In response to the editorial: "Will societies of anesthesiologists partake in the take-off of non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol?"

The editorial of Dr. Dumonceau comments on the discrepancies with the declarations done in regard to the article sent by titled Alvarez J. et al "Safety of the patient in deep sedation for endoscopico digestive procedures". We do not agree in the analysis of the mortality, with comparative studies between anesthesiologists and not anesthesiologists and with the conclusion of the editorial.

Patient safety under deep sedation for digestive endoscopic procedures.

Deep sedation with Propofol has become popular in recent years. The safety of this technique when administered by non-anaesthesiologists has created much controversy which at times is masked in a contentious debate on the economic sustainability of the health system. In 2011, the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy, along with 20 other organisations from European countries, revoked the recommendations of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy on the administration of Propofol by non-anaesthesiologists, citing that it is "extremely dangerous for the safety and quality of endoscopic procedures". The FDA in 2005 had already rejected the use of Propofol by non-anaesthesiologists in the United States, a prohibition which was reiterated in 2010 and is still in force, basing its evidence, among others, on the recommendations and guidelines of the Joint Commission and the Declaration of Helsinki. In Spain, the data sheet of Propofol restricts the use of the drug to anaesthesiologists and intensivists in intensive care units. In our opinion, the key elements to discuss (which we develop in our paper) are those related to: a) the morbidity and mortality of sedation (which is the same as speaking about the factors that influence its safety); b) the appropriate professionals to use this technique; and c) economic aspects related to the use of said technique. Our conclusion is that a technique cannot be declared safe when a high percentage of patients present with varying respiratory depression (and therefore hypoxaemia) and hypotension. We are confident that the collaboration of the Spanish Society of Digestive Pathology and the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy with the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy is the first step towards finding a satisfactory solution for everyone, and especially for our patients.

Hyperangulated versus Macintosh blades for intubation with videolaryngoscopy in ICU: the randomised multicentre INVIBLADE-ICU trial study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Compared with the operating room, tracheal intubations in the intensive care unit (ICU) are associated with worsened glottic view, decreased first-time success rate and increase in the technical difficulty of intubation and incidence of complications. Videolaryngoscopes (VLs) have been proposed to improve airway management, and while recent studies have confirmed that VLs improve intubation conditions in this patient population, there remains a lack of clarity regarding the selection between a standard Macintosh blade or a hyperangulated one, to determine which yields the best outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare successful intubation on the first attempt with the Macintosh VL versus the hyperangulated VL during tracheal intubation in ICU patients. We hypothesise that tracheal intubation using the hyperangulated VL will improve the frequency of successful intubation on the first attempt. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The INtubation VIdeolaryngoscopy BLADE-ICU trial is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, interventional, randomised, controlled superiority study conducted in 29 ICUs in Spain. Patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo intubation using a Macintosh VL (control group) or a hyperangulated VL (experimental group) for the first intubation attempt. The primary outcome is successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcomes include the time to intubation, attempts for successful intubation, laryngoscopic vision assessed with the modified Cormack-Lehane scale, the need for adjuvant airway devices for intubation, difficulty assessed by the anaesthesiologist and complications during tracheal intubation. Enrolment began on 1 May 2024 and is expected to be completed in 2025. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved on 29 February 2024, by the Ethics Committee of Galicia (CEImG, code No. 2024-031).The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06322719.

Respuesta al editorial: 'Will societies of anesthesiologists partake in the take-off of nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol?' / In response to the editorial: 'Will societies of anesthesiologists partake in the take-off of non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol?'

No disponible

Seguridad del paciente en la sedación profunda para procedimientos endoscópicos digestivos / Patient safety under deep sedation for digestive endoscopic procedures

No disponible