Obesity as a risk factor for sedation-related complications during propofol-mediated sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the safety of anesthesia-assisted endoscopy by using propofol-mediated sedation in obese individuals undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures (AEPs). OBJECTIVE: To study the association between obesity (as measured by body mass index [BMI]) and the frequency of sedation-related complications (SRCs) in patients undergoing AEPs. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: A total of 1016 consecutive patients undergoing AEPs (BMI <30, 730 [72%]; 30-35, 159 [16%]; >35, 127 [12%]). INTERVENTION: Monitored anesthesia sedation with propofol alone or in combination with benzodiazepines and/or opioids. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: SRCs, airway maneuvers (AMs), hypoxemia, hypotension requiring vasopressors, and early procedure termination were compared across 3 groups. RESULTS: There were 203 AMs in 13.9% of patients, hypoxemia in 7.3%, need for vasopressors in 0.8%, and premature termination in 0.6% of patients. Increasing BMI was associated with an increased frequency of AMs (BMI <30, 10.5%; 30-35, 18.9%; >35-26.8%; P < .001) and hypoxemia (BMI <30, 5.3%; 30-35, 9.4%; >35, 13.4%; P = .001); there was no difference in the frequency of need for vasopressors (P = .254) and premature termination of procedures (P = .401). On multivariable analysis, BMI (odds ratio [OR] 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.1), age (OR 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1), and American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 or higher (OR 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.0) were independent predictors of SRCs. In obese individuals (n = 286), there was no difference in the frequency of SRCs in patients receiving propofol alone or in combination (P = .48). LIMITATIONS: Single tertiary center study. CONCLUSIONS: Although obesity was associated with an increased frequency of SRCs, propofol sedation can be used safely in obese patients undergoing AEPs when administered by trained professionals.

A screening instrument for sleep apnea predicts airway maneuvers in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Among patients undergoing advanced endoscopy, unrecognized obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) could predict sedation-related complications (SRCs) and the need for airway maneuvers (AMs). By using an OSA screening tool, we sought to define the prevalence of patients at high risk for OSA and to correlate OSA with the frequency of AMs and SRCs. METHODS: We enrolled 231 consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (n = 176) and endoscopic ultrasound (n = 55). Propofol-based sedation and patient monitoring were performed by a nurse anesthetist and an anesthesiologist. A previously validated screening tool for OSA (STOP-BANG) was used to identify patients at high risk for OSA (score, > or =3 of 8; SB+) or low risk (SB-). AMs were defined as a chin lift, modified mask ventilation, nasal airway, bag-mask ventilation, and endotracheal intubation. SRCs were defined as any duration of pulse oximetry less than 90%, systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg, apnea, or early procedure termination. RESULTS: The prevalence of SB+ was 43.3%. The frequency of hypoxemia was significantly higher among patients with SB+ than SB- (12.0% vs 5.2%; relative risk [RR], 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-2.54). The rate of AMs was also significantly higher among SB+ (20.0%) compared with SB- (6.1%) patients (RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.4). These rates remained significant after adjusting for American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 or higher (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.28-2.2 for AMs; RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.19-2.25 for hypoxemia). Each element of the STOP-BANG was reported more commonly in SB+ patients (P < .0001 for each comparison). CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures are at risk for OSA. AMs and hypoxemia occur at an increased frequency in these patients.

Incidence of sedation-related complications with propofol use during advanced endoscopic procedures.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Propofol is an effective sedative in advanced endoscopy. However, the incidence of sedation-related complications is unclear. We sought to define the frequency of sedation-related adverse events, particularly the rate of airway modifications (AMs), with propofol use during advanced endoscopy. We also evaluated independent predictors of AMs. METHODS: Patients undergoing sedation with propofol for advanced endoscopic procedures, including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound, and small-bowel enteroscopy, were studied prospectively. Sedative dosing was determined by a certified registered nurse anesthetist with the goal of achieving deep sedation. Sedation-related complications included AMs, hypoxemia (pulse oximetry [SpO(2)] < 90%), hypotension requiring vasopressors, and early procedure termination. AMs were defined as chin lift, modified face mask ventilation, and nasal airway. We performed a regression analysis to compare characteristics of patients requiring AMs (AM+) with those who did not (AM-). RESULTS: A total of 799 patients were enrolled over 7 months. Procedures included endoscopic ultrasound (423), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (336), and small-bowel enteroscopy (40). A total of 87.2% of patients showed no response to endoscopic intubation. Hypoxemia occurred in 12.8%, hypotension in 0.5%, and premature termination in 0.6% of the patients. No patients required bag-mask ventilation or endotracheal intubation. There were 154 AMs performed in 115 (14.4%) patients, including chin lift (12.1%), modified face mask ventilation (3.6%), and nasal airway (3.5%). Body mass index, male sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class of 3 or higher were independent predictors of AMs. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol can be used safely for advanced endoscopic procedures when administered by a trained professional. Independent predictors of AMs included male sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists class of 3 or higher, and increased body mass index.

Carbon dioxide insufflation during ERCP for reduction of postprocedure pain: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal pain after ERCP is common, and although it is frequently nonspecific and self-limited, it may provoke concern for complications and thus distress both patients and physicians. Carbon dioxide (CO(2)) insufflation during ERCP may reduce abdominal distension in comparison to insufflation of air, resulting in less pain. OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pain in patients receiving CO(2) versus air insufflation during ERCP. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENTS: This study involved consecutive patients presenting for ERCP, excluding those with significant preprocedure pain or obstructive lung disease. INTERVENTION: Randomization to insufflation with air or CO(2); all other care was identical. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Pre-ERCP and post-ERCP pain and nausea were assessed by using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale. Patient waist circumferences were measured before and after procedures. RESULTS: One hundred patients (82 outpatients, 51 women, mean age 54.4 years, 50 randomized to CO(2)) completed the study. The CO(2) and air groups were similar in regard to demographics, indication for ERCP, and procedure duration. The mean pain score 1 hour post-ERCP was higher with air than with CO(2) insufflation (1.9 vs 0.7, P = .01). Similarly, the incidence of any pain at 1 hour post-ERCP was higher with air than with CO(2) (48% vs 28%, P = .04). The mean increase in waist circumference was greater with air than with CO(2) (2.1 cm vs 0.3 cm, P = .003). Adverse events were infrequent and did not differ by group. No serious cardiopulmonary complications occurred. LIMITATIONS: Single-center, selected patient population. CONCLUSION: Insufflation of CO(2) during ERCP reduces postprocedure pain and abdominal distension in comparison to insufflation of air. The use of CO(2) in deeply sedated, prone patients appears to be safe.