Prospective Pilot Study: Tolerability of Outpatient Penile Plication Under Nursing-Administered Conscious Sedation vs Anesthesiologist-Administered Deep Sedation.

INTRODUCTION: Penile plication is commonly performed for Peyronie's disease under general or spinal anesthesia. Conscious sedation (CS) offers decreased anesthetic risks, cost-effectiveness, and the ability to perform the procedure in outpatient settings with shorter wait times. We sought to compare tolerability of penile plication under deep intravenous sedation (DIS) administered by anesthesiologists and nursing-administered CS (NACS). METHODS: Tolerability for penile plication was prospectively evaluated, excluding revision surgeries and those with hourglass or hinge deformities. DIS included midazolam and ketamine with infusion of propofol and remifentanil. NACS consisted of midazolam and fentanyl. Baseline characteristics, procedural information, and patient- and surgeon-reported pain assessments were collected. Patients were administered a standardized tolerability questionnaire on follow-up. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled (23 DIS; 17 NACS) with similar baseline characteristics. Median curvature of the DIS cohort was 55° (interquartile range = 43.75-76.25) and 45° (interquartile range = 45-60) in NACS. There was a 100% success rate with no procedure abortion or conversion to general anesthetic. On follow-up, all patients had functional curvature (<20°), and 100% of patients in the DIS and NACS cohorts reported that they would recommend CS to others. Over 93% of patients in both cohorts would choose CS over general anesthetic in the future, with no differences in perioperative and postoperative pain between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Penile plication with CS, whether administered by an anesthesiologist or nursing, is well tolerated with no differences in pain or complications. This indicates that outpatient penile plication with trained nursing staff administering CS can safely reduce costs, risks, and wait times.

Dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination versus fentanyl-midazolam for patient sedation during flexible bronchoscopy: a prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sedation during flexible bronchoscopy (FB) should maintain an adequate respiratory drive, ensure maximum comfort for the patient, and warrant that the objectives of the procedure are achieved. Nevertheless, the optimal sedation method for FB has yet to be established. This study aimed to compare the standard recommended combination of midazolam-fentanyl (MF) with that of dexmedetomidine-ketamine (DK) for patient sedation during FB. METHODS: Patients subjected to FB were randomly assigned to a DK (n = 25) and an MF group (n = 25). The primary outcome was the rate of critical desaturation events (arterial oxygen saturation < 80% with nasal oxygen supply 2 L/min). Secondary outcomes included sedation depth, hemodynamic complications, adverse events, and patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction. RESULTS: The incidence rates of critical desaturation events were similar between the two groups (DK: 12% vs. MF: 28%, p = 0.289). DK achieved deeper maximum sedation levels (higher Ramsay - lower Riker scale; p < 0.001) and was associated with longer recovery times (p < 0.001). Both groups had comparable rates of hemodynamic and other complications. Patient satisfaction was similar between the two groups, but bronchoscopist satisfaction was higher with the DK combination (p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: DK demonstrated a good safety profile in patients subjected to FB and achieved more profound sedation and better bronchoscopist satisfaction than the standard MF combination without increasing the rate of adverse events.

Nontraditional approaches to sedation for anterior segment surgery: a narrative review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Surgical and anesthetic technological advancement have made both cataract and noncataract anterior segment surgery significantly less invasive and time-intensive, facilitating the transition of some of these procedures from the operating room under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) to the office-based setting without MAC. This transition has been aided by the popularization of nonintravenous approaches to achieving patient sedation for these procedures. In this review, we discuss the literature surrounding traditional and nontraditional methods of achieving patient sedation for anterior segment surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Our survey of the literature suggests that nonintravenous (IV) approaches to sedation for these procedures may be just as safe, effective, and satisfactory to patients as traditional IV approaches. SUMMARY: As anterior segment surgery becomes less invasive and less time-intensive, providers considering transitioning their cataract and anterior segment surgery out of the operating room and into the office-based setting without MAC anesthesia should consider the non-IV sedation options outlined in this review to achieve adequate patient sedation and comfort.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine for gastroscopy: a double-blinded, randomized cross-over study in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: The benefits of topical pharyngeal anesthesia for gastroscopy remain under debate. Articaine, a local anesthetic with fast onset and offset of action as well as low systemic toxicity, could be a promising choice for topical anesthesia. The objective of this study was to assess whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine is beneficial in sedated gastroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized double-blinded cross-over study included nine volunteers who underwent two gastroscopies under conscious sedation. One was performed with topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine and the other with placebo. Hemodynamic parameters including autonomic nervous system state were recorded prior to and during the endoscopic procedure. The endoscopist and the volunteer assessed the endoscopy after the examination. RESULTS: Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine resulted in less discomfort during esophageal intubation and higher patient satisfaction with the procedure. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine did not increase satisfaction or facilitate the procedure as rated by the endoscopist. There were no clinically relevant differences in hemodynamic parameters. CONCLUSION: The use of articaine for topical pharyngeal anesthesia results in less intubation-related discomfort and better satisfaction.

Factors that influence critical care nurses' management of sedation for ventilated patients in critical care: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Optimising sedation use is key to timely extubation. Whilst sedation protocols may be used to guide critical care nurses' management of sedation, sedation management and decision-making is complex, influenced by multiple factors related to patients' circumstances, intensive care unit design and the workforce. AIM: To explore (i) critical care nurses' experiences managing sedation in mechanically ventilated patients and (ii) the factors that influence their sedation-related decision-making. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's six-step thematic analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study was conducted in a 26-bed level 3 accredited ICU, in a private hospital in Melbourne, Australia. The majority of patients are admitted following elective surgery. Critical care nurses, who were permanently employed as a registered nurse, worked at least 16 h per week, and cared for ventilated patients, were invited to participate. FINDINGS: Thirteen critical care nurses participated. Initially, participants suggested their experiences managing sedation were linked to local unit policy and learning. Further exploration revealed that experiences were synonymous with descriptors of factors influencing sedation decision-making according to three themes: (i) Learning from past experiences, (ii) Situational awareness and (iii) Prioritising safety. Nurses relied on their cumulative knowledge from prior experiences to guide decision-making. Situational awareness about other emergent priorities in the unit, staffing and skill-mix were important factors in guiding sedation decision-making. Safety of patients and staff was essential, at times overriding goals to reduce sedation. CONCLUSION: Sedation decision making cannot be considered in isolation. Rather, sedation decision making must take into account outcomes of patient assessment, emergent priorities, unit and staffing factors and safety concerns. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Opportunities for ongoing education are essential to promote nurses' situational awareness of other emergent unit priorities, staffing and skill-mix, in addition to evidence-based sedation management and decision making.

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.

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.

Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation in patients susceptible to hypoxemia during procedural sedation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hypoxemia is one of the most common adverse events during colonoscopy, particularly among patients who are diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) or are overweight. Consequently, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) ventilation for patients with high-risk hypoxemia during colonoscopy with sedation. METHODS: In this trial, 127 patients who met the eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to the BPAP oxygen group and nasal cannula (NC) group. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoxemia. RESULTS: Compared with the use of NC, BPAP ventilation exhibited a significant reduction in the incidence of hypoxemia, decreasing it from 23.8% to 6.3% (absolute risk difference, 17.5%; 95% confidence interval, 5.4-29.6; P = .006). Importantly, BPAP ventilation prevented the occurrence of severe hypoxemia (9.5% vs 0%; absolute risk difference, 9.5%; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-16.7; P = .035). In addition, the BPAP group required fewer airway interventions (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with OSA or overweight status, the use of BPAP ventilation during colonoscopy significantly reduced the incidence of hypoxemia. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2300073193.).

Effect of moderate versus deep sedation on recovery following outpatient gastroscopy in older patients: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation is increasingly performed in older patients, the optimal level of sedation remains open to debate. In this study, our objective was to compare the effects of moderate sedation (MS) and deep sedation (DS) on recovery following outpatient gastroscopy in elderly patients. METHODS: In this randomized, partially blinded, controlled trial, we randomly divided 270 patients older than 60 years who were scheduled for elective outpatient gastroscopy into the MS or DS group based on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale. The primary outcome was the duration of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Secondary outcomes included the duration of the total hospital stay, frequency of retching, bucking, and body movements during the examination, endoscopist and patient satisfaction, and sedation-associated adverse events during the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 264 patients completed the study, of whom 131 received MS and 133 received DS. MS was associated with a shorter PACU stay [16.15 ± 9.01 min vs. 20.02 ± 11.13 min, P < 0.01] and total hospital stay [27.32 ± 9.86 min vs. 30.82 ± 12.37 min, P < 0.05], lesser hypoxemia [2.3% (3/131) vs. 12.8% (17/133), P < 0.01], use of fewer vasoactive drugs (P < 0.001), and more retching (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the incidence of bucking and body movements or endoscopist and patient satisfaction between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Compared to deep sedation, moderate sedation may be a preferable choice for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade I-III elderly patients undergoing outpatient gastroscopies, as demonstrated by shorter PACU stays and total hospital stays, lower sedation-associated adverse events, and similar levels of endoscopist and patient satisfaction.

Conscious sedation anesthesia using different doses of remifentanil combined with dexmedetomidine for peritoneal dialysis catheter implantation.

BACKGROUND: Conscious sedation anesthesia (CSA) is an anesthetic method during peritoneal dialysis catheter implantation. However, lack of optimal CSA strategies for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). This study aimed to evaluate the analgesic effects and safety of CSA using different doses of remifentanil combined with dexmedetomidine during peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion. METHODS: Patients who underwent peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter placement via open surgical incision were retrospectively analyzed and divided into three groups based on the tertile dose of remifentanil. The bispectral index (BIS) was used to monitor the depth of anesthesia. Data regarding clinical findings, the effects of anesthesia, and the incidence of drug-related adverse effects were collected. RESULTS: In total, 102 patients completed the surgery successfully and safely. The dose of remifentanil was 0.02-0.07 µg/kg/min, 0.08-0.13 µg/kg/min, and 0.14-0.20 µg/kg/min in Groups A, B, and C, respectively. Only seven patients reported mild pain during the surgery. No significant differences were observed among the numeric rating scale scores of the three groups (p > 0.05). Intraoperative hemodynamics were stable. The incidence of respiratory depression was 8.3%, 20.0%, and 41.9% in Groups A, B, and C, respectively (p < 0.01). The incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms in Group C (51.6%) was higher than that in Groups A and B (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Low-dose remifentanil (0.02-0.07 µg/kg/min) combined with dexmedetomidine achieved satisfactory anesthetic effects with fewer adverse drug reactions during PD catheter implantation, indicating its potential for use in patients undergoing PD catheter placement.