Propofol sedation during endoscopic procedures: safe and effective administration by registered nurses supervised by endoscopists

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Propofol has several attractive properties, including a rapid onset of action and rapid recovery. However, the administration of propofol sedation in the absence of anesthesiologists remains controversial. This report describes the safety profile of propofol sedation for endoscopy when administered by registered nurses under the supervision of endoscopists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in the endoscopic center of a Japanese private hospital. With assistance from an anesthesiologist, a protocol for administration of propofol by registered nurses was developed. Over the past 6 years, 27,500 patients received nurse-administered propofol sedation. The safety and patient satisfaction with this sedation procedure were evaluated. RESULTS: Among the participating patients, 6.7% developed hypoxemia (Sp(O2) < 90%); 6.2% required oxygen administration via a nasal cannula. Severe hypoxemia (Sp(O2) < 85%) occurred in 121 patients (0.62%) during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and 20 patients (0.25%) during colonoscopy, but neither mask ventilation nor endotracheal intubation was necessary. A decline in blood pressure (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg) was seen in 3.5% of the colonoscopy patients and 1.2% of the upper endoscopy patients. However, hypotension was corrected immediately using an intravenous saline solution. Patients who received propofol sedation expressed overall satisfaction on a 10-point visual analogue scale (with an average of 9.4 points). Among patients who had previously received a combination of midazolam and pethidine for colonoscopy, 85% preferred propofol sedation. The mean time from the end of the procedure to full recovery was 14.6 min. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of propofol by registered nurses under the supervision of endoscopists was safe, and resulted in high rates of patient satisfaction.     

Safety of nonanesthetist sedation with propofol for outpatient colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: In our endoscopy service, nonanesthetists administered propofol sedation has been used in more than 8000 procedures during the past 3 years. This study prospectively assessed the safety of propofol sedation in outpatient colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 300 consecutive outpatients (mean age 53, range 14-94) were enrolled in the study (139 colonoscopies, 161 EGDs). After an initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg (ASA I-II and age III or age >70 years), propofol was titrated in 10 mg boluses to a steady state of sedation by the endoscopy nurse under the endoscopist's supervision. Colonoscopy patients also received 25 mg pethidine (meperidine) and 20 mg butylscopolamine, whereas EGDs were performed with propofol sedation alone, without topical pharyngeal anesthesia. In addition to standard monitoring with pulse oximetry and automated sphygmomanometry, patients were also observed with sidestream capnography or measurement of electrocardiographic impedance changes, providing real-time graphic assessment of respiratory activity. All patients were given oxygen 2 L/min by nasal cannula during the entire procedure. RESULTS: Mean dosages of 157 mg (range 70-340) and 180 mg (60-400) propofol were administered for colonoscopy and EGD procedures, respectively. No episodes of apnea occurred. The oxygen saturation fell below 90 % for short periods of time in 11 patients (3.7 %). Three patients required a temporary increase in oxygen delivery. No assisted ventilation was necessary. In 22 patients (7.3 %), the mean blood pressure temporarily decreased below 50 mmHg. Two patients received a 500-ml infusion of normal saline. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol can be safely administered for sedation during colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy by nonanesthetists who are familiar with the pharmacological properties and use of this drug.     

Overlooked lesions at emergency endoscopy for acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Excessive blood covering the examination field is a frequent cause of diagnostic failure in emergency endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The implications and outcome in these patients have not been well described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records for 1459 consecutive patients who presented at our medical center with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding during a 15-month period were reviewed. All of the patients underwent emergency endoscopy within 24 h of initial presentation. Patients in whom an identifiable bleeding source was not found in spite of an overtly bloody lumen were designated as having a failure of diagnosis, and these cases were analyzed further. RESULTS: Diagnosis failed in 25 patients (1.7 %), 16 of whom underwent repeat endoscopy or surgical intervention. Bleeding vessels were identified in 13 of these patients. Gastric and duodenal ulcers were the most commonly overlooked lesions, with locations in the cardia (n = 3), fundus (n = 2), posterior wall of the antrum (n = 1), duodenal bulb (n = 3), second part of the duodenum (n = 2), and in the stoma of a Billroth II gastrectomy (n = 2). The rates for endoscopic complications, recurrent bleeding, surgery, and mortality were significantly higher in the group with diagnostic failure than in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in whom diagnosis did not fail (8 % vs. 0.4 %; 20 % vs. 3.1 %; 16 % vs. 2.9 %; and 20 % vs. 3.6 %, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, diagnostic failure is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. The data from this study emphasize the importance of good preparation before the procedure and adequate removal of blood during emergency endoscopy procedures.     

Procedural Sedation of Critically Ill Patients in the Emergency Department

Objectives: Procedural sedation is routinely performed in the emergency department (ED). However, some authors believe it is unsafe in nonintubated, critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to determine the safety of ED procedural sedation in the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification P3 and P4 patients. Methods: This was a prospective observational study of patients undergoing procedural sedation in the ED between August 2002 and December 2003 who were classified as ASA physical status score P3 or P4. Patients received either propofol or etomidate at the discretion of the treating physician before their painful procedure. Doses, vital signs, end‐tidal CO₂ (ETCO₂) by nasal cannulae, and pulse oximetry were recorded. Respiratory depression (RD) was defined as a change from baseline ETCO₂ >10 mm Hg, an oxygen saturation of < 90%, or an absent ETCO₂ waveform at any time. Results: Sixty‐two critically ill, nonintubated patients were enrolled. Thirty‐one patients received propofol, and 31 patients received etomidate. No cardiac rhythm abnormalities were detected. RD was seen in 37 of 62 patients (59.7%): 19 of the 31 (61.3%) who received propofol and 18 of the 31 (58.1%) who received etomidate. The mean decrease from baseline systolic blood pressure was 11.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.3% to 15.5%): 5.0% (95% CI = 3.0% to 8.1%) for those receiving etomidate and 17.1% (95% CI = 9.9% to 24.3%) for those receiving propofol. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions: The rate of subclinical RD detected by these criteria was similar to previous reports for noncritically ill patients. Procedural sedation of nonintubated ASA physical status score P3 and P4 patients in the ED with either propofol or etomidate appears to be safe.     

急诊内镜检查在上消化道出血中的应用

目的探讨急诊内镜检查在上消化道出血患者中的临床应用价值。方法回顾性分析2003年10月至2007年5月因上消化道出血于48h内行急诊内镜检查159例患者的临床资料，对比分析不同时间内镜检查的差异以及检查前冰盐水洗胃与否对检查结果的影响。结果急诊内镜检查确诊率为94．97％，不同时间内镜检查确诊率不同，发生出血后24h内行内镜检查其确诊率明显提高，与24～48h相比差异有显著性（P〈0．01）。内镜检查前洗胃与否两组对比分析无明显差异（P〉0．05），所有患者均未发生严重并发症。结论急诊内镜检查是安全有效的，尽早行内镜检查可提高诊断准确率，内镜检查前无需冰盐水洗胃。     

急诊上消化道出血186例临床分析

目的:探讨急诊科上消化道出血的病因构成及特点.方法:回顾性分析我科2010年1月至2012年1月诊治的186例上消化道出血患者的临床资料.结果:(1)上消化道出血主要病因为消化性溃疡46.9％、急性胃黏膜病变12.7％、肝硬化9.0％、胃癌7.2％,贲门撕裂症6.0％.(2)急诊内镜诊断明确的阳性率(95.6％)显著高于非急诊内镜(81.3％),P＜0.01.(3)服用非甾体消炎药(NSAIDs)患者急性胃黏膜病变发生率(39.5％)明显高于未服用者(4.1％),P＜ 0.01;服用NSAIDs患者消化性溃疡发生率(52.6％)虽高于未服用者(39.2％),但差异无统计学意义,P＞ 0.05.结论:服用NSAIDs是上消化道出血的重要原因,急性胃黏膜病变发生率较前有所增加,急诊内镜检查有助于上消化道出血的诊断.     

急诊胃镜在上消化道急症的临床应用

目的 评估急诊胃镜在上消化道急症中的临床应用。方法对587例上消化道急症分4组进行急诊胃镜检查，并用相应的器械及方法进行镜下治疗。结果上消化道异物组155例全部病例诊断明确，镜下一次去除成功148例，成功率为95．5％。食管静脉曲张出血(EVB)69例，其中并胃底静脉曲张11例，急诊止血率为loo％，2例再出血死亡。非静脉曲张性上消化道出血组(NVB)256例，诊断明确24l例(94．1％)，无结论者15例(5．9％)，镜下治疗197例，止血成功率为94．9％，术后7天内再出血14例，近期再出血率7．1％。24例胆道蛔虫，23例成功取出虫体，l例断裂。结论急诊胃镜在上消化道急症的应用安全有效。     

Sedation for diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a survey of the Francophone Pediatric Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Nutrition Group

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: A survey of sedation usage in children undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was undertaken among the members of the Francophone Pediatric Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Nutrition Group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire regarding the mode of sedation used for noninterventional upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, relative to the patient's age and clinical condition, was sent to all members of the Group. The sample included 51 pediatric endoscopy centers (33 university hospitals, eight general hospitals, and 10 private practices). RESULTS: The response rate was 84 % (43 of 51) overall, and 100 % for university hospitals. Forty percent of the pediatric endoscopy centers routinely offered children and/or parents a choice between general anesthesia and conscious sedation. Only 14 % of the pediatric endoscopists surveyed routinely conducted upper gastrointestinal endoscopy under general anesthesia, irrespective of the patient's age or the indication for endoscopy. Patients under the age of 6 months underwent endoscopy as follows: 35 % under conscious sedation, 22 % under general anesthesia, and 43 % with no sedation. After the age of 6 months, endoscopy was conducted as follows: 45 % under conscious sedation, 47 % under general anesthesia, and 8 % with no sedation. Midazolam was the most common drug used for conscious sedation. In patients aged 3 - 5, inhaled nitrous oxide was used instead of midazolam for conscious sedation in 12 % of pediatric endoscopies, and local anesthesia with lidocaine (Xylocaine) in 24 %. In those over the age of 5, the proportions of centers using inhaled nitrous oxide and lidocaine increased to 19 % and 42 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results clearly show that the mode of sedation used in noninterventional upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in the pediatric age group is highly variable.     

Changing patterns of sedation and monitoring practice during endoscopy: results of a nationwide survey in Switzerland

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Little is known about how practices in sedation and in monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy and the complication rates of sedation have changed over time. The aim of this nationwide survey was to assess the present practice among Swiss gastroenterologists, with a particular focus on the use of propofol, and to compare the results with similar data obtained in 1990. PATIENTS AND METHODS: At the end of 2003 a questionnaire (similar to the one used in 1990) was sent to all 249 Swiss gastroenterologists. The response rate was 72.3 %. Data from 179 953 endoscopies performed during the previous 12 months were analyzed for the study. RESULTS: In 2003 sedation was used in 78 % of esophagogastroduodenoscopies and colonoscopies (compared with 60 % in 1990), with midazolam being the most commonly used medication. The drugs were mostly administered by the endoscopy nurse, via an intravenous cannula. Oximetry monitoring was used in more than 95 % of examinations (compared with 2.5 % in 1990). The overall sedation-related morbidity was 0.18 % and the mortality rate was 0.0014 %. Of the 180 respondents, 77 (43 %) reported that they been using propofol regularly for a median time period of 23 months. The 62 respondents (34 %) who used propofol without the assistance of an anesthesiologist had performed a total of 82 620 procedures. The morbidity (defined as the need for bag-ventilation) in this group of patients was 0.19 % and no deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The use of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy has markedly increased over the last 13 years and the use of electronic monitoring has become standard practice. A significant percentage of Swiss gastroenterologists report that they use propofol, mainly in a hospital setting.     

Deep sedation with propofol for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in children, administered by specially trained pediatricians: a prospective case series with emphasis on side effects

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The need to administer procedural sedation to children has increased in recent years, as has experience in this field among nonanesthesiologists. Using propofol makes it easier to achieve sufficiently deep sedation. There is a considerable literature on the administration of propofol by nonanesthesiologists for gastroscopy in adults, but very few data are available on this issue in children. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and efficacy of procedural sedation with propofol for gastroscopy in a pediatric ward with trained personnel and monitoring facilities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A training protocol was developed to educate nurses and residents. Children requiring gastroscopy were included in the study prospectively and underwent procedural sedation with propofol administered by nonanesthesiologists. RESULTS: A total of 811 upper gastrointestinal endoscopies were carried out with procedural sedation. Sedation was achieved in all procedures, and all but three (0.4%) were conducted successfully. None of the patients required intubation. Stridor with signs of upper airway obstruction occurred in 14 of the 811 procedures (1.7%). Laryngoscopy was required to manage difficulties in introducing the gastroscope in 16 of the 811 procedures (2.0%). Major desaturation requiring a short course of ventilation occurred in six procedures (0.7%), and transient desaturation that resolved spontaneously occurred in 97 of the procedures (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of propofol by nonanesthesiologists for gastroscopy examinations in children was successful in this study, but was associated with a small risk of potentially severe complications. Although the residents were generally able to administer procedural sedation alone, constant and immediate availability of anesthesiological support continues to be mandatory.     

术中内镜在急性消化道大出血急诊剖腹探查术中的应用价值

目的 探讨术中内镜在急性消化道大出血患者行急诊剖腹探查术中的应用价值及其安全性。方法对25例急性消化道大出血行急诊剖腹探查的患者进行术中内镜检查，评价其应用价值。结果25例术中内镜检查有24例明确了出血原因，检出率达96．0％。术中内镜平均用时13min，无一例术中内镜受检者发生术中内镜相关性并发症。所有患者均根据术中内镜诊断进行了相关手术治疗，术后无一例再出血。结论急性消化道大出血患者术中内镜的应用，不仅提高了病变的检出率，而且能对病灶进行准确定位与定性，可提高剖腹探查的成功率。     

Causes and clinical outcome of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective analysis of 1534 cases

Despite considerable improvement in the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to patients with acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, several studies suggest there has been no overall change in mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate prospectively the effect of early emergency diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy and medico-surgical collaboration in the clinical outcome of 1534 patients with acute upper GI bleeding treated in our hospital over the past five years. Emergency endoscopy and injection haemostasis were performed within 24 hours of admission, or immediately after resuscitation, in patients with massive bleeding; patients were then treated with close co-operation between surgeons and gastroenterologists. We observed an increase in the incidence of peptic ulcer (67%) with a simultaneous decrease in the incidence of gastroduodenitis (13.5%) as a cause of bleeding compared with the previous decade. In peptic ulcer bleeding, emergency surgical haemostasis was required in 92 patients (8.9%), while none of the patients with erosive gastroduodenitis required surgical intervention. Overall mortality was 2.9%, and in peptic ulcer bleeding patients 2.1% with a postsurgical mortality of 8.7%. Peptic ulcer remains the main cause of upper GI bleeding. Improved clinical outcome and low mortality can be achieved with early diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy and medico-surgical collaboration.     

Patient-controlled analgesia and sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Variations in pain threshold, drug tolerance, and visceral sensitivity among patients make it difficult to anticipate the appropriate dose of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Propofol was recently introduced for sedation in endoscopy and has a rapid onset and offset of action, making it an ideal substance for patient-controlled administration. Several controlled trials have demonstrated that during colonoscopy, patient-controlled application of propofol alone or in combination with various opioids is effective,safe, and yields high patient satisfaction. Target-controlled infusion of propofol has shown encouraging results for prolonged upper endoscopy procedures like endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography.     

Subdissociative‐dose Ketamine versus Fentanyl for Analgesia during Propofol Procedural Sedation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objectives: The authors sought to compare the safety and efficacy of subdissociative‐dose ketamine versus fentanyl as adjunct analgesics for emergency department (ED) procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) with propofol. Methods: This double‐blind, randomized trial enrolled American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) Class I or II ED patients, aged 14–65 years, requiring PSA for orthopedic reduction or abscess drainage. Subjects received 0.3 mg/kg ketamine or 1.5 μg/kg fentanyl intravenously (IV), followed by IV propofol titrated to deep sedation. Supplemental oxygen was not routinely administered. The primary outcomes were the frequency and severity of cardiorespiratory events and interventions, rated using a composite intrasedation event rating scale. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of specific scale component events, propofol doses required to achieve and maintain sedation, times to sedation and recovery, and physician and patient satisfaction. Results: Sixty‐three patients were enrolled. Of patients who received fentanyl, 26/31 (83.9%) had an intrasedation event versus 15/32 (46.9%) of those who received ketamine. Events prospectively rated as moderate or severe were seen in 16/31 (51.6%) of fentanyl subjects versus 7/32 (21.9%) of ketamine subjects. Patients receiving fentanyl had 5.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.9 to 13.6; p < 0.001) times the odds of having a more serious intrasedation event rating than patients receiving ketamine. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes, apart from higher propofol doses in the ketamine arm. Conclusions: Subdissociative‐dose ketamine is safer than fentanyl for ED PSA with propofol and appears to have similar efficacy.     

Randomized Clinical Trial of Propofol versus Methohexital for Procedural Sedation during Fracture and Dislocation Reduction in the Emergency Department

Although methohexital has been well studied for use in emergency department (ED) procedural sedation (PS), propofol has been evaluated less extensively for ED use. OBJECTIVE: The authors hypothesized that there is no difference in the depth of sedation and the rate of respiratory depression (RD) between propofol and methohexital in PS during the reduction of fractures and dislocations in the ED. METHODS: This was a randomized prospective study of nonintoxicated adult patients undergoing PS for fracture or dislocation reduction in the ED between July 2001 and March 2002. Patients were randomized to receive either propofol or methohexital, 1 mg/kg intravenously, followed by repeat boluses of 0.5 mg/kg every 2 minutes until adequate sedation was achieved. Doses, vital signs, end-tidal CO(2) (ETCO(2)) by nasal cannulae, pulse oximetry, and bispectral electroencephalogram analysis (BIS) scores were recorded. RD was defined as an ETCO(2) greater than 50 torr, an oxygen saturation less than 90% at any time, or an absent ETCO(2) waveform. After returning to baseline mental status, patients completed three 100-mm visual analog scales (VASs) regarding pain associated with the procedure, recall of the procedure, and satisfaction. RD rates and VAS outcomes were compared with chi-square tests. RESULTS: There were 109 patients enrolled; six were excluded for study protocol violations. Of the remaining 103 patients, 52 received methohexital (reduction successful in 94%) and 51 received propofol (98% successful). No cardiac rhythm abnormalities or significant decline in systolic blood pressure (>20%) was detected. Six patients required bag-valve-mask-assisted ventilations during the procedure, all for less than 1 minute; four of these patients received methohexital, and two received propofol. By the authors' definition, RD was seen in 25 of 52 (48%) patients receiving methohexital and 25 of 51 (49%) patients receiving propofol (p = 0.88). The mean minimum recorded BIS score was 66.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 62 to 70) for methohexital and 66 (95% CI = 60 to 71) for propofol. VAS results showed similar rates of reported pain, recall, and satisfaction for the two agents. CONCLUSIONS: The authors were unable to detect a significant difference in the level of subclinical RD or the level of sedation by BIS between the two agents. The use of either agent seems to be safe in the ED.     

Is early endoscopy in the emergency room beneficial in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer? A "fortuitously controlled" study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: In previous randomized trials, early endoscopy improved the outcome in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer, though most of these studies defined "early" as endoscopy performed within 24 hours after admission. Using the length of hospital stay as the primary criterion for the clinical outcome, we compared the results of endoscopy done immediately after admission (early endoscopy in the emergency room, EEE) with endoscopy postponed to a time within the first 24 hours after hospitalization, but still during normal working hours ("delayed" endoscopy in the endoscopy unit, DEU). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from 81 consecutive patients with bleeding peptic ulcer admitted in 1997 and 1998 (age range 16 - 90 years). Of these 81 patients, 38 underwent DEU (the standard therapy at the hospital) and 43 underwent EEE. Patients in the two groups were comparable with regard to admission criteria, were equally distributed with respect to their risk of adverse outcome (assessed using the Baylor bleeding score and the Rockall score), and differed only in the treatment they received. Endoscopic hemostasis was performed whenever possible in all patients with Forrest types I, IIa, and IIb ulcer bleeding. RESULTS: We found similar rates in the two groups for recurrent bleeding (16 % in DEU patients vs. 14 % in EEE patients), persistent bleeding (8 % in DEU patients vs. none in EEE patients), medical complications (21 % in DEU patients vs. 26 % in EEE patients), the need for surgery (8 % in DEU patients vs. 9 % in EEE patients), and the length of hospital stay (5.1 days for DEU patients vs. 5.9 days for EEE patients). None of the differences between the two groups in these parameters were statistically significant. None of the patients died. CONCLUSIONS: Early endoscopy in an emergency room did not improve the clinical outcome in our 81 consecutive patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.     

Preparation,premedication and surveillance

The main end points for sedation during endoscopy are patients' satisfaction, short duration of the procedure, and safety. During the last year, attention has focused on attempting to identify the "ideal" candidate for moderate sedation/analgesia and on the importance of providing the patient with appropriate information before the procedure. The increasing pressure to perform more procedures, reduce costs, and achieve shorter patient turnaround times has affected recent approaches to sedation during endoscopy, focusing attention on alternatives to pharmacological sedation such as providing relaxing music, using small-caliber endoscopes for unsedated peroral gastroscopy, and using magnetic endoscopic imaging to increase tolerance and reduce discomfort during colonoscopy. The results, however, have not been convincing. The role of benzodiazepines was discussed in some studies, highlighting the well-known effect of midazolam on postprocedural amnesia, its pharmacological profile and tolerability after intranasal spraying in healthy volunteers, and the efficacy and safety of this route of administration as an alternative to intravenous administration in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.The form of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy that has attracted great interest over the last year is the use of intravenous propofol, either alone or with concomitant benzodiazepines or opioids. As expected in view of the drug's known pharmacological properties, the quality of sedation was better and recovery time was shorter in patients treated with propofol. However, important questions involving the narrow therapeutic range and the mode of administration of propofol (by endoscopists or nurses, or by anesthesiologists) remain open. One important aspect of sedation procedures is prevention of cardiopulmonary complications. The use of electronic monitoring techniques, with a pulse oximeter, has been recommended as a standard procedure during digestive endoscopy; however, pulse oximetry no longer reflects the normal ventilatory functions and does not detect episodes of severe CO2 retention. CO2 monitoring by transcutaneous measurement - or better, by capnography - appears to be useful, as an alternative to pulse oximetry, as a measure of hypoventilation, and for detecting potentially important abnormalities in respiratory activity in patients undergoing sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.With regard to preparation for endoscopic procedures, several "ideal" formulas for bowel preparation have been presented. These include the use of sodium phosphate compounds as an alternative to polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solutions (PEG-ELS); however, the results so far have been conflicting. The best and most cost-effective bowel cleansing procedure for colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy has yet to be established.     

Quality of psychomotor recovery after propofol sedation for routine endoscopy: a randomized and controlled study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Propofol sedation is increasingly being used for endoscopy in the outpatient setting. In view of the agent's short period of action, current recommendations that patients should avoid driving or using public transport unescorted for 24 h may be too strict. Psychomotor recovery and driving skills before and after sedation were therefore assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients undergoing routine upper or lower gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly sedated either with propofol alone or with midazolam plus pethidine. The recovery time and quality of recovery were assessed. Psychomotor recovery was evaluated using the number connection test (NCT) and a driving simulator test 1 h before and 2 h after the endoscopic procedure. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients completed the 2-hour post-sedation procedure. Vital signs were recorded, and no clinically relevant complications occurred. The mean recovery time and quality of recovery were significantly better after propofol sedation (14 +/- 9 min vs. 25 +/- 8 min and 8.7 +/- 1.3 vs. 6.3 +/- 1.1 points) ( P < 0.01). Psychomotor and driving skills after propofol sedation were similar to the baseline results, while in the midazolam/pethidine group, patients showed significantly more lane deviations (1.1 +/- 0.9 vs. 1.6 +/- 0.9), time over the speed limit (0.3 +/- 0.83 vs. 0.6 +/- 0.88), missed stoplights more often (0.05 +/- 0.31 vs. 0.11 +/- 0.35), and had slower reaction times for unexpected events (1.11 +/- 0.46 s vs. 1.39 +/- 0.44 s) ( P < 0.01). The time needed to complete the NCT after sedation did not differ between the two groups (32.1 +/- 12.0 s vs. 33.4 +/- 12.6 s for propofol; 31.5 +/- 11.2 s vs. 34.6 +/- 12.8 s for midazolam/pethidine). CONCLUSIONS: Current recommendations that patients should refrain from driving and unescorted use of public transport for 24 h after sedation may need to be reconsidered in patients who receive propofol sedation.     

镇静等级对胃镜下止血治疗的影响

目的研究不同镇静等级对上消化道出血内镜下治疗的影响。方法73例上消化道出血患者完全随机分为A、B组,2组均进行异丙酚静脉后实施内镜下止血治疗,其中A组镇静Ramsayscale为3～4分,B组镇静Ramsayscale为5～6分。结果2组病例均成功完成内镜下诊疗,操作成功率为100%。术中患者均有一过性血氧饱和度,血压下降,2组间比较差异无显著性,无严重并发症发生。B组胃、食管蠕动间隔时间明显少于A组(P>0.05)。B组治疗操作时间明显短于A组(P<0.05);B组内镜下治疗使用止血夹子数及止血夹子失误数均少于A组;两组间的初始止血率、再出血率、急诊手术率、死亡率差异均无显著性(P>0.05)。结论在应用适当预防措施的情况下,应用异丙酚镇静胃镜下诊疗无疑是安全的,同时应用异丙酚镇静达到Ramsayscale为5～6分时,实施胃镜下诊疗,其效果较佳。     

内镜下胃内血液清除术在急性上消化道出血中的应用及护理

目的探讨内镜下胃内血液及血凝块清除在急性上消化道出血诊治中的可行性及护理配合。方法23例患者在常规急诊内镜检查时,发现大量血液及血凝块覆盖胃腔,影响观察。连通洗胃机,应用大口径多侧孔胃管进行内镜直视下胃内血液及血凝块清除,清除后进行内镜下检查和内镜下止血治疗。结果23例患者经过内镜下胃内血液及血凝块清除后,均能发现出血病灶,进行内镜下止血治疗,并配合有效的护理措施,22例患者有效止血。结论急性上消化道出血管腔内大量血液和血凝块影响内镜下诊治时,进行内镜下胃内血液及血凝块清除术可以清晰视野,有利于内镜的诊断和治疗。而术前心理护理、熟练的术中配合及术后严密观察病情是治疗成功的重要保证。