James Aisenberg

Endoscopic Sedation in the United States: Results from a Nationwide Survey

OBJECTIVES:The introduction of new sedative agents as well as a desire for improved patient satisfaction and greater efficiency has changed the practice of endoscopic sedation. This survey was designed to provide national and regional data on endoscopic sedation and monitoring practices within the United States.METHODS:A 22-item survey regarding current practices of endoscopy and sedation was mailed to 5,000 American College of Gastroenterology physician members nationwide.RESULTS:A total of 1,353 questionnaires (27.1%) were returned. Respondents performed an average of 12.3 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) and 22.3 colonoscopies per wk. Endoscopic procedures were performed within a hospital setting (55.2) more often than at an ambulatory center (35.8%) or private office (8.8%). The vast majority of EGDs and colonoscopies (>98%) were performed with endoscopic sedation. Almost three quarters (74.3%) of the respondents used a narcotic and benzodiazepine for sedation, while propofol was preferred by 25.7%. Sedation practices varied considerably within different geographic regions of the United States. Respondents routinely monitored vital signs and pulse oximetry (99.2% and 98.6%, respectively), and supplemental oxygen was administered to all patients during EGD by 72.7% of endoscopists. Endoscopist satisfaction with sedation was greater among those using propofol than conventional sedation (10 vs 8, p < 0.0001).CONCLUSIONS:During the past 15 yr, the volume of procedures performed by endoscopists in the United States has increased two- to fourfold. Propofol is currently being used for sedation in approximately one quarter of all endoscopies in the United States. The findings from this survey may help in the formulation of updated policies and practice guidelines pertaining to endoscopic sedation.

Chromoendoscopy-targeted biopsies are superior to standard colonoscopic surveillance for detecting dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease patients: a prospective endoscopic trial.

OBJECTIVES:Patients with extensive, longstanding chronic ulcerative or Crohns colitis face greater risks of developing colorectal cancer. Current standard surveillance relies on detecting dysplasia using random sampling at colonoscopy but may fail to detect dysplasia in many patients. Dye spraying techniques have been reported to aid in detecting otherwise subtle mucosal abnormalities in the setting of colitis. We prospectively compared dye-spray technique using methylene blue to standard colonoscopic surveillance in detecting dysplasia.METHODS:One hundred fifteen patients were referred to the Chromoendoscopy Study Group and prospectively screened for the study. One hundred two (64 M, 38 F) (79 UC 23 CC) patients meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled. Following a standard bowel preparation, each patient was examined using standard office endoscopic equipment by three methods: (a) standard surveillance colonoscopy with four random biopsies every 10 cm (for a total of at least 32 samples); (b) a targeted biopsy protocol; and finally (c) methylene blue (0.01%) dye spray was segmentally applied throughout the colon and any pit-pattern abnormality or lesion rendered visible by the dye spray was targeted and biopsied. Each patient had a single examination, which included two passes of the colonoscope. Specimens were reviewed in a blinded fashion by a single gastrointestinal pathologist. The three methods were then compared with each patient serving as his or her own control.RESULTS:Targeted biopsies with dye spray revealed significantly more dysplasia (16 patients with low grade and 1 patient with high grade) than random biopsies (3 patients with low-grade dysplasia) (P = 0.001) and more than targeted nondye spray (8 patients with low-grade and 1 patient with high-grade dysplasia) (P = 0.057). Targeted biopsies with and without dye spray detected dysplasia in 20 patients compared with 3 using Method (a) (P = 0.0002, two-tailed exact McNemars Test). There were no adverse events.CONCLUSIONS:Colonoscopic surveillance of chronic colitis patients using methylene blue dye-spray targeted biopsies results in improved dysplasia yield compared to conventional random and targeted biopsy methods. Accordingly, this technique warrants incorporation into clinical practice in this setting and consideration as a standard of care for these patients. The value of multiple random biopsies as a surveillance technique should be revisited.

Moderate level sedation during endoscopy: a prospective study using low-dose propofol, meperidine/fentanyl, and midazolam

BACKGROUND Propofol provides several benefits over benzodiazepine and narcotic agents as a sedative medication for endoscopic procedures, including faster recovery and improved patient satisfaction. However, its use generally has been limited to anesthesiologists because of the risks associated with deep sedation. METHODS One hundred patients undergoing colonoscopy or EGD were sedated with low-dose propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl (or meperidine). Depth of sedation was assessed at 2-minute intervals by an independent observer by using the American Society of Anesthesiologists criteria. Recovery time was determined by using paired neuropsychometric tests. A post-procedure satisfaction survey and 24-hour follow-up questionnaires were administered. RESULTS For colonoscopy and EGD, respectively, the mean propofol dose was 98 mg and 79 mg, the mean midazolam dose was 0.9 mg and 0.8 mg, the mean fentanyl dose was 69 mcg and 63 mcg, and the mean meperidine dose was 42 mg (for both procedures). There were 628 assessments of the level of sedation performed during 74 colonoscopies and 101 assessments during 26 EGDs. The level of sedation was minimal in 77%, moderate in 21%, and deep in 2% of assessments. Nine of the 13 episodes of deep sedation were recorded during colonoscopy and 4 during EGD. In no instance was more than a single assessment of deep sedation recorded during one procedure. Ninety-eight percent of patients were satisfied with the sedation, and 71% returned to their usual activities within 2 hours of discharge. There was no serious adverse event. CONCLUSIONS Endoscopic sedation with low-dose propofol, a narcotic agent, and midazolam produces a moderate level of sedation. The quality of sedation and measures of recovery are comparable with the results reported with standard-dose propofol.

Small bowel mucosal injury is reduced in healthy subjects treated with celecoxib compared with ibuprofen plus omeprazole, as assessed by video capsule endoscopy

Background  Small bowel mucosal injury associated with non‐selective non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs is being increasingly recognized.

Propofol for endoscopic sedation: a protocol for safe and effective administration by the gastroenterologist

BACKGROUND There is increasing interest in the use of propofol, an ultrashort-acting hypnotic agent, for sedation during endoscopic examinations. A protocol was developed for administration of propofol, combined with small doses of midazolam and meperidine, for endoscopic sedation under the direction of a gastroenterologist. Initial experience with using this protocol is described. METHODS A total of 819 consecutive endoscopic examinations under sedation with propofol, midazolam, and meperidine (or fentanyl), in adherence with the sedation protocol, were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS There were 638 colonoscopies and 181 EGDs; 89% of patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II. Mean dosages of medications were: propofol 63 (33.5) mg, meperidine 48 (7.2) mg, and midazolam 1 (0.12) mg. The dose of propofol was inversely correlated with age and ASA class, and positively correlated with patient weight and duration of examination. Hypotension (>20 mm Hg decline in either systolic or diastolic blood pressure) developed in 218 (27%) patients, and hypoxemia (oxygen saturation <90%) developed in 75 (9%). All episodes of hypotension and hypoxemia were transient, and no patient required administration of a pharmacologic antagonist or assisted ventilation. The average time for recovery after colonoscopy and after EGD was, respectively, 25 minutes and 28 minutes. All EGDs and 98% of colonoscopies were completed successfully. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of this initial experience, it is believed that propofol, potentiated by small doses of midazolam and meperidine, can be safely and effectively administered under the direction of a gastroenterologist. Additional research will be necessary to determine whether propofol is superior to the current methods of sedation.

Endoscopic implantation of enteryx for treatment of GERD: 12-month results of a prospective, multicenter trial

OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopically implanting a nonresorbable biocompatible polymer (Enteryx) in the distal esophagus and proximal gastric cardia for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).METHODS:In a prospective, multicenter, international trial, 85 well-controlled GERD patients who were receiving chronic proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy underwent Enteryx implantation under fluoroscopic visualization, without general anesthesia. After the procedure, patients were discharged within approximately 2–4 h. Patients were judged to be treatment responders if after implantation they reduced PPI dosage by ≥50%. Follow-up evaluations were conducted at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and included medication usage, symptoms, quality of life, endoscopy, pH monitoring, manometry, and documentation of adverse events.RESULTS:At 12 months, 80.3% (95% CI = 69.9%–88.3%) of 81 evaluable patients were treatment responders. Of the responders, 87.7% completely discontinued PPIs, and 12.3% reduced PPI dosage by ≥50%. Treatment response was more likely in patients with residual implant volume of ≥5 mL (p = 0.027). Other patient and treatment variables were not predictive. Both GERD heartburn and regurgitation symptom scores significantly improved at 12 months compared with baseline (p < 0.001). There were significant reductions in median supine, upright, and total percent time of esophageal exposure to pH <4. Endoscopically assessed esophagitis grades were unchanged. No serious adverse events were encountered. Transient retrosternal chest pain was experienced by 91.8% of patients. This pain was seldom severe and was typically successfully managed with prescription pain medication.CONCLUSION:Enteryx implantation allows most patients to discontinue PPI therapy, improves their symptoms, and reduces esophageal acid exposure. The effects of implantation are long-lasting, and morbidity is transient and minimal. The procedure requires basic endoscopic skills and seems to provide a useful option in the effective clinical management of GERD.

Endoscopic, deep mural implantation of Enteryx for the treatment of GERD: 6-month follow-up of a multicenter trial.

OBJECTIVES:This prospective, multicenter, single-arm study evaluated the safety and efficacy of the endoscopic implantation of Enteryx, a biocompatible, non-biodegradable liquid polymer for the treatment of GERD.METHODS:Eighty-five patients with heartburn symptoms responsive to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use were enrolled. Inclusion requirements were HRQL score ≤ 11 on PPI and ≥ 20 off PPI, and 24-hour PH probe with ≥ 5% total time at PH ≤ 4. Patients with a hiatus hernia > 3 cm, grade 3 or 4 esophagitis, or esophageal motility disorder were excluded. Using a 4-mm needle tipped catheter during standard endoscopy, implants were made in 3–4 quadrants deep into the wall of the cardia. Use of PPI medications, pH-metry, manometry, GERD symptoms, and patient quality of life were assessed over a 6-month follow-up period.RESULTS:At 6 months, PPI use was eliminated in 74% and reduced by > 50% in 10% of patients. The median HRQL score improved from 24.0 pre-implant (baseline off PPIs) to 4.0 at 6 months (p < 0.001). Mean total esophageal acid exposure time was 9.5% pretherapy and 6.7% at 6 months (p < 0.001). Mean LES length increased from 2.0 cm at baseline to 3.0 cm posttherapy (p = 0.003). There were no clinically serious adverse events. Transient mild-to-moderate chest pain commonly occurred after implantation.CONCLUSIONS:The endoscopic implantation of Enteryx is a safe and effective therapy for eliminating or decreasing the need for PPI medications, improving GERD symptoms and patient quality of life, and decreasing esophageal acid exposure among patients suffering from GERD.

Sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: new practices, new economics.

Gastroenterologists in the United States have routinely sedated patients as a part of the endoscopic service. In recent years, more and more endoscopists are turning to anesthesiologists or nurse anesthetists to provide sedation rather than administering it themselves.a Numerous factors are driving this transition, including increasing use of propofol (a sedation agent which in most settings is administered only by an anesthesiologist), efforts to offset falling reimbursements, and effective marketing by anesthesiologists. The clinical merits and the politics of this trend have been recently reviewed (1, 2). The economic implications are less appreciated by clinical gastroenterologists, however, and are the subject of this paper. To approach the subject, it is useful to ask three questions: (1) How significant is the transition to non-gastroenterologist administered sedation? (2) How are the payors responding to this transition? and (3) Where are the payors headed?

Gastrointestinal bleeding with the new oral anticoagulants--defining the issues and the management strategies.

Gastrointestinal bleeding with the new oral anticoagulants – defining the issues and the management strategies -

Innate immune receptor genetic polymorphisms in pouchitis: Is CARD15 a susceptibility factor?

Background: Pouchitis is a frequent complication after ileal pouch‐anal anastamosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis (UC). The aim of this study was to determine whether genetic polymorphisms in the innate immune receptors toll‐like receptor (TLR)4 and caspase activation and recruitment domain family member 15 (CARD15) genes are associated with pouchitis. Methods: From a retrospectively ascertained cohort of patients with UC 5 to 12 years after IPAA (n = 101), subjects were classified into 3 groups: no pouchitis (n = 52); 1 to 2 episodes per year (n = 11), and more than 2 episodes per year (n = 38). Single nucleotide polymorphisms in the tlr4 gene (D299G, T399I) were determined by a real‐time polymerase chain reaction‐based fluorogenic probe technique; and card15 polymorphisms (L1007fsinsC, R702W, G908R) were determined by pyrosequencing. Results: Pouchitis affected 49% (49/101) of the study population. No correlation between pouchitis and the presence of TLR4 polymorphisms was found. The percentage of patients who harbored CARD15 mutations was significantly higher in patients with pouchitis than in patients without pouchitis (18% versus 8%; P < 0.05); 24% of pouchitis patients with more than 2 episodes per year harbored CARD15 mutations (P < 0.01 compared with the no pouchitis group). The CARD15 insertion mutation L1007fsinsC was present in 14% of patients with pouchitis and in 0% without pouchitis (P < 0.05). All patients who carried L1007fsinsC developed more than 2 episodes per year. Conclusions: CARD15 polymorphisms are seen in greater frequency in patients with pouchitis after IPAA for UC. These findings, if borne out in prospective analyses, suggest that CARD15 mutations, particularly L1007fsinsC, may predispose to the development of pouchitis after IPAA for UC.