Analgosedación con propofol y fentanilo en las colonoscopia / Analgosedation with propofol and fentanyl in colonoscopy

Introducción: La comodidad durante la colonoscopia es una condición importante si se quiere que el paciente acepte procedimientos repetidos. Por lo tanto, se necesita de una buena sedación que pudiera combinar la analgesia con amnesia. Objetivo: Describir la utilidad de la analgosedación balanceada con propofol/fentanilo en colonoscopia ambulatoria. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional descriptivo longitudinal prospectivo en pacientes a los que se les realizó colonoscopia de forma ambulatoria en el Hospital General Universitario Dr. Gustavo Aldereguía Lima en el período entre enero de 2017 y diciembre de 2018. Resultados: El 34,2 por ciento de los pacientes tenía entre 50 y 59 años, el 62,9 por ciento eran mujeres. El 73,3 por ciento de los pacientes se clasificó como ASA II según el estado físico. Los valores medios de frecuencia cardiaca y tensión arterial media tuvieron una disminución ligera después de aplicada la anestesia y se mantuvieron constantes en el resto de los momentos evaluados. Los valores medios de saturación de oxígeno de la hemoglobina se mantuvieron relativamente constantes en todos los momentos y resultaron algo superiores a la llegada del paciente a recuperación. La calidad de la sedación fue adecuada en 86,2 por ciento de los pacientes. La calidad de la analgesia y la recuperación fue buena en 88,4 por ciento y 96,2 por ciento , respectivamente. Se presentaron complicaciones en el 16,5 por ciento de los pacientes. Conclusiones: La analgosedación con propofol y fentanilo resultó una alternativa anestésica de utilidad en los pacientes a los que se les realizó colonoscopia ambulatoria con gran estabilidad hemodinámica en la serie estudiada(AU)

Introduction: Comfort during colonoscopy is an important condition if the patient is expected to accept repeated procedures. Therefore, good sedation that could combine analgesia with amnesia is needed. Objective: To describe the usefulness of balanced analgosedation with propofol/fentanyl in outpatient colonoscopy. Methods: A prospective, longitudinal, descriptive and observational study was carried out with patients who received outpatient colonoscopy at Dr. Gustavo Aldereguía Lima General University Hospital in the period between January 2017 and December 2018. Results: 34.2 percent of the patients were between 50 and 59 years old, while 62.9 percent were women. 73.3 percent of patients were classified as ASA II, according to their physical status. The mean values for heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure had a slight decrease after anesthesia was applied and remained constant for the rest of the evaluated times. The mean values of hemoglobin-oxygen saturation remained relatively constant at all the evaluated times and were slightly higher on the patient's arrival to recovery. The quality of sedation was adequate in 86.2 percent of the patients. The quality of analgesia and recovery was good in 88.4 percent and 96.2 percent, respectively. Complications occurred in 16.5 percent of the patients. Conclusions: Analgosedation with propofol and fentanyl proved to be a useful anesthetic alternative in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy, with high hemodynamic stability in the studied series(AU)

Refractory psycho-existential distress and continuous deep sedation until death in palliative care: The French perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Since February 2016, French Claeys-Leonetti law has recognized patients' right to confront incurable diseases with short-term prognosis and refractory physical or psychological or existential symptoms by requesting continuous deep sedation until death (CDSUD). Determining when psychological or existential distress is refractory and unbearable remains complex and controversial.This review provides a comprehensive thought on CDSUD for advanced incurable patients with refractory psychological and/or existential distress in palliative care settings. It offers guidance on psychiatric or psychological diagnosis for explaining patients' requests for CDSUD. METHOD: A narrative literature review (2000-2019) was conducted on the MedLine search about the use of palliative sedation in cases of refractory psychological and/or existential distress. RESULTS: (1) Definitions of "refractory symptom," "refractory psychological distress," and "refractory existential distress" are inconsistent; (2) alternative diagnoses might obscure or be obscured by psycho-existential distress; and (3) criteria on meanings, reasons for requests, decision-making processes, and functions are evolving in practice. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Before implementing CDSUD, palliative healthcare professionals should seek input from psycho-oncologists in palliative care. Mental health professionals should analyze and assess the reasons for psychological and/or existential distress, consider the intentionality processes of requests, and explore alternative diagnoses, such as depressive or adjustment disorders, demoralization syndrome, desire to hasten death, and desire for euthanasia. Therapeutic responses (e.g., pharmacological and psychotherapeutic) should be implemented before deciding that psycho-existential distress is refractory.

The Use of Palliative Sedation to Treat Existential Suffering: A Scoping Review on Practices, Ethical Considerations, and Guidelines.

CONTEXT: Though palliative sedation has been recognized as an acceptable practice in Canada for many years now, there is a lack of clinical research and guidelines pertaining to its use as a treatment of existential refractory symptoms in the terminally ill. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aimed to survey the literature surrounding palliative sedation and existential suffering and to inform research, policy, and practice. METHODS: To address the main research question: Is palliative sedation an acceptable intervention to treat existential refractory symptoms in adults aged 65 and older? a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's framework was performed, spanning electronic databases of the peer reviewed and grey literature. Articles were screened for inclusion, and a thematic content analysis allowed for a summary of key findings. RESULTS: Out of 427 search results, 71 full text articles were obtained, 20 of which were included. Out of these articles, four themes were identified as key findings. These included: (1) Ethical considerations; (2) The role of the health care provider; looking specifically at the impact on nurses; (3) The need for multidisciplinary care teams; and (4) Existential suffering's connection to religiosity and spirituality. CONCLUSION: Palliative sedation to treat existential refractory symptoms was labelled a controversial practice. A shortage of evidence-based resources limits the current literature's ability to inform policy and clinical practice. There is a need for both qualitative and quantitative multi-center research so health care professionals and regional-level institutions have firm roots to establish proper policy and practice.

Anesthesia and airway management for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures outside the operating room.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the anesthestic and airway management for gastrointestinal procedures outside of the operating room. RECENT FINDINGS: The number of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed is steadily increasing worldwide. As complexity, duration and invasiveness of procedures increase, there is ever greater requirement for deeper sedation or general anesthesia. A close relationship between anesthetic practitioners and endoscopists is required to ensure safe and successful outcomes. The American Society of Gastrointestinal endoscopy and the British Society of Gastroenterology have recently released guidelines for sedation and general anesthesia in gastrointestinal endoscopy, highlighting the need for careful monitoring for all cases, and anesthetic expertise in complex cases. The recent advances in high-flow nasal oxygenation in sedation may provide alternative options for oxygenation during gastrointestinal sedation, especially in deep sedation and this may reduce the need for general anesthesia. SUMMARY: The advances in gastrointestinal endoscopic intervention have increased the requirement for deep sedation and anesthetic involvement outside of the operating room. Careful titration of anesthetic intervention and close monitoring are required to ensure patient safety.

Description of Continuous Palliative Sedation Practices in a Large Health Region and Comparison with Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Background: Published reports of continuous palliative sedation therapy (CPST) suggest heterogeneity in practice. There is a paucity of reports that compare practice with clinical guidelines. Objectives: To assess adherence of continuous palliative sedation practices with criteria set forth in local clinical guidelines, and to describe other features including prevalence, medication dosing, duration, multidisciplinary team involvement, and concurrent therapies. Design: Retrospective chart review. Settings/Subjects: We included cases in which a midazolam infusion was ordered at the end of life. Study sites included four adult hospitals in the Calgary health region, two hospices, and a tertiary palliative care unit. Measurements: Descriptive data, including proportion of deaths involving palliative sedation therapy, number of criteria documented, midazolam dose/duration, concurrent symptom management therapies, and referrals to spiritual care, psychology, or social work. Results: CPST occurred in 602 out of 14,360 deaths (4.2%). Full adherence to criteria occurred in 7% of cases. The most commonly missed criteria were: a "C2" goals-of-care designation order (comfort care focus in the imminently dying) (84%) and documentation of imminent death in the chart (55%). Concurrent medical therapies included opioids in 98% of cases and intravenous hydration in 85% of cases. Few referrals were made to multidisciplinary care teams. Conclusions: We found low adherence to palliative sedation guidelines. This may reflect the perception that some criteria are redundant or clinically unimportant. Future work could include a study of barriers to guideline uptake, and guideline modification to provide direction on concurrent therapies and multidisciplinary team involvement.

Reevaluating a Standardized Sedation Weaning Protocol for Pediatric Laryngotracheal Reconstruction for Continuous Quality Improvement.

Importance: Health care organizations are complex and evolving systems. To date, longitudinal evaluation to ensure the sustainability of quality improvement (QI) initiatives has been missing from the otolaryngology literature. We sought to reassess perioperative management of laryngotracheal reconstruction, which requires adequate sedation. Objective: Using principles of continuous QI, the objectives of this study were to (1) describe step-by-step methods to sustain QI efforts and (2) revisit a series of process, outcome, and balance measures for sedation weaning management following implementation of a new electronic health record (EHR). Design, Setting, and Participants: A standardized sedation weaning protocol was previously developed and instituted in February 2013. To address healthcare system-wide changes, a 7-step, Institute for Healthcare Improvement methodology was used to reevaluate a series of measures comparing a previous postweaning group (2013-2014; 13 patients) and current post-EHR group (2016; 11 patients). We conducted a focus group review of these 24 patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was length of sedation weaning. Secondary outcome, process, and balance measures included total length of sedation, absence of standardized wean document, absence of specific recommendations on weaning regimen, length of stay, continued weaning at discharge, discharge location, absence of discharge instructions on weaning regimen or iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS), discharge within 72 hours of stopping weaning, and readmission. Results: The postweaning and post-EHR groups were similar in age (20.5 months [95% CI, 11.92-29.15] vs 26.5 months [95% CI, 17.68-35.40]), as well as male sex (11 of 13 [85%] vs 10 of 11 [91%]), respectively. In the post-EHR group, the standardized sedation wean document was missing from 9 of 11 (82%) medical records. However, the primary outcome measure, length of sedation weaning, remained stable at 9.45 (95% CI, 7.62-11.29) days in the post-EHR group compared with 9.08 (95% CI, 7.00-11.18) days in the postweaning group. In addition, only 5 of 11 (46%) of discharges in the post-EHR group had specific guidance on weaning since the standardized template was no longer in use. As a result, in the post-EHR group, patients were 15.2 (95% CI, 0.46-242.34) times as likely to lack discharge instructions on weaning or IWS. Conclusions and Relevance: Quality improvement is meant to be a continuous process in which reevaluation of care practices are regularly performed. System-wide redesign can be achieved using a formal methodological approach. Moving forward, notable QI opportunities for our institution included the development of a flexible sedation weaning template, as well as enhancements to discharge instructions to include IWS diagnosis and treatment.

Medical staff opposition to a deep and continuous palliative sedation request under Claeys-Leonetti law.

BACKGROUND: For the year 2018, the French government plans a revision of bioethics laws, including certainly the recent Claeys-Leonetti law introducing the right to deep and continuous sedation at the request of palliative patients and prohibiting euthanasia for end-of-life patients. Because there is no published data on medical staff opposition to a deep and continuous palliative sedation request under Claeys-Leonetti law, we believe this report may give insight into physicians' decision making, into the role of criteria for prudent practice, and thus contribute to the bioethical debate. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a 70-year-old patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the hypopharyngeal region, who categorically refused any treatment since one year and asked for deep and continuous palliative sedation until death after attempting suicide. The patient's request was examined and denied by palliative multidisciplinary board, in accordance with by the French Oncology Coordination Centre guidelines. This situation did not fulfil the criteria requested by Claeys-Leonetti law. CONCLUSIONS: As highlighted by the present case-report, patient's expectation regarding palliative sedation can be ambivalent with properly so called euthanasia or assisted suicide. This ambivalent perception was part of the controversy surrounding the parliamentary debate, which is still relevant. This case report supports that deep and continuous sedation under Claeys-Leonetti law need to meet specific criteria defined by the law and documented in the medical files as a safeguard against inappropriate practice. In fact, one of the shortcomings of the current arrangements of Claeys-Leonetti law is a lack of objective medical-based criteria. So it is necessary that scientific peer-reviews papers be published quickly in order to deepen the bioethical debate on the end of life.

A descriptive monitoring study of a non-anesthetist sedation quality program.

INTRODUCTION: sedation substantially improves the quality of digestive endoscopy procedures but may result in severe complications. METHODS: a joint commission-based multidisciplinary protocol was used to define a protocol for sedation by non-anesthesiologists. ASA 4 patients were excluded, as well as patients with a difficult airway, complex procedures and deep sedation. Quality based on the analysis of 9 indicators were monitored. Incomplete procedures were also monitored in order to assess efficacy. RESULTS: patient safety was established based on a very low incidence of complications and a rate of respiratory events of 1.07. Furthermore, a low rate of hypotension and bradycardia was found, as well as a low rate of pain, either during or after endoscopy and an incidence of unexpected admissions lower than 0.5%. The quality indicators measured reflect the evolution of the results of the program. CONCLUSIONS: ongoing sedation program monitoring in endoscopy allows the control of different quality dimensions and the implementation of steps for process improvement.

[Palliative sedation : Development and consensus of a German language documentation template]. / Palliative Sedierung : Entwicklung und Konsentierung einer deutschsprachigen Dokumentationsvorlage.

BACKGROUND: Palliative sedation (PS) serves as a therapeutic option in cases of otherwise intractable suffering. As the use of sedative and hypnotic medication in many diverse situations is a core competency of anesthesiology, anesthesiologists are confronted with questions of sedative therapy at the end of life in institutions for specialized palliative care, in intensive care units and intermediate care wards. In recent years a number of guidelines have been published internationally but so far no official guidelines exist in Germany. The most recognized document is the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) framework on PS. This project aims to develop a German language template for the preparation, application, documentation and evaluation of PS according to the current frameworks, especially the EAPC framework on PS. METHODS: A first draft of the template was generated by the project team using the EAPC framework and individual templates of various institutions, which had been collected during a previous project. Professionals (n = 136) from inpatient and outpatient specialist palliative and hospice care were invited to assess all items of the draft regarding "relevance", "wording" and "feasibility" in an online Delphi survey (Unipark®, Questback, Cologne, Germany). After the second Delphi round an expert panel was asked to reflect the results and generate a final draft. Approval was granted if acceptance exceeded 75% of participants. RESULTS: The 3 rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 64, 46 and 41 participants, respectively. The Delphi process as well as the expert panel led to significant changes of the template. The indications for PS had to be clarified. The significance of documentation of vital parameters, such as oxygen saturation, blood pressure or respiratory rate during PS was intensively discussed. In many teams, predominantly hospice or outpatient palliative care teams, it seems to be difficult to measure these parameters or it is regarded as inappropriate in a palliative care setting. In contrast, the EAPC framework recommends monitoring of vital parameters in cases of intermittent or respite sedation. Finally, a solution was found to support documentation of additional data without the explicit mentioning of specific parameters. After the third Delphi round, all 16 items of the documentation template reached consensus with respect to relevance (82.9-100%), clarity of wording (80.5-100%), and feasibility in practice (78-100%). CONCLUSION: This article provides an empirically based, multiprofessional consented documentation template for PS. Core elements of the documentation of PS are the indications and the decision process towards PS. During the treatment, at least the level of sedation and the symptom burden have to be recorded. The documentation of vital signs during PS remains a highly disputed topic. The presented data suggest that especially in outpatient settings and in hospices measuring and documentation of vital parameters is uncommon and therefore is often regarded as not feasible. This template can help to support the medically and ethically sound use of PS and facilitate research. The template can be accessed at http://www.palliativmedizin.uk-erlangen.de/forschung/downloads/ .

Comfort in palliative sedation (Compas): a transdisciplinary mixed method study protocol for linking objective assessments to subjective experiences.

BACKGROUND: In case of untreatable suffering at the end of life, palliative sedation may be chosen to assure comfort by reducing the patient's level of consciousness. An important question here is whether such sedated patients are completely free of pain. Because these patients cannot communicate anymore, caregivers have to rely on observation to assess the patient's comfort. Recently however, more sophisticated techniques from the neurosciences have shown that sometimes consciousness and pain are undetectable with these traditional behavioral methods. The aim of this study is to better understand how unconscious palliative sedated patients experience the last days of their life and to find out if they are really free of pain. METHODS: In this study we will observe 40 patients starting with initiation of palliative sedation until death. Assessment of comfort based on behavioral observations will be related with the results from a NeuroSense monitor, an EEG-based monitor used for evaluation of the adequacy of anesthesia and sedation in the operating room and an ECG-based Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) monitor, which informs about comfort or discomfort condition, based on the parasympathetic tone. An innovative and challenging aspect of this study is its qualitative approach; "objective" and "subjective" data will be linked to achieve a holistic understanding of the study topic. The following data will be collected: assessment of pain/comfort by the patients themselves (if possible) by scoring a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS); brain function monitoring; monitoring of parasympathetic tone; caregivers' assessment (pain, awareness, communication); relatives' perception of the quality of the dying process; assessment by 2 trained investigators using observational scales; video and audio registration. DISCUSSION: Measuring pain and awareness in non-communicative dying patients is both technically and ethically challenging. ANI and EEG have shown to be promising technologies to detect pain that otherwise cannot be detected with the "traditional" methods. Although these technologies have the potential to provide objective quantifiable indicators for distress and awareness in non-communicative patients, strikingly they have not yet been used to check whether the current assessments for non-communicative patients are reliable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03273244 ; registration date: 7.9.2017).

Palliative sedation in Germany: factors and treatment practices associated with different sedation rate estimates in palliative and hospice care services.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice of Palliative Sedation (PS) varies between institutions worldwide and sometimes includes problematic practices. Little available research points at different definitions and frameworks which may contribute to uncertainty of healthcare professionals in the application of PS. This analysis investigates what demographic factors and characteristics of treatment practices differ between institutions with high versus low sedation rates estimates in Palliative and Hospice Care in Germany. METHODS: Data sets from 221 organisations from a prior online survey were separated into two sub-groups divided by their estimated sedation rate A) lower/equal to 16% (n = 187; 90.8%) and B) higher than 16% (n = 19; 9.2%) for secondary analysis. Demographic factors and characteristics of PS treatment practices between the two groups were compared using T-Tests and Chi2/ Fisher Exact Tests and considered significant (*) at two-sided p < .05. RESULTS: Organisations in group B report that they discuss PS for a higher proportion of patients (38.5%/10.2%, p < 0.000**), rate agitation more often as an indications for PS (78.9%/ 53.5%, p = 0.050*), and are more likely to use Lorazepam (63.2%/ 37.4%, p = 0.047*), Promethazin (26.3%/ 9.6%, p = 0.044*), and (Es-)Ketamin (31.6%/ 12.8%, p = 0.039*) than representatives in group A. Both groups differ significantly in their allocation of three case scenarios to different types of PS. CONCLUSIONS: Both definitions and patterns of clinical practice between palliative and hospice care representatives show divergence, which may be influenced one by another. A comprehensive framework considering conceptual, clinical, ethical, and legal aspects of different definitions of PS could help to better distinguish between different types and nuances of PS.

Training and Competency in Sedation Practice in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

The practice of endoscopic sedation requires a thorough understanding of preprocedural assessment, sedation pharmacology, intraprocedure monitoring, adverse event management, and postprocedural care. The training process has become increasingly standardized and entails knowledge and practice-based components. The use of propofol in particular requires a higher level of structured training owing to its narrow therapeutic window. Simulation has increased opportunities for practice-based training in a controlled environment. After completion of training, the endoscopist must demonstrate competence in theoretical understanding and technical ability to administer sedation. Although individual institutions have certification processes, there is a lack of validated, standardized methods to confirm competence.

Quality Assurance in the Endoscopy Suite: Sedation and Monitoring.

Recent development and expansion of endoscopy units has necessitated similar progress in the quality assurance of procedure sedation and monitoring. The large number of endoscopic procedures performed annually underlies the need for standardized quality initiatives focused on mitigating patient risk before, during, and immediately after endoscopic sedation, as well as improving procedure outcomes and patient satisfaction. Specific standards are needed for newer sedation modalities, including propofol administration. This article reviews the current guidelines and literature concerning quality assurance and endoscopic procedure sedation.

Practical considerations in the management of sedation for colonoscopy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to discuss the unique elements of providing anesthesia services for colonoscopy including the practical issues within an endoscopy suite, nothing by mouth status for colonoscopy, chronic medication instructions, appropriate anesthesia equipment, informed consent, pharmacology of agents for sedation, anesthetic techniques, and issues related to postprocedural care. RECENT FINDINGS: The national trend is toward increasing number and complexity of colonoscopy procedures using anesthesia services. Providing anesthesia services in a dedicated endoscopy suite has unique elements related to open scheduling and the rapid turnover environment. Agents for sedation and general anesthesia for colonoscopy are chosen for rapid onset, amnestic properties, and raid emergence/recovery. SUMMARY: Sedation for colonoscopy is a rapidly expanding subspecialty with special needs created by the increasing medical complexity of the patients, the demands of the endoscopy procedures, the challenges of the endoscopy suite, and the rapid turnover of the outpatient environment.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy.

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.

The process of palliative sedation as viewed by physicians and nurses working in palliative care in Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to describe the process of palliative sedation from the point of view of physicians and nurses working in palliative care in Brazil. METHOD: Ours was a descriptive study conducted between May and December of 2011, with purposeful snowball sampling of 32 physicians and 29 nurses working in facilities in Brazil that have adopted the practice of palliative care. RESULTS: The symptoms prioritized for an indication of palliative sedation were dyspnea, delirium, and pain. Some 65.6% of respondents believed that the survival time of a patient in the final phase was not a determining factor for the indication of this measure, and that the patient, family, and healthcare team should participate in the decision-making process. For 42.6% of these professionals, the opinion of the family was the main barrier to an indication of this therapy. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The opinion of the physicians and nurses who participated in this study converged with the principal national and international guidelines on palliative sedation. However, even though it is a therapy that has been adopted in palliative care, it remains a controversial practice.

Development and validation of the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS) for assessment of procedural sedation quality.

BACKGROUND: More than 20 million invasive procedures are performed annually in the United States. The vast majority are performed with moderate sedation or deep sedation, yet there is limited understanding of the drivers of sedation quality and patient satisfaction. Currently, the major gap in quality assurance for invasive procedures is the lack of procedural sedation quality measures. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a robust, patient-centered measure of procedural sedation quality, the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS). DESIGN: Through a series of interviews with patients, proceduralists, nurses, anesthesiologists, and an interactive patient focus group, major domains influencing procedural sedation quality were used to create a multipart survey. The pilot survey was administered and revised in sequential cohorts of adults receiving moderate sedation for GI endoscopy. After revision, the PROSAS was administered to a validation cohort. SETTING: GI endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: A expert panel of proceduralists, nurses, and anesthesiologists, an initial survey development cohort of 40 patients, and a validation cohort of 858 patients undergoing sedation for outpatient GI endoscopy with additional surveys completed by the gastroenterologist, procedure nurse, and recovery nurse. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASUREMENTS: Survey characteristics of the PROSAS. RESULTS: Patients were able to independently complete the PROSAS after procedural sedation before discharge. Of the patients, 91.6% reported minimal discomfort; however, 8.4% of patients reported significant discomfort and 2.4% of patients experienced hemodynamic and/or respiratory instability. There was a high correlation between patient-reported intraprocedure discomfort and both clinician assessments of procedural discomfort and patient recall of procedural pain 24 to 48 hours post procedure (P < .001 for all), suggesting high external validity. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study, variability of sedation technique between providers, inclusion of patients with chronic pain taking analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: The PROSAS is a clinically relevant, patient-centered, easily administered instrument that allows for standardized evaluation of procedural sedation quality. The PROSAS may be useful in both research and clinical settings.