Academy of Medicine, Singapore clinical guideline on the use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting.

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.

Guidewire versus conventional contrast cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of a guidewire (GW) for cannulation of the bile duct during ERCP may prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). OBJECTIVES: A systematic review and meta-analysis of GW-guided versus conventional contrast (CC)-guided bile duct cannulation for the prevention PEP. DESIGN: A November 2008 search of gray literature, databases, reference lists, and meeting abstracts was conducted for randomized, controlled trials comparing GW and CC. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. The outcomes included PEP, primary cannulation success, and other adverse events. RESULTS: From 2132 citations, 7 randomized, controlled trials (5 noncrossover trials and 2 crossover trials) were included. Among noncrossover trials only, there was significant reduction in PEP when using a GW (3.2%) compared with CC (8.7%) (relative risk [RR] 0.38; 95% CI, 0.19-0.76). Subgroup analysis showed a significantly lower occurrence of PEP after GW entry versus CC injection of the pancreatic duct (1.1% vs 9.5%; RR 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.58). Among patients with a precut sphincterotomy from a failed primary cannulation, there was less PEP with GW cannulation compared with CC (2.4% vs 21.7%; RR 0.21; 95% CI, 0.04-1.04). The other adverse event rates were comparable between GW and CC groups (2% vs 2%; RR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.39-2.83). Primary cannulation success was significantly greater with GW use compared with CC (89% vs 78%; RR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05-1.35). CONCLUSION: ERCP GW cannulation reduces the risk of PEP compared with the use of CC. GW cannulation is associated with a higher cannulation success rate and less PEP after pancreatic duct entry.