Women awaken faster than men after electroencephalogram-monitored propofol sedation for colonoscopy: A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Sedation for colonoscopy using intravenous propofol has become standard in many Western countries. OBJECTIVE: Gender-specific differences have been shown for general anaesthesia in dentistry, but no such data existed for gastrointestinal endoscopy. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: An academic teaching hospital of Hannover Medical School. PATIENTS: A total of 219 patients (108 women and 111 men) scheduled for colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: Propofol sedation using electroencephalogram monitoring during a constant level of sedation depth (D0 to D2) performed by trained nurses or physicians after a body-weight-adjusted loading dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end-point was the presence of gender-specific differences in awakening time (time from end of sedation to eye-opening and complete orientation); secondary outcome parameters analysed were total dose of propofol, sedation-associated complications (bradycardia, hypotension, hypoxaemia and apnoea), patient cooperation and patient satisfaction. Multivariate analysis was performed to correct confounding factors such as age and BMI. RESULTS: Women awakened significantly faster than men, with a time to eye-opening of 7.3 ±â€Š3.7 versus 8.4 ±â€Š3.4 min (P = 0.005) and time until complete orientation of 9.1 ±â€Š3.9 versus 10.4 ±â€Š13.7 min (P = 0.008). The propofol dosage was not significantly different, with some trend towards more propofol per kg body weight in women (3.98 ±â€Š1.81 mg versus 3.72 ±â€Š1.75 mg, P = 0.232). CONCLUSION: The effect of gender aspects should be considered when propofol is used as sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. That includes adequate dosing for women as well as caution regarding potential overdosing of male patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02687568).

Clinical value of the Integrated Pulmonary Index® during sedation for interventional upper GI-endoscopy: A randomized, prospective tri-center study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The Integrated Pulmonary Index® (IPI) is a mathematically-determined factor based on parameters of capnography and pulse oximetry, which should enable sensitive detection of impaired respiratory function. Aim was to investigate whether an additional measurement of the IPI during sedation for interventional endoscopy, compared to standard monitoring alone, allows a reduction of sedation-related respiratory depression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 170 patients with standard monitoring randomly underwent either a blinded recording of capnography (control group, n=87) or capnography, including automated IPI calculation (IPI group, n=83), during deep sedation with midazolam and propofol. The primary endpoint was the maximum decrease of oxygen saturation from the baseline level before sedation. Secondary endpoints: incidence of hypoxemia (SaO2<90%), other sedation-related complications (apnea rate, bradycardia, hypotension), patient cooperation and satisfaction (VAS). RESULTS: Mean propofol dose in the IPI group (245±61mg) was comparable to the control group (225±47mg). The average drop of the oxygen saturation in the IPI group (6.5±4.1%) was nearly identical to that of the control group (7.1±4.6%, p=0.44). Apnea episodes >15s was found in 46 patients of the control and 31 of the IPI group (p<0.05). Frequency of occurrence of a drop in pO2-saturation <90%, bradycardia <50/min or a drop of systolic pressure <90mmHg were not significantly different in both groups. Mechanical ventilation was not required in any case. Patient cooperation and satisfaction were assessed similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: A clinically appealing advantage of IPI-assessment during deep sedation with midazolam and propofol for interventional endoscopy could not be documented. However, IPI registration was more effective in reducing the incidence of apnea episodes.

Capnographic monitoring reduces the incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation and hypoxemia during propofol sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled study (ColoCap Study).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this randomized study was to determine whether intervention based on additional capnographic monitoring reduces the incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation during propofol sedation for colonoscopy. METHODS: Patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (ASA) 1-3) scheduled for colonoscopy under propofol sedation were randomly assigned to either a control arm with standard monitoring (standard arm) or an interventional arm in which additional capnographic monitoring (capnography arm) was available. In both study arms, detection of apnea or altered respiration induced withholding propofol administration, stimulation of the patient, chin lift maneuver, or further measures. The primary study end point was the incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation (defined as a fall in oxygen saturation (SaO(2)) of ≥5% or <90%); secondary end points included the occurrences of hypoxemia (SaO(2) <90%), severe hypoxemia (SaO(2) ≤85%), bradycardia, hypotension, and the quality of sedation (patient cooperation and patient satisfaction). RESULTS: A total of 760 patients were enrolled at three German endoscopy centers. The intention-to-treat analysis revealed a significant reduction of the incidence of oxygen desaturation in the capnography arm in comparison with the standard arm (38.9% vs. 53.2%; P<0.001). The numbers of patients with a fall in SaO(2) <90% and ≤85% were also significantly different (12.5% vs. 19.8%; P=0.008 and 3.7 vs. 7.8%; P=0.018). There were no differences regarding the rates of bradycardia and hypotension. Quality of sedation was similar in both groups. Results of statistical analyses were maintained for the per-protocol population. CONCLUSIONS: Additional capnographic monitoring of ventilatory activity reduces the incidence of oxygen desaturation and hypoxemia during propofol sedation for colonoscopy.

Propofol, the preferred sedation for screening colonoscopy, is underused. Results of an international survey.

BACKGROUND: The use of propofol during colonoscopy has become more widespread. To increase availability while maintaining quality and decreasing costs, European Guidelines have been issued for non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP). We aimed to assess the current use of propofol during screening colonoscopy. METHODS: International survey. RESULTS: Eighty-four questionnaires were collected from endoscopists practicing in 29 countries. Practices were most often located in high-volume community hospitals (Italy, Belgium, Spain, Netherlands in half cases). An anesthesiologist was regularly present in the Endoscopy Unit of 69.0% survey respondents. In low-risk (ASA classification, 1-2) patients, propofol, benzodiazepine+opioids and benzodiazepine alone were used in 45%, 31% and 14% of screening colonoscopies, respectively. Propofol was associated with the highest endoscopist satisfaction (score on a 10-point visual analogue scale, 9.2±1.2 vs. 5.5±1.9 and 4.7±2.0 for benzodiazepine+opioids and benzodiazepine alone, respectively; P<0.0001). NAAP was used by 29.9% of respondents in 9 countries and approximately two-thirds of other endoscopists would consider implementing NAAP. Main reasons for not considering NAAP implementation were medico-legal issues and cost. CONCLUSION: Propofol provides the highest endoscopist satisfaction but it is used in less than half of screening colonoscopies. Propofol is administered by non-anesthesiologists in one-third of settings; its implementation is foreseen by a majority of endoscopists who do not currently use it.

Endoscopy: consensus on approving propofol sedation by nonanesthesiologists.

Propofol sedation by nonanesthesiologists is still a highly controversial issue despite the fact that numerous studies have approved this sedation regimen for gastrointestinal endoscopy. A new position statement from a collaboration of four different American gastroenterology and hepatology societies outlines the latest recommendations for nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol.

Dual access endoscopic necrosectomy of infected pancreatic necrosis: a case report.

A 73-year-old male developed fever and jaundice 6 months after an episode of acute necrotizing pancreatitis. During endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, a distal bile duct compression was documented and stent insertion led to resolution of jaundice, however, the febrile condition persisted. A pancreatic necrosis measuring 11x7 cm was shown by computed tomography (CT) and the patient was referred for necrosectomy. During the first endoscopic session, spontaneous drainage of pus was observed in the duodenal bulb. Therefore, the pancreatic necrosis was first punctured under endoscopic ultrasound-guidance transduodenally. The pancreatic necrosis was then additionally punctured transgastrically and the necrotic cavity was entered with a standard upper gastrointestinal scope. Despite extensive irrigation and necrosectomy we felt the transgastric approach was not sufficient enough to treat the large necrotic cavity and decided to perform the further treatment by using both accesses. Endoscopic debridement was repeated daily through the transgastric as well as the transduodenal approach over 5 days. The clinical condition of the patient dramatically improved and he became afebrile. Two months after the initial endoscopic necrosectomy, a CT scan showed nearly complete resolution of the pancreatic necrosis and the bile duct stenosis resolved. Six months later, CT scans showed no residual necrosis and an atrophic but otherwise normal pancreas.

Propofol sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with liver cirrhosis as an alternative to midazolam to avoid acute deterioration of minimal encephalopathy: a randomized, controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: Midazolam sedation for upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy exacerbates minimal hepatic encephalopathy (HE) in patients with liver cirrhosis, therefore an alternative drug regimen for these patients is warranted. The aim of this randomized, controlled study was to assess whether the use of the short-acting propofol as a sedative for GI endoscopy could prevent the exacerbation of minimal HE in patients with liver cirrhosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study comprised patients with liver cirrhosis without clinical HE who had undergone upper GI endoscopy for therapeutic purposes (intended variceal band ligation). Sixty patients were randomly assigned into two groups to receive propofol (n=40) or midazolam (n=20) for upper GI endoscopy. The study groups were matched for age, gender and Child-Pugh score. All patients completed number connecting tests (NCTs), as well as a porto-systemic encephalopathy (PSE) syndrome test before and at 2 h after completion of the endoscopic procedure. Time needed to fulfill the tests was documented. Baseline results of the psychomotor test batteries were compared with the post-interventional evaluations. Data were also compared with the results of a healthy control group (n=20) that did not undergo endoscopic sedation. Recovery time and quality (score system) were evaluated. RESULTS: The differences in the NCT times before and after sedation (median delta NCT, midazolam group, 11 s (95% CI, -1.2 to 16.1 s) versus the propofol group, -9.5 s (95% CI, -15.7 to -4.6 s), p=0.002) and in the PSE scores (median delta PSE, midazolam group, -1 (95% CI, -1.5 to 0.2) versus the propofol group, 1 (95% CI, 0.5 to 1.5), p=0.0009) differed significantly between the two groups. In addition, the recovery time and quality in patients receiving propofol were significantly improved compared with in the midazolam group (7.8+/-2.9 min versus 18.4+/-6.7 min, 6.1+/-1.1 versus 8.2+/-1.3, both p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates that propofol sedation for upper GI endoscopy does not cause acute deterioration of minimal hepatic encephalopathy and is associated with improved recovery in patients with liver cirrhosis. Propofol should be recommended for these patients as an alternative to midazolam.

Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopist-directed propofol sedation (EDP) remains controversial. We sought to update the safety experience of EDP and estimate the cost of using anesthesia specialists for endoscopic sedation. METHODS: We reviewed all published work using EDP. We contacted all endoscopists performing EDP for endoscopy that we were aware of to obtain their safety experience. These complications were available in all patients: endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and death. RESULTS: A total of 646,080 (223,656 published and 422,424 unpublished) EDP cases were identified. Endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and deaths were 11, 0, and 4, respectively. Deaths occurred in 2 patients with pancreatic cancer, a severely handicapped patient with mental retardation, and a patient with severe cardiomyopathy. The overall number of cases requiring mask ventilation was 489 (0.1%) of 569,220 cases with data available. For sites specifying mask ventilation risk by procedure type, 185 (0.1%) of 185,245 patients and 20 (0.01%) of 142,863 patients required mask ventilation during their esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy, respectively (P < .001). The estimated cost per life-year saved to substitute anesthesia specialists in these cases, assuming they would have prevented all deaths, was $5.3 million. CONCLUSIONS: EDP thus far has a lower mortality rate than that in published data on endoscopist-delivered benzodiazepines and opioids and a comparable rate to that in published data on general anesthesia by anesthesiologists. In the cases described here, use of anesthesia specialists to deliver propofol would have had high costs relative to any potential benefit.

Sedation with propofol for interventional endoscopic procedures: a risk factor analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Propofol sedation for mainly diagnostic endoscopic procedures has proved safe in recent trials, with no need for endotracheal intubation. However, there is evidence that cardiorespiratory side effects occur more frequently and that assisted ventilation may be necessary if propofol sedation is performed for interventional endoscopic procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Over a 6-year period, all adverse events (defined as premature termination of the procedure due to sedation-related events or either the need for assisted ventilation or admission to ICU) occurring during 9547 endoscopic interventions (UGI, n = 5.374, ERCP, n = 3.937, EUS, n=236) under propofol sedation were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 135 adverse events (1.4%) were documented. Assisted ventilation was necessary in 40 patients (0.4%); 9 patients required endotracheal intubation (0.09%); 28 needed further monitoring on the ICU (0.3%); and 4 patients died, 3 potentially due to sedation-related side effects (mortality, 0.03%). Independent risk factors for sedation-related side effects were emergency endoscopic examinations and a total propofol dose >100 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Interventional endoscopy under propofol sedation is not risk-free. Increased attention must be focused on close monitoring of vital parameters, particularly when undertaking long-lasting interventions and emergency procedures.

Routine colonoscopy with a standard gastroscope. A randomized comparative trial in a western population.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal cancer screening increased the workload of colonoscopic procedures in endoscopic units. Recent developments advocated the use of smaller and more flexible scopes to achieve the goal of a complete examination to the cecum. Therefore, the use of an upper GI scope for colonoscopy can be considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six-hundred and fifty consecutive patients (age, 64 +/- 20 years, 395 women) undergoing routine colonoscopy were examined with either a standard colonoscope or an upper GI scope in randomized order. In case of an incomplete examination, colonoscopy was repeated with the alternative instrument in the same session. All patients underwent bowel preparation with 4 1 of a polyethylene glycol solution, and the examinations were performed under conscious sedation (midazolam and pethidine i.v.) by a single investigator. RESULTS: Because of insufficient colonic preparation or refusal to participate, 28 patients had to be excluded. Both groups (colonoscope group, n = 315, upper GI scope group, n = 307) were well comparable with respect to their demographic data, previous abdominal surgery, the presence of diverticulosis, and the number of former colonoscopic examinations, respectively. Successful cecum intubation was achieved in 96% of the cases in the colonoscope group and in 93% of the patients from the upper GI scope group (p = 0.82). However, the time until the cecum was reached was prolonged to 8.7 +/- 2.4 min when using the upper GI scope compared with 8.2 +/- 2.3 min in the colonoscope group (p = 0.006). In the colonoscope group, a switch to the upper GI scope enables a complete colonoscopy in all but three cases (11/14, 79%) whereas this aim was only achieved vice versa in the upper GI scope group (using a colonoscope) in 7 of 21 patients (33%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Routine colonoscopy can be performed effectively with standard upper GI scopes in a western population if no colonoscope is available.