Diagnostic yield of bidirectional endoscopy for iron deficiency anemia in young patients.

BACKGROUND: While bidirectional endoscopy is recognized as the standard approach for investigating iron deficiency anemia (IDA) in men older than 45 and postmenopausal women, evidence supporting the application of this approach in younger men and premenopausal women is scarce in the absence of symptoms. Our primary aim is to identify the diagnostic yield of bidirectional endoscopy in men younger than 45 and premenopausal women, and describe the clinical characteristics of those with significant endoscopic and pathology-proven findings. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review including patients younger than age 45 with IDA who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and/or colonoscopy at the Brooklyn VA Hospital between 2009 and 2023. Demographic, clinical, and endoscopic patient data was all collected, stratified, analyzed, and interpreted. RESULTS: In 143 patients younger than age 45 with IDA, 28.6% were found to have positive upper gastrointestinal (GI) findings, of which 70.3% were pathology-proven H. pylori cases. 57.9% of patients reported upper GI symptoms, while 42.9% of patients were asymptomatic. In total, 18.2% of symptomatic patients were found to have clinically significant findings on EGD as compared with 42.9% of asymptomatic patients. Additionally, 9.1% of symptomatic patients were found to have biopsy proven H. pylori-associated gastritis or duodenitis as compared with 33.9% of asymptomatic patients. Of the patients who underwent colonoscopy, 8.3% were found to have lower GI lesions. CONCLUSIONS: We found the diagnostic yield of EGD to be significantly higher than that of colonoscopy in younger IDA patients. Our findings suggest current guidelines are clinically relevant to the young patient cohort. Our study also found asymptomatic IDA patients below age 45 to have a significantly higher diagnostic yield of EGD as compared to symptomatic IDA patients within the same age cohort. The differences in diagnostic yields may be a result of symptomatic patients being more likely to have been prescribed proton pump inhibitors or histamine receptor antagonists prior to endoscopy.

Optimal sequences of same-visit bidirectional endoscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Same-visit colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) have become common. Recent studies showed conflicting results regarding the performance, safety, and efficacy of different sequences. We conducted this meta-analysis to determine the most favorable performance and discomfort between an EGD followed by colonoscopy (E-C) and colonoscopy followed by EGD (C-E). METHODS: The authors searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Outcomes of interest were performance (including cecal intubation time, adenoma detection rate, and polyp detection rate), discomfort score (patients and endoscopists; Likert scale), and sedation uses. Pooled mean differences (MD) or odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The authors found that there was significantly lower sedative use including fentanyl (14.70; 95% Cl: 8.20-21.20) and propofol (15.58; 95% Cl: 3.27-27.89) in the E-C group compared with the C-E group. There was a significantly better discomfort score in patients and endoscopists after both procedures in the E-C group than in the C-E group with pooled MD of 0.64 points (95% Cl: 0.09-1.20) and 0.47 (95% Cl: 0.05-0.90), respectively. There were no differences in cecal intubation time, adenoma detection rate, or polyp detection rate between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The present study found that the discomfort score was better in the E-C group. However, there was no difference in polyp and adenoma detection. Therefore, the E-C group is the optimal sequence.

Adverse events associated with bidirectional endoscopy with midazolam and pethidine.

Same-day bidirectional endoscopy has been reported to reduce recovery time, and procedure-related cost. The safety of bidirectional endoscopy vs colonoscopy only, while using midazolam and pethidine, has never been evaluated. We reviewed 1,202 consecutive patients who underwent bidirectional endoscopy or colonoscopy only with administration of midazolam and pethidine in Toyoshima Ensdoscopy Clinic. We compared the clinical characteristics and adverse events associated with method of endoscopy (colonoscopy only vs bidirectional endoscopy). Furthermore, multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to study the role of age, sex, use of sedative, polypectomy, and bidirectional endoscopy in adverse events. In the bidirectional endoscopy group, the doses of pethidine and midazolam, and the incidence rates of hypoxia and posto-endoscopic nausea were significantly higher. On multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio = 1.061, p<0.001), use of pethidine (odds ratio = 4.311, p = 0.003), and bidirectional endoscopy (odds ratio = 3.658, p<0.001) were independently associated with hypoxia. On multivariate analysis, female sex (odds ratio = 10.25, p = 0.027) and bidirectional endoscopy (odds ratio = 6.051, p = 0.022) were independently associated with post-endoscopic nausea. In conclusion, bidirectional endoscopy could increase hypoxia in elderly patients using pethidine and post-endoscopic nausea in female patients.

Optimal procedural sequence for same-day bidirectional endoscopy with moderate sedation: A prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Same-day bidirectional endoscopy (BDE) is a commonly performed procedure, but the optimal sequence for the procedure with moderate conscious sedation is not well established. This study investigated the optimal sequence for same-day BDE under moderate conscious sedation and carbon dioxide insufflation in terms of sedation doses, patient discomfort, and colonoscopy performance. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled study of 120 patients who were scheduled for BDE examination was performed. Colonoscopy followed by esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) examination was performed in 60 patients (colonoscopy-EGD group), and EGD followed by colonoscopy examination was performed in another 60 patients (EGD-colonoscopy group). Endoscopists and patients completed a questionnaire to assess objective and subjective discomfort. RESULTS: Baseline demographics, procedure indications, bowel preparation quality, cecal intubation rate/time, colonoscopy withdrawal time, endoscopic interventions, BDE procedure time, colon polyp/adenoma detection rates, patient discomfort, and adverse events were similar between the two study groups. The total doses of fentanyl and midazolam were significantly higher for the colonoscopy-EGD group than for the EGD-colonoscopy group (83.4 ± 17.7 vs 68.7 ± 18.6 µg and 6.3 ± 1.4 vs 5.2 ± 1.3 mg, P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001, respectively). The recovery time to discharge was significantly longer for the colonoscopy-EGD group than for the EGD-colonoscopy group (43.5 ± 16.2 vs 34.5 ± 8.9 min, P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by colonoscopy is the optimal sequence for same-day BDE under moderate conscious sedation and carbon dioxide insufflation. Following this order allows for a reduction of sedation doses and for shorter recovery times.

Comparison of procedural sequences in same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy: Single-center, prospective, randomized study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)-colonoscopy and colonoscopy-EGD sequences for patients subjected to same-day bidirectional endoscopy under remifentanil and propofol sedation. METHODS: A total of 209 eligible outpatients scheduled for diagnostic same-day bidirectional endoscopy between 16 February 2016 and 30 April 2016 were randomly assigned to the EGD-colonoscopy (n = 106) and colonoscopy-EGD (n = 103) sequence groups. Primary endpoint was total dose of propofol required for the procedure. Secondary endpoints included duration of endoscopy, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, endoscopy findings, and cardiopulmonary responses of the patients. RESULTS: Patients in the two groups were similar in terms of demographic and clinical data (P > 0.05). EGD-colonoscopy sequence group had lesser requirement of propofol for sedation (P < 0.05), faster recovery (P < 0.001), and lesser influence on mean arterial pressure (MAP) during the endoscopy (P < 0.05). Duration of EGD and colonoscopy, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, and pathological findings did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The EGD-colonoscopy sequence may be considered the preferred sequence for same-day bidirectional endoscopy as a result of less cardiovascular stress, lessened need for sedation with propofol, and faster recovery.

Efficacy and safety of fospropofol disodium sedation for same-day bidirectional endoscopy in elderly patients: protocol for a prospective, single-center, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

Introduction: Fospropofol disodium is a novel prodrug that has improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties when compared with propofol. This trial aims to compare the efficacy and safety of fospropofol versus propofol sedation for same-day bidirectional endoscopy in elderly patients. Methods and analysis: This is a prospective, single-center, double-blind, randomized, propofol-controlled, non-inferiority trial. A total of 256 patients aged 65 years or older, who are scheduled for same-day bidirectional endoscopy under sedation, will be randomly allocated, in a 1:1 ratio, to either fospropofol group or propofol group (n = 128 in each group). All patients will receive analgesic pre-treatment with sufentanil 5 µg. Two minutes later, an initial bolus dose of fospropofol 6.5 mg/kg or 1.5 mg/kg propofol and supplemental doses of fospropofol 1.6 mg/kg or 0.5 mg/kg propofol will be titrated as needed to achieve target sedation levels during the procedures. The primary outcome is the success rate of same-day bidirectional endoscopy. Secondary outcomes include the time to successful induction of sedation, duration, time to being fully alert, time to patient discharge, endoscopist satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and the top-up frequency and dosage of sedative medications. The safety endpoints consist of adverse events concerning cough reflex, gag reflexes, body movement, muscular tremor, and pain on injection. Sedation-related AEs, including episodes of desaturation, severe desaturation (SpO2 < 90%), hypotension, severe hypotension (decrease in MBP ≥30% of baseline), and bradycardia, will also be recorded. Data will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Discussion: We hypothesize that the efficacy and safety of fospropofol sedation for elderly patients undergoing same-visit bidirectional endoscopy will not be inferior to that of propofol. Our findings will potentially provide a new sedation regimen for same-visit bidirectional endoscopy in elderly patients. Clinical Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT02875639.

Comparison of remimazolam and propofol combined with low dose esketamine for pediatric same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy: a randomized, controlled clinical trial.

Background: Remimazolam has shown similar or even superior properties to propofol in procedural sedation in adults, but few studies have been conducted in pediatric populations. Thus, we aimed to compare the effect and safety of remimazolam and propofol combined with low dose esketamine for pediatric same-day bidirectional endoscopy (BDE). Methods: Pediatrics <18 years scheduled for elective BDE under sedation were included and randomly assigned to remimazolam group (R group) or propofol group (P group). The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation. Secondary outcomes include sedation-related information and adverse events. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and perfusion index (PI) were recorded during sedation. Results: A total of 106 patients were enrolled and analyzed. The success rate of sedation was 100% in both groups. Compared with the P group, the induction time of the R group was significantly prolonged (p < 0.001), and the incidence of injection pain, intraoperative respiratory depression, hypotension and bradycardia was significantly lower (p < 0.001). The changes in MAP, HR and PI were relatively stable in the R group compared with the P group. Additionally, awake time significantly decreased with age by approximately 1.12 index points for each increase in age in the P group (p = 0.002) but not in the R group (p > 0.05). Furthermore, the decline in PI and PI ratio during BDE was related to body movement in the P group. Conclusion: Remimazolam combined with low dose esketamine has a non-inferior sedative effect than propofol for pediatric BDE, with no injection pain, less respiratory depression, more stable hemodynamics. Moreover, early detection of the decline in PI may avoid harmful stimulation under light anesthesia. Clinical trial registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05686863?id=NCT05686863&rank=1, NCT05686863.

Esketamine as an Adjuvant to Ciprofol or Propofol Sedation for Same-Day Bidirectional Endoscopy: Protocol for a Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial With Factorial Design.

Background: Same-day esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy procedures under sedation have been increasingly performed. This study aims to assess the effects of esketamine combined with ciprofol (a novel anesthetic/sedative agent) or propofol on respiratory and hemodynamic adverse events in patients undergoing same-day bidirectional endoscopy. Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial. A total of 180 adult patients scheduled for same-day bidirectional endoscopy under sedation will be randomized, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, to receive 1 of 4 sedation regimens: 1) ciprofol and esketamine, 2) propofol and esketamine, 3) ciprofol and normal saline placebo, or 4) propofol and normal saline placebo. The primary outcome is a composite of desaturation [peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) < 95%] and hypotension [mean blood pressure (MBP) < 65 mmHg or decrease in MBP ≥20% of baseline] during the sedation and in the recovery room. Secondary outcomes include episodes of desaturation, severe desaturation (SpO2 < 90%), hypotension, severe hypotension (decrease in MBP ≥30% of baseline), bradycardia, postoperative nausea and vomiting, dizziness or headache, hallucination or nightmare, injection pain, pain scores and fatigue scores, endoscopist satisfaction, and patient satisfaction. Data will be analyzed on the modified intention-to-treat basis. Discussion: We hypothesize that esketamine as an adjuvant to ciprofol or propofol sedation would improve cardiorespiratory stability. In addition, the potential interactions between interventions will be explored using the factorial design. The results of this trial will provide evidence for daily practice of sedation regimens for same-day bidirectional endoscopy. Clinical Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trials Registry, Identifier ChiCTR2100052523.

Low-Dose Esketamine as an Adjuvant to Propofol Sedation for Same-Visit Bidirectional Endoscopy: Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Same-visit bidirectional endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy) is widely performed under sedation. At present, the optimal sedation regimen remains unclear. This study aims to test the hypothesis that a low-dose esketamine added to propofol sedation reduces hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events in these procedures. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 660 adult patients scheduled for same-visit bidirectional endoscopy under sedation from 3 teaching hospitals in China will be recruited. Patients will be randomly allocated, in a 1:1 ratio, to an esketamine group or a normal saline group (n = 330 in each group), stratified by study center. All patients will receive intravenous propofol 0.5 mg/kg and sufentanil 0.1 µg/mL for induction of sedation, followed by intravenous esketamine 0.15 mg/kg or the same volume of normal saline. Propofol will be titrated to the target sedation levels during the procedures. The primary endpoint is a composite of desaturation (peripheral oxygen saturation < 90%) and hypotension (systolic blood pressure <80 mmHg or decrease >30% of baseline). Secondary endpoints include desaturation, hypotension, total dose of propofol, pain scores and fatigue scores on the 0-10 numerical rating scale, dizziness or headache, hallucination or nightmare, nausea or vomiting, endoscopist satisfaction, and patient satisfaction. All analyses will be intention-to-treat. Discussion: We expect that a low-dose esketamine adjunct to propofol-based sedation will improve cardiorespiratory stability in patients undergoing same-visit bidirectional endoscopy, providing reference for clinical sedation practice during these procedures. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Identifier: ChiCTR-ChiCTR2200055938).

Comparison of Procedural Sequences in Sedated Same-Day Bidirectional Endoscopy with Water-Exchange Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Previous studies have favored esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) followed by colonoscopy as the optimal sequence in bidirectional endoscopy (BDE) with air insufflation. However, the optimal sequence in same-day BDE with WE colonoscopy is unclear. Methods: A total of 200 patients undergoing BDE with propofol sedation from May 2018 to January 2021 were randomized to either the EGD-first group (n = 100) or the colonoscopy-first group (n = 100). Results: The EGD-first group required a longer cecal-intubation time (median 16.0 min vs. 13.7 min, p < 0.001) and a lower Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score (8.5 vs. 9, p = 0.030) compared with the colonoscopy-first group. However, the EGD-first group needed a significantly lower dose of propofol (200 mg vs. 250 mg, p < 0.001) and a shorter recovery time (7 min vs. 13.5 min, p < 0.001), resulting in a shorter turnover time of the endoscopy room (39.5 min vs. 42.6 min, p = 0.004). There were no differences in the sedation-related adverse events, patients' satisfaction scores, adenoma-detection rates, or the outcomes of EGD between the two groups. Conclusions: During propofol-sedated BDE, EGD followed by WE colonoscopy was more efficient with a shorter turnover time despite a longer cecal-intubation time (NCT03638713).

Comparison of procedural sequence in same-day bidirectional endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of procedural sequence in same-day bidirectional endoscopy. METHODS: We searched OVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the procedural sequences in same-day bidirectional endoscopy, including esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. The sedative and analgesic doses required, discomfort and satisfaction scores, procedure time, recovery time, adenoma detection rate, and failed cecal intubation were evaluated. Adverse effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular complications, were also assessed. RESULTS: We included six studies, with 1,848 patients in total. The requirement for sedative treatment was significantly lesser in the EGD-colonoscopy sequence than in the colonoscopy-EGD sequence (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.54 to -0.24; p = 0.12; I2 = 49%). Discomfort, scored by patients during the EGD procedure, was significantly lesser in the EGD-colonoscopy sequence than in the colonoscopy-EGD sequence (SMD, -0.45; 95% CI, -0.80 to -0.09; p = 0.02; I2 = 73%), while it was comparable during colonoscopy between the two sequences. Recovery time was significantly shorter in the EGD-colonoscopy sequence than in the colonoscopy-EGD sequence (SMD, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.30; p = 0.28; I2 = 21%). Total procedure duration, EGD, colonoscopy, cecal intubation time and incidence, incidences of pathologic findings, and adenoma detection were comparable between the two sequences. There was no significant difference in the incidences of desaturation, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and tachycardia between the two sequences. CONCLUSION: When conducting same-day bidirectional endoscopy, EGD followed by colonoscopy is the most beneficial sequence to be used because patients require lower sedative doses, recover faster, and report lesser discomfort.

Sedation-associated hiccups in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy.

AIM: To investigate whether the incidence of hiccups in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or same-day bidirectional endoscopy (EGD and colonoscopy; BDE) with sedation is different from those without sedation in terms of quantity, duration and typical onset time. METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled for elective EGD or same-day BDE at the gastrointestinal endoscopy unit or the health examination center were allocated to two groups: EGD without sedation (Group A) and BDE with sedation (Group B). The use of sedation was based on the patients' request. Anesthesiologists participated in this study by administrating sedative drugs as usual. A single experienced gastroenterologist performed both the EGD and the colonoscopic examinations for all the patients. The incidence, duration and onset time of hiccups were measured in both groups. In addition, the association between clinical variables and hiccups were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 435 patients were enrolled in the study. The incidences of hiccups in the patients with and without sedation were significantly different (20.5% and 5.1%, respectively). The use of sedation for patients undergoing endoscopy was still significantly associated with an increased risk of hiccups (adjusted odds ratio: 8.79, P < 0.001) after adjustment. The incidence of hiccups in males under sedation was high (67.4%). The sedated patients who received 2 mg midazolam developed hiccups more frequently compared to those receiving 1 mg midazolam (P = 0.0028). The patients with the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were prone to develop hiccups (P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Male patients undergoing EGD or BDE with sedation are significantly more likely to suffer from hiccups compared to those without sedation. Midazolam was significantly associated with an increased risk of hiccups. Furthermore, patients with GERD are prone to develop hiccups.

Comparison of propofol-based sedation and midazolam sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy conducted by pediatric gastroenterologists.

Objectives: The effectiveness and safety of propofol-based sedation and midazolam sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy were compared. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the cases of pediatric patients (≤15 years old) who had undergone bidirectional endoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and colonoscopy by pediatric gastroenterologists. Demographic data, indications, sedatives/dosages, clinical outcomes, endoscopic findings, adverse events, and total patient time requirements (total time in which patients stay in our hospital) were compared in the two sedation groups. Results: Ninety-one children (51 boys, 40 girls, mean age 13 years, range 9-15) treated at our hospital were enrolled. Propofol alone or in combination with midazolam and/or pentazocine was administered to 51 patients (propofol-based sedation group). Midazolam alone or in combination with pentazocine was administered to the other 40 patients (midazolam sedation group). In the propofol group, the following mean doses were used: propofol, 96 mg (range 40-145 mg); midazolam, 4.9 mg (range 3-5 mg); and pentazocine, 7.5 mg. In the midazolam group, the mean doses of midazolam and pentazocine were 6.2 mg (range 4-10 mg) and 15 mg, respectively. All procedures were successfully completed by pediatric gastroenterologists. The total procedure times and endoscopic findings were similar in the two groups, but the median patient time requirement in the propofol group was significantly shorter versus the midazolam group (7.3 h vs. 8.4 h, p < 0.001). No adverse events occurred in either group. Conclusions: Propofol-based sedation in pediatric bidirectional endoscopy was safely and effectively performed by pediatric gastroenterologists, and its patient time requirement was shorter than that for midazolam sedation.