Combination of Dexmedetomidine and Butorphanol Optimized Sedation in Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

Objective:Drug-induced sleep endoscopy(DISE)allows for the evaluation of dynamic airway collapse in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.However,a standardized sedation regimen for DISE is not yet available.This study aimed to investigate the safety profiles and efficacies of dexmedetomidine combined with butorphanol for DISE.Methods:Sixty patients with obstructive sleep apnea scheduled to undergo DISE were randomly divided into Group D and Group DB.All recipients were initially given intravenous butorphanol(1 mg)(Group DB)or saline(Group D).Subsequently,both groups were sedated using a loading dose of 1.0 pg/kg/h of dexmedetomidine.Hemodynamic and respiratory parameters,the time to attain sufficient sedation,wakeup time,and adverse events during DISE were recorded.Results:Compared with Group D,the time until sufficient sedation and wakeup time in Group DB were significantly reduced.A higher performer satisfaction level was achieved in Group DB.Patients in Group DB showed a higher incidence of bradycardia compared with Group D.However,the bradycardia resolved spontaneously in both groups without any treatment.There was no instance of cough,hypotension,arrhythmia,nausea or vomiting in either group.Conclusion:Compared to dexmedetomidine alone,a small dose of butorphanol infusion(1 mg)as an adjunct treatment to dexmedetomidine during DISE can reduce the dosage of dexmedetomidine,shorten the time until sufficient sedation and enhance the performer satisfaction level.This synergistic combination could be a promising sedation regimen for DISE in terms of procedural convenience and patient safety.

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.

Propofol sedation in routine endoscopy:A case series comparing target controlled infusion vs manually controlled bolus concept

BACKGROUND Many studies have addressed safety and effectiveness of non-anaesthesiologist propofol sedation(NAPS)for gastrointestinal(GI)endoscopy Target controlled infusion(TCI)is claimed to provide an optimal sedation regimen by avoiding under-or oversedation.AIM To assess safety and performance of propofol TCI sedation in comparison with nurse-administered bolus-sedation.METHODS Fouty-five patients undergoing endoscopy under TCI propofol sedation were prospectively included from November 2016 to May 2017 and compared to 87 patients retrospectively included that underwent endoscopy with NAPS.Patients were matched for age and endoscopic procedure.We recorded time of sedation and endoscopy,dosage of medication and adverse events.RESULTS There was a significant reduction in dose per time of propofol administered in the TCI group,compared to the NAPS group(8.2±2.7 mg/min vs 9.3±3.4 mg/min;P=0.046).The time needed to provide adequate sedation levels was slightly but significantly lower in the control group(5.3±2.7 min vs 7.7±3.3 min;P<0.001),nonetheless the total endoscopy time was similar in both groups.No differences between TCI and bolus-sedation was observed for mean total-dosage of propofol rate as well as adverse events.CONCLUSION This study indicates that sedation using TCI for GI endoscopy reduces the dose of propofol necessary per minute of endoscopy.This may translate into less adverse events.However,further and randomized trials need to confirm this trend.

Remimazolam for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy:A comprehensive review

Worldwide,a majority of routine endoscopic procedures are performed under some form of sedation to maximize patient comfort.Propofol,benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used.However,in recent years,Remimazolam is gaining immense popularity for procedural sedation in gastrointestinal(GI)endoscopy.It is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in July 2020 for use in procedural sedation.Remimazolam has shown a favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile in terms of its non-specific metabolism by tissue esterase,volume of distribution,total body clearance,and negligible drug-drug interactions.It also has satisfactory efficacy and has achieved high rates of successful sedation in GI endoscopy.Furthermore,studies have demonstrated that the efficacy of Remimazolam is non-inferior to Propofol,which is currently a gold standard for procedural sedation in most parts of the world.However,the use of Propofol is associated with hemodynamic instability and respiratory depression.In contrast,Remimazolam has lower incidence of these adverse effects intra-procedurally and hence,may provide a safer alternative to Propofol in procedural sedation.In this comprehensive narrative review,highlight the pharmacologic characteristics,efficacy,and safety of Remimazolam for procedural sedation.We also discuss the potential of Remimazolam as a suitable alternative and how it can shape the future of procedural sedation in gastroenterology.

Emerging strategies in outpatient endoscopy sedation management:Recent trends and developments

In this article we comment on the article by Walayat et al.Outpatient endoscopy has become vital in modern healthcare,providing efficient diagnostic and therapeutic interventions with minimal patient disruption.This study highlighted the key developments in sedation management,focusing on risk stratification and procedural settings to enhance safety.The findings demonstrate that a rigorous triage tool effectively reduces adverse events related to sedation and reversals.By identifying patients at higher risk,this tool helps mitigate complications during procedures.Importantly,appropriate risk stratification allows complex procedures to be performed under conscious sedation,significantly improving patient outcomes and optimizing resource allocation,particularly in constrained healthcare environments.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Current issues

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate(conscious) sedation.Moderate sedation,using midazolam and an opioid,is the standard method of sedation,although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation.Moreover,the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and,consequently,its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy.In the future,propofol could become the preferred sedation agent,especially for routine colonoscopy.Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam.Among opioids,pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular.A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results.Among them,newer opioids,such as remifentanil,enable a faster recovery.The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse,as well as the optimal staffing of en-doscopy units,continues to be a matter of discussion.Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances,such as in the cases of obese,pregnant,and elderly individuals,as well as patients with chronic lung,renal or liver disease,requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation.In the great majority of patients,sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide.In this review,an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

Deep sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: Propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens

AIM: To compare deep sedation with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: After obtaining approval of the research ethics committee and informed consent, 200 patients were evaluated and referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive propofol-fentanyl or midazolam-fentanyl (n = 100/group).We assessed the level of sedation using the observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score and bispectral index (BIS). We evaluated patient and physician satisfaction, as well as the recovery time and complication rates. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software and included the MannWhitney test, χ 2 test, measurement of analysis of variance, and the κ statistic. RESULTS: The times to induction of sedation, recovery, and discharge were shorter in the propofolfentanyl group than the midazolam-fentanyl group. According to the OAA/S score, deep sedation events occurred in 25% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 11% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.014). Additionally, deep sedation events occurred in 19% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 7% of the midazolamfentanyl group according to the BIS scale (P = 0.039). There was good concordance between the OAA/S score and BIS for both groups (κ = 0.71 and κ = 0.63, respectively). Oxygen supplementation was required in 42% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 26% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.025). The mean time to recovery was 28.82 and 44.13 min in the propofolfentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl groups, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no severe complications in either group. Although patients were equally satisfied with both drug combinations, physicians were more satisfied with the propofol-fentanyl combination. CONCLUSION: Deep sedation occurred with propofolfentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl, but was more frequent in the former. Recovery was faster in the propofol-fentanyl group.

Sedation and analgesia in gastrointestinal endoscopy: What’s new?

Various types of sedation and analgesia technique have been used during gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures.The best methods for analgesia and sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy are still debated.Providing an adequate regimen of sedation/analgesia might be considered an art,influencing several aspects of endoscopic procedures: the quality of the examination,the patient’s cooperation and the patient’s and physician’s satisfaction with the sedation.The properties of a model sedative agent for endoscopy would include rapid onset and offset of action,analgesic and anxiolytic effects,ease of titration to desired level of sedation,rapid recovery and an excellent safety prof ile.Therefore there is an impulse for development of new approaches to endoscopic sedation.This article provides an update on the methods of sedation today available and future directions in endoscopic sedation.

Clinical analysis of propofol deep sedation for 1,104 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures:A three year prospective study

AIM： To analyze the hemodynamic and respiratory effects of propofol on patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy. METHODS： In this prospective study, conducted over a period of three years, 1,104 patients referred for a same day GI endoscopy procedure were analyzed. All patients were given a propofol bolus （0.5-1.5 mg/kg）. Arterial blood pressure （BP） was monitored at 3 rain intervals and heart rate and oxygen saturation （SpO2） were recorded continuously by pulse oximetry. Analyzed data acquisition was carried out before, during, and after the procedure. RESULTS： A statistically significant reduction in mean arterial pressure was demonstrated （P〈0.001） when compared to pre-intervention values, but severe hypotension, defined as a systolic blood pressure below 60mmHg, was noted in only 5 patients （0.5%）. Oxygen saturation decreased from 96.5% to 94.4 % （P〈0.001）. A critical decrease in oxygen saturation （〈90%） was documented in 27 patients （2.4%）. CONCLUSION： Our results showed that propofol provided good sedation with excellent pain control, a short recovery time and no significant hemodynamic side effelts if carefully titrated. All the patients （and especially ASA Ⅲ group） require monitoring and care of an anesthesiologist.

Sedation-related complications in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Sedation practices for gastrointestinal endoscopic(GIE) procedures vary widely in different countries depending on health system regulations and local circumstances. The goal of procedural sedation is the safe and effective control of pain and anxiety, as well as to provide an appropriate degree of memory loss or decreased awareness. Sedation-related complications in gastrointestinal endoscopy, once occurred, can lead to significant morbidity and occasional mortality in patients. The risk factors of these complications include the type, dose and mode of administration of sedative agents, as well as the patient's age and underlying medical diseases. Complications attributed to moderate and deep sedation levels are more often associated with cardiovascular and respiratory systems. However, sedation-related complications during GIE procedures are commonly transient and of a mild degree. The risk for these complications while providing any level of sedation is greatest when caring for patients already medically compromised. Significant unwanted complications can generally be prevented by careful pre-procedure assessment and preparation, appropriate monitoring and support, as well as post-procedure management. Additionally, physicians must be prepared to manage these complications. This article will review sedation-related complications duringmoderate and deep sedation for GIE procedures and also address their appropriate management.

Anesthesia and sedation in pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A review

Gastrointestinal(GI) endoscopic procedure has become an essential modality for evaluation and treatment of GI diseases.Intravenous(IV) sedation and General Anesthesia(GA) have both been employed to minimize discomfort and provide amnesia.Both these procedures require,at the very least,monitoring of the level of consciousness,pulmonary ventilation,oxygenation and hemodynamics.Although GI endoscopy is considered safe,the procedure has a potential for complications.Increased awareness of the complications associated with sedation during GI endoscopy in children,and involving the anesthesiologists in caring for these children,may be optimal for safety.Belonging to a younger age group,having a higher ASA class and undergoing IV sedation were identified as risk factors for developing complications.Reported adverse events included inadequate sedation,low oxygen saturation,airway obstruction,apnea needing bag mask ventilation,excitement and agitation,hemorrhage and perforation.A complication rate of 1.2% was associated with procedures performed under GA,as compared to 3.7% of complications associated with IV sedation.IV sedation was seen to be independently associated with a cardiopulmonary complication rate 5.3% times higher when compared to GA.GA can therefore be considered safer and more effective in providing comfort and amnesia.

Stepwise sedation for elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

AIM: To investigate stepwise sedation for elderly patients with mild/moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. METHODS: Eighty-six elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD and 82 elderly patients without COPD scheduled for upper GI endoscopy were randomly assigned to receive one of the following two sedation methods: stepwise sedation involving three-stage administration of propofol combined with midazolam [COPD with stepwise sedation (group Cs), and nonCOPD with stepwise sedation (group Ns)] or continuous sedation involving continuous administration of propofol combined with midazolam [COPD with continuous sedation (group Cc), and non-COPD with continuous sedation (group Nc)]. Saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO 2 ), blood pressure, and pulse rate were monitored, and patient discomfort, adverse events, drugs dosage, and recovery time were recorded. RESULTS: All endoscopies were completed successfully. The occurrences of hypoxemia in groups Cs, Cc, Ns, and Nc were 4 (9.3%), 12 (27.9%), 3 (7.3%), and 5 (12.2%), respectively. The occurrence of hypoxemia in group Cs was significantly lower than that in group Cc (P < 0.05). The average decreases in value of SpO 2 , systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure in group Cs were significantly lower than those in group Cc. Additionally, propofol dosage and overall rate of adverse events in group Cs were lower than those in group Cc. Finally, the recovery time in group Cs was significantly shorter than that in group Cc, and that in group Ns was significantly shorter than that in group Nc (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The stepwise sedation method is effective and safer than the continuous sedation method for elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD during upper GI endoscopy.

Usefulness of bispectral monitoring of conscious sedation during endoscopic mucosal dissection

AIM: To assess the usefulness of bispectral index (BIS) monitoring in order to carry out endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) safely and with patients' satisfaction. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-six patients with an early-stage neoplasm of the digestive tract were enrolled. The BIS monitor (A-1050: Aspect medical systems/NIHON KOHDEN, Tokyo, Japan) was used. The appropriate sedative condition was set at 55 to 75 BIS levels (BIS value) during the endoscopic procedures. RESULTS: Among 366 cases, 13 were accompanied by adverse events during and/or after ESD. All episodes occurred in cases with BIS value between 56 and 65. Hypotension was observed in four cases, and bradycardia in six. Respiratory distress was observed in two cases with chronic pulmonary obstructive disease. All patients with adverse events were able to leave the hospital without extension of the hospitalization. CONCLUSION: BIS monitoring is useful to safely perform ESD. A BIS value of 70 to 75 is suitable for ESD.

Sedation and monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy

The safe sedation of patients for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures requires a combination of properly trained physicians and suitable facilities.Additionally,appropriate selection and preparation of patients,suitable sedative technique,application of drugs,adequate monitoring,and proper recovery of patients is essential.The goal of procedural sedation is the safe and effective control of pain and anxiety as well as to provide an appropriate degree of memory loss or decreased awareness.Sedation practices for gastrointestinal endoscopy(GIE) vary widely.The majority of GIE patients are ambulatory cases.Most of this procedure requires a short time.So,short acting,rapid onset drugs with little adverse effects and improved safety profiles are commonly used.The present review focuses on commonly used regimens and monitoring practices in GIE sedation.This article is to discuss the decision making process used to determine appropriate pre-sedation assessment,monitoring,drug selection,dose of sedative agents,sedation endpoint and post-sedation care.It also reviews the current status of sedation and monitoring for GIE procedures in Thailand.

Endoscopic ultrasound sedation in the United Kingdom: Is life without propofol tolerable?

There is compelling evidence to support the quality,cost effectiveness and safety profile of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). However in the United Kingdom, it is recommended that the administration and monitoring of propofol sedation for endoscopic procedures should be the responsibility of a dedicated and appropriately trained anaesthetist only. The majority of United Kingdom EUS procedures are performed with opiate and benzodiazepine sedation rather than anaesthetist led propofol lists due to anaesthetist resource availability. We sought to prospectively determine the tolerability and safety of EUS with benzodiazepine and opiate sedation in single United Kingdom centre. Two hundred consecutive patients undergoing either EUS or oesophago-gastroduodenoscopy (OGD) with conscious sedation were prospectively recruited with a 1:1 enrolment ratio. Patients completed questionnaires pre and post procedure detailing anticipated and actual pain experienced on a 1-10 visual analogue scale. Demographics, procedure duration, sedation doses and willingness to repeat the procedure were also recorded. EUS procedures lasted significantly longer than OGDs(15 min vs 6 min, P < 0.0001), however, there was no difference in anticipated pain scores between the groups(EUS 3.37/10 vs OGD 3.47/10, P = 0.46). Pain scores indicated EUS was better tolerated than OGD(1.16/10 vs 1.88/10, P = 0.03) although higher doses of sedation were used for EUS procedures. There were no complications identified in either group. We feel our study demonstrates that the tolerability of EUS with opiate and benzodiazepine sedation is acceptable.

High-flow nasal oxygen availability for sedation decreases the use of general anesthesia during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound

AIM To examine whether high-flow nasal oxygen(HFNO) availability influences the use of general anesthesia(GA) in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound(EUS) and associated outcomes.METHODS In this retrospective study, patients were stratified into 3 eras between October 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014 based on HFNO availability for deep sedation at the time of their endoscopy. During the first and last 3-mo eras(era 1 and 3), no HFNO was available, whereas it was an option during the second 3-mo era(era 2). The primary outcome was the percent utilization of GA vs deep sedation in each period. Secondary outcomes included oxygen saturation nadir during sedation between periods, as well as procedure duration, and anesthesia-only time between periods and for GA vs sedation cases respectively.RESULTS During the study period 238 ERCP or EUS cases were identified for analysis. Statistical testing was employed and a P < 0.050 was significant unless the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was used. General anesthesia use was significantly lower in era 2 compared to era 1 with the same trend between era 2 and 3(P = 0.012 and 0.045 respectively). The oxygen saturation nadir during sedation was significantly higher in era 2 compared to era 3(P < 0.001) but not between eras 1 and 2(P = 0.028) or 1 and 3(P = 0.069). The procedure time within each era was significantly longer under GA compared to deep sedation(P ≤ 0.007) as was the anesthesia-only time(P ≤ 0.001).CONCLUSION High-flow nasal oxygen availability was associated with decreased GA utilization and improved oxygenation for ERCP and EUS during sedation.

Ketamine and midazolam sedation for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy in the Arab world

AIM:To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of intravenous ketamine-midazolam sedation during pediatric endoscopy in the Arab world.METHODS:A retrospective cohort study of all pediatric endoscopic procedures performed between 2002-2008 at the shared endoscopy suite of King Abdullah University Hospital,Jordan University of Science & Technology,Jordan was conducted.All children were > 1 year old and weighed > 10 kg with American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 or 2.Analysis was performed in terms of sedation-related complications(desaturation,respiratory distress,apnea,bradycar-dia,cardiac arrest,emergence reactions),adequacy of sedation,need for sedation reversal,or failure to complete the procedure.RESULTS:A total of 301 patients(including 160 males) with a mean age of 9.26 years(range,1-18 years) were included.All were premedicated with atropine;and 79.4%(239/301) had effective and uneventful sedation.And 248(82.4%) of the 301 patients received a mean dose of 0.16 mg/kg(range,0.07-0.39) midazolam and 1.06 mg/kg(range,0.31-2.67) ketamine,respectively within the recommended dosage guidelines.Recommended maximum midazolam dose was exceeded in 17.6% patients [34 female(F):19 male(M),P = 0.003] and ketamine in 2.7%(3 M:5 F).Maximum midazolam dose was more likely to be exceeded than ketamine(P < 0.001).Desaturation occurred in 37(12.3%) patients,and was reversible by supplemental oxygen in all except 4 who continue to have desaturation despite supplemental oxygen.Four(1.3%) patients had respiratory distress and 6(2%) were difficult to sedate and required a 3rd sedative;12(4%) required reversal and 7(2.3%) failed to complete the procedure.None developed apnea,bradycardia,arrest,or emergence reactions.CONCLUSION:Ketamine-midazolam sedation appears safe and effective for diagnostic pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy in the Arab world for children aged > 1 year and weighing > 10 kg without co-morbidities.

Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy:A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Propofol is commonly used for sedation during endoscopic procedures.Data suggests its superiority to traditional sedatives used in endoscopy including benzodiazepines and opioids with more rapid onset of action and improved postprocedure recovery times for patients.However,Propofol requires administration by trained healthcare providers,has a narrow therapeutic index,lacks an antidote and increases risks of cardio-pulmonary complications.AIM To compare,through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis,sedation with propofol to traditional sedatives with or without propofol during endoscopic procedures.METHODS A literature search was performed using MEDLINE,Scopus,EMBASE,the Cochrane Library,Scopus,LILACS,BVS,Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials,and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases.The last search in the literature was performed on March,2019 with no restriction regarding the idiom or the year of publication.Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included.We divided sedation therapies to the following groups:(1)Propofol versus benzodiazepines and/or opiate sedatives;(2)Propofol versus Propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids;and(3)Propofol with adjunctive benzodiazepine and opioid versus benzodiazepine and opioid.The following outcomes were addressed:Adverse events,patient satisfaction with type of sedation,endoscopists satisfaction with sedation administered,dose of propofol administered and time to recovery post procedure.Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5 software version 5.39.RESULTS A total of 23 clinical trials were included(n=3854)from the initial search of 6410 articles.For Group I(Propofol vs benzodiazepine and/or opioids):The incidence of bradycardia was not statistically different between both sedation arms(RD:-0.01,95%CI:-0.03–+0.01,I2:22%).In 10 studies,the incidence of hypotension was not statistically difference between sedation arms(RD:0.01,95%CI:-0.02–+0.04,I2:0%).Oxygen desaturation was higher in the propofol group but not statistically different between groups(RD:-0.03,95%CI:-0.06–+0.00,I2:25%).Patients were more satisfied with their sedation in the benzodiazepine+opioid group compared to those with monotherapy propofol sedation(MD:+0.89,95%CI:+0.62–+1.17,I2:39%).The recovery time after the procedure showed high heterogeneity even after outlier withdrawal,there was no statistical difference between both arms(MD:-15.15,95%CI:-31.85–+1.56,I2:99%).For Group II(Propofol vs propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids):Bradycardia had a tendency to occur in the Propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opioidassociated(RD:-0.08,95%CI:-0.13–-0.02,I2:59%).There was no statistical difference in the incidence of bradycardia(RD:-0.00,95%CI:-0.08–+0.08,I2:85%),desaturation(RD:-0.00,95%CI:-0.03–+0.02,I2:44%)or recovery time(MD:-2.04,95%CI:-6.96–+2.88,I2:97%)between sedation arms.The total dose of propofol was higher in the propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opiates but with high heterogeneity.(MD:70.36,95%CI:+53.11–+87.60,I2:61%).For Group III(Propofol with benzodiazepine and opioid vs benzodiazepine and opioid):Bradycardia and hypotension was not statistically significant between groups(RD:-0.00,95%CI:-0.002–+0.02,I2:3%;RD:0.04,95%CI:-0.05–+0.13,I2:77%).Desaturation was evaluated in two articles and was higher in the propofol+benzodiazepine+opioid group,but with high heterogeneity(RD:0.15,95%CI:0.08–+0.22,I2:95%).CONCLUSION This meta-analysis suggests that the use of propofol alone or in combination with traditional adjunctive sedatives is safe and does not result in an increase in negative outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

How to improve patient satisfaction during midazolam sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy?

To determine the procedure-related factors that affect sedation satisfaction and to make a suggestion to improve it.METHODSWe prospectively enrolled a total of 456 patients who underwent outpatient endoscopy procedures with midazolam sedation between March 2014 and August 2014. All patients completed both pre- and post-endoscopy questionnaires about sedation expectations and satisfaction.RESULTSThe study cohort included 167 (36.6%) patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), 167 (36.6%) who underwent colonoscopy, and 122 (26.8%) who underwent a combined procedure (EGD and colonoscopy). Over 80% of all patients were satisfied with sedation using midazolam. In univariate and multivariate analyses, total procedure time in the EGD group, younger age (≤ 50 years), and longer colonoscopy withdrawal time in the colonoscopy group were related to decreased satisfaction with sedation. However, in active monitoring and intervention group, there was no decrease in grade of satisfaction despite longer procedure time due to more procedures during colonoscopy. Younger age (≤ 50 years), longer inter-procedure time gap, and colonoscopy withdrawal time were related to decreased satisfaction in the combined EGD and colonoscopy group.CONCLUSIONMidazolam is still a safe and effective sedative for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Satisfaction with sedation depends on several factors including age (≤ 50 years) and procedure time duration. To improve patient satisfaction with sedation, active monitoring of sedation status by the endoscopist should be considered for patients who require long procedure time.

Sedation practices for routine diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in Nigeria

AIM:To determine the sedation practices and preferences of Nigerian endoscopists for routine diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.METHODS:A structured questionnaire containing questions related to sedation practices and safety procedures was administered to Nigerian gastrointestinal endoscopists at the 2011 annual conference of the Society for Gastroenterology and Hepatology in Nigeria which was held at Ibadan,June 23-35,2011.RESULTS:Of 35 endoscopists who responded,17(48.6%) used sedation for less than 25% of procedures,while 14(40.0%) used sedation for more than 75% of upper gastrointestinal endoscopies.The majority of respondents(22/35 or 62.9%) had less than 5 years experience in gastrointestinal endoscopy.The sedative of choice was benzodiazepine alone in the majority of respondents(85.7%).Opioid use(alone or in combination with benzodiazepines) was reported by only 5 respondents(14.3%).None of the respondents had had any experience with propofol.Non-anaesthesiologist-directed sedation was practiced by 91.4% of endoscopists.Monitoring of oxygen saturation during sedation was practiced by only 57.1% of respondents.Over half of the respondents(18/35 or 51.4%) never used supplemental oxygen for diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.CONCLUSION:Sedation for routine diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in Nigeria is characterized by lack of guidelines,and differs markedly from that in developed countries.