Effectiveness of Endoscopist-Directed Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation (EDNAPS) for EGD, Colonoscopy and MRCP: A Prospective Study in 929 Patients

Background/objectives: The aim of our study was to review the safety and effectiveness of Endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) during GIT endoscopic procedures, occurrence of major and minor adverse events followed by propofol sedation, level of patient satisfaction and possible choice of propofol as sedative agent in their future endoscopic procedures in Pakistani population. Materials and methods: Prospective data were collected from patients receiving diagnostic AGD, colonoscopy or ERCP. Subjects who stopped the emergency procedure or both EGD and colonoscopy were excluded on the same date. Other exclusions include over 20 years of age, pregnancy, the American society of associate psychologists (ASA) Class III or IV, overweight (body weight>100kg), or drugs or its components or components (Soybean or egg) allergies included. Result: In our study a total of 929 patients comprising 520 males (56%) and 409 females (44%) with mean age of 46.19 ± 15.3years, mean MBI 24.27 ± 2.7. Age-specific propofol dosage was similar across gender except for age group 60 years and above where higher mean propofol dosage was required for females as compared to males for EGD and Colonoscopy (82.8 ± 32.2 vs. 63.5 ± 29.8; p-value 0.005; 81.1 ± 26.1 vs. 75.3 ± 25.0; p-value 0.03). The required examination was completed in all cases. There was no major adverse event. Majority of the patients rated the procedure satisfactory and agreed to undergo same sedative for next time. Conclusion: Endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) during GIT endoscopic procedures is safe and effective in selected patients.

Seguridad de la sedación con propofol administrado por gastroenterólogos en endoscopia digestiva / Safety of propofol sedation administered by gastroenterologists in digestive endoscopy

Resumen Objetivo: tradicionalmente, la sedación con propofol ha estado a cargo de especialistas en anestesiología; sin embargo, una extensa cantidad de información publicada ha demostrado que la sedación con propofol administrado por no anestesiólogos, es segura y eficaz. El estudio se realizó con el objetivo de evaluar la seguridad en la administración de propofol por gastroenterólogos, para la realización de procedimientos en endoscopia digestiva. Métodos: se hizo un estudio retrospectivo en el cual se revisaron los expedientes de 1135 pacientes sometidos a endoscopias digestivas diagnósticas y terapéuticas, en el período comprendido entre enero de 2016 y marzo de 2017. Los pacientes se organizaron por su: edad, género, clasificación de riesgo de la Sociedad Americana de Anestesiólogos, indicación para la endoscopia, y dosis utilizada de propofol. Se registraron los efectos adversos asociados al uso de Propofol, tales como: episodios de hipoxemia transitoria, complicaciones cardiopulmonares serias y muerte. Resultados: se incluyeron los datos de 1135 pacientes (56 % fueron mujeres) que se practicaron endoscopia digestiva bajo sedación con propofol administrado por gastroenterólogos, en un período de 14 meses. La dosis promedio utilizada de propofol fue de 154 +/- 66 mg. Según la clasificación de riesgo de la Sociedad Americana de Anestesiólogos, el 84 % de los pacientes corresponde a las clasificaciones I y II, un 14,8 % a pacientes con clasificación de riesgo III y un 1,1 %, riesgo IV. Los estudios efectuados fueron mayoritariamente gastroscopias (52,6 %) y según la indicación, el 79,6 % corresponde a estudios diagnósticos, seguido de un 12,1% para los sangrados digestivos altos de emergencia. En cuanto a las complicaciones documentadas, se identificaron 70 episodios de hipoxemia que corresponden a un 6,2 % de las sedaciones realizadas. (IC 95%, 4,7-7,6). Solamente un 3,7 % de los pacientes presentó un episodio de hipoxemia por debajo del 80 %. Todos los episodios de hipoxemia, excepto uno, resolvieron con maniobras simples, como la elevación del mentón. Durante el estudio no se presentaron complicaciones cardiopulmonares serias o muertes. Se identificaron, como factores de riesgo para la aparición de hipoxemia, una clasificación de riesgo de la Sociedad Americana de Anestesiólogos mayor a 3, y la realización del estudio endoscópico para dilatación esofágica o colocación de gastrostomía percutánea. Conclusiones: el uso de sedación con propofol administrado por no anestesiólogos en el estudio, no evidenció incremento en la aparición de complicaciones cardiopulmonares serias, ni en los episodios de hipoxemia.

Abstract Aim: Traditionally, sedation with propofol has been approved exclusively for use by anethesiologists, however, an extensive amount of published information has shown that sedation with propofol administered by non-anesthesiologists is safe and effective. The present study was conducted with the objective of evaluating the safety in the administration of propofol by gastroenterologists for the performance of procedures in digestive endoscopy. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in which the records of 1135 patients who underwent digestive and therapeutic digestive endoscopies were reviewed in the period between January 2016 and March 2017. The patients were classified by age, gender, risk classification of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), indication for endoscopy, and dose of propofol. The adverse effects associated with the use of propofol were recorded, such as episodes of transient hypoxemia, serious cardiopulmonary complications and death. Results: We included data from 1135 patients (56% were women) who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy under sedation with propofol administered by gastroenterologist in a period of 14 months. The average dose used for propofol was 154 +/- 66 mg of propofol. According to the American Society of Anesthesiologists risk classification, 84% of the patients correspond to risk I and II, 14.8% to risk level III and 1.1% to risk level IV. The study carried out the most were gastroscopies (52.6%) and according to the indication, 79.6% corresponded to diagnostic studies, followed by 12.1% for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Regarding the documented complications,70 episodes of hypoxemia were identified, corresponding to 6.2% of the sedations performed. (95% CI, 4.7-7.6). Only 3.7% of patients had an episode of hypoxemia below 80%. All episodes of hypoxemia, except one, resolved with simple maneuvers such as chin elevation. There were no serious cardiopulmonary complications or deaths during the study. We identified as risk factors for the appearance of hypoxemia a risk classification of the American Society of Anesthesiologists greater than 3 and performance of the endoscopic study for esophageal dilation or percutaneous gastrostomy placement. Conclusions: The use of sedation with propofol administered by non-anesthesiologists in the present study did not show an increase in the appearance of serious cardiopulmonary complications, or in episodes of hypoxemia.

Sedation with Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol during Regional Anaesthesia: Comparing Haemodynamic Parameters, Respiratory Rates and Offset Times

This study aimed to compare dexmedetomidine and propofol, in terms of haemodynamic parameters, respiratory rates and offset times, when used for sedation in patients undergoing elective orthopaedic and surgical procedures under regional anaesthesia. This was a prospective, randomised, single-blind study where 88 patients were recruited. Patients were randomised into two groups to receive either dexmedetomidine or propofol infusion. Central neuraxial blockade (spinal, epidural or combined spinal epidural) was performed. After ensuring an adequate block and stable haemodynamic parameters, dexmedetomidine was infused 15 minutes later at 0.4 μg/kg/hr, and propofol, at a target concentration of 2.5 μg/ml. Both drugs were titrated to achieve a bispectral index score of 70 before surgery commenced. Sedation level was monitored using the bispectral index score and assessed by the Observer Assessment of Alertness Scale score. Drug infusion was adjusted to maintain bispectral index scores ranging between 70-80 during surgery. Both groups showed reductions in mean arterial pressure and heart rate from baseline readings throughout the infusion time. However there was no significant reduction in the first 15 minutes from baseline (p > 0.05). Haemodynamic parameters and respiratory rate between both groups were not significantly different (p > 0.05). No patient demonstrated significant respiratory depression or SpO2 ≤ 95%. Offset times were also not significantly different between both groups (p = 0.594). There were no significant differences in haemodynamic parameters, respiratory rates and offset times between dexmedetomidine and propofol used for sedation in patients undergoing elective orthopaedic and surgical procedures under regional anaesthesia.

Patient-Controlled Sedation versus Nurse-Administered Sedation with Propofol during Colonoscopy / 대한소화기내시경학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) allows the patients to titrate the dosages of sedative drug according to their needs. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and the efficacy of nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) with those of PCS. METHODS: Eighty one patients were randomly assigned to two groups. All patients received meperidine 25 mg and propofol 40 mg as an initial dose for sedation. Patients in PCS group were subsequently infused with propofol 15 mg over 80 seconds through infusion pump whenever they required. Patients in NAPS group were injected with 10~20 mg propofol by nurse with supervision by endoscopist. The dosage of propofol, cardiopulmonary parameters, procedure time, sedation score, pain score, the patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction scores were assessed. RESULTS: With regard to blood pressure, pulse rate and oxygen saturation, serious complications were not observed. Especially, there was no significant difference of mean total dose between two groups (NAPS group and PCS group received 76.7+/-24.7 mg and 82.5+/-26.6 mg respectively). Pain score was higher in woman than in man (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: 1.2~1.5 mg/kg of propofol with small dose of opioid during colonoscopy was effective and safe. NAPS was more practical and useful method of sedation than PCS during colonoscopy.

Sedation with Propofol-Midazolam Combination versus Propofol alone during Spinal Anesthesia: Prospective, Randomized Study / 대한마취과학회지

BACKGROUND: Propofol can produce a dose-dependent reduction in blood pressure by providing titratable sedation and rapid recovery. It has been reported that a combination of midazolam and propofol resulted in the significant reduction in the total dose of propofol needed. It was hypothesized that the addition of low-dose midazolam to propofol may provide sufficient sedation without compromising the hemodynamic stability. METHODS: A total of 40 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups (n = 20 each). Group M-P received a bolus of 0.02 mg/kg of midazolam, followed by a propofol infusion with a fixed target concentration of 1.0microgram/ml. Group P received only a propofol infusion with an initial target plasma concentration of 2.5microgram/ml. Subsequent titration of the infusion rates in Group P or the additional midazolam boluses in Group M-P were made in order to maintain a predetermined sedation level. RESULTS: In Group P, a mean dose of 5.4 +/- 0.7 mg/kg/h propofol was used compared with 2.7 +/- 0.5 mg/kg/h in Group M-P (P<0.0001, plus additional 2.96 +/- 1.8 mg of midazolam). Ephedrine was administered to 15 patients in Group M-P and 17 patients in Group P. Recovery was significantly fast (Group P, 6.8 +/- 2.9 min vs. Group M-P, 9.8 +/- 4.4 min, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Sedation with propofol plus midazolam requires a lower total dose of propofol compared with propofol alone but has no superior hemodynamic stability. A further study using younger patients and combinations of different doses of each drug will be needed.