Deep sedation with propofol does not precipitate hepatic encephalopathy during elective upper endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The risk of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) precipitated by propofol has not been established. OBJECTIVE: To know whether the use of propofol for endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis induces minimal or overt HE. DESIGN: A cohort study. SETTING: A tertiary-referral university hospital endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: Patients with cirrhosis who received an endoscopy with propofol sedation. We excluded patients with clinical HE. A group of patients without liver disease was included to compare the incidence of adverse effects. INTERVENTIONS: Minimal HE (MHE) was diagnosed by using the psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score (PHES) battery of psychometric tests. Cognitive status before and 1 hour after the endoscopy was evaluated by measuring the critical flicker frequency (CFF). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Overt and minimal HE. RESULTS: Twenty patients with cirrhosis and 20 patients without cirrhosis were included. There were no differences between groups in the incidence of adverse effects. Thirteen patients (65%) had MHE before the endoscopy. No patient developed overt HE after sedation. We did not observe differences in CFF before and after sedation in patients without MHE: median (25th-75th percentile), 40.8 Hz (37.1-46.0 Hz) versus 41.1 Hz (36.0-44.3 Hz), P = .8). None of the patients who were without MHE showed a decrease in the CFF under the cutoff of 39 Hz after sedation. There were not significant changes in CFF before and after propofol sedation in patients previously diagnosed of MHE: median (25th-75th percentile), 40.6 Hz (36.8-49.1 Hz) versus 42.7 Hz (36.8-52.4 Hz), P = .08. LIMITATION: A small number of patients were included in the study. CONCLUSIONS: The use of propofol in the sedation of patients with cirrhosis during endoscopic procedures does not precipitate minimal or overt HE.

Cytokine association with bacterial DNA in serum of patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: The pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) involves the interaction between genetic susceptibility, mucosal immunity, and intestinal bacteria. Bacterial translocation is a common event in these patients and plays an important role in the perpetuation of chronic intestinal inflammation. Blood microbiological cultures, however, are frequently negative. The aim was to evaluate the presence of bacterial DNA (bactDNA) and the associated cytokine response in patients with IBD. METHODS: Fifteen healthy donors, 29 patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), and 33 patients with Crohn's disease (CD) were studied. The presence of bactDNA was pursued by PCR followed by nucleotide sequencing analysis. Microbiological cultures were carried out among all controls and patients. Cytokine serum levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: BactDNA was detected in 14 out of 33 patients with CD (42.4%) and in 15 out of 29 patients with UC (51.7%). BactDNA translocation was present in 7 out of 21 (33%) and in 10 out of 15 (34%) patients with CD and UC in remission, respectively. None of healthy controls showed bactDNA in serum. A statistically significant increase in all Th1-derived cytokines in CD but not in UC patients with the presence of bactDNA was observed in comparison with patients without bactDNA and controls. CONCLUSIONS: BactDNA is present in IBD patients, irrespective of their disease activity. This fact is associated with a marked Th1-driven immune reaction in CD patients, even in those in remission. Whether bactDNA is inducing or is favored by an increased inflammatory scenario in these patients remains under discussion.

[Safety of propofol administration by the staff of a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit]. / Seguridad de la administración de propofol por el personal de la unidad de endoscopia digestiva.

Deep sedation controlled by the staff of gastrointestinal endoscopy units is currently controversial. In the last few years, numerous studies have provided data supporting the safety of propofol use in these techniques. We present a large series of patients who underwent gastroscopy or colonoscopy under endoscopist-controlled deep sedation. A total of 875 procedures (297 gastroscopies and 578 colonoscopies) were included. In all procedures intravenous propofol with or without intravenous midazolam was administered. In gastroscopies, complications attributable to the sedation were found in only 6.7% of the patients, mostly due to desaturation, which was resolved without the need for intubation. In colonoscopies, complications were found in 11.2%, the most frequent being bradycardia and desaturation, none of which were serious. No association was found between the presence of complications and the propofol dose administered. In the group of patients undergoing colonoscopy, simultaneous midazolam administration allowed reduction of the propofol dose required to achieve deep sedation. In conclusion, propofol shows a good safety profile and excellent tolerance in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy and can be administrated by the endoscopy team. At least in the case of colonoscopy, the associated use of midazolam allows the propofol dose to be decreased, thus, theoretically, reducing the drug's adverse effects.