Recent Developments in Devices Used for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Sedation.

Hypoxemia is a frequent and potentially fatal complication occurring in patients during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The administration of propofol sedation increases the risk of most complications, especially hypoxemia. Nevertheless, propofol has been increasingly used in the United States, and the trend is likely to increase in the years to come. Patient satisfaction and endoscopist satisfaction along with rapid turnover are some of the touted reasons for this trend. However, propofol sedation generally implies deep sedation or general anesthesia. As a result, hypopnea and apnea frequently occur. Inadequate sedation and presence of irritable airway often cause coughing and laryngospasm, both leading to hypoxemia and potential cardiac arrest. Hence, prevention of hypoxemia is of paramount importance. Traditionally, standard nasal cannula is used to administer supplement oxygen. However, it cannot sufficiently provide continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or positive pressure ventilation. Device manufacturers have stepped in to fill this void and created many types of cannulas that provide apneic insufflation of oxygen and CPAP and eliminate dead space. Such measures decrease the incidence of hypoxemia. This review aimed to provide essential information of some of these devices.

Correction to: Recent Developments in Drugs for GI Endoscopy Sedation.

The original version of the article is unfortunately missing the surname of last author in the author group. Last author name was published as 'Preet Mohinder' and the full name of the author is 'Preet Mohinder Singh'.

Recent Developments in Drugs for GI Endoscopy Sedation.

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

Possible Bias in the Publication Trends of High Impact Factor Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology Journals -An Analysis of 5 Years' Data.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesize that being an editorial board member (EBM) in a high impact factor specialty medical journal increases the chances of publishing in the same journal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The publication trends of the first five EBMs in the five highest impact factor Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology journals were analyzed. Preceding 5 years' publications appearing on PubMed were grouped into as follows: number of publications in the journal in which the EBM serves (N1), number of publications by the same author in the other four highest impact factor (IF) journals (N2) and number of publications in all the other journals (N3). We evaluated the probability of the observed distribution of publications in the five highest IF journals happening by chance alone, assuming that all the EBMs had the same opportunity of publishing in any of these journals. The probability of publishing in their own journal was assumed to be one fifth. RESULTS: The EBMs published their manuscripts in their own journal at a very high frequency. Encompassing all ten journals, the calculated P value for such a distribution was <0.001. In two journals, Anesthesia and Analgesia and Anaesthesia, the EBMs' publications in their journal were more than twice the cumulative total in the remaining four journals. In three of the five gastroenterology journals analyzed, combined publications of the five EBMs were greater in their own journal than the remaining four journals combined. CONCLUSIONS: Despite proclaimed fair peer review process, EBMs seem to get preference in their own journals.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Chronic Pain: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In this meta-analysis, we explore the role of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a noninvasive neuromodulation technique in the treatment of chronic pain. METHODS: Studies comparing rTMS and conventional treatment for chronic pain were searched. The comparison was made for decrease in the pain scores with and without (sham) the use of rTMS after a follow-up interval of 4-8 weeks. All reported pain scores were converted into a common scale ranging from "0" (no pain) to "10" (worst pain). RESULTS: Nine trials with 183 patients in each of the groups were included in the analysis. The decrease in pain scores with rTMS was 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] being 1.46-0.78) (fixed effects, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001) and in sham-rTMS was 0.28 (95% CI being 0.49-0.07) (Fixed effects, I2 = 0, P = 0.01). The pooled mean drop in pain scores with rTMS therapy was higher by 0.79 (95% CI being 0.26-1.33) (fixed effects, I2 = 0, P < 0.01). The duration and frequency of rTMS were highly variable across trials. Publication bias was unlikely (Egger's test, X-intercept = 0.13, P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Use of rTMS improves the efficacy of conventional medical treatment in chronic pain patients. This treatment is not associated with any direct adverse effects. However, the duration and frequency of rTMS therapy is presently highly variable and needs standardization.

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

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAPP) administered propofol sedation in patients undergoing non-advanced gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving non-advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 608 publications, 25 [colonoscopy (9), upper GI endoscopy (5), and combined procedures (11)] were identified to meet inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Data was analyzed for hypoxia rates, airway intervention rates, and airway complication rates. RESULTS: A total of 137,087 patients were involved. A total of 2931 hypoxia episodes (defined as an oxygen saturation below 90%) were reported with a pooled hypoxia rate of 0.014 (95% CI being 0.008-0.023). Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates and pooled airway complication rates were 0.002 (95% CI being 0.006-0.001) and 0.001 (95% CI being 0.000-0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of adverse events in patients undergoing non-advanced GI endoscopic procedures with NAPP sedation are extremely small. Similar data for anesthesia providers is not available. It is prudent for anesthesia providers to demonstrate their superiority in prospective randomized controlled trials, if they like to retain exclusive ownership over propofol sedation in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

Association between Type of Sedation and the Adverse Events Associated with Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: An Analysis of 5 Years' Data from a Tertiary Center in the USA.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The landscape of sedation for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures and the nature of the procedures themselves have changed over the last decade. In this study, an attempt is made to analyze the frequency and etiology of all major adverse events associated with GI endoscopy. METHODS: All adverse events extracted from the electronic database and local registry were analyzed. Although the data analysis was retrospective, the adverse events themselves were documented prospectively. These events were evaluated after subdivision into propofol-based anesthesia and intravenous conscious sedation groups. RESULTS: Cardiorespiratory events, including cardiac arrest, were the most common adverse events during esophagogastroduodenoscopy, while bleeding was more frequent in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Pancreatitis was the most frequent adverse event in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The frequencies of most adverse events were significantly higher in patients anesthetized with propofol. Automatic regression modeling showed that the type of sedation, the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, and the procedure type were some of the predictors of immediate life-threatening complications. CONCLUSIONS: Clearly, our regression modeling suggests a strong association between the type of sedation as well as various patient factors and the frequency of adverse events. The possible reasons for our results are the changing demographics, the worsening comorbidities of the patient population, and the increasing technical complexity of these procedures. Although extensive use of propofol has increased patient satisfaction and procedure acceptability, its use is also associated with more frequent adverse events.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy-initial experience with anesthetic management of 24 procedures and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a novel method of treating achalasia of the esophagus. Very little data are available to guide the anesthesia providers caring for these patients. The anesthetic challenges are primarily related to the risk of pulmonary aspiration. There is also a potential risk of pneumomediastinum, pneumoperitoneum, subcutaneous, or submucosal emphysema, as a result of carbon dioxide tracking into the soft tissues surrounding the esophagus and lower esophageal sphincter. METHODS: In this retrospective study, electronic charts of 24 patients who underwent POEM over 18 months were reviewed. Demographic data, fasting status, relevant aspiration risks, anesthetic technique, and postoperative care measures were extracted. RESULTS: Fasting times for both solids and liquids were variable. None of the patients underwent preprocedural esophageal emptying. Standard induction and intubation were performed in 16, rapid sequence induction (RSI) with cricoid pressure in seven, and modified rapid sequence without application of cricoid pressure in one of the patients. One of the patients aspirated at induction, and the procedure was aborted. However, the procedure was performed successfully after a few weeks, this time a RSI with cricoid pressure was chosen. CONCLUSION: As there are no guidelines for the perioperative management of patients presenting for POEM presently, certain recommendations can be made. Preprocedural esophageal emptying should be considered in patients considered as high-risk, although cultural factors might preclude such an approach. Induction and intubation in a semi-reclining position might be useful. Although debatable, use of RSI with cricoid pressure should be strongly considered.

Propofol and non-propofol based sedation for outpatient colonoscopy-prospective comparison of depth of sedation using an EEG based SEDLine monitor.

Propofol is a popular anesthetic sedative employed in colonoscopy. It is known to increase the patient satisfaction and improve throughput. However, there are concerns among the clinicians with regard to the depth of sedation, as a deeper degree of sedation is known to increase the incidence of aspiration and other adverse events. So we planned to compare the depth of sedation between propofol and non-propofol based sedation in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy, as measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG) based monitor SEDLine monitor (SedlineInc., San Diego, CA). The non-randomized prospective observational study was performed in the outpatient gastroenterology suite of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Patients included ASA class I-III aged more than 18 years scheduled for colonoscopy under Propofol or non-propofol based sedation. After an institutional review board approval, a written consent was obtained from prospective patients. Sedation (propofol or non-propofol based) was administered by either a certified nurse anesthetist under the supervision of an anesthesiologist (propofol) or a registered endoscopy nurse under the guidance of the endoscopist performing the procedure (non-propofol sedation). Depth of sedation was measured with an EEG based SEDLine monitor. The sedation providers were blinded to the patient state index-the indicator of depth of sedation. PSI (patient state index-SEDLine reading) was documented at colonoscope insertion, removal and at the return of verbal responsiveness after colonoscope withdrawal. Sedation spectrum was retrieved from the data stored on the SEDLine monitor. Patients sedated with propofol experience significantly deeper degrees of sedation at all times during the procedure. Additionally, during significant part of the procedure, they are at PSI levels associated with deep general anesthesia. The group that received propofol was more deeply sedated and had lower PSI values. Lighter propofol titration protocols may lead to improved patient care such as lowering risk of aspiration and hypotension. The role of processed EEG monitors such as the SEDLine monitor to improve sedation protocols remains to be determined. Trial registration We obtained an ethical clearance from the Institute. No trial registration was mandated, as no interventional drug or investigational device were used during the study.

Cardiac arrests in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: A retrospective analysis of 73,029 procedures.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Airway difficulties leading to cardiac arrest are frequently encountered during propofol sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. With a noticeable increase in the use of propofol for endoscopic sedation, we decided to examine the incidence and outcome of cardiac arrests in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy with sedation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, cardiac arrest data obtained from the clinical quality improvement and local registry over 5 years was analyzed. The information of patients who sustained cardiac arrest attributable to sedation was studied in detail. Analysis included comparison of cardiac arrests due to all causes until discharge (or death) versus the cardiac arrests and death occurring during the procedure and in the recovery area. RESULTS: The incidence of cardiac arrest and death (all causes, until discharge) was 6.07 and 4.28 per 10,000 in patients sedated with propofol, compared with non-propofol-based sedation (0.67 and 0.44). The incidence of cardiac arrest during and immediately after the procedure (recovery area) for all endoscopies was 3.92 per 10,000; of which, 72% were airway management related. About 90.0% of all peri-procedural cardiac arrests occurred in patients who received propofol. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of cardiac arrest and death is about 10 times higher in patients receiving propofol-based sedation compared with those receiving midazolam-fentanyl sedation. More than two thirds of these events occur during EGD and ERCP.

Safety of Non-anesthesia Provider-Administered Propofol (NAAP) Sedation in Advanced Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures: Comparative Meta-Analysis of Pooled Results.

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.

Effect of Gum Chewing on the Volume and pH of Gastric Contents: A Prospective Randomized Study.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient fasting prior to endoscopic procedures performed under sedation may result in potential aspiration of gastric contents. Fasting as per ASA guidelines is recommended prior to these procedures. However, the effect of chewing gum on fasting status has been a subject of debate and often leads to procedural delays. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the effect of chewing gum on the gastric volume and pH. METHODS: In this randomized controlled prospective observer blinded trail, ASA I-III patients aged more than 18 years scheduled for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or a combined EGD and colonoscopy under conscious sedation were studied. Patients randomized to the chewing gum group (Group-C) were allowed to chew gum until just before the start of their procedure; the remaining patients were included into Group-NC. After sedation and endoscope insertion, stomach contents were aspirated under vision of a gastroenterologist (blinded to groups). RESULTS: Volume and pH of gastric contents aspirated from 67 patients (34 in Group-C and 33 in Group-NC) were analyzed. The demographic parameters of the groups were comparable. Gastric volume (median-interquartile range) was statistically higher in Group-C (13 ml (7.75-40.75) vs Group-NC 6 ml (1.00-14.00) (P < 0.001)]. The mean pH in both groups was comparable: 2.84 ± 2.11 in Group-C and 3.79 ± 2.53 in Group-NC (P = 0.141). CONCLUSION: Although our results show gastric volume in patients chewing gum was statistically higher, clinical relevance of such a small difference is questionable. Thus patients who chewed gum inadvertently prior to procedure should not be denied or delayed administration of sedative and anesthetic medications.