Sedation reversal trends at outpatient ambulatory endoscopic center vs in-hospital ambulatory procedure center using a triage protocol

BACKGROUND Routine outpatient endoscopy is performed across a variety of outpatient settings.A known risk of performing endoscopy under moderate sedation is the potential for over-sedation,requiring the use of reversal agents.More needs to be reported on rates of reversal across different outpatient settings.Our academic tertiary care center utilizes a triage tool that directs higher-risk patients to the in-hospital ambulatory procedure center(APC)for their procedure.Here,we report data on outpatient sedation reversal rates for endoscopy performed at an inhospital APC vs at a free-standing ambulatory endoscopy digestive health center(AEC-DHC)following risk stratification with a triage tool.AIM To observe the effect of risk stratification using a triage tool on patient outcomes,primarily sedation reversal events.METHODS We observed all outpatient endoscopy procedures performed at AEC-DHC and APC from April 2013 to September 2019.Procedures were stratified to their respective sites using a triage tool.We evaluated each procedure for which sedation reversal with flumazenil and naloxone was recorded.Demographics and characteristics recorded include patient age,gender,body mass index(BMI),American Society of Anesthesiologists(ASA)classification,procedure type,and reason for sedation reversal.RESULTS There were 97366 endoscopic procedures performed at AEC-DHC and 22494 at the APC during the study period.Of these,17 patients at AEC-DHC and 9 at the APC underwent sedation reversals(0.017%vs 0.04%;P=0.06).Demographics recorded for those requiring reversal at AEC-DHC vs APC included mean age(53.5±21 vs 60.4±17.42 years;P=0.23),ASA class(1.66±0.48 vs 2.22±0.83;P=0.20),BMI(27.7±6.7 kg/m^(2) vs 23.7±4.03 kg/m^(2);P=0.06),and female gender(64.7%vs 22%;P=0.04).The mean doses of sedative agents and reversal drugs used at AEC-DHC vs APC were midazolam(5.9±1.7 mg vs 8.9±3.5 mg;P=0.01),fentanyl(147.1±49.9μg vs 188.9±74.1μg;P=0.10),flumazenil(0.3±0.18μg vs 0.17±0.17μg;P=0.13)and naloxone(0.32±0.10 mg vs 0.28±0.12 mg;P=0.35).Procedures at AEC-DHC requiring sedation reversal included colonoscopies(n=6),esophagogastroduodenoscopy(EGD)(n=9)and EGD/colonoscopies(n=2),whereas APC procedures included EGDs(n=2),EGD with gastrostomy tube placement(n=1),endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(n=2)and endoscopic ultrasound's(n=4).The indications for sedation reversal at AEC-DHC included hypoxia(n=13;76%),excessive somnolence(n=3;18%),and hypotension(n=1;6%),whereas,at APC,these included hypoxia(n=7;78%)and hypotension(n=2;22%).No sedation-related deaths or long-term post-sedation reversal adverse outcomes occurred at either site.CONCLUSION Our study highlights the effectiveness of a triage tool used at our tertiary care hospital for risk stratification in minimizing sedation reversal events during outpatient endoscopy procedures.Using a triage tool for risk stratification,low rates of sedation reversal can be achieved in the ambulatory settings for EGD and colonoscopy.

Outcomes of colon self-expandable metal stents for malignant vs benign indications at a tertiary care center and review of literature

BACKGROUND Endoscopic placement of a self-expandable metal stent(SEMS)is a minimally invasive treatment for use in malignant and benign colonic obstruction.However,their widespread use is still limited with a nationwide analysis showing only 5.4%of patients with colon obstruction undergoing stent placement.This underutilization could be due to perceived increase risk of complications with stent placement.AIM To review long-and short-term clinical success of SEMS use for colonic obstruction at our center.METHODS We retrospectively reviewed all the patients who underwent colonic SEMS placement over aeighteen year period (August 2004 through August 2022) at our academic center. Demographicsincluding age, gender, indication (malignant and benign), technical success, clinical success,complications (perforation, stent migration), mortality, and outcomes were recorded.RESULTSSixty three patients underwent colon SEMS over an 18-year period. Fifty-five cases were formalignant indications, 8 were for benign conditions. The benign strictures included diverticulardisease stricturing (n = 4), fistula closure (n = 2), extrinsic fibroid compression (n = 1), and ischemicstricture (n = 1). Forty-three of the malignant cases were due to intrinsic obstruction from primaryor recurrent colon cancer;12 were from extrinsic compression. Fifty-four strictures occurred on theleft side, 3 occurred on the right and the rest in transverse colon. The total malignant case (n = 55)procedural success rate was 95% vs 100% for benign cases (P = 1.0, NS). Overall complication ratewas significantly higher for benign group: Four complications were observed in the malignantgroup (stent migration, restenosis) vs 2 of 8 (25%) for benign obstruction (1-perforation, 1-stentmigration) (P = 0.02). When stratifying complications of perforation and stent migration there wasno significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.14, NS).CONCLUSIONColon SEMS remains a worthwhile option for colonic obstruction related to malignancy and has ahigh procedural and clinical success rate. Benign indications for SEMS placement appear to havesimilar success to malignant. While there appears to be a higher overall complication rate inbenign cases, our study is limited by sample size. When evaluating for perforation alone theredoes not appear to be any significant difference between the two groups. SEMS placement may bea practical option for indications other that malignant obstruction. Interventional endoscopistsshould be aware and discuss the risk for complications in setting of benign conditions. Indicationsin these cases should be discussed in a multi-disciplinary fashion with colorectal surgery.

Endoscopic management of biliary strictures post-liver transplantation

Biliary complications play a significant role in morbidity of liver transplant recipients. Biliary strictures occur between 10%-25% of patients with a higher incidence in living donor recipients compared to deceased donors. Strictures can be classified as either anastomotic or non-anastomotic and may be related to ischemic events. Endoscopic management of biliary strictures in the posttransplant setting has become the preferred initial approach due to adequate rates of resolution of anastomotic and non-anastomotic strictures(NAS).However, several factors may increase complexity of the endoscopic approach including surgical anatomy, location, number, and severity of bile duct strictures.Many endoscopic tools are available, however, the approach to management of anastomotic and NAS has not been standardized. Multi-disciplinary techniques may be necessary to achieve optimal outcomes in select patients. We will review the risk factors associated with the development of bile duct strictures in the posttransplant setting along with the efficacy and complications of current endoscopic approaches available for the management of bile duct strictures.