 3.9 ± 9.2 min, respectively; P=0.146). Endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher (92.7 ± 14.3/100 vs. 82.8 ± 21.2/100; P=0.03); patient satisfaction was significantly higher (93.8 ± 18.2/100 vs. 76.5 ± 25.2/100; P=0.003). In the propofol group 94.3% of patients vs. 71.4% of patients in standard group asked to receive the same sedation in the future (P=0.021).

CONCLUSION

Target Controlled Infusion is a promising method for non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy

Recently, the need for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy has been increasing. However, the National Health Insurance Drug Price list in Japan does not include any drug specifically used for the sedation. Although benzodiazepines are the main medication, their use in cases of gastrointestinal endoscopy has not been approved. This has led the Japan Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Society to develop the first set of guidelines for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy on the basis of evidence-based medicine in collaboration with the Japanese Society for Anesthesiologists. The present guidelines comprise 14 statements, five of which were judged to be valid on the highest evidence level and three on the second highest level. The guidelines are not intended to strongly recommend the use of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but rather to indicate the policy as to the choice of appropriate procedures when such sedation is deemed necessary. In clinical practice, the final decision as to the use of sedation should be made by physicians considering patient willingness and physical condition.

Clinical impact of gastroenterologist-administered propofol during esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized comparison at a single medical clinic

BACKGROUND

Although midazolam is widely used during endoscopic procedures by endoscopists, propofol has been recently favored for its rapid action and metabolism. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical advantages between propofol and midazolam use during screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for gastric cancer and post-procedure management at a medical clinic.

METHODS

One hundred six healthy patients aged 20-69 years requesting sedation for screening EGD from October 2012 to May 2013 at a single clinic in Japan were randomly assigned to propofol (n = 54) or midazolam (n = 52). Medications were given by bolus injection, and the dose was adjusted by body weight. Sedation level and tolerability during EGD and recovery time were assessed. Sedation level and tolerability were evaluated by American Society of Anesthesiologists responsiveness levels and four levels of the gag reflex, respectively. For safety purposes, endoscopists and nurses were trained in administering propofol and an anesthesiologist was on call at all times.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in sedation level and patient tolerability. Full recovery time in the propofol group (4.7 min) was significantly shorter than that in the midazolam group (24 min, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding post-procedure management of patients in a medical clinic, propofol use might not necessitate a recovery room and excessive assessment tasks because of rapid recovery time without any prolonged reaction, which causes patient compliance. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000009142.).

A target-controlled infusion system with bispectral index monitoring of propofol sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Propofol administration via a target-controlled infusion system with bispectral index monitoring (BIS/TCI system) is expected to prevent complications from sedation during complex and long endoscopic procedures. We evaluated the feasibility of setting the BIS/TCI system for non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From May 2009 to February 2013, 250 patients with esophagogastric neoplasms were treated with ESD using the BIS/TCI system with NAAP. In the TCI system, the initial target blood concentration of propofol was set at 1.2 μg/mL. The titration speed of propofol was adjusted according to the BIS score and the movement of the patient. The BIS target level ranged from moderate to deep sedation, at which a stable BIS score between 60 and 80 was obtained.

RESULTS

In 80.4 % of patients, it was possible to maintain stable sedation with a blood concentration of propofol of less than 1.6 µg/mL using TCI throughout the ESD procedure. The default setting for ideal blood concentration of propofol was 1.2 μg/mL, because the medians of the lower and upper bounds of blood concentration were 1.2 μg/mL (range 0.6 - 1.8 μg/mL) and 1.4 μg/mL (range 1.0 - 3.8 μg/mL), respectively. Although hypotension occurred in 27 patients (10.8 %), oxygen desaturation occurred in only nine patients (3.6 %), and severe desaturation in only two patients (0.8 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Using our settings, it is possible for a non-anesthesiologist to maintain stable sedation during a lengthy endoscopic procedure through propofol sedation with a BIS/TCI system.

Endoscopy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Endoscopy for acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding plays an important role in primary diagnosis and management, particularly with respect to identification of high-risk stigmata lesions and to providing endoscopic hemostasis to reduce the risk of rebleeding and mortality. Early endoscopy, defined as endoscopy within the first 24 hours after presentation, improves patient outcome and reduces the length of hospitalization when compared with delayed endoscopy. Various endoscopic hemostatic methods are available, including injection therapy, mechanical therapy, and thermal coagulation. Either single treatment with mechanical or thermal therapy or a treatment that combines more than one type of therapy are effective and safe for peptic ulcer bleeding. Newly developed methods, such as Hemospray powder and over-the-scope clips, may provide additional options. Appropriate decisions and specific treatment are needed depending upon the conditions.

Endoscopist-directed propofol: pros and cons

Concerns about the safety of endoscopist-directed propofol (EDP) have been voiced that propofol should be given only by healthcare professionals trained in the administration of general anesthesia. Here we discuss the safety and drawbacks of EDP for routine endoscopic procedures. Currently, both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy are well tolerated and accepted by both patients and endoscopists due to the application of sedation in most clinics worldwide. Accordingly, propofol use is increasing in many countries. It is crucial for endoscopists to be very familiar with the use of propofol or a combination of drugs. However, the controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an anesthesiologist continues. Until now, there have been no randomized control trials comparing sedation induced by propofol administered by an endoscopist or by an anesthesiologist. It might be difficult to perform this kind of study. For the convenience and safety of sedative endoscopy, it would be important that EDP be generally applied to endoscopic procedures, and for more safety, an anesthesiologist may automatically take care of particular patients at high risk of suffering from propofol side effects.

Safety of non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in ERCP

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation purposes during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study aimed to evaluate the safety of non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) during therapeutic ERCP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients, who underwent ERCP at Centre for Liver and Digestive Diseases, Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi, were included in the study. Propofol sedation was administered by a physician who was a non-anaesthesiologist certified in basic and advanced cardiac life support. The total study duration was 6 months. The primary outcome variable was the frequency of any sedation-related complication.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients (41% males and 59% females) were enrolled in the study. The mean propofol dose used during the procedure was 201±132 mg. The mean propofol dose, when adjusted to weight and duration of procedure, was 0.05±0.04 mg kg(-1)min(-1). According to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, 136 (87%) patients were placed in ASA class I and II and 20 (13%) patients were of ASA class III. Only two patients developed sedation-related complication: one minor requiring bag-mask ventilation and other major requiring mechanical ventilation via endotracheal intubation. Both were managed by the trained non-anaesthesiologist and gastroenterologist at the place of procedure. No patients required cardiopulmonary resuscitation and admission to the intensive care unit. There were no sedation-related deaths.

CONCLUSION

NAAP sedation can be considered safe for low-risk patients (ASA class I and II) undergoing ERCP. The presence of a trained anaesthetist is advisable in high-risk patients (ASA class III and higher) with significant co-morbidities.

A comparative study of non-lipid nanoemulsion of propofol with solutol and propofol emulsion with lecithin

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Some formulations have been proposed to reduce the adverse reactions due to the lipid emulsion containing soybean oil used as propofol carrier. This study for endoscopy sedation was aimed at evaluating and comparing the safety, effectiveness and adverse effects of the use of propofol nanoemulsion compared to propofol currently commercialized.

METHOD

In this prospective study, 150 patients were submitted to upper digestive endoscopy. These patients were allocated into two groups: the control group (CONT Group; n=75) and the nanoemulsion group (NE Group; n=75). HR, SBP, DBP, SpO(2) and BIS (which is considered to be appropriate between 65 and 75 during procedure) were monitored. Gender, age, weight, height, BMI, ASA physical status, times and doses were analyzed, as well as adverse effects (phlogistic signs and pain on injection, apnea, nausea/vomiting) and alterations in monitoring variables. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

The groups had similar results concerning anthropometric data and physical status. None of the patients developed apnea or presented phlogistic signs in the injection site. The incidence of pain on injection in the CONT Group was 82.7% and 53.3% in the NE Group (p<0.001), and the incidence of nausea and vomiting was 10.7% in the CONT Group and 2.7% in the NE Group (p>0.05). The times, induction doses and the SBP and DBP values at the end of examination and at the moment of discharge from the PACU were lower in the NE Group (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Lipid propofol and propofol nanoemulsion were equivalent concerning effectiveness, safety and adverse effects in the doses used. There was a lower incidence of pain on injection in the nanoemulsion formulation.

Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopist-directed propofol sedation (EDP) remains controversial. We sought to update the safety experience of EDP and estimate the cost of using anesthesia specialists for endoscopic sedation.

METHODS

We reviewed all published work using EDP. We contacted all endoscopists performing EDP for endoscopy that we were aware of to obtain their safety experience. These complications were available in all patients: endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and death.

RESULTS

A total of 646,080 (223,656 published and 422,424 unpublished) EDP cases were identified. Endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and deaths were 11, 0, and 4, respectively. Deaths occurred in 2 patients with pancreatic cancer, a severely handicapped patient with mental retardation, and a patient with severe cardiomyopathy. The overall number of cases requiring mask ventilation was 489 (0.1%) of 569,220 cases with data available. For sites specifying mask ventilation risk by procedure type, 185 (0.1%) of 185,245 patients and 20 (0.01%) of 142,863 patients required mask ventilation during their esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy, respectively (P < .001). The estimated cost per life-year saved to substitute anesthesia specialists in these cases, assuming they would have prevented all deaths, was $5.3 million.

CONCLUSIONS

EDP thus far has a lower mortality rate than that in published data on endoscopist-delivered benzodiazepines and opioids and a comparable rate to that in published data on general anesthesia by anesthesiologists. In the cases described here, use of anesthesia specialists to deliver propofol would have had high costs relative to any potential benefit.

Gastroenterologist-directed propofol: an update

Gastroenterologist directed propofol has been proven safe in more than 220,000 published cases. Administration of low doses of opioid and/or benzodiazepine ("balanced propofol sedation") is the safest format for gastroenterologist directed propofol. Specific training is needed to undertake gastroenterologist directed propofol administration.

The difficult-to-sedate patient in the endoscopy suite

More than 20 million endoscopic procedures are performed in the United States annually. More than 98% of these endoscopies are performed with sedation. This includes both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Sedation reduces a patient's anxiety and discomfort, often improving their satisfaction with the procedure. Sedation creates a relaxed patient and a relaxed procedure environment allowing for a successful endoscopic examination.

Acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: endoscopic diagnosis and therapy

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a relatively common,potentially life-threatening condition that causes more than 300,000 hospital admissions and about 30,000 deaths per annum in America. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is the procedure of choice for the diagnosis and therapy of upper gastrointestinal bleeding lesions. Endoscopic therapy is indicated for lesions with high risk stigmata of recent hemorrhage, including active bleeding, oozing, a visible vessel, and possibly an adherent clot. Endoscopic therapies include injection therapy, such as epinephrine or sclerosant injection; ablative therapy, such as heater probe or argon plasma coagulation; and mechanical therapy, such as endoclips or endoscopic banding. Endoscopic therapy reduces the risk of rebleeding,the need for blood transfusions, the requirement for surgery, and patient morbidity.

Sedation with propofol for interventional endoscopic procedures: a risk factor analysis

OBJECTIVE

Propofol sedation for mainly diagnostic endoscopic procedures has proved safe in recent trials, with no need for endotracheal intubation. However, there is evidence that cardiorespiratory side effects occur more frequently and that assisted ventilation may be necessary if propofol sedation is performed for interventional endoscopic procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Over a 6-year period, all adverse events (defined as premature termination of the procedure due to sedation-related events or either the need for assisted ventilation or admission to ICU) occurring during 9547 endoscopic interventions (UGI, n = 5.374, ERCP, n = 3.937, EUS, n=236) under propofol sedation were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 135 adverse events (1.4%) were documented. Assisted ventilation was necessary in 40 patients (0.4%); 9 patients required endotracheal intubation (0.09%); 28 needed further monitoring on the ICU (0.3%); and 4 patients died, 3 potentially due to sedation-related side effects (mortality, 0.03%). Independent risk factors for sedation-related side effects were emergency endoscopic examinations and a total propofol dose >100 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventional endoscopy under propofol sedation is not risk-free. Increased attention must be focused on close monitoring of vital parameters, particularly when undertaking long-lasting interventions and emergency procedures.

Scope creep: when nursing practice moves beyond traditional boundaries: an evidence-based example using procedural sedation

The finite boundaries of the scope of nursing practice are constantly changing. One could expect that with new technology and advances in science, the interventions and assessments nurses perform will change over time. The practice of nursing is governed by nursing, however, it is often challenged by our partners in medicine, and frequently driven by time constraints or reimbursement issues. This article reviews a case example in which nurses were asked to expand their practice to assume responsibility for duties that were once traditionally performed by physicians. An evaluation of a practice problem using an evidence-based approach applying the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) method is explored. Proposed steps to minimize risk and staff moral distress are also described.

Propofol sedation during endoscopic procedures: how much staff and monitoring are necessary?

BACKGROUND

Propofol has been shown to be safe for nonanesthetist use during GI endoscopy. However, published studies involved propofol administration by an additional nurse or used specialized patient monitoring or were carried out in tertiary hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

Considering the downward pressure on reimbursement for endoscopic procedures, we asked how much staff and monitoring is necessary for safe use of propofol.

SETTING

Two private gastroenterology practices.

PATIENTS AND DESIGN

A total of 27,061 endoscopic procedures (14,856 EGDs and 12,205 colonoscopies) were prospectively assessed regarding patient characteristics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, dosage of propofol, fall of oxygen saturation below 90%, need to increase nasal oxygen administration above 2 L/min, and need for assisted ventilation.

INTERVENTION

Propofol was administered by the endoscopy nurse supervised by the endoscopist. Patient monitoring consisted of only pulse oximetry and clinical assessment.

RESULTS

The mean propofol dose for EGD was 161 mg (range 50-650 mg). During colonoscopy patients received a mean propofol dose of 116 mg (30-500 mg) in addition to 25 mg of meperidine. Oxygen saturation fell below 90% (lowest 74%) in 623 procedures (2.3%), normalizing within less than 30 seconds by stimulating the patient and increasing the nasal oxygen flow to 4 to 10 L/min. Six patients (ASA III) required mask ventilation for less than 30 seconds. No endotracheal intubation was necessary.

LIMITATIONS

There was no further follow-up regarding adverse events after patient discharge from the endoscopy unit.

CONCLUSIONS

An endoscopy team, consisting of 1 physician endoscopist and 1 endoscopy nurse, can safely administer propofol sedation for GI endoscopy in a practice setting without additional staff or specialized monitoring.