Background: Assessment of sedation levels in endoscopy is crucial for patient safety. Sedation assessment is currently guided by indirect measures: vital signs, direct observation, and subjective sedation assessment like the MOAA/S scale. BIS monitoring is a mathematical evaluation of frontal cortex EEG activity used to improve general anesthetic titration andpatient recovery. Current BIS algorithms do not differentiate various levels of MS. Aim: To compare the new BIS monitoring algorithm (BIS Revision 4.1) to MOAA/S scale for MS during elective endoscopy. Methods: 80 pts (43M/37F,mean age 61 yrs)were studied using a balanced cohort of procedures (20-EGD; 20-Colon; 20-ERCP; 20-EUS). IV MS (meperidine/midazolam) was administered. BIS levels and MOAA/S scores were recorded q 3 min. BIS level (0-100; 0=flatline EEG to 100=fully awake) and MOAA/S score (1-5; 1=unresponsive to shaking to5=coherent). ThemeanBIS level andMOAA/S score were compared. Results: Levels of sedation achieved: 54 pts (67.5%) deep sedation and 26 pts (32.5%) mild to moderate sedation. The correlation coefficient between BIS level and MOAA/S score was 0.66 (p < 0.01; Graph). The new BIS algorithm had excellent correlation tomild/moderate sedation levels (MOAA/S 2-5; p<0.001) but failed to discriminate betweenmoderate/deep sedation levels (MOAA/S 1-2; p= 0.75). Conclusions: (1)Deep sedation occurs frequently during elective endoscopy. (2)The new BIS algorithm is successful in discriminating levels of mild/moderate sedation, but is no more effective than direct observation (MOAA/S score) at distinguishing between moderate/deep levels of sedation. Clinical implication: Since a largepercentageofpatients experiencedeep sedationduringelective endoscopy, the new BIS algorithm needs to be refined to differentiate deeper levels of sedation. Treatment Efficacy and Safety Related to the Use of Propofol vs. Conventional Sedation in the Performance of Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis of Published Randomized Controlled Trials Neena S. Abraham, Maitreyi Raman, Kara Thompson Background and Aim: There is increasing interest in the use of propofol during the performance of colonoscopy. Our aim was to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol as compared to conventional sedation in theperformance of routine colonoscopy. Methods: All randomized controlled trials evaluating propofol in colonoscopy, publishedas fullmanuscripts,were identifiedusing a standardized search and data abstraction policy. Comparisons between propofol and conventional sedationweremade in the areas of efficacy (pain control, patient satisfaction, recovery time) and risks (hypoxia, hypotension). A single combined estimate of treatment efficacy (ORwith 95%CI) was generated using a fixed effect model or random effects model if appropriate. When estimates could not be aggregated mathematically, a narrative systematic review was performed. Results: Eight studies were identified, however, twowere excluded for lack of control comparator. Aggregation of outcomes was impossible in all six studies due to lack of comparable outcome, failure to report a measure of variability or inability to dichotomize results. Recovery time post colonoscopy was substantially reduced using propofol when compared with conventional sedation (OR 18.25; 95% CI: 12.37 to 24.13). Hypoxic events occurred less frequently in the propofol arm, although this was not statistically significant (OR= 0.72; 95%CI: 0.72 to 2.37). Hypotension occurred less frequently using propofol, however, the heterogeneity in examination of this variablewas toogreat, rendering the result inconclusive. Pain and satisfaction were qualitatively reviewed due to heterogeneity in outcomes assessment andwere found equivalent or superior using propofol. Conclusions: There are a limited number of randomised controlled trials reporting on efficacy and safety of propofol during colonoscopy. Among the six published placebo controlled studies, there is a suggestion that propofol is superior to conventional sedationwith respect to recovery time, hypoxia, hypotension, pain control and patient satisfaction. The evidence for improved patient pain control and satisfaction is qualitative. Future studies require standardized assessment of these outcomes to allow quantitative aggregation of results. As more centers utilize propofol for routine colonoscopy, the cost-efficacy of reduced recovery time may become apparent.
Read full abstract