Conscious sedation: A dying practice?

Sedation practices vary according to countries with different health system regulations, the procedures done, and local circumstances. Interestingly, differences in the setting in which the practice of gastroenterology and endoscopy takes place (university-based vs academic practice) as well as other systematic practice differences influence the attitude of endoscopists concerning sedation practices. Conscious sedation using midazolam and opioids is the current standard method of sedation in diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy. Interestingly, propofol is a commonly preferred sedation method by endoscopists due to higher satisfaction rates along with its short half-life and thus lower risk of hepatic encephalopathy. On the other hand, midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. The administration of sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist could become the standard practice and the urgent development of an updated international consensus regarding the use of sedative agents like propofol is needed.     

Is routine sedation or topical pharyngeal anesthesia beneficial during upper endoscopy?

BACKGROUND: Upper endoscopy is an invasive procedure. However, the benefits of routinely administered sedative medication or topical pharyngeal anesthesic are controversial. The aim of this study was to clarify their effects on patient tolerance and difficulty of upper endoscopy. METHODS: A total of 252 patients scheduled for diagnostic upper endoscopy were randomly assigned to 4 groups: (1) sedation with midazolam and placebo pharyngeal spray (midazolam group), (2) placebo sedation and lidocaine pharyngeal spray (lidocaine group), (3) placebo sedation and placebo pharyngeal spray (placebo group), and (4) no intravenous cannula/pharyngeal spray (control group). The endoscopist and the patient assessed the procedure immediately after the examination. Another questionnaire was sent to the patients 2 weeks later. RESULTS: Patients in the midazolam group rated the examination easier and less uncomfortable compared with those in the other groups. The differences were especially evident in the questionnaires completed 2 weeks after the examination ( p < 0.001). Lidocaine did not significantly improve patient tolerance. However, endoscopists found the procedure easier in patients in the lidocaine group compared with the midazolam ( p < 0.01) and control groups ( p < 0.01) but not the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Routine administration of midazolam for sedation increased patient tolerance for upper endoscopy. However, endoscopists found intubation to be more difficult in sedated vs. non-sedated patients. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia did not enhance patient tolerance, but it did make upper endoscopy technically easier compared with endoscopy in patients sedated with midazolam without topical pharyngeal anesthesia, and in patients who had no sedation or pharyngeal anesthesia, but not in patients who received placebo sedation and placebo pharyngeal anesthesia.     

Sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of a nationwide survey.

A postal questionnaire inquiring about routine sedation and premedication practice for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was sent to 1048 doctors. Of 665 appropriate returns, 81% were from consultant physicians and surgeons. Most endoscopists (90%) reported using an intravenous benzodiazepine for at least three quarters of endoscopies and 54% of physicians and 69% of surgeons always did so. Midazolam was the intravenous sedative used by a third of all respondents and 13% also used an additional intravenous agent, usually pethidine. Over the previous two years a total of 119 respiratory arrests, 37 cardiac arrests, and 52 deaths were identified. Adverse outcomes were reported more frequently by consultant physicians, by those who 'titrated' the intravenous sedative, and by those who used an additional intravenous agent, but were reported equally frequently by endoscopists using midazolam and endoscopists using diazepam. There is an urgent need for a prospective study to identify the circumstances and risk factors associated with adverse outcomes related to endoscopy.     

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.     

Endoscopist administered sedation during ERCP: impact of chronic narcotic/benzodiazepine use and predictive risk of reversal agent utilization

OBJECTIVES: When administered by endoscopists conventional sedation regimens for endoscopic retrograde cholangipancreatography (ERCP) consist of intravenous (IV) benzodiazepines and opiates. As yet, standardized dosing regimens for individual patients do not exist. The aims of this study were to (a) determine sedative doses in patients with and without a history of narcotic or benzodiazepine use, (b) assess the frequency of reversal agent utilization, and (c) assess potential predictive factors for reversal agent utilization. METHODS: Clinical data from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2005, were abstracted from a computerized endoscopy database to determine: demographics, median sedation dosages, risk of reversal agent use, and clinical outcome related to sedation. Univariate and logistic regression analysis were performed to assess independent predictive factors for reversal agent utilization. RESULTS: Of 3,179 patients undergoing ERCP, 3,058 received sedation directed by the endoscopists. Meperidine and midazolam IV were given at a median dose of 125 mg and 7 mg, respectively, during a mean procedure time of 42 min. One hundred eighty-six patients reported routine use of narcotics or benzodiazepines (6%). These patients were younger, predominantly female, required higher doses of meperidine and midazolam, and received IV promethazine during procedural sedation more frequently than patients not using narcotics or benzodiazepines. One hundred twenty-four patients required reversal agents (4%). They were relatively older, required significantly higher doses of meperidine and received promethazine more frequently than the nonreversed group. CONCLUSIONS: In a single, high volume ERCP center, endoscopist administered sedation was provided in 96% of cases. Patient age >or=80 yr, dose of meperidine, and the use of promethazine were independent risk factors for the need of reversal agents.     

Endoscopic sedation in the United States: results from a nationwide survey

OBJECTIVES: The introduction of new sedative agents as well as a desire for improved patient satisfaction and greater efficiency has changed the practice of endoscopic sedation. This survey was designed to provide national and regional data on endoscopic sedation and monitoring practices within the United States. METHODS: A 22-item survey regarding current practices of endoscopy and sedation was mailed to 5,000 American College of Gastroenterology physician members nationwide. RESULTS: A total of 1,353 questionnaires (27.1%) were returned. Respondents performed an average of 12.3 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) and 22.3 colonoscopies per wk. Endoscopic procedures were performed within a hospital setting (55.2) more often than at an ambulatory center (35.8%) or private office (8.8%). The vast majority of EGDs and colonoscopies (>98%) were performed with endoscopic sedation. Almost three quarters (74.3%) of the respondents used a narcotic and benzodiazepine for sedation, while propofol was preferred by 25.7%. Sedation practices varied considerably within different geographic regions of the United States. Respondents routinely monitored vital signs and pulse oximetry (99.2% and 98.6%, respectively), and supplemental oxygen was administered to all patients during EGD by 72.7% of endoscopists. Endoscopist satisfaction with sedation was greater among those using propofol than conventional sedation (10 vs 8, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: During the past 15 yr, the volume of procedures performed by endoscopists in the United States has increased two- to fourfold. Propofol is currently being used for sedation in approximately one quarter of all endoscopies in the United States. The findings from this survey may help in the formulation of updated policies and practice guidelines pertaining to endoscopic sedation.     

Midazolam versus diazepam for combined esophogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy

This study compares the effects of two different benzodiazepines used for conscious sedation during combined upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. Subjects were assessed for their degree of analgesia and amnesia for the procedure, prior experience with endoscopy, and willingness to undergo another similar procedure should such be necessary. The patients were randomized single blind to receive either midazolam or diazepam for their preprocedure sedation. The amount of preprocedure sedation utilized was determined by titration of the dose to achieve slurring of speech. Prior to receiving either agent, the subjects were shown a standard card containing pictures of 10 common objects, were asked to name and remember them, and were told they would be quizzed (at 30 min and 24 hr) after being sedated for their recollection as to the objects pictured on the card. Each subject filled out a questionnaire addressing their perceived discomfort during the endoscopic procedure and their memory of the procedure 24 hr after the procedure. Sixty-three percent of the midazolam-sedated subjects reported total amnesia for their colonoscopy vs 20% of diazepam-sedated patients (P<0.001). Fifty-three percent of midazolam-sedated patients reported total amnesia of their upper gastrointestinal endoscopy vs only 23% of diazepam-sedated subjects (P<0.05). The midazolam-sedated subjects reported experiencing less pain with both upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (P<0.05) and colonoscopy (P<0.001) than did the diazepam-sedated group. Most importantly, the midazolam group was more willing to undergo another similar endoscopic procedure should they be asked to do so by their physician (P<0.05). Subjects greater than 60 years of age required significantly less midazolam for sedation than did the younger subjects (P<0.001). This difference in dosing based upon age was not observed in the diazepam-sedated group. Based upon these data we conclude that midazolam is superior to diazepam in producing conscious sedation for combined upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy with regard to: (1) amnesia for the procedures, (2) discomfort experienced at the time of the procedure, and (3) better patient acceptance of future gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.This work was supported in part by a grant from the Gastroenterology Medical Research Foundation of Southwestern Pennsylvania.     

Conscious sedation for EUS of the esophagus and stomach: a double-blind,randomized, controlled trial comparing midazolam with placebo

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing EUS usually receive intravenously administered sedative medication. A double-blind, prospective, randomized trial was conducted to compare midazolam with a placebo for EUS of the esophagus and stomach and to assess patient tolerance and endoscopic feasibility. METHODS: A total of 111 patients were randomized to receive midazolam or a placebo. Patients used a visual analogue scale to score pre-EUS anxiety and tolerance for the procedure. Endoscopists used a visual analogue scale to score ease of echoendoscope introduction and overall patient cooperation. Subsequent to EUS, patients were asked if they were willing to undergo the procedure under the same conditions. RESULTS: The patients' visual analogue scale scores indicated that tolerance for the introduction of the echoendoscope and the procedure overall were both significantly better in the midazolam group. Overall patient tolerance was predicted by sedation (p < 0.001) and pre-EUS anxiety (p = 0.024). Endoscopists' visual analogue scale scores showed that ease of echoendoscope introduction was significantly better in the midazolam group. There was no significant difference in overall patient cooperation during the procedure. There were no significant differences in introduction time, total procedure time, or patients' willingness to undergo the procedure under the same conditions. CONCLUSIONS: EUS of the esophagus and stomach without intravenous sedation is feasible for endoscopists and patients. Patients prefer intravenous administration of midazolam. Assessment of anxiety before EUS may indicate whether administration of midazolam can improve tolerance for the individual patient.     

Sedation practices in gastrointestinal endoscopy—A survey from southern India

Gastrointestinal endoscopies can cause an unpleasant experience for the patient. In India, most endoscopists follow a common institutional policy for sedation. The aim of this study was to analyze the sedation practices in various endoscopy centers across southern India. Data were collected with the help of a structured questionnaire given to a senior endoscopist of the center. Data from the completed questionnaire were later analyzed. Data were obtained from 19 centers across southern India. All endoscopy suites had central oxygen supply and emergency cart. A defibrillator was available in 12 centers (63.2%). Common criteria followed for administering sedation included therapeutic procedures (84.2%), patients who requested sedation (63.2%), children (63.2%), high-risk procedures (57.9%), and uncooperative patients (57.9%). Monitoring methods included pulse oximetry alone in six centers (31.6%), pulse oximetry with blood pressure monitoring in five centers (26.3%), and pulse oximetry, blood pressure, and electrocardiography (ECG) monitoring in eight centers (42.1%). For advanced procedures like endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), sedation was universally used. An anesthesiologist was available in the endoscopy suite in eight centers (42.1%). Five endoscopists administered propofol sedation without anesthesiologist’s presence (26.3%). Thirteen centers had a written protocol for pre-procedure risk assessment (68.4%). A dedicated post-procedure observation area was available in seventeen centers (89.5%). Seven centers followed a written post-sedation discharge protocol (36.8%). Significant variations exist in the practice of sedation among endoscopists in southern India. There is an urgent need to formulate guidelines by endoscopy societies for ensuring better patient outcomes in endoscopy.     

A survey of sedation practices for colonoscopy in Canada

BACKGROUND:

There are limited data regarding the use of sedation for colonoscopy and concomitant monitoring practices in different countries.

METHODS:

A survey was mailed to 445 clinician members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and 80 members of the Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons in May and June 2009.

RESULTS:

Sixty-five per cent of Canadian Association of Gastroenterology members and 69% of Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons members responded with the full survey. Most endoscopists reported using sedation for more than 90% of colonoscopies. The most common sedation regimen was a combination of midazolam and fentanyl. Propofol, either alone or with another drug, was used in 12% of cases. A higher proportion (94%) of adult gastroenterologists who routinely used propofol were highly satisfied compared with those using other sedative agents (45%; P<0.001). Fifty per cent of adult gastroenterologists and 29% of surgeons who were not currently using propofol expressed interest in starting to use it for routine colonoscopies. Only a single nurse was present in the endoscopy room during colonoscopy performed by two-thirds of the endoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS:

Results of the present survey suggest that gastroenterologists in Canada use sedation for colonoscopy in more than 90% of their patients. There was higher satisfaction among gastroenterologists who used propofol routinely for all colonoscopies. Most endoscopy rooms were staffed by a single nurse, which may limit further increases in the use of propofol. Further studies are needed to determine optimal staffing of endoscopy units with and without the use of propofol. Sedation practices of general surgery endoscopists need to be evaluated.     

Procedure-related musculoskeletal symptoms in gastrointestinal endoscopists in Korea

AIM： To determine the prevalence and risk factors of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in gastrointestinal endoscopists in Korea. METHODS： A survey of musculoskeletal symptoms, using a self-administered questionnaire, was conducted on 55 endoscopists practicing in general hospitals or health promotion centers. RESULTS： Forty-nine （89.1%） endoscopists reported musculoskeletal pain on at least one anatomic location and 37 （67.3%） endoscopists complained of pain at rest. Twenty-six （47.3%） endoscopists had severe musculoskeletal pain defined as a visual analogue score greater than 5.5. Factors related to the development of severe pain were （1） standing position during upper endoscopy, （2） specific posture/ habit during endoscopic procedures, and （3） multiple symptomatic areas. Finger pain was more common in beginners, whereas shoulder pain was more common in experienced endoscopists. Sixteen percent of symptomatic endoscopists have modified their practice or reduced the number of endoscopic examinations. Only a few symptomatic endoscopists had sought professional consultation with related specialists. CONCLUSION： The prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in endoscopists is very high. The location of pain was different between beginners and experienced endoscopists. Measures for the prevention and adequate management of endoscopy-related musculoskeletal symptoms are necessary.     

Trained registered nurses/endoscopy teams can administer propofol safely for endoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Propofol has advantages as a sedative for endoscopic procedures. Its administration by anesthesia specialists is associated with high cost. Administration by nonanesthesiologists is controversial because of concerns about safety, particularly respiratory depression. METHODS: Three endoscopy units developed programs to train registered nurses supervised only by endoscopists in the administration of propofol for endoscopic procedures. The rate of adverse respiratory events was tracked from the inception of the programs. To estimate whether training nurses to give propofol on a widespread basis might be effective, we evaluated the individual safety records of all nurses and endoscopists involved in propofol delivery at the 3 centers. RESULTS: Among a total of 36,743 cases of nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) at the 3 centers, there were no cases requiring endotracheal intubation or resulting in death, neurologic sequelae, or other permanent injury. The rate of respiratory events requiring assisted ventilation was not significantly different among the 3 centers and ranged from just <1 per 500 cases to just <1 per 1000 cases among the 3 centers. There was no individual nurse or physician for whom the rate of respiratory events requiring assisted ventilation differed from the overall rate of events at the respective centers. CONCLUSIONS: Trained nurses and endoscopists can administer propofol safely for endoscopic procedures. Nurse-administered propofol sedation is one potential solution to the high cost associated with anesthetist-delivered sedation for endoscopy.     

Propofol versus midazolam and meperidine for conscious sedation in GI endoscopy

OBJECTIVE: Propofol (2,6-diisopropyl phenol) is a relatively new intravenous sedative hypnotic with an ideal pharmacokinetic profile for conscious sedation. In this study, we compared the safety and efficacy of propofol versus the conventional regimen of midazolam and meperidine for conscious sedation in GI endoscopy. METHODS: In this prospective study, 274 patients that included many elderly patients with multiple comorbid conditions underwent GI endoscopic procedures at our hospital. A total of 150 patients received propofol (20-120 mg) and fentanyl (0.25-1.5 mg). The control group of 124 patients was given midazolam (2-6 mg) and meperidine (25-75 mg). The dose of medication was titrated according to patient need and the duration of the procedure. A "comfort score" on a scale of 1-4 assessed the efficacy of the drugs based on pain or discomfort to the patient and ease of endoscopy. A "sedation score" was used to assess the degree of sedation on a scale of 1-5. The Aldrete score was used to measure recovery from anesthesia at 5 and 10 min after the procedure. RESULTS: After controlling for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists' Physical Status Classification (ASA grade), and type and duration of procedure, logistic regression analysis determined that propofol resulted in 2.04 times better patient comfort (p = 0.033, 95% CI = 1.058-3.923). Propofol was 1.84 times more likely to produce deeper sedation than the regimen of midazolam and meperidine (p = 0.027, 95% CI = 1.071-3.083). The recovery from sedation was faster in patients receiving propofol, although this did not reach statistical significance. The safety parameters between the two groups were comparable. CONCLUSION: Propofol was associated with a statistically significant improvement in comfort and sedation score when compared to midazolam and meperidine.     

Propofol--a safe and effective sedative for endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Propofol has recently been reported to be a safe sedative for endoscopy. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients more than 18 years of age undergoing an endoscopic procedure were included in the study. The risk of sedation was calculated using the American Society of Anesthesiology risk class. Pregnant women, patients opting to undergo endoscopy without sedation, and those allergic to any sedative, eggs or soyabeans were excluded. A trained nurse administered propofol under the supervision of an anesthesiologist. Vital parameters, including oxygen saturation, were measured before and during the procedure. Time taken for full sedation, quantity of propofol used, duration of the procedure, time taken for recovery from sedation, and any complication during or after anesthesia were recorded. The patients scored quality of sedation, perception of pain and any memory of the procedure. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were in ASA risk class I and II and the remaining 16 were in a higher ASA risk class. There was no difference in vital sign measurements during the endoscopic procedures as compared to baseline values. None of the patients had any complication. More than 90% of patients did not report any pain and had complete amnesia for the procedure. CONCLUSION: Propofol is a safe and effective sedative for endoscopic procedures.     

Safety and effectiveness of ketamine as a sedative agent for pediatric GI endoscopy

BACKGROUND: The ideal sedation for children undergoing GI endoscopy remains elusive. After ketamine was introduced as a sedative agent in our GI procedure suite, improved sedation and reduced complications were observed. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of ketamine as a sedative agent for GI endoscopy in pediatric patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 402 procedures (EGD, colonoscopy) was performed. Sedation-related complications were defined as hypoxia (oxygen saturation <95% by pulse oximetry), agitation, emergence reactions, stridor, laryngospasm, nausea, vomiting, aspiration, and muscle twitching, or any combination thereof. Sedation groups were defined as the following: Group I, midazolam and meperidine (n=192); Group II, midazolam, meperidine, and ketamine (n=82); and Group III, midazolam and ketamine (n=128). RESULTS: Group 1 (midazolam and meperidine) had the highest frequency of complications, most commonly hypoxia. Group 3 (midazolam and ketamine) had the lowest rate of complications (p=0.001) and the highest rate of adequate sedation, although the difference was not significant (p=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of midazolam and ketamine appears to provide safe and effective sedation for pediatric patients undergoing endoscopy.     

The effect of age on the relative potency of midazolam and diazepam for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Diazepam and midazolam are considered safe and effective sedative agents for diagnostic procedures. However, there have been recent reports of deaths in older patients receiving midazolam for sedation. We examined the relative potency of diazepam compared with midazolam as a function of age in two large groups of patients receiving intravenous benzodiazepines for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. While midazolam and diazepam are approximately equivalent before age 60, after age 60 the relative potency of midazolam compared with diazepam increases markedly. The rapid decline in dose necessary to sedate older patients with midazolam may explain deaths occurring in older patients who have received this drug. Until this problem receives definitive study, we advise that diazepam be preferred over midazolam for intravenous sedation in patients over 60.     

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia does not improve upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in conscious sedated patients

OBJECTIVE: We undertook this study to determine whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia with conscious sedation is superior to conscious sedation alone, with respect to procedure performance or tolerance in patients undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: Ninety-five patients undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy with conscious sedation were randomized to receive either topical pharyngeal anesthesia with 2% tetracaine/14% benzocaine spray or no pharyngeal anesthesia. Conscious sedation was achieved in all patients using intravenous midazolam and meperidine. Patients were asked to rate their pretest anxiety, comfort during endoscopy, recollection of the procedure, and willingness to undergo subsequent examinations using a 100-mm visual analog scale. Additionally, they were asked to estimate procedure duration and rate their tolerance for topical pharyngeal anesthesia. All examinations were performed by two endoscopists who were blinded to whether or not patients had received pharyngeal anesthesia. Endoscopists were asked to determine whether they believed that patients had received topical pharyngeal anesthesia and to estimate ease of esophageal intubation and procedure performance using a 100-mm visual analog scale. Procedure duration and doses of midazolam and meperidine were measured. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ with respect to age, gender, and previous endoscopic history. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to pretest anxiety, procedural comfort, and willingness to undergo subsequent examinations. Patients receiving topical pharyngeal anesthesia rated it as moderately unpleasant. Endoscopists were able to discriminate patients who received pharyngeal anesthesia from those who did not with a sensitivity of 0.73 and a specificity of 0.59. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to ease of intubation, procedure performance, procedure duration, and dosing of midazolam or meperidine. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy using intravenous midazolam and meperidine, the use of topical pharyngeal anesthesia does not improve patient tolerance or procedure performance. Elimination of this agent in the performance of diagnostic upper endoscopy will save time and money without adversely affecting patient care or outcomes.