Value of integrated pulmonary index monitoring for the detection of adverse respiratory events in patients undergoing sedation for gastrointestinal system endoscopy.

Objectives: To determine if the integrated pulmonary index detects changes in ventilation status early in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy under sedation, and to determine the risk factors affecting hypoxia. METHODS: The retrospective study was conducted at the endoscopy unit of a tertiary university hospital in Turkey and comprised data between October 2018 and December 2019 related to patients of either gender aged >18 years who were assessed as American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade I-III and underwent elective lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Monitoring was done with capnography in addition to standard procedures. Data was analysed using SPSS 23. RESULTS: Of the 154 patients, 94(%) were females and 60(%) were males. The overall mean age was 50.88±11.8 years (range: 20-70 years). Mean time under anaesthesia was 23.58±4.91 minutes and mean endoscopy time was 21.73±5.06 minutes. During the procedure, hypoxia was observed in 42(27.3%) patients, severe hypoxia in 23(14.9%) and apnoea in 70(45.5%). Mean time between apnoea and hypoxia was 12.59±7.99 seconds, between apnoea and serious hypoxia 21.07±17.64 seconds, between integrated pulmonary index score 1 and hypoxia 12.91±8.17 sec, between integrated pulmonary index score 1 and serious hypoxia 21.59±14.13 seconds, between integrated pulmonary index score <7 and hypoxia 19.63±8.89 seconds, between integrated pulmonary index score <7 and serious hypoxia 28.39±12.66 seconds, between end-tidal carbon dioxide and hypoxia 12.95±8.33 seconds, and between end-tidal carbon dioxide and serious hypoxia 21.29±7.55 seconds. With integrated pulmonary index score 1, sensitivity value for predicting hypoxia and severe hypoxia was 88.1% and 95.7%, respectively, and specificity was 67% and 60.3%, respectively. With integrated pulmonary index score <7, the corresponding values were 100%, 100%, 42% and 64.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Capnographic monitoring, especially the follow-up integrated pulmonary index score, was found to be valuable and reliable in terms of finding both time and accuracy of the risk factor in the diagnosis of respiratory events.

Procedural sedation by advanced practice providers in the emergency medical service in the Netherlands: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is a technique of administering sedatives to induce a state that allows the patient to tolerate painful procedures while maintaining cardiorespiratory function, a condition that is frequently desired prehospital. Non-physician prehospital clinicians often have a limited scope of practice when it comes to providing analgesia and sedation; sometimes resulting in a crew request for back-up from physician-staffed prehospital services.". This is also the case if sedation is desirable. Advanced practice providers (APPs), who are legally authorized and trained to carry out this procedure, may be a solution when the physician-staffed service is not available or will not be available in time. METHODS: The aim of this study is to gain insight in the circumstances in which an APP, working at the Dutch ambulance service "RAV Brabant MWN" from January 2019 to December 2022, uses propofol for PSA or to provide sedation. With this a retrospective observational document study we describe the characteristics of patients and ambulance runs and evaluates the interventions in terms of safety. RESULTS: During the study period, the APPs administered propofol 157 times for 135 PSA and in 22 cases for providing sedation. The most common indication was musculoskeletal trauma such as fracture care or the reduction of joint dislocation. In 91% of the situations where propofol was used, the predetermined goal e.g. alignment of fractured extremity, repositioning of luxated joint or providing sedation the goal was achieved. There were 12 cases in which one or more adverse events were documented and all were successfully resolved by the APP. There were no cases of laryngospam, airway obstruction, nor anaphylaxis. None of the adverse events led to unexpected hospitalization or death. CONCLUSION: During the study period, the APPs performed 135 PSAs and provided 22 sedations. The success rate of predetermined goals was higher than that stated in the literature. Although there were a number of side effects, their incidences were lower than those reported in the literature, and these were resolved by the APP during the episode of care. Applying a PSA by an APP at the EMS "RAV Brabant MWN" appears to be safe with a high success rate.

Comparison of dmft and behavior rating scores between children with systemic disease and healthy children at the first dental visit.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare oral health and behavior scores at the first dental visit and dental treatment need using general anesthesia/sedation (GA/S) of children with systemic diseases (SD) and healthy children. METHODS: Data were obtained from healthy children (n = 87) and children with SD (n = 79), aged 4 to 6 years, presenting to a hospital dental clinic for a first dental examination. The total number of decayed, missing and filled teeth (dmft), dental behavior score using Frankl Scale, and dental treatment need using GA/S were recorded. Chi-square / Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: The patients with SD were diagnosed with cardiac disease (61%), renal disease (9%), and pediatric cancers (30%). The median dmft values of the SD group (3.00) were significantly lower than those of healthy children (5.00) (p = 0.02) and healthy children exhibited significantly more positive behavior (90.8%) than children with SD (73.4%) (p = 0.002). The number of patients needing GA/S for dental treatment did not differ significantly between the two groups (p = 0.185). There was no relationship between dental treatment need with GA/S and dental behavior scores of the patients (p = 0.05). A statistically significant relationship was found between the patients' dmft scores and the need for dental treatment using GA/S; and the cut-off value was found to be dmft > 4 for the overall comparisons. CONCLUSION: The presence of chronic disease in children appeared to affect the cooperation negatively at the first dental visit compared to healthy controls, however, it did not affect the oral health negatively. Having a negative behavior score or SD did not necessitate the use of GA/S for dental treatment.

A prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA: REST trial design.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam is safe and effective for moderate sedation during flexible bronchoscopy, but its safety and efficacy during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) remains undetermined. The REST trial (NCT06275594) will be a prospective randomized study of remimazolam in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA with conscious sedation. The primary aim is to evaluate whether remimazolam is safe and effective for moderate sedation during EBUS-TBNA compared to real-world midazolam and on-label midazolam. METHODS: The REST trial will recruit 330 patients from four university hospitals with mediastinal lesions suspected of being lung cancer who are eligible for EBUS-TBNA under moderate sedation. The participants will be randomized into groups using remimazolam, real-world midazolam, and on-label midazolam (US prescribing information dosage) to perform EBUS-TBNA for procedural sedation. The primary endpoint will be procedural success using composite measures. DISCUSSION: The REST trial will prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam during EBUS-TBNA under moderate sedation. It will provide information for optimizing sedation modalities and contribute to practical benefits in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06275594). Prospectively registered on 15 February 2024.

Clinical usefulness of nebulized dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation in daycare flexible bronchoscopy in Southern India.

BACKGROUND: Sedative agents used in bronchoscopy require trained personnel to administer and monitor the patient. This increases the procedure cost, duration, and inpatient stay. Inhalational administration of sedative agents can be a practical solution to the issue. Dexmedetomidine in the inhalational form could give results similar to the intravenous form without significant adverse events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study is prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study. Patients needing bronchoscopy were randomized to receive the nebulized form of either dexmedetomidine or saline (0.9%) before bronchoscopy. The study parameters are assessed and recorded before, during, and after bronchoscopy. Data collected are analyzed using the SPSS software. DISCUSSION: The side effects limit using commonly administered sedation agents in bronchoscopy, such as midazolam, fentanyl, and dexmedetomidine. The nebulized dexmedetomidine is safe with proven efficacy when compared to the placebo. Proceduralist-administered conscious sedation reduces the overall cost and shortens inpatient stays. Attenuation of hemodynamic parameters by dexmedetomidine could be an advantage for the physician in reducing an untoward cardiac event. CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine in the nebulized form improves the comfort of patients during the procedure. It blunts the pressure response during bronchoscopy and could be a safer and cost-effective agent in its nebulized form for conscious sedation in bronchoscopy. The study is approved by the institutional ethics committee (IEC KMC MLR 10-2021-310).

Association between Colonoscopy Sedation Type and Polyp Detection: A Registry-based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Adenomas and serrated polyps are precursors of colorectal cancer, with serrated polyps being more difficult to detect during colonoscopy. The relationship between propofol use and polyp detection remains unclear. The authors investigated the association of propofol-based versus mild-moderate sedation on adenoma and serrated polyp detection during colonoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used observational data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Patients aged greater than 50 yr with screening or surveillance colonoscopies between January 1, 2015, and February 28, 2020, were included. Exclusions were diagnostic examinations, no sedation, missing pathology data, and poor bowel preparation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate differences in polyp detection between propofol and moderate sedation in the full sample while adjusting for covariates. Propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level were used in a restricted sample analysis that included endoscopists and facilities with between 5% and 95% propofol sedation use. RESULTS: A total of 54,063 colonoscopies were analyzed in the full sample and 18,998 in the restricted sample. Serrated polyp prevalence was significantly higher using propofol (9,957 of 29,312; 34.0% [95% CI, 33.4 to 34.5%]) versus moderate sedation (6,066 of 24,751; 24.5% [95% CI, 24.0 to 25.1%]) in the full sample and restricted samples (1,410 of 4,661; 30.3% [95% CI, 28.9 to 31.6%] vs. 3,690 of 14,337; 25.7% [95% CI, 25.0 to 26.5%]). In the full sample multivariate logistic regression, propofol was associated with higher neoplasm (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.29]), adenoma (odds ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11]), and serrated polyp detection (odds ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.46 to 1.57]). In the restricted sample using inverse probability of treatment weighted propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level, an attenuated but statistically significant effect size was observed for serrated polyps (odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.19]), but not for adenomas (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.05]) or any neoplastic lesion (odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.08]). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol sedation during colonoscopy may be associated with improved detection of serrated polyps, but not adenomas.

Optimal flow of high-flow nasal cannula oxygenation to prevent desaturation during sedation for bronchoscopy: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Although high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygenation is currently recommended to prevent desaturation during sedation for bronchoscopy, there is no consensus on an optimal flow rate. OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal oxygen flow rate for HFNC to effectively prevent desaturation during sedation for bronchoscopy. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, and controlled study. METHODS: Patients (n = 240) scheduled for bronchoscopy were randomized to receive HFNC with propofol sedation (fraction of inspired oxygen, 100%) at one of six flow rates of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 L/min, designated as groups 1-6, respectively. RESULTS: The incidence of desaturation significantly decreased by increasing the oxygen flow rate (42.5%, 17.5%, 15%, 10%, 2.5%, and 0% for groups 1-6, respectively, p < 0.0001). The optimal oxygen flow rate for HFNC determined by probit regression to effectively prevent desaturation in 95% of patients was 43.20 (95% confidence interval, 36.43-55.96) L/min. The requirement for airway intervention was significantly decreased by increasing the oxygen flow rate. CONCLUSION: An HFNC flow rate of 50-60 L/min is recommended to prevent desaturation during sedation for bronchoscopy. REGISTRATION: NCT05298319 at ClinicalTrials.gov.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygenation during bronchoscopyMany patients undergo a special test to check their airways for problems. Sometimes, doctors need to take out a small part of the area that's causing trouble to find out what's wrong. But during this test, some patients can struggle to get enough oxygen, which can even be life-threatening. To help with this, there's a device called a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). It gives patients adjustable amounts of oxygen, like a gentle breeze into their nose. But doctors weren't sure how much oxygen was best during this test. So, we studied 240 patients using HFNC at different oxygen levels­like slow, medium, and fast flows. We found that the higher the oxygen flow, the less likely patients were to have oxygen problems. For example, at the lowest flow (10 liters per minute), about 42.5% of patients had oxygen trouble, but at the highest flow (60 liters per minute), none did. And we figured out that a flow rate around 43.2 liters per minute would prevent 95% patients from having oxygen problems. So, we recommend using a flow rate between 50 and 60 liters per minute during this test to keep patients safe from oxygen issues.

The efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Propofol is a commonly utilized anesthetic for painless colonoscopy, but its usage is occasionally limited due to its potential side effects, including cardiopulmonary suppression and injection pain. To address this limitation, the novel compound ciprofol has been proposed as a possible alternative for propofol. This study sought to determine whether there are any differences in the safety and efficacy of propofol and ciprofol for painless colonoscopy. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Single-centre, class A tertiary hospital, November 2021 to November 2022. PATIENTS: Adult, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I to II and body mass index of 18 to 30 kg m-2 patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Consecutive patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive sedation for colonoscopy with ciprofol (group C) or propofol (group P). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the success rate of colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes were onset time of sedation, operation time, recovery time and discharge time, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, side effects (e.g. injection pain, myoclonus, drowsiness, dizziness, procedure recall, nausea and vomiting) and incidence rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the success rate of colonoscopy between the two groups (ciprofol 96.3% vs. propofol 97.6%; mean difference - 1.2%, 95% CI: -6.5% to 4.0%, P = 0.650). However, group C showed prolonged sedation (63.4 vs. 54.8 s, P < 0.001) and fully alert times (9 vs 8 min, P = 0.013), as well as reduced incidences of injection pain (0 vs. 40.2%, P < 0.001), respiratory depression (2.4% vs. 13.4%, P = 0.021) and hypotension (65.9% vs. 80.5%, P = 0.034). Patients satisfaction was also higher in Group C (10 vs 9, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ciprofol can be used independently for colonoscopy. When comparing the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and propofol, a 0.4 mg kg-1 dose of ciprofol proved to be equal to a 2.0 mg kg-1 dose of propofol, with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction during the procedure.

Safety and efficacy of remifentanil target-controlled infusion for conscious sedation in a pregnant woman: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Every year 2% of pregnant women undergo nonobstetric surgical interventions worldwide. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice, pregnant women should never be denied the most appropriate surgical treatment, regardless of the trimester of pregnancy. However, additional attention should be paid during the first trimester since it has the highest risk of inducing teratogenic mutations; additionally, during the third trimester, due to the possibility of preterm birth and low birth weight of the newborn, great care should be paid. CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a Caucasian 36-year-old woman during her 21st week of pregnancy, with a normal-sized fetus, according to the gestational age on ultrasound exam, and with no additional risk factors. The patient referred to an increasing nasal obstruction associated with rhinorrhea of the left nasal cavity. She also reported episodes of sleep apnea and hyposmia. The patient received a detailed otolaryngological examination, which allowed for identification of a mass within the left nasal cavity. The subsequent nasal endoscopy confirmed a grayish polypoid mass lesion with a multinodular surface occupying the entire left nasal fossa. The lesion totally obliterated the left maxillary sinus, resulting in obstruction of the anterior osteomeatal unit and ethmoidal sinusitis. She was referred for a functional endoscopic sinus surgery using analgosedation with remifentanil target-controlled infusion. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: To the very best of our knowledge, this is the first case described in English literature about the use of analgosedation with remifentanil target-controlled infusion for otolaryngology surgery, specifically in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. It could be an interesting option to avoid the use of inhaled anesthetics that could induce fetal damage, especially during the first months of pregnancy. Furthermore, patient intubation is not necessary, which avoids cases of difficult intubation or any trauma to the airways. An adequate informed consent and appropriate compliance are elements of paramount importance in tailoring the anesthetic strategy for pregnant women who need nonobstetric surgical management.

Patient-Reported Quality of Recovery after Sedation for Endoscopy in the Elderly.

INTRODUCTION: Although sedation is critical in minimizing discomforts in patients, conflicting data regarding the safety of sedation among the elderly population exist. This prospective study aimed to compare the quality of recovery (QoR) from gastrointestinal endoscopy performed under sedation between elderly and younger patients. METHODS: We included 177 patients aged 40-64 (group 1, n = 66), 65-79 (group 2, n = 76), and ≥80 (group 3, n = 35) years. QoR was assessed 1 day after the procedure using the quality of recovery 15 (QoR-15) questionnaire, which is a 15-item questionnaire with scores ranging from 0 to 150. Patient demographic, procedural, and sedation data were collected, and neurocognitive function was assessed before and a day after sedation. RESULTS: Groups 1 and 3 differed according to the Mini-Cog test and 3-word memory test performed before the procedure (p < 0.001). QoR-15 scores between groups were not different (139 ± 19 group 1, 141 ± 17 group 2, and 147 ± 26 group 3; p > 0.05). Patients in groups 3 and 2 were administered lower doses of propofol and midazolam than those in group 1. The incidence of oxygen desaturation (SaO2 <90% for >30 s) was lower in groups 1 and 2 than in group 3 (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: As indicated by the QoR-15 questionnaire, the QoR from sedation was not significantly different between the study groups.

Randomized, Single-Blind, Comparative Study of Remimazolam Besylate vs Propofol for Facial Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Use of local anesthesia and conscious sedation with a combination of a sedative and anesthetic drug during a surgical procedure is an approach designed to avoid intubation, which produces fewer adverse events compared to general anesthesia. In the present study, a comparison was made between the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate and propofol for facial plastic surgery. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate the clinical efficacy, comfort, and incidence of adverse events of remimazolam compared with propofol combined with alfentanil in outpatient facial plastic surgery. METHODS: In this randomized, single-blind, single-center, comparative study, facial plastic surgery patients were randomly divided into remimazolam-alfentanil (n = 50) and propofol-alfentanil (n = 50) groups for sedation and analgesia. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoxemia, while secondary endpoints included efficacy and safety evaluations. RESULTS: There were no significant differences regarding the surgical procedure, sedation and induction times, pain and comfort scores, muscle strength recovery, heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure, but the dosage of alfentanil administered to the remimazolam group (387.5 µg) was lower than that for the propofol group (600 µg). The incidence of hypoxemia (P = .046) and towing of the mandibular (P = .028), as well as wake-up (P = .027) and injection pain (P = .008), were significantly higher in the propofol group than the remimazolam group. CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam and propofol had similar efficacies for sedation and analgesia during facial plastic surgery, but especially the incidence of respiratory depression was significantly lower in patients given remimazolam.

Transnasal endoscopy ease score "TNEase score" to evaluate patient tolerance of unsedated transnasal endoscopy.

Transnasal endoscopy (TNE) with virtual reality (VR) distraction allows for unsedated pediatric upper endoscopy. Understanding the pediatric population that is successful with TNE is imperative for patient selection and experience. We developed a "TNEase Score" to assess patient tolerance from the physician's assessment. The aim of this study was to identify factors that influence patient's acceptance and tolerability of sedation-free TNE in pediatric patients undergoing the procedure. From March 2020 to April 2021, 110 TNEs were performed on subjects 5-22 years of age. The overall completion rate was 98.1%. Of these subjects, 66 subjects (60%) were graded by the gastroenterologist as TNEase Score 1 (with ease); 27 subjects (25%) were graded as TNEase Score 2 (minimal complaints); nine subjects (8%) were graded as TNEase score 3 (moderate complaints, required frequent reassurance); six subjects were graded as TNEase Score 4 (significant complaints and resistance); two subjects (2%) were graded as TNEase Score 5 (procedure terminated). Feasibility of TNE was significantly related to age, height, and whether the patient had undergone previous TNE. Thus, young age, shorter height, and first time TNE were significant predictors of higher TNEase score or difficulty tolerating TNE. Factors examined that did not predict higher TNEase score included gender, junior versus senior endoscopist, past medical history of anxiety, autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or history of using a nasal spray at home. "TNEase score" allowed grading of the subject's experience and the majority of patients tolerated TNE with minimal complaints.

Stubborn hypoxemia after mild to moderate sedation and analgesia: A case report.

INTRODUCTION: Atelectasis typically denotes the partial or complete collapse of lung segments, lobes, or lobules in individuals, leading to a compromised respiratory function. The prevalence of perioperative atelectasis may be significantly underestimated, particularly among patients subjected to general anesthesia. PATIENT CONCERNS: This article conducts a retrospective analysis of a case involving refractory hypoxemia in a patient with a liver tumor who was admitted to Yanbian University Affiliated Hospital (Yanbian Hospital) after undergoing mild-to-moderate sedation and analgesia outside the operating room. DIAGNOSIS: Based on the results of CT examination and present history, the patient was diagnosed with intraoperative atelectasis. INTERVENTION: After the surgery, the patient was transferred to the recovery ward, where nasal oxygen therapy and nebulized inhalation treatment were administered. Vital signs were closely monitored at the bedside, gradually returning to the preoperative baseline. OUTCOME: Postoperatively, the patient developed atelectasis, with the percentage of lung opacity shown in the image decreasing from 9.2% of the total thoracic cage area to 8.4%. CONCLUSION: During non-intubated intravenous anesthesia, patients with compromised pulmonary conditions are more susceptible to refractory hypoxemia. Therefore, a personalized approach should be adopted regarding oxygen concentration and the dosage and type of medication. Additionally, preparations for appropriate airway management measures are essential to safeguard patient safety in the event of respiratory issues.

Pharmacological agents for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department and intensive care unit: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of various i.v. pharmacologic agents used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED) and ICU. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to enable direct and indirect comparisons between available medications. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed from inception to 2 March 2023 for RCTs comparing two or more procedural sedation and analgesia medications in all patients (adults and children >30 days of age) requiring emergent procedures in the ED or ICU. We focused on the outcomes of sedation recovery time, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). We performed frequentist random-effects model network meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty in estimates. RESULTS: We included 82 RCTs (8105 patients, 78 conducted in the ED and four in the ICU) of which 52 studies included adults, 23 included children, and seven included both. Compared with midazolam-opioids, recovery time was shorter with propofol (mean difference 16.3 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4-24.3 fewer minutes; high certainty), and patient satisfaction was better with ketamine-propofol (mean difference 1.5 points, 95% CI 0.3-2.6 points, high certainty). Regarding AEs, compared with midazolam-opioids, respiratory AEs were less frequent with ketamine (relative risk [RR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96; high certainty), gastrointestinal AEs were more common with ketamine-midazolam (RR 3.08, 95% CI 1.15-8.27; high certainty), and neurological AEs were more common with ketamine-propofol (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.08-12.53; high certainty). CONCLUSION: When considering procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED and ICU, compared with midazolam-opioids, sedation recovery time is shorter with propofol, patient satisfaction is better with ketamine-propofol, and respiratory adverse events are less common with ketamine.

Association of ketamine use during procedural sedation with oxygen desaturation and healthcare utilisation: a multicentre retrospective hospital registry study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the effects of ketamine on desaturation and the risk of nursing home discharge in patients undergoing procedural sedation by anaesthetists. METHODS: We included adult patients who underwent procedures under monitored anaesthetic care between 2005 and 2021 at two academic healthcare networks in the USA. The primary outcome was intraprocedural oxygen desaturation, defined as oxygen saturation <90% for ≥2 consecutive minutes. The co-primary outcome was a nursing home discharge. RESULTS: Among 234,170 included patients undergoing procedural sedation, intraprocedural desaturation occurred in 5.6% of patients who received ketamine vs 5.2% of patients who did not receive ketamine (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.29, P<0.001; adjusted absolute risk difference [ARDadj] 1%, 95% CI 0.7-1.3%, P<0.001). The effect was magnified by age >65 yr, smoking, or preprocedural ICU admission (P-for-interaction <0.001, ORadj 1.35, 95% CI 1.25-1.45, P<0.001; ARDadj 2%, 95% CI 1.56-2.49%, P<0.001), procedural risk factors (upper endoscopy of longer than 2 h; P-for-interaction <0.001, ORadj 2.91, 95% CI 1.85-4.58, P<0.001; ARDadj 16.2%, 95% CI 9.8-22.5%, P<0.001), and high ketamine dose (P-for-trend <0.001, ORadj 1.61, 95% CI, 1.43-1.81 for ketamine >0.5 mg kg-1). Concomitant opioid administration mitigated the risk (P-for-interaction <0.001). Ketamine was associated with higher odds of nursing home discharge (ORadj 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.21, P=0.012; ARDadj 0.25%, 95% CI 0.05-0.46%, P=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine use for procedural sedation was associated with an increased risk of oxygen desaturation and discharge to a nursing home. The effect was dose-dependent and magnified in subgroups of vulnerable patients.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

The Impact of Sedation on Cardio-Cerebrovascular Adverse Events after Surveillance Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study.

Background/Aims: The impact of sedation on cardio-cerebrovascular (CCV) adverse events after esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients with gastric cancer (GC) is unclear. We investigated the incidence rate and impact of sedation on CCV adverse events after surveillance EGD in patients with GC. Methods: We performed a nationwide population-based cohort study using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service databases from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. Using a propensity score-matched analysis, patients with GC were divided into two groups: sedative agent users and nonusers for surveillance EGD. We compared the occurrence of CCV adverse events within 14 days between the two groups. Results: Of the 103,463 patients with GC, newly diagnosed CCV adverse events occurred in 2.57% of patients within 14 days after surveillance EGD. Sedative agents were used in 41.3% of the patients during EGD. The incidence rates of CCV adverse events with and without sedation were 173.6/10,000 and 315.4/10,000, respectively. Between sedative agent users and nonusers based on propensity score matching (28,008 pairs), there were no significant differences in the occurrence of 14-day CCV, cardiac, cerebral, and other vascular adverse events (2.28% vs 2.22%, p=0.69; 1.44% vs 1.31%, p=0.23; 0.74% vs 0.84%, p=0.20; 0.10% vs 0.07%, p=0.25, respectively). Conclusions: Sedation during surveillance EGD was not associated with CCV adverse events in patients with GC. Therefore, the use of sedative agents may be considered in patients with GC during surveillance EGD without excessive concerns about CCV adverse events.