Incidence of sedation-related complications with propofol use during advanced endoscopic procedures.
ABSTRACT Propofol is an effective sedative in advanced endoscopy. However, the incidence of sedation-related complications is unclear. We sought to define the frequency of sedation-related adverse events, particularly the rate of airway modifications (AMs), with propofol use during advanced endoscopy. We also evaluated independent predictors of AMs.
Patients undergoing sedation with propofol for advanced endoscopic procedures, including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound, and small-bowel enteroscopy, were studied prospectively. Sedative dosing was determined by a certified registered nurse anesthetist with the goal of achieving deep sedation. Sedation-related complications included AMs, hypoxemia (pulse oximetry [SpO(2)] < 90%), hypotension requiring vasopressors, and early procedure termination. AMs were defined as chin lift, modified face mask ventilation, and nasal airway. We performed a regression analysis to compare characteristics of patients requiring AMs (AM+) with those who did not (AM-).
A total of 799 patients were enrolled over 7 months. Procedures included endoscopic ultrasound (423), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (336), and small-bowel enteroscopy (40). A total of 87.2% of patients showed no response to endoscopic intubation. Hypoxemia occurred in 12.8%, hypotension in 0.5%, and premature termination in 0.6% of the patients. No patients required bag-mask ventilation or endotracheal intubation. There were 154 AMs performed in 115 (14.4%) patients, including chin lift (12.1%), modified face mask ventilation (3.6%), and nasal airway (3.5%). Body mass index, male sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class of 3 or higher were independent predictors of AMs.
Propofol can be used safely for advanced endoscopic procedures when administered by a trained professional. Independent predictors of AMs included male sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists class of 3 or higher, and increased body mass index.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The administration of propofol for endoscopic sedation by a qualified person, other than the endoscopist, is safe and effective. The aim of this study was to determine if propofol can be administered safely and effectively by the endoscopist performing the procedure. All patients referred for upper-GI EUS were eligible for inclusion in the study. Exclusion criteria included the following: age less than 18 years, American Society of Anesthesiology physical status class greater than 2, a potential for difficulty in airway maintenance, and allergy to propofol constituents. The endoscopist administered propofol as an intravenous bolus followed by a constant infusion. Adverse events, drug dosage, complications, and patient/endoscopist satisfaction were recorded. A total of 500 patients (285 women, 215 men; mean age 53.4 [14.8 years]) were enrolled. Mean propofol dose was 301 mg (range 100-1000 mg). Mean procedure time was 19 minutes (range 3-70 minutes). The required examination was completed in all cases. There was no major adverse event. Oxygen desaturation (oxygen saturation < 95%) occurred in 16 (3%) patients. There were 4 (1%) cases of mild hypoxemia (saturation < 90%) but no case of severe hypoxemia (saturation <85%). The endoscopist rated the 92% of the procedures as "very smooth" or "smooth" and regarded administration of propofol as "easy" for 92%. All patients said they would prefer the same method of sedation if the procedure were repeated. Endoscopist-administered propofol is safe and effective in selected patients.Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 09/2004; 60(3):356-60. · 5.21 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A target-controlled infusion system automatically adjusts the rate of infusion of propofol to maintain a desired (target) concentration. The aim of this study was to determine whether administration of propofol with a target-controlled infusion system could improve the sedation of patients undergoing ERCP. A total of 205 consecutive patients undergoing ERCP were sedated by using a propofol target-controlled infusion system by an anesthesiologist. The target plasma concentration of propofol ranged from 2 to 5 microg/mL. A bolus dose of fentanyl (50-100 mcg) was administered if signs of insufficient analgesia were observed at the maximum target concentration of propofol allowed. The technical difficulty of ERCP was graded on a scale from 1 (least difficult) to 5 (most difficult). The mean dosages of propofol and fentanyl administered were 465 (245) mg and 59 (23) mcg, respectively. The total dose of propofol administered and the mean duration of ERCP were related to the degree of difficulty of the procedure. No severe complication was observed; mean time to discharge was 31 (12) minutes. Time to discharge was not influenced by the difficulty of ERCP or by the total dose of propofol administered. A target-controlled infusion system for administration of propofol provides safe and effective sedation during ERCP. Further studies are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness and the safety profile for infusion of propofol with a target-controlled infusion system by a nonanesthesiologist during ERCP.Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 10/2004; 60(3):361-6. · 5.21 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine the incidence of adverse events related to an endoscopy sedation regimen that included propofol, delivered by general practitioner (GP) sedationists. Audit of reports of sedation-related adverse events in patients undergoing endoscopy. A sample of 1000 patients' medical records was also reviewed to determine the drugs and dosages used and the proportion of sedations delivered by GPs. All patients undergoing gastroscopy and/or colonoscopy from January 1996 to December 2000 in two private endoscopy centres in Canberra. Sedation was provided by GPs or a specialist anaesthetist, in most cases using a drug regimen that included propofol. Incidences of respiratory arrest, airway obstruction, hypoxia requiring intervention, hypotension, and death; number of interventions to correct these events, including extra airway management, bag-mask ventilation, intravenous fluid infusion, endotracheal intubation and the use of reversal agents, and admission to hospital. 28,472 procedures were performed in the five years. There were 185 sedation-related adverse events (6.5/1000 procedures; 95% CI, 5.6-7.4): 107 for airway or ventilation problems (3.8/1000) and 77 hypotensive episodes (2.7/1000). Respiratory-related adverse events were more common in patients managed by GPs than anaesthetists, but this was not significant (P = 0.1). Interventions were recorded in 234 patients (8.2/1000; 95% CI, 7.2-9.3): 123 to maintain ventilation, and 111 intravenous infusions. GPs were more likely than anaesthetists to intervene to manage respiratory-related adverse events (P = 0.03). Four patients required transfer or admission to hospital. No patients required endotracheal intubation, and there were no deaths. The GP sedationists encountered a low incidence of adverse events, which they managed effectively. It appears that appropriately selected and trained GPs can safely use propofol for sedation during endoscopy.The Medical journal of Australia 03/2002; 176(4):158-61. · 2.85 Impact Factor