|
1
|
Xie G, Estevez M, Heybati K, Vogt M, Smith M, Moshe C, Chan J, Kumbhari V, Chadha R. Single-agent versus combination regimens containing propofol: a retrospective cohort study of recovery metrics and complication rates in a hospital-based endoscopy suite. BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY (ELSEVIER) 2025; 75:844602. [PMID: 40023496 PMCID: PMC11951190 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2025.844602] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2024] [Revised: 01/29/2025] [Accepted: 01/31/2025] [Indexed: 03/04/2025]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Anesthesiologists are often tasked with overseeing sedation in non-surgical settings. We aim to determine whether adding adjuvant sedatives to propofol affects the recovery times and complication rates after endoscopy. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults (≥18) who received propofol while undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and/or colonoscopy (COL) at a large academic institution over a four-year period. Patients receiving propofol alone were compared against patients receiving propofol in combination with midazolam, fentanyl, ketamine, or dexmedetomidine. The primary outcome was PACU length of stay, adjusted for age, sex, and ASA Score. Secondary outcomes included incidence of PACU postoperative nausea and vomiting, hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90%), bradycardia (HR < 60 bpm), and escalation of care (hospital admission), reported in adjusted odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS Across the study period, 28,532 cases were included. Colonoscopies performed under propofol+fentanyl sedation were associated with significantly longer PACU LOS compared to propofol alone. Adjusted mean PACU LOS was significantly longer in patients receiving adjuvant fentanyl, compared to propofol alone (p < 0.01) and propofol + dexmedetomidine (p < 0.01). Patients receiving propofol alone exhibited a 9.4% incidence of bradycardia, 16.0% hypoxia, 0.89% PONV, and 0.40% hospitalization. Adjuvant fentanyl use was associated with higher odds of hypoxia across all procedure types (p < 0.05). Adjuvant dexmedetomidine was associated with higher rates of bradycardia, but lower rates of hypoxia, PONV, and hospitalization (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS With the exception of fentanyl, combining propofol with other sedatives was not associated with longer recovery times. The incidence of complications differed significantly with the use of adjuvant fentanyl or dexmedetomidine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guozhen Xie
- Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | - Maria Estevez
- Clinical Studies Unit, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Kiyan Heybati
- Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | - Matthew Vogt
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Michael Smith
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Christine Moshe
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Johanna Chan
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Vivek Kumbhari
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Ryan Chadha
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, FL, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Xie G, Estevez M, Heybati K, Vogt M, Smith M, Moshe C, Chan J, Kumbhari V, Chadha R. Outcomes of anesthesia-supported versus endoscopist-driven sedation modalities: a retrospective cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 2025:S0016-5107(25)00048-3. [PMID: 39880215 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2025.01.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2024] [Revised: 12/09/2024] [Accepted: 01/19/2025] [Indexed: 01/31/2025]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS The use of anesthesia has become commonplace in many procedural settings. The goal of this study is to compare sedation modalities used by endoscopists and anesthesiologists in the endoscopy suite, particularly with respect to recovery time and adverse events. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study including adults (≥18 years of age) undergoing outpatient EGD and/or colonoscopy at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida between October 1st, 2018 and December 31st, 2022. Cases were classified as using propofol only, propofol ± adjuvants (PA; including dexmedetomidine, ketamine, fentanyl, and midazolam), general anesthesia (GA) with endotracheal tube, or fentanyl/midazolam (FM) only. The primary outcome was length of stay (LOS) in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), hypoxemia (Spo2 risk 90%), bradycardia (heart rate <60 bpm), and escalation of care (hospital admission). RESULTS The analysis included 56,361 cases. Among patients who received FM sedation, the mean PACU LOS was 52.01, 49.68, and 53.24 minutes for EGD, colonoscopy, and combined procedures, respectively. This was significantly higher than the mean PACU LOS for GA (44.65, 41.41, and 41.92 minutes, respectively), for PA (32.35, 35.75, and 33.42 minutes, respectively), and for propofol (31.63, 32.61, and 33.29 minutes, respectively; P < .0001). Of patients receiving FM, 8.39% experienced bradycardia, 6.12% experienced hypoxia, 0.24% experienced PONV, and 0.05% were hospitalized. These were substantially lower than the rates for other sedation groups, and odds ratios were significantly lower than 1.00 (P < .05) in 30 of 36 comparisons across procedural, sedative, and outcome categories. CONCLUSIONS Sedation achieved with FM correlated with a lower rate of adverse events but a significantly longer PACU LOS compared with propofol, PA, or GA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guozhen Xie
- Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Maria Estevez
- Clinical Studies Unit, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Kiyan Heybati
- Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Matthew Vogt
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Michael Smith
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Christine Moshe
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Johanna Chan
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Vivek Kumbhari
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Ryan Chadha
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Liu Y, Xiao J, Chen T, Shi D, Qiao Y, Liao X. Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Anesthetic and Sedative Regimens for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Network Meta-Analysis. Dig Dis 2024; 43:84-95. [PMID: 39536718 PMCID: PMC11817864 DOI: 10.1159/000542380] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2024] [Accepted: 10/29/2024] [Indexed: 11/16/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of various anesthetic and sedative regimens for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures. METHODS A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until March 2024. Primary outcomes included procedure time, patient satisfaction, oxygen saturation (SpO2), incidence of SpO2 below 90%, and adverse events. The analysis was performed using R software, analyzing continuous outcomes with mean differences and dichotomous outcomes with risk ratios. RESULTS 42 RCTs were included. Combination therapies such as remifentanil plus tramadol and propofol plus midazolam plus pethidine demonstrated significantly shorter procedure times. Propofol plus oxycodone yielded higher patient satisfaction. Oxygenation results indicated that propofol plus fentanyl, oxycodone, and ketamine improved SpO2. Propofol plus oxycodone (RR <0.01), dexmedetomidine plus fentanyl (RR <0.01), propofol plus nalbuphine (RR = 0.01), Mg sulfate plus propofol (RR = 0.01), and propofol plus fentanyl (RR = 0.02) showed a significant lower rate of patients with SpO2 below 90% compared to propofol. Midazolam plus pethidine plus dexmedetomidine (RR = 0.01), propofol plus oxycodone (RR = 0.09), and dexmedetomidine plus fentanyl (RR = 0.2) exhibited lower rates of adverse events compared to propofol. CONCLUSION This study provides comprehensive evidence to guide clinical decision-making and optimize anesthetic management for ERCP procedures. INTRODUCTION This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of various anesthetic and sedative regimens for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures. METHODS A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until March 2024. Primary outcomes included procedure time, patient satisfaction, oxygen saturation (SpO2), incidence of SpO2 below 90%, and adverse events. The analysis was performed using R software, analyzing continuous outcomes with mean differences and dichotomous outcomes with risk ratios. RESULTS 42 RCTs were included. Combination therapies such as remifentanil plus tramadol and propofol plus midazolam plus pethidine demonstrated significantly shorter procedure times. Propofol plus oxycodone yielded higher patient satisfaction. Oxygenation results indicated that propofol plus fentanyl, oxycodone, and ketamine improved SpO2. Propofol plus oxycodone (RR <0.01), dexmedetomidine plus fentanyl (RR <0.01), propofol plus nalbuphine (RR = 0.01), Mg sulfate plus propofol (RR = 0.01), and propofol plus fentanyl (RR = 0.02) showed a significant lower rate of patients with SpO2 below 90% compared to propofol. Midazolam plus pethidine plus dexmedetomidine (RR = 0.01), propofol plus oxycodone (RR = 0.09), and dexmedetomidine plus fentanyl (RR = 0.2) exhibited lower rates of adverse events compared to propofol. CONCLUSION This study provides comprehensive evidence to guide clinical decision-making and optimize anesthetic management for ERCP procedures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yufang Liu
- Department of Anesthesiology, 904th Hospital of The Joint Logistics Support Force of the PLA, Wuxi, China
| | - Jifeng Xiao
- Department of Anesthesiology, 904th Hospital of The Joint Logistics Support Force of the PLA, Wuxi, China
| | - Tian Chen
- Department of Anesthesiology, 904th Hospital of The Joint Logistics Support Force of the PLA, Wuxi, China
| | - Dongdong Shi
- Department of Anesthesiology, 904th Hospital of The Joint Logistics Support Force of the PLA, Wuxi, China
| | - Yan Qiao
- Department of Anesthesiology, 904th Hospital of The Joint Logistics Support Force of the PLA, Wuxi, China
| | - Xingzhi Liao
- Department of Anesthesiology, 904th Hospital of The Joint Logistics Support Force of the PLA, Wuxi, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Wehrmann T, Riphaus A, Eckardt AJ, Klare P, Kopp I, von Delius S, Rosien U, Tonner PH. Updated S3 Guideline "Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy" of the German Society of Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS) - June 2023 - AWMF-Register-No. 021/014. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR GASTROENTEROLOGIE 2023; 61:e654-e705. [PMID: 37813354 DOI: 10.1055/a-2165-6388] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/11/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Till Wehrmann
- Clinic for Gastroenterology, DKD Helios Clinic Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Germany
| | - Andrea Riphaus
- Internal Medicine, St. Elisabethen Hospital Frankfurt Artemed SE, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Alexander J Eckardt
- Clinic for Gastroenterology, DKD Helios Clinic Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Germany
| | - Peter Klare
- Department Internal Medicine - Gastroenterology, Diabetology, and Hematology/Oncology, Hospital Agatharied, Hausham, Germany
| | - Ina Kopp
- Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany e.V. (AWMF), Berlin, Germany
| | - Stefan von Delius
- Medical Clinic II - Internal Medicine - Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Endocrinology, Hematology, and Oncology, RoMed Clinic Rosenheim, Rosenheim, Germany
| | - Ulrich Rosien
- Medical Clinic, Israelite Hospital, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Peter H Tonner
- Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Clinic Leer, Leer, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Wehrmann T, Riphaus A, Eckardt AJ, Klare P, Kopp I, von Delius S, Rosien U, Tonner PH. Aktualisierte S3-Leitlinie „Sedierung in der gastrointestinalen Endoskopie“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie, Verdauungs- und Stoffwechselkrankheiten (DGVS). ZEITSCHRIFT FUR GASTROENTEROLOGIE 2023; 61:1246-1301. [PMID: 37678315 DOI: 10.1055/a-2124-5333] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/09/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Till Wehrmann
- Klinik für Gastroenterologie, DKD Helios Klinik Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Deutschland
| | - Andrea Riphaus
- Innere Medizin, St. Elisabethen Krankenhaus Frankfurt Artemed SE, Frankfurt, Deutschland
| | - Alexander J Eckardt
- Klinik für Gastroenterologie, DKD Helios Klinik Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Deutschland
| | - Peter Klare
- Abteilung Innere Medizin - Gastroenterologie, Diabetologie und Hämato-/Onkologie, Krankenhaus Agatharied, Hausham, Deutschland
| | - Ina Kopp
- Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften e. V. (AWMF), Berlin, Deutschland
| | - Stefan von Delius
- Medizinische Klinik II - Innere Medizin - Gastroenterologie, Hepatologie, Endokrinologie, Hämatologie und Onkologie, RoMed Klinikum Rosenheim, Rosenheim, Deutschland
| | - Ulrich Rosien
- Medizinische Klinik, Israelitisches Krankenhaus, Hamburg, Deutschland
| | - Peter H Tonner
- Anästhesie- und Intensivmedizin, Klinikum Leer, Leer, Deutschland
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Ang TL, Seet E, Goh YC, Ng WK, Koh CJ, Lui HF, Li JW, Oo AM, Lim KBL, Ho KS, Chew MH, Quan WL, Tan DMY, Ng KH, Goh HS, Cheong WK, Tseng P, Ling KL. Academy of Medicine, Singapore clinical guideline on the use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting. ANNALS OF THE ACADEMY OF MEDICINE, SINGAPORE 2022; 51:24-39. [PMID: 35091728 DOI: 10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2021306] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In Singapore, non-anaesthesiologists generally administer sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The drugs used for sedation in hospital endoscopy centres now include propofol in addition to benzodiazepines and opiates. The requirements for peri-procedural monitoring and discharge protocols have also evolved. There is a need to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline on the safe and effective use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting. METHODS The Academy of Medicine, Singapore appointed an expert workgroup comprising 18 gastroenterologists, general surgeons and anaesthesiologists to develop guidelines on the use of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The workgroup formulated clinical questions related to different aspects of endoscopic sedation, conducted a relevant literature search, adopted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and developed recommendations by consensus using a modified Delphi process. RESULTS The workgroup made 16 recommendations encompassing 7 areas: (1) purpose of sedation, benefits and disadvantages of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (2) pre-procedural assessment, preparation and consent taking for sedation; (3) Efficacy and safety of drugs used in sedation; (4) the role of anaesthesiologist administered sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (5) performance of sedation; (6) post-sedation care and discharge after sedation; and (7) training in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy for non-anaesthesiologists. CONCLUSION These recommendations serve to guide clinical practice during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-anaesthesiologists in the hospital setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tiing Leong Ang
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Changi General Hospital, Singapore
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Prospective Comparison of Moderate Conscious Sedation and Anesthesia Assistance for the Performance of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 2021:8892085. [PMID: 33954156 PMCID: PMC8060076 DOI: 10.1155/2021/8892085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2020] [Revised: 03/21/2021] [Accepted: 03/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Recent trends have favored the use of anesthesia personnel more frequently for advanced endoscopic procedures. We hypothesize a selective sedation approach based on patient and procedural factors using either moderate conscious sedation (MCS) or general anesthesia (GA) will result in similar outcomes and safety with significant cost savings. METHODS A 12-month prospective study of all adult endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCPs) performed at a tertiary medical center was enrolled. Technical success, cannulation rates, procedural related complications, procedure time, and cost were compared between MCS and GA. RESULTS A total of 876 ERCPs were included in the study with 74% performed with MCS versus 26% with GA. The intended intervention was completed successfully in 95% of cases with MCS versus 96% cases with GA (p = 0.59). Cannulation success rates with MCS were 97.5 versus 97.8% with GA (p = 0.81). Overall, adverse event rates were similar in both groups (MCS: 6.6% vs. GA: 9.2%, p = 0.21). Mean procedure time was less for MCS versus GA, 18.3 and 26 minutes, respectively (p < 0.0001). Selective use of MCS vs. universal sedation with GA resulted in estimated savings of $8,190 per case and $4,735,202 per annum. CONCLUSIONS Preselection of ERCP sedation of moderate conscious sedation versus general anesthesia based upon patient risk factors and planned therapeutic intervention allows for the majority of ERCPs to be completed with MCS with similar rates of technical success and improvement in resource utilization and cost savings compared to performing ERCPs universally with anesthesia assistance.
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Gotoda T, Akamatsu T, Abe S, Shimatani M, Nakai Y, Hatta W, Hosoe N, Miura Y, Miyahara R, Yamaguchi D, Yoshida N, Kawaguchi Y, Fukuda S, Isomoto H, Irisawa A, Iwao Y, Uraoka T, Yokota M, Nakayama T, Fujimoto K, Inoue H. Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition). Dig Endosc 2021; 33:21-53. [PMID: 33124106 DOI: 10.1111/den.13882] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2020] [Revised: 10/12/2020] [Accepted: 10/21/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takuji Gotoda
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Takuji Akamatsu
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Seiichiro Abe
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Yousuke Nakai
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Waku Hatta
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Naoki Hosoe
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yoshimasa Miura
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Ryoji Miyahara
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Naohisa Yoshida
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Shinsaku Fukuda
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hajime Isomoto
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Atsushi Irisawa
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yasushi Iwao
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Toshio Uraoka
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Takeo Nakayama
- Department of Health Informatics, Kyoto University School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Kazuma Fujimoto
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Haruhiro Inoue
- Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Delgado AADA, de Moura DTH, Ribeiro IB, Bazarbashi AN, dos Santos MEL, Bernardo WM, de Moura EGH. Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 11:573-588. [PMID: 31839876 PMCID: PMC6885729 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i12.573] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2019] [Revised: 08/17/2019] [Accepted: 09/11/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Propofol is commonly used for sedation during endoscopic procedures. Data suggests its superiority to traditional sedatives used in endoscopy including benzodiazepines and opioids with more rapid onset of action and improved post-procedure recovery times for patients. However, Propofol requires administration by trained healthcare providers, has a narrow therapeutic index, lacks an antidote and increases risks of cardio-pulmonary complications. AIM To compare, through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, sedation with propofol to traditional sedatives with or without propofol during endoscopic procedures. METHODS A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, LILACS, BVS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. The last search in the literature was performed on March, 2019 with no restriction regarding the idiom or the year of publication. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. We divided sedation therapies to the following groups: (1) Propofol versus benzodiazepines and/or opiate sedatives; (2) Propofol versus Propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids; and (3) Propofol with adjunctive benzodiazepine and opioid versus benzodiazepine and opioid. The following outcomes were addressed: Adverse events, patient satisfaction with type of sedation, endoscopists satisfaction with sedation administered, dose of propofol administered and time to recovery post procedure. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5 software version 5.39. RESULTS A total of 23 clinical trials were included (n = 3854) from the initial search of 6410 articles. For Group I (Propofol vs benzodiazepine and/or opioids): The incidence of bradycardia was not statistically different between both sedation arms (RD: -0.01, 95%CI: -0.03-+0.01, I 2: 22%). In 10 studies, the incidence of hypotension was not statistically difference between sedation arms (RD: 0.01, 95%CI: -0.02-+0.04, I 2: 0%). Oxygen desaturation was higher in the propofol group but not statistically different between groups (RD: -0.03, 95%CI: -0.06-+0.00, I 2: 25%). Patients were more satisfied with their sedation in the benzodiazepine + opioid group compared to those with monotherapy propofol sedation (MD: +0.89, 95%CI: +0.62-+1.17, I 2: 39%). The recovery time after the procedure showed high heterogeneity even after outlier withdrawal, there was no statistical difference between both arms (MD: -15.15, 95%CI: -31.85-+1.56, I 2: 99%). For Group II (Propofol vs propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids): Bradycardia had a tendency to occur in the Propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opioid-associated (RD: -0.08, 95%CI: -0.13--0.02, I 2: 59%). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of bradycardia (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: -0.08-+0.08, I 2: 85%), desaturation (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: -0.03-+0.02, I 2: 44%) or recovery time (MD: -2.04, 95%CI: -6.96-+2.88, I 2: 97%) between sedation arms. The total dose of propofol was higher in the propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opiates but with high heterogeneity. (MD: 70.36, 95%CI: +53.11-+87.60, I 2: 61%). For Group III (Propofol with benzodiazepine and opioid vs benzodiazepine and opioid): Bradycardia and hypotension was not statistically significant between groups (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: -0.002-+0.02, I 2: 3%; RD: 0.04, 95%CI: -0.05-+0.13, I 2: 77%). Desaturation was evaluated in two articles and was higher in the propofol + benzodiazepine + opioid group, but with high heterogeneity (RD: 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08-+0.22, I 2: 95%). CONCLUSION This meta-analysis suggests that the use of propofol alone or in combination with traditional adjunctive sedatives is safe and does not result in an increase in negative outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aureo Augusto de Almeida Delgado
- Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Sao Paulo 05403000, Brazil
| | - Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura
- Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Sao Paulo 05403000, Brazil
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States
| | - Igor Braga Ribeiro
- Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Sao Paulo 05403000, Brazil
| | - Ahmad Najdat Bazarbashi
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States
| | - Marcos Eduardo Lera dos Santos
- Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Sao Paulo 05403000, Brazil
| | - Wanderley Marques Bernardo
- Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Sao Paulo 05403000, Brazil
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Yamamoto T, Fujii-Abe K, Fukayama H, Kawahara H. The Effect of Adding Midazolam to Propofol Intravenous Sedation to Suppress Gag Reflex During Dental Treatment. Anesth Prog 2019; 65:76-81. [PMID: 29952641 DOI: 10.2344/anpr-65-02-03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
We retrospectively investigated the efficacy and safety of propofol administration alone and in combination with midazolam for gag reflex suppression during dental treatment under intravenous sedation. We included 56 patients with an overactive gag reflex who were to undergo dental treatment under intravenous sedation. They were divided into propofol (P group, n = 22) and midazolam with propofol (MP group, n = 34) groups. The P group received propofol alone, while the MP group received midazolam (0.04 mg/kg) prior to target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol (titrated for adequate sedation). The patients' anesthetic records were evaluated for vital sign changes, adverse cardiovascular or respiratory event frequency, the number of forced treatment interruptions, and the TCI-predicted cerebral propofol concentration at gag reflex suppression (posterior tongue stimulation with a dental mirror). No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups preoperatively. There were no cases of forced interruptions or significant respiratory compromise in either group. Cardiovascular adverse event frequency was lower in the MP group than in the P group (all p < .05). Our results suggest that propofol, when combined with midazolam, minimized cardiovascular effects compared with propofol alone when used to suppress the gag reflex in patients during dental treatment under intravenous sedation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Toru Yamamoto
- Section of Anesthesiology and Clinical Physiology, Department of Oral Restitution, Division of Oral Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan, and
| | - Keiko Fujii-Abe
- Section of Anesthesiology and Clinical Physiology, Department of Oral Restitution, Division of Oral Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan, and
| | - Haruhisa Fukayama
- Section of Anesthesiology and Clinical Physiology, Department of Oral Restitution, Division of Oral Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan, and
| | - Hiroshi Kawahara
- Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Tsurumi University School of Dental Medicine, Yokohama, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Effects of ketamine or fentanyl addition to propofol on the quality of sedo-analgesia during endoscopic ultrasonography. JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY MEDICINE 2019. [DOI: 10.16899/jcm.578643] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
|
12
|
El Hefnawy E, El Nakeeb A. Comparative study between magnesium sulphate and L-hyoscyamine on duodenal motility during ERCP under general anaesthesia: A prospective randomized study. EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA 2019. [DOI: 10.1016/j.egja.2016.10.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Emad El Hefnawy
- Gastroenterology Surgical Center, Mansoura University, Egypt
| | - Ayman El Nakeeb
- Gastroenterology Surgical Center, Mansoura University, Egypt
| |
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Yoon SW, Choi GJ, Lee OH, Yoon IJ, Kang H, Baek CW, Jung YH, Woo YC. Comparison of propofol monotherapy and propofol combination therapy for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc 2018; 30:580-591. [PMID: 29526045 DOI: 10.1111/den.13050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2017] [Accepted: 03/05/2018] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM Previous randomized controlled trials have reported conflicting findings comparing propofol combination therapy (PCT) with propofol monotherapy (PMT) for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Therefore, a systematic review was carried out to compare the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT in such patients. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Primary endpoints were incidence of respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, dose of propofol used, and recovery time. Procedure duration and the satisfaction of patients and doctors were also evaluated. RESULTS A total of 2250 patients from 22 studies were included in the final analysis. The combined analysis did not show any difference between PCT and PMT in the incidence of respiratory complications (risk ratio [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.23; I2 = 58.34%), hypotension (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.78; I2 = 72.13%), arrhythmia (RR,1.40; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.64; I2 = 43.71%), recovery time (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.16; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.81; I2 = 95.9%), procedure duration (SMD, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.14; I2 = 0.0%), patient satisfaction (SMD, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.52; I2 = 89.63%) or doctor satisfaction (SMD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.17; I2 = 0.00%). However, the dose of propofol used was significantly lower in PCT than in PMT (SMD, -1.38; 95% CI, -1.99 to -0.77; I2 = 97.70%). CONCLUSION PCT showed comparable efficacy and safety to PMT with respect to respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, recovery time, procedure duration, patient satisfaction, and doctor satisfaction. However, the average dose of propofol used was higher in PMT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sang Won Yoon
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Geun Joo Choi
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Oh Haeng Lee
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Il Jae Yoon
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hyun Kang
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chong Wha Baek
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yong Hun Jung
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Young Cheol Woo
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Singh SA, Prakash K, Sharma S, Dhakate G, Bhatia V. Comparison of propofol alone and in combination with ketamine or fentanyl for sedation in endoscopic ultrasonography. Korean J Anesthesiol 2018; 71:43-47. [PMID: 29441174 PMCID: PMC5809707 DOI: 10.4097/kjae.2018.71.1.43] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2016] [Revised: 04/03/2017] [Accepted: 04/16/2017] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND We evaluated whether the addition of a small dose of ketamine or fentanyl would lead to a reduction in the total dose of propofol consumed without compromising the safety and recovery of patients having endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). METHODS A total of 210 adult patients undergoing elective EUS under sedation were included in the study. Patients were randomized into three groups. Patients were premedicated intravenously with normal saline in group 1, 50 µg fentanyl in group 2, and 0.5 mg/kg ketamine in group 3. All patients received intravenous propofol for sedation. Propofol consumption in mg/kg/h was noted. The incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, desaturation, and coughing was noted. The time to achieve a Post Anesthesia Discharge Score (PADS) of 10 was also noted. RESULTS There were 68 patients in group 1, 70 in group 2, and 72 in group 3. The amount of propofol consumed was significantly higher in group 1 (9.25 [7.3-13.2]) than in group 2 (8.8 [6.8-12.2]) and group 3 (7.6 [5.7-9.8]). Patient hemodynamics and oxygenation were well maintained and comparable in all groups. The time to achieve a PADS of 10 was significantly higher in group 3 compared to the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS The use of 50 µg fentanyl or 0.5 mg/kg ketamine in a single dose during EUS reduces the dose of propofol required for sedation. However, unlike the addition of fentanyl, the addition of ketamine increased the time to recovery. Thus, 50 µg fentanyl is a good additive to propofol infusion for sedation during EUS to reduce the requirement for propofol without affecting the time to recovery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shweta A Singh
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Institute of Liver & Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Kelika Prakash
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Institute of Liver & Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Sandeep Sharma
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Institute of Liver & Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Gaurav Dhakate
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Institute of Liver & Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Vikram Bhatia
- Department of Hepatology, Institute of Liver & Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Lee JK, Jang DK, Kim WH, Kim JW, Jang BI. [Safety of Non-anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]. THE KOREAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY 2017; 69:55-58. [PMID: 28135791 DOI: 10.4166/kjg.2017.69.1.55] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) is a hypnotic drug with a very rapid onset and offset of action. It has increasingly been used in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Administration of propofol by nurses or endoscopists is commonly referred to as non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP). There have been a lot of studies on the safety of NAAP compared with those by anesthesiologists. Safety results of those studies are summarized in this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jun Kyu Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Goyang, Korea
| | - Dong Kee Jang
- Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Goyang, Korea
| | - Won Hee Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Jung Wook Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
| | - Byung Ik Jang
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Buxbaum J, Roth N, Motamedi N, Lee T, Leonor P, Salem M, Gibbs D, Vargo J. Anesthetist-Directed Sedation Favors Success of Advanced Endoscopic Procedures. Am J Gastroenterol 2017; 112:290-296. [PMID: 27402501 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2016.285] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2015] [Accepted: 06/08/2016] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Sedation is required to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) given the duration and complexity of these advanced procedures. Sedation options include anesthetist-directed sedation (ADS) vs. gastroenterologist-directed sedation (GDS). Although ADS has been shown to shorten induction and recovery times, it is not established whether it impacts likelihood of procedure completion. Our aim was to assess whether ADS impacts the success of advanced endoscopy procedures. METHODS We prospectively assessed the sedation strategy for patients undergoing ERCP and EUS between October 2010 and October 2013. Although assignment to ADS vs. GDS was not randomized, it was determined by day of the week. A sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching was used to model a randomized trial. The main outcome, procedure failure, was defined as an inability to satisfactorily complete the ERCP or EUS such that an additional endoscopic, radiographic, or surgical procedure was required. Failure was further categorized as failure due to inadequate sedation vs. technical problems. RESULTS During the 3-year study period, 60% of the 1,171 procedures were carried out with GDS and 40% were carried out with ADS. Failed procedures occurred in 13.0% of GDS cases compared with 8.9% of ADS procedures (multivariate odds ratio (OR): 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5-3.6)).This was driven by a higher rate of sedation failures in the GDS group, 7.0%, than in the ADS group, 1.3% (multivariate OR: 7.8 (95% CI: 3.3-18.8)). There was no difference in technical success between the GDS and ADS groups (multivariate OR: 1.2 (95% CI: 0.7-1.9)). We were able to match 417 GDS cases to 417 ADS cases based on procedure type, indication, and propensity score. Analysis of the propensity score-matched patients confirmed our findings of increased sedation failure (multivariate OR: 8.9 (95% CI: 2.5-32.1)) but not technical failure (multivariate OR: 1.2 (0.7-2.2)) in GDS compared with ADS procedures. Adverse events of sedation were rare in both groups. Failed ERCP in the GDS group resulted in a total of 93 additional days of hospitalization. We estimate that $67,891 would have been saved if ADS had been used for all ERCP procedures. No statistically significant difference in EUS success was identified, although this sub-analysis was limited by sample size. CONCLUSION ADS improves the success of advanced endoscopic procedures. Its routine use may increase the quality and efficiency of these services.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James Buxbaum
- Division of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, The University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Nitzan Roth
- Division of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, The University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Nima Motamedi
- Division of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, The University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Terrance Lee
- Division of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, The University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Paul Leonor
- Division of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, The University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Mark Salem
- Division of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, The University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Dolores Gibbs
- Division of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, The University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - John Vargo
- Division of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, The University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
17
|
Sathananthan D, Young E, Nind G, George B, Ashby A, Drummond S, Redel K, Green N, Singh R. Assessing the safety of physician-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation in low-risk patients undergoing endoscopy and colonoscopy. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5:E110-E115. [PMID: 28210707 PMCID: PMC5305421 DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-121667] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background and study aims Physician-directed nurse-administered balanced propofol sedation (PhD NAPS) in patients undergoing endoscopy and/or colonoscopy is being increasingly utilized worldwide. However, this method of sedation is not universally employed in Australian hospitals due to concerns surrounding its safety. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of PhD NAPS in low-risk patients undergoing endoscopy and/or colonoscopy. Patients and methods This study was conducted at a single tertiary teaching hospital in Adelaide, Australia. It was a prospective study involving 1000 patients with an ASA score of 1 - 3 presenting with any indication for endoscopy, colonoscopy or both. A total of 981 patients (451 male) with a mean age of 53 years (range: 16 - 87) were recruited from January 2010 to October 2012. 440 endoscopies, 420 colonoscopies, and 121 combined procedures were performed. The intra-procedural adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Results There were no major intra-procedural adverse events. Minor AEs occurred in 6.42 % of patients, and resolved spontaneously or with intravenous fluid boluses in all cases. Conclusion PhD NAPS is safe when the proceduralist and nursing staff are adequately trained and strict patient selection criteria are used.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Edward Young
- University of Adelaide Medical School, Adelaide, South Australia
| | - Garry Nind
- Lyell McEwin Hospital – Gastroenterology, Adelaide, South Australia
| | - Biju George
- Lyell McEwin Hospital – Gastroenterology, Adelaide, South Australia
| | - Angelie Ashby
- University of Adelaide/Lyell McEwin Hospital, Endoscopy Unit, Elizabeth Vale, South Australia
| | - Sharon Drummond
- University of Adelaide/Lyell McEwin Hospital, Endoscopy Unit, Elizabeth Vale, South Australia
| | - Kasia Redel
- University of Adelaide/Lyell McEwin Hospital, Endoscopy Unit, Elizabeth Vale, South Australia
| | - Neville Green
- Lyell McEwin Hospital – Anaesthetics, Elizabeth Vale, South Australia
| | - Rajvinder Singh
- Lyell McEwin Hospital – Gastroenterology, Adelaide, South Australia
| |
Collapse
|
|
18
|
Efficacy and Safety of Propofol-Mediated Sedation for Outpatient Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Dig Dis Sci 2016; 61:1686-91. [PMID: 26825844 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-016-4043-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2015] [Accepted: 01/16/2016] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Propofol sedation for endoscopy may result in a rapid and unpredictable progression from deep sedation to general anesthesia, leading to potential complications. We investigated the incidence and predictors of sedation-related adverse events (SAEs) in nonintubated patients who underwent outpatient ERCP procedures with propofol sedation. METHODS We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent propofol sedation for ERCP procedures. Patients were sedated using propofol in combination with low-dose opiates. Data collected included patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASAs) physical status, and procedure times. SAE includes hypoxia (pulse oximetry <90 %), hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg), and conversation to endotracheal intubation. Factors associated with SAEs were examined by univariate analysis and multivariate regression analysis (MVA). RESULTS A total of 3041 patients were evaluated. The median BMI was 25.2 kg/m(2), and the median ASA score was 3. The mean (±SD) duration of the procedures was 59 ± 23 min. Hypoxia requiring airway manipulation occurred in 28 % (n = 843) patients and hypotension requiring vasopressors in 0.4 % (n = 12). Forty-nine (1.6 %) patients required endotracheal intubation as a result of food in the stomach. Procedures underwent early termination in 8 (0.3 %) cases due to sedation-related hypotension (n = 5) and refractory laryngospasm (n = 3). Six patients were admitted after the ERCP for aspiration pneumonia as a result of sedation. Patients who developed SAE were older, had a higher mean BMI, and had longer mean procedure durations. On MVA, older age (p = 0.003), female sex (p = 0.001), BMI (p = 0.02), and ASA class ≥3 (p = 0.01) independently predicted SAEs. CONCLUSIONS Propofol can be used safely and effectively as a sedative agent for patients undergoing ERCPs when administered by trained professionals. Age, female sex, BMI, and ASA class ≥3 are independent predictors of SAEs.
Collapse
|
|
19
|
Ulusoy H, Coskun I, Arslan M. Effects of midazolam or tramadol premedication on early cognitive function in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): A randomized, controlled, double-blind study. J Int Med Res 2016; 44:542-56. [PMID: 26944385 PMCID: PMC5536697 DOI: 10.1177/0300060515600189] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2015] [Accepted: 07/22/2015] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the sedative efficacy and effects on early period cognitive function of premedication in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). METHODS Forty patients (18-70 years; American Society of Anesthesiology risk category I-III) undergoing elective ERCP were randomized to receive oral premedication with 0.15 mg/kg midazolam or 1 mg/kg tramadol. Cognitive function was determined by mini-mental test (MMT). Target scores for effective sedation were determined as a Bispectral index score of 70-90 and modified Ramsay Sedation Scale score (mRSS) of 2-4. RESULTS Global MMT score was not significantly different between treatment groups at 60 min post-ERCP. A significant deterioration in the MMT subcategory of recall was determined in with midazolam versus tramadol. Level of sedation (mRSS) was higher in with midazolam compared with tramadol reaching statistical significance at 30 min after drug administration. CONCLUSIONS Although more effective sedation was obtained with midazolam in patients undergoing ERCP, there was a dysfunction in memory recall. It was concluded, however, that early cognitive functions were generally preserved with both drugs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hulya Ulusoy
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Medicine, TRABZON, Turkey
| | | | - Mehmet Arslan
- Department of Gastroenterology, Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Medicine, TRABZON, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
|
20
|
Safety of Non-anesthesia Provider-Administered Propofol (NAAP) Sedation in Advanced Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures: Comparative Meta-Analysis of Pooled Results. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60:2612-27. [PMID: 25732719 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-015-3608-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2015] [Accepted: 02/21/2015] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAAP)-administered propofol sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures with those of anesthesia provider (AAP). METHODS PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 519 publications, 26 were identified to meet inclusion criteria (10 AAPs and 16 NAAPs) and were analyzed. Data were analyzed for hypoxia rate, airway intervention rates, endoscopist, and patient satisfaction scores and total propofol administered. RESULTS Total number of procedures in NAAP and AAP groups was 3018 and 2374, respectively. Pooled hypoxia (oxygen saturation less than 90 %) rates were 0.133 (95 % CI 0.117-0.152) and 0.143 (95 % CI 0.128-0.159) in NAAP and AAP, respectively. Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates were 0.035 (95 % CI 0.026-0.047) and 0.133 (95 % CI 0.118-0.150), respectively. Pooled patient satisfaction rate, pooled endoscopist satisfaction rate, and mean propofol administered dose for NAAP were 7.22 (95 % CI 7.17-7.27), 6.03 (95 % CI 5.94-6.11), and 251.44 mg (95 % CI 244.39-258.49) in that order compared with 9.82 (95 % CI 9.76-9.88), 9.06 (95 % CI 8.91-9.21), and 340.32 mg (95 % CI 327.30-353.33) for AAP. CONCLUSIONS The safety of NAAP sedation compared favorably with AAP sedation in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures. However, it came at the cost of decreased patient and endoscopist satisfaction.
Collapse
|
|
21
|
Lee S, Han JH, Lee HS, Kim KB, Lee IK, Cha EJ, Shin YD, Park N, Park SM. Efficacy and safety of a patient-positioning device (EZ-FIX) for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21:5995-6000. [PMID: 26019465 PMCID: PMC4438035 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i19.5995] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2014] [Revised: 01/15/2015] [Accepted: 02/11/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM To assess the efficacy and safety of a patient-positioning device (EZ-FIX) for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). METHODS A total of 105 patients were randomized to the EZ-FIX (n = 53) or non-EZ-FIX (n = 52) group in this prospective study. Midazolam and propofol, titrated to provide an adequate level of sedation during therapeutic ERCP, were administered by trained registered nurses under endoscopist supervision. Primary outcome measures were the total dose of propofol and sedative-related complications, including hypoxia and hypotension. Secondary outcome measures were recovery time and sedation satisfaction of the endoscopist, nurses, and patients. RESULTS There was no significant difference in the rate of hypoxia, but there was a statistical trend (EX-FIX group; n = 4, 7.55%, control group; n = 6, 11.53%, P = 0.06). The mean total dose of propofol was lower in the EZ-FIX group than in the non-EZ-FIX group (89.43 ± 49.8 mg vs 112.4 ± 53.8 mg, P = 0.025). In addition, the EZ-FIX group had a shorter mean recovery time (11.23 ± 4.61 mg vs 14.96 ± 5.12 mg, P < 0.001). Sedation satisfaction of the endoscopist and nurses was higher in the EX-FIX group than in the non-EZ-FIX group. Technical success rates of the procedure were 96.23% and 96.15%, respectively (P = 0.856). Procedure-related complications did not differ by group (11.32% vs 13.46%, respectively, P = 0.735). CONCLUSION Using EZ-FIX reduced the total dose of propofol and the recovery time, and increased the satisfaction of the endoscopist and nurses.
Collapse
|
|
22
|
Obara K, Haruma K, Irisawa A, Kaise M, Gotoda T, Sugiyama M, Tanabe S, Horiuchi A, Fujita N, Ozaki M, Yoshida M, Matsui T, Ichinose M, Kaminishi M. Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy. Dig Endosc 2015; 27:435-449. [PMID: 25677012 DOI: 10.1111/den.12464] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2014] [Accepted: 02/06/2015] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ken Haruma
- The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Atsushi Irisawa
- The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Mitsuru Kaise
- The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Takuji Gotoda
- The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Satoshi Tanabe
- The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Akira Horiuchi
- The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Naotaka Fujita
- The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Makoto Ozaki
- The Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | | | - Masao Ichinose
- The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Tokyo, Japan
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
23
|
Horiuchi A, Graham DY. Special topics in procedural sedation: clinical challenges and psychomotor recovery. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80:404-9. [PMID: 24981806 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.04.063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2013] [Accepted: 04/29/2014] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Akira Horiuchi
- Digestive Disease Center, Showa Inan General Hospital, Komagane, Japan
| | - David Y Graham
- Deparment of Internal Medicine, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
24
|
Kim YS, Kim MH, Jeong SU, Lee BU, Lee SS, Park DH, Seo DW, Lee SK. Comparison between Midazolam Used Alone and in Combination with Propofol for Sedation during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. Clin Endosc 2014; 47:94-100. [PMID: 24570889 PMCID: PMC3928499 DOI: 10.5946/ce.2014.47.1.94] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2012] [Revised: 02/17/2013] [Accepted: 02/17/2013] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Background/Aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an uncomfortable procedure that requires adequate sedation for its successful conduction. We investigated the efficacy and safety of the combined use of intravenous midazolam and propofol for sedation during ERCP. Methods A retrospective review of patient records from a single tertiary care hospital was performed. Ninety-four patients undergoing ERCP received one of the two medication regimens, which was administered by a nurse under the supervision of a gastroenterologist. Patients in the midazolam (M) group (n=44) received only intravenous midazolam, which was titrated to achieve deep sedation. Patients in the midazolam pulse propofol (MP) group (n=50) initially received an intravenous combination of midazolam and propofol, and then propofol was titrated to achieve deep sedation. Results The time to the initial sedation was shorter in the MP group than in the M group (1.13 minutes vs. 1.84 minutes, respectively; p<0.001). The recovery time was faster in the MP group than in the M group (p=0.031). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to frequency of adverse events, pain experienced by the patient, patient discomfort, degree of amnesia, and gag reflex. Patient cooperation, rated by the endoscopist as excellent, was greater in the MP group than in the M group (p=0.046). Conclusions The combined use of intravenous midazolam and propofol for sedation during ERCP is more effective than midazolam alone. There is no difference in the safety of the procedure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu Seok Kim
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Myung-Hwan Kim
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seung Uk Jeong
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Byung Uk Lee
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sang Soo Lee
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Do Hyun Park
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dong-Wan Seo
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sung Koo Lee
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
25
|
Triantafillidis JK, Merikas E, Nikolakis D, Papalois AE. Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19:463-81. [PMID: 23382625 PMCID: PMC3558570 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i4.463] [Citation(s) in RCA: 161] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2012] [Revised: 11/11/2012] [Accepted: 12/25/2012] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.
Collapse
|
|
26
|
Wang D, Wang S, Chen J, Xu Y, Chen C, Long A, Zhu Z, Liu J, Deng D, Chen J, Tang D, Wang L. Propofol combined with traditional sedative agents versus propofol- alone sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2013; 48:101-10. [PMID: 23110510 DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2012.737360] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy and safety of sedation of propofol combined with traditional sedative agents (PTSA) for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PTSA with propofol-alone sedation. MATERIAL AND METHODS RCTs comparing the effects of PTSA and propofol alone during gastrointestinal endoscopy were found on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Cardiopulmonary complications (i.e., hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmia, and apnea), total dose of propofol used and amnesia were assessed. RESULTS Nine original RCTs investigating a total of 1,505 patients, of whom, 805 received PTSA sedation and 700 received propofol-alone sedation, met the inclusion criteria. Compared with propofol-alone sedation, the pooled relative risk with the use of PTSA sedation for developing hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmias, and apnea for all the procedures combined was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.30-2.92), 1.32 (95% CI, 0.38-4.64), 2.61 (95% CI, 0.23-29.29) and 2.81 (95% CI, 0.27-29.07), with no significant difference between the groups. The pooled mean difference in total dose of propofol used was -40.01 (95% CI, -78.96 to -1.05), which showed a significant reduction with use of PTSA sedation. The pooled relative risk for amnesia was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.07), suggesting no significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS PTSA sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy could significantly reduce the total dose of propofol, but without benefits of lower risk of cardiopulmonary complications compared with propofol-alone sedation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daorong Wang
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Subei People's Hospital of Jiangsu Province (Clinical Medical College of Yangzhou University), Yangzhou, PR China
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
27
|
Angsuwatcharakon P, Rerknimitr R, Ridtitid W, Kongkam P, Poonyathawon S, Ponauthai Y, Sumdin S, Kullavanijaya P. Cocktail sedation containing propofol versus conventional sedation for ERCP: a prospective, randomized controlled study. BMC Anesthesiol 2012; 12:20. [PMID: 22873637 PMCID: PMC3434082 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2253-12-20] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/26/2011] [Accepted: 08/03/2012] [Indexed: 03/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Background ERCP practically requires moderate to deep sedation controlled by a combination of benzodiazepine and opiod. Propofol as a sole agent may cause oversedation. A combination (cocktail) of infused propofol, meperidine, and midazolam can reduce the dosage of propofol and we hypothesized that it might decrease the risk of oversedation. We prospectively compare the efficacy, recovery time, patient satisfactory, and side effects between cocktail and conventional sedations in patients undergoing ERCP. Methods ERCP patients were randomized into 2 groups; the cocktail group (n = 103) and the controls (n = 102). For induction, a combination of 25 mg of meperidine and 2.5 mg of midazolam were administered in both groups. In the cocktail group, a bolus dose of propofol 1 mg/kg was administered and continuously infused. In the controls, 25 mg of meperidine or 2.5 mg/kg of midazolam were titrated to maintain the level of sedation. Results In the cocktail group, the average administration rate of propofol was 6.2 mg/kg/hr. In the control group; average weight base dosage of meperidine and midazolam were 1.03 mg/kg and 0.12 mg/kg, respectively. Recovery times and patients’ satisfaction scores in the cocktail and control groups were 9.67 minutes and 12.89 minutes (P = 0.045), 93.1and 87.6 (P <0.001), respectively. Desaturation rates in the cocktail and conventional groups were 58.3% and 31.4% (P <0.001), respectively. All desaturations were corrected with temporary oxygen supplementation without the need for scope removal. Conclusions Cocktail sedation containing propofol provides faster recovery time and better patients’ satisfaction for patients undergoing ERCP. However, mild degree of desaturation may still develop. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01540084
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Phonthep Angsuwatcharakon
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10310, Thailand.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
28
|
Balanced propofol sedation versus propofol monosedation in therapeutic pancreaticobiliary endoscopic procedures. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57:2113-21. [PMID: 22615018 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-012-2234-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2012] [Accepted: 05/02/2012] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prolonged or complex endoscopic procedures are frequently performed under deep sedation. However, no studies of therapeutic ERCP have yet compared the use of balanced propofol sedation (BPS) to propofol alone, titrated to moderate levels of sedation. AIM This prospective, randomized, double-blind study was planned to compare the sedation efficacy and safety of BPS (propofol in combination with midazolam and fentanyl) and propofol monosedation in therapeutic ERCP and EUS. METHODS BPS, or propofol monosedation titrated to a moderate level of sedation, was performed by trained registered nurses under endoscopist supervision. The main outcome measurements included sedation efficacy focusing on recovery time, sedation safety, endoscopic procedure outcomes, and complications. RESULTS There were no significant differences in sedation efficacy, safety, procedure outcomes, and complications, with the exception of recovery time. Mean recovery time (standard deviation) was 18.37 (7.86) min in BPS and 13.4 (6.24) min in propofol monosedation (P < 0.001). In a safety analysis, cardiopulmonary complication rates related to BPS and propofol monosedation were 7.8 % (8/102) and 9.6 % (10/104), respectively (P = 0.652). No patient required assisted ventilation or permanent termination of a procedure in either group. Technical success of the endoscopic procedures was 96.3 and 97.2 %, respectively (P = 0.701). Endoscopic procedure-related complications and outcomes did not differ depending on sedation procedure. CONCLUSIONS Propofol monosedation by trained, registered sedation nurses under supervision resulted in a more rapid recovery time than BPS. There were no differences in the sedation safety, endoscopic procedure outcomes, and complications between BPS and propofol monosedation.
Collapse
|
|
29
|
Löhr JM, Aabakken L, Arnelo U, Grönroos J, Halttunen J, Hauge T, Jonas E, Kleveland PM, Nordblad Schmidt P, Swahn F, Saarela A, Toth E, Meisner S, Meisner S. How to cannulate? A survey of the Scandinavian Association for Digestive Endoscopy (SADE) in 141 endoscopists. Scand J Gastroenterol 2012; 47:861-9. [PMID: 22512404 DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2012.672588] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
Cannulation of the papilla vateri represents an enigmatic first step in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP). In light of falling numbers of (diagnostic) ERCP and novel techniques, e.g. short-wire system, we were interested in the approach novice and experienced endoscopist are taking; especially, what makes a papilla difficult to cannulate and how to approach this. We devised a structured online questionnaire, sent to all endoscopists registered with SADE, the Scandinavian Association for Digestive Endoscopy. A total of 141 responded. Of those, 49 were experienced ERCP-endoscopists (>900 ERCPs). The first choice of cannulation is with a sphincterotome and a preinserted wire. Both less experienced and more experienced endoscopists agreed on the criteria to describe a papilla difficult to cannulate and both would choose the needle-knife sphincterotomy (NKS) to get access to the bile duct. The less experienced used more "upward" NKS, whereas the more experienced also used the "downward" NKS technique. This survey provides us with a database allowing now for a more differentiated view on cannulation techniques, success, and outcome in terms of pancreatitis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J-Matthias Löhr
- Gastrocentrum Kirurgi, Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
30
|
Choi CH. Safety and prevention of complications in endoscopic sedation. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57:1745-7. [PMID: 22615016 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-012-2224-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2012] [Accepted: 04/30/2012] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
|
|
31
|
|
|
32
|
Obesity as a risk factor for sedation-related complications during propofol-mediated sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74:1238-47. [PMID: 22136773 PMCID: PMC4124898 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 105] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2011] [Accepted: 09/01/2011] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are limited data on the safety of anesthesia-assisted endoscopy by using propofol-mediated sedation in obese individuals undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures (AEPs). OBJECTIVE To study the association between obesity (as measured by body mass index [BMI]) and the frequency of sedation-related complications (SRCs) in patients undergoing AEPs. DESIGN Prospective cohort study. SETTING Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS A total of 1016 consecutive patients undergoing AEPs (BMI <30, 730 [72%]; 30-35, 159 [16%]; >35, 127 [12%]). INTERVENTION Monitored anesthesia sedation with propofol alone or in combination with benzodiazepines and/or opioids. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS SRCs, airway maneuvers (AMs), hypoxemia, hypotension requiring vasopressors, and early procedure termination were compared across 3 groups. RESULTS There were 203 AMs in 13.9% of patients, hypoxemia in 7.3%, need for vasopressors in 0.8%, and premature termination in 0.6% of patients. Increasing BMI was associated with an increased frequency of AMs (BMI <30, 10.5%; 30-35, 18.9%; >35-26.8%; P < .001) and hypoxemia (BMI <30, 5.3%; 30-35, 9.4%; >35, 13.4%; P = .001); there was no difference in the frequency of need for vasopressors (P = .254) and premature termination of procedures (P = .401). On multivariable analysis, BMI (odds ratio [OR] 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.1), age (OR 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1), and American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 or higher (OR 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.0) were independent predictors of SRCs. In obese individuals (n = 286), there was no difference in the frequency of SRCs in patients receiving propofol alone or in combination (P = .48). LIMITATIONS Single tertiary center study. CONCLUSIONS Although obesity was associated with an increased frequency of SRCs, propofol sedation can be used safely in obese patients undergoing AEPs when administered by trained professionals.
Collapse
|
|
33
|
Kuwatani M, Kawakami H, Hayashi T, Ishiwatari H, Kudo T, Yamato H, Ehira N, Haba S, Eto K, Kato M, Asaka M. Carbon dioxide insufflation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography reduces bowel gas volume but does not affect visual analogue scale scores of suffering: a prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2011; 25:3784-90. [PMID: 21656068 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-1789-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2011] [Accepted: 05/16/2011] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and related procedures can cause abdominal pain and discomfort. Two clinical trials have indicated, using the visual analogue scale (VAS) score, that CO(2) insufflation during ERCP ameliorates the suffering of patients without complications, compared with air insufflation. However, differences in patient suffering between CO(2) and air insufflation after ERCP under deep conscious sedation have not been reported. We focused on the gas volume score (GVS) as an objective indicator of gas volume, and designed a multicenter, prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled study with CO(2) and air insufflation during ERCP. METHODS Between March 2010 and August 2010, 80 patients who required ERCP were enrolled and evenly randomized to receive CO(2) insufflation (CO(2) group) or air insufflation (air group). ERCP and related procedures were performed under deep conscious sedation with fentanyl citrate or pethidine and midazolam or diazepam. The GVS was evaluated as the primary endpoint in addition to the VAS score as the secondary endpoint. RESULTS The GVS after ERCP and related procedures in the CO(2) group was significantly lower than that in the air group (0.14 ± 0.06 vs. 0.31 ± 0.11, P < 0.01), as well as the rate of increase in GVS ([GVS after - GVS before]/[GVS before ERCP and related procedures] × 100) (3.8 ± 5.9 vs. 21 ± 11.1%, P < 0.01). VAS scores 3 and 24 h after ERCP and related procedures were comparable between the CO(2) and air groups for abdominal pain, abdominal distension, and nausea. Additionally, VAS scores were not correlated with the GVS. CONCLUSIONS CO(2) insufflation during ERCP reduces GVS (bowel gas volume) but not the VAS score of suffering compared with air insufflation. Deep and sufficient sedation during ERCP and related procedures is important for the palliation of patients' pain and discomfort.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Masaki Kuwatani
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, North 15, West 7, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-8638, Japan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
34
|
Berzin TM, Sanaka S, Barnett SR, Sundar E, Sepe PS, Jakubowski M, Pleskow DK, Chuttani R, Sawhney MS. A prospective assessment of sedation-related adverse events and patient and endoscopist satisfaction in ERCP with anesthesiologist-administered sedation. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73:710-7. [PMID: 21316669 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.12.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 82] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2010] [Accepted: 12/08/2010] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the increasing use of anesthesiologist-administered sedation for monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or general anesthesia in patients undergoing ERCP, limited prospective data exist on the effectiveness, safety, and cost of this approach. OBJECTIVE To prospectively assess sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs), patient- and procedure-related risk factors associated with SRAEs, and endoscopist and patient satisfaction with anesthesiologist-administered sedation. DESIGN Single-center, prospective cohort study. SETTING Tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS A total of 528 consecutive patients undergoing ERCP. INTERVENTIONS Anesthesiologist-administered MAC or general anesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS SRAEs, endoscopist and patient satisfaction. RESULTS There were 120 intraprocedure SRAEs during 109 of the 528 ERCPs (21% of cases). Intraprocedure SRAEs included hypotension (38 events), arrhythmia (20 events), O(2) desaturation to less than 85% (66 events), unplanned intubation (16 events), and procedure termination (1 event). Thirty postprocedure SRAEs occurred in a total of 22 patients (4% of cases), including hypotension (5 events), endotracheal intubation (2 events), and arrhythmia (12 events). Patient-related variables associated with adverse intraprocedure events were American Society of Anesthesiologists class (P = .004) and body mass index (kg/m(2)) (P = .02). On a 10-point scale, mean endoscopist satisfaction with sedation was 9.2 (standard deviation 1.8) and patient satisfaction with sedation was 9.9 (standard deviation 0.7). LIMITATIONS The approach to sedation was not randomized. CONCLUSIONS Higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class and body mass index are associated with an increased rate of cardiac and respiratory events during ERCP. Cardiac and respiratory events are generally minor, and MAC can be considered a safe option for most ERCP patients. Despite the frequency of minor sedation-related events, procedure interruption or premature termination was rare in the setting of anesthesiologist-administered sedation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tyler M Berzin
- Division of Gastroenterology and Department of Anesthesia, Pain, and Palliative Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
35
|
European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 27:1016-30. [PMID: 21068575 DOI: 10.1097/eja.0b013e32834136bf] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Propofol sedation by non-anaesthesiologists is an upcoming sedation regimen in several countries throughout Europe. Numerous studies have shown the efficacy and safety of this sedation regimen in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Nevertheless, this issue remains highly controversial. The aim of this evidence- and consensus-based set of guideline is to provide non-anaesthesiologists with a comprehensive framework for propofol sedation during digestive endoscopy. This guideline results from a collaborative effort from representatives of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). These three societies have endorsed the present guideline.The guideline is published simultaneously in the Journals Endoscopy and European Journal of Anaesthesiology.
Collapse
|
|
36
|
Chainaki IG, Manolaraki MM, Paspatis GA. Deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 3:34-9. [PMID: 21403815 PMCID: PMC3055942 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v3.i2.34] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2010] [Revised: 12/17/2010] [Accepted: 12/24/2010] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Sedation and analgesia comprise an important element of unpleasant and often prolonged endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography (ERCP), contributing, however, to better patient tolerance and compliance and to the reduction of injuries during the procedure due to inappropriate co-operation. Although most of the studies used a moderate level of sedation, the literature has revealed the superiority of deep sedation and general anesthesia in performing ERCP. The anesthesiologist’s presence is mandatory in these cases. A moderate sedation level for ERCP seems to be adequate for octogenarians. The sedative agent of choice for sedation in ERCP seems to be propofol due to its fast distribution and fast elimination time without a cumulative effect after infusion, resulting in shorter recovery time. Its therapeutic spectrum, however, is much narrower and therefore careful monitoring is much more demanding in order to differentiate between moderate, deep sedation and general anesthesia. Apart from conventional monitoring, capnography and Bispectral index or Narcotrend monitoring of the level of sedation seem to be useful in titrating sedatives in ERCP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irene G Chainaki
- Irene G Chainaki, Maria M Manolaraki, Departments of Anesthesiology, Benizelion General Hospital, Heraklion, Crete 71409, Greece
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
37
|
Lee CK, Lee SH, Chung IK, Lee TH, Park SH, Kim EO, Lee SH, Kim HS, Kim SJ. Balanced propofol sedation for therapeutic GI endoscopic procedures: a prospective, randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73:206-14. [PMID: 21168838 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.09.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2010] [Accepted: 09/22/2010] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are few controlled studies on balanced propofol sedation (BPS) for therapeutic endoscopy. OBJECTIVE To compare the safety and efficacy of BPS (propofol in combination with midazolam and meperidine) with conventional sedation (midazolam and meperidine) in patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopic procedures. DESIGN Prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. SETTING Tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS This study involved 222 consecutive patients undergoing therapeutic EGD or ERCP from July 2009 to March 2010. INTERVENTION Conventional sedation or BPS by trained registered nurses under endoscopist supervision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Rates of sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications and interruption of the procedures, procedure-related times, and assessments of health care providers (endoscopists and sedation nurses) and patients. RESULTS There were no significant differences between the BPS and conventional groups in the rates of cardiopulmonary complications (8.8% [9/102] vs 5.8% [6/104], respectively) and transient interruption of procedures (2.9% [3/102] vs 0% [0/104], respectively). No patient required assisted ventilation or premature termination of a procedure. BPS provided significantly higher health care provider satisfaction (mean±SD 10-cm visual analog scale [VAS] score) compared with conventional sedation (endoscopists: 7.57±2.61 vs 6.55±2.99, respectively; P=.011; sedation nurses: 7.86±2.31 vs 6.67±2.90, respectively; P=.001). Patient cooperation was significantly better in the BPS group (VAS; endoscopists: 7.24±2.97 vs 6.27±3.09, P=.024; sedation nurses: 7.75±2.30 vs 6.54±2.99, P=.001). LIMITATIONS Single-center and single-blinded study. CONCLUSION Compared with conventional sedation, BPS provides higher health care provider satisfaction, better patient cooperation, and similar adverse event profiles in patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopic procedures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chang Kyun Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
38
|
Coté GA, Hovis CE, Hovis RM, Waldbaum L, Early DS, Edmundowicz SA, Azar RR, Mullady DK, Jonnalagadda SS. A screening instrument for sleep apnea predicts airway maneuvers in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8:660-665.e1. [PMID: 20580942 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.05.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2010] [Revised: 05/07/2010] [Accepted: 05/08/2010] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Among patients undergoing advanced endoscopy, unrecognized obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) could predict sedation-related complications (SRCs) and the need for airway maneuvers (AMs). By using an OSA screening tool, we sought to define the prevalence of patients at high risk for OSA and to correlate OSA with the frequency of AMs and SRCs. METHODS We enrolled 231 consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (n = 176) and endoscopic ultrasound (n = 55). Propofol-based sedation and patient monitoring were performed by a nurse anesthetist and an anesthesiologist. A previously validated screening tool for OSA (STOP-BANG) was used to identify patients at high risk for OSA (score, > or =3 of 8; SB+) or low risk (SB-). AMs were defined as a chin lift, modified mask ventilation, nasal airway, bag-mask ventilation, and endotracheal intubation. SRCs were defined as any duration of pulse oximetry less than 90%, systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg, apnea, or early procedure termination. RESULTS The prevalence of SB+ was 43.3%. The frequency of hypoxemia was significantly higher among patients with SB+ than SB- (12.0% vs 5.2%; relative risk [RR], 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-2.54). The rate of AMs was also significantly higher among SB+ (20.0%) compared with SB- (6.1%) patients (RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.4). These rates remained significant after adjusting for American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 or higher (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.28-2.2 for AMs; RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.19-2.25 for hypoxemia). Each element of the STOP-BANG was reported more commonly in SB+ patients (P < .0001 for each comparison). CONCLUSIONS A significant number of patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures are at risk for OSA. AMs and hypoxemia occur at an increased frequency in these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gregory A Coté
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
39
|
Coté GA, Hovis RM, Ansstas MA, Waldbaum L, Azar RR, Early DS, Edmundowicz SA, Mullady DK, Jonnalagadda SS. Incidence of sedation-related complications with propofol use during advanced endoscopic procedures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8:137-42. [PMID: 19607937 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2009.07.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 184] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2009] [Revised: 07/02/2009] [Accepted: 07/04/2009] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Propofol is an effective sedative in advanced endoscopy. However, the incidence of sedation-related complications is unclear. We sought to define the frequency of sedation-related adverse events, particularly the rate of airway modifications (AMs), with propofol use during advanced endoscopy. We also evaluated independent predictors of AMs. METHODS Patients undergoing sedation with propofol for advanced endoscopic procedures, including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound, and small-bowel enteroscopy, were studied prospectively. Sedative dosing was determined by a certified registered nurse anesthetist with the goal of achieving deep sedation. Sedation-related complications included AMs, hypoxemia (pulse oximetry [SpO(2)] < 90%), hypotension requiring vasopressors, and early procedure termination. AMs were defined as chin lift, modified face mask ventilation, and nasal airway. We performed a regression analysis to compare characteristics of patients requiring AMs (AM+) with those who did not (AM-). RESULTS A total of 799 patients were enrolled over 7 months. Procedures included endoscopic ultrasound (423), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (336), and small-bowel enteroscopy (40). A total of 87.2% of patients showed no response to endoscopic intubation. Hypoxemia occurred in 12.8%, hypotension in 0.5%, and premature termination in 0.6% of the patients. No patients required bag-mask ventilation or endotracheal intubation. There were 154 AMs performed in 115 (14.4%) patients, including chin lift (12.1%), modified face mask ventilation (3.6%), and nasal airway (3.5%). Body mass index, male sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class of 3 or higher were independent predictors of AMs. CONCLUSIONS Propofol can be used safely for advanced endoscopic procedures when administered by a trained professional. Independent predictors of AMs included male sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists class of 3 or higher, and increased body mass index.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gregory A Coté
- Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63110, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
40
|
Kerker A, Hardt C, Schlief HE, Dumoulin FL. Combined sedation with midazolam/propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients. BMC Gastroenterol 2010; 10:11. [PMID: 20105314 PMCID: PMC2823646 DOI: 10.1186/1471-230x-10-11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2009] [Accepted: 01/27/2010] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Although gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation is increasingly performed in elderly patients, data on combined sedation with midazolam/propofol are very limited for this age group. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 454 endoscopic procedures in 347 hospitalized patients ≥ 70 years who had received combined sedation with midazolam/propofol. 513 endoscopic procedures in 397 hospitalized patients < 70 years during the observation period served as controls. Characteristics of endoscopic procedures, co-morbidity, complications and mortality were compared. Results Elderly patients had a higher level of co-morbidity and needed lower mean propofol doses for sedation. We observed no major complication and no difference in the number of minor complications. The procedure-associated mortality was 0%; the 28-day mortality was significantly higher in the elderly (2.9% vs. 1.0%). Conclusions In this study on elderly patients with high level co-morbidity, a favourable safety profile was observed for a combined sedation with midazolam/propofol with a higher sensitivity to propofol in the elderly.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Astrid Kerker
- Department of Medicine, Gemeinschaftskrankenhaus Bonn, Bonner Talweg 4-6, D-53113 Bonn, Germany
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
41
|
Paspatis GA, Manolaraki MM, Tribonias G, Theodoropoulou A, Vardas E, Konstantinidis K, Chlouverakis G, Karamanolis DG. Endoscopic sedation in Greece: results from a nationwide survey for the Hellenic Foundation of gastroenterology and nutrition. Dig Liver Dis 2009; 41:807-11. [PMID: 19410522 DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2009.03.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2008] [Revised: 01/05/2009] [Accepted: 03/09/2009] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Recent surveys regarding practices in sedation during endoscopic procedures are limited, particularly in Greece where they are nonexistent. This survey was designed to provide national data on sedation practices in Greece. METHODS A 27-item survey regarding practices of endoscopy and sedation was mailed nationwide to 502 members of the Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology. RESULTS A total of 201 questionnaires were returned (40%). Survey respondents performed an average of 48 oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) and 35 colonoscopies per month. 50 of the respondents, who perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), conducted an average of 10 ERCP per month. 15 of the respondents, who perform endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), conducted an average of 6 EUS per month. Respondents administered sedation intravenously in 64% of EGD, 78% of colonoscopies, 100% of ERCP and 100% of EUS. 125 of the respondents (62.1%) reported the use of synergistic sedation (benzodiazepines plus opioids), 71 of the respondents (35.3%) reported the use of benzodiazepines alone and 68 of the respondents (33.8%) reported the use of propofol based sedation in selected cases (more than one response was permitted). In most cases, propofol administration was directed by an anaesthesiologist. The majority of the respondents monitored vital signs and pulse oximetry (90% and 96%, respectively). CONCLUSION The use of sedation and physiologic monitoring in Greece is now standard practice during endoscopy. Benzodiazepines, either alone or combined with an opioid, are used by the majority of endoscopists, while propofol is used in selected cases, mainly in the presence of an anaesthesiologist.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G A Paspatis
- Department of Gastroenterology, Benizelion General Hospital, L. Knossou, Heraklion, Crete 71409, Greece.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
42
|
Heuss LT, Peter S. Propofol use by gastroenterologists-the European experience. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2008; 18:727-38, ix. [PMID: 18922411 DOI: 10.1016/j.giec.2008.06.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
The administration of propofol as a sedative in gastrointestinal endoscopies became very popular in many European countries during the last years. Nevertheless there are huge regional differences in the way that the drug is used. Switzerland, the country with highest propagation of gastroenterologist guided propofol sedation, serves as a case study of its safe use in daily practice. The experiences of this spread are summarized in this article.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ludwig T Heuss
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of Basel, St. Peter's Square 1, Basel CH-4003, Switzerland.
| | | |
Collapse
|