The safety of NAAP sedation compared favorably with AAP sedation in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures. However, it came at the cost of decreased patient and endoscopist satisfaction.

Background/AimsThe landscape of sedation for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures and the nature of the procedures themselves have changed over the last decade. In this study, an attempt is made to analyze the frequency and etiology of all major adverse events associated with GI endoscopy. MethodsAll adverse events extracted from the electronic database and local registry were analyzed. Although the data analysis was retrospective, the adverse events themselves were documented prospectively. These events were evaluated after subdivision into propofol-based anesthesia and intravenous conscious sedation groups. ResultsCardiorespiratory events, including cardiac arrest, were the most common adverse events during esophagogastroduodenoscopy, while bleeding was more frequent in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Pancreatitis was the most frequent adverse event in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The frequencies of most adverse events were significantly higher in patients anesthetized with propofol. Automatic regression modeling showed that the type of sedation, the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, and the procedure type were some of the predictors of immediate life-threatening complications. ConclusionsClearly, our regression modeling suggests a strong association between the type of sedation as well as various patient factors and the frequency of adverse events. The possible reasons for our results are the changing demographics, the worsening comorbidities of the patient population, and the increasing technical complexity of these procedures. Although extensive use of propofol has increased patient satisfaction and procedure acceptability, its use is also associated with more frequent adverse events.

No abstract

Background:In this meta-analysis, we explore the role of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a noninvasive neuromodulation technique in the treatment of chronic pain.Methods:Studies comparing rTMS and conventional treatment for chronic pain were searched. The comparison was made for decrease in the pain scores with and without (sham) the use of rTMS after a follow-up interval of 4–8 weeks. All reported pain scores were converted into a common scale ranging from “0” (no pain) to “10” (worst pain).Results:Nine trials with 183 patients in each of the groups were included in the analysis. The decrease in pain scores with rTMS was 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] being 1.46–0.78) (fixed effects, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001) and in sham-rTMS was 0.28 (95% CI being 0.49–0.07) (Fixed effects, I2 = 0, P = 0.01). The pooled mean drop in pain scores with rTMS therapy was higher by 0.79 (95% CI being 0.26–1.33) (fixed effects, I2 = 0, P < 0.01). The duration and frequency of rTMS were highly variable across trials. Publication bias was unlikely (Egger's test, X-intercept = 0.13, P = 0.75).Conclusions:Use of rTMS improves the efficacy of conventional medical treatment in chronic pain patients. This treatment is not associated with any direct adverse effects. However, the duration and frequency of rTMS therapy is presently highly variable and needs standardization.

Background/Aims:Airway difficulties leading to cardiac arrest are frequently encountered during propofol sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. With a noticeable increase in the use of propofol for endoscopic sedation, we decided to examine the incidence and outcome of cardiac arrests in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy with sedation.Patients and Methods:In this retrospective study, cardiac arrest data obtained from the clinical quality improvement and local registry over 5 years was analyzed. The information of patients who sustained cardiac arrest attributable to sedation was studied in detail. Analysis included comparison of cardiac arrests due to all causes until discharge (or death) versus the cardiac arrests and death occurring during the procedure and in the recovery area.Results:The incidence of cardiac arrest and death (all causes, until discharge) was 6.07 and 4.28 per 10,000 in patients sedated with propofol, compared with non–propofol-based sedation (0.67 and 0.44). The incidence of cardiac arrest during and immediately after the procedure (recovery area) for all endoscopies was 3.92 per 10,000; of which, 72% were airway management related. About 90.0% of all peri-procedural cardiac arrests occurred in patients who received propofol.Conclusions:The incidence of cardiac arrest and death is about 10 times higher in patients receiving propofol-based sedation compared with those receiving midazolam–fentanyl sedation. More than two thirds of these events occur during EGD and ERCP.

Propofol is a popular anesthetic sedative employed in colonoscopy. It is known to increase the patient satisfaction and improve throughput. However, there are concerns among the clinicians with regard to the depth of sedation, as a deeper degree of sedation is known to increase the incidence of aspiration and other adverse events. So we planned to compare the depth of sedation between propofol and non-propofol based sedation in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy, as measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG) based monitor SEDLine monitor (SedlineInc., San Diego, CA). The non-randomized prospective observational study was performed in the outpatient gastroenterology suite of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Patients included ASA class I-III aged more than 18 years scheduled for colonoscopy under Propofol or non-propofol based sedation. After an institutional review board approval, a written consent was obtained from prospective patients. Sedation (propofol or non-propofol based) was administered by either a certified nurse anesthetist under the supervision of an anesthesiologist (propofol) or a registered endoscopy nurse under the guidance of the endoscopist performing the procedure (non-propofol sedation). Depth of sedation was measured with an EEG based SEDLine monitor. The sedation providers were blinded to the patient state index-the indicator of depth of sedation. PSI (patient state index-SEDLine reading) was documented at colonoscope insertion, removal and at the return of verbal responsiveness after colonoscope withdrawal. Sedation spectrum was retrieved from the data stored on the SEDLine monitor. Patients sedated with propofol experience significantly deeper degrees of sedation at all times during the procedure. Additionally, during significant part of the procedure, they are at PSI levels associated with deep general anesthesia. The group that received propofol was more deeply sedated and had lower PSI values. Lighter propofol titration protocols may lead to improved patient care such as lowering risk of aspiration and hypotension. The role of processed EEG monitors such as the SEDLine monitor to improve sedation protocols remains to be determined. Trial registration We obtained an ethical clearance from the Institute. No trial registration was mandated, as no interventional drug or investigational device were used during the study.

Although our results show gastric volume in patients chewing gum was statistically higher, clinical relevance of such a small difference is questionable. Thus patients who chewed gum inadvertently prior to procedure should not be denied or delayed administration of sedative and anesthetic medications.

Background:Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a novel method of treating achalasia of the esophagus. Very little data are available to guide the anesthesia providers caring for these patients. The anesthetic challenges are primarily related to the risk of pulmonary aspiration. There is also a potential risk of pneumomediastinum, pneumoperitoneum, subcutaneous, or submucosal emphysema, as a result of carbon dioxide tracking into the soft tissues surrounding the esophagus and lower esophageal sphincter.Methods:In this retrospective study, electronic charts of 24 patients who underwent POEM over 18 months were reviewed. Demographic data, fasting status, relevant aspiration risks, anesthetic technique, and postoperative care measures were extracted.Results:Fasting times for both solids and liquids were variable. None of the patients underwent preprocedural esophageal emptying. Standard induction and intubation were performed in 16, rapid sequence induction (RSI) with cricoid pressure in seven, and modified rapid sequence without application of cricoid pressure in one of the patients. One of the patients aspirated at induction, and the procedure was aborted. However, the procedure was performed successfully after a few weeks, this time a RSI with cricoid pressure was chosen.Conclusion:As there are no guidelines for the perioperative management of patients presenting for POEM presently, certain recommendations can be made. Preprocedural esophageal emptying should be considered in patients considered as high-risk, although cultural factors might preclude such an approach. Induction and intubation in a semi-reclining position might be useful. Although debatable, use of RSI with cricoid pressure should be strongly considered.