Non-anesthesiologist Administration Of Propofol Research Articles

Safety and tolerability outcomes of nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol using target-controlled infusion in routine GI endoscopy

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) is increasingly accepted, but data are limited on drug administration using target-controlled infusion (TCI) in clinical practice. TCI adjusts the drug infusion based on patient-specific parameters, maintaining a constant drug dose to reduce the risk of adverse events (AEs) because of drug overdosing and to enhance patient comfort. The aims of this study were to assess the rate of AEs and to evaluate patient satisfaction with NAAP using TCI in a retrospective cohort of 18,302 procedures. Low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists score I and II) undergoing outpatient GI endoscopic procedures, including EGDs and colonoscopies, were sequentially enrolled at IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) between May 2019 and November2021. Data from 7162 EGDs and 11,140 colonoscopies were analyzed. Mean patient age was 59.1 ± 14.8 years, and mean body mass index was 24.9 ± 3.7 kg/m2. The male-to-female ratio was equal at 8798 (48.1%):9486 (51.9%). AEs occurred in 240 procedures (1.3%) out of the total cohort, with no differences between EGDs and colonoscopies (100 [1.4%] and 140 [1.2%], respectively; P= .418). Most patients (15,875 [98.9%]) indicated they would likely repeat the procedure with the same sedation protocol. Age (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.03; P< .008) was the only independent factor associated with overall AEs. NAAP using TCI is an effective and safe sedation method for routine endoscopy. The proper propofol dosage based on individual patients and the presence of trained operators are crucial for NAAP sedation management.

The efficacy of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation with a target-controlled infusion system during double-balloon endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BackgroundThe sedation method used during double-balloon endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (DB-ERCP) differs among countries and/or facilities, and there is no established method. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) sedation using a target-controlled infusion (TCI) system during DB-ERCP.MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted between May 2017 and December 2020 at an academic center. One hundred and fifty-six consecutive patients who underwent DB-ERCP were sedated by gastroenterologists using diazepam (n = 77) or propofol with a TCI system (n = 79), depending on the period. The primary endpoint was a comparison of poor sedation rates between the two groups. Poor sedation was defined as a condition requiring the use of other sedative agents or discontinuation of the procedure. Secondary endpoints were sedation-related adverse events and risk factors for poor sedation.ResultsPoor sedation occurred significantly more often in the diazepam sedation group (diazepam sedation, n = 12 [16%] vs. propofol sedation, n = 1 [1%]; P = 0.001). Vigorous body movements (3 or 4) (diazepam sedation, n = 40 [52%] vs. propofol sedation, n = 28 [35%]; P = 0.038) and hypoxemia (< 85%) (diazepam sedation, n = 7 [9%] vs. propofol sedation, n = 1 [1%]; P = 0.027) occurred significantly more often in the diazepam sedation group. In the multivariate analysis, age < 70 years old (OR, 10.26; 95% CI, 1.57–66.98; P = 0.015), BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (OR, 11.96; 95% CI, 1.67–85.69; P = 0.014), and propofol sedation (OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01–0.58; P = 0.015) were associated factors for poor sedation.ConclusionsNAAP sedation with the TCI system during DB-ERCP was safer and more effective than diazepam sedation.

OUTCOMES OF ERCP WITH NON-ANESTHESIOLOGIST ADMINISTERED PROPOFOL (NAAP)

OUTCOMES OF ERCP WITH NON-ANESTHESIOLOGIST ADMINISTERED PROPOFOL (NAAP)

Outcomes of colonoscopy with non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP): an equivalence trial.

Background and study aims Efficacy and safety of NAAP for gastrointestinal endoscopy have been widely documented, although there is no information about the outcomes of colonoscopy when the endoscopist supervises the sedation. In this context, the aim of this trial was to determine the equivalence of adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening colonoscopies performed with non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) and performed with monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Patients and methods This was a single-blind, non-randomized controlled equivalence trial that enrolled adults from a national CRC screening program (CRCSP). Patients were blindly assigned to undergo either colonoscopy with NAAP or MAC. The main outcome measure was the ADR in CRCSP colonoscopies performed with NAAP. Results We included 315 patients per group. The median age was 59.76 ± 5.81 years; 40.5 % of patients were women. The cecal intubation rate was 97 %, 81.8 % of patients had adequate bowel preparation, withdrawal time was > 6 minutes in 98.7 %, and the median global exploration time was 24.25 ± 8.86 minutes (range, 8–70 minutes). The ADR was 62.9 % and the complication rate (CR) was 0.6 %. Analysis by intention-to-treat showed an ADR in the NAAP group of 64.13 % compared with 61.59 % in the MAC group, a difference (δADR) of 2.54 %, 95 %CI: −0.10 to 0.05. Analysis by per-protocol showed an ADR in the NAAP group of 62.98 %, compared with 61.94 % in the MAC group, δADR: 1.04 %, 95 %CI: −0.09 to 0.07. There was no difference in CR (NAAP: 0,63 vs. MAC: 0.63); P = 1.0. Conclusions ADR in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies performed with NAAP was equivalent to that in those performed with MAC. Similarly, there was no difference in complication rates.

Outcomes of Non-anesthesiologist-Administered Propofol in Pediatric Gastroenterology Procedures.

Background and Aims: Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) has been found to have an acceptable safety profile in adult endoscopy, but its use remains controversial and pediatric data is limited. Our aim was to examine the safety and efficacy of NAAP provided by pediatric hospitalists in pediatric endoscopy.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 929 esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, and combined EGD/colonoscopy cases in children aged 5–20 years between April 2015 and December 2016 at a large children's hospital. We analyzed the data for adverse events in relation to demographics and anthropometrics, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical classification score, presence of a trainee, comorbid conditions, and procedure time.Results: A total of 929 cases were included of which 496 (53%) were completed with NAAP. Seventeen (3.4%) of NAAP cases had an adverse event including the following: 12 cases of hypoxia, 2 cardiac, and 3 gastrointestinal adverse events. General anesthesia cases had 62 (14.3%) adverse events including the following: 54 cases of hypoxia, 1 cardiac, 7 gastrointestinal, and 1 urologic adverse event. No adverse events in either group required major resuscitation. NAAP vs. general anesthesia had a lower overall adverse event rate (3.4 vs. 14.3%, p < 0.0004) and respiratory adverse event rate (2.4% vs. 12.5%, p < 0.0004). Overall, cardiac and gastrointestinal adverse event rates between the two groups were comparable. When accounting for all captured factors via logistic regression, both younger age (P < 0.001) and general anesthesia (P < 0.0001) remained risk factors for an adverse event.Conclusion: The overall adverse event rate of NAAP was low (3.4%) with none requiring major resuscitation or hospitalization. This is comparable to studies of NAAP in adult endoscopy and suggests that NAAP provided by pediatric hospitalists has an acceptable safety profile.

Propofol sedation with a target-controlled infusion pump in elderly patients undergoing ERCP

Advanced age is an important risk factor for adverse events (AEs) during propofol sedation for endoscopic procedures. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) sedation with a target-controlled infusion (TCI) system in elderly patients during ERCP. This study retrospectively analyzed 482 patients who underwent ERCP under propofol sedation with a TCI system at Iwakuni Medical Center between January 2014 and October 2016. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to their age: group A,<70 years (n= 130); group B,≥70 and<85 years (n= 224); and group C,≥85 years (n= 125). We compared the propofol dose and AEs during ERCP. The median total infusion dose and minimum and maximum target blood concentrations of propofol were 336 mg, 2.2 μg/mL, and 2.2 μg/mL in group A; 184 mg, 1.0 μg/mL, and 1.4 μg/mL in group B; and 99 mg, .6 μg/mL, and 1.0 μg/mL in group C, respectively, with older groups requiring a lower dose (P< .0001). Hypotension was observed in 23 patients (4.8%), with no significant difference between groups (group A, 2.3%; group B, 6.3%; group C, 4.8%; P= .24). Hypoxemia was observed in 16 patients (3.3%), with no significant difference between groups (group A, 3.1%; group B, 4.9%; group C, .8%; P= .17). All AEs were immediately resolved, and no procedures were aborted. NAAP sedation with a TCI system during ERCP may be acceptable in elderly patients with a lower dose of propofol than that used in younger patients.

Sedation in digestive endoscopy: innovations for an old technique.

Patient complexity, along with duration, number and invasiveness of procedures, increase every year in digestive endoscopy; so deep sedation, analgesia or general anesthesia requests are rising. The need for a safe, flexible, low cost and high-profile service play a central role in drugs, devices and monitoring development. The patient's degree of comfort and anxiety are also critical. On the other hand, the role of the anesthesiologist is still debated, and many European countries are promoting non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP). For high risk patients, anesthesiologists play an important role in choosing sedative drugs, kind of anesthesia/analgesia and devices for airway control. New drugs with safe profile, low costs, and favorable pharmacokinetics are now available for digestive endoscopy. Among these, fospropofol, a water-soluble prodrug of Propofol, is a very promising compound. Moreover, new devices and different modalities of ventilation can help anesthesiologists in management of high-risk patients, like obese patients and others patients at risk of hypopnea/apnea. The main challenges for anesthesiologists in this setting are endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, management of obese patients and recovery time after procedure, since digestive endoscopies are frequently performed as outpatient procedures. Nevertheless, these short and at low risk procedures can induce cognitive impairment. Currently, only anesthesiologists seem to have the competences to maintain high levels of safety by an appropriate evaluation and sedatives' choice, and a detailed protocol should be present in each gastrointestinal endoscopy department. In conclusion, the role of the anesthetist should be to supervise endoscopy activities at every level.

Safety and efficacy of non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the intensive care unit.

Background and study aims Propofol sedation is an increasingly popular method of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. The safety and efficacy of the non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) sedation has been demonstrated in the ambulatory setting. However, NAAP sedation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients has not been reported. The purpose of this study is to determine safety and efficacy of NAAP sedation in an ICU population. Methods We retrospectively reviewed esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) performed with NAAP sedation in our intensive care units from June 2014 to September 2016. All EGDs were performed for evaluation of gastrointestinal bleeding. The primary end point of this study was to analyze the incidence of sedation-related adverse events (AEs). The secondary end points included successful completion of procedure and any endoscopic interventions performed. Results Two of 161 procedures (1.2 %) had sedation-related AEs requiring procedure termination. One hundred forty-six of 161 procedures (90.7 %) were successfully completed. Incomplete procedures were due to excess heme, retained food or obstructive lesions (13/161, 8.1 %). Endoscopic intervention was performed successfully in 17/24 cases (70.8 %) that had endoscopically treated lesions identified. One hundred six of 161 patients (66 %) were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification III or IV. Conclusion Our retrospective analysis demonstrated that EGDs can be successfully completed in ICU patients using NAAP sedation. When procedures cannot be completed, it is rarely due to sedation-related AEs. NAAP sedation further allows adequate examination and successful treatment of high-risk lesions. NAAP sedation appears safe and effective for endoscopic procedures in the ICU setting.

Propofol administration by endoscopists versus anesthesiologists in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient safety outcomes.

With a growing demand for endoscopic services, the role of anesthesiologists in endoscopy units must be reassessed. The aim of this study was to compare patient outcomes in non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) versus anesthesiologist-administered propofol (AAP) during routine endoscopy. We systematically searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL and the grey literature for studies comparing NAAP and AAP. Primary outcomes included endoscopy- and sedation-related complications. Secondary outcomes included measures of endoscopy quality and of patient and endoscopist satisfaction. We reported treatment effects using random-effects models. Of 602 articles identified, 5 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies included only patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of I or II. Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol did not result in increased rates of airway intervention (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29 to 3.95; 3443 patients) or hypotension (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.41; 17 978 patients) but did result in higher rates of bradycardia (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.65 to 8.17; 17 978 patients). Nonanesthesiologists administered lower propofol dosages than anesthesiologists (mean difference -61.79, 95% CI -114.46 to -9.12; 3443 patients), and their patients more commonly experienced awareness with recall (OR 19.99, 95% CI 7.88 to 50.76; 2090 patients). However, NAAP neither compromised patient willingness to repeat the procedure (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.83; 2367 patients) nor lengthened total procedure time (mean difference -0.08, 95% CI -3.51 to 3.34; 2367 patients). Endoscopists may safely administer propofol without compromising procedural quality in patients classified as ASA I or II undergoing routine endoscopy. The results of this meta-analysis are limited by a lack of available high-quality studies. Further, large-scale studies are needed for definitive conclusions.

Nonoperating room anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

To assess the trends in nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) for gastrointestinal endoscopy over the past few years, and to describe alternative methods of delivering propofol sedation in selected low-risk patients. The use of NORA for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has been rising steadily over the past decade in the United States, considerably increasing healthcare costs. Because of this, there have been attempts to develop nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation methods in low-risk patients. There is controversy as to whether properly trained nonanesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation SUMMARY: The deployment of nonanesthesia-administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall healthcare costs without sacrificing sedation quality. We also address the realm of anesthesia provider care for advanced endoscopic procedures including setup for administration of anesthesia, decision-making regarding placement of an endotracheal tube, and the potential need to move a challenging case to the operating room.

Enhancing the current evidence on endoscopist-directed propofol-based sedation.

During the last years, there is more and more scientific evidence about the safety and feasibility of non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) in gastrointestinal endoscopy, reducing sedation induction and recovery time as well as increasing patient and endoscopist satisfaction. Furthermore, a similar risk of adverse events compared with traditional agents or anesthesiologist administration of propofol (AAP) has been described. The present special issue of the Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology (Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas) focusses on NAAP in different settings, including complex endoscopic procedures.

Sedation for advanced procedures in the bronchoscopy suite: proceduralist or anesthesiologist?

This article focuses on the issue of sedation provided either by proceduralists or anesthesiologists for advanced bronchoscopy procedures. The relative merits of both approaches are presented. Current evidence from the literature and guideline recommendations relevant to this topic are reviewed. In general, patient and proceduralist satisfaction as well as patient safety are increased when intravenous sedation is provided for advanced bronchoscopic procedures. However, guidelines by various societies remain vague on defining the appropriate level of care required when providing sedation for these procedures. In addition, targeted depth of sedation varies considerably among practitioners. While in some settings, nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation has been proven safe; nevertheless, its use is controversial, especially in the bronchoscopy suite. The role of the anesthesiologist in sedation for advanced bronchoscopy remains undefined. When deep sedation for prolonged interventional procedures is needed or when dealing with patients who have multiple comorbidities, an anesthesiologist should be involved.

Safety of Non-anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) is a hypnotic drug with a very rapid onset and offset of action. It has increasingly been used in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Administration of propofol by nurses or endoscopists is commonly referred to as non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP). There have been a lot of studies on the safety of NAAP compared with those by anesthesiologists. Safety results of those studies are summarized in this review.

SafAIRway: an airway training for pulmonologists performing a flexible bronchoscopy with nonanesthesiologist administered propofol sedation: A prospective evaluation.

Nonanesthesiologist administered propofol (NAAP) sedation for flexible bronchoscopy is controversial, because there is no established airway management (AM) training for pulmonologists. The aim was to investigate the performance and acceptance of a proposed AM algorithm and training for pulmonologists performing NAAP sedation. The algorithm includes using 3 maneuvers including bag mask ventilation (BMV), laryngeal tube (LT), and needle cricothyrotomy (NCT). During training (consisting of 2 sessions with a break of 9 weeks in between), these maneuvers were demonstrated and exercised, followed by 4 consecutive attempts to succeed with each of these devices. The primary outcome was the improvement of completion time needed for a competent airway. Secondary outcomes were the trainees' overall reactions to the training and algorithm, and the perceptions of psychological safety (PS). The 23 staff members of the Department of Pulmonology performed a total of 552 attempts at AM procedures (4 attempts at each of the 3 maneuvers in 2 sessions), and returned a total of 42 questionnaires (4 questionnaires were not returned). Median completion times of LT and NCT improved significantly between Sessions 1 and 2 (P = 0.005 and P = 0.04, respectively), whereas BMV was only marginally improved (P = 0.05). Trainees perceived training to be useful and expressed satisfaction with this training and the algorithm. The perception of PS increased after training. An AM algorithm and training for pulmonologists leads to improved technical AM skills, and is considered useful by trainees and raised their perception of PS during training. It thus represents a promising program.

Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol sedation for colonoscopy is safe in low risk patients: results of a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

Propofol provides the best sedation in colonoscopy. The safety of non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) is still a matter of debate. The aim of the current study was to evaluate sedation safety, colonoscopy quality, and patient satisfaction with NAAP. The study was a single-blinded, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial comparing NAAP (Group A) with anesthesiologist-administered sedation (Group B) performed at a single academic institution. Patients (18 - 80 years) who underwent colonoscopy and were at low anesthetic risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists class I - II) were included. The primary end point was the incidence of adverse events. Secondary end points were propofol dose, patient satisfaction and pain, colonoscopy quality indicators, and procedure and recovery times. A total of 277 patients were included in the analysis. The incidence of adverse events was 39.3 % in Group A and 39.0 % in Group B (absolute difference - 0.3 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] - 12.0 % to 11.4 %; P = 0.959). There were no sentinel adverse events. The following interventions (Group A vs. Group B) were necessary: atropine administration (0 % vs. 5.5 %; P = 0.004); airway repositioning (8.7 % vs. 4.7 %; P = 0.196); increased oxygen administration (6.7 % vs. 3.9 %; P = 0.317), and increased fluid rate (2.7 % vs. 0.8 %; P = 0.379). There were no differences in cecal intubation and adenoma detection rates. Recovery times were longer in Group B (58 ± 33 vs. 67 ± 29 minutes; P = 0.032). There were no differences in mean propofol dose, withdrawal time, painless colonoscopy, satisfaction, and amnesia. All but two patients (Group B) were willing to repeat the colonoscopy. NAAP is equivalent to anesthesiologist-administered sedation in the rate of adverse events in a low risk population. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02067065).

Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Practical Issues in Patient Safety and Quality Management

Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Practical Issues in Patient Safety and Quality Management

Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates Guideline – Updated June 2015

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA). It addresses the administration of propofol by non-anesthesiologists for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. Main Recommendations 1 We recommend that the type of endoscopic procedure and the patient’s American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, age, body mass index, Mallampati’s classification, and risk factors for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) be assessed before each procedure with non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 We suggest primary involvement of an anesthesiologist in patients of ASA class ≥ 3, with a Mallampati’s class ≥ 3 or other conditions that put them at risk of airway obstruction (e. g. pharyngolaryngeal tumors), in patients who chronically receive significant amounts of narcotic analgesics, or in cases where a long-lasting procedure is anticipated (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 3 We suggest consideration of capnographic monitoring during NAAP in specific situations including high risk patients, intended deep sedation, and long procedures (weak recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 We suggest propofol monotherapy except in particular situations (weak recommendation, high quality evidence). 5 We recommend administering propofol through intermittent bolus infusion or perfusor systems, including target-controlled infusion (TCI), and consideration of patient-controlled sedation (PCS) in particular situations (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 6 We suggest that patients listen to self-selected music during upper and lower GI endoscopy procedures (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 7 We do not suggest using pharyngeal anesthesia during propofol sedation for upper GI endoscopy (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 8 We suggest using the post-anesthetic discharge scoring system (PADSS) to determine when patient recovery is sufficient to allow discharge (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 9 Minimum discharge criteria should be fulfilled before discharging a patient. We recommend that patients who have received combined regimens, and all patients of ASA class > 2, should upon discharge be accompanied by a responsible person and refrain for 24 hours from driving, drinking alcohol, operating heavy machinery, or engaging in legally binding decisions. Advice should be provided verbally and in written form to the patient, including a 24-hour contact phone number (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 10 For patients of ASA classes 1 – 2 who have received low dose propofol monotherapy, a 6-hour limit is suggested (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).

Anesthesiologist-Administered Gastrointestinal Sedation: Time to Put It to Sleep?

In the ongoing debate regarding sedation administered during gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, supporters of sedation administered by anesthesia providers (AAP) argue that anesthesiologists best handle complications involving the airways. Furthermore, the product label for propofol, the most commonly used sedative for GI endoscopy, states: ‘‘it should be administered only by persons trained in the administration of general anesthesia.’’ Supporters of nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) sedation, specifically nurse-administered propofol administration under the guidance of the endoscopist, argue that the safety profile of NAAP is equivalent to AAP while being costeffective. For lowand average-risk procedures, overwhelming worldwide data support the hypothesis that NAAP has a comparable safety profile to AAP if sedation is administered after proper training, and according to implemented guidelines [1]. In this issue of Digestive Diseases and Sciences, Goudra et al. [2] conducted a comparative meta-analysis evaluating respiratory complications of AAPor NAAP-administered sedation during advanced GI endoscopic procedures. The authors provide data with regard to 3018 advanced GI endoscopic procedures carried out using NAAP-administered sedation and 2374 AAP-administered procedures. Regarding non-advanced GI endoscopy, a prior populationbased analysis studying complications of sedation reported that the use of anesthesiologist services was associated with a higher complication frequency, specifically respiratory adverse events [3], a finding not supported by the data reported by Goudra et al. who described similar pooled hypoxia rates in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures sedated with propofol, irrespective of administering provider, although the rate of airway interventions such as jaw thrust, chin lift, mask ventilation, or endotracheal intubation was higher in the AAP group. As AAPs administered higher doses of propofol, patient satisfaction and endoscopist satisfaction were increased if AAP-administered sedation was used. Satisfaction might have been further influenced by the observed preference for co-administration of adjuvants used in AAP sedation, whereas propofol alone was preferentially administered in the NAAP group. Nevertheless, higher dosages of propofol administered during GI sedation usually increase complication rates [4], particularly hypotension and bradycardia, which were not evaluated in the study by Goudra et al. It would have been interesting to see whether the observed beneficial satisfaction of AAP sedation came at the expense of higher cardiovascular adverse events. Limitations to the study of Goudra et al. include the exclusive selection of non-randomized prospective trials for analysis as there exist no randomized control trials comparing hypoxia, airway intervention rates, and patient satisfaction after endoscopic sedation. Furthermore, potential biases such as differences in baseline patient and endoscopist characteristics were not analyzed. While NAAP sedation for GI endoscopy has successfully and safely been introduced to countries such as Germany [5], it remains unlikely that NAAP will be soon introduced in other countries despite literature supporting its safety and lower cost, due to financial and political issues. When moderate sedation is provided by a US endoscopist, a separate charge for this service is not permitted & Kilian Friedrich Kilian.Friedrich@med.uni-heidelberg.de

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective study comparing nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol and monitored anesthesia care.

Introduction: Adequate sedation is one of the cornerstones of good quality gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE). Propofol sedation has increased significantly but there has been much debate over whether it can be administered by endoscopists. The aim of this prospective trial was to compare nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Methods: A total of 2000 outpatients undergoing GIE at Hospital Albert Einstein (São Paulo, Brazil), a tertiary-care private hospital, were divided into two matched groups: NAAP (n = 1000) and MAC (n = 1000). In NAAP, propofol doses were determined by the endoscopist. A second physician stayed in the room during the entire procedure, according to local regulations. In MAC, the anesthesiologist administered propofol. Results: In total, 1427 patients (71.3 %) were ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) class I and 573 were ASA class II. In NAAP, patients received more propofol + fentanyl (61.1 % vs. 50.5 %; P < 0.05) and there were fewer cases of deep sedation (44.7 % vs. 66.1 %; P < 0.05). Hypoxemia rates were similar (12.8 % for NAAP and 11.2 % for MAC; P = 0.3) but these reverted more rapidly in MAC (4.22 seconds vs. 7.26 seconds; P < 0.05). Agitation was more frequent in MAC (14.0 % vs. 5.6 %; P < 0.05). No later complications were observed. Patient satisfaction was very high and similar in both groups. Conclusion: In this setting, NAAP was as safe and effective as MAC for healthy patients undergoing GIE.Clinical trial ref. no.: U1111-1134-4430

Feasibility of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation for emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Background. The safety of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) sedation in emergent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has not been fully clarified. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the safety of NAAP sedation in emergent ERCP. Materials and Methods. We retrospectively analyzed 182 consecutive patients who had obstructive jaundice and who underwent ERCP under NAAP sedation. The patients were divided into Group A (with mild acute cholangitis or without acute cholangitis) and Group B (moderate or severe acute cholangitis). And technical safety and adverse events were assessed. Results. The adverse events were hypoxia (31 cases), hypotension (26 cases), and bradycardia (2 cases). There was no significant difference in the rate of each adverse event of hypoxia and bradycardia in either group. Although the rate of transient hypotension associated in Group B was higher than that in Group A, it was immediately improved with conservative treatment. Moreover, there were no patients who showed delayed awakening, or who developed other complications. Conclusions. In conclusion, NAAP sedation is feasible even in emergent ERCP. Although some transient adverse events (e.g., hypotension) were observed, no serious adverse events occurred. Thus, propofol can be used in emergent ERCP but careful monitoring is mandatory.