Sedation For Colonoscopy Research Articles

Clinical Efficacy Between Intravenous Paracetamol and Intravenous Fentanyl for Propofol Deep Sedation in Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Sedation practices for colonoscopy indeed vary widely around the globe. Due to a lack of data on intravenous paracetamol, we aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of intravenous paracetamol compared to intravenous fentanyl under propofol deep sedation for colonoscopy. A total of 225 patients who underwent colonoscopy at Siriraj Hospital were randomly assigned to two groups. All patients underwent deep sedation with propofol and received intravenous (iv) paracetamol (group P, n = 113) or iv fentanyl (group F, n = 112). All patients received a premedication of 0.02-0.03 mg/kg of midazolam intravenously. Fifteen to thirty minutes before the procedure, patients in group P were administered 1000 mg of iv paracetamol, while those in group F received 0.001 mg/kg of iv fentanyl. All patients were oxygenated with 100% O2 via a nasal cannula, and deep sedated with titrated intravenous propofol. The primary outcome measure was the success rate of colonoscopy. The colonoscope reaching the ileocecal valve was an important marker for a successful colonoscopy. Secondary outcome measures included endoscopist and patient satisfaction, patient tolerance, ease of the procedure, and sedation-related complications during and immediately after the procedure. All colonoscopies were successfully completed. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics, duration of the procedure, endoscopist and patient satisfaction, patient tolerance, or ease of the procedure between the two groups. However, group F experienced significantly higher rates of upper airway obstruction and oxygen desaturation during the procedure compared to group P. No serious complications were observed in either group. Intravenous paracetamol with propofol deep sedation in adult patients is non-inferior to intravenous fentanyl for successful colonoscopy completion. Sedation-related complications were relatively lower in the propofol deep sedation with iv paracetamol group compared to the propofol deep sedation with iv fentanyl group. This trial was registered with the Thai Clinical Trial Registry (TCTR 20190321002).

Effect of Esketamine on Cognitive Recovery After Propofol Sedation for Outpatient Colonoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

While esketamine shows promise as an adjunct in procedural sedation, its impact on postoperative cognitive recovery remains incompletely characterized. This study investigated the effects of esketamine on multiple dimensions of recovery, particularly cognition, in patients undergoing colonoscopy with propofol-based sedation. We conducted this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial from January 6, 2023, to May 20, 2024, at two hospitals in China. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either esketamine 0.2 mg/kg (n = 126) or placebo (n = 126), followed by propofol 1 mg/kg. We administered additional propofol boluses (0.5 mg/kg) to maintain sedation. The study assessed cognitive recovery on postoperative day 3 as the primary outcome, measured by the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale (PostopQRS). Secondary outcomes included overall recovery, recovery in other PostopQRS domains, time to discharge, and adverse events. Esketamine significantly enhanced cognitive recovery compared to placebo on postoperative day 3 (95.2% vs 83.3%, relative risk = 1.14; 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.25, P = 0.002). Discharge times were comparable between groups (odds ratio = 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.43-1.16, P = 0.163). The esketamine group demonstrated higher satisfaction (P = 0.003) and significantly reduced incidences of hypotension (14.3% vs 36.5%, P < 0.001), bradycardia (5.6% vs 15.1%, P = 0.013), hypoxemia (2.4% vs 8.7%, P = 0.028), and injection site pain (21.4% vs 48.4%, P < 0.001). Adding esketamine 0.2 mg/kg to propofol for colonoscopy sedation improved postoperative cognitive recovery, enhanced patient satisfaction, and reduced cardiopulmonary adverse events without prolonging discharge time. These findings establish low-dose esketamine as a beneficial adjunct to propofol in procedural sedation for colonoscopy.

Unsedated or On-Demand Minimally Sedated Water-Aided Outpatient Colonoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: A Step Forward or Backward? Experience from Daily Practice in a Regional (Nonacademic) Hospital.

Background: By using optimal insertion techniques with water infusion and dynamic position changes, pain during colonoscopy is greatly reduced and the procedures can usually be performed without sedation. We investigated whether the excellent results with water-aided colonoscopy reported by experts are reproducible in daily practice in a regional hospital. Methods: During the year 2023, 500 consecutive outpatients 50-75 years old presenting for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance could choose between unsedated or on-demand minimally sedated colonoscopy, moderate sedation with midazolam, or deep sedation with propofol. A total of 57% opted for unsedated colonoscopy, and of those patients, 250 consecutive patients were included. The primary outcome was the feasibility of the procedure. Cecal intubation rate (CIR), pain scores, use of midazolam, and willingness to repeat future procedures in the same way were registered periprocedural. Additional outcomes were cecal intubation time (CIT), detection rate of lesions, polyp resection rate, rate of adequate bowel preparation, and volume of water aspirated during insertion. Results: 250 consecutive sedation-free or on-demand minimally sedated water-based colonoscopies were analyzed. The CIR was 98%. A total of 96.5% completed without sedation and 5% of the procedures were perceived as moderately painful, but none had severe pain. The willingness to repeat was 97%. The mean CIT was 8.2 min. Conclusions: Using water-aided insertion techniques, comfortable sedation-free, or on-demand minimally sedated colonoscopy in daily practice in a regional hospital is feasible in the vast majority of patients presenting for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance, and the willingness to repeat is very high.

Efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for conscious sedation in painless colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial

BackgroundWe explored the efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol for conscious sedation in painless colonoscopy.MethodsA total of 195 patients who underwent painless colonoscopy surgery were randomly divided into three groups: the propofol deep sedation group (group DS), the sufentanil combined with propofol for conscious sedation (group CS1) and the esketamine combined with propofol for conscious sedation (group CS2). The primary outcomes of this study included the incidence of hypoxemia, hypotension, hypertension, and bradycardia and excellent and good rates of anaesthesia during colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes included perioperative changes in vital signs (MAP, HR, and SpO2), anaesthesia induction time, dischargeable time, patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), drowsiness, dizziness, propofol injection pain, assisted ventilation and vasoactive medications.ResultsThe incidence of intraoperative hypoxemia in the DS group was significantly greater than that in the CS1 and CS2 groups (χ2 = 7.081, P = 0.029). The incidence of hypotension in the CS2 group was significantly lower than that in the DS and CS1 groups (χ2 = 16.278, P < 0.001). The risk of hypoxemia was 5.727 times higher in Group DS than in Group CS2 (OR 5.727; 95%CI 1.203–27.273), and the risk of hypotension was 9.864 times higher in Group DS than in Group CS2 (OR 9.864; 95%CI 2.770–35.120). The risk of hypotension in Group CS1 was 5.167 times that in Group CS2 (OR 5.167; 95%CI 1.396–19.117). The incidence of propofol injection pain, assisted ventilation, ephedrine usage and drowsiness in the DS group was significantly greater than that in the CS1 and CS2 groups (χ2 = 57.618, P < 0.001; χ2 = 9.544, P = 0.008; χ2 = 14.820, P = 0.001; χ2 = 37.257, P < 0.001). The incidence of dizziness during recovery in the CS1 group was significantly greater than that in the DS and CS2 groups (χ2 = 6.594, P = 0.037). The dischargeable time in the DS group was significantly greater than that in the CS1 and CS2 groups (F = 53.039, P < 0.001). The satisfaction scores of the endoscopist and patients in the DS group were significantly lower than those in the CS1 and CS2 groups (F = 17.390, P < 0.001; F = 19.282; P < 0.001).ConclusionsIn conclusion, esketamine combined with propofol for conscious sedation can be safely and effectively used for painless colonoscopy and has fewer complications.It is recommended for painless colonoscopy.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous thiamylal in sedation for colonoscopy in children.

Since a standard sedation protocol for pediatric colonoscopy (CS) has not been established, evidence on optimal sedative agents is needed. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of thiamylal in sedation for pediatric CS compared to midazolam. Children from 7 to 16 years of age who underwent CS under sedation with intravenous thiamylal or midazolam at our hospital between June 2010 and March 2024 were included in this retrospective observational study. The primary outcome was the efficacy (success rate of CS without mid-awakening) of the drugs. Meanwhile, the secondary outcomes were the sedation level during CS, procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events related to sedation. Sixty children were included in the study. The success rate of CS without mid-awakening was significantly higher in the thiamylal group (90.6%) than in the midazolam group (64.3%; p = 0.03). The two groups had no significant differences in median sedation depth, procedure time, or recovery time. Adverse events related to sedation in thiamylal group (22%) and midazolam group (25%) were similar. No severe adverse events were reported. Intravenous thiamylal provides effective and safe sedation in children requiring CS, with little or no mid-awakening during the procedure.

The effects of remimazolam combined with sufentanil on respiration, circulation and sedation level in patients undergoing colonoscopy

BackgroundThe main sedative which is propofol in painless gastroenteroscopy, has a high risk of reducing blood pressure and respiratory depression. Remimazolam (a short-acting benzodiazepine) is expected to be widely used in painless gastroenteroscopy due to its rapid onset, rapid metabolism and light respiratory and circulation inhibition.MethodsA randomized, single-blind, parallel, controlled study, 123 outpatients who were undergoing painless colonoscopy and ramdomly divided into group A, B and C, in Hangzhou First People’s Hospital, July-December 2021. All patients were intravenously injected with 5 µg sufentanil for analgesic preconditioning. The group A was induced by 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam besylate. The group B was induced by 0.25 mg/kg remimazolam besylate. And the group C was inducted by 2.0 mg /kg propofol. If the patients had limb movement or MOAA/S score > 3 and so on, remimazolam besylate was added at 2.5 mg/ time in group A and B, and propofol emulsion injection was added at 0.5 mg/kg/ time in group C. During the operation, according to the actual situation, remimazolam was per added 2.5 mg in the experimental group, and propofol was 0.5 mg/kg in the control group. Heart rate (HR), non-invasive blood pressure (BP), respiratory rate (RR), pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), and improved vigilance/sedation score (MOAA/S) of patients was recorded from entering endoscopy room to get out of the anesthesia recovery room, also including perioperative adverse events, other medications or treatments, the time of patients waking up and leaving the hospital.ResultsThe successful rate of induction in three groups was 100%. There was no significant difference in the sedation completion rate among the three groups (Group A:90.2%, Group B: 92.7%, Group C: 92.7%, P = 1.000). The rate of adverse events after administration: group A(27.0%) and B(36.8%) both lower than group C(71.0%),P < 0.001;There was no significant difference between group A and group B, P > 0.744;The average time from the last drug administration to meet the discharge criteria of the subjects in three groups was as follows: The average time of group A(16.2 min) and Group B(16.5 min) both shorter than group C(19.6 min), P = 0.001; There was no significant difference between group A and group B, P = 0.742. Conclusions: This study revealed that remimazolam is a safe and effective medication for colonoscopy sedation, the security of remimazolam is better than propofol, and the sedative effect with the initial dose of 0.25 mg/kg of remimazolam is optimal.Trial registrationChina Clinical Trial Center with registration number: 2100052615,02/11/2021.

Post Obstructive Acute Pulmonary Edema after Sedation

Post-obstructive acute pulmonary edema (POAPE) is a serious and rare respiratory complication, especially under sedation. We report the case of a patient without comorbidities undergoing sedated colonoscopy who developed respiratory distress, desaturation, and clinical and radiological signs suggestive of acute pulmonary edema. Etiological investigations, including cardiac assessment, returned normal, and the patient's condition improved within hours. The diagnosis of post-obstructive pulmonary edema was established. Through this case report, we emphasize the seriousness of this complication, necessitating early intervention.

Unsedated colonoscopy utilizing virtual reality distraction: a pilot-controlled study.

Sedation increases colonoscopy risks and prolongs recovery time. We examined whether virtual reality (VR) can substitute for sedation. The primary outcome was the overall satisfaction of patients who underwent colonoscopy with VR headset compared with patients who underwent standard sedation. Pain during the procedure, polyp detection rate (PDR), colonoscopy duration, post-colonoscopy adverse events, post-colonoscopy recovery, time-to-return to daily functions, and turnaround time at the endoscopy unit were secondary outcomes. The study was approved by Sheba Medical Center's ethics committee IRB number 21-8177-SMC. Sixty patients were sequentially enrolled in a 1:1 ratio to either standard sedated colonoscopy or VR-unsedated procedure, and all patients signed a written informed consent. 28/30 patients successfully completed the colonoscopy using VR headset. Overall satisfaction score was comparable between the groups. There was no difference between VR and controls in colonoscopy duration, or PDR. VR patients had numerically lower rate of post-colonoscopy adverse events than controls. The proportion of VR patients who reported resuming daily activities on the day of the procedure was significantly higher than in the control group. The VR group patients spent significantly less time in the hospital compared to the control group. VR technology can provide adequate substitution for sedation for most patients undergoing colonoscopy and offers comparable patient satisfaction and faster return to daily activities.

Acceptance and Preference of Computed Tomographic Colonography and Colonoscopy: Results of a Nationwide Multicenter Comparative Questionnaire Survey in Japan

To investigate patient acceptance and preference for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) over colonoscopy. Participants were recruited from a nationwide multicenter trial in Japan to assess the accuracy of CTC detection. They were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy after CTC with common bowel preparation on the same day. Some were administered sedative drugs during colonoscopy, depending on the referring clinician and participant's preferences. The participants were requested to complete a questionnaire to evaluate the acceptability of bowel preparation, examinations, and preference for future examinations. Of the 1,257 enrolled participants, 1,180 (mean age: 60.6 years; women: 43.3%) completed the questionnaire. Sedative drugs were not administered in 687 participants (unsedated colonoscopy group) and were administered intravenously during colonoscopy in 493 participants (sedated colonoscopy group). Before propensity score matching, the mean participants' age, percentages of asymptomatic participants, insufflation of gas during colonoscopy, and number of participants with a history of abdominal/pelvic operation significantly differed between the groups. After propensity score matching, 912 participants from each group were included in the analysis. In the unsedated colonoscopy group, CTC was answered as significantly easier than colonoscopy (p<0.001). Conversely, CTC was significantly more difficult than colonoscopy in the sedated colonoscopy group (p<0.001). In the unsedated colonoscopy group, 48% preferred CTC and 22% preferred colonoscopy for future examinations, whereas in the sedated colonoscopy group, 26% preferred CTC and 38% preferred colonoscopy (p<0.001). CTC has superior participant acceptability compared with unsedated colonoscopy. However, our study did not observe the advantages of CTC acceptance over sedative colonoscopy.

Association between Colonoscopy Sedation Type and Polyp Detection: A Registry-based Cohort Study.

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Adenomas and serrated polyps are precursors of colorectal cancer, with serrated polyps being more difficult to detect during colonoscopy. The relationship between propofol use and polyp detection remains unclear. The authors investigated the association of propofol-based versus mild-moderate sedation on adenoma and serrated polyp detection during colonoscopy. This retrospective cohort study used observational data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Patients aged greater than 50 yr with screening or surveillance colonoscopies between January 1, 2015, and February 28, 2020, were included. Exclusions were diagnostic examinations, no sedation, missing pathology data, and poor bowel preparation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate differences in polyp detection between propofol and moderate sedation in the full sample while adjusting for covariates. Propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level were used in a restricted sample analysis that included endoscopists and facilities with between 5% and 95% propofol sedation use. A total of 54,063 colonoscopies were analyzed in the full sample and 18,998 in the restricted sample. Serrated polyp prevalence was significantly higher using propofol (9,957 of 29,312; 34.0% [95% CI, 33.4 to 34.5%]) versus moderate sedation (6,066 of 24,751; 24.5% [95% CI, 24.0 to 25.1%]) in the full sample and restricted samples (1,410 of 4,661; 30.3% [95% CI, 28.9 to 31.6%] vs. 3,690 of 14,337; 25.7% [95% CI, 25.0 to 26.5%]). In the full sample multivariate logistic regression, propofol was associated with higher neoplasm (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.29]), adenoma (odds ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11]), and serrated polyp detection (odds ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.46 to 1.57]). In the restricted sample using inverse probability of treatment weighted propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level, an attenuated but statistically significant effect size was observed for serrated polyps (odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.19]), but not for adenomas (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.05]) or any neoplastic lesion (odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.08]). Propofol sedation during colonoscopy may be associated with improved detection of serrated polyps, but not adenomas.

The efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial

Study objectivePropofol is a commonly utilized anesthetic for painless colonoscopy, but its usage is occasionally limited due to its potential side effects, including cardiopulmonary suppression and injection pain. To address this limitation, the novel compound ciprofol has been proposed as a possible alternative for propofol. This study sought to determine whether there are any differences in the safety and efficacy of propofol and ciprofol for painless colonoscopy. DesignRandomized clinical trial. SettingSingle-centre, class A tertiary hospital, November 2021 to November 2022. PatientsAdult, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I to II and body mass index of 18 to 30 kg m−2 patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy. InterventionsConsecutive patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive sedation for colonoscopy with ciprofol (group C) or propofol (group P). MeasurementsThe primary outcome was the success rate of colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes were onset time of sedation, operation time, recovery time and discharge time, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, side effects (e.g. injection pain, myoclonus, drowsiness, dizziness, procedure recall, nausea and vomiting) and incidence rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events. Main resultsNo significant difference was found in the success rate of colonoscopy between the two groups (ciprofol 96.3% vs. propofol 97.6%; mean difference − 1.2%, 95% CI: −6.5% to 4.0%, P = 0.650). However, group C showed prolonged sedation (63.4 vs. 54.8 s, P < 0.001) and fully alert times (9 vs 8 min, P = 0.013), as well as reduced incidences of injection pain (0 vs. 40.2%, P < 0.001), respiratory depression (2.4% vs. 13.4%, P = 0.021) and hypotension (65.9% vs. 80.5%, P = 0.034). Patients satisfaction was also higher in Group C (10 vs 9, P < 0.001). ConclusionsCiprofol can be used independently for colonoscopy. When comparing the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and propofol, a 0.4 mg kg−1 dose of ciprofol proved to be equal to a 2.0 mg kg−1 dose of propofol, with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction during the procedure.

Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy within elderly patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Propofol has become the sedative of choice for endoscopy and colonoscopy. However, it has shown associations with various adverse effects, specifically in the geriatric population. In contrast, remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine, demonstrating a superior clinical safety profile. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to clarify the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol in elderly patients (≥ 60 years) undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic and colonoscopy procedures. Electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were explored from inception till January 7, 2024. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials (RoB-2) was utilized to evaluate the quality of each included study reported in this meta-analysis. Seven randomized control trials were included, resulting in the pooling of 1,466 patients (remimazolam: 731 patients; propofol: 735 patients). Propofol demonstrated a significantly lower time to loss of consciousness (P < 0.00001, 4 studies, 784 patients) and a greater sedation success after first dose (P = 0.05, 5 studies, 1,271 patients). Remimazolam reported a significantly lower risk of bradycardia (P = 0.02, 5 studies, 1,323 patients), hypoxemia (P < 0.00001, 6 studies, 1,389 patients), and pain on injection site (P < 0.00001, 5 studies, 1,184 patients). No statistically significant differences in sedation time, number of supplemental doses, procedural parameters, and other adverse outcomes were reported. As per the results of our analyses, propofol demonstrated comparatively superior efficacy, however, remimazolam demonstrated comparatively superior safety. The debatable evidence generated from this meta-analysis may not currently be powerful enough to advocate for the use of remimazolam in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal procedures; hence, further comprehensive studies are necessary in order to arrive at a robust conclusion.

Machine learning-based risk prediction of hypoxemia for outpatients undergoing sedation colonoscopy: a practical clinical tool

ABSTRACT Objectives Hypoxemia as a common complication in colonoscopy under sedation and may result in serious consequences. Unfortunately, a hypoxemia prediction model for outpatient colonoscopy has not been developed. Consequently, the objective of our study was to develop a practical and accurate model to predict the risk of hypoxemia in outpatient colonoscopy under sedation. Methods In this study, we included patients who received colonoscopy with anesthesia in Nanjing First Hospital from July to September 2021. Risk factors were selected through the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). Prediction models based on logistic regression (LR), random forest classifier (RFC), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), support vector machine (SVM), and stacking classifier (SCLF) model were implemented and assessed by standard metrics such as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity and specificity. Then choose the best model to develop an online tool for clinical use. Results We ultimately included 839 patients. After LASSO, body mass index (BMI) (coefficient = 0.36), obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) (coefficient = 1.32), basal oxygen saturation (coefficient = -0.14), and remifentanil dosage (coefficient = 0.04) were independent risk factors for hypoxemia. The XGBoost model with an AUROC of 0.913 showed the best performance among the five models. Conclusion Our study selected the XGBoost as the first model especially for colonoscopy, with over 95% accuracy and excellent specificity. The XGBoost includes four variables that can be quickly obtained. Moreover, an online prediction practical tool has been provided, which helps screen high-risk outpatients with hypoxemia swiftly and conveniently.

Safety and Efficacy of Propofol Sedation in Outpatient Colonoscopy Findings from a Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction: Colonoscopy is crucial for early detection of colorectal cancer, and sedation is essential for patient comfort. Propofol, a fast-acting intravenous anesthetic, is gaining popularity for outpatient colonoscopy due to its safety, rapid onset, and recovery times. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of propofol sedation in outpatient colonoscopy at North East Medical College, Sylhet, addressing patient demographics, sedation parameters, adverse events, and recovery. Objectives: To assess the safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction of propofol sedation in outpatient colonoscopy, analyzing dosage, adverse events, and recovery. Methods and Materials: This cross-sectional study was conducted at North East Medical College, Sylhet, from June 2022 to May 2023. A total of 102 participants undergoing outpatient colonoscopy with propofol sedation were included. Data were collected using a structured sheet, covering demographics, indications, sedation dosage, adverse events, recovery time, and patient satisfaction. SPSS version 21.0.1 was used for analysis, with descriptive statistics employed to summarize the results. Ethical approval and informed consent were obtained. Result: The study included 102 participants with a mean age of 45.2 years. Of these, 58.8% were male, and 39.2% were professionals. The most common indication for colonoscopy was screening (34.3%). The majority received 101–200 mg of propofol (49%). Adverse events occurred in 32.4%, with hypotension (14.7%) being the most common. Recovery time was under 30 minutes for 73.5%, and 58.8% of patients were very satisfied with the sedation. Conclusion: This study confirms that propofol sedation is safe, effective, and well-tolerated in outpatient colonoscopy, with minimal adverse events, rapid recovery, and high patient satisfaction, supporting its routine use in clinical practice.

Impact of different doses of esketamine on the incidence of hypotension in propofol-based sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

Hypovolemia is common in colonoscopy due to fasting and bowel preparation, and propofol itself can reduce systemic vascular resistance, resulting in relative hypovolemia. Therefore, hypotension is not a rare event during propofol-based sedation for colonoscopy. Our objective was to explore the efficacy of esketamine as a sedative adjuvant in reducing the incidence of hypotension during colonoscopy. This was a prospective randomized trial. The trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ID: ChiCTR 2100047032). We included 100 eligible patients who planned to receive a colonoscopy and randomly divided them into 4 groups with 25 patients in each group, which were propofol 2 mg/kg (Group P), propofol 1 mg/kg with esketamine 0.2 mg/kg (Group E1), propofol 1 mg/kg with esketamine 0.3 mg/kg (Group E2), and propofol 1 mg/kg with esketamine 0.4 mg/kg (Group E3). The hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were documented at various times during the procedure, including the patient's entry into the endoscopic room (T0), the induction of sedation (T1), the insertion of the colonoscope (T2), the removal of the colonoscope (T3), and the awakening of the patient (T4). The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular side effects other than hypotension, incidence of hypoxia, cumulative changes in cardiovascular and respiratory parameters, total propofol dosage, anesthesia recovery time, and satisfactory levels of both patients and endoscopists. The incidence of hypotension in Group E1 (16%), Group E2 (16%), and Group E3 (12%) was significantly lower than in Group P (60%), with p values 0.003, 0.003, and <0.001 respectively. The cumulative changes in diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure in Groups E1, E2, and E3 were significantly higher than in Group P (p = 0.024, p < 0.001, p = 0.006, respectively). Cumulative changes in systolic blood pressure in Group E3 were significantly higher than those in Group P (p = 0.012). The respiratory-related parameters were not statistically significant. This study showed that the application of 0.4 mg/kg esketamine in propofol-based sedation reduced the incidence of hypotension during colonoscopy while providing satisfactory sedation.

Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation in patients susceptible to hypoxemia during procedural sedation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study

Background and aimsHypoxemia is one of the most common adverse events during colonoscopy, particularly among patients who are diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) or are overweight. Consequently, the objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) ventilation for patients with high risk hypoxemia during colonoscopy with sedation. MethodsIn this trial, 127 patients who met the eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to the BPAP oxygen and nasal cannula (NC) group. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoxemia. ResultsCompared to the use of NC, BPAP ventilation exhibited a significant reduction in the incidence of hypoxemia, decreasing it from 23.8% to 6.3% (absolute risk difference [ARD]: 17.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.4 to 29.6], p = 0.006). Importantly, BPAP ventilation prevented the occurrence of severe hypoxemia (9.5% vs. 0%, ARD: 9.5% [95% CI, 2.3 to 16.7], p = 0.035). Besides, the BPAP group required fewer airway interventions (p < 0.05). ConclusionsIn individuals with OSA or overweight status, the use of BPAP ventilation during colonoscopy significantly reduced the incidence of hypoxemia.

Remimazolam tosilate infusion has a lower incidence of hypotension than propofol infusion during painless colonoscopy

Background: Remimazolam tosilate is an ultra-short-acting sedative drug with the advantages of rapid onset and recovery, mild respiratory, and circulatory inhibition. This study primarily investigated the effect of remimazolam on incidence of intraoperative hypotension compared to the widely used propofol in patients undergoing outpatient painless colonoscopy. Methodology: This was a double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. We randomly divided the eligible patients with outpatient appointment for painless colonoscopy in our hospital into the remimazolam group and the propofol group. The modified observer’s assessment of alert/sedative was used to evaluate the depth of the patient's sedation. The Narcotrend score was monitored throughout the whole process. In the propofol group, propofol 0.5-1.5 mg/kg was infused intravenously as a loading dose, followed by 3-5 mg/kg/h to maintain a satisfied sedation depth during operation. While, with regarding to the patients in remimazolam group, remimazolam 0.05-0.15 mg/kg was induced intravenously as a loading dose, and continuously pumped at a rate of 0.3-0.5 mg/kg/h. SPSS 23.0 software was used to analyze the data. Results: From December 2020 to March 2021, we enrolled 116 eligible patients. The incidence of hypotension during sedation (13.8%) in the remimazolam group was significantly lower than that in propofol (37.9%), and the success rate of remimazolam (98.3%) was slightly lower than propofol (100.0%), but the awakening time was significantly shorter (P &lt; 0.001); The incidence of respiratory inhibition, nausea, vomiting and other adverse events during colonoscopy, remimazolam was significantly lower than that of propofol (P &lt; 0.05). Conclusion: Remimazolam tosilate still has higher circulatory stability than propofol in painless colonoscopy under continuous administration with a loading dose. Trial registration: The trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2000040557), data of registration: December 2020. Abbreviations: BMI- Body Mass Index; MOAA/S- Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alert Scale; MAP- Mean Arterial Pressure; Rem- Remimazolam; Pro- Propofol Key words: Remimazolam tosilate; Propofol; Painless Colonoscopy; Hypotension Citation: Li S, Zhang Y, Wang H, Ye G, Yao N, Zhu X. Continuous remimazolam tosilate infusion has a lower incidence of hypotension than propofol infusion for sedation in painless colonoscopy. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2022;27(6):697−705; DOI: 10.35975/apic.v27i6.2341 Received: Aug 27, 2023; Revised: October 16, 2023; Accepted: October 16, 2023

Effect of sedated colonoscopy with different cost coverage on improving compliance with colorectal cancer screening in China.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening. However, the colonoscopy participation rate in China is much lower than that in Europe and the United States. As only non-sedated colonoscopies are offered in colorectal cancer screening programs in China, the absence of sedation may contribute to this gap. To explore the effect of free and partially participant-paid sedated colonoscopy on improving colorectal screening participation, we conducted a cross-sectional study under the framework of the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China in Xuzhou from May 2017 to December 2020. The Quanshan district was set as the control group and provided free non-sedated colonoscopy, the Yunlong district was set as a partial cost coverage group and offered partially participant-paid sedated colonoscopy, and the Gulou district was set as the full cost coverage group and offered free sedation colonoscopies. Multivariate logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis of colonoscopy participation and colorectal lesion detection rates between the groups. From May 2017 to May 2020, 81,358 participants were recruited and completed questionnaire, 7,868 subjects who met high-risk conditions for CRC were invited to undergo colonoscopy. The colonoscopy participation rates in the control group, partially cost coverage, and full cost coverage groups were 17.33% (594/3,428), 25.66% (542/2,112), and 34.41% (801/2,328), respectively. Subjects in the partial and full cost coverage groups had 1.66-fold (95% CI: 1.48-1.86) and 2.49-fold (95% CI: 2.23-2.76) increased rates compared with those in the control group. The adjusted PARs for the partially and the full cost coverage group was 9.08 (95% CI: 6.88-11.28) and 18.97 (95% CI: 16.51-21.42), respectively. The detection rates of CAN in the control, partial-cost coverage, and full-cost coverage groups were 3.54% (21/594), 2.95% (16/542), and 5.12% (41/801), respectively. There were no significant differences in the detection rates between the group. However, sedated colonoscopy increases costs. Sedated colonoscopy increased colonoscopy participation rates in both the partial and full cost-covered groups. A partial cost coverage strategy may be a good way to increase colorectal cancer participation rates and quickly establish a colorectal cancer screening strategy in underfunded areas.

The effect of capnography on the incidence of hypoxia during sedation for EGD and colonoscopy in mildly obese patients: a randomized, controlled study

BackgroundBy continually monitoring end-tidal carbon dioxide concentrations, capnography can detect abnormal ventilation or apnoea early. This randomized, controlled study explored the effect of early intervention with capnography on the incidence of hypoxia in mildly obese patients undergoing sedation for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy.MethodsThis is a single-center, randomized, single-blind, parallel-assignment, controlled trial. Mildly obese patients (28 kg/m2 ≤ BMI < 40 kg/m2) undergoing sedation for EGD and colonoscopy were randomly assigned to either the standard or capnography group. Standard cardiopulmonary monitoring equipment was used in both groups, and additional capnography was performed in the capnography group. In the event of inadequate alveolar ventilation during sedation, five interventions were administered in sequence (a-e) : a: increasing oxygen flow (5 L/min); b: a chin lift or jaw thrust maneuver; c: placement of the nasopharyngeal airway and chin lift; d: mask positive-pressure ventilation, and e: ventilator-assisted ventilation with tube insertion. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxia (SpO2 < 90%, ≥ 10 s) in each group. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of severe hypoxia (SpO2 ≤ 85%), subclinical respiratory depression (90% ≤ SpO2 < 95%), interventions, minimum SpO2 during operation, patient satisfaction, endoscopist satisfaction, and other adverse events of anesthesia sedation.Results228 patients were included (capnography group = 112; standard group = 113; three patients were excluded) in this study. The incidence of hypoxia was significantly lower in the capnography group than in the standard group (13.4% vs. 30.1%, P = 0.002). Subclinical respiratory depression in the capnography group was higher than that of the standard group (30.4% vs. 17.7%, P = 0.026). There was only a 5.4% incidence of severe hypoxia in the capnography group compared with 14.2% in the standard group (P = 0.026). During sedation, 96 and 34 individuals in the capnography and standard groups, respectively, underwent the intervention. There was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.0001) in the number of the last intraoperative intervention between the two groups ( a:47 vs. 1, b:46 vs. 26, c:2 vs. 5, d:1 vs. 2, e:0 vs. 0 ). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of minimum SpO2 during operation, patient satisfaction, or endoscopist satisfaction rating. There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events of anesthesia sedation between the two groups.ConclusionCapnography during sedation for EGD and colonoscopy allows for the detection of apnea and altered breathing patterns in mildly obese patients before SpO2 is reduced. Effective intervention measures are given to patients within this time frame, which reduces the incidence of hypoxia and severe hypoxia in patients.Trial registrationEthical approval was granted by the Medical Ethics Committee (Chairperson Professor Tian Hui) of Qilu Hospital, Shandong University ((Ke) Lun Audit 2021 (186)) on 15/07/2021. The study was registered (https://www.chictr.org.cn) on 23/10/2021(ChiCTR2100052234). Designed and reported using CONSORT statements.

Remimazolam Compared to Propofol During Hysteroscopy: A Safety and Efficacy Analysis.

Propofol is the main drug used to induce sedation for endoscopic procedures, and few drugs had shaken its dominant clinical use for a decade until the development of remimazolam. Remimazolam has been demonstrated to perform well in post-marketing studies on sedation for colonoscopy or other procedures requiring short periods of sedation. This study aimed to establish whether remimazolam was effective and safe for inducing sedation for hysteroscopy. One hundred patients who were scheduled to undergo hysteroscopy were randomly assigned to receive induction with remimazolam or propofol. A dose of 0.25mg/kg remimazolam was administered. Propofol was started at 2-2.5mg/kg. Before remimazolam or propofol induction, 1μg/kg fentanyl was infused. Hemodynamic parameters, vital signs, and bispectral index (BIS) values were measured and adverse events recorded to evaluate safety. We comprehensively evaluated the efficacy and safety of the two drugs by the success rate of induction, fluctuation of vital signs, depth of anesthesia, adverse reactions, recovery time, and other indicators. Information on 83 patients was successfully recorded and carefully documented. The success rate of sedation in the remimazolam group (groupR) was 93%, which was lower than for the propofol group (groupP) (100%), but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. The incidence of adverse reactions in groupR (7.5%) was significantly lower than that in groupP (67.4%), and the results were statistically significant (P < 0.01). The fluctuation of vital signs in groupP was more severe after induction, especially in patients with cardiovascular diseases. Remimazolam avoids the injection pain produced by propofol sedation, has a better pre-sedation experience, had the advantage of stable hemodynamics after injection compared to propofol, and a lower respiratory depression rate in the study patients.