Basavana Goudra

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.

Significantly reduced hypoxemic events in morbidly obese patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: Predictors and practice effect

Background: Providing anesthesia for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures in morbidly obese patients is a challenge for a variety of reasons. The negative impact of obesity on the respiratory system combined with a need to share the upper airway and necessity to preserve the spontaneous ventilation, together add to difficulties. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with a body mass index (BMI) >40 kg/m2 that underwent out-patient GI endoscopy between September 2010 and February 2011. Patient data was analyzed for procedure, airway management technique as well as hypoxemic and cardiovascular events. Results: A total of 119 patients met the inclusion criteria. Our innovative airway management technique resulted in a lower rate of intraoperative hypoxemic events compared with any published data available. Frequency of desaturation episodes showed statistically significant relation to previous history of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). These desaturation episodes were found to be statistically independent of increasing BMI of patients. Conclusion: Pre-operative history of OSA irrespective of associated BMI values can be potentially used as a predictor of intra-procedural desaturation. With suitable modification of anesthesia technique, it is possible to reduce the incidence of adverse respiratory events in morbidly obese patients undergoing GI endoscopy procedures, thereby avoiding the need for endotracheal intubation.

Cardiac arrests in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: A retrospective analysis of 73,029 procedures

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.

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.

SEDASYS®, Airway, Oxygenation, and Ventilation: Anticipating and Managing the Challenges

In May 2013, the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) approved SEDASYS®, a device that enables non-anesthesia physicians to provide mild-to-moderate sedation to patients undergoing colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy. SEDASYS® is the first among the devices being built to provide computer-assisted personalized sedation. Although the intention of this approval is to cut the anesthesia related expenses, it is likely to create new challenges to the users—both clinical and administrative—that might even increase the cost. Deep sedation is required frequently for a successful completion of the procedure, which poses unforeseen challenges. The present review aims to provide clear information to the users regarding pre-procedure assessment, possible sedation related complications and management options.

ERCP: The Unresolved Question of Endotracheal Intubation

The anesthesia community is still divided as to the appropriate airway management in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Increasingly, gastroenterologists are comfortable with deep sedation (normally propofol) without endotracheal intubation. There are no comprehensive reviews addressing the various pros and cons of an un-intubated airway management. It is hoped that the present review will benefit both anesthesia providers and gastroenterologists. The reasons to avoid routine endotracheal intubation and the approaches for an un-intubated anesthetic management are discussed. The special situations where endotracheal intubation is the preferred approach are mentioned. Many special techniques to manage airway are illustrated.

SEDASYS, sedation, and the unknown

To the Editor: In May 2013, the Food and Drug Administration approved SEDASYS (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., Somerville, NJ, USA), a device that enables physicians (ie, nonanesthesia providers) to administer minimal-to-moderate, propofol-fentanyl only sedation. It is likely to raise many controversies in the anesthesia community. As many investigators have highlighted, providing procedural sedation with propofol carries significant morbidity andmortality [1]. Even themost astute clinician finds the task of providing sedation for upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy challenging. One might possess the necessary knowledge and skills, but one cannot always predict the patient’s response or foresee the procedural difficulties. Propofol is an anesthetic with an interindividual pharmacodynamic variability of 300% to 400% [2]. The addition of fentanyl adds to this unpredictability [3]. For a successful completion of the procedure, gastroenterologists expect their patients to be comfortable, many times to the point of being unresponsive [4]. Unexpected procedural difficulties may arise in ASA physical status 1 and 2 patients, the group who would be sedated with SEDASYS. Deepening sedation to the point of general anesthesia is a daily event supported by evidence [5]. SEDASYS is the first among the devices being built to provide computer-assisted personalized sedation (CAPS) [6]. The protocol involves administration of fentanyl (25 to 100 μg), a wait of three minutes, followed by the administration of about 0.4 mg per kg of body weight of propofol, again over three minutes. A total of 6 minutes would elapse and an infusion at variable rates follows. Many diagnostic upper GI endoscopy procedures are completed in 6 minutes, including the anesthesia time. For a machine that was built supposedly to increase the throughput, this is a big setback. The patient is also supposed to maintain and follow verbal commands during the procedure for the machine to provide effective sedation. The monitoring would involve electrocardiogram, noninvasive blood pressure, pulse oximetry, and end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2). The CAPS device was designed to deliver mild to moderate sedation only.

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.