Anuradha Borle

Association between Type of Sedation and the Adverse Events Associated with Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: An Analysis of 5 Years' Data from a Tertiary Center in the USA.

Background/Aims The 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. Methods All 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. Results Cardiorespiratory 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. Conclusions Clearly, 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.

Evaluation of Etomidate for Seizure Duration in Electroconvulsive Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

&NA; The optimum induction agent for anesthesia for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has been long debated. Ideal agent should be short acting with minimal suppression of seizure potentials. Recent studies have suggested longer seizure duration with etomidate in comparison to propofol, thiopental, and methohexital. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to pool data available from studies comparing systematically the efficacy of etomidate against other induction agents in terms of seizure duration (both electroencephalography (EEG) and motor). Methods We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane registry for trials evaluating etomidate against methohexital, propofol, or thiopental for duration of EEG or motor seizure in patients undergoing ECT. Specific adverse effects reported were also identified. Results Seventeen trials were identified involving 704, 84, 2491, and 258 setting of ECT using etomidate, methohexital, thiopental, and propofol, respectively. In the etomidate group, pooled EEG seizure duration was longer by 2.23 seconds (95% confidence interval [CI], −3.62 to 8.01; P = 0.456) than methohexital, longer by 17.65 seconds (95% CI, 9.72–25.57; P < 0.001) than propofol, and longer by 11.81 seconds (95% CI, 4.26–19.35; P = 0.003) than thiopental. Pooled motor seizure duration was longer in etomidate group by 1.45 seconds (95% CI, −4.79 to 7.69; P = 0.649) than methohexital, longer by 11.13 seconds (95% CI, 6.64–15.62; P < 0.001) than propofol, and longer by 3.60 seconds (95% CI, 2.15–5.06; P < 0.001) than thiopental. Myoclonus (6 trials) and painful injection (4 trials) were commonest adverse effects with etomidate. Conclusions Etomidate is clearly better in terms of seizure duration potential (both motor and EEG) than propofol and thiopental. Superiority/inferiority over methohexital could not be demonstrated with the presently available literature.

Aprepitant for postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an important clinical problem. Aprepitant is a relatively new agent for this condition which may be superior to other treatment. A systematic review was performed after searching a number of medical databases for controlled trials comparing aprepitant with conventional antiemetics published up to 25 April 2015 using the following keywords: ‘Aprepitant for PONV’, ‘Aprepitant versus 5-HT3 antagonists’ and ‘NK-1 versus 5-HT3 for PONV’. The primary outcome for the pooled analysis was efficacy of aprepitant in preventing vomiting on postoperative day (POD) 1 and 2. 172 potentially relevant papers were identified of which 23 had suitable data. For the primary outcome, 14 papers had relevant data. On POD1, 227/2341 patients (9.7%) patients randomised to aprepitant had a vomiting episode compared with 496/2267 (21.9%) controls. On POD2, the rate of vomiting among patients receiving aprepitant was 6.8% compared with 12.8% for controls. The OR for vomiting compared with controls was 0.48 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.67) on POD1 and 0.54 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.72) on POD2. Aprepitant also demonstrated a better profile with a lower need for rescue antiemetic and a higher complete response. Efficacy for vomiting prevention was demonstrated for 40 mg, 80 mg and 125 mg without major adverse effects. For vomiting comparison there was significant unexplainable heterogeneity (67.9% and 71.5% for POD1 and POD2, respectively). We conclude that (1) aprepitant reduces the incidence of vomiting on both POD1 and POD2, but there is an unexplained heterogeneity which lowers the strength of the evidence; (2) complete freedom from PONV on POD1 is highest for aprepitant with minimum need for rescue; and (3) oral aprepitant (80 mg) provides an effective and safe sustained antivomiting effect.

Anesthesia for Advanced Bronchoscopic Procedures: State-of-the-Art Review

Abstract The bronchoscopic procedures have seen a remarkable increase in both numbers and complexity. Although many anesthesia providers have kept pace with the challenge, the practice is varied and frequently suboptimal. Shared airway during bronchoscopy poses unique challenges. The available reviews have tried to address this lacuna; however, these have frequently dealt with the technical aspects of bronchoscopy than anesthetic challenges. The present review provides evidence-based management insights into anesthesia for bronchoscopy—both flexible and rigid. A systematic approach toward pre-procedural evaluation and risk stratification is presented. The possible anatomical and physiological factors that can influence the outcomes are discussed. Pharmacological principles guiding sedation levels and appropriate selection of sedatives form the crux of safe anesthetic management. The newer and safer drugs that can have potential role in anesthesia for bronchoscopy in the near future are discussed. Ventilatory strategies during bronchoscopy for prevention of hypoxia and hypercarbia are emphasized.

Efficacy of palonosetron in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV)—a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with proposed higher efficacy and sustained action for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS Randomized controlled trials involving adult population undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia comparing palonosetron to placebo, ramosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron were included. Data were extracted for vomiting incidence (VI), complete response (no nausea/vomiting; Complete Response [CR]), and rescue antiemetic need. This was categorized as early phase (24 hours postoperative for ramosetron and 6 hours for rest) and delayed phase (48 hours for ramosetron and 24 hours for rest). VI and CR were used as markers of drug efficacy. Any adverse effects were evaluated. RESULTS Twenty-two trials (4 with 3 groups) were included (comparing palonosetron to placebo in 5, ramosetron in 5, granisetron in 4, and ondansetron in 12 subgroups). Palonosetron demonstrated statistical superiority over placebo for VI and CR, both early/delayed PONV prevention. For delayed phase, palonosetron surpassed ramosetron in all 3 variables; however, none of the variables attained statistical significance during early phase. In early phase, palonosetron had better VI and CR than did granisetron; however, variables other than CR (better for palonosetron) failed to achieve statistical significance for delayed phase. All 3 outcomes were significantly better for palonosetron compared with ondansetron in delayed phase, but statistical superiority could only be demonstrated for VI in early phase. Being inconsistently documented across trials, nausea scores could not be evaluated. CONCLUSION Palonosetron is as safe as and more effective than placebo, ramosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron in preventing delayed PONV. For early PONV, it has higher efficacy over placebo, granisetron, and ondansetron.

Use of computer-assisted drug therapy outside the operating room.

Purpose of review The number of procedures performed in the out-of-operating room setting under sedation has increased many fold in recent years. Sedation techniques aim to achieve rapid patient turnover through the use of short-acting drugs with minimal residual side-effects (mainly propofol and opioids). Even for common procedures, the practice of sedation delivery varies widely among providers. Computer-based sedation models have the potential to assist sedation providers and offer a more consistent and safer sedation experience for patients. Recent findings Target-controlled infusions using propofol and other short-acting opioids for sedation have shown promising results in terms of increasing patient safety and allowing for more rapid wake-up times. Target-controlled infusion systems with real-time patient monitoring can titrate drug doses automatically to maintain optimal depth of sedation. The best recent example of this is the propofol-based Sedasys sedation system. Sedasys redefined individualized sedation by the addition of an automated clinical parameter that monitors depth of sedation. However, because of poor adoption and cost issues, it has been recently withdrawn by the manufacturer. Summary Present automated drug delivery systems can assist in the provision of sedation for out-of-operating room procedures but cannot substitute for anesthesia providers. Use of the available technology has the potential to improve patient outcomes, decrease provider workload, and have a long-term economic impact on anesthesia care delivery outside of the operating room.

Diagnostic dilemma: Rare case of recurrent D-lactic acidosis leading to recurrent acute cardiac failure

d-Lactic acidosis is a rare form of anion gap acidosis and requires a high index of suspicion for appropriate diagnosis and treatment. We report a rare case of short bowel syndrome with recurrent episodes of antibiotic-induced d-lactic acidosis with the presentation of transient severe left ventricular failure. The patients cardiac function returned to normal with the resolution of acidosis under conservative management and a low carbohydrate diet. d-Lactic acidosis has been known to be associated with only neurological symptoms, and cardiac failure has not been previously reported.

Newer nonconventional modes of mechanical ventilation

The conventional modes of ventilation suffer many limitations. Although they are popularly used and are well-understood, often they fail to match the patient-based requirements. Over the years, many small modifications in ventilators have been incorporated to improve patient outcome. The ventilators of newer generation respond to patients demands by additional feedback systems. In this review, we discuss the popular newer modes of ventilation that have been accepted in to clinical practice. Various intensive care units over the world have found these modes to improve patient ventilator synchrony, decrease ventilator days and improve patient safety. The various modes discusses in this review are: Dual control modes (volume assured pressure support, volume support), Adaptive support ventilation, proportional assist ventilation, mandatory minute ventilation, Bi-level airway pressure release ventilation, (BiPAP), neurally adjusted ventilatory assist and NeoGanesh. Their working principles with their advantages and clinical limitations are discussed in brief.

Safety of non-anesthesia provider administered propofol sedation in non-advanced gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A meta-analysis

Background/Aims: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAPP) administered propofol sedation in patients undergoing non-advanced gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. Materials and Methods: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving non-advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 608 publications, 25 [colonoscopy (9), upper GI endoscopy (5), and combined procedures (11)] were identified to meet inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Data was analyzed for hypoxia rates, airway intervention rates, and airway complication rates. Results: A total of 137,087 patients were involved. A total of 2931 hypoxia episodes (defined as an oxygen saturation below 90%) were reported with a pooled hypoxia rate of 0.014 (95% CI being 0.008-0.023). Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates and pooled airway complication rates were 0.002 (95% CI being 0.006–0.001) and 0.001 (95% CI being 0.000–0.001), respectively. Conclusions: The rates of adverse events in patients undergoing non-advanced GI endoscopic procedures with NAPP sedation are extremely small. Similar data for anesthesia providers is not available. It is prudent for anesthesia providers to demonstrate their superiority in prospective randomized controlled trials, if they like to retain exclusive ownership over propofol sedation in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in chronic pain: A meta-analysis

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 (Eggers 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.