Lorella Fanti

Target-controlled propofol infusion during monitored anesthesia in patients undergoing ERCP

BACKGROUND A target-controlled infusion system automatically adjusts the rate of infusion of propofol to maintain a desired (target) concentration. The aim of this study was to determine whether administration of propofol with a target-controlled infusion system could improve the sedation of patients undergoing ERCP. METHODS A total of 205 consecutive patients undergoing ERCP were sedated by using a propofol target-controlled infusion system by an anesthesiologist. The target plasma concentration of propofol ranged from 2 to 5 microg/mL. A bolus dose of fentanyl (50-100 mcg) was administered if signs of insufficient analgesia were observed at the maximum target concentration of propofol allowed. The technical difficulty of ERCP was graded on a scale from 1 (least difficult) to 5 (most difficult). RESULTS The mean dosages of propofol and fentanyl administered were 465 (245) mg and 59 (23) mcg, respectively. The total dose of propofol administered and the mean duration of ERCP were related to the degree of difficulty of the procedure. No severe complication was observed; mean time to discharge was 31 (12) minutes. Time to discharge was not influenced by the difficulty of ERCP or by the total dose of propofol administered. CONCLUSIONS A target-controlled infusion system for administration of propofol provides safe and effective sedation during ERCP. Further studies are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness and the safety profile for infusion of propofol with a target-controlled infusion system by a nonanesthesiologist during ERCP.

Electroacupuncture analgesia for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study

Abstract Objective A study was undertaken to compare the effectiveness of acupuncture in reducing patient’s discomfort and anxiety during colonoscopy with a standard sedation protocol. Methods Thirty patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive acupuncture, sham, or no acupuncture. A verbal rating scale was used to measure patient’s pain when the endoscope reached four scheduled positions. Midazolam was administered at baseline and again anytime patients complained of “severe” pain. The amount of midazolam administered was recorded. A verbal rating scale was used to assess patient’s satisfaction with the level of sedation achieved. Results Pain level was lower, although not significantly, in the acupuncture group. Midazolam boluses were required in three patients with acupuncture (30%), eight in the sham group (80%), and nine in the control group (90%) ( p = 0.01). Six patients in the acupuncture group (60%) reported optimum acceptance of colonoscopy compared with only one in the sham group (10%) and none in the control group (0%) ( p = 0.016). Satisfaction scores, assessed 24–72 h after colonoscopy, were extremely high (median score 90 of 100) in the three groups. Conclusions Acupuncture may decrease the demand for sedative drugs during colonoscopy by reducing discomfort and anxiety of the patient and the well-known adverse effects of pharmacologic sedation.

Sedation and monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A nationwide web survey in Italy

BACKGROUND Best strategy of sedation/analgesia in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is still debated. AIMS OF THE STUDY To evaluate sedation and monitoring practice among Italian gastroenterologists and to assess their opinion about non-anaesthesiologist propofol administration. METHODS A 19-item survey was mailed to all 1192 members of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED). For each respondent were recorded demographic data, medical specialty, years of practise and practise setting. RESULTS A total of 494 SIED members returned questionnaires, representing a response rate of 41.4%. The most employed sedation pattern was benzodiazepines for oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDS) in 50.8% of procedures, benzodiazepines plus opioids for colonoscopy and enteroscopy in 39.5% and 35.3% of procedures, respectively, propofol for endoscopic retrograde colangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in 42.3% and 35.6% of procedures, respectively. With regard to propofol use, 66% respondents stated that propofol was exclusively administered by anaesthesiologists. However, 76.9% respondents would consider non-anaesthesiologist propofol administration after appropriate training. Pulse oximetry is the most employed system for procedural monitoring. Supplemental O(2) is routinely administered by 39.3% respondents. CONCLUSIONS Use of sedation has become a standard practise during GI endoscopy in Italy. Pattern varies for each type of procedure. Pulse oximetry is the most employed system of monitoring. Administration of propofol is still directed by anaesthesiologists.

A New Simple Immunoassay for Detecting Helicobacter pylori Infection: Antigen in Stool Specimens

Background/Aim: Several diagnostic tests are available for evaluating Helicobacter pylori (Hp) infection: histological examination, culture of gastric biopsy specimens, rapid urease test, urea breath test and serology. A recently marketed direct enzyme immunoassay (HpSA) detects Hp antigen in stool samples. The aim of our study was to evaluate overall diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of this new diagnostic test. Methods: We included in the study 84 patients (39 males and 45 females; mean age 49.57 years) with dyspeptic symptoms who were examined by upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Exclusion criteria were previous treatment with proton pump inhibitors, bismuth compounds or antibiotics. During the endoscopic examination biopsies were taken from antrum and corpus for Hp culture and histological examination, and stool specimens were submitted to the laboratory to be stored until the HpSA test. Hp was judged to be present when culture or histology and culture were positive. The 13C-urea breath test was done only in culture-negative patients in whom either histology or immunoassay or both were positive. Results: Hp was found in 55 patients by both culture and histology. Stool antigen has been detected in 54 of the 55 Hp-positive patients, giving a sensitivity of 98.2% and a negative predictive value of 96.4%. In 2 out of 29 patients HpSA gave a positive result, but the biopsy-based methods were negative, resulting in a low rate of false-positives, with 93.1% specificity and 96.4% positive predictive value; the 13C-urea breath test confirmed these results as negative. Conclusion: Our results show that this new test is highly sensitive and specific for the detection of Hp infection, and it is satisfactorily reproducible.

Remifentanil vs. Meperidine for Patient-Controlled Analgesia During Colonoscopy: A Randomized Double-Blind Trial

OBJECTIVES:The aim was to compare patients’ and endoscopists’ satisfaction in terms of efficacy and safety of remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) during colonoscopy with that of a combination of midazolam and meperidine.METHODS:Sixty patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly assigned to two groups. All of the patients received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg intravenously for premedication. In the remifentanil group, a bolus dose of remifentanil was given, and a patient-controlled sedation analgesia (PCSA) pump was set to inject further bolus doses with no “lockout” time. Patients in the meperidine group received a bolus of meperidine and sham PCSA. Non-invasive arterial blood pressure, electrocardiography, and pulse oximetry were monitored throughout the study. The Observers Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale (OAA/S) was performed at baseline, every 5 min during, and after colonoscopy. Assessment of pain and satisfaction with sedoanalgesia was scheduled after colonoscopy and 24–72 h later by a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). The technical difficulty of the examination and the gastroenterologists satisfaction were assessed similarly.RESULTS:The degree of pain, the level of satisfaction with sedoanalgesia by patients and gastroenterologists, and the degree of difficulty experienced by the endoscopist were not different in the two groups. The time to reach an Aldrete score ≥9 was significantly shorter in the remifentanil group (P<0.0001); discharge times did not differ between the groups (P=0.36). There was no difference between the groups regarding the duration of colonoscopy (P=0.82) and the stability of vital signs. At the end of the procedure, OAA/S was significantly higher in the remifentanil group (P=0.03).CONCLUSIONS:Remifentanil PCA is safe and effective to induce sedoanalgesia during colonoscopy. Further studies should address the optimization of dosing and lock out setting.

A single-centre prospective, cohort study of the natural history of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND The natural history of acute pancreatitis is based on clinical studies that aim to elucidate the course of disease on the basis of predicted risk factors. AIMS To evaluate the long-term occurrence of recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis in a cohort of patients following an initial episode of acute pancreatitis. METHODS 196 patients were enrolled consecutively and studied prospectively. Clinical characteristics, exogenously/endogenously-associated factors, and evolution to recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis were analyzed. RESULTS 40 patients developed recurrent acute pancreatitis 13 of whom developed chronic pancreatitis. In a univariate analysis, recurrent acute pancreatitis was associated with an idiopathic aetiology (p<0.001), pancreas divisum (p=0.001), and higher usage of cigarettes and alcohol (p<0.001; p=0.023). Chronic pancreatitis was associated with a severe first episode of acute pancreatitis (p=0.048), PD (p=0.03), and cigarette smoking (p=0.038). By multivariate analysis, pancreas divisum was an independent risk factor for recurrent acute pancreatitis (OR 11.5, 95% CI 1.6-83.3). A severe first-episode of acute pancreatitis increased the risk of progressing to chronic pancreatitis by nine-fold. CONCLUSIONS Special attention should be given to patients who experience a severe first attack of acute pancreatitis as there appears to be an increased risk of developing chronic pancreatitis over the long term.

Target Controlled Infusion for non-anaesthesiologist propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: The first double blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND Target Controlled Infusion is a sophisticated tool for providing optimal sedation regimen avoiding under or oversedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. AIMS To compare standard moderate sedation vs. non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS Randomized controlled trial of 70 consecutive colonoscopies and 70 consecutive esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD). Standard group (n=70), received fentanyl (1 μg/kg)+midazolam (0.03-0.04 mg/kg) or midazolam only; propofol group (n=70), received fentanyl (1 μg/kg)+propofol Target Controlled Infusion (1.2-1.6 μg/ml) or propofol Target Controlled Infusion only. Discharge time, endoscopist satisfaction and patient satisfaction were recorded in all endoscopies. RESULTS Colonoscopy: discharge time was significantly shorter in the propofol than the standard group (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 5 ± 10.2 min, respectively; P=0.03). Endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher (98.3 ± 11.4/100 vs. 87.2±12/100; P=0.001); patient satisfaction was significantly higher (95 ± 9.3/100 vs. 85.5 ± 14.4/100; P=0.002) in the propofol compared to the standard group. EGD: discharge time was not significantly different in the propofol and standard groups (1.1 ± 0.7 vs. 3.9 ± 9.2 min, respectively; P=0.146). Endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher (92.7 ± 14.3/100 vs. 82.8 ± 21.2/100; P=0.03); patient satisfaction was significantly higher (93.8 ± 18.2/100 vs. 76.5 ± 25.2/100; P=0.003). In the propofol group 94.3% of patients vs. 71.4% of patients in standard group asked to receive the same sedation in the future (P=0.021). CONCLUSION Target Controlled Infusion is a promising method for non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation.

Long-term follow-up and serologic assessment after triple therapy with omeprazole or lansoprazole of Helicobacter-associated duodenal ulcer.

We assessed both the effectiveness of two Helicobacter pylori (Hp) eradication triple therapies and the usefulness of serology in the follow-up. Fifty patients with active or scarred duodenal ulcer were randomized to lansoprazole or omeprazole for 1 to 4 weeks, with clarithromycin 250 mg twice a day and tinidazole 500 mg twice a day for the first week. Endoscopies were scheduled before treatment, after 8 weeks, and after 1 year. H. pylori status was determined before therapy by rapid urease test and histology and during the follow-up by histology and culture. Serology was determined at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. The regimens were equally effective in inducing ulcer healing (95.8% vs. 87.5%) and eradicating Hp with no recurrences at 12 months. Among 44 patients eradicated, a significant reduction of immunoglobulin G (IgG) titer occurred at 6 (p < 0.0001) and 12 months (p < 0.0001). If a titer reduction of more than 30% was taken as an indicator for Hp eradication, the specificity of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was 75% at 6 and 95.4% at 12 months with a 100% sensitivity. Either lansoprazole or omeprazole combined with antibiotics are effective in eradicating Hp. Serology is useful for monitoring Hp eradication provided that an appropriate percent reduction in IgG titer is used after more then 6 months after therapy.

Selection criteria for pre-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and endoscopic- laparoscopic treatment of biliary stones

OBJECTIVE Pre-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the most common treatment of gallbladder and common bile duct (CBD) stones. In this study we evaluate our selection criteria for pre-operative ERCP and the results of endoscopic-laparoscopic treatment in patients with CBD stones. DESIGN Consecutive adult patients admitted to the department of surgery because of symptomatic cholelithiasis were included in a prospective open trial. PARTICIPANTS Between January 1996 and December 1996, 841 patients underwent LC at our hospital. ERCP pre-LC was performed in 95 of the 841 patients, on the basis of our selection criteria. INTERVENTIONS The indication to perform ERCP was suggested by a dilatated CBD (> 10 mm) or ductal stones, abnormal serum liver tests, persisting for more than 3 days, jaundice, cholangitis or pancreatitis. Twelve months after surgery, all patients were contacted by telephone to exclude symptoms related to residual stones. RESULTS Cannulation of the CBD was successful in 94 of 95 patients submitted to pre-LC ERCP. CBD stones were found in 87 patients (95.6%) in 22 of whom (25.2%) they were in the form of small stones or sludge. In only three of 94 patients (3.2%) no alterations of the CBD or papilla were found. Complications occurred in eight of 98 patients (in five after endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES), and in three after LC). CONCLUSIONS Pre-operative ES in selected patients with coexisting gallbladder and CBD stones has been a good approach and the criteria that we used for selection of patients to be submitted to pre-operative ERCP/ES seem to be effective.

Two dosages of remifentanil for patient-controlled analgesia vs. meperidine during colonoscopy: A prospective randomized controlled trial

UNLABELLED BACKGROUND AND STUDY: Combined use of opiates and benzodiazepines often results in delayed discharge after colonoscopy. AIMS To compare sedation quality of two dosages of patient controlled analgesia remifentanil with one another and with that of a midazolam-meperidine association during colonoscopy. METHODS Ninety patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly assigned to three groups. Group M received a meperidine bolus (0.7 mg/kg) and sham patient controlled analgesia. Group R1 received remifentanil 0.5 μg/kg and group R2 remifentanil 0.8 μg/kg together with a patient-controlled analgesia pump injecting further boluses (2-min lock-out). Technical difficulties of the examination, gastroenterologists and patients satisfaction with sedoanalgesia were evaluated after colonoscopy on a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale. Patients satisfaction was assessed 24 h later. RESULTS Group M had more adverse events (p = 0.044), required more rescue boluses (p = 0.0010), had lower Observers Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale score at the end of the procedure (p = 0.0016) and longer discharge time (p = 0.0001). Groups R1 and R2 did not differ with respect to these variables. Patients degree of pain and satisfaction with sedo-analgesia, endoscopists technical difficulty and satisfaction were not different among groups. CONCLUSIONS Remifentanil patient controlled analgesia is a safe approach to sedation for colonoscopy.