Analgosedación con propofol y fentanilo en las colonoscopia / Analgosedation with propofol and fentanyl in colonoscopy

Introducción: La comodidad durante la colonoscopia es una condición importante si se quiere que el paciente acepte procedimientos repetidos. Por lo tanto, se necesita de una buena sedación que pudiera combinar la analgesia con amnesia. Objetivo: Describir la utilidad de la analgosedación balanceada con propofol/fentanilo en colonoscopia ambulatoria. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional descriptivo longitudinal prospectivo en pacientes a los que se les realizó colonoscopia de forma ambulatoria en el Hospital General Universitario Dr. Gustavo Aldereguía Lima en el período entre enero de 2017 y diciembre de 2018. Resultados: El 34,2 por ciento de los pacientes tenía entre 50 y 59 años, el 62,9 por ciento eran mujeres. El 73,3 por ciento de los pacientes se clasificó como ASA II según el estado físico. Los valores medios de frecuencia cardiaca y tensión arterial media tuvieron una disminución ligera después de aplicada la anestesia y se mantuvieron constantes en el resto de los momentos evaluados. Los valores medios de saturación de oxígeno de la hemoglobina se mantuvieron relativamente constantes en todos los momentos y resultaron algo superiores a la llegada del paciente a recuperación. La calidad de la sedación fue adecuada en 86,2 por ciento de los pacientes. La calidad de la analgesia y la recuperación fue buena en 88,4 por ciento y 96,2 por ciento , respectivamente. Se presentaron complicaciones en el 16,5 por ciento de los pacientes. Conclusiones: La analgosedación con propofol y fentanilo resultó una alternativa anestésica de utilidad en los pacientes a los que se les realizó colonoscopia ambulatoria con gran estabilidad hemodinámica en la serie estudiada(AU)

Introduction: Comfort during colonoscopy is an important condition if the patient is expected to accept repeated procedures. Therefore, good sedation that could combine analgesia with amnesia is needed. Objective: To describe the usefulness of balanced analgosedation with propofol/fentanyl in outpatient colonoscopy. Methods: A prospective, longitudinal, descriptive and observational study was carried out with patients who received outpatient colonoscopy at Dr. Gustavo Aldereguía Lima General University Hospital in the period between January 2017 and December 2018. Results: 34.2 percent of the patients were between 50 and 59 years old, while 62.9 percent were women. 73.3 percent of patients were classified as ASA II, according to their physical status. The mean values for heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure had a slight decrease after anesthesia was applied and remained constant for the rest of the evaluated times. The mean values of hemoglobin-oxygen saturation remained relatively constant at all the evaluated times and were slightly higher on the patient's arrival to recovery. The quality of sedation was adequate in 86.2 percent of the patients. The quality of analgesia and recovery was good in 88.4 percent and 96.2 percent, respectively. Complications occurred in 16.5 percent of the patients. Conclusions: Analgosedation with propofol and fentanyl proved to be a useful anesthetic alternative in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy, with high hemodynamic stability in the studied series(AU)

Exploración videoendoscópica bajo sueño inducido en niños / Drug-induced sleep endoscopy in children

Este documento pretende ser una guía para los otorrinolaringólogos españoles que deseen realizar endoscopia del sueño inducido por fármacos, normalmente conocida como DISE de sus siglas en inglés drug-induced sleep endoscopy. Las indicaciones, el método de sedación y la valoración de los hallazgos se comentarán para tratar de unificar metodología y criterios

This document is intended as a guide for Spanish ENT specialists who want to perform drug-induced sleep endoscopy. Indications, sedation method and important findings are discussed to unify criteria and methodology

La endoscopia del sueño inducido / Drug-induced sleep endoscopy

Este documento pretende dar a conocer la endoscopia de sueño inducido entre los distintos especialistas que tratan a los pacientes con trastornos respiratorios del sueño y ser una guía para los especialistas que vayan a realizarla de modo que pueda ser reproducible

This document introduces drug-induced sleep endoscopy to the specialist treating sleep breathing disorders and is intended as a guide for those willing to perform the procedure so that it can be reproducible

Drug dosing in the critically ill obese patient-a focus on sedation, analgesia, and delirium.

Practice guidelines provide clear evidence-based recommendations for the use of drug therapy to manage pain, agitation, and delirium associated with critical illness. Dosing recommendations however are often based on strategies used in patients with normal body habitus. Recommendations specific to critically ill patients with extreme obesity are lacking. Nonetheless, clinicians must craft dosing regimens for this population. This paper is intended to help clinicians design initial dosing regimens for medications commonly used in the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients with extreme obesity. A detailed literature search was conducted with an emphasis on obesity, pharmacokinetics, and dosing. Relevant manuscripts were reviewed and strategies for dosing are provided.

Minimal alveolar concentration for deep sedation (MAC-DS) in intensive care unit patients sedated with sevoflurane: A physiological study.

BACKGROUND: Volatile anaesthetic agents, especially sevoflurane, could be an alternative for sedating ICU patients. In the operating theatre, volatile anaesthetic agents are monitored using minimal alveolar concentration (MAC). In ICU, MAC may be used to assess sedation level and may replace clinical scale especially when they are unusable. Therefore, we sought to investigate the minimal sevoflurane end-tidal concentration to achieved deep sedation in critical ill patients: MAC-deep sedation (MAC-DS). METHODS: In a prospective interventional study, we included patients with a Richmond Assessment Sedation Score (RASS) of 0 without any sedation. We stepwise increased sevoflurane concentration level before assessing for deep sedation (RASS≤-3). MAC-DS was defined as the minimal sevoflurane MAC fraction or sevoflurane expiratory fraction (FeSevo) to get 90% and 95% of patients in deep sedation (MAC-DS 90 and MAC-DS 95, respectively). RESULTS: Between June and November 2014, 30 patients were included (median age=60 years [interquartile range: 47-69]). Increasing sevoflurane MAC was correlated with a decrease in RASS values (r=-0.83, P<0.001). MAC-DS 90 and MAC-DS 95 were achieved at 0.42 MAC (CI 95 [0.38-0.46]) and 0.46 MAC (CI 95 [0.42-0.51]), respectively. FeSevo to achieve MAC-DS 90 and MAC-DS 95 was 0.72 (CI 95 [0.65-0.79]) and 0.80 (CI 95 [0.72-0.89]), respectively. CONCLUSION: In this physiological study involving 30 ICU patients, MAC-DS, end-tidal sevoflurane concentration to get 95% of patients in deep sedation determined over more than 500 observations, is achieved at 0.8% of expired fraction of sevoflurane or at 0.5 age-adjusted MAC.

Refractory psycho-existential distress and continuous deep sedation until death in palliative care: The French perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Since February 2016, French Claeys-Leonetti law has recognized patients' right to confront incurable diseases with short-term prognosis and refractory physical or psychological or existential symptoms by requesting continuous deep sedation until death (CDSUD). Determining when psychological or existential distress is refractory and unbearable remains complex and controversial.This review provides a comprehensive thought on CDSUD for advanced incurable patients with refractory psychological and/or existential distress in palliative care settings. It offers guidance on psychiatric or psychological diagnosis for explaining patients' requests for CDSUD. METHOD: A narrative literature review (2000-2019) was conducted on the MedLine search about the use of palliative sedation in cases of refractory psychological and/or existential distress. RESULTS: (1) Definitions of "refractory symptom," "refractory psychological distress," and "refractory existential distress" are inconsistent; (2) alternative diagnoses might obscure or be obscured by psycho-existential distress; and (3) criteria on meanings, reasons for requests, decision-making processes, and functions are evolving in practice. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Before implementing CDSUD, palliative healthcare professionals should seek input from psycho-oncologists in palliative care. Mental health professionals should analyze and assess the reasons for psychological and/or existential distress, consider the intentionality processes of requests, and explore alternative diagnoses, such as depressive or adjustment disorders, demoralization syndrome, desire to hasten death, and desire for euthanasia. Therapeutic responses (e.g., pharmacological and psychotherapeutic) should be implemented before deciding that psycho-existential distress is refractory.

The Use of Palliative Sedation to Treat Existential Suffering: A Scoping Review on Practices, Ethical Considerations, and Guidelines.

CONTEXT: Though palliative sedation has been recognized as an acceptable practice in Canada for many years now, there is a lack of clinical research and guidelines pertaining to its use as a treatment of existential refractory symptoms in the terminally ill. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aimed to survey the literature surrounding palliative sedation and existential suffering and to inform research, policy, and practice. METHODS: To address the main research question: Is palliative sedation an acceptable intervention to treat existential refractory symptoms in adults aged 65 and older? a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's framework was performed, spanning electronic databases of the peer reviewed and grey literature. Articles were screened for inclusion, and a thematic content analysis allowed for a summary of key findings. RESULTS: Out of 427 search results, 71 full text articles were obtained, 20 of which were included. Out of these articles, four themes were identified as key findings. These included: (1) Ethical considerations; (2) The role of the health care provider; looking specifically at the impact on nurses; (3) The need for multidisciplinary care teams; and (4) Existential suffering's connection to religiosity and spirituality. CONCLUSION: Palliative sedation to treat existential refractory symptoms was labelled a controversial practice. A shortage of evidence-based resources limits the current literature's ability to inform policy and clinical practice. There is a need for both qualitative and quantitative multi-center research so health care professionals and regional-level institutions have firm roots to establish proper policy and practice.

Impact of New Guidelines of Unscheduled and Scheduled Sedation for Cardiologists: JACC Council Perspectives.

Until 2019, guidelines for procedural sedation emphasized a detailed process most applicable for elective procedures scheduled well in advance. These guidelines provided by the American Society of Anesthesiologists were adopted by many specialties and institutions, and they have historically served the medical field well. However, cardiologists and other specialists often encounter urgent situations that demand unscheduled sedation. Physicians have been concerned about performing procedures in a fashion that "departs from the guidelines." In response, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) has developed a set of guidelines for patients requiring urgent unscheduled sedation. Many of the recommendations made within the novel ACEP guidelines are appropriate for cardiology, but there remain fundamental differences between trauma and other emergencies encountered in the emergency department and urgent cardiac procedures. This paper examines the differences between the American Society of Anesthesiologists and ACEP guidelines and provides some points to consider regarding best practices for cardiologists.

Nurses' Attitudes and Practices Related to Sedation: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Nurses are fundamental to the implementation of sedation protocols for patients receiving mechanical ventilation. A 2005 survey showed that nurses' attitudes toward sedation affected their sedation practices. Since then, updated guidelines on managing pain, agitation, and delirium have been published. OBJECTIVE: To explore nurses' self-reported attitudes and practices related to sedation and determine whether they have changed in the past decade. METHODS: Members of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses were invited to complete the Nurse Sedation Practices Scale, which measures nurses' self-reported sedation practices and factors that affect them. Item and subscale responses were analyzed, and differences in item responses by respondent characteristics were determined. RESULTS: Respondents (N = 177) were mostly staff nurses (68%) with a bachelor's degree in nursing (63%). Nurses' attitudes toward the effectiveness of sedation in relieving patients' distress during mechanical ventilation correlated positively with their intention to administer sedatives (r s = 0.65). Sixty-six percent of nurses agreed that sedation was necessary for patients' comfort, and 34% agreed that limiting patients' recall was a desired outcome of sedation. Respondents with more experience or CCRN certification had a less positive evaluation of the effectiveness of sedation in minimizing distress. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses' attitudes toward sedating patients receiving mechanical ventilation have shifted in the past decade, with fewer nurses now believing that all patients should be sedated. However, more than half of nurses still agree that sedation is needed for patients' comfort, highlighting the need to consider nurses' attitudes when seeking to optimize sedation practices during mechanical ventilation.

Moderate and deep sedation training and pharmacology for nonanesthesiologists: recommendations for effective practice.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to discuss current drugs used for intravenous moderate and deep sedation by nonanesthesiologists in the United States. We also explore training expectations for moderate and deep sedation as they play key roles in anesthetic selection and preprocedural planning. RECENT FINDINGS: Although opioids and benzodiazepines are considered the standard for moderate sedation, increased interest in propofol, dexmedetomidine, and other sedative-hyptonic drugs require additional attention in terms of training providers and complying with current practice guidelines. SUMMARY: Moderate sedation providers should be familiar with titrating benzodiazepines and opioids to achieve targeted sedation. The use of propofol and ketamine is generally reserved for deep sedation by qualified professionals. However, the role of dexmedetomidine in procedural sedation continues to evolve as its use is explored in moderate sedation. Providers of all sedation types should be aware of hypotension, apnea, hypoventilation, and hypoxia that can develop and they should be able to manage the patient under these circumstances. Preprocedural planning is an integral training expectation to minimize patient risks.

Anesthesia and airway management for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures outside the operating room.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the anesthestic and airway management for gastrointestinal procedures outside of the operating room. RECENT FINDINGS: The number of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed is steadily increasing worldwide. As complexity, duration and invasiveness of procedures increase, there is ever greater requirement for deeper sedation or general anesthesia. A close relationship between anesthetic practitioners and endoscopists is required to ensure safe and successful outcomes. The American Society of Gastrointestinal endoscopy and the British Society of Gastroenterology have recently released guidelines for sedation and general anesthesia in gastrointestinal endoscopy, highlighting the need for careful monitoring for all cases, and anesthetic expertise in complex cases. The recent advances in high-flow nasal oxygenation in sedation may provide alternative options for oxygenation during gastrointestinal sedation, especially in deep sedation and this may reduce the need for general anesthesia. SUMMARY: The advances in gastrointestinal endoscopic intervention have increased the requirement for deep sedation and anesthetic involvement outside of the operating room. Careful titration of anesthetic intervention and close monitoring are required to ensure patient safety.

Description of Continuous Palliative Sedation Practices in a Large Health Region and Comparison with Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Background: Published reports of continuous palliative sedation therapy (CPST) suggest heterogeneity in practice. There is a paucity of reports that compare practice with clinical guidelines. Objectives: To assess adherence of continuous palliative sedation practices with criteria set forth in local clinical guidelines, and to describe other features including prevalence, medication dosing, duration, multidisciplinary team involvement, and concurrent therapies. Design: Retrospective chart review. Settings/Subjects: We included cases in which a midazolam infusion was ordered at the end of life. Study sites included four adult hospitals in the Calgary health region, two hospices, and a tertiary palliative care unit. Measurements: Descriptive data, including proportion of deaths involving palliative sedation therapy, number of criteria documented, midazolam dose/duration, concurrent symptom management therapies, and referrals to spiritual care, psychology, or social work. Results: CPST occurred in 602 out of 14,360 deaths (4.2%). Full adherence to criteria occurred in 7% of cases. The most commonly missed criteria were: a "C2" goals-of-care designation order (comfort care focus in the imminently dying) (84%) and documentation of imminent death in the chart (55%). Concurrent medical therapies included opioids in 98% of cases and intravenous hydration in 85% of cases. Few referrals were made to multidisciplinary care teams. Conclusions: We found low adherence to palliative sedation guidelines. This may reflect the perception that some criteria are redundant or clinically unimportant. Future work could include a study of barriers to guideline uptake, and guideline modification to provide direction on concurrent therapies and multidisciplinary team involvement.

Sedation practices and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients in a prospective multicenter cohort.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to study the association between sedation status, medications (benzodiazepines, opioids, and antipsychotics), and clinical outcomes in a resource-limited setting. DESIGN: A longitudinal study of critically ill participants on mechanical ventilation. SETTING: Five intensive care units (ICUs) in four public hospitals in Lima, Peru. PATIENTS: One thousand six hundred fifty-seven critically ill participants were assessed daily for sedation status during 28 days and vital status by day 90. RESULTS: After excluding data of participants without a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score and without sedation, we followed 1338 (81%) participants longitudinally for 18,645 ICU days. Deep sedation was present in 98% of participants at some point of the study and in 12,942 ICU days. Deep sedation was associated with higher mortality (interquartile odds ratio (OR) = 5.42, 4.23-6.95; p < 0.001) and a significant decrease in ventilator (- 7.27; p < 0.001), ICU (- 4.38; p < 0.001), and hospital (- 7.00; p < 0.001) free days. Agitation was also associated with higher mortality (OR = 39.9, 6.53-243, p < 0.001). The most commonly used sedatives were opioids and benzodiazepines (9259 and 8453 patient days respectively), and the latter were associated with a 41% higher mortality in participants with a higher cumulative dose (75th vs 25th percentile, interquartile OR = 1.41, 1.12-1.77; p < 0.01). The overall cumulative dose of benzodiazepines and opioids was high, 774.5 mg and 16.8 g, respectively, by day 7 and by day 28; these doses approximately doubled. Haloperidol was only used in 3% of ICU days; however, the use of it was associated with a 70% lower mortality (interquartile OR = 0.3, 0.22-0.44, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Deep sedation, agitation, and cumulative dose of benzodiazepines were all independently associated with higher 90-day mortality. Additionally, deep sedation was associated with less ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days. In contrast, haloperidol was associated with lower mortality in our study.

Reevaluating a Standardized Sedation Weaning Protocol for Pediatric Laryngotracheal Reconstruction for Continuous Quality Improvement.

Importance: Health care organizations are complex and evolving systems. To date, longitudinal evaluation to ensure the sustainability of quality improvement (QI) initiatives has been missing from the otolaryngology literature. We sought to reassess perioperative management of laryngotracheal reconstruction, which requires adequate sedation. Objective: Using principles of continuous QI, the objectives of this study were to (1) describe step-by-step methods to sustain QI efforts and (2) revisit a series of process, outcome, and balance measures for sedation weaning management following implementation of a new electronic health record (EHR). Design, Setting, and Participants: A standardized sedation weaning protocol was previously developed and instituted in February 2013. To address healthcare system-wide changes, a 7-step, Institute for Healthcare Improvement methodology was used to reevaluate a series of measures comparing a previous postweaning group (2013-2014; 13 patients) and current post-EHR group (2016; 11 patients). We conducted a focus group review of these 24 patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was length of sedation weaning. Secondary outcome, process, and balance measures included total length of sedation, absence of standardized wean document, absence of specific recommendations on weaning regimen, length of stay, continued weaning at discharge, discharge location, absence of discharge instructions on weaning regimen or iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS), discharge within 72 hours of stopping weaning, and readmission. Results: The postweaning and post-EHR groups were similar in age (20.5 months [95% CI, 11.92-29.15] vs 26.5 months [95% CI, 17.68-35.40]), as well as male sex (11 of 13 [85%] vs 10 of 11 [91%]), respectively. In the post-EHR group, the standardized sedation wean document was missing from 9 of 11 (82%) medical records. However, the primary outcome measure, length of sedation weaning, remained stable at 9.45 (95% CI, 7.62-11.29) days in the post-EHR group compared with 9.08 (95% CI, 7.00-11.18) days in the postweaning group. In addition, only 5 of 11 (46%) of discharges in the post-EHR group had specific guidance on weaning since the standardized template was no longer in use. As a result, in the post-EHR group, patients were 15.2 (95% CI, 0.46-242.34) times as likely to lack discharge instructions on weaning or IWS. Conclusions and Relevance: Quality improvement is meant to be a continuous process in which reevaluation of care practices are regularly performed. System-wide redesign can be achieved using a formal methodological approach. Moving forward, notable QI opportunities for our institution included the development of a flexible sedation weaning template, as well as enhancements to discharge instructions to include IWS diagnosis and treatment.

Medical staff opposition to a deep and continuous palliative sedation request under Claeys-Leonetti law.

BACKGROUND: For the year 2018, the French government plans a revision of bioethics laws, including certainly the recent Claeys-Leonetti law introducing the right to deep and continuous sedation at the request of palliative patients and prohibiting euthanasia for end-of-life patients. Because there is no published data on medical staff opposition to a deep and continuous palliative sedation request under Claeys-Leonetti law, we believe this report may give insight into physicians' decision making, into the role of criteria for prudent practice, and thus contribute to the bioethical debate. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a 70-year-old patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the hypopharyngeal region, who categorically refused any treatment since one year and asked for deep and continuous palliative sedation until death after attempting suicide. The patient's request was examined and denied by palliative multidisciplinary board, in accordance with by the French Oncology Coordination Centre guidelines. This situation did not fulfil the criteria requested by Claeys-Leonetti law. CONCLUSIONS: As highlighted by the present case-report, patient's expectation regarding palliative sedation can be ambivalent with properly so called euthanasia or assisted suicide. This ambivalent perception was part of the controversy surrounding the parliamentary debate, which is still relevant. This case report supports that deep and continuous sedation under Claeys-Leonetti law need to meet specific criteria defined by the law and documented in the medical files as a safeguard against inappropriate practice. In fact, one of the shortcomings of the current arrangements of Claeys-Leonetti law is a lack of objective medical-based criteria. So it is necessary that scientific peer-reviews papers be published quickly in order to deepen the bioethical debate on the end of life.

Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: ICU patients must be kept conscious, calm, and cooperative even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral administration of sedative drugs might avoid over sedation, and would be as adequate as intravenous administration in patients who are awake, with fewer side effects and lower costs. This study compares two sedation strategies, for early achievement and maintenance of the target light sedation. METHODS: This was a multicenter, single-blind, randomized and controlled trial carried out in 12 Italian ICUs, involving patients with expected mechanical ventilation duration > 72 h at ICU admission and predicted mortality > 12% (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II > 32 points) during the first 24 h on ICU. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous (midazolam, propofol) or enteral (hydroxyzine, lorazepam, and melatonin) sedation. The primary outcome was percentage of work shifts with the patient having an observed Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) = target RASS ±1. Secondary outcomes were feasibility, delirium-free and coma-free days, costs of drugs, length of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU, hospital, and one-year mortality. RESULTS: There were 348 patients enrolled. There were no differences in the primary outcome: enteral 89.8% (74.1-100), intravenous 94.4% (78-100), p = 0.20. Enteral-treated patients had more protocol violations: n = 81 (46.6%) vs 7 (4.2%), p < 0.01; more self-extubations: n = 14 (8.1%) vs 4 (2.4%), p = 0.03; a lighter sedative target (RASS = 0): 93% (71-100) vs 83% (61-100), p < 0.01; and lower total drug costs: 2.39 (0.75-9.78) vs 4.15 (1.20-20.19) €/day with mechanical ventilation (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although enteral sedation of critically ill patients is cheaper and permits a lighter sedation target, it is not superior to intravenous sedation for reaching the RASS target. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01360346 . Registered on 25 March 2011.

Emergency Department Procedural Sedation Practice Limitations: A Statewide California American College of Emergency Physicians Survey.

OBJECTIVES: We wanted to estimate the frequency and describe the nature of emergency department (ED) procedural sedation restrictions in the State of California. METHODS: We surveyed medical directors for all licensed EDs statewide regarding limitations on procedural sedation practice. Our primary outcome was the frequency of restrictions on procedural sedation, defined as an inability to administer moderate sedation, deep sedation, and typical ED sedative agents in accordance with American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) guidelines. Our secondary outcomes were the nature of these restrictions, who has imposed them, why they were imposed, and the perceived clinical impact. RESULTS: We obtained responses from 211 (64%) of the 328 EDs. Ninety-one (43%) reported conditional or total limitations on their ability to administer one or more of the following: moderate sedation, deep sedation, propofol, ketamine, or etomidate. Thirty-nine (18%) reported total restriction of at least one of these-most frequently a prohibition of deep sedation (18%). Local anesthesia directors were the most frequently cited creators and enforcers of these restrictions. Some respondents reported that, due to these restrictions, they used less effective sedatives, they performed procedures without sedation when sedation would have been preferred, and they observed inadequate sedation and pain control. CONCLUSIONS: In this statewide survey we found a substantial prevalence of practice limitations-mostly created by local anesthesia directors-that restrict the ability of emergency physicians to provide procedural sedation for their patients in accordance with ACEP guidelines. Deep sedation was prohibited in 18% of responding EDs. Our respondents describe adverse consequences to patient care.

A descriptive monitoring study of a non-anesthetist sedation quality program.

INTRODUCTION: sedation substantially improves the quality of digestive endoscopy procedures but may result in severe complications. METHODS: a joint commission-based multidisciplinary protocol was used to define a protocol for sedation by non-anesthesiologists. ASA 4 patients were excluded, as well as patients with a difficult airway, complex procedures and deep sedation. Quality based on the analysis of 9 indicators were monitored. Incomplete procedures were also monitored in order to assess efficacy. RESULTS: patient safety was established based on a very low incidence of complications and a rate of respiratory events of 1.07. Furthermore, a low rate of hypotension and bradycardia was found, as well as a low rate of pain, either during or after endoscopy and an incidence of unexpected admissions lower than 0.5%. The quality indicators measured reflect the evolution of the results of the program. CONCLUSIONS: ongoing sedation program monitoring in endoscopy allows the control of different quality dimensions and the implementation of steps for process improvement.