|
1
|
Wang S, Sheng T, Yuan G, Li H, Guo X, Mai J, Chen C, Luo G. Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation in patients susceptible to hypoxemia during procedural sedation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc 2024; 99:989-997. [PMID: 38101583 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2023.12.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2023] [Revised: 12/01/2023] [Accepted: 12/10/2023] [Indexed: 12/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Hypoxemia is one of the most common adverse events during colonoscopy, particularly among patients who are diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) or are overweight. Consequently, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) ventilation for patients with high-risk hypoxemia during colonoscopy with sedation. METHODS In this trial, 127 patients who met the eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to the BPAP oxygen group and nasal cannula (NC) group. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoxemia. RESULTS Compared with the use of NC, BPAP ventilation exhibited a significant reduction in the incidence of hypoxemia, decreasing it from 23.8% to 6.3% (absolute risk difference, 17.5%; 95% confidence interval, 5.4-29.6; P = .006). Importantly, BPAP ventilation prevented the occurrence of severe hypoxemia (9.5% vs 0%; absolute risk difference, 9.5%; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-16.7; P = .035). In addition, the BPAP group required fewer airway interventions (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS In individuals with OSA or overweight status, the use of BPAP ventilation during colonoscopy significantly reduced the incidence of hypoxemia. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2300073193.).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shuailei Wang
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China; Department of Anesthesiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Tianqiang Sheng
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Guoqing Yuan
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Huixin Li
- Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Xiaoguang Guo
- Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Jianming Mai
- Department of Anesthesiology, Guangzhou Panyu Maternal Child Health Hospital, Guangzhou, China
| | - Chaojin Chen
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Gangjian Luo
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Ramalingam R, Senthamizhselvan K, Harichandrakumar KT, Mohan P. Effect of Premedication with Glycopyrrolate on Patient Tolerance and Procedure Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial. Euroasian J Hepatogastroenterol 2023; 13:55-60. [PMID: 38222964 PMCID: PMC10785133 DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10018-1395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2023] [Accepted: 09/05/2023] [Indexed: 01/16/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and aim An optimal topical pharyngeal anesthesia (TPA) is required for better patient tolerance and procedural outcomes of an unsedated upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE). Several additional strategies have been tried to improve patient tolerance with limited success. We hypothesized that premedication with glycopyrrolate would enhance TPA and improve patient tolerance and procedural outcomes of an unsedated UGIE. Materials and methods We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial between July 2020 and May 2022. Consecutive patients undergoing unsedated UGIE were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous glycopyrrolate or a placebo 30 minutes before TPA. Patient tolerance, comfort level for the endoscopist, cardiorespiratory fluctuations, percentage of failed esophageal intubation, and incomplete examination were studied. Results 380 patients were randomized to 190 in each arm. The median (IQR) VAS scores for the overall patient satisfaction in the glycopyrrolate and placebo groups were 8 (1) and 7 (2), respectively (p = 0.04). The median (IQR) VAS scores for endoscopist assessment of patient cooperation in the glycopyrrolate and placebo groups were 8 (1.3) and 8 (1), respectively (p = 0.04). There was no difference in the percentage of failed esophageal intubation and incomplete examination, fluctuations in heart rate, and oxygen saturation of the participants. However, the mean arterial pressure (MAP) on-table before the start of the procedure at 1 minute and 3 minutes was significantly higher in the glycopyrrolate group (p = 0.01, 0.01, and 0.04, respectively). Conclusion In unsedated UGIE, glycopyrrolate premedication significantly improves the patient tolerance and endoscopist's comfort, with minimal cardiorespiratory effects. Hence, it could be incorporated into day-care unsedated endoscopy practice.Trial registration - CTRI/2020/07/026786. How to cite this article Ramalingam R, Senthamizhselvan K, Harichandrakumar KT, et al. Effect of Premedication with Glycopyrrolate on Patient Tolerance and Procedure Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2023;13(2):55-60.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rajendiran Ramalingam
- Department of Medical Gastroenterology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India
| | - Kuppusamy Senthamizhselvan
- Department of Medical Gastroenterology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India
| | - KT Harichandrakumar
- Department of Biostatistics, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India
| | - Pazhanivel Mohan
- Department of Medical Gastroenterology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Boonreunya N, Nopawong E, Yongsiriwit K, Chirapongsathorn S. Virtual reality distraction during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 37:855-860. [PMID: 35080055 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15786] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2021] [Revised: 12/27/2021] [Accepted: 01/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM Virtual reality (VR) is an established and effective tool in reducing autonomic and somatic pain. We aimed to examine the analgesic effects of VR distraction during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). METHODS We conducted a randomized controlled trial and enrolled patients who had indication for unsedated EGD with topical anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to use Oculus GO with three-dimensional specific software content (standalone VR headset), sham VR or without VR during EGD. The primary outcome was patient pain scores during EGD. RESULTS A total of 96 patients undergoing diagnostic EGD were randomized to receive VR (n = 32), sham VR (n = 32), and no VR defined as the control group (n = 32). Patients in all groups reported no statistically different pain during esophageal intubation. The mean pain score was 2.7 ± 2.4 in the VR group, 2.7 ± 2.5 in the sham VR and 2.3 ± 2.3 in the control group, (P value = 0.751). No significant difference was observed in heart rate and blood pressure, and the endoscopists reported higher overall satisfaction scores in VR (4.3 ± 0.5) compared with the control group (4 ± 0.8) but without significance (P value = 0.156). CONCLUSION Virtual reality-assisted anesthesia during EGD did not significantly reduce patient pain during esophageal intubation. There was no superiority in using VR distraction regarding patient's and endoscopist's satisfaction compared with standard EGD without VR Further studies are required to detect any true clinical advantage of VR distraction during EGD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natapak Boonreunya
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Phramongkutklao Hospital, College of Medicine, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Ekapong Nopawong
- College of Digital Innovation Technology, Rangsit University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Karn Yongsiriwit
- College of Digital Innovation Technology, Rangsit University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Sakkarin Chirapongsathorn
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Phramongkutklao Hospital, College of Medicine, Bangkok, Thailand
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Tai FWD, Wray N, Sidhu R, Hopper A, McAlindon M. Factors associated with oesophagogastric cancers missed by gastroscopy: a case-control study. Frontline Gastroenterol 2019; 11:194-201. [PMID: 32419910 PMCID: PMC7223339 DOI: 10.1136/flgastro-2019-101217] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2019] [Revised: 06/27/2019] [Accepted: 06/30/2019] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION There is increasing demand for gastroscopy in the United Kingdom. In around 10% of patients, gastroscopy is presumed to have missed oesophagogastric (OG) cancer prior to diagnosis. We examine patient, endoscopist and service level factors that may affect rates of missed OG cancers. METHODS Gastroscopies presumed to have missed OG cancers performed up to 3 years prior to diagnosis were identified over 6 years in Sheffield, UK. Factors related to the patient, endoscopist and endoscopy lists were examined in a case-control study. Procedures which missed cancer were compared with two procedure controls: the procedures which subsequently diagnosed cancer in the same patient, and second, endoscopist matched procedures diagnostic of small benign focal lesions. RESULTS We identified 48 (7.7%) cases of missed OG cancer. Endoscopy lists on which OG cancer diagnoses were missed contained a greater number of total procedures compared with lists on which diagnoses were subsequently made (OR 1.42 95% CI 1.13 to 1.78) and when compared with lists during which matched endoscopists diagnosed benign small focal lesions (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.52). The use of sedation, endoscopist profession and experience, or time of procedure were not associated with a missed cancer. CONCLUSION 7.7% of patients diagnosed with OG cancer could have been diagnosed and treated earlier. Our study suggests that endoscopy lists with greater numbers of procedures may be associated with missed OG cancers. The use of sedation, endoscopist background or time of procedure did not increase the risk of missed cancer procedures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Foong Way David Tai
- Academic Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| | - Nicholas Wray
- Academic Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| | - Reena Sidhu
- Academic Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| | - Andrew Hopper
- Academic Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| | - Mark McAlindon
- Academic Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Tseng CW, Koo M, Tseng KC, Hsieh YH. Meperidine for patients expected to have poor tolerance to esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled study. United European Gastroenterol J 2018; 6:1307-1315. [PMID: 30386603 PMCID: PMC6206533 DOI: 10.1177/2050640618797821] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2018] [Accepted: 08/02/2018] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Anxious patients and those with poor tolerance to previous esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) usually have poor tolerance for EGD. AIMS To investigate the effect of meperidine on these patients during EGD. METHODS A total of 110 patients undergoing diagnostic EGD were randomized to receive either meperidine (n = 55) or placebo (n = 55) before EGD. The primary outcome was patient discomfort scores during esophageal intubation. RESULTS Patients in the meperidine group reported less discomfort during esophageal intubation (median score of 5.0 and interquartile range (IQR) 1.5-7.0) compared with the control (median score of 6.0, IQR 5.0-8.5, P = .003). Patients in the meperidine group had better tolerance during the procedure (median score of 2 (IQR 1.0-3.0) versus 3 (IQR 1.0-4.0), P = .048), and the endoscopists reported higher overall satisfaction scores (median score of 9 (IQR 7.0-9.0) versus 8 (IQR 7.0-9.0), P = .043). There was significantly less increase in heart rate and blood pressure during the procedure in the meperidine group than in the placebo group (23 bpm (IQR 9-32) versus 30 bpm (IQR 18-52); P = .006); (7 mmHg (IQR 1-14) versus 18 mmHg (IQR 2-30); P = .008). Connect-the-numbers test showed comparable results before and after EGD between the two groups. CONCLUSION For patients expected to have poor tolerance during EGD, meperidine reduced discomfort, decreased cardiovascular distress, and improved endoscopist satisfaction, without adverse effects on their psychomotor function after the procedure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chih-Wei Tseng
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department
of Medicine, Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Chiayi,
Taiwan
- School of Medicine, Tzu Chi University,
Hualien City, Taiwan
| | - Malcolm Koo
- Department of Medical Research, Dalin
Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Chiayi, Taiwan
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health,
University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Kuo-Chih Tseng
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department
of Medicine, Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Chiayi,
Taiwan
- School of Medicine, Tzu Chi University,
Hualien City, Taiwan
| | - Yu-Hsi Hsieh
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department
of Medicine, Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Chiayi,
Taiwan
- School of Medicine, Tzu Chi University,
Hualien City, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
A comparison of propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2016; 11:178-185. [PMID: 27829941 PMCID: PMC5095272 DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2016.61521] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2016] [Accepted: 07/15/2016] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION There is increasing interest in sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). Prospective randomized studies comparing sedation properties and complications of propofol and midazolam/meperidine in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) are few. AIM To compare propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation for UGE in terms of cardiopulmonary side effects, patient and endoscopist satisfaction and procedure-related times. MATERIAL AND METHODS This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of propofol versus midazolam and meperidine in 100 patients scheduled for diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The patients were divided into propofol and midazolam/meperidine groups. Randomization was generated by a computer. Cardiopulmonary side effects (hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia), procedure-related times (endoscopy time, awake time, time to hospital discharge), and patient and endoscopist satisfaction were compared between groups. RESULTS There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the cost, endoscopy time, or demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients. Awake time and time to hospital discharge were significantly shorter in the propofol group (6.58 ±4.72 vs. 9.32 ±4.26 min, p = 0.030 and 27.60 ±7.88 vs. 32.00 ±10.54 min, p = 0.019). Hypotension incidence was significantly higher in the propofol group (12% vs. 0%, p = 0.027). The patient and endoscopist satisfaction was better with propofol. CONCLUSIONS Propofol may be preferred to midazolam/meperidine sedation, with a shorter awake and hospital discharge time and better patient and endoscopist satisfaction. However, hypotension risk should be considered with propofol, and careful evaluation is needed, particularly in cardiopulmonary disorders.
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Amornyotin S. Unsedated Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Cirrhotic Patients: An Impact of Topical Pharyngeal Anesthesia. JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIA & CRITICAL CARE: OPEN ACCESS 2015; 3. [DOI: 10.15406/jaccoa.2015.03.00106] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/03/2023]
|
|
8
|
Are Histrionic Personality Traits Associated with Irritability during Conscious Sedation Endoscopy? Gastroenterol Res Pract 2015; 2015:702492. [PMID: 25954307 PMCID: PMC4410519 DOI: 10.1155/2015/702492] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/29/2014] [Accepted: 03/30/2015] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim. We aimed to evaluate whether histrionic personality traits are associated with irritability during conscious sedation endoscopy (CSE). Materials and Methods. A prospective cross-sectional study was planned. Irritability during CSE was classified into five grades: 0, no response; I, minimal movement; II, moderate movement; III, severe movement; IV, fighting against procedure. Patients in grades III and IV were defined as the irritable group. Participants were required to complete questionnaire sheet assessing the extent of histrionic personality traits, extraversion-introversion, and current psychological status. The present authors also collected basic sociodemographic data including alcohol use history. Results. A total of 32 irritable patients and 32 stable patients were analyzed. The histrionic personality trait score of the irritable group was higher than that of the stable group (9.5 ± 3.1 versus 6.9 ± 2.9; P = 0.001), as was the anxiety score (52.8 ± 8.6 versus 46.1 ± 9.6; P = 0.004). Heavy alcohol use was more frequently observed in the irritable group (65.6% versus 28.1%; P = 0.003). In multivariate analysis, all these three factors were independently correlated with irritability during CSE. Conclusion. This study revealed that histrionic personality traits, anxiety, and heavy alcohol use can affect irritability during CSE.
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Salale N, Treldal C, Mogensen S, Rasmussen M, Petersen J, Andersen O, Jacobsen J. Bupivacaine Lozenge Compared with Lidocaine Spray as Topical Pharyngeal Anesthetic before Unsedated Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. CLINICAL MEDICINE INSIGHTS. GASTROENTEROLOGY 2014; 7:55-9. [PMID: 25374463 PMCID: PMC4213191 DOI: 10.4137/cgast.s18019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2014] [Revised: 07/25/2014] [Accepted: 08/04/2014] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
Unsedated upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) can induce patient discomfort, mainly due to a strong gag reflex. The aim was to assess the effect of a bupivacaine lozenge as topical pharyngeal anesthetic compared with standard treatment with a lidocaine spray before UGE. Ninety-nine adult outpatients undergoing unsedated diagnostic UGE were randomized to receive either a bupivacaine lozenge (L-group, n = 51) or lidocaine spray (S-group, n = 42). Primary objective was assessment of patient discomfort including acceptance of the gag reflex during UGE. The L-group assessed the discomfort significantly lower on a visual analog scale compared with the S-group (P = 0.02). There was also a significant difference in the four-point scale assessment of the gag reflex (P = 0.03). It was evaluated as acceptable by 49% in the L-group compared with 31% in the S-group. A bupivacaine lozenge compared with a lidocaine spray proved to be a superior option as topical pharyngeal anesthetic before an UGE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nesrin Salale
- Section for Pharmaceutical Design and Drug Delivery, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. ; Clinical Research Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark
| | - Charlotte Treldal
- Clinical Research Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark
| | - Stine Mogensen
- Clinical Research Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark
| | - Mette Rasmussen
- Clinical Research Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark
| | - Janne Petersen
- Clinical Research Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark
| | - Ove Andersen
- Clinical Research Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark
| | - Jette Jacobsen
- Section for Pharmaceutical Design and Drug Delivery, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Hsieh YH, Lin HJ, Hsieh JJ, Tseng KC, Tseng CW, Hung TH, Leung FW. Meperidine as the single sedative agent during esophagogastroduodenoscopy, a double-blind, randomized, controlled study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 28:1167-1173. [PMID: 23431993 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12183] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/11/2013] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM In Taiwan, unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is widely used, but it is uncomfortable for some patients. While meperidine has been adopted in colonoscopy, its use in EGD has not received extensive attention. This was a prospective study to investigate the use of meperidine as a single sedative agent during EGD. METHODS One hundred and forty patients were randomized to receive either 25-mg meperidine (n = 70) or placebo (n = 70) by intramuscular injection before EGD. The primary outcome was patient discomfort scores. The secondary outcomes included patient, endoscopist, and EGD-related variables. RESULTS Patients in the meperidine group reported less discomfort during esophageal intubation (median score of 2.0 and interquartile range [IQR] of 0-4.0 vs median score of 4.8 and IQR of 1.7-7.0, respectively; P < 0.001) and during the procedure (median score of 1.0 [IQR 0-3.1] vs 3.5 [IQR 0-5.6], P = 0.001) than patients in the placebo group. The endoscopist found patients in the meperidine group had better tolerance during esophageal intubation (median score of 1.0 [IQR 0-2.0] vs 2.0 [IQR 1.0-3.0], P = 0.021) and during the procedure (median score of 0 [IQR 0-1.0] vs 1.0 [IQR 0-3.0], P < 0.001). After the procedure more patients in the meperidine group (71.4% vs 35.7%, P < 0.001) experienced self-limited dizziness that prolonged recovery by ∼3.7 min. CONCLUSIONS After receiving meperidine injection, patients had better tolerance and less discomfort during diagnostic EGD (NCT01547520).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu-Hsi Hsieh
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Buddhist Dalin Tzu Chi General Hospital, Chia-Yi, Taiwan.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Ortega Ramírez M, Linares Segovia B, García Cuevas MA, Sánchez Romero JL, Botello Buenrostro I, Amador Licona N, Guízar Mendoza JM, Guerrero Romero JF, Vázquez Zárate VM. Glossopharyngeal Nerve Block versus Lidocaine Spray to Improve Tolerance in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2013; 2013:264509. [PMID: 23533386 PMCID: PMC3603156 DOI: 10.1155/2013/264509] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2012] [Revised: 02/04/2013] [Accepted: 02/09/2013] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim of the Study. To compare the effect of glossopharyngeal nerve block with topical anesthesia on the tolerance of patients to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods. We performed a clinical trial in one hundred patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the following two groups: (1) treatment with bilateral glossopharyngeal nerve block (GFNB) and intravenous midazolam or (2) treatment with topical anesthetic (TASS) and intravenous midazolam. We evaluated sedation, tolerance to the procedure, hemodynamic stability, and adverse symptoms. Results. We studied 46 men and 54 women, from 17 to 78 years of age. The procedure was reported without discomfort in 48 patients (88%) in the GFNB group and 32 (64%) in the TAAS group; 6 patients (12%) in GFNB group and 18 (36%) in TAAS group reported the procedure as little discomfort (χ (2) = 3.95, P = 0.04). There was no difference in frequency of nausea (4% in both groups) and retching, 4% versus 8% for GFNB and TASS group, respectively (P = 0.55). Conclusions. The use of glossopharyngeal nerve block provides greater comfort and tolerance to the patient undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. It also reduces the need for sedation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Moisés Ortega Ramírez
- PEMEX Regional Hospital Salamanca, Subdirección de Servicios de Salud, Gerencia de Servicios Médicos. Av. Tampico 910 Col. Bellavista, 36730 Salamanca, Guanajuato, Mexico
| | - Benigno Linares Segovia
- PEMEX Regional Hospital Salamanca, Subdirección de Servicios de Salud, Gerencia de Servicios Médicos. Av. Tampico 910 Col. Bellavista, 36730 Salamanca, Guanajuato, Mexico
- Division of Health Sciences, Department of Medicine and Nutrition, Campus Leon, University of Guanajuato, 20 de Enero No. 929, Colonia Obregón, 37320 León, Guanajuato, Mexico
| | - Marco Antonio García Cuevas
- PEMEX Regional Hospital Salamanca, Subdirección de Servicios de Salud, Gerencia de Servicios Médicos. Av. Tampico 910 Col. Bellavista, 36730 Salamanca, Guanajuato, Mexico
- Division of Health Sciences, Department of Medicine and Nutrition, Campus Leon, University of Guanajuato, 20 de Enero No. 929, Colonia Obregón, 37320 León, Guanajuato, Mexico
| | - Jorge Luis Sánchez Romero
- PEMEX Regional Hospital Salamanca, Subdirección de Servicios de Salud, Gerencia de Servicios Médicos. Av. Tampico 910 Col. Bellavista, 36730 Salamanca, Guanajuato, Mexico
| | - Illich Botello Buenrostro
- PEMEX Regional Hospital Salamanca, Subdirección de Servicios de Salud, Gerencia de Servicios Médicos. Av. Tampico 910 Col. Bellavista, 36730 Salamanca, Guanajuato, Mexico
| | - Norma Amador Licona
- Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Director of Education and Research, UMAE HE 1, Paseo de los Insurgentes SN, Colonia Paraísos, 37150 León, Guanajuato, Mexico
| | - Juan Manuel Guízar Mendoza
- Universidad De LaSalle Bajío, School of Dentistry, Av. Universidad 602, Col. Lomas del Campestre, 37150 León, Guanajuato, Mexico
| | - Jesús Francisco Guerrero Romero
- PEMEX Regional Hospital Salamanca, Subdirección de Servicios de Salud, Gerencia de Servicios Médicos. Av. Tampico 910 Col. Bellavista, 36730 Salamanca, Guanajuato, Mexico
| | - Víctor Manuel Vázquez Zárate
- PEMEX Subdirección de Servicios de Salud, Av. Marina Nacional 350 Col. Petroleos Mexicanos, 11311 Distrito Federal, Mexico
| |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Soweid AM, Yaghi SR, Jamali FR, Kobeissy AA, Mallat ME, Hussein R, Ayoub CM. Posterior lingual lidocaine: A novel method to improve tolerance in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2011; 17:5191-6. [PMID: 22215944 PMCID: PMC3243886 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v17.i47.5191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2010] [Revised: 11/11/2010] [Accepted: 11/18/2010] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the effect of posterior lingual lidocaine swab on patient tolerance to esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the ease of performance of the procedure, and to determine if such use will reduce the need for intravenous sedation.
METHODS: Eighty patients undergoing diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy in a tertiary care medical center were randomized to either lidocaine swab or spray. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were given as needed during the procedure.
RESULTS: Patients in the lidocaine swab group (SWG) tolerated the procedure better than those in the spray group (SPG) with a median tolerability score of 2 (1, 4) compared to 4 (2, 5) (P < 0.01). The endoscopists encountered less difficulty performing the procedures in the SWG with lower median difficulty scores of 1 (1, 5) compared to 4 (1, 5) in the SPG (P < 0.01). In addition, the need for intravenous sedation was also lower in the SWG compared to the SPG with fewer patients requiring intravenous sedation (13/40 patients vs 38/40 patients, respectively, P < 0.01). The patients in the SWG were more satisfied with the mode of local anesthesia they received as compared to the SPG. In addition, the endoscopists were happier with the use of lidocaine swab.
CONCLUSION: The use of a posterior lingual lidocaine swab in esophagogastroduodenoscopy improves patient comfort and tolerance and endoscopist satisfaction and decreases the need for intravenous sedation.
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Huang HH, Lee MS, Shih YL, Chu HC, Huang TY, Hsieh TY. Modified Mallampati classification as a clinical predictor of peroral esophagogastroduodenoscopy tolerance. BMC Gastroenterol 2011; 11:12. [PMID: 21324124 PMCID: PMC3045355 DOI: 10.1186/1471-230x-11-12] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2010] [Accepted: 02/15/2011] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is simpler and safer than sedated EGD; however, approximately 40% of patients cannot tolerate it. Early identification of patients likely to poorly tolerate unsedated EGD is valuable for improving compliance. The modified Mallampati classification (MMC) has been used to evaluate difficult tracheal intubation and laryngoscope insertion. We tried to assess the efficacy of MMC to predict the tolerance of EGD in unsedated patients. Methods Two hundred patients who underwent an unsedated diagnostic EGD were recruited. They were stratified according to the view of the oropharynx as either MMC class I + II (good view) or class III + IV (poor view). EGD tolerance was assessed in three ways: gag reflex by endoscopist assessment, patient satisfaction by interview, and the degree of change in vital signs. Results MMC was significantly correlated to gag reflex (P < 0.001), patient satisfaction (P = 0.028), and a change of vital signs (P = 0.024). Patients in the poor view group had a 3.87-fold increased risk of gag reflex (P < 0.001), a 1.78-fold increased risk of unsatisfaction (P = 0.067), and a 1.96-fold increased risk of a change in vital signs (P = 0.025) compared to those in the good view group. Conclusions MMC appears to be a clinically useful predictor of EGD tolerance. Patients with poor view of oropharynx by MMC criteria may be candidates for sedated or transnasal EGD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hsin-Hung Huang
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taiwan
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Kim MY, Park SB, Park SY, Choi YE, Kim YS, Lee SH, Kim SS, Cho KH. Effect of Video-Education on Pre-Procedure Anxiety. Korean J Fam Med 2011. [DOI: 10.4082/kjfm.2011.32.1.37] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Min-Young Kim
- Department of Family Medicine, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea
| | - Serng-Bai Park
- Department of Family Medicine, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea
| | - Su-Yong Park
- Department of Family Medicine, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea
| | - Young-Eun Choi
- Department of Family Medicine, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea
| | - Young-Sung Kim
- Department of Family Medicine, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea
| | - Sang-Hyun Lee
- Department of Family Medicine, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea
| | - Seung-Su Kim
- Department of Family Medicine, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea
| | - Kyung-Hee Cho
- Department of Family Medicine, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Fakheri HT, Kiasari AZ, Taghvaii T, Hosseini V, Mohammadpour RA, Nasrollah A, Kabirzadeh A, Shahmohammadi S. Assessment the effect of midazolam sedation on hypoxia during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Pak J Biol Sci 2010; 13:152-7. [PMID: 20437680 DOI: 10.3923/pjbs.2010.152.157] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of hypoxia related to midazolam sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. This single blind randomized placebo control clinical trial, carried out on 180 patients who referred to endoscopy clinic at Imam Khomeini Hospital for selective upper gastrointestinal endoscopy from April to July in 2008. Informed consents obtained from all participants. Patients under 18-years-old, obese, previous history of asthma, COPD and cigarette smoking were excluded. Arterial hemoglobin saturation controlled by finger probe pulse oximetry. After pharyngeal lidocaine spray, midazolam was administered intravenously in case group and patients in controlled group received placebo. Demographic characteristics and other variables were recorded in a questionnaire and data analyzed using SPSS software. Gastrointestinal disturbances and epigastric pain were major indications of endoscopies. The most common endoscopic diagnoses were deudonitis, esophagitis or gastroesophagial reflux. No patients had any serious episode of hypoxia and the incidence of mild hypoxia was not significant in both studied group (p = 0.823). There was no significant difference in arterial oxygen saturation recorded by the three endoscopists (p = 0.734). Our data showed that optimal dose of sedation had no hypoxia. So that, we recommend sedative endoscopy in patients without risk factors for hypoxia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H T Fakheri
- Department of Gastroenterology, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Choi JH, Jeong HS, Lee DW, Park KH, Kim GM. Factors Related to Pre-Procedural Anxiety for Gastroscopy in Health Check Examinee. Korean J Fam Med 2010. [DOI: 10.4082/kjfm.2010.31.12.923] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Jeong Hwa Choi
- Department of Family Medicine, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Gyeongju, Korea
| | - Hwee Soo Jeong
- Department of Family Medicine, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Gyeongju, Korea
| | - Dong Wook Lee
- Department of Family Medicine, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Gyeongju, Korea
| | - Ki Heum Park
- Department of Family Medicine, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Gyeongju, Korea
| | - Gyeong Min Kim
- Department of Family Medicine, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Gyeongju, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
17
|
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Although the literature surrounding sedation practice and endoscopic outcomes remains sparse and controversial, there have been a number of stringent guidelines issued regarding sedation use in endoscopy. AIMS To assess the impact of changes to enhance safer sedation practice on endoscopic outcomes. METHODS Sedation practice was audited in 7234 consecutive gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in 2004 and protocols for enhancing safer sedation practice were introduced. These included; introduction of a unit sedation policy, exchange of midazolam 10 mg vials to 5 mg repacked syringes, adverse events recording of midazolam use of greater than 5 mg and reversal agents, more stringent patient monitoring procedures and endoscopists education and feedback. A reaudit of 7071 procedures was performed in 2006. Outcomes audited the included midazolam doses, patient intolerance, 30-day postprocedure mortality, reversal agent use and total adverse events. RESULTS Sedation doses were reduced substantially after intervention [mean midazolam dose (SD): 4.9 mg (2.5) in 2004 vs. 2.9 mg (1.2) in 2006; P<0.0001] with no endoscopist using a mean greater than 5 mg in 2006 compared with 19% in 2004 (P=0.005). The use of reversal agents (0.6 vs. 0.7% for 2004 and 2006, respectively; P=0.74), mortality (1.0 vs. 1.3%; P=0.23) and the adverse events (1.7 vs. 2%; P=0.44) were similar. Unsuccessful procedures because of patient intolerance increased from 0.1 to 1.9% (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION Although protocols to enhance safer sedation practice substantially reduced sedation doses used; this did not, however, translate into improved endoscopic outcomes. Moreover, incomplete procedures because of poor tolerance increased.
Collapse
|
|
18
|
|
|
19
|
Tam WWS, Wong ELY, Twinn SF. Effect of music on procedure time and sedation during colonoscopy: A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14:5336-43. [PMID: 18785289 PMCID: PMC2744067 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.14.5336] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM: To integrate results from different studies in examining the effectiveness of music in reducing the procedure time and the amount of sedation used during colonoscopic procedure.
METHODS: An electronic search in various databases was performed to identify related articles. Study quality was evaluated by the Jadad’s scale. The random effect model was used to pool the effect from individual trials and the Cohen Q-statistic was used to determine heterogeneity. Egger’s regression was used to detect publication bias.
RESULTS: Eight studies with 722 subjects were included in this meta-analysis. The combined mean difference for the time taken for the colonoscopy procedure between the music and control groups was -2.84 with 95% CI (-5.61 to -0.08), implying a short time for the music group. The combined mean difference for the use of sedation was -0.46 with 95%CI (-0.91 to -0.01), showing a significant reduction in the use of sedation in the music group. Heterogeneity was observed in both analyses but no publication bias was detected.
CONCLUSION: Listening to music is effective in reducing procedure time and amount of sedation during colonoscopy and should be promoted.
Collapse
|
|
20
|
Stroppa I, Grasso E, Paoluzi OA, Razzini C, Tosti C, Andrei F, Biancone L, Palmieri G, Romeo F, Pallone F. Unsedated transnasal versus transoral sedated upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a one-series prospective study on safety and patient acceptability. Dig Liver Dis 2008; 40:767-75. [PMID: 18424197 DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2008.02.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2007] [Revised: 02/14/2008] [Accepted: 02/18/2008] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND While conventional oesophagogastroduodenoscopy is frequently performed under sedation to improve acceptability, transnasal oesophagogastroduodenoscopy would appear to be less invasive. STUDY AIMS To compare diagnostic accuracy, feasibility, acceptability and safety of transnasal oesophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation versus conventional oesophagogastroduodenoscopy under sedation. PATIENTS Following anxiety assessment, 30 dyspeptic patients underwent transnasal oesophagogastroduodenoscopy under local anaesthesia (lidocaine) and conventional oesophagogastroduodenoscopy under conscious sedation (i.v. midazolam) on two consecutive days. Transnasal oesophagogastroduodenoscopy was performed with an ultrathin and conventional oesophagogastroduodenoscopy with a standard endoscope. METHODS Safety, evaluated by monitoring cardio-respiratory functions. Acceptability, rated according to discomfort and preference between the two examinations. Diagnostic accuracy evaluated taking into account endoscopic patterns and adequacy of biopsy specimens for histology. Feasibility, defined according to endoscopic performance, quality of images and overall opinion of the endoscopist. Only gastric biopsies were evaluated. RESULTS All patients but one who refused conventional oesophagogastroduodenoscopy underwent both transnasal oesophagogastroduodenoscopy and conventional oesophagogastroduodenoscopy. No cardiorespiratory complications occurred during either technique. Majority of patients (87%) preferred transnasal oesophagogastroduodenoscopy. Examinations were completed in all cases, with comparable endoscopic patterns. All biopsy specimens were suitable for histology. CONCLUSIONS Transnasal oesophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation provides good diagnostic accuracy, is safer and better accepted than conventional oesophagogastroduodenoscopy under sedation and, therefore, represents a valid alternative in routine diagnosis of upper digestive tract diseases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- I Stroppa
- Gastrointestinal Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
21
|
Mumtaz K, Ismail FW, Jafri W, Abid S, Hamid S, Shah H, Dhakam S. Safety and utility of oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy in acute myocardial infarction. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 20:51-55. [PMID: 18090991 DOI: 10.1097/meg.0b013e3282f16a3a] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
AIM To study the safety and utility of performing an oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) in the setting of an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS Case records of all patients who underwent an EGD for various indications within 4 weeks of an AMI between January 2001 and April 2006 were analyzed. Demographic data, indications for endoscopy, outcomes and complications were noted. Main outcome measures included safety and utility of endoscopy in AMI. RESULTS A total of 87 EGDs were performed on 85 patients with AMI. Seventy (83%) patients had a non-ST elevation MI, whereas 15 (17%) had ST elevation MI. Mean time between EGD and AMI was 6+/-1.8 days. Indications for EGD were hematemesis and/or melena on presentation in 38 (44.7%), hematemesis and/or melena post anticoagulation in 27 (31.8%). EGD findings were gastric ulcer/erosions in 30 (34%), oesophago-gastric varices in 20 (22%), erosive oesophagitis in 17 (20%) and duodenal ulcer in 11 (13%). Diagnostic yield of EGD was 88%. Endoscopic interventions were performed in 26 (30%) patients with high risk of bleeding lesion. There were no EGD-related mortality, whereas 14 patients re-bled. A total of 21 patients died, including 7/14 (50%) who re-bled, compared with 14/71 (19%) without rebleed (P=0.008). There were no EGD-related deaths. Fourteen patients were on mechanical ventilation and 6/14 (43%) of these died as compared with 15/88 (17%) who were not ventilated (P=0.027). CONCLUSION EGD is safe and useful in diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal hemorrhage in patients with AMI, and allows decisions about anticoagulation. Re-bleed and need for mechanical ventilation predicts poor outcome in these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Khalid Mumtaz
- Section of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
22
|
Ayoub C, Skoury A, Abdul-Baki H, Nasr V, Soweid A. Lidocaine lollipop as single-agent anesthesia in upper GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66:786-93. [PMID: 17905023 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.03.1086] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2006] [Accepted: 03/29/2007] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Conscious sedation is usually achieved during EGD by a combination of intravenous benzodiazepines and opiates; however, these have potential serious adverse effects. The addition of topical oropharyngeal anesthetics such as lidocaine may be useful. Recent data suggest that the administration of topical lidocaine by means of a lollipop is effective for endotracheal intubation and bronchoscopy. OBJECTIVE Our purpose was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a lidocaine lollipop as single-agent anesthesia for EGD and to determine whether its use reduces the need for intravenous sedatives and analgesics. DESIGN Single-blinded, randomized, prospective study. SETTING University hospital. PATIENTS 50 patients undergoing diagnostic EGD. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to either lidocaine lollipop or lidocaine spray. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were administered during the procedure as needed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS The success and safety of local anesthesia by lidocaine lollipop in addition to the need for intravenous sedation. RESULTS Patients were equally randomized between the lollipop and the spray groups. The lollipop group had less gag reflex, accommodated scope introduction more, and tolerated the procedure better. Thirty-two percent of patients receiving the lollipop required sedation compared with 96% of patients in the spray group (P < .001). The majority in the lollipop group were satisfied with their mode of anesthesia compared with the spray group. CONCLUSIONS Lidocaine lollipop is a promising form of local oropharyngeal anesthesia for EGD. Its use resulted in sparing the use of intravenous sedation. It is well tolerated and safe and may be particularly important in the elderly, patients with comorbidities, and office-based endoscopy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chakib Ayoub
- Department of Anesthesia, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
23
|
Sánchez-Yagüe A, Caunedo-Alvarez A, García-Montes JM, Romero-Vázquez J, Pellicer-Bautista FJ, Herrerías-Gutiérrez JM. Esophageal capsule endoscopy in patients refusing conventional endoscopy for the study of suspected esophageal pathology. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 18:977-83. [PMID: 16894311 DOI: 10.1097/01.meg.0000230094.21911.f8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
AIM Esophageal capsule endoscopy is a well tolerated procedure that does not require sedation and has proved its value for the study of the esophagus. The aim of our study was to assess the feasibility, accuracy, safety and acceptability of esophageal capsule endoscopy for the study of gastroesophageal reflux disease and esophageal varices in patients who refused conventional upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Thirty consecutive examinations performed in 28 patients (15 men/13 women; mean age: 58.5+/-12.4 years; range: 23-87 years) were reviewed. Twenty-five examinations were performed in 23 patients presenting with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms and the remaining five were carried out in patients with cirrhosis for screening of esophageal varices. The procedures were done with the new PillCam ESO that harbors two viewing cupules and takes a total of 14 frames/s. Technical data (total recording time, esophageal transit time and Z-line visualization), clinical findings (Savary-Miller grade; presence and characteristics of esophageal varices or portal hypertension gastropathy), and patient's opinion (quality and comfort questionnaire) were analyzed. RESULTS All the patients ingested and excreted the capsule without complications. Two examinations in the gastroesophageal reflux disease group were repeated; one was issued as a follow-up and the other because no images were recorded in the first capsule endoscopy. From the former, only the satisfaction questionnaire was analyzed. Mean total recording time and esophageal transit time were 1224 and 243.79 s, respectively (range: 2-1192 s). Complete study of the Z-line was possible in 23 examinations (23/29; 79.3%). Esophageal erosions were seen in 58.33% (14/24) of the examinations carried out in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Nine out of 14 patients (64.29%) presented with grade I esophagitis and the other five (35.71%) with grade II esophagitis. Among the five patients with cirrhosis, small varices were visualized in one (1/5; 20%), while large varices with red spots were evidenced in the remaining three (3/5; 60%). All four patients showing esophageal varices were found to have portal hypertension gastropathy. In most examinations, patients found the capsule easy to swallow (28/30; 93.33%), asymptomatic (29/30; 96.66%), evaluated the procedure as comfortable (29/30; 96.66%), and would repeat it if necessary (30/30; 100%). CONCLUSIONS Esophageal capsule endoscopy is an adequate alternative diagnostic method for the study of gastroesophageal reflux disease and for the screening of esophageal varices in patients refusing to undergo conventional upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Collapse
|
|
24
|
Yi SY, Shin JE. Midazolam for patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective, single-blind and randomized study to determine the appropriate amount and time of initiation of endoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 20:1873-9. [PMID: 16336447 DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2004.04081.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Midazolam is currently the most used sedative agent in endoscopy. The present study was designed to examine the appropriate dose of midazolam, time of initiation of endoscopy after midazolam infusion, and to prove the necessity of flumazenil as an antidote. METHODS One hundred and eighty patients undergoing diagnostic gastroscopy were assigned three different amounts of intravenous midazolam in prospective, single-blinded and randomized setting as follows: (i) group I 0.03 mg/kg midazolam; (ii) group II 0.06 mg/kg midazolam; and (iii) group III 0.09 mg/kg midazolam. Endoscopy was initiated 30, 60 and 90 s after infusion of midazolam within each group. After endoscopy, patients were divided into two groups, one receiving flumazenil and one placebo in a double-blind fashion. The ease of the procedure, the conscious sedative state, the paradoxical response, the level of satisfaction and anterograde amnesia were assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale. RESULTS The endoscopist's assessments were not changed by the different doses of midazolam; however, significant differences were observed in the paradoxical responses (P < 0.05). The level of satisfaction with endoscopy was notably different between group I and the other two groups (P < 0.05). Amnesia was boosted according with increasing doses of midazolam (P < 0.05). The time until discharge after endoscopy was significantly different between group III and the other two groups (P < 0.05) and the discharge time was reduced in the flumazenil subgroup compared with the placebo subgroup in group III (P < 0.05). Group II (0.06 mg/kg) reported good levels of satisfaction, fewer paradoxical responses and short discharge time without any side-effects. Comparing the time of initiation of endoscopy (at 30, 60 and 90 s after midazolam) in each group, there were no significant differences in the level of satisfaction, conscious sedative state and amnesia. CONCLUSIONS Midazolam should be administered at a dose of 0.06 mg/kg and the endoscopy should be initiated 30 s after midazolam injection for appropriate effects without any side-effects. Flumazenil is not necessary, except in the case of the use of a high dose (above 0.09 mg/kg) of midazolam.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sun Young Yi
- Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Research Center, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
25
|
Ciriza de los Ríos C, Fernández Eroles AL, García Menéndez L, Carneros Martín JA, Díez Hernández A, Delgado Gómez M. [Sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Analysis of tolerance, complications and cost-effectiveness]. GASTROENTEROLOGIA Y HEPATOLOGIA 2005; 28:2-9. [PMID: 15691461 DOI: 10.1157/13070376] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIM Sedation of patients is an important complement to endoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to analyze tolerance, complications and cost-effectiveness in patients undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHOD A total of 357 patients were prospectively studied: 138 non-sedated, 116 sedated with midazolam and 103 sedated with midazolam and meperidine. Subjective tolerance, tolerance perceived by the endoscopist, complications, and cost-effectiveness were evaluated. The Chi-square test was used for the statistical analysis. P-values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS Subjective tolerance was greater in patients sedated with midazolam and meperidine than in the other groups (p < 0.05). Tolerance perceived by the endoscopist was greater in the group sedated with both drugs than in the group sedated with midazolam (p < 0.05). Subjective tolerance was better in sedated men and women but there was no association between sedation and perceived tolerance according to sex. Subjective tolerance was better in sedated patients older than 70 years than in those younger than 40 years (p < 0.05). Complications were more frequent in sedated patients and the most frequent complication in all the groups studied was mild desaturation; there was a significant difference between the group sedated with midazolam and meperidine and the non-sedated group (p < 0.05). Non-sedation had the best cost-effectiveness ratio but sedation with midazolam and meperidine was the most effective alternative. CONCLUSION From the point of view of the endoscopist, endoscopy can be performed without sedation, although subjective tolerance is greater in patients sedated with midazolam and meperidine. Non-sedation is more cost-effectiveness than sedation but if sedation is required midazolam and meperidine achieve better results in terms of effectiveness than midazolam alone.
Collapse
|
|
26
|
Mui LM, Teoh AYB, Ng EKW, Lee YT, Au Yeung ACM, Chan YL, Lau JYW, Chung SCS. Premedication with orally administered midazolam in adults undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy: a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61:195-200. [PMID: 15729225 DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02590-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial was conducted to investigate the safety and the efficacy of orally administered midazolam as premedication for patients undergoing elective EGD. METHODS A total of 130 patients were randomized to receive either 7.5 mg of midazolam orally (n = 65) or a placebo (n = 65) as premedication. Outcomes measures included the anxiety score (visual analog scale) during EGD, overall tolerance, extent of amnesia, overall satisfaction, patient willingness to repeat the procedure, recovery time, and hemodynamic changes after medication. RESULTS The median (interquartile range) anxiety score during the procedure in the midazolam group was significantly lower than that in the control group (2.0 [0-4.9] vs. 3.8 [2.1-7.95], p < 0.001). A significantly greater number of patients in the midazolam group graded overall tolerance as "excellent or good" (70.8% vs. 49.2%, p = 0.012) and reported a partial to complete amnesia response (52.3% vs. 32.3%, p = 0.02) when compared with the control group. Patients in the midazolam group were more willing to repeat the procedure if necessary (89.2% vs. 69.2%, p = 0.005). The median (interquartile range) recovery time was significantly longer in the midazolam group than in the control group (5 [5-15] minutes vs. 5 [5-10] minutes, p = 0.014). There were no statistically significant differences in satisfaction score and hemodynamic changes between groups. CONCLUSIONS Premedication by oral administration of midazolam is a safe and an effective method of sedation that significantly reduces anxiety and improves overall tolerance for patients undergoing EGD.
Collapse
|
|
27
|
Ristikankare M, Hartikainen J, Heikkinen M, Julkunen R. Is routine sedation or topical pharyngeal anesthesia beneficial during upper endoscopy? Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60:686-94. [PMID: 15557943 DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02048-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Upper endoscopy is an invasive procedure. However, the benefits of routinely administered sedative medication or topical pharyngeal anesthesic are controversial. The aim of this study was to clarify their effects on patient tolerance and difficulty of upper endoscopy. METHODS A total of 252 patients scheduled for diagnostic upper endoscopy were randomly assigned to 4 groups: (1) sedation with midazolam and placebo pharyngeal spray (midazolam group), (2) placebo sedation and lidocaine pharyngeal spray (lidocaine group), (3) placebo sedation and placebo pharyngeal spray (placebo group), and (4) no intravenous cannula/pharyngeal spray (control group). The endoscopist and the patient assessed the procedure immediately after the examination. Another questionnaire was sent to the patients 2 weeks later. RESULTS Patients in the midazolam group rated the examination easier and less uncomfortable compared with those in the other groups. The differences were especially evident in the questionnaires completed 2 weeks after the examination ( p < 0.001). Lidocaine did not significantly improve patient tolerance. However, endoscopists found the procedure easier in patients in the lidocaine group compared with the midazolam ( p < 0.01) and control groups ( p < 0.01) but not the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS Routine administration of midazolam for sedation increased patient tolerance for upper endoscopy. However, endoscopists found intubation to be more difficult in sedated vs. non-sedated patients. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia did not enhance patient tolerance, but it did make upper endoscopy technically easier compared with endoscopy in patients sedated with midazolam without topical pharyngeal anesthesia, and in patients who had no sedation or pharyngeal anesthesia, but not in patients who received placebo sedation and placebo pharyngeal anesthesia.
Collapse
|
|
28
|
Olithselvan A, McIntyre AS, Gorard DA. Are patients' sedation preferences at gastroscopy influenced by preceding patients' decisions? Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 20:989-92. [PMID: 15521847 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.02204.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND When patients choose sedation or no sedation for gastroscopy, it is unknown whether the decision and experience of preceding patients on the same endoscopy list influence such decisions. AIM To address this question in an endoscopy unit, where pre- and postprocedure patients are free to communicate. METHODS The order and sedation decisions of 503 out-patients attending diagnostic gastroscopy lists were analysed. One hundred patients completed a preprocedural questionnaire about sedation preferences. RESULTS Three hundred and fifteen (63%) patients chose no sedation. Men were more likely to be unsedated, 170 (72%), than women 158 (59%) (chi(2) = 9.1, P < 0.01). Age did not influence decisions. If the first patient on an endoscopy list requested sedation, 36% of subsequent patients were also sedated. This was similar to 38% of subsequently sedated patients on lists where the first patient was unsedated. Similar proportions of subsequent patients requested sedation when comparing lists where the first two patients were both sedated or both unsedated and when comparing lists where the first three patients were all sedated or all unsedated. Ninety per cent of the patients completing preprocedural questionnaires had made sedation choices before arrival; the remaining undecided patients had unsedated endoscopies. CONCLUSIONS Patients' sedation decisions are not influenced by preceding patients' decisions. Most patients attending for out-patient gastroscopy have already decided about sedation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Olithselvan
- Department of Gastroenterology, Wycombe Hospital, High Wycombe, Bucks., UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
29
|
Abstract
Unsedated endoscopy will likely play an increasingly important role in the daily practice of GI endoscopy. Although there is adequate evidence that un-sedated endoscopy is technically feasible in selected patient populations, there area number of obstacles preventing its widespread adoption. Small-caliber endoscopy is not as accurate as conventional EGD. This may be remedied as improvements in endoscope technology emerge. Many patients refuse to consider an unsedated examination, and those who do participate report more symptoms of discomfort than patients undergoing conventional endoscopy. Whether patients will accept mild discomfort in exchange for substantial cost savings has not been evaluated. Finally, although unsedated endoscopy seems to have a low complication rate, its safety has not been formally addressed in large studies. Large, randomized, controlled studies are needed to better determine the role of un-sedated small-caliber endoscopy in daily practice. Unsedated colonoscopy may follow the footsteps of unsedated upper endoscopy with even more obstacles to overcome before its widespread application.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth J Carey
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, 13400 E Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
30
|
Huang R, Eisen GM. Efficacy, safety, and limitations in current practice of sedation and analgesia. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2004; 14:269-88. [PMID: 15121143 DOI: 10.1016/j.giec.2004.01.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
The ease and availability of endoscopy as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality for gastrointestinal disorders has greatly increased the number of procedures performed in the United States. One of the main factors in achieving a flawless procedure is the use of sedation and analgesia in endoscopy. This article examines the efficacy, safety, and limitations inherent in the current practice of sedation and analgesia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert Huang
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2201 West End Avenue, Nashville, TN 37235, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
31
|
Külling D, Bauerfeind P, Fried M, Biro P. Patient-controlled analgesia and sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2004; 14:353-68. [PMID: 15121148 DOI: 10.1016/j.giec.2004.01.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
Variations in pain threshold, drug tolerance, and visceral sensitivity among patients make it difficult to anticipate the appropriate dose of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Propofol was recently introduced for sedation in endoscopy and has a rapid onset and offset of action, making it an ideal substance for patient-controlled administration. Several controlled trials have demonstrated that during colonoscopy, patient-controlled application of propofol alone or in combination with various opioids is effective,safe, and yields high patient satisfaction. Target-controlled infusion of propofol has shown encouraging results for prolonged upper endoscopy procedures like endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Külling
- Gastroenterology Center, Hirslanden Clinic, Seefeldstrasse 214, CH-8008 Zürich, Switzerland.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
32
|
Campo R, Brullet E, Junquera F, Puig-Diví V, Vergara M, Calvet X, Marco J, Chuecos M, Sánchez A, Alcázar A, Ruiz M, Puig M, Real J. Sedación en la endoscopia digestiva. Resultados de una encuesta hospitalaria en Cataluña. GASTROENTEROLOGIA Y HEPATOLOGIA 2004; 27:503-7. [PMID: 15544734 DOI: 10.1016/s0210-5705(03)70516-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The need for sedation is increasing in digestive endoscopy units (DEU). There are no data on the use of sedation in DEU in Catalonia (Spain). OBJECTIVE To evaluate the use of sedation in DEU in Catalonia. MATERIAL AND METHOD A questionnaire on the practice of sedation was designed and sent to the heads of medical and nursing staff of the DEU of 63 public and private hospitals in Catalonia. Two mailings were sent with an interval of three months between each. The questionnaire included 62 items on the characteristics of the hospital and the DEU, number of explorations, frequency of sedation use, drugs employed, participation of an anesthesiologist, use of monitoring, and complications. RESULTS Forty-four DEU (70%) corresponding to 31 public hospitals and 13 private hospitals completed the questionnaire. Evaluation of sedation patterns was based on 105,904 explorations performed in the various DEU (56,453 gastroscopies, 47,278 colonoscopies and 2,173 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCP) in 2001. Sedation, sedation-analgesia or anesthesia was used in 17% of gastroscopies, 61% of colonoscopies and 100% of ERCP. Sedation was administered by an anesthesiologist in 7% of gastroscopies, 25% of colonoscopies and 38% of ERCP. Anesthesiologist administration was more frequent in private than in public centers (gastroscopies: 25% vs. 2%; colonoscopies: 57% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). No deaths associated with the use of sedation were reported. Eighty-nine percent of the DEU complied with standard recommendations for the practice of sedation. CONCLUSIONS In Catalonia, the use of sedation is highly variable, depending on the endoscopic procedure and the DEU. Use of sedation in infrequent in gastroscopy, fairly widespread in colonoscopy and routine in ERCP. Anesthesiologist administration is significantly more frequent in private hospitals. Most DEU follow standard sedation practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Campo
- Servicio de Aparato Digestivo, Corporació Parc Taulí, Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
33
|
Garcia RT, Cello JP, Nguyen MH, Rogers SJ, Rodas A, Trinh HN, Stollman NH, Schlueck G, McQuaid KR. Unsedated ultrathin EGD is well accepted when compared with conventional sedated EGD: a multicenter randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2003; 125:1606-12. [PMID: 14724812 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2003.08.034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 83] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS In the United States, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is usually performed using intravenous sedation. Sedation increases the rate of both complications and costs of endoscopy. Unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) using conventional 8-11-mm endoscopes is an alternative to sedated endoscopy but is generally perceived as unacceptable to many American patients. Unsedated EGD using ultrathin 5-6-mm endoscopes is better tolerated. A randomized trial comparing unsedated ultrathin EGD (UT-EGD) with sedated conventional EGD (C-EGD) in a diverse American population is needed. METHODS In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, 80 patients scheduled to undergo elective outpatient EGD were randomized to unsedated UT-EGD or sedated C-EGD. The study was carried out at San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the Liver and Digestive Health Medical Clinic, San Jose. RESULTS Baseline characteristics of patients randomized to unsedated UT-EGD and sedated C-EGD were similar. Moreover, there were no significant differences in overall patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat endoscopy in the same manner among the 2 study groups. There was, however, a significant difference in median total procedure time between the 2 study groups of 1.5 hours (P < 0.0001). The mean (+/- SD) total procedure cost was 512.4 US dollars (+/- 100.8 US dollars) for sedated C-EGD and 328.6 US dollars (+/- 70.3 US dollars) for unsedated UT-EGD (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Patients undergoing unsedated UT-EGD are as satisfied as patients undergoing sedated C-EGD and are just as willing to repeat an unsedated UT-EGD. Unsedated UT-EGD was also faster, less costly, and may allow greater accessibility to this procedure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruel T Garcia
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, San Francisco, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
34
|
Saeian K. Unsedated transnasal endoscopy (the Shaker technique): an alternative for assessment of supraesophageal complications of gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Med 2003; 115 Suppl 3A:144S-149S. [PMID: 12928091 DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9343(03)00213-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
This article reviews problems associated with sedated endoscopy, and describes the rationale for unsedated endoscopy as an alternative. Costs, tolerability, potential for complications, and general patient and physician acceptance for unsedated endoscopy are reviewed. A new technique, the transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (the Shaker technique), is described.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kia Saeian
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital, Milwaukee 53226, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
35
|
Affiliation(s)
- Darius Sorbi
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Scottsdale, Arizona 85259, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
36
|
Saruc M, Sertdemir A, Turkel N, Tuzcuoglu I, Ozden N, Yuceyar H. Midazolam-induced sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: assessment of endoscopist and patient satisfaction. Gastroenterol Nurs 2003; 26:164-7. [PMID: 12920432 DOI: 10.1097/00001610-200307000-00007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy can be performed without intravenous sedation but the evidence suggests most patients and endoscopists prefer some form of premedication. Intravenous diazepam or midazolam are used by the majority of endoscopists in the United States, though it is not common practice in Turkey where this study was conducted. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of midazolam in performing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. A total of 352 patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were sedated with midazolam given as a bolus injection over 5 seconds. Ages of the patients ranged between 16 and 79 years (average: 41.6 +/- 12.7 years). The course of endoscopy, anterograde memory, degree of cooperation, degree of sedation, side effects, and acceptability of further intervention were evaluated by a questionnaire given to the patients and endoscopists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Murat Saruc
- Department of Gastroenterology, Endoscopy Unit, Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
37
|
Bonta PI, Kok MF, Bergman JJGHM, Van den Brink GR, Lemkes JS, Tytgat GNJ, Fockens P. Conscious sedation for EUS of the esophagus and stomach: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing midazolam with placebo. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57:842-7. [PMID: 12776030 DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)70018-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients undergoing EUS usually receive intravenously administered sedative medication. A double-blind, prospective, randomized trial was conducted to compare midazolam with a placebo for EUS of the esophagus and stomach and to assess patient tolerance and endoscopic feasibility. METHODS A total of 111 patients were randomized to receive midazolam or a placebo. Patients used a visual analogue scale to score pre-EUS anxiety and tolerance for the procedure. Endoscopists used a visual analogue scale to score ease of echoendoscope introduction and overall patient cooperation. Subsequent to EUS, patients were asked if they were willing to undergo the procedure under the same conditions. RESULTS The patients' visual analogue scale scores indicated that tolerance for the introduction of the echoendoscope and the procedure overall were both significantly better in the midazolam group. Overall patient tolerance was predicted by sedation (p < 0.001) and pre-EUS anxiety (p = 0.024). Endoscopists' visual analogue scale scores showed that ease of echoendoscope introduction was significantly better in the midazolam group. There was no significant difference in overall patient cooperation during the procedure. There were no significant differences in introduction time, total procedure time, or patients' willingness to undergo the procedure under the same conditions. CONCLUSIONS EUS of the esophagus and stomach without intravenous sedation is feasible for endoscopists and patients. Patients prefer intravenous administration of midazolam. Assessment of anxiety before EUS may indicate whether administration of midazolam can improve tolerance for the individual patient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter I Bonta
- Department of Gastroenterology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
38
|
Abraham N, Barkun A, Larocque M, Fallone C, Mayrand S, Baffis V, Cohen A, Daly D, Daoud H, Joseph L. Predicting which patients can undergo upper endoscopy comfortably without conscious sedation. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56:180-9. [PMID: 12145594 DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(02)70175-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Eliminating conscious sedation for diagnostic endoscopy may be advantageous for patient safety and cost containment. The aim of this study was to identify and validate independent predictors of a comfortable, technically adequate, unsedated diagnostic upper endoscopy in Canadian patients. METHODS Patients were consecutively enrolled in a prospective fashion. Data collected on an initial cohort of 268 patients included demographics, a validated anxiety questionnaire, use of sedatives/analgesics, upper endoscopy experience, pharyngeal sensitivity, technical adequacy, and patient assessment of comfort after the procedure. The main outcome measure was "satisfactory upper endoscopy," a composite of optimal scores for patient comfort and technical adequacy. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the optimal predictive model of a satisfactory unsedated diagnostic upper endoscopy. Once identified, 68 additional patients were enrolled in a similar fashion from an independent prospective sample for purposes of outcome validation. Multivariate analysis was then repeated with the total cohort (N = 336). These results were then compared for concordance with those obtained from the initial cohort. RESULTS Among the initial 268 patients (54.3% women; mean age 51 +/- 17 years), 49% were anxious, 15% regularly used sedatives and analgesics, 28% experienced increased pharyngeal sensitivity, and 41% had previously undergone upper endoscopy. Endoscopy was completed in 94.7% of patients without sedation and was technically adequate in 97%, and 80.1% were willing to repeat the procedure under similar conditions. Satisfactory upper endoscopy was achieved in only 59% of the initial cohort. The only independent and significant predictors of a satisfactory upper endoscopy were advancing age (OR 1.2: 95% CI [1.1, 1.4]) and decreased pharyngeal sensitivity (OR 0.5: 95% CI [0.27, 0.93]). Concordance of results were noted after validation with the second cohort. Satisfactory endoscopy was achieved in only 59.5% of the total cohort (n = 336); only 61% reported a comfortable procedural experience. CONCLUSIONS The proportion of patients who can comfortably undergo technically adequate unsedated upper endoscopy is modest. Unsedated upper endoscopy is most likely to be successful under these procedural conditions in patients of advancing age with decreased pharyngeal sensitivity. The generalizability of these findings to an American population requires further study and may assist in identifying a subgroup of patients in whom it is cost-effective to perform upper endoscopy comfortably without sedation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neena Abraham
- The Division of Gastroenterology of the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
39
|
Abstract
Upper endoscopy is an integral component in the management of upper gastrointestinal disorders, but it is underutilized because of its high cost and potential complications. Unsedated transnasal endoscopy (T-EGD) is a relatively new technique using an ultrathin endoscope. Because it is better tolerated than standard upper endoscopy, it is performed with the patient unsedated, thus avoiding the associated costs and complications of conscious sedation. In this review, the technique of T-EGD and its current experience are discussed. In addition, potential future applications, special considerations, and potential pitfalls are reviewed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kia Saeian
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
40
|
Faulx AL, Catanzaro A, Zyzanski S, Cooper GS, Pfau PR, Isenberg G, Wong RCK, Sivak MV, Chak A. Patient tolerance and acceptance of unsedated ultrathin esophagoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55:620-3. [PMID: 11979240 DOI: 10.1067/mge.2002.123274] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Unsedated endoscopy has not gained wide acceptance in the United States. Factors that may predict tolerance and acceptance of unsedated endoscopy are ill defined. METHODS Outpatients referred for standard EGD were recruited to undergo unsedated ultrathin esophagoscopy (UUE) with a new 3.1-mm battery-powered esophagoscope before sedated EGD. They rated preprocedure and postprocedure anxiety levels with the Profile of Mood States Tension/Anxiety subscale (POMS-SF T/A). They also rated symptoms and overall acceptability and listed procedural preference between EGD and UUE. Patients who refused UUE noted a reason for refusal and also completed the anxiety questionnaire. RESULTS Fifty-two of 98 patients recruited agreed to participate, and underwent both UUE and EGD. Patients who refused UUE were significantly more anxious (mean anxiety score, 8.2 vs. 4.5, p < 0.005). Participants reported no significant difference between preprocedural (4.6 vs. 5.3) or postprocedural (3.5 vs. 2.6) anxiety for UUE versus standard EGD. After undergoing both procedures, only 46% stated they would prefer UUE to EGD in the future. Patients who chose the peroral approach were more likely to prefer UUE than those who chose the transnasal approach (58% vs. 23%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Patient acceptance of unsedated endoscopy even with an ultrathin instrument is limited. Anxiety assessment by the POMS-SF T/A can identify patients willing to undergo UUE. Patients who choose transoral UUE may be more willing to repeat the procedure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashley L Faulx
- Division of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
41
|
Yildirgan MI, Cayköylü A, Başoğlu M, Atamanalp SS, Yilmaz I, Balik AA. Importance of psychiatric intervention in intolerances in endoscopic procedures. J Int Med Res 2002; 30:174-9. [PMID: 12025525 DOI: 10.1177/147323000203000210] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Despite the fact that pre-medication, in a number of different drug combinations, has been used for a long time in endoscopy units, and has been subject to extended clinical studies, it is still not possible to claim that it has attained an ideal state with regard to patient tolerance to endoscopy procedures. In this clinical study, we have investigated the effects of psychological intervention in addition to medication, which we used on patients with intolerance to endoscopy. Intolerance was very high in all endoscopic procedures (15.8% total). It was observed that average midazolam doses were significantly higher in intolerant than in tolerant patients. It was found that in patients who had received psychiatric intervention, the decrease in midazolam dose was statistically significant in a subsequent endoscopy procedure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M I Yildirgan
- Department of General Surgery, School of Medicine, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
42
|
Christe C, Janssens JP, Armenian B, Herrmann F, Vogt N. Midazolam sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in older persons: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48:1398-403. [PMID: 11083314 DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb02628.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To investigate the benefits and risks of using midazolam for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in older persons. DESIGN Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING A 304-bed geriatric university hospital. PATIENTS Sixty-five geriatric inpatients (mean age 84 +/- 7) undergoing gastroscopy. INTERVENTION Sedation with either midazolam (30 microg/kg IV) or saline (placebo). All patients received supplemental oxygen during the procedure (2 L/minute). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS Patients' recall of their tolerance to the exam (categorical scale) and pain score were significantly in favor of midazolam at 2 and 24 hours. Multivariate analysis at 2 hours showed that midazolam increased the probability of good tolerance (odds ratio (OR) = 19.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-170.4, P = .008). Circumstantial amnesia occurred at 24 hours in 84% (midazolam) versus 27% (placebo) (P < .001). With midazolam, mean sedation time was 83 +/- 13 minutes and mean arterial pressure (MAP) was about 10 mm Hg lower without clinically significant hypotension. Hypoxemia (SaO2 < 92%) was more frequent in the midazolam group after endoscopy (44% vs. 18%, P = .033), but no major desaturation was observed. Cognitive function (Mini-Mental State Exam, MMSE) was similar before and 2 and 24 hours after the exam in both groups. Acute confusion was observed in two patients (1 midazolam, 1 placebo). In multivariate analysis, midazolam was associated with a higher risk of hypoxemia after endoscopy (OR = 3.5; 95% CI 1.1-10.8, P = .029) but not of confusion. CONCLUSIONS Under adequate surveillance, the benefits in terms of tolerance to the procedure of low-dose midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation outweigh the risks in older people.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Christe
- Department of Geriatrics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Switzerland
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
43
|
Camellini L, Merighi A, Primerano AM, Rigo G. Is small-caliber esophagogastroduodenoscopy more tolerable than conventional one in unsedated patients? Gastroenterology 2000; 119:878-9. [PMID: 11023360 DOI: 10.1053/gast.2000.17932] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/02/2022]
|
|
44
|
Wang CY, Ling LC, Cardosa MS, Wong AK, Wong NW. Hypoxia during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with and without sedation and the effect of pre-oxygenation on oxygen saturation. Anaesthesia 2000; 55:654-8. [PMID: 10919420 DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2000.01520.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
In Study A, the incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation was studied using pulse oximetry (SaO2) in 100 sedated and 100 nonsedated patients breathing room air who underwent diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Hypoxia (SaO2 92% or less of at least 15 s duration) occurred in 17% and 6% of sedated patients and nonsedated patients, respectively (p < 0.03). Mild desaturation (SaO2 94% or less and less than 15 s duration) occurred in 47% of sedated patients compared with 12% of nonsedated patients (p < 0.001). In Study B, the effects of supplementary oxygen therapy and the effects of different pre-oxygenation times on arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) in sedated patients were studied using pulse oximetry. One hundred and twenty patients who underwent diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with intravenous sedation were studied. Patients were randomly allocated to one of four groups: Group A (n = 30) received no supplementary oxygen while Groups B-D received supplementary oxygen at 4 1 x min(-1) via nasal cannulae. The pre-oxygenation time in Group B (n = 30) was zero minutes, Group C (n = 30) was 2 min and Group D (n = 30) was 5 min before sedation and introduction of the endoscope. Hypoxia occurred in seven of the 30 patients in Group A and none in groups B, C and D (p < 0.001). We conclude that desaturation and hypoxia is common in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with and without sedation. Sedation significantly increases the incidence of desaturation and hypoxia. Supplementary nasal oxygen at 4 1 x min(-1) in sedated patients abolishes desaturation and hypoxia. Pre-oxygenation confers no additional benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Y Wang
- Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care, University of Malaya Medical Centre, Lembah Pantai, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
45
|
|
|
46
|
Jamieson J. Anesthesia and sedation in the endoscopy suite? (influences and options). Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 1999; 12:417-23. [PMID: 17013344 DOI: 10.1097/00001503-199908000-00004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
Advances in technology and pharmacology have enabled gastrointestinal endoscopists to expand the diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities of the specialty. Research into the impact of the endoscopy environment on patient stress, acknowledgement of the various patient coping styles, development and deployment of procedural preparative programs and information streamlining have been shown to be of value in decreasing anxiety and reducing sedative requirements. Being aware of procedure-related stressors, and factors associated with complications, allows us to tailor our sedation or anesthesia plan to the individual patient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Jamieson
- Department of Anesthesiology, Memorial University of NFLD, Health Sciences Center, St John's, Newfoundland, Canada
| |
Collapse
|