Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation: A New Paradigm for Gastrointestinal Procedural Sedation.

INTRODUCTION: Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation (NAPCIS) is a new nonanesthesia propofol delivery method for gastrointestinal endoscopy. NAPCIS is adopted from the computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) protocol. We evaluated the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of NAPCIS in low-risk subjects. METHODS: Between December 2016 and July 2017, patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at our center were compared against 2 historical control groups of similar patients who had undergone procedures with CAPS or midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation. RESULTS: The mean age of the NAPCIS cohort (N = 3,331) was 55.2 years (45.8% male) for 945 esophagogastroduodenoscopies and 57.8 years (48.7% male) for 2,386 colonoscopies. The procedural success rates with NAPCIS were high (99.1%-99.2%) and similar to those seen in 3,603 CAPS (98.8%-99.0%) and 3,809 MF (99.0%-99.3%) controls. NAPCIS recovery times were shorter than both CAPS and MF (24.8 vs 31.7 and 52.4 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). On arrival at the recovery unit, 86.6% of NAPCIS subjects were recorded as "Awake" compared with 82.8% of CAPS and 40.8% of MF controls (P < 0.001). Validated clinician and patient satisfaction scores were generally higher for NAPCIS compared with CAPS and MF subjects. For NAPCIS, there were only 4 cases of oxygen desaturation requiring transient mask ventilation and no serious sedation-related complications. These low complication rates were similar to those seen with CAPS (8 cases of mask ventilation) and MF (3 cases). DISCUSSION: NAPCIS seems to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy in low-risk patients.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients Who Are Difficult to Sedate.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients who chronically use alcohol, marijuana, or opioids, or suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), can be difficult to sedate with midazolam and fentanyl, and often are referred for monitored anesthesia care during endoscopy. Nurse-administered propofol continuous infusion sedation (NAPCIS), which confers the benefit of propofol-based sedation without the added expense of anesthesia, is effective and safe for sedation of healthy patients. We investigated whether NAPCIS also is effective for patients who are difficult to sedate. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent upper endoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at a single center from January 2018 through April 2018. We reviewed records from patients who were heavy users of alcohol (n = 105), daily users of marijuana (n = 267) or opioids (n = 178), had a diagnosis of PTSD (n = 91), or were none of these (controls, n = 786). We compared mean fentanyl and propofol doses (adjusted for body weight), procedure and recovery times, procedure success rates, and adverse events. RESULTS: Compared with the controls, the marijuana group required higher mean adjusted sedative doses for colonoscopies (0.6 vs 0.4 mcg/kg fentanyl and 5.0 vs 4.7 mg/kg propofol; P ≤ .025 for both) and upper endoscopies (0.8 vs 0.3 mcg/kg fentanyl and 3.7 vs 3.2 mg/kg propofol; P ≤ .021 for both), the PTSD group required a higher dose of fentanyl for colonoscopies (0.6 vs 0.4 mcg/kg; P = .009), and the alcohol group required a higher dose of fentanyl for upper endoscopies (0.7 vs 0.3 mcg/kg; P < .001). Procedure success rates were high (95.1%-100%) and did not differ significantly between the difficult-to-sedate groups and controls; mean procedure times (7.0-9.0 minutes for upper endoscopies, 21.1-22.9 minutes for colonoscopies) and recovery times (22.5-29.6 minutes) also were similar among groups. Upper endoscopies were associated with lower sedative doses and shorter procedure and recovery times than colonoscopies. Sedation-related adverse events were rare in all groups (only 26 cases total), and there were no serious complications or deaths. CONCLUSIONS: NAPCIS seems to be a safe and effective means of providing sedation for endoscopy to patients who may be difficult to sedate owing to alcohol, marijuana, or opioid use, or PTSD.

Computer-Assisted Propofol Sedation for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Is Effective, Efficient, and Safe.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) allows non-anesthesiologists to administer propofol for gastrointestinal procedures in relatively healthy patients. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use, we report our 1-year experience with CAPS for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). METHODS: Between September 2014 and August 2015, 926 outpatients underwent elective EGDs with CAPS at our center. All EGDs were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of CAPS. Procedural success rates, procedure times, and recovery times were compared against corresponding historical controls done with midazolam and fentanyl sedation from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in CAPS patients were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 56.7 years (45% male); 16.2% of the EGDs were for variceal screening or Barrett's surveillance and 83.8% for symptoms. The procedural success rates were similar to that of historical controls (99.0% vs. 99.3%; p = 0.532); procedure times were also similar (6.6 vs. 7.4 min; p = 0.280), but recovery time was markedly shorter (31.7 vs. 52.4 min; p < 0.001). There were 11 (1.2%) cases of mild transient oxygen desaturation (< 90%), 15 (1.6%) cases of marked agitation due to undersedation, and 1 case of asymptomatic hypotension. In addition, there were six (0.6%) patients with more pronounced desaturation episodes that required brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: CAPS appears to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing sedation for EGD in healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical controls.

A Simulation Study to Evaluate Improvements in Anesthesia Work Environment Contamination After Implementation of an Infection Prevention Bundle.

BACKGROUND: Microbiological contamination of the anesthesia work environment (AWE) is a potential source of health care-associated infections. Medication syringes, stopcocks, and many other areas are routinely contaminated during anesthetic care, and adherence to hand hygiene recommendations is poor. Using a simulation model, we investigated whether AWE contamination could be reduced by implementing an intervention bundle focused on infection prevention. METHODS: Twenty-five anesthesia providers were enrolled in this nonrandomized simulation scenario crossover design study. Subjects were asked to complete 2 general anesthesia scenarios in a mock operating room: a baseline scenario and an intervention scenario in which the bundle was implemented. The bundle included: double gloving before intubation, confining all airway equipment to 1 area, and performing hand hygiene before touching the anesthesia cart. Before each scenario, a manikin's oropharynx and face were marked with ultraviolet fluorescent tracers. After each scenario, the AWE was inspected with a ultraviolet light source to detect contaminant, and all sites were photographed. A blinded observer scored the images for the presence or absence of tracer at 20 sites. Videos of the scenarios were analyzed for duration and number of hand hygiene and glove removal events. Data were analyzed using a mixed effects model. Subjects completed a survey about their experience and the value of the scenarios. RESULTS: The intervention was associated with a decreased subject contamination score of 4.0 (95% confidence interval, 2.2-5.6; P < .001), a 27% reduction in score between baseline and intervention scenarios. Some sites were universally contaminated despite the intervention (eg, laryngoscope handles). The intervention had a statistically significant impact on reducing contamination on medication syringes and the anesthesia cart. There was no significant difference in time needed to complete baseline and intervention scenarios. The majority of subjects felt that the simulations had significant value and would affect their future clinical behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the concept of an infection prevention bundle in reducing AWE contamination. Anesthesia providers deliver care in a unique environment in which "clean" and "contaminated" tasks are performed rapidly and often in parallel. Linking hand hygiene to specific high-impact tasks such as administering medications, designating areas for contaminated equipment, and double gloving before airway management are simple steps that can be implemented rapidly and are compatible with timely patient care. Our study has improved awareness of infection prevention issues in our department, and has highlighted simple and achievable actions that have the potential to reduce health care-associated infections.

One year experience with computer-assisted propofol sedation for colonoscopy.

AIM: To report our one-year experience with computer assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) for colonoscopy as the first United States Medical Center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use. METHODS: Between September 2014 and August 2015, 2677 patients underwent elective outpatient colonoscopy with CAPS at our center. All colonoscopies were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of the CAPS system, with the assistance of a specially trained nurse. Procedural success rates, polyp detection rates, procedure times and recovery times were recorded and compared against corresponding historical measures from 2286 colonoscopies done with midazolam and fentanyl from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in the CAPS group were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 59.9 years (48.7% male); 31.3% were ASA I, 67.3% ASA II and 1.4% ASA III. 45.1% of the colonoscopies were for screening, 31.5% for surveillance, and 23.4% for symptoms. The mean propofol dose administered was 250.7 mg (range 16-1470 mg), with a mean fentanyl dose of 34.1 mcg (0-100 mcg). The colonoscopy completion and polyp detection rates were similar to that of historical measures. Recovery times were markedly shorter (31 min vs 45.6 min, P < 0.001). In CAPS patients, there were 20 (0.7%) cases of mild desaturation (< 90%) treated with a chin lift and reduction or temporary discontinuation of the propofol infusion, 21 (0.8%) cases of asymptomatic hypotension (< 90 systolic blood pressure) treated with a reduction in the propofol rate, 4 (0.1%) cases of marked agitation or discomfort due to undersedation, and 2 cases of pronounced transient desaturation requiring brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no sedation-related serious adverse events such as emergent intubation, unanticipated hospitalization or permanent injury. CONCLUSION: CAPS appears to be a safe, effective and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for colonoscopy in relatively healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical measures. There were few adverse events, and no serious adverse events, related to CAPS.

The First US Clinical Experience With Computer-Assisted Propofol Sedation: A Retrospective Observational Comparative Study on Efficacy, Safety, Efficiency, and Endoscopist and Patient Satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) is now approved for moderate sedation of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I and II patients undergoing routine endoscopy. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS for routine clinical use, we compared patient and endoscopist satisfaction with CAPS versus midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective outpatient upper endoscopy and colonoscopy with CAPS were compared with concurrent patients sedated with MF. The primary end points were patient satisfaction (measured by the validated Patient Sedation Satisfaction Index [PSSI]), and endoscopist satisfaction (Clinician Sedation Satisfaction Index [CSSI]). Secondary end points included procedural success rates, polyp detection rates, adverse events, and procedure/recovery times. Multivariable regression was used for comparative analysis. RESULTS: CAPS was utilized to sedate 244 patients, of whom 55 underwent upper endoscopy, 173 colonoscopy, and 16 double procedures. During the same period, 75 upper endoscopies, 223 colonoscopies, and 30 doubles were performed with MF on similar patients. For upper endoscopy, the procedural success rate was 98.2% for CAPS versus 98.7% for MF (P = .96), whereas for colonoscopy, the success rate was 98.9% vs 98.8% (P = .59). Colonoscopic polyp detection rate was 54.5% for CAPS and 59.3% for MF (P = .67). Procedure times were similar between CAPS and MF. For CAPS, the mean recovery time was 26.4 vs 39.1 minutes for MF (P < .001). One CAPS patient required mask ventilation, 4 experienced asymptomatic hypotension or desaturation, and 5 experienced marked agitation resulting from undersedation. For MF, 5 patients had hypotension or desaturation, and 8 experienced undersedation. For colonoscopy, the CAPS group had higher PSSI scores for sedation adequacy, the recovery process and global satisfaction, and higher CSSI scores for ease of sedation administration, the recovery process and global satisfaction. For upper endoscopy and doubles, the CAPS CSSI score was higher for the recovery process only. All P values were adjusted for confounding by using regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In low-risk patients, CAPS appears to be effective and efficient. CAPS is associated with higher satisfaction than MF for colonoscopies and, to a lesser extent, upper endoscopies.