Sedation For Endoscopy Research Articles

Evaluation of Sedation and Monitoring for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy among Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Practitioners in Nigeria

Background: Several guidelines have been developed for the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy. The rationale for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy is the alleviation of pain/discomfort and anxiety experienced by patients during the procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy among practitioners of gastrointestinal endoscopy at a conference in Nigeria.
 Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out among gastrointestinal endoscopy practitioners. The study setting was the 13th annual general meeting and scientific conference of the Society for Gastroenterology and Hepatology in Nigeria (SOGHIN) that held in Port Harcourt Nigeria from 26th to 30th of July 2021.
 Results: A total of one hundred and four (104) respondents participated in the study. Fifty-two (50.0%) respondents carried out ≥15 upper gastrointestinal endoscopies per month in their centre. It was the opinion of 36 (34.6%) respondents that ≥15 lower gastrointestinal endoscopies per month were being done in their centre. Twenty-six (25%) respondents used the drug midazolam for sedating patients for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, and another 26 (25%) use diazepam and pentazocine. Under-sedation was a problem for 44 (42.3%) respondents occasionally led to aborting the procedure. There was significant relationship between achievement of ≥ 90% sedation
 adequacy and the type of personnel administering the drug (P=0.000).
 Conclusion: Although better sedation has been reported to be achieved with the use of midazolam, there was no uniformity in the practice of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy among the respondents.

Esketamine as an Adjuvant to Ciprofol or Propofol Sedation for Same-Day Bidirectional Endoscopy: Protocol for a Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial With Factorial Design.

Background: Same-day esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy procedures under sedation have been increasingly performed. This study aims to assess the effects of esketamine combined with ciprofol (a novel anesthetic/sedative agent) or propofol on respiratory and hemodynamic adverse events in patients undergoing same-day bidirectional endoscopy. Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial. A total of 180 adult patients scheduled for same-day bidirectional endoscopy under sedation will be randomized, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, to receive 1 of 4 sedation regimens: 1) ciprofol and esketamine, 2) propofol and esketamine, 3) ciprofol and normal saline placebo, or 4) propofol and normal saline placebo. The primary outcome is a composite of desaturation [peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) < 95%] and hypotension [mean blood pressure (MBP) < 65 mmHg or decrease in MBP ≥20% of baseline] during the sedation and in the recovery room. Secondary outcomes include episodes of desaturation, severe desaturation (SpO2 < 90%), hypotension, severe hypotension (decrease in MBP ≥30% of baseline), bradycardia, postoperative nausea and vomiting, dizziness or headache, hallucination or nightmare, injection pain, pain scores and fatigue scores, endoscopist satisfaction, and patient satisfaction. Data will be analyzed on the modified intention-to-treat basis. Discussion: We hypothesize that esketamine as an adjuvant to ciprofol or propofol sedation would improve cardiorespiratory stability. In addition, the potential interactions between interventions will be explored using the factorial design. The results of this trial will provide evidence for daily practice of sedation regimens for same-day bidirectional endoscopy. Clinical Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trials Registry, Identifier ChiCTR2100052523.

2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation.

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary. Most patients recover without sequelae. However, they may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

Academy of Medicine, Singapore clinical guideline on the use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting

In Singapore, non-anaesthesiologists generally administer sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The drugs used for sedation in hospital endoscopy centres now include propofol in addition to benzodiazepines and opiates. The requirements for peri-procedural monitoring and discharge protocols have also evolved. There is a need to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline on the safe and effective use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting. The Academy of Medicine, Singapore appointed an expert workgroup comprising 18 gastroenterologists, general surgeons and anaesthesiologists to develop guidelines on the use of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The workgroup formulated clinical questions related to different aspects of endoscopic sedation, conducted a relevant literature search, adopted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and developed recommendations by consensus using a modified Delphi process. The workgroup made 16 recommendations encompassing 7 areas: (1) purpose of sedation, benefits and disadvantages of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (2) pre-procedural assessment, preparation and consent taking for sedation; (3) Efficacy and safety of drugs used in sedation; (4) the role of anaesthesiologist administered sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (5) performance of sedation; (6) post-sedation care and discharge after sedation; and (7) training in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy for non-anaesthesiologists. These recommendations serve to guide clinical practice during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-anaesthesiologists in the hospital setting.

Efficiency and safety of remimazolam and midazolam in digestive endoscopic sedation: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Efficiency and safety of remimazolam and midazolam in digestive endoscopic sedation: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Endoscopic Sedation Research: 2001–2020

Background and Aims: To evaluate endoscopic sedation research and predict research hot spots both quantitatively and qualitatively using bibliometric analysis.Methods: We extracted relevant publications from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) on 13 December 2020. We examined the retrieved data by bibliometric analysis (e.g., co-cited and cluster analysis, keyword co-occurrence) using the software CiteSpace and VOSviewer and the website of bibliometrics, the Online Analysis Platform of Literature Metrology (http://bibliometric.com/), to analyse and predict the trends and hot spots in this field.Main Results: We identified 2,879 articles and reviews on endoscopic sedation published between 2001 and 2020. Although the overall trend is increasing, with slight fluctuation in some years, there were significant increases in 2007 and 2012. In respect of the contributions on endoscopic sedation research, the United States (US) had the greatest number of publications, and it was followed by Japan and China. In addition, collaboration network analysis revealed that the most frequent collaboration was between the US and China. Six of the top ten most prolific research institutions were located in the US. The most publications on endoscopic sedation research in the past two decades were found primarily in journals on gastroenterology and hepatology. Keyword co-occurrence and co-citation cluster analysis revealed the most popular terms relating to endoscopic sedation in the manner of cluster labels; these included patient anxiety, tolerance, ketamine, propofol, hypoxia, nursing shortage, endoscopic ultrasonography, colorectal cancer, carbon dioxide insufflation, and water exchange (WE). Keyword burst detection suggested that propofol sedation, adverse event, adenoma detection rate (ADR), hypoxemia, and obesity were newly-emergent research hot spots.Conclusions: Our findings showed that hypoxia, adverse event, and ADR, along with conscious sedation and propofol sedation, have been foci of endoscopic sedation research over the past 20 years. The research focus has shifted from sedative drugs to sedative complications and endoscopy quality control, which means that there will be higher requirements and standards for sedative quality and endoscopy quality in the future.

Effect of remimazolam tosilate on early cognitive function in elderly patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Background and AimRemimazolam tosilate (RT) is under evaluation as a sedative for endoscopic procedures. Herein, we aimed to evaluate safety including cognition recovery of RT administered in elderly patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and assess its safety dosage.MethodsNinety‐nine patients presenting for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomized to receive 0.1 mg/kg RT (R1) or 0.2 mg/kg RT (R2), or propofol (P). Cognitive functions (memory, attention, and executive function) were measured via neuropsychological tests conducted before sedation and 5 min after recovery to full alertness. Adverse events were also assessed.ResultsThere were no statistical differences between postoperative and baseline results for R1 group and P group, whereas those for R2 group revealed worsened postoperative cognitive functions (immediate recall and short delay recall) than baseline (P < 0.05). Compared with P group, Scores demonstrated worse restoration of immediate recall in R1 group, immediate recall, short‐delayed recall, and attention function in R2 group (P < 0.05). Patients in R2 group had a longer sedation time (12.09 vs 8.27 vs 8.21 min; P < 0.001) and recovery time (6.85 vs 3.82 vs 4.33 min; P < 0.001) than that in R1 group and P group. Moreover, the incidence of hypotension was 3.0% in R1 group, whereas it was 21.2% in R2 group and 48.5% in P group (P < 0.05).ConclusionThe addition of 0.1 mg/kg RT as an adjunct to opiate sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy not only achieves more stable perioperative hemodynamics but also achieves acceptable neuropsychiatric functions in elderly patients.

Prospective cohort study to evaluate premedication with simethicone and n-acetilcysteine for upper diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy.

The use of premedication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) is not widely established in western countries. The primary aim of the study was to compare gastric visibility according to the total visibility score (TVS). The secondary aim was to assess complications, diagnostic yield, endoscopic procedure time, sedation dose and patient satisfaction. A single center prospective cohort study was performed of consecutive adults undergoing an UGE in the afternoon working shift. After completing enrolment in the control group, patients were administered 200 mg simethicone and 500 mg N-acetylcysteine diluted in 100 ml of water >15 minutes before the procedure. All procedures were recorded and a single, blinded endoscopist evaluated the TVS after recruitment of both cohorts. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the Spanish translation of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire. 205 patients were included in the study, 103 females (50.2%) with a median age of 54.8-years (IQR: 41.2-65.2). 104 were enrolled to the control group and 101 to the intervention group. Patients receiving premedication presented a higher rate of adequate (74.3% vs 45.2; difference 95% CI: 16,3-41,9%, p<0.001) and excellent gastric visibility (23.8% vs 7.7%; difference 95% CI: 6,3-25,8%, p=0.002). Propofol dose was similar, although the median procedure time was lower in the group of no intervention [5 (IQR: 4-7) vs 6 minutes (IQR: 5-7); p=0.03]. Procedure related adverse events were similar, except that patient without premedication experienced more nausea episodes. Major and minor endoscopic findings and the satisfaction questionnaire showed no differences between both groups. Patients receiving premedication with simethicone and N-acetylcysteine had a better gastric visibility score, without any increase in adverse events or affecting the patients' satisfaction.

The Impact of Endoscopy Sedation Information Sheets on the Level of Concern Regarding Possible Awareness in Patients Undergoing Endoscopy Sedation.

Sedation encompasses a continuum from complete unconsciousness to drowsiness and anxiolysis where some awareness might be expected. Most patients undergoing endoscopy sedation expect to be completely unconscious during the procedure and thus have unmet expectations regarding their state of consciousness. This study aimed to evaluate whether endoscopy sedation information sheets reduce the level of concern regarding possible awareness during endoscopy sedation at a major regional hospital. Our findings were that 28.8% of patients who received the endoscopy sedation information sheet (n = 82) were concerned about awareness during the procedure, compared to 36.5% of patients in the control group (n = 105). However, the difference was not statistically significant. We also found that the incidence of awareness was higher (13.9%) in the intervention group compared to 8.8% in the control group but, again, not statistically different. This study allowed us to elucidate the level of concern regarding possible awareness during sedation and the incidence of awareness during endoscopy sedation. This will enable future work investigating the role of endoscopy sedation information methods involving written and video material in assisting pre-procedure patient counselling.

Combination of Dexmedetomidine and Butorphanol Optimized Sedation in Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial.

Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) allows for the evaluation of dynamic airway collapse in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. However, a standardized sedation regimen for DISE is not yet available. This study aimed to investigate the safety profiles and efficacies of dexmedetomidine combined with butorphanol for DISE. Sixty patients with obstructive sleep apnea scheduled to undergo DISE were randomly divided into Group D and Group DB. All recipients were initially given intravenous butorphanol (1 mg) (Group DB) or saline (Group D). Subsequently, both groups were sedated using a loading dose of 1.0 µg/kg/h of dexmedetomidine. Hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, the time to attain sufficient sedation, wakeup time, and adverse events during DISE were recorded. Compared with Group D, the time until sufficient sedation and wakeup time in Group DB were significantly reduced. A higher performer satisfaction level was achieved in Group DB. Patients in Group DB showed a higher incidence of bradycardia compared with Group D. However, the bradycardia resolved spontaneously in both groups without any treatment. There was no instance of cough, hypotension, arrhythmia, nausea or vomiting in either group. Compared to dexmedetomidine alone, a small dose of butorphanol infusion (1 mg) as an adjunct treatment to dexmedetomidine during DISE can reduce the dosage of dexmedetomidine, shorten the time until sufficient sedation and enhance the performer satisfaction level. This synergistic combination could be a promising sedation regimen for DISE in terms of procedural convenience and patient safety.

Safety Profile of Endoscopist-directed Balanced Propofol Sedation for Procedural Sedation: An Experience at a Hospital-based Endoscopy Unit.

Nurse-administered propofol sedation was restricted to anesthesiologists in 2009, a practice that has contributed to spiraling health care costs in the United States. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of endoscopist-directed balanced propofol sedation (EDBPS). We identified patients undergoing endoscopy with EDBPS from January 1, 2017, to June 20, 2017, and abstracted their medical records. Adverse events (AEs) included: hypoxia (oxygen saturation < 90%); hypotension [(a) systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg, (b) systolic blood pressure decline of >50 mm Hg, (c) decline in mean arterial pressure of >30%]; bradycardia (heart rate of < 40 beats/min). Logistic regression identified factors independently associated with AEs. A total of 1897 patients received EDBPS during the study period [mean age: 55 y (SD=11.4 y); 56.4% women]. Patients received median doses of 50 µg fentanyl, 2 mg of midazolam, and a mean propofol dose of 160±99 mg. There were no major complications (upper 95% confidence interval, 0.19%). Overall, 334 patients (17.6%) experienced a clinically insignificant AE: 65 (3.4%) experienced transient hypoxia, 277 patients (14.6%) experienced hypotension, 2 had transient bradycardia. In bivariate analysis, older age was associated with risk for hypotension, propofol dose was associated with transient hypoxemia, and procedure duration was associated with both hypotension and transient hypoxia. In multivariate analysis, only procedure length was associated with AEs (odds ratio scale 10; odds ratio=1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.09, P<0.001). EDBPS is safe for endoscopic sedation. Given the higher cost of anesthesia-administered propofol, endoscopists should reinstate EDBPS by revising institutional sedation policies.

Propofol Alone versus Propofol in Combination with Midazolam for Sedative Endoscopy in Patients with Paradoxical Reactions to Midazolam.

Background/AimsThe efficacy of propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients with midazolam-induced paradoxical reactions remains unclarified. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of propofol-based sedation in patients who previously experienced paradoxical reactions. MethodsThis was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled pilot study. Participants with a history of paradoxical reactions to midazolam during a previous esophagogastroduodenoscopy were recruited and randomly assigned to group I (propofol monosedation) or group II (combination of propofol and midazolam). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a paradoxical reaction. ResultsA total of 30 participants (mean age, 54.7±12.6 years; male, 19/30) were randomly assigned to group I (n=16) or group II (n=14). There were no paradoxical reactions in group I, but there were two in group II, without a significant difference (p=0.209). The mean dose of propofol was higher in group I than in group II (p=0.002). Meanwhile, the procedure and recovery times did not differ between groups. ConclusionsPropofol-based sedation was safe and effective for patients who experienced paradoxical reactions to midazolam. However, caution is needed because few cases of paradoxical reaction again can happen in group II in which midazolam was readministered.

Comparative Efficacy of Patients with OSA Undergoing Multi-level Surgery followed by Upper Airway Stimulation vs. Isolated Upper Airway Stimulation

PurposeUpper airway stimulation (UAS) via hypoglossal nerve stimulation is a viable management option for patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Important exclusion criteria for the current UAS protocol include AHI above 65 events per hour or concentric collapse of the velum seen on drug-induced sedation endoscopy (DISE). The authors describe the treatment efficacy of a cohort of UAS patients who were initially ineligible, but who were implanted following multilevel surgery that reversed the exclusion criteria. MethodsThe design in a single-center, retrospective study. Data collection included demographics, body-mass index (BMI), apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) titration results, oxygen desaturation index (ODI), Drug Induced Sedation Endoscopy (DISE) results, Epworth sleepiness score (ESS), and Fatigue Severity Score (FSS). ResultsThirty-six subjects underwent UAS implantation (Inspire system, MN, USA) from 2016 to 2019. Eighteen subjects who were initially ineligible for UAS first underwent multi-level surgery, including uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP), genioglossus advancement (GGA), distraction osteogenesis maxillary expansion (DOME), or maxillomandibular advancement (MMA). Mean subject age was 62.3±9 years with 28% being female. Mean subject BMI was 29±4kg/m2. Seventeen subjects met the criteria for UAS and underwent surgery. Mean subject age was 62.9±14 years with 12% being female. Mean subject BMI was 26.7±4kg/m2. Mean pre-treatment AHI for 2-staged patients was 49±29 events per hour, which was reduced to 3.6±5 events per hour with an average voltage of 1.8V±0.9. Mean pre-treatment AHI for UAS-only cohort was reduced from 33±14 events per hour to 5.3±6 events per hour with an average voltage of 1.9V±0.3. ConclusionFor patients who are ineligible for UAS due to severity of OSA or concentric collapse of the velum, multilevel surgery including UPPP, GGA, DOME, or MMA followed by UAS confers reliable, effective, and equitable post-treatment results.

A Comparative study between Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol for sedation in upper GI endoscopy procedure considering effect on intraoperative vital data, patient amnesia and onset of recovery after the procedure

Abstract Background In the modern medicine, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy has become a definitive tool for diagnosis and management of many diseases. It is usually preformed in separate unit as day-case procedure and for outpatient clinic. The search of a safe and effective sedation for these patients is still an open topic. Objective The aim of the study is to compare the use of propofol and dexmedetomedine in upper GI endoscopy regarding the hemodynamics, sedative effect and the patient satisfaction. Methods Double – blinded, randomized controlled trial with allocation ratio 1:1 arranged in two parallel groups. This study was conducted in the endoscopy unit of Ainshams University Hospital, Cairo, Egypt within a period of 6 months started from April 2019. All recruited patients were adults undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. They were included in the study according to the following criteria: Age 21-60 years; elective procedures under general anesthesia with patients who completed eight hours of fasting; and physical Status: ASA I and II Patients after taking written and informed consent. Results Concerning the results of the study, there was no statistically significant difference considering the heart rate in relation to base line readings. The changes of heart rate between the two groups were significantly different with dexmedetomidine associated with lower readings. Respiratory rate and oxygen saturation were insignificantly different in both groups. Time of induction was significantly shorter in propofol than dexmedetomidine (P &amp;lt; 0.001) and time to reach full recovery identified by modified Alderete’s score 10/10 was significantly shorter in dexmedetomidine than propofol (P &amp;lt; 0.014). There was a significant difference between the two dugs concerning the patients and endoscopists satisfaction. The patients were more satisfied with propofol (P 0.047), while the endoscopists were more satisfied with dexmedetomidine (P 0.034). Conclusion Dexmedetomidine and propofol are equally effective and safe to provide enough sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a day-case manner. Advantages of dexmedetomidine were providing analgesic effect, rapid recovery from sedation and stability of respiratory rate and oxygen saturation. However, there were some disadvantages such as the bradycardia and patient dissatisfaction although the bradycardia can be utilized in cardiac patients as a safety factor against myocardial ischemia. Other point noticed that using dexmedetomidine for sedation was more costly than propofol and requires the usage of a syringe pump for accurate dosing. On the contrary, propofol is cheap and available in all centers with rabid onset of induction but it causes hypotension and respiratory depression which might be risky in cardiac patients.

A Review of Current Literature of Interest to the Office-Based Anesthesiologist.

A Review of Current Literature of Interest to the Office-Based Anesthesiologist.

A plea for a unified approach to sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy in Romania: results from a prospective multicentric trial.

Background. Adequate sedation is a prerequisite for quality endoscopic examination of the digestive tract. We aimed to evaluate the current practices and safety profile of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Romania and its impact on the technical success of the procedure and procedure-related adverse events. Methods. We conducted a prospective, multicentric, observational study including all patients undergoing digestive endoscopic procedures under various degrees of sedation. We collected data regarding the endoscopic procedure, type and degree of sedation, drug regimens, personnel in charge of sedation, and relevant patient related information. The main study outcome was the rate of sedation-related adverse events; secondary study outcomes included procedure-related adverse events and the impact of sedation on procedure success. Results. 1,043 consecutive endoscopic procedures from eight Romanian endoscopy units were included in our study. Sedation regimens were highly variable between participating centers, with 566 (54%) of procedures being performed under sedation provided by an anaesthesiologist. Sedation-related adverse events occurred in 40 cases (3.8%), most of them were mild respiratory and cardiovascular events and all reversed spontaneously. On multivariate analysis, male gender, procedure type (endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) and deep sedation were risk factors for complications. The endoscopy unit, ASA status, age and type of sedative did not influence the complication rate. Conclusion. In conclusion, sedation for endoscopic procedures is generally safe, despite a high variability in sedation practices between centers in Romania. Establishing a national guideline on sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy will ensure consistent and safe practice for these procedures.

Guidelines in Gastroenterology: Careful Interpretation Is Essential

Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) contain recommendations that aim to guide physicians in the diagnosis of and therapeutic approach toward patients affected by gastrointestinal (GI) pathologies. These CPG systematically combine scientific evidence and clinical judgment, culminating in recommendations that have been shown to improve patient care. Material and Methods: European and North American guidelines published in the area of gastroenterology in 2018 and 2019 were considered for inclusion. To standardize the results, only guidelines that used GRADE as an evidence system were included. Thus, in the end, 1,233 recommendations from 29 guidelines published between 2018 and 2019 were analyzed. Results: Of the 1,233 recommendations collected, 324 (26.3%) had a low level of evidence and 127 (10.3%) had a very low level of evidence, indicating little evidence or expert opinion. Of the 29 publications analyzed, 14 (48.3%) did not present any recommendation with a high level of evidence. Regarding the 1,233 individual recommendations expressed in these 29 publications, only 336 (27.25%) assumed a high level of evidence, with 277 (82.44%) referring to liver pathology. Of the recommendations evaluated, 77 were from North American societies and the remaining 1,156 were European recommendations. In relation to the first group, only 3 (3.9%) had a high level of evidence belonging to the Guidelines for Sedation and Anesthesia in GI Endoscopy. Conclusions: More than 25% of all recommendations currently accepted to guide patients with gastroenterological disorders are based on low-quality evidence or expert opinion. Thus, these documents should guide our performance, but clinical sense and multidisciplinarity must not be overlooked in dubious cases and with weak scientific evidence. Research should focus on the development of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews to improve the evidence supporting the guidelines that guide clinical practice.

Variation in Pediatric Anesthesiologist Sedation Practices for Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Background: Despite a worldwide shift toward anesthesiologist-administered sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in children, ideal sedation regimens remain unclear and best practices undefined.Aim: The aim of our study was to document variation in anesthesiologist-administered sedation for pediatric endoscopy. Outcomes of interest included coefficients of variation, procedural efficiency, as well as adverse events.Methods: IRB approval was obtained to review electronic health records of children undergoing routine endoscopy at our medical center during a recent calendar year. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were used to examine predictors of sedation practices.Results: 258 healthy children [2–21 years (median 15, (Q1–Q3 = 10–17)] underwent either upper and/or lower endoscopies with sedation administered by anesthesiologists (n = 21), using different sedation regimens (29) that ranged from a single drug administered to 6 sedatives in combination. Most patients did not undergo endotracheal tube intubation for the procedure (208, 81%), and received propofol (255, 89%) either alone or in combination with other sedatives. A total of 10 (3.8%) adverse events (9 sedation related) were documented to occur. The coefficient of variation (CV) for sedation times was high at 64.2%, with regression analysis suggesting 8% was unexplained by procedure time. Multivariable model suggested that longer procedure time (p < 0.0001), younger age (p < 0.0001), and use of endotracheal tube intubation (p = 0.02) were associated with longer sedation time.Discussion: We found great variation in anesthesiologist administered regimens for pediatric endoscopy at our institution that may be unwarranted, presenting may opportunities for minimizing patient risk, as well as for optimizing procedural efficiency.

Nursing Difficulties and Issues in Endoscopic Sedation: Qualitative Research in Japan.

Gastrointestinal endoscopic treatments have increased in Japan. Respiratory depression is as an unexpected development during sedation. This study aimed to clarify the sedation-related difficulties encountered by nurses involved in endoscopic treatment. Participants were five nurses who had worked for more than a year in the endoscopy department of a gastrointestinal endoscopy specialist guidance facility in Sapporo. Semistructured interviews were conducted. The number of recording units obtained was 129, which were divided into 12 categories and subdivided into 42 subcategories. The nursing practice difficulties related to sedation in endoscopic treatment were classified into two major categories: “difficulties in nursing practice” and “system difficulties.” All of the “difficulty in nursing practice” items were role-fulfilling difficulties involved in protecting patient safety and reducing anxiety and discomfort. Four of these items reflected difficulties related particularly to the role of the nurse in charge of the sedated patient in the endoscopy room. To reduce the difficulties encountered by nurses, a treatment environment system must be devised to ensure patient safety and improve the education support system for nurses with regard to sedation.

A Nationwide Survey on the Facilities and Personnel for Endoscopic Sedation: Results from 50 Qualified Endoscopy Units of Teaching Hospitals Accredited by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE).

Background/AimsThis study aimed to determine the current status of facilities, equipment, and personnel for endoscopic sedation from endoscopy units of representative hospitals in South Korea. MethodsA questionnaire survey was conducted on 50 qualified endoscopy units accredited by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. ResultsAll included endoscopy units had regulations and educational programs regarding sedation training for endoscopists and nursing personnel. There present one assisting nurse during endoscopy in 35 units (70%) and at least two nurses in 12 units (24.0%). All endoscopy units had examination rooms equipped with oxygen supply and suction systems. Endoscopist-directed sedation was performed in 48 units (96.0%). Propofol-based sedation was the most used sedation method. All units had a separate recovery bay. The daily number of patients per bed was greater than 10 in 17 units (34.0%). In 26 (52.0%) units, a single nurse cared for ≥10 patients per day. All the units fulfilled the discharge criteria. ConclusionsThis study presents data regarding endoscopic sedation clinical practice in 50 endoscopy units in South Korea. This study presents the current status of endoscopic sedation clinical practice in 50 qualified endoscopy units accredited by the KSGE, which provide excellent quality management.