Implementation of the Aldrete score reduces recovery time after non-anesthesiologist-administered procedural sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Background and study aims Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) by trained non-anesthesiologist physicians and/or nurses is often performed during endoscopic procedures. Discharge from the recovery area after monitored observation is frequently based on fixed time parameters or subjective clinical assessment. In this study, the effect of implementation of the Aldrete score on recovery time after procedural sedation was analyzed in a real-life setting. Patients and methods A prospective observational study of patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia during gastroscopy, colonoscopy or endoscopic ultrasound was performed. All procedures were randomly included to represent a real-life situation with different endoscopists, recovery nurses, endoscopy systems and indications. After a first observation period, all endoscopy nurses were trained to implement the Aldrete score when discharging patients, followed by a second observation period. Results During the first observation period, the average time spent in the recovery area was 59 ±â€Š22 minutes after procedural sedation. After implementation of the Aldrete score, the recovery time decreased significantly to 47 ±â€Š25 minutes ( P  < 0.01) with identical doses of procedural sedation and analgesia. The decrease in time was between 19 % and 35 % for the different endoscopic procedures. Conclusions Implementation of the Aldrete score after procedural sedation and analgesia significantly reduces the time spent in the recovery area. The score can be used to safely implement a discharge policy that provides more efficient and standardized management for an endoscopy service.

The effect of an air purifier on aerosol generation measurements during clinical motility testing.

BACKGROUND: Aerosol spread is key to interpret the risk of viral contamination during clinical procedures such as esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM). Installing an air purifier seems a legitimate strategy, but this has recently been questioned. METHODS: Patients undergoing an HRM procedure at the Leuven University Hospital were included in this clinical study. All subjects had to wear a surgical mask which was only lowered beneath the nose during the placement and removal of the nasogastric catheter. The number of aerosol particles was measured by a Lasair® II Particle Counter to obtain data about different particles sizes: 0.3; 0.5; 1.0; 3.0; 5.0; and 10.0 µm. Measurements were done immediately before the placement and the removal of the HRM catheter, and one and 5 min after. A portable air purifier with high-efficiency particle air filters was installed in the hospital room. KEY RESULTS: Thirteen patients underwent a manometry examination. The amount of 0.3 µm-sized particles was unaffected during the whole procedure. The larger particle sizes (1.0; 3.0; 5.0; and 10.0 µm) decreased when the catheter was positioned, but not 0.5 µm. During the HRM measurements itself, these numbers decreased further. Yet, 1 min after catheter removal a significant elevation of particles was seen, which did not recover within 5 min. CONCLUSIONS & INTERFERENCES: Based on this study, there is no evidence that filtration systems reduce aerosol particles properly during a clinical investigation.