Sedation For Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Research Articles

Moderate Sedation or Deep Sedation for ERCP: What Are the Preferences in the Literature?

One of the most essential procedures for individuals with biliopancreatic disorders is endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). It is based on the combination of endoscopy and radiology to study the biliopancreatic ducts and apply therapeutic solutions. ERCP is currently used to treat choledocholithiasis with or without cholangitis, as well as pancreatic duct stones, benign bile, and pancreatic leaks. On the other hand, ERCP is an unpleasant procedure that must be conducted under anesthetic (moderate sedation, deep sedation, or general anesthesia). With procedures becoming more challenging, the role of anesthesia in ERCP has become even more relevant, and the use of general anesthesia has become better defined. In the last decades, many drugs have been used and some new drugs, like dexmedetomidine, have been recently introduced for sedation or anesthesia during ERCP. Moreover, the scientific community is still divided on the level of sedation to be applied, as well as on appropriate airway management. We therefore performed a narrative review of the literature to assess currently available anesthetic medications for elective ERCP and evidence supporting their effectiveness.

Dexmedetomidine versus Ketofol for Moderate Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.

To compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus ketofol for moderate sedation in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Randomised controlled trial. Place and Duration of the Study: Department of Anaesthesia, SICU and Pain Management, Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation, Karachi, Paksitan, from December 2021 to June 2022. Sixty-two patients aged 20-60 years of any gender scheduled for elective ERCP were included. Patients were randomly divided into Dexmedetomidine group (2ml ampule of 100ug/ml diluted in 18ml of normal saline) and Ketofol group (2ml ketamine and 10ml of propofol 1% diluted in 8ml of normal saline) for sedation. The mean difference in time to achieve Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score of 4 and Modified Aldrete's Score (MAS) of 9 were noted as outcomes in each group. In addition, complications during the procedure and recovery were also noted. The mean age was 39.15 ± 9.82 years. There were 33 (53.2%) males and 29 (46.8%) females. The mean time to achieve RSS 4 was significantly lower in patients who were treated with Dexmedetomidine as compared to Ketofol, i.e., 11.84 ± 1.77 minutes vs. 13.10 ± 1.64 minutes respectively (p-value 0.005, 95% CI -2.12 to -0.39). Similarly, the mean time to achieve MAS score 9 was significantly lower in patients who were treated with Dexmedetomidine as compared to Ketofol, i.e., 11.19 ± 1.72 minutes vs. 12.23 ± 1.84 minutes, respectively (p-value 0.026, 95% CI -1.94 to -0.13). Dexmedetomidine proved to be more effective than Ketofol for sedation in ERCP, achieving faster sedation and quicker recovery. Dexmedetomidine, Ketofol, Sedation, Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.

Sedation for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) – A comparative study between propofol-fentanyl with Propofol-fentanyl-ketamine Combination

Sedation for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) – A comparative study between propofol-fentanyl with Propofol-fentanyl-ketamine Combination

A comparison between magnesium sulphate and fentanyl as adjuvants to propofol infusion for sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT Background Propofol-based sedations are used widely during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures. However, respiratory depression and cardiovascular adverse events commonly occur. Therefore, we designed this study to evaluate the effects of adding a single boules induction dose of fentanyl or magnesium sulphate to propofol infusion for sedation of patients subjected to ERCP. Methods This randomized parallel double-blind controlled trial included 60 adult patients scheduled for ERCP procedures. Before starting the propofol infusion, patients immediately received either magnesium sulphate 50 mg.kg−1 intravenously (IV) over 10 min (Group M) (n = 30) or fentanyl 2 µg.kg−1 IV over 10 min (Group F) (n- = 30). Continuous propofol infusion was given with a syringe pump for maintenance, with the initial rate set at 25–75 mic/kg/min IV during the first 10–15 min. Results The magnesium group had significantly reduced the total propofol consumption and increased the onset time of sedation than the fentanyl group (P < 0.05). Heart rate and mean arterial pressure were statistically lower after adjuvant bolus injection and 15 min in the magnesium group than in the fentanyl group (P < 0.001). Procedure time, involuntary movement, physician satisfaction, and complications exhibited no significant differences between both groups. Conclusions During ERCP, adding a single bolus of magnesium sulphate to propofol was associated with a lower total propofol consumption and better hemodynamics than fentanyl but with a delayed onset time of sedation and comparable respiratory depression.

Etomidate Versus Propofol for Monitored Anesthesia Care During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background and objectives Propofol-based sedation is one of the most commonly used methods for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The commonest complications during ERCP are in the form of adverse cardiopulmonary events as a result of sedation. Etomidate has a more stable cardiovascular and respiratory profile than propofol and has been used forsedation in simple gastrointestinal endoscopy but has not been studied for procedural sedation in ERCP. The objective of the present study was to compare the safety and feasibility of etomidate and propofol for sedation during ERCP procedures. Methods This single-center, randomized trial included 100 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status class I to II patients who were scheduled for ERCP. All patients received midazolam 0.02 mg/kg, lignocaine (2%) 1 mg/kg, and fentanyl 1 µg/kg intravenously, followed by etomidate or propofol according to the group allocation. The primary outcome was to compare the mean arterial pressure (MAP) at various timepoints between the two groups and secondary outcomes were to compare oxygen saturation, induction and recovery times, and adverse events. Transient hypotension was defined as any decrease in MAPbelow 60 mmHg or 20% below the baseline. Transient hypoxia was defined as desaturation (saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2) <92%) lasting for more than 10 seconds requiring airway intervention. Results Fifty patients were enrolled in each group (Group E: etomidate and Group P: propofol). Transient hypotension occurred in eight (16%) patients in Group P, and two (4%) patients in Group E (P= 0.045). Baseline MAP was comparable between the two groups but was significantly lower in Group P at three timepoints during the study. Nine (18 %) patients in Group P had a transient hypoxic episode, compared to none in Group E (p= 0.006). The induction and recovery times were similar in the two groups. Conclusions Etomidate offers better hemodynamic and respiratory stability than propofol and can be recommended for use during ERCP in ASA I/II patients.

Effects of intravenous administration of magnesium sulfate in propofol-based sedation for ERCP in elderly patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BackgroundPropofol-based sedations are widely used in elderly patients for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure, but respiratory depression and cardiovascular adverse events commonly occur. Magnesium administered intravenously can alleviate pain and decrease propofol requirements during surgery. We hypothesized that intravenous magnesium was used as adjuvant to propofol might be beneficial in elderly patients undergoing ERCP procedures.MethodsEighty patients aged from 65 to 79 years who were scheduled for ERCP were enrolled. All patients were intravenously administered 0.1 µg/kg sufentanil as premedication. The patients were randomized to receive either intravenous magnesium sulfate 40 mg/kg (group M, n = 40) or the same volume of normal saline (group N, n = 40) over 15 min before the start of sedation. Intraoperative sedation was provided by propofol. Total propofol requirement during ERCP was the primary outcome.ResultsThe total propofol consumption were reduced by 21.4% in the group M compared with the group N (151.2 ± 53.3 mg vs. 192.3 ± 72.1 mg, P = 0.001). The incidences of respiratory depression episodes and involuntary movement were less in the group M than those in the group N (0/40 vs. 6/40, P = 0.011; 4/40 vs. 11/40, P = 0.045; respectively). In the group M, the patients experienced less pain than those in the group N at 30 min after the procedure (1 [0–1] vs. 2 [1–2], P < 0.001). Correspondingly, the patients’ satisfaction was clearly higher in the group M (P = 0.005). There was a tendency towards lower intraoperative heart rate and mean arterial pressure in group M.ConclusionsA single bolus of 40 mg/kg of intravenous magnesium can significantly reduce propofol consumption during ERCP, with higher sedation success and lower adverse events.Trial RegistrationID UMIN000044737. Registered 02/07/2021.

Sedation for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Elderly Patients – the Effect of Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion. A Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo Controlled Trial

Sedation of elderly patients with associated comorbidities, subjected to ERCP procedure, can produce serious complications including respiratory instability and hemodynamics caused by the administration of anesthetic substances. In this study we aimed to evaluate whether the administration of lidocaine in continuous infusion during ERCP procedure reduces the consumption of propofol and the rate of complications in these patients. 83 patients over 65-year old, ASA II-IV score, undergoing an ERCP procedure were randomized in two groups: lidocaine group (group L) who received 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine 1% and propofol 1mg/kg at induction and then 2 mg/kg lidocaine 1% in continuous infusion during the procedure and control group (group C) who received saline in the same amount as group L and propofol 1mg/kg. The consumption of propofol, intraprocedural complications, the time of awakening and recovery, the quality of postprocedural analgesia, the satisfaction of the endoscopist were registered. Propofol consumption was statistically significantly lower in group L compared to group C [135.37 (±43.23) vs. 214.88 (±51.83), p=0.001]. The same result was obtained related to the awakening time [2.85 (±1.50) vs. 5.38 (±1.36), p=0.001] and recovery time [23.90 (±12.66) vs. 26.17 (±12.41), p<0.001], the episodes of intraprocedural desaturation (p=0.001), the involuntary intraprocedural movements (p=0.001), the endoscopist's satisfaction (p=0.006). No differences were found in terms of post-procedure pain scores (p=0.54). Lidocaine can be administered to reduce the need for propofol, faster awakening and lower intraprocedural complications in elderly patients undergoing the ERCP procedure.

Anaesthesia and sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was introduced in 1968 and is now the ‘gold standard’ for imaging of the biliary tree. The subsequent development of non-invasive diagnostic procedures such as magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), means that ERCP is now largely reserved for therapeutic rather than diagnostic indications.1 Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography offers a range of possible interventions for patients, including those deemed at too high risk for surgery.

Addition of dexmedetomidine and nalbuphine as an adjuvant to ketofol for deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

Background: Deep sedation has evolved as a better choice against general anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study was aimed to evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and nalbuphine as an adjuvant to ketofol based deep sedation in ERCP.Methods: One hundred patients undergoing ERCP were randomly assigned to receive either IV dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg (Group D, n = 50) or I. V nalbuphine 0.1 μg/kg (Group N, n = 50), 10 min before ketofol induction. The primary outcome was the total dose of ketofol used for induction and maintenance of deep sedation throughout the procedure. Hemodynamics and respiratory parameters, recovery characteristics, endoscopist's, and anesthetist satisfaction scores were secondary outcomes. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results: The dose of ketofol at the time of induction was significantly high in Group N as compared to Group D (P < 0.05). Supplemental dose of ketofol at the time of insertion of endoscope was equivalent in both the groups (P > 0.05) but significantly more number of patients in Group D (n = 19 vs. n = 11, P < 0.05) received supplement for facial pain score >5 compared to patients in Group N, where more patients received supplement for Ramsay Sedation Score <3 (n = 20 vs. n = 11 P < 0.05). Significant decrease in heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure from baseline values was found in Group D as compared to Group N (P < 0.001). Group N patients achieved postanesthesia recovery score >12 earlier than Group D (P < 0.001). Anesthetist satisfaction score was more in Group N (P < 0.05).Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine reduces the total consumption of ketofol and provides smooth hemodynamics whereas Nalbuphine provides better analgesia and early recovery with high anesthetist satisfaction for deep sedation in ERCP.

Patient-Controlled Sedation Versus Clinician-Administered Sedation for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review.

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) has been explored as a sedation method in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), yet a comprehensive review article on this topic is lacking. We performed a systematic review to compare PCS against clinician-administered sedation. The primary objectives are to compare the sedative dosage used and the sedation depth, while secondary objectives are to compare sedation failure rates, clinician intervention rates, and patient satisfaction. A systematic literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Database using the terms "ERCP," "Sedation," "Patient-controlled," and related terms. Randomized controlled trials comparing PCS against clinician-administered sedation in adults undergoing ERCP were included. Articles without English full texts were excluded. Studies were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for quality assessment of individual included trials. This systematic review is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020198647). A total of 2619 articles were identified from the literature search. A total of 2615 articles were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. Four articles (comprised of 4 independent trials involving 425 patients) were included in analysis. When compared with clinician-administered sedation, PCS in ERCP may lead to lower propofol dosage used and lower sedation depth. The sedation failure rates appear to be higher in PCS, whereas lower rates of airway maneuvers are required. No significant difference was observable for patient satisfaction rates between PCS and clinician-administered sedation. The included studies demonstrated unclear to high risk of bias, particularly in randomization, incomplete outcome data, and outcome measurement. PCS appears to be a feasible option for sedation in ERCP. Nonetheless, large-scale, high-quality trials will be required before PCS can be regularly implemented in ERCP.

A prospective study on quality in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): trend in Italy from the REQUEST study.

Background and study aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a complex procedure with a relatively high rate of adverse events. Data on training of operators and fulfillment of quality indicators in Italy are scarce. The goal of this study was to assess the overall quality of ERCP in Italy compared to international standards. Patients and methods This was a prospective, observational study from different Italian centers performing ERCP. Operators answered a questionnaire, then recorded data on ERCPs over a 1-to 3-month period. Results Nineteen Italian centers participated in the study. The most common concern of operators about training was the lack of structured programs. Seven/19 centers routinely used conscious sedation for ERCP. Forty-one experienced operators and 21 trainees performed 766 ERCPs: a successful deep biliary cannulation in native-papilla patients was achieved in 95.1 % of cases; the post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) rate was 5.4 % in native-papilla patients; cholangitis rate was 1.0 %; bleeding and perforation occurred in 2.7 % and 0.4 % of the patients, respectively. Conclusions This study revealed that, overall, ERCP is performed in the participating Italian centers meeting good quality standards, but structured training and sedation practice are still subpar. The bleeding and perforation rate slightly exceeded the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy indicator targets but they are comparable to the reported rates from other international surveys.

Comparison of Recovery Time of Propofol and Midazolam with Propofol Alone for Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Background: Procedural sedation is required for multiple short duration procedures outside of the operating rooms especially in radiology and endoscopy suites. Intravenous anesthetic agent with rapid recovery profile is desirable in such circumstances. This study aims to compare two regimens of intravenous anesthetic agents. Aim: To compare the mean recovery time of propofol and midazolam with propofol alone for sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial. Settings: Department of Anesthesia, Shalamar Hospital, Lahore. Study Duration: June 2017 to December 2017. Methods: A total of 70 adult patients aged 20-60 years undergoing ERCP under sedation were included. Patients were given a combination of propofol and midazolam in group A while propofol alone was given in group B. After procedure, pts were transferred to recovery room and were followed for assessment of recovery time. Data were analyzed in SPSS vr 21, Independent t-test was applied &amp; p-value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Significant difference was found in mean recovery time amongst both the groups. Mean recovery time in Group A (propofol and midazolam) was 19.29±4.50 minutes while in Group B (propofol alone) was 26.66±3.70 minutes showing statistically significant result with p-value = 0.0001. Conclusion: We conclude that mean recovery time with propofol plus midazolam is shorter as compared to propofol alone for sedation in ERCP. Keywords: Propofol, midazolam, sedation outside operation theatre.

Comparison of high flow nasal oxygen and conventional nasal cannula during gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation in the prone position: a randomized trial.

Deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can be challenging in elderly patients in the prone position. This study investigated the effect of a high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) delivery system on oxygenation in this procedure compared with that of conventional nasal cannula oxygen administration. A prospective randomized trial was conducted using HFNO and conventional nasal cannula in patients undergoing ERCP in the prone position. For each patient, the lowest oxygen saturation (SpO2), the incidence of hypoxemia defined as an SpO2 below 90%, and interruptions due to airway interventions were recorded during the procedure. The lowest mean (standard deviation) SpO2 recorded during the procedure was higher in the HFNO group than in the conventional control group [99.8 (0.6)% vs 95.1 (7.3)%; mean difference, 4.7%; 95% confidence interval, 2.3% to 7.1%; P Group x Time < 0.001]. While the lowest SpO2 during the procedure was lower than the baseline SpO2 in the control group, the lowest SpO2 during the procedure was higher than the baseline SpO2 in the HFNO group. Hypoxemia occurred only in the control group (n = 7; 19%; P = 0.01). Procedural interruptions, including discontinuation of sedation, patient stimulation, and jaw thrusting, occurred only in the control group (n = 9 [25%], n = 10 [28%], and n = 10 [28%] cases, respectively; P = 0.001 for each). In contrast to conventional nasal cannula, high flow nasal oxygen provided adequate oxygenation without causing procedural interruptions during ERCP, suggesting that HFNO may be used as a standard oxygen delivery method during these procedures. www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03872674); registered 11 March 2019.

Is endoscopist-directed sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with balanced propofol solution (BPS) practical and safe? A prospective study from a tertiary care centre in India.

IntroductionEndoscopist-directed, nurse-administered sedation using propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is being utilized worldwide. However, this is not usually employed in India by endoscopists.AimTo assess the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of this sedation in low to moderate risk patients undergoing ERCP.Material and methodsThis was a prospective study involving 500 patients with any indication for ERCP. The sedation was given by trained nurses.ResultsThe sedative dosages per patient were as follows: propofol = 90 ±20 mg, fentanyl 0.75 ±0.25 mg (range: 0.25–1.00 mg), and midazolam 2 ±0.5 mg (range: 1–3 mg). Ninety-seven percent of patients achieved Richmond agitation sedation score of ≥ –3, and 96.8% achieved Gloucester comfort score of ≤ 2. 4.22% of the patients had mild adverse events (AE), and 2.11% had moderate AE. Two (0.4%) patients required intubation and intensive care unit admission. Mean recovery time was 15.3 min. 98.3% of the endoscopists were satisfied with the sedation achieved. 31.2% of the patients remembered the procedure. 93% of the patients were satisfied with the type of sedation. 92.75% of ERCPs were successful. 7.59% had procedure-related complications: in the form PEP – 5.290%, significant bleeding – 1.08%, and perforation – 0.43%.ConclusionsEndoscopist-directed, nurse-administered sedation for ERCP with balanced propofol solution is practical, efficient, time saving, safe, and acceptable to patients.

Comparison of Ketamine, Lignocaine, and Fentanyl on Dose Requirement of Propofol in Patients Undergoing ERCP: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: Propofol is the most common drug used for providing sedation due to its short duration of action and early recovery. However, it may be associated with hypotension, desaturations, and bradycardia and does not provide analgesia, due to which various adjuncts are used along with it. Lignocaine decreases the doses of propofol and inhalational agent when used for visceral surgeries. Thus, we conducted a study to compare the dose of propofol along with lignocaine, ketamine, and fentanyl for sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure. Methods: A total of 105 patients were randomized into three groups. Sedation was provided by intravenous bolus injection of propofol 1 mg/kg in all patients followed by infusion of 0.5 mg/kg/hour. In group K bolus dose of intravenous ketamine was 0.5 mg/kg followed by infusion of 0.3 mg/kg/hour, in group L patients were given intravenous bolus of lignocaine 1.5 mg/kg followed by a infusion of 2 mg/kg/hour, in group F the matched volume of saline and 1 μ/kg fentanyl were administered. Intermittent boluses of propofol were given in all three groups in response to patients’ discomfort evidenced by grimaces, movement, or increase in heart rate or mean arterial pressure by >20% of baseline. The total dose of propofol consumed in the three groups was noted. Results: The total dose of propofol consumed and post-procedure abdominal pain was significantly higher in the fentanyl group but was comparable in lignocaine and ketamine groups. Conclusion: Lignocaine and ketamine were equally effective in deceasing propofol requirement and in preventing post-ERCP abdominal pain.

Choice of sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: is monitored anesthesia care as safe as general anesthesia? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundMonitored anesthesia care (MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) are the 2 most common methods of sedation used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the overall safety between MAC vs. GA in ERCP.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases to identify studies reporting the use of MAC or GA as a choice of sedation for ERCP. The primary outcome was to compare the overall rate of sedation-related adverse events in MAC vs. GA groups. The secondary endpoint was to investigate the total duration of the procedure, recovery time, ERCP cannulation rates, and conversion rate of MAC to GA. The meta-analysis was performed using a Der Simonian and Laird random-effects model.ResultsA total of 21 studies reporting on 11,592 patients were included. The overall sedation-related side-effects were similar in the GA (12.76%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.80-21.73; I2=95%) and MAC (12.08%, 95%CI 5.38-20.89; I2=99%) groups (P=0.956). Hypoxia, arrhythmias, hypotension, aspiration and other sedation-related side-effects were similar between the 2 groups. The mean duration of the procedure was longer in the MAC group, but the mean recovery time was shorter. Significant heterogeneity was noted in our meta-analysis.ConclusionsIn our meta-analysis, the overall sedation-related side-effects were similar between the MAC and GA groups. MAC could be used as a safer alternative to GA when performing ERCP. However, large multicenter randomized control trials are needed to further validate our findings.

S0940 Safety of Patient Controlled Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION: Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and general anesthesia care are two common methods of sedation used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Patient controlled sedation (PCS) is another modality of anesthesia, which allows the patient to control their own level of sedation at the touch of a button. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the overall safety of patient controlled sedation. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar and manual search of references (from inception through Jan 2020) to identify any studies reporting use of PCS as choice of sedation for ERCP. The primary outcome was to evaluate the success of anesthesia defined as successful procedure under PCS. The secondary outcomes evaluated sedation related adverse events (AE) and correlation of American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (ASA) with the number of AE. This meta-analysis was performed using Der Simonian and Laird random effect model. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies reported on 848 patients. The mean age was 53 and majority of the population were male. ERCP was successful in 86% (95% CI = 0.76–0.96, I2 = 94%) of the patients. The overall sedation related AE were 13.56% (95% CI = 0.11–0.15). Our sub-group analysis showed rates of hypoxia at 7.9% (95% CI = 0.06–0.09), hypotension at 2.71% (95% CI = 0.02–0.04), over sedation at 2% (95% CI = 0.00–0.03), aspiration pneumonia at 0.83% (95% CI = 0.00–0.02), arrhythmia at 0.12% (95% CI = 0.00–0.005), and no other sedation related AE. ASA correlation with number of AE was done with classes I–III. ASA class III had moderate positive correlation to hypoxia with an r value of 0.4 and was statistically significant. Significant heterogeneity was noted in our analysis. CONCLUSION: In our meta-analysis, PCS could be a safe alternative anesthesia for ERCP. Hypoxia was the most common AE observed from PCS and has moderate positive correlation with ASA class III. Further large multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.Figure 1.: ERCP success rates under patient controlled sedation.

Su1443 GENERAL ANESTHESIA IS ASSOCIATED WITH WORSE OUTCOMES COMPARED TO MONITORED ANESTHESIA CARE: ANALYSIS OF 18,081 CONSECUTIVE ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY (ERCP) CASES

General anesthesia (GA) with endotracheal intubation and monitored anesthesia care (MAC) are the most widely used modalities of sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Aim of this study was to determine difference in adverse discharge between patients receiving GA versus MAC for ERCP. We included data of adult patients undergoing ERCP with GA or MAC from January, 2007 to December, 2018 at a tertiary care hospital. The primary outcome was adverse discharge, defined as in-hospital mortality, discharge to a skilled nursing facility or long-term care facility. Unadjusted and adjusted standard logistic regression was performed. To address anesthesiologist preference, which may differ in choosing MAC or GA, we calculated adjusted absolute risk differences (aRD) using provider preference-based instrumental variable analysis. We used a propensity score matching analysis with GA and MAC cases matched 1:1, to further address the possibility of unbalanced confounding between the groups. 18,081 ERCPs were performed with GA or MAC during the study period. 543 were excluded due to incomplete data and 17,538 were included in this study. Of those, 16,238 (92.6%) received MAC and 1,300 (7.4%) received GA. The two groups were similar with respect to mean Age(yrs) ± SD (63.96±17.18 vs 63.34±17.10), mean BMI (27.21±5.98 vs 31.84±9.65). There were no significant differences with respect to ASA class and Charleston comorbidity index. The rates of adverse discharge were 5.8 % in the MAC group compared with 16.2 % in the GA group. GA was associated with significantly increased risk of adverse discharge based on unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analysis (aRD, [95% confidence interval, CI]) (10.4% [8.3-12.4%] and 2.9 % [1.4-4.3%] respectively). Utilizing provider-related variability in the use of GA in instrumental variable analysis resulted in 8.6% risk increase in adverse discharge in patients who received GA compared with MAC (aRD 8.6%, [95% CI 4.5-12.6%]; p<0.001). This translated into an adjusted number needed to harm of 12 patients to lead to one adverse discharge that can be attributed to receiving GA. Propensity score matching analysis, with 1,248 cases in each group, demonstrated robust results (aRD 5.2% [95% CI 2.6-7.9%]; p<0.001). The effect was modified by a patient’s predicted probability of receiving GA (p-for-interaction=0.01) towards a greater risk in patients with a low probability (aRD 16.7%, [95% CI, 1.9-31.6%]; p=0.027) compared to those with a high probability of receiving GA (aRD 2.9%, [95% CI, 1.1-4.6%]; p=0.001). Results of our data across a wide range of analysis strategies suggests higher risks of adverse discharge in patients who received GA with endotracheal intubation compared with MAC for ERCP.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)

Sedation-related complications during anesthesiologist-administered sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective study

BackgroundPatients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) require adequate sedation or general anesthesia. To date, there is lack of consensus regarding who should administer sedation in these patients. Several studies have investigated the safety and efficacy of non-anesthesiologist-administered sedation for ERCP; however, data regarding anesthesiologist-administered sedation remain limited. This prospective single-center study investigated the safety and efficacy of anesthesiologist-administered sedation and the rate of successful performed ERCP procedures.MethodsThe study included 200 patients who underwent ERCP following anesthesiologist-administered sedation with propofol and remifentanil. Procedural data, oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure (SBP), heart rate, recovery score, patient and endoscopist satisfaction, as well as 30-day mortality and morbidity data were analyzed.ResultsSedation-related complications occurred in 36 of 200 patients (18%) and included hypotension (SBP < 90 mmHg) and hypoxemia (O2 saturation < 90%) in 18 patients (9%) each. Most events were minor and did not necessitate discontinuation of the procedure. However, ERCP was terminated in 2 patients (1%) secondary to sedation-related complications. Successful cannulation was performed in all patients. The mean duration of the examination was 25 ± 16 min. Mean recovery time was 14 ± 10 min, and high post-procedural satisfaction was observed in both, patients (mean visual analogue scale [VAS] 9.6 ± 0.8) and endoscopists (mean VAS 9.3 ± 1.3).ConclusionThis study suggests that anesthesiologist-administered sedation is safe in patients undergoing ERCP and is associated with a high rate of successful ERCP, shorter procedure time, and more rapid post-anesthesia recovery, with high patient and endoscopist satisfaction.

Dexmedetomidine or midazolam in combination with propofol for sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized double blind prospective study.

IntroductionInterventional endoscopic procedures, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), often require sedation during the procedure. The most commonly used drugs for this purpose are midazolam and propofol, which are used as sedative and hypnotic agents with minimal analgesic potential.AimTo compare the analgesic sedative effects of midazolam-propofol and dexmedetomidine-propofol combinations and their influence on hemodynamic and respiratory variables in patients undergoing ERCP.Material and methodsForty adult patients aged 20-78 and undergoing ERCP were randomized to two groups. Patients were premedicated with midazolam (0.05 mg/kg 10 min before the procedure) in group M and with dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg for 10 min) in group D. Propofol was used for maintenance. The sedation level was monitored using the bispectral index (BIS) to maintain a score between 70 and 80. Hemodynamic and respiratory variables, recovery time and adverse events were recorded.ResultsThe hemodynamic and respiratory variables were similar in both groups. Total propofol consumption was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group (208.5 ±80.0 vs. 154.5 ±66.7 mg; p = 0.011). The recovery period was shorter in group D (time to achieve the Aldrete score 9 was 9.4 ±2.1 vs. 6.6 ±1.1 min; p < 0.001). Changes in hemodynamic and respiratory variables and adverse events were not different between the two groups.ConclusionsWe found a shorter recovery time and comparable sedative and adverse effects with the dexmedetomidine-propofol combination compared with the midazolam-propofol combination. Dexmedetomidine in combination with propofol may be a safe and useful alternative for sedation for ERCP patients.