Sedation For Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Research Articles

55 Choice of Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Is Monitored Anesthesia Care Safer Than General Anesthesia? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION: Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) are the two most common methods of sedation used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the overall safety between MAC versus GA in ERCP. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science databases, Google Scholar and manual search of references (from inception through May 2019) to identify the studies reporting use of MAC or GA as choice of sedation for ERCP. The primary outcome was to compare the overall sedation related side effects including hypoxia, arrhythmias, hypotension and aspiration in MAC versus GA groups. The secondary outcome was to study the total duration of procedure and recovery time. The meta-analysis was performed using Der Simonian and Laird random effect model. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies (11 in GA group and 18 in MAC group) reporting on 12918 patients were included. One study was included in both the groups. The mean age in both the groups was 60 years. A total of 27 studies reported sedation related side effects. The overall sedation related side effects were similar in GA (12.76%; 95% CI = 5.80–21.73, I2 = 95%) versus MAC (12.08%; 95% CI = 5.38–20.89, I2 = 99%) groups with P = 0.859 (Figure 1). In sub-group analysis, hypoxia, arrhythmias, hypotension, aspiration and other sedation related side effects were similar between the two groups (Table 1). The recovery time and duration of procedure was reported in 10 and 14 studies respectively. Although, the mean duration of procedure was more in MAC group (47 min versus 33 min) but mean recovery time was less as compared to GA group (47 min versus 59 min). Only 1.7% of the MAC patients were converted to GA. Significant heterogeneity was noted in in our meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: In our meta-analysis, overall sedation related side effects were similar between MAC versus GA groups. The mean duration of procedure was lower in GA group but on contrary recovery (mean) was noted to be faster in MAC group. Based on our meta-analysis, monitored anesthesia care could be used as an alternative to general anesthesia when performing ERCP, although high risk patients may be better served by general anesthesia. Large multicenter randomized control trials are needed to further validate our findings.

Anesthesia-administered sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: monitored anesthesia care or general endotracheal anesthesia?

The decision to undertake monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or general endotracheal anesthesia (GEA) for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is influenced by many factors. These include locoregional practice preferences, procedure complexity, patient position, and comorbidities. We aim to review the data regarding anesthesia-administered sedation for ERCP and identify the impact of airway management on procedure success, adverse event rates and endoscopy unit efficiency. Several studies have consistently identified patients at high risk for sedation-related adverse events during ERCP. This group includes those with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class and (BMI). ERCP is commonly performed in the prone position, which can make the placement of an emergent advanced airway challenging. Although this may be alleviated by performing ERCP in the supine position, this technique is more technically cumbersome for the endoscopist. Data regarding the impact of routine GEA on endoscopy unit efficiency remain controversial. Pursuing MAC or GEA for patients undergoing ERCP is best-approached on an individual basis. Patients at high risk for sedation-related adverse events likely benefit from GEA. Larger, multicenter randomized controlled trials will aid significantly in better delineating which sedation approach is best for an individual patient.

Comparison of Different Ratio of Ketofol (6:1 vs. 4:1) for Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)

Comparison of Different Ratio of Ketofol (6:1 vs. 4:1) for Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)

Sa1489 CONTINUOUS INFUSION VERSUS INTERMITTENT BOLUS INJECTION OF PROPOFOL DURING ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY

It is unclear whether continuous infusion or intermittent bolus injection of propofol is better for achieving adequate sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of continuous infusion and intermittent bolus injection of propofol during therapeutic ERCP.

Assessment of sedation level for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography – a prospective validation study

Background and aims: There is no consensus on how to assess the depth of sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study was carried out in order to evaluate different methods of assessment of depth of sedation: bispectral index (BiS), modified Richmond Agitation/Sedation Scale (mRASS), modified Ramsay Sedation Scale (mRSS) and modified Observer Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (mOAAS) and their applicability to clinical practice.Methods: Two hundred patients were recruited. Sedation was given by standard clinical practice using propofol sedation or patient controlled sedation. Sedation was assessed on all patients using the above-mentioned methods. BiS was considered the reference point for sedation scales. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to determine the consistency of different scales in respect to each other and prediction probability and Spearman’s correlation coefficients of sedation scales were calculated to show the relationship between sedation scales and BiS.Results: All scales showed high reliability with overall Cronbach’s alpha 0.943. Dropping scales suggested better consistency between mOAAS, mRSS and mRASS than with BiS. Spearman’s correlation and prediction probability showed similar results with all tested scales: mOAAS (0.695, 0.739), mRSS (0.673, 0.735), mRASS (0.683, 0.738), p < .01 for all scales.Conclusions: All tested methods were found to be reliable in the assessment of the depth of sedation when compared with each other. However, mRASS, mRSS and mOAAS require the patient to respond to verbal or tactile stimulus, which may impair execution of ERCP, whereas BiS information is collected directly from electroencephalogram and thus may be preferable in clinical setting.

Balanced propofol sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and octogenarians: Can we achieve both safety and efficacy?

Balanced propofol sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and octogenarians: Can we achieve both safety and efficacy?

Tu1472 Safety and Feasibility of Etomidate-Based Sedation Compared With Propofol-Based Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Non-Inferiority Trial

Tu1472 Safety and Feasibility of Etomidate-Based Sedation Compared With Propofol-Based Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Non-Inferiority Trial

How patient-controlled sedation is adopted in clinical practice of sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? A prospective study of 1196 cases

Objective: Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) has been shown to be a valid choice for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in randomized studies. However, large-scale studies are lacking.Material and methods: A single center, prospective observational study to determine how sedation for ERCP is administered in clinical setting. All 956 patients undergoing 1196 ERCPs in the endoscopy unit of Helsinki University Central Hospital 2012–2013, methods of sedation and adverse events associated with different sedations were recorded.Results: PCS was attempted a total of 685 times (57%), successful use of PCS was achieved with 526 patients (77% of attempts). PCS device was operated by the anesthesiologist or anesthesia nurse 268 times (22%). PCS was more likely chosen for younger (80.6% for < =60 years vs. 63.8% for >60 years, p<.001) patients and by trainee anesthetists. Anesthesiologist administered propofol sedation was used 240 times (20%). The risk of failure of PCS was increased, if systolic arterial pressure was <90 mmHg, dosage of PCS >17 ml, duration of procedure exceeded 23 min. The risk of failure was lower in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and if sedation was deeper RASS < =−2. Uneventful PCS was associated with less respiratory and cardiovascular depression than other methods. There were no statistically significant differences in safety profiles with all the methods of sedation.Conclusions: PCS is readily implemented in clinical practice, is suitable for younger and low-risk patients and is associated with less cardiorespiratory adverse effects.

Capnographic monitoring of midazolam and propofol sedation during ERCP: a randomized controlled study (EndoBreath Study).

This was to determine whether intervention based on additional capnographic monitoring reduces the incidence of hypoxemia during midazolam and propofol sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] I – IV) scheduled for ERCP under midazolam and propofol sedation were randomly assigned to a control arm with standard monitoring or an interventional arm with additional capnographic monitoring. In both arms detection of apnea prompted withholding of propofol administration, stimulation of the patient, insertion of a nasopharyngeal tube, or further measures. The primary study end point was incidence of hypoxemia (oxygen saturation [Sao 2] below 90 %); secondary end points included occurrences of severe hypoxemia (Sao 2 ≤ 85 %), bradycardia, and hypotension, and sedation quality (patient cooperation and satisfaction). 242 patients were enrolled at three German endoscopy centers. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed no significant reduction in hypoxemia incidence in the capnography arm compared with the standard arm (38.0 % vs. 44.4 %, P = 0.314). Apnea was more frequently detected in the capnography arm (64.5 % vs. 6.0 %, P < 0.001). There were no differences regarding rates of bradycardia and hypotension. Per-protocol analysis showed lower incidence of hypoxemia in the capnography arm compared with the standard arm (31.5 % vs. 44.8 %, P = 0.048). There was one death related to sedation in the standard arm. Sedation quality was similar in the two groups. Intention-to-treat analysis showed hypoxemia incidence was not significantly lower in the additional capnography arm compared with standard monitoring. Additional capnographic monitoring of ventilatory activity resulted in improved detection of apnea.

The dexmedetomidine "augmented" sedato analgesic cocktail: An effective approach for sedation in prolonged endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography.

Background and Aims:In absence of any published standard guideline for sedation or anesthesia practice for prolonged therapeutic “endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP)”, safe and cost-effective sedation protocol is the need of the hour. Our study aims to evaluate the efficacy of a dexmedetomidine as an add-on for prolonged deep sedation for ERCP and to compare three deep sedation regimens regarding safety and efficacy.Material and Methods:Forty-five consecutively enrolled patients planned for therapeutic ERCP and assumed to have prolonged procedural duration (>50 min) were divided into three groups in a randomized assessor blinded fashion. Group 1 received propofol and midazolam, Group 2 received the sedato-analgesic cocktail containing ketamine-propofol-midazolam-pentazocine, and the Group 3 received sedate-analgesic cocktail plus dexmedetomidine infusion under monitoring of vital parameters and according to the judgment of the concerned anesthesiologist. Total propofol requirement, episodes of gagging, oxygen desaturation, changes in mean blood pressure (MBP), recovery and satisfaction score of endoscopist, anesthetist and patient were noted and analyzed statistically using one way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction and Chi-square test.Results:Mean propofol requirement, incidences of gagging and oxygen desaturation was significantly less in Group 2 and 3 compared to Group 1. MBP was more stable and recovery was faster in Group 3. Anesthetist's satisfaction was more with Group 2 and even more with Group 3.Conclusions:The sedato-analgesic cocktail was superior to the conventional propofol-midazolam regimen, dexmedetomidine as add-on increased the efficacy and safety of sedate-analgesic cocktail. It reduces propofol requirement, helps to maintain the patient in a safe and more stable level of sedation and increases satisfaction of the anesthetist.

Patient-Controlled Propofol for Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: An Alternative to Anesthesia-Administered Sedation?

Patient-Controlled Propofol for Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: An Alternative to Anesthesia-Administered Sedation?

Su1719 The Safety of Intravenous Propofol Sedation Administered for ERCP in a Tertiary Referral Center

Propofol based sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures is used extensively throughout the world. There are limited data with respect to its safety.

Safety of non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in ERCP

Background and study aimsPropofol is increasingly being used for sedation purposes during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study aimed to evaluate the safety of non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) during therapeutic ERCP. Patients and methodsPatients, who underwent ERCP at Centre for Liver and Digestive Diseases, Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi, were included in the study. Propofol sedation was administered by a physician who was a non-anaesthesiologist certified in basic and advanced cardiac life support. The total study duration was 6months. The primary outcome variable was the frequency of any sedation-related complication. ResultsA total of 156 patients (41% males and 59% females) were enrolled in the study. The mean propofol dose used during the procedure was 201±132mg. The mean propofol dose, when adjusted to weight and duration of procedure, was 0.05±0.04mgkg−1min−1. According to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, 136 (87%) patients were placed in ASA class I and II and 20 (13%) patients were of ASA class III. Only two patients developed sedation-related complication: one minor requiring bag-mask ventilation and other major requiring mechanical ventilation via endotracheal intubation. Both were managed by the trained non-anaesthesiologist and gastroenterologist at the place of procedure. No patients required cardiopulmonary resuscitation and admission to the intensive care unit. There were no sedation-related deaths. ConclusionNAAP sedation can be considered safe for low-risk patients (ASA class I and II) undergoing ERCP. The presence of a trained anaesthetist is advisable in high-risk patients (ASA class III and higher) with significant co-morbidities.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for conscious sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: An open-label randomised controlled trial

Background:Traditionally, midazolam has been used for providing conscious sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Recently, dexmedetomidine has been tried, but very little evidence exists to support its use.Objective:The primary objective was to compare haemodynamic, respiratory and recovery profile of both drugs. Secondary objective was to compare the degree of comfort experienced by patients and the usefulness of the drug to endoscopist.Study Design:Open-label Randomised Controlled Trial.Methods:Subjects between 18 and 60 years of age with American Society of Anaesthesiologist Grade I-II requiring ERCP were enrolled in two groups (30 each). Both groups received fentanyl 1 μg/kg IV at the beginning of ERCP. Group M received IV midazolam (0.04 mg/kg) and additional 0.5 mg doses until Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score reached 3-4. Group D received dexmedetomidine at loading dose of 1 μg/kg over 10 min followed by 0.5 μg/kg/h infusion until RSS reached 3-4. The vital parameters (heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), respiration rate, SpO2), time to achieve RSS 3-4 and facial pain score (FPS) were compared during and after the procedure. In the recovery room, time to reach modified Aldrete score (MAS) 9-10 and patient and surgeon's satisfaction scores was also recorded and compared. Any complication during or after the procedure were also noted.Results:In Group D, patients had lower HR and FPS at 5, 10 and 15 min following the initiation of sedation (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in BP and respiratory rate. The procedure elicited a gag response in 29 (97%) and 7 (23%) subjects in Group M and Group D respectively (P<0.05). MAS of 9-10 at 5 min during recovery was achieved in 27 (90%) subjects in Group D in contrast to 5 (17%) in Group M (P<0.05). Dexmedetomidine showed higher patient and surgeon satisfaction scores (P<0.05).Conclusion:Dexmedetomidine can be a superior alternative to midazolam for conscious sedation in ERCP.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for conscious sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: An open-label randomised controlled trial.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for conscious sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: An open-label randomised controlled trial.

Su1347 Drugs for Moderate Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography - Are Dosages a Limiting Factor?

Su1347 Drugs for Moderate Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography - Are Dosages a Limiting Factor?

Anesthesia for ERCP: Impact of Anesthesiologist's Experience on Outcome and Cost

The present study evaluates the effect of anesthesiologist's experience in providing deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) on cost and safety. Methodology. Perioperative records of 1167 patients who underwent ERCP were divided on the basis of anesthesiologist assisting these procedures either on regular basis (Group R) or on ad hoc basis (Group N). Comparisons were made for anesthesia times, complication rates, and airway interventions. Results. Across all American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Classes, regular anesthesiologists were more efficient (overall mean anesthesia time in Group R was 24.82 ± 12.96 versus 48.63 ± 21.53 minutes in Group N). Within Group R, anesthesia times across all ASA classes were comparable. In Group N, anesthesia times for higher ASA status patients were significantly longer (ASA IV, 64.62 ± 35.78 versus ASA I, 45.88 ± 11.19 minutes). Intubation rates (0.76% versus 12.8%) and median minimal oxygen saturation (100% versus 97.01%) were significantly higher in Group R. Had Group R anesthesiologists performed all procedures, the hospital could have saved US $ 758536 (based upon operating room time costs). Conclusion. Experience in providing deep sedation improved patient safety and decreased the operating room turnaround time, thereby lowering operating room costs associated with these procedures.

Age-dependent safety analysis of propofol-based deep sedation for ERCP and EUS procedures at an endoscopy training center in a developing country

IntroductionEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) procedures in elderly patients are on the rise, and they play an important role in the diagnosis and management of various gastrointestinal diseases. The use of deep sedation in these patients has been established as a safe and effective technique in Western countries; however, it is uncertain if the situation holds true among Asians. The present study aimed to evaluate the age-dependent safety analysis and clinical efficacy of propofol-based deep sedation (PBDS) for ERCP and EUS procedures in adult patients at a World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO) Endoscopy Training Center in Thailand.MethodsWe undertook a retrospective review of anesthesia or sedation service records of patients who underwent ERCP and EUS procedures. All procedures were performed by staff endoscopists, and all sedations were administered by anesthesia personnel in the endoscopy room.ResultsPBDS was provided for 491 ERCP and EUS procedures. Of these, 252 patients (mean age, 45.1 + 11.1 years, range 17–65 years) were in the <65 age group, 209 patients (mean age, 71.7 + 4.3 years, range 65–80 years) were in the 65–80 year-old group, and 30 patients (mean age, 84.6 + 4.2 years, range 81–97 years) were in the >80 age group. Common indications for the procedures were pancreatic tumor, cholelithiasis, and gastric tumor. Fentanyl, propofol, and midazolam were the most common sedative drugs used in all three groups. The mean doses of propofol and midazolam in the very old patients were relatively lower than in the other groups. The combination of propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl, as well as propofol and fentanyl, were frequently used in all patients. Sedation-related adverse events and procedure-related complications were not statistically significantly different among the three groups. Hypotension was the most common complication.ConclusionIn the setting of the WGO Endoscopy Training Center in a developing country, PBDS for ERCP and EUS procedures in elderly patients by trained anesthesia personnel with appropriate monitoring is relatively safe and effective. Although adverse cardiovascular events, including hypotension, in this aged group is common, all adverse events were usually transient, mild, and easily treated, with no sequelae.

Patient-controlled sedation for ERCP: a randomized double-blind comparison of alfentanil and remifentanil

Self-administration of a propofol and opioid mixture by patients (patient-controlled sedation, PCS) could offer a practical alternative for individual sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, what would be the most suitable sedative mixture for PCS is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare remifentanil and alfentanil in the PCS during ERCP. Eighty-one patients undergoing elective ERCP received PCS with propofol and opioid in three different regimens. The concentrations of opioids in the sedative mixture were 0.02 mg/mL in the remifentanil group (R) and 0.04 mg/mL and 0.08 mg/mL in the alfentanil 1 (A1) and alfentanil 2 (A2) groups, respectively. The infusion pump was adjusted to deliver a 1 mL single dose with zero lockout time. We considered PCS as successful if no procedure interruption due to sedation-related complications occurred or if additional propofol was not needed. The consumption of propofol was registered, and sedation levels and vital signs were monitored. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction with sedation were assessed using structured questionnaires. The consumption (SD) of propofol was 177 (105)mg in group R, 197 (88) mg in group A1 and 162 (70)mg in group A2. PCS was successful in 74 /81 (91 %) of sedations, without differences between the groups in terms of propofol consumption, sedation success rate, sedation levels, vital signs, postprocedural pain, and endoscopist and patient satisfaction. Respiratory depression and nausea were observed more frequently with remifentanil than with alfentanil (P < 0.05). PCS is an acceptable method of sedation for ERCP. The combination of propofol and alfentanil should be recommended because a remifentanil - propofol mixture depresses spontaneous respiration more and produces nausea more frequently.

Propofol Sedation for ERCP Procedures: A Dilemna? Observations from an Anesthesia Perspective

Propofol sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures is a popular current technique that has generated controversy in the medical field. Worldwide, both anesthetic and nonanesthetic personnel administer this form of sedation. Although the American and Canadian societies of gastroenterologists have endorsed the administration of propofol by nonanesthesia personnel, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not licensed its use in this manner. There is some evidence for the safe use of propofol by nonanesthetic personnel in patients undergoing endoscopy procedures, but there are few randomized trials addressing the safety and efficacy of propofol in patients undergoing ERCP procedures. A serious possible consequence of propofol sedation in patients is that it may result in rapid and unpredictable progression from deep sedation to general anesthesia, and skilled airway support may be required as a rescue measure. Potential complications following deep propofol sedation include hypoxemia and hypotension. Propofol sedation for ERCP procedures is an area of clinical practice where discussion and mutual cooperation between anesthesia and nonanesthesia personnel may enhance patient safety.