Article

Incidence of sedation-related complications with propofol use during advanced endoscopic procedures.

Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63110, USA.
Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association (Impact Factor: 5.64). 07/2009; 8(2):137-42. DOI:10.1016/j.cgh.2009.07.008
Source: PubMed

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.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
65 Views
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and purpose: Colonoscopy is an invasive short-lasting procedure causes the patient's considerable pain, discomfort and anxiety. Therefore, various types of sedation and analgesia techniques have been used during the procedure. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of sedation/analgesia of propofolfentanyl and midazolam-meperidine combinations in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Materials and methods: Eighty-three patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy under sedation were enrolled in this randomized double-blind study. In propofol-fentanil group, patients received fentanyl (1 μg/kg) and propofol (0.5 mg/kg) followed by an infusion of 25 μg/kg/min. Group midazolam-meperidine received meperidine (0.7 mg/kg) with midazolam (0.03 mg/kg). The assessment included measurements of quality of sedation, heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and evaluation of the recovery time. Results: The systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and percent of blood oxygen saturation (SPO2) remined stable during the procedure. Sedation level was higher in propofol-fentanil group. Recovery time was 12.68 ± 4.90 and 25.75 ± 2.07 minutes in the propofol-fentanil and midazolam-meperidine groups, respectively (P = 0.023). Conclusion: Propofol-fentanil can provide better sedation, satisfaction and analgesia than midazolam-meperidine during colonoscopy .Therefore, it can be recommend in patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy.
    Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. 01/2014; 23(108):16-22.
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Although proper sedation is mandatory for endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), there is no research investigating the effects of sedation on ESD performance and complications. We aimed to evaluate the relationship among sedation methods, clinical outcomes, and complications after ESD for gastric neoplasia. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed clinical data of 1,367 patients with 1,485 lesions who had undergone ESD for gastric adenoma or early gastric cancer at our tertiary teaching hospital in Seoul, Korea, between January 2008 and May 2011. Of these, 1,035 lesions in 958 patients were included in the intermittent midazolam/propofol injection by endoscopists (IMIE) group, and 450 lesions in 409 patients were included in the continuous propofol infusion with opioid administration by anesthesiologists (CPIA) group. RESULTS: En bloc resection and complete resection rates were higher in the CPIA group than in the IMIE group (CPIA vs. IMIE; en bloc resection, 99.8 and 95.0 %, P < 0.001; complete resection, 94.2 and 88.3 %, P < 0.001). Duration of procedure was shorter in the CPIA group than in the IMIE group (CPIA vs. IMIE; 48.2 ± 32.5 and 57.6 ± 41.3 min, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, sedation method was an independent factor associated with en bloc resection and complete resection. Additionally, sedation with CPIA was not a risk factor for bleeding (P = 0.403) or perforation (P = 0.474); however, aspiration pneumonia developed more frequently in patients sedated with CPIA (CPIA vs. IMIE, 4.4 and 1.5 %, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Sedation with CPIA can improve ESD performance.
    Surgical Endoscopy 02/2013; · 3.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Endoscopic treatment of early neoplastic lesions in oesophagus has evolved as a valid and less invasive alternative to surgical resection. These endoscopic interventions are minimal invasive treatment options usually done with sedation on an outpatient basis. The aim of this trial is to determine the safety and effectiveness of dexmedetomidine sedation compared to the standard used propofol TCI sedation during endoscopic oesophageal interventions. The study will be performed as a randomized controlled trial. The first 64 consenting patients will be randomized to either the propofol or the dexmedetomidine group. Following endoscopy patients and gastroenterologists have to fill in questionnaires (PSSI, CSSI) (see abbreviations) about their sedation experiences. Additionally, patients have to accomplish the Trieger test before and after the procedure. Patient monitoring includes time adapted HR, SO2, ECG, NIBP, exCO2, NICO, sweat conductance measurement, OAA/S, and the Aldrete score. Effectiveness of sedation, classified by satisfaction levels and pain and sedation score measured by questionnaires is the primary outcome parameter. Respiratory and hemodynamic complications are surrogate parameters for the secondary outcome parameter "safety". The acceptance level among patients after propofol sedation is high. Dexmedetomidine is a relatively new representative for procedural sedation. Has this new form of conscious sedation the potential to be safer and more effective for patients and endoscopists than propofol during endoscopic oesophageal interventions?Trial registration: This trial is registered in the ISRCTN Register (ISRCTN 68599804). It will be conducted in accordance with the protocol and in compliance with the moral, ethical, and scientific principles governing clinical research as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (1989) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The Departments of Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology & Hepatology of the Academic Medical Center of Amsterdam are responsible for the design and conduct of the trial.
    BMC Gastroenterology 12/2013; 13(1):176. · 2.11 Impact Factor