Assessing the safety of physician-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation in low-risk patients undergoing endoscopy and colonoscopy.

Background and study aims Physician-directed nurse-administered balanced propofol sedation (PhD NAPS) in patients undergoing endoscopy and/or colonoscopy is being increasingly utilized worldwide. However, this method of sedation is not universally employed in Australian hospitals due to concerns surrounding its safety. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of PhD NAPS in low-risk patients undergoing endoscopy and/or colonoscopy. Patients and methods This study was conducted at a single tertiary teaching hospital in Adelaide, Australia. It was a prospective study involving 1000 patients with an ASA score of 1 - 3 presenting with any indication for endoscopy, colonoscopy or both. A total of 981 patients (451 male) with a mean age of 53 years (range: 16 - 87) were recruited from January 2010 to October 2012. 440 endoscopies, 420 colonoscopies, and 121 combined procedures were performed. The intra-procedural adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Results There were no major intra-procedural adverse events. Minor AEs occurred in 6.42 % of patients, and resolved spontaneously or with intravenous fluid boluses in all cases. Conclusion PhD NAPS is safe when the proceduralist and nursing staff are adequately trained and strict patient selection criteria are used.

Is narrow band imaging superior to high-definition white light endoscopy in the assessment of diminutive colorectal polyps?

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Diminutive polyps measuring ≤ 5 mm in size constitute 80% of polyps in the colon. We prospectively assessed the performance of high-definition white light endoscopy (hWLE) and narrow band imaging (NBI) in differentiating diminutive colorectal polyps. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter study, videos of 50 diminutive polyps (31 hyperplastic, 19 adenomatous) in hWLE followed by NBI (total 100 videos) were initially obtained and placed in random order into five separate folders (each folder 20 videos). Eight endoscopists were then invited to predict the histology (each endoscopist 100 videos, 800 video assessments in all). Polyps were classified into types 1-3 (hyperplastic) and type 4 (adenoma). Feedback on individual performance was given after each folder (20 videos) was assessed. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy in differentiating hyperplastic from adenomatous polyps by hWLE (400 videos) and NBI (400 videos) were 67.8%, 90.7%, 81.7%, 82.1%, and 82.0%; and 82.2%, 81.5%, 73.1%, 88.2%, and 81.8%, respectively. In the pretest and post-test analysis, the accuracy with NBI improved markedly from 68.8% to 91.3% (P = 0.001) compared with hWLE, 76.3-78.8% (P = 0.850). Overall, the interobserver agreement was 0.46 for hWLE (moderate) and 0.64 for NBI (good). CONCLUSIONS: NBI was as accurate as hWLE in differentiating diminutive colorectal polyps. Once a learning curve was reached, NBI achieved significantly higher accuracies with good interobserver agreement. Using a simplified classification, a didactic learning session and feedback on performance, diminutive colorectal polyps could be predicted with high accuracies with NBI.

Carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients.

AIM: To compare the impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) and air insufflation on patient tolerance/safety in deeply sedated patients undergoing colonoscopy. METHODS: Patients referred for colonoscopy were randomized to receive either CO2 or air insufflation during the procedure. Both the colonoscopist and patient were blinded to the type of gas used. During the procedure, insertion and withdrawal times, caecal intubation rates, total sedation given and capnography readings were recorded. The level of sedation and magnitude of patient discomfort during the procedure was assessed by a nurse using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-3). Patients then graded their level of discomfort and abdominal bloating using a similar VAS. Complications during and after the procedure were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were randomized with 72 in the air arm and 70 in the CO2 arm. Mean age between the two study groups were similar. Insertion time to the caecum was quicker in the CO2 group at 7.3 min vs 9.9 min with air (P = 0.0083). The average withdrawal times were not significantly different between the two groups. Caecal intubation rates were 94.4% and 100% in the air and CO2 groups respectively (P = 0.012). The level of discomfort assessed by the nurse was 0.69 (air) and 0.39 (CO2) (P = 0.0155) and by the patient 0.82 (air) and 0.46 (CO2) (P = 0.0228). The level of abdominal bloating was 0.97 (air) and 0.36 (CO2) (P = 0.001). Capnography readings trended to be higher in the CO2 group at the commencement, caecal intubation, and conclusion of the procedure, even though this was not significantly different when compared to readings obtained during air insufflation. There were no complications in both arms. CONCLUSION: CO2 insufflation during colonoscopy is more efficacious than air, allowing quicker and better cecal intubation rates. Abdominal discomfort and bloating were significantly less with CO2 insufflation.

Mechanisms of gastroesophageal reflux in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gastroesophageal reflux is a major problem in mechanically ventilated patients and may lead to pulmonary aspiration and erosive esophagitis. Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations are the most common mechanism underlying reflux in nonventilated patients. The mechanisms that underlie reflux in critically ill ventilated patients have not been studied. The aim of this study was to determine the mechanisms underlying gastroesophageal reflux in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit. METHODS: In 15 mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients, esophageal motility, pH, and intraluminal impedance (11/15 patients) were recorded for 1 hour before and 5 hours during continuous nasogastric feeding. RESULTS: Basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure was uniformly low (2.2 +/- 0.4 mmHg). The median (interquartile range) acid exposure (pH <4) was 39.4% (0%-100%) fasting and 32% (7.5%-94.2%) fed. Acid reflux occurred in 10 patients, but slow drifts in esophageal pH were also an important contributor to acid exposure. If esophageal pH decreased to pH <4, it tended to remain so for prolonged periods. A total of 46 acid reflux events were identified. Most (55%) occurred because of absent lower esophageal sphincter pressure alone; 45% occurred during straining or coughing. CONCLUSIONS: Gastroesophageal reflux in mechanically ventilated patients is predominantly due to very low or absent lower esophageal sphincter pressure, often with a superimposed cough or strain. These data suggest that measures that increase basal LES pressure may be useful to prevent reflux in ventilated patients.