ABSTRACT: There are limited data on the safety of anesthesia-assisted endoscopy by using propofol-mediated sedation in obese individuals undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures (AEPs).
To study the association between obesity (as measured by body mass index [BMI]) and the frequency of sedation-related complications (SRCs) in patients undergoing AEPs.
Prospective cohort study.
Tertiary referral center.
A total of 1016 consecutive patients undergoing AEPs (BMI <30, 730 [72%]; 30-35, 159 [16%]; >35, 127 [12%]).
Monitored anesthesia sedation with propofol alone or in combination with benzodiazepines and/or opioids.
SRCs, airway maneuvers (AMs), hypoxemia, hypotension requiring vasopressors, and early procedure termination were compared across 3 groups.
There were 203 AMs in 13.9% of patients, hypoxemia in 7.3%, need for vasopressors in 0.8%, and premature termination in 0.6% of patients. Increasing BMI was associated with an increased frequency of AMs (BMI <30, 10.5%; 30-35, 18.9%; >35-26.8%; P < .001) and hypoxemia (BMI <30, 5.3%; 30-35, 9.4%; >35, 13.4%; P = .001); there was no difference in the frequency of need for vasopressors (P = .254) and premature termination of procedures (P = .401). On multivariable analysis, BMI (odds ratio [OR] 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.1), age (OR 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1), and American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 or higher (OR 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.0) were independent predictors of SRCs. In obese individuals (n = 286), there was no difference in the frequency of SRCs in patients receiving propofol alone or in combination (P = .48).
Single tertiary center study.
Although obesity was associated with an increased frequency of SRCs, propofol sedation can be used safely in obese patients undergoing AEPs when administered by trained professionals.
Gastrointestinal endoscopy 12/2011; 74(6):1238-47. · 6.71 Impact Factor
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.
Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 07/2009; 8(2):137-42. · 5.64 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: Deep intravenous sedation plus local anesthesia for anorectal surgery in the prone position is used frequently at our institution, but is not widely accepted because of concerns regarding airway management. The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of this anesthetic technique for anorectal surgery.
Data were collected prospectively on 413 consecutive patients (mean age, 47 years; mean weight, 80 kg) undergoing anorectal surgical procedures.
Of the 389 patients who underwent anorectal procedures in the prone position, 260 (67 percent) received intravenous sedation plus local anesthesia, 125 (32 percent) received regional anesthesia (spinal or epidural), and 4 (1 percent) received general endotracheal anesthesia. Of the 24 patients who underwent anorectal procedures in the lithotomy position, 13 (54 percent) received intravenous sedation plus local anesthesia, 2 (8 percent) received regional anesthesia, 2 (8 percent) received general endotracheal anesthesia, and 7 (29 percent) received mask inhalational anesthesia. Forty-two adverse events attributable to the anesthetic occurred in 18 patients: nausea and vomiting (n = 17), transient hypotension, bradycardia, or arrhythmia (n = 8), transient hypoxia or hypoventilation (n = 7), urinary retention (n = 6), and severe patient discomfort (n = 2). These complications occurred in 4 percent (10/273) of patients receiving intravenous sedation plus local anesthesia and in 6 percent (8/127) of patients receiving regional anesthesia. Two of 260 patients (0.8 percent) receiving intravenous sedation plus local anesthesia in the prone position were rolled supine before completing the surgical procedure. Recovery time before discharge for patients treated on an ambulatory basis was significantly shorter for those patients undergoing intravenous sedation plus local anesthesia (79 +/- 34 minutes, n = 174) than for patients undergoing regional anesthesia (161 +/- 63 minutes, n = 45; P < 0.001, t-test).
Intravenous sedation plus local anesthesia in the prone position is safe and effective for anorectal surgery and offers potential cost savings by decreasing recovery room time for outpatient procedures.
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 11/2002; 45(11):1553-8; discussion 1558-60. · 3.13 Impact Factor