PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (955894)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Propofol-Based Sedation Does Not Increase Rate of Complication during Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Procedure 
Objectives. To evaluate and compare the complication rate of sedation with or without propofol regimen for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in a hospital in Thailand. Subjects and Methods. A total of 198 patients underwent PEG procedures by using intravenous sedation (IVS) from Siriraj Hospital, Thailand from August 2006 to January 2009. The primary outcome variable was the overall complication rate. The secondary outcome variables were sedation and procedure related complications, and mortality rate. Results. After matching ASA physical status and indications of procedure, there were 92 PEG procedures in propofol based sedation group (A) and 20 PEG procedures in non-propofol based sedation group (B). All sedation was given by residents or anesthetic nurses directly supervised by staff anesthesiologist in the endoscopy room. There were no significant differences in patients' characteristics, sedation time, indication, complications, anesthetic personnel and mortality rate between the two groups. All complications were easily treated, with no adverse sequelae. Mean dose of fentanyl and midazolam in group A was significantly lower than in group B. Conclusion. Propofol-based sedation does not increase rate of complication during PEG procedure. Additionally, IVS of PEG procedure is relatively safe and effective when performed by physicians in training. Serious complications are none.
doi:10.1155/2011/134819
PMCID: PMC2929499  PMID: 20811547
2.  Age-dependent safety analysis of propofol-based deep sedation for ERCP and EUS procedures at an endoscopy training center in a developing country 
Introduction
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) procedures in elderly patients are on the rise, and they play an important role in the diagnosis and management of various gastrointestinal diseases. The use of deep sedation in these patients has been established as a safe and effective technique in Western countries; however, it is uncertain if the situation holds true among Asians. The present study aimed to evaluate the age-dependent safety analysis and clinical efficacy of propofol-based deep sedation (PBDS) for ERCP and EUS procedures in adult patients at a World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO) Endoscopy Training Center in Thailand.
Methods
We undertook a retrospective review of anesthesia or sedation service records of patients who underwent ERCP and EUS procedures. All procedures were performed by staff endoscopists, and all sedations were administered by anesthesia personnel in the endoscopy room.
Results
PBDS was provided for 491 ERCP and EUS procedures. Of these, 252 patients (mean age, 45.1 + 11.1 years, range 17–65 years) were in the <65 age group, 209 patients (mean age, 71.7 + 4.3 years, range 65–80 years) were in the 65–80 year-old group, and 30 patients (mean age, 84.6 + 4.2 years, range 81–97 years) were in the >80 age group. Common indications for the procedures were pancreatic tumor, cholelithiasis, and gastric tumor. Fentanyl, propofol, and midazolam were the most common sedative drugs used in all three groups. The mean doses of propofol and midazolam in the very old patients were relatively lower than in the other groups. The combination of propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl, as well as propofol and fentanyl, were frequently used in all patients. Sedation-related adverse events and procedure-related complications were not statistically significantly different among the three groups. Hypotension was the most common complication.
Conclusion
In the setting of the WGO Endoscopy Training Center in a developing country, PBDS for ERCP and EUS procedures in elderly patients by trained anesthesia personnel with appropriate monitoring is relatively safe and effective. Although adverse cardiovascular events, including hypotension, in this aged group is common, all adverse events were usually transient, mild, and easily treated, with no sequelae.
doi:10.2147/CEG.S31275
PMCID: PMC3401056  PMID: 22826640
deep sedation; propofol; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; endoscopic ultrasonography; elderly; developing country
3.  Propofol versus Midazolam for Sedation during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Children 
Clinical Endoscopy  2013;46(4):368-372.
Background/Aims
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol and midazolam for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in children.
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of 62 children who underwent ambulatory diagnostic EGD during 1-year period. Data were collected from 34 consecutive patients receiving propofol alone. Twenty-eight consecutive patients who received sedation with midazolam served as a comparison group. Outcome variables were length of procedure, time to recovery and need for additional supportive measures.
Results
There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in age, weight, sex, and the length of endoscopic procedure. The recovery time from sedation was markedly shorter in propofol group (30±16.41 minutes) compared with midazolam group (58.89±17.32 minutes; p<0.0001). During and after the procedure the mean heart rate was increased in midazolam group (133.04±19.92 and 97.82±16.7) compared with propofol group (110.26±20.14 and 83.26±12.33; p<0.0001). There was no localized pain during sedative administration in midazolam group, though six patients had localized pain during administration of propofol (p<0.028). There was no serious major complication associated with any of the 62 procedures.
Conclusions
Intravenous administered propofol provides faster recovery time and similarly safe sedation compared with midazolam in pediatric patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
doi:10.5946/ce.2013.46.4.368
PMCID: PMC3746141  PMID: 23964333
Propofol; Midazolam; Endoscopy, digestive system; Child
4.  Deep sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: Propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens 
AIM: To compare deep sedation with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS: After obtaining approval of the research ethics committee and informed consent, 200 patients were evaluated and referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive propofol-fentanyl or midazolam-fentanyl (n = 100/group). We assessed the level of sedation using the observer’s assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score and bispectral index (BIS). We evaluated patient and physician satisfaction, as well as the recovery time and complication rates. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software and included the Mann-Whitney test, χ2 test, measurement of analysis of variance, and the κ statistic.
RESULTS: The times to induction of sedation, recovery, and discharge were shorter in the propofol-fentanyl group than the midazolam-fentanyl group. According to the OAA/S score, deep sedation events occurred in 25% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 11% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.014). Additionally, deep sedation events occurred in 19% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 7% of the midazolam-fentanyl group according to the BIS scale (P = 0.039). There was good concordance between the OAA/S score and BIS for both groups (κ = 0.71 and κ = 0.63, respectively). Oxygen supplementation was required in 42% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 26% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.025). The mean time to recovery was 28.82 and 44.13 min in the propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl groups, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no severe complications in either group. Although patients were equally satisfied with both drug combinations, physicians were more satisfied with the propofol-fentanyl combination.
CONCLUSION: Deep sedation occurred with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl, but was more frequent in the former. Recovery was faster in the propofol-fentanyl group.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i22.3439
PMCID: PMC3683682  PMID: 23801836
Endoscopy; Deep sedation; Anesthetic administration; Anesthetic dose; Adverse effects
5.  Bispectral index monitoring as an adjunct to nurse-administered combined sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography 
AIM: To determine whether bispectral index (BIS) monitoring is useful for propofol administration for deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).
METHODS: Fifty-nine consecutive patients with a variety of reasons for ERCP who underwent the procedure at least twice between 1 July 2010 and 30 November 2010. This was a randomized cross-over study, in which each patient underwent ERCP twice, once with BIS monitoring and once with control monitoring. Whether BIS monitoring was done during the first or second ERCP procedure was random. Patients were intermittently administered a mixed regimen including midazolam, pethidine, and propofol by trained nurses. The nurse used a routine practice to monitor sedation using the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale or the BIS monitoring. The total amount of midazolam and propofol used and serious side effects were compared between the BIS and control groups.
RESULTS: The mean total propofol dose administered was 53.1 ± 32.2 mg in the BIS group and 54.9 ± 30.8 mg in the control group (P = 0.673). The individual propofol dose received per minute during the ERCP procedure was 2.90 ± 1.83 mg/min in the BIS group and 3.44 ± 2.04 mg in the control group (P = 0.103). The median value of the MOAA/S score during the maintenance phase of sedation was comparable for the two groups. The mean BIS values throughout the procedure (from insertion to removal of the endoscope) were 76.5 ± 8.7 for all 59 patients in using the BIS monitor. No significant differences in the frequency of < 80% oxygen saturation, hypotension (< 80 mmHg), or bradycardia (< 50 beats/min) were observed between the two study groups. Four cases of poor cooperation occurred, in which the procedure should be stopped to add the propofol dose. After adding the propofol, the procedure could be conducted successfully (one case in the BIS group, three cases in the control group). The endoscopist rated patient sedation as excellent for all patients in both groups. All patients in both groups rated their level of satisfaction as high (no discomfort). During the post-procedural follow-up in the recovery area, no cases of clinically significant hypoxic episodes were recorded in either group. No other postoperative side effects related to sedation were observed in either group.
CONCLUSION: BIS monitoring trend to slighlty reduce the mean propofol dose. Nurse-administered propofol sedation under the supervision of a gastroenterologist may be considered an alternative under anesthesiologist.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v18.i43.6284
PMCID: PMC3501778  PMID: 23180950
Conscious sedation; Bispectral index monitors; Pancreatic neoplasm; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
6.  Ketamine and midazolam sedation for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy in the Arab world 
AIM: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of intravenous ketamine-midazolam sedation during pediatric endoscopy in the Arab world.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all pediatric endoscopic procedures performed between 2002-2008 at the shared endoscopy suite of King Abdullah University Hospital, Jordan University of Science & Technology, Jordan was conducted. All children were > 1 year old and weighed > 10 kg with American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 or 2. Analysis was performed in terms of sedation-related complications (desaturation, respiratory distress, apnea, bradycardia, cardiac arrest, emergence reactions), adequacy of sedation, need for sedation reversal, or failure to complete the procedure.
RESULTS: A total of 301 patients (including 160 males) with a mean age of 9.26 years (range, 1-18 years) were included. All were premedicated with atropine; and 79.4% (239/301) had effective and uneventful sedation. And 248 (82.4%) of the 301 patients received a mean dose of 0.16 mg/kg (range, 0.07-0.39) midazolam and 1.06 mg/kg (range, 0.31-2.67) ketamine, respectively within the recommended dosage guidelines. Recommended maximum midazolam dose was exceeded in 17.6% patients [34 female (F):19 male (M), P = 0.003] and ketamine in 2.7% (3 M:5 F). Maximum midazolam dose was more likely to be exceeded than ketamine (P < 0.001). Desaturation occurred in 37 (12.3%) patients, and was reversible by supplemental oxygen in all except 4 who continue to have desaturation despite supplemental oxygen. Four (1.3%) patients had respiratory distress and 6 (2%) were difficult to sedate and required a 3rd sedative; 12 (4%) required reversal and 7 (2.3%) failed to complete the procedure. None developed apnea, bradycardia, arrest, or emergence reactions.
CONCLUSION: Ketamine-midazolam sedation appears safe and effective for diagnostic pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy in the Arab world for children aged > 1 year and weighing > 10 kg without co-morbidities.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v17.i31.3630
PMCID: PMC3180020  PMID: 21987610
Pediatric endoscopy; Sedation; Ketamine; Arab
7.  Prophylactic Endotracheal Intubation in Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Endoscopy for Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage 
Gastrointestinal endoscopy  2009;69(7):e55-e59.
Background
Cardiopulmonary complications are common after endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) hemorrhage in the intensive care unit (ICU)
Objective
To evaluate the practice and outcome of elective prophylactic endotracheal intubation prior to endoscopy for UGI hemorrhage in the ICU
Design
Retrospective, propensity matched case-control study
Setting
A 24-bed medical ICU in a tertiary center.
Patients
ICU patients who underwent endoscopy for UGI hemorrhage
Main Outcome Measurements
Cardiopulmonary complications, ICU and hospital length of stay and mortality. In a propensity analysis, patients who were intubated for airway protection prior to UGI endoscopy were matched by probability of intubation to controls not intubated prior to UGI endoscopy.
Results
Fifty-three out of 307 patients underwent elective prophylactic intubation prior to UGI endoscopy. Probability of intubation depended on APACHE III score (OR 1.4, 95%, CI 1.2 to 1.6), age (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.95 to 0.09), presence of hematemesis (OR 1.9, 95%CI 0.8 to 5.1), prior lung disease (OR 2.1, 95%CI 0.8 to 4.9) and number of transfusions (OR 1.1 95%CI 1.0 to 1.1 per unit). Non-intubated matched controls were identified for all but 4 patients with active massive hematemesis who were excluded from matched analysis. Cumulative incidence of cardiopulmonary complications (53% vs 45%, p=0.414), ICU (median 2.2 days vs. 1.8 days, p=0.138) and hospital length of stay (6.9 vs. 5.9, p=0.785), and hospital mortality (14% vs. 20%, p=0.366) were similar.
Conclusions
Cardiopulmonary complications are frequent after endoscopy for acute UGI bleeding in ICU patients, and are largely unaffected by the practice of prophylactic intubation.
doi:10.1016/j.gie.2009.03.002
PMCID: PMC2737482  PMID: 19481643
endotracheal intubation; upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage; cardiopulmonary complications; airway protection; esophagogastroduodenoscopy
8.  Addition of sub-anaesthetic dose of ketamine reduces gag reflex during propofol based sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A prospective randomised double-blind study 
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  2014;58(4):436-441.
Background and Aims:
Gag reflex is unwanted during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE). Experimental studies have demonstrated that N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonism prevents gag reflex. We conducted a study to determine if sub-anaesthetic doses of ketamine, added to propofol, reduce the incidence of gag reflex.
Methods:
This prospective, randomised, double-blind and placebo-controlled study was done in a tertiary care hospital. A total of 270 patients undergoing UGIE, were randomised to propofol (P) group (n = 135) or propofol plus ketamine (PK) group (n = 135). All patients received propofol boluses titrated to Ramsay sedation score of not <4. Patients in PK group in addition received ketamine, 0.15 mg/kg immediately before the first-propofol dose. Top-up doses of propofol were given as required. Stata 11 software (StataCorp.) was used to calculate the proportion of patients with gag reflex and the corresponding relative risk. Propofol consumed and time to recovery in the two groups was compared using Student's t-test and Cox proportional hazards regression respectively.
Results:
Significantly, fewer patients in the PK group had gag reflex compared to the P group (3 vs. 23, risk ratio = 0.214, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-0.62; P = 0.005). The incidence of hypotension (6 vs. 16, risk ratio = 0.519, 95% CI = 0.25-1.038; P = 0.06), number of required airway manoeuvres (4 vs. 19, risk ratio = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.13-0.74; P = 0.014), median time to recovery (4 min vs. 5 min, hazard ratio = 1.311, 95% CI = 1.029-1.671; P = 0.028) and propofol dose administered (152 mg vs. 167 mg, 95% CI = 4.74-24.55; P = 0.004) was also less in the PK group compared to the P group.
Conclusion:
Ketamine in sub-anaesthetic dose decreases gag reflex during UGIE.
doi:10.4103/0019-5049.138981
PMCID: PMC4155289  PMID: 25197112
Endoscopy; gag reflex; ketamine
9.  Comparison between the recovery time of alfentanil and fentanyl in balanced propofol sedation for gastrointestinal and colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized study 
BMC Gastroenterology  2012;12:164.
Background
There is increasing interest in balanced propofol sedation (BPS) titrated to moderate sedation (conscious sedation) for endoscopic procedures. However, few controlled studies on BPS targeted to deep sedation for diagnostic endoscopy were found. Alfentanil, a rapid and short-acting synthetic analog of fentanyl, appears to offer clinically significant advantages over fentanyl during outpatient anesthesia.
It is reasonable to hypothesize that low dose of alfentanil used in BPS might also result in more rapid recovery as compared with fentanyl.
Methods
A prospective, randomized and double-blinded clinical trial of alfentanil, midazolam and propofol versus fentanyl, midazolam and propofol in 272 outpatients undergoing diagnostic esophagogastroduodenal endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy for health examination were enrolled. Randomization was achieved by using the computer-generated random sequence. Each combination regimen was titrated to deep sedation. The recovery time, patient satisfaction, safety and the efficacy and cost benefit between groups were compared.
Results
260 participants were analyzed, 129 in alfentanil group and 131 in fentanyl group. There is no significant difference in sex, age, body weight, BMI and ASA distribution between two groups. Also, there is no significant difference in recovery time, satisfaction score from patients, propofol consumption, awake time from sedation, and sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications between two groups. Though deep sedation was targeted, all cardiopulmonary complications were minor and transient (10.8%, 28/260). No serious adverse events including the use of flumazenil, assisted ventilation, permanent injury or death, and temporary or permanent interruption of procedure were found in both groups. However, fentanyl is New Taiwan Dollar (NT$) 103 (approximate US$ 4) cheaper than alfentanil, leading to a significant difference in total cost between two groups.
Conclusions
This randomized, double-blinded clinical trial showed that there is no significant difference in the recovery time, satisfaction score from patients, propofol consumption, awake time from sedation, and sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications between the two most common sedation regimens for EGD and colonoscopy in our hospital. However, fentanyl is NT$103 (US$ 4) cheaper than alfentanil in each case.
Trial registration
Institutional Review Board of Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital (IRB097-18) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC-12002575)
doi:10.1186/1471-230X-12-164
PMCID: PMC3607964  PMID: 23170921
Balanced propofol sedation; Alfentanil; Fentanyl; Deep sedation; Diagnostic endoscopy; Cost benefit
10.  The Changing Pattern of Upper Gastro-Intestinal Lesions in Southern Saudi Arabia: An Endoscopic Study 
Background/Aim:
Dyspepsia is a common gastrointestinal disorder and is the most common indication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE). In recent years, it has been observed in several centers that there is a change in the causes of dyspepsia as revealed by UGIE. Our main objectives were: (1) To study the pattern of upper gastrointestinal pathology in patients with dyspepsia undergoing upper endoscopy; (2) Compare that with the pattern seen 10-15 years earlier in different areas of KSA.
Patients and Methods:
Retrospective study of all UGI endoscopies performed at Aseer Central Hospital, Abha, Southern Saudi Arabia during the years 2005-2007 on patients above 13 years of age. Patients who underwent UGIE for reasons other than dyspepsia were excluded. The analysis was performed using the SPSS 14 statistical package.
Results:
A total of 1,607 patients underwent UGI endoscopy during the three-year study period (age range, 15-100). There were 907 males (56.4%) and 700 female (43.6%). Normal findings were reported on 215 patients (14%) and the majority had gastritis (676 = 42%), of whom 344 had gastritis with ulcer disease. Moreover, 242 patients (15%) had gastro-esophageal reflux (GERD), with or without esophagitis or hiatus hernia. Also, a total of 243 patients had duodenal ulcer (DU) (15%) while only 12 had gastric ulcer (0.7%).
Discussion and Conclusion:
There is clear change in the frequency of UGIE lesions detected recently compared to a decade ago with an increasing prevalence of reflux esophagitis and hiatus hernia. This could be attributed to changes in lifestyle and dietary habits such as more consumption of fat and fast food, increased prevalence of obesity, and smoking. These problems should be addressed in order to minimize the serious complications of esophageal diseases.
doi:10.4103/1319-3767.58766
PMCID: PMC3023100  PMID: 20065572
Dyspepsia; endoscopy; lesions; esophageal disease
11.  Sedation-associated hiccups in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy 
AIM: To investigate whether the incidence of hiccups in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or same-day bidirectional endoscopy (EGD and colonoscopy; BDE) with sedation is different from those without sedation in terms of quantity, duration and typical onset time.
METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled for elective EGD or same-day BDE at the gastrointestinal endoscopy unit or the health examination center were allocated to two groups: EGD without sedation (Group A) and BDE with sedation (Group B). The use of sedation was based on the patients’ request. Anesthesiologists participated in this study by administrating sedative drugs as usual. A single experienced gastroenterologist performed both the EGD and the colonoscopic examinations for all the patients. The incidence, duration and onset time of hiccups were measured in both groups. In addition, the association between clinical variables and hiccups were analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 435 patients were enrolled in the study. The incidences of hiccups in the patients with and without sedation were significantly different (20.5% and 5.1%, respectively). The use of sedation for patients undergoing endoscopy was still significantly associated with an increased risk of hiccups (adjusted odds ratio: 8.79, P < 0.001) after adjustment. The incidence of hiccups in males under sedation was high (67.4%). The sedated patients who received 2 mg midazolam developed hiccups more frequently compared to those receiving 1 mg midazolam (P = 0.0028). The patients with the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were prone to develop hiccups (P = 0.018).
CONCLUSION: Male patients undergoing EGD or BDE with sedation are significantly more likely to suffer from hiccups compared to those without sedation. Midazolam was significantly associated with an increased risk of hiccups. Furthermore, patients with GERD are prone to develop hiccups.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v18.i27.3595
PMCID: PMC3400863  PMID: 22826626
Anesthesia; Midazolam; Hiccup; Gastroesophageal reflux disease; Esophagogastroduodenoscopy; Bidirectional endoscopy
12.  Efficiency and safety of inhalative sedation with sevoflurane in comparison to an intravenous sedation concept with propofol in intensive care patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial 
Trials  2012;13:135.
Background
State of the art sedation concepts on intensive care units (ICU) favor propofol for a time period of up to 72 h and midazolam for long-term sedation. However, intravenous sedation is associated with complications such as development of tolerance, insufficient sedation quality, gastrointestinal paralysis, and withdrawal symptoms including cognitive deficits. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether sevoflurane as a volatile anesthetic technically implemented by the anesthetic-conserving device (ACD) may provide advantages regarding ‘weaning time’, efficiency, and patient’s safety when compared to standard intravenous sedation employing propofol.
Method/Design
This currently ongoing trial is designed as a two-armed, monocentric, randomized prospective phase II study including intubated intensive care patients with an expected necessity for sedation exceeding 48 h. Patients are randomly assigned to either receive intravenous sedation with propofol or sevoflurane employing the ACD. Primary endpoint is the comparison of the ‘weaning time’ defined as the time required from discontinuation of the sedating agent until sufficient spontaneous breathing occurs. Moreover, sedation depth evaluated by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and parameters of patient’s safety (that is, vital signs, laboratory monitoring of organ function) as well as the duration of mechanical ventilation and overall stay on the ICU are analyzed and compared. An intention-to-treat analysis will be carried out with all patients for whom it will be possible to define a wake-up time. In addition, a per-protocol analysis is envisaged. Completion of patient recruitment is expected by the end of 2012.
Discussion
This clinical study is designed to evaluate the impact of sevoflurane during long-term sedation of critically ill patients on ‘weaning time’, efficiency, and patient’s safety compared to the standard intravenous sedation concept employing propofol.
Trial registration
EudraCT2007-006087-30; ISCRTN90609144
doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-135
PMCID: PMC3502585  PMID: 22883020
Inhalative sedation; Intravenous sedation; Intensive care; Sevoflurane
13.  Deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a comparison between clinical assessment and NarcotrendTM monitoring 
Introduction
Moderate to deep sedation is generally used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The depth of sedation is usually judged by clinical assessment and electroencephalography-guided monitoring. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of clinical assessment and NarcotrendTM monitoring during deep-sedated ERCP.
Methods
One hundred patients who underwent ERCP in a single year were randomly assigned to either group C or group N. Patients in group C (52) were sedated using the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale. Patients in group N (48) were sedated using the NarcotrendTM system. The MOAA/S scale 1 or 2 and the NarcotrendTM index 47–56 to 57–64 were maintained during the procedure. The primary outcome variable of the study was the successful completion of the endoscopic procedure. The secondary outcome variables were the total dose of propofol used during the procedure, complications during and immediately after procedure, and recovery time.
Results
All endoscopies were completed successfully. The mean total dose of propofol in group C was significantly lower than that in group N. However, the mean dose of propofol, expressed as dose/kg or dose/kg/h in both groups, was not significantly different (P = 0.497, 0.136). Recovery time, patient tolerance and satisfaction, and endoscopist satisfaction were comparable between the two groups. All sedation-related adverse events during and immediately after the procedure, such as hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, bradycardia, transient hypoxia, and upper airway obstruction, in group C (62.2%) were significantly higher than in group N (37.5%) (P = 0.028).
Conclusion
Clinical assessment and NarcotrendTM-guided sedation using propofol for deep sedation demonstrated comparable propofol dose and recovery time. Both monitoring systems were equally safe and effective. However, the NarcotrendTM-guided sedation showed lower hemodynamic changes and fewer complications compared with the clinical assessment-guided sedation.
doi:10.2147/MDER.S17236
PMCID: PMC3417873  PMID: 22915929
deep sedation; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; clinical assessment; NarcotrendTM monitoring
14.  A survey of sedation practices for colonoscopy in Canada 
BACKGROUND:
There are limited data regarding the use of sedation for colonoscopy and concomitant monitoring practices in different countries.
METHODS:
A survey was mailed to 445 clinician members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and 80 members of the Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons in May and June 2009.
RESULTS:
Sixty-five per cent of Canadian Association of Gastroenterology members and 69% of Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons members responded with the full survey. Most endoscopists reported using sedation for more than 90% of colonoscopies. The most common sedation regimen was a combination of midazolam and fentanyl. Propofol, either alone or with another drug, was used in 12% of cases. A higher proportion (94%) of adult gastroenterologists who routinely used propofol were highly satisfied compared with those using other sedative agents (45%; P<0.001). Fifty per cent of adult gastroenterologists and 29% of surgeons who were not currently using propofol expressed interest in starting to use it for routine colonoscopies. Only a single nurse was present in the endoscopy room during colonoscopy performed by two-thirds of the endoscopists.
CONCLUSIONS:
Results of the present survey suggest that gastroenterologists in Canada use sedation for colonoscopy in more than 90% of their patients. There was higher satisfaction among gastroenterologists who used propofol routinely for all colonoscopies. Most endoscopy rooms were staffed by a single nurse, which may limit further increases in the use of propofol. Further studies are needed to determine optimal staffing of endoscopy units with and without the use of propofol. Sedation practices of general surgery endoscopists need to be evaluated.
PMCID: PMC3115005  PMID: 21647459
Canada; Colonoscopy; Endoscopy room staffing; Propofol; Sedation
15.  ‘Short’ double-balloon enteroscope for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with a surgically altered upper gastrointestinal tract 
The use of endoscopic instruments other than the standard duodenoscope to access anatomical landmarks of the small bowel for certain procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography have met with limited success. The double-balloon enteroscope (DBE), however, has revolutionized the ability to access the small bowel, with indications for its use expanding. The DBE has been shown to be safe, effective and less invasive in patients with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal tracts compared with percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography or surgery. This article describes a retrospective review of 20 patients with previous small bowel reconstruction who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography using a ‘short’ DBE at a major health sciences centre in Toronto, Ontario.
BACKGROUND:
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains a challenge for endoscopists in patients with surgically altered anatomy of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Double-balloon enteroscopes (DBEs) have revolutionized the ability to access the small bowel. The indication for its therapeutic use is expanding to include ERCP for patients who have undergone small bowel reconstruction. Most of the published experiences in DBE-assisted ERCP have used conventional double-balloon enteroscopes that are 200 cm in length, which do not permit use of the standard ERCP accessories. The authors report their experience with DBE-assisted ERCP using a ‘short’ DBE in patients with surgically altered anatomy.
METHODS:
A retrospective review of patients with previous small bowel reconstruction who underwent ERCP with a ‘short’ DBE at the Centre for Therapeutic Endoscopy and Endoscopic Oncology (Toronto, Ontario) between February 2007 and November 2008 was performed.
RESULTS:
A total of 20 patients (10 men) with a mean age of 57.9 years (range 26 to 85 years) underwent 29 sessions of ERCP with a DBE. Six patients underwent Billroth II gastroenterostomy, seven patients Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy, five patients Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy, one patient Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy and one patient a Whipple’s operation with choledochojejunostomy. Some patients (n=12 [60%]) underwent previous attempts at ERCP in which the papilla of Vater or bilioenteric anastomosis could not be reached with either a duodenoscope or pediatric colonoscope. All procedures were performed with a commercially available DBE (working length 152 cm, distal end diameter 9.4 mm, channel diameter 2.8 mm). The procedures were performed under conscious sedation with intravenous midazolam, fentanyl and diazepam, except in one patient in whom general anesthesia was administered. Either the papilla of Vater or bilioenteric anastomosis was reached in 25 of 29 cases (86.2%) in a mean duration of 20.8 min (range 5 min to 82 min). Bile duct cannulation was successful in 24 of 25 cases in which the papilla or bilioenteric anastomosis was reached. Therapeutic interventions were successful in 15 patients (24 procedures) including sphincterotomy (n=7), stone extraction (n=9), biliary dilation (n=8), stent placement (n=9) and stent removal (n=8). The mean total duration of the procedures was 70.7 min (range 30 min to 117 min). There were no procedure-related complications.
CONCLUSION:
DBEs enable successful diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP in patients with a surgically altered anatomy of the upper gastrointestinal tract. It is a safe, feasible and less invasive therapeutic option in this group of patients. Standard ‘long’ DBEs have limitations of long working length and the need for modified ERCP accessories. ‘Short’ DBEs are equally as effective in reaching the target limb as standard ‘long’ DBEs, and overcomes some limitations of long DBEs to result in high success rates for endoscopic therapy.
PMCID: PMC3222771  PMID: 22059169
Double-balloon enteroscope; ERCP; Surgically altered upper gastrointestinal tract
16.  Conscious or unconscious: The impact of sedation choice on colon adenoma detection 
AIM: To determine if anesthesiologist-monitored use of propofol results in improved detection of adenomas when compared with routine conscious sedation.
METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted at two separate hospital-based endoscopy units where approximately 12 000 endoscopic procedures are performed annually, with one endoscopy unit exclusively using anesthesiologist-monitored propofol. Three thousand two hundred and fifty-two patients underwent initial screening or surveillance colonoscopies. Our primary end point was the adenoma detection rate, defined as the number of patients in whom at least one adenoma was found, associated with the type of sedation.
RESULTS: Three thousand two hundred and fifty-two outpatient colonoscopies were performed by five selected endoscopists. At least one adenoma was detected in 27.6% of patients (95% CI = 26.0-29.1) with no difference in the detection rate between the anesthesiologist -propofol and group and the gastroenterologist-midazolam/fentanyl group (28.1% vs 27.1%, P = 0.53).
CONCLUSION: The type of sedation used during co-lonoscopy does not affect the number of patients in whom adenomatous polyps are detected.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v17.i34.3912
PMCID: PMC3198020  PMID: 22025879
Sedation; Colonoscopy; Adenoma
17.  Safety of Gastroenterologist-Guided Sedation with Propofol for Upper Gastrointestinal Therapeutic Endoscopy in Elderly Patients Compared with Younger Patients 
Gut and Liver  2015;9(1):38-42.
Background/Aims
Propofol sedation for elderly patients during time-consuming endoscopic procedures is controversial. Therefore, we investigated the safety of using propofol in elderly patients during upper gastrointestinal therapeutic endoscopy.
Methods
The medical records of 160 patients who underwent therapeutic endoscopic procedures under gastroenterologist-guided propofol sedation at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. The subjects were divided into two groups: a younger group, patients <75 years old; and an elderly group, patients ≥75 years old. The two groups were compared with respect to the therapeutic regimen, circulatory dynamics, and presence/absence of discontinuation of propofol treatment.
Results
Although the number of patients with liver dysfunction was higher in the elderly group, there were no other significant differences in the baseline characteristics, including the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, between the elderly and younger groups. The average maintenance rate of continuous propofol infusion was lower in the elderly patients. No statistically significant differences were found in the occurrence of adverse events between the elderly and younger groups. None of the patients returned to a resedated state after the initial recovery from sedation.
Conclusions
Gastroenterologist-guided propofol sedation in elderly patients can be safely achieved in the same manner as that in younger patients, even for time-consuming upper gastrointestinal therapeutic endoscopic procedures.
doi:10.5009/gnl13368
PMCID: PMC4282855  PMID: 25170057
Elderly patient; Propofol; Safety; Sedation; Upper gastrointestinal therapeutic endoscopy
18.  General anesthetic versus light sedation: Effect on pediatric endoscopy wait times 
BACKGROUND:
Wait times are an important measure of health care system effectiveness. There are no studies describing wait times in pediatric gastroenterology for either outpatient visits or endoscopy. Pediatric endoscopy is performed under light sedation or general anesthesia. The latter is hypothesized to be associated with a longer wait time due to practical limits on access to anesthesia in the Canadian health care system.
OBJECTIVE:
To identify wait time differences according to sedation type and measure adverse clinical outcomes that may arise from increased wait time to endoscopy in pediatric patients.
METHODS:
The present study was a retrospective review of medical charts of all patients <18 years of age who had been assessed in the pediatric gastroenterology clinic and were scheduled for an elective outpatient endoscopic procedure at McMaster Children’s Hospital (Hamilton, Ontario) between January 2006 and December 2007. The primary outcome measure was time between clinic visit and date of endoscopy. Secondary outcome measures included other defined waiting periods and complications while waiting, such as emergency room visits and hospital admissions.
RESULTS:
The median wait time to procedure was 64 days for general anesthesia patients and 22 days for patients who underwent light sedation (P<0.0001). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the number of emergency room visits or hospital admissions, both pre- and postendoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS:
Due to the lack of pediatric anesthetic resources, patients who were administered general anesthesia experienced a longer wait time for endoscopy compared with patients who underwent light sedation. This did not result in adverse clinical outcomes in this population.
PMCID: PMC3956006  PMID: 24078936
Endoscopy; Gastroenterology; Pediatrics; Procedural sedation; Wait time
19.  A Comparison between Sedative Effect of Propofol-Fentanyl and Propofol-Midazolam Combinations in Microlaryngeal Surgeries 
Considering the growing trend of laryngeal surgeries and the need to protect the airway during and after surgery, among several therapeutic regimens to induce sedation, two regimens of propofol-fentanyl and propofol-midazolam were compared in microlaryngeal surgeries.
Forty ASA I-II class patients undergoing microlaryngeal surgeries and referring routinely for postoperative visits were randomly recruited into two groups. For all the patients, 0.5 mg/Kg of propofol was used as bolus and then, 50 mcg/Kg/min of the drug was infused intravenously. For one group, 0.03 mg/Kg bolus of midazolam and for the other group, 2 mcg/Kg bolus of fentanyl was administered in combination with propofol. Ramsay system was used in order to evaluate the effect of the two drugs in inducing sedation. The need for additional dose, blood pressure, heart rate, arterial blood oxygen saturation, and also recovery time and adverse effects such as nausea/vomiting and recalling intra-operative memories, were assessed.
The patients in the two groups were not statistically different regarding the number of patients, age, sex, preoperative vital signs, the need for additional doses of propofol, systolic blood pressure and mean systolic blood pressure during laryngoscopy. However, mean systolic blood pressure 1 min after removal of laryngoscope returned faster to the baseline in midazolam group (p < 0.01). Mean heart rate returned sooner to the baseline in fentanyl group following removal of stimulation. Besides, heart rate showed a more reduction following administration of fentanyl (p < 0.02). Mean arterial blood oxygen saturation during laryngoscopy significantly decreased in fentanyl group (p < 0.05) compared to the other group. The time it took to achieve a full consciousness was shorter in midazolam group (p < 0.01). Nausea/vomiting was significantly more prevalent in fentanyl group while the patients in midazolam group apparently experienced more of amnesia, comparatively (p < 0.01).
Inducing laryngeal block and local anesthesia using propofol-midazolam regimen is not only associated with a more rapid recovery and less recalling of unpleasant memories, but also better in preventing reduction of arterial oxygen saturation during laryngoscopy compared with propofol-fentanyl regimen.
PMCID: PMC3813093  PMID: 24250451
Sedation; Microlaryngeal surgery; Propofol; Midazolam; Fentanyl
20.  Stepwise sedation for elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy 
AIM: To investigate stepwise sedation for elderly patients with mild/moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy.
METHODS: Eighty-six elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD and 82 elderly patients without COPD scheduled for upper GI endoscopy were randomly assigned to receive one of the following two sedation methods: stepwise sedation involving three-stage administration of propofol combined with midazolam [COPD with stepwise sedation (group Cs), and non-COPD with stepwise sedation (group Ns)] or continuous sedation involving continuous administration of propofol combined with midazolam [COPD with continuous sedation (group Cc), and non-COPD with continuous sedation (group Nc)]. Saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2), blood pressure, and pulse rate were monitored, and patient discomfort, adverse events, drugs dosage, and recovery time were recorded.
RESULTS: All endoscopies were completed successfully. The occurrences of hypoxemia in groups Cs, Cc, Ns, and Nc were 4 (9.3%), 12 (27.9%), 3 (7.3%), and 5 (12.2%), respectively. The occurrence of hypoxemia in group Cs was significantly lower than that in group Cc (P < 0.05). The average decreases in value of SpO2, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure in group Cs were significantly lower than those in group Cc. Additionally, propofol dosage and overall rate of adverse events in group Cs were lower than those in group Cc. Finally, the recovery time in group Cs was significantly shorter than that in group Cc, and that in group Ns was significantly shorter than that in group Nc (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The stepwise sedation method is effective and safer than the continuous sedation method for elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD during upper GI endoscopy.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i29.4791
PMCID: PMC3732854  PMID: 23922479
Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy; Adverse events; Sedation; Monitoring; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
21.  Propofol-based deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedure in sick elderly patients in a developing country 
Introduction:
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of propofol-based deep sedation (PBDS) for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure in sick (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] physical status III–IV) and nonsick (ASA physical status I–II) elderly patients in a teaching hospital in Thailand.
Methods:
We undertook a retrospective review of the anesthesia or sedation service records of elderly patients who underwent ERCP procedures from October 2007 to September 2008. All patients were classified into two groups according to the ASA physical status. In group A, the patients had ASA physical status I–II, while in group B, the patients had ASA physical status III–IV. The primary outcome variable of the study was the successful completion of the procedure. The secondary outcome variables were sedation-related adverse events during and immediately after the procedure.
Results:
There were 158 elderly patients who underwent ERCP procedure by using PBDS during the study period. Of these, 109 patients were in group A and 49 patients were in group B. There were no significant differences in age, gender, weight, duration of ERCP, indication of procedure, and the mean dose of fentanyl, propofol, and midazolam between the two groups. All patients in both groups successfully completed the procedure except eight patients in group A and three patients in group B (P = 0.781). Overall, respiratory and cardiovascular adverse events in both groups were not significantly different. All adverse events were easily treated, with no adverse sequelae.
Conclusion:
In the setting of a developing country, PBDS for ERCP procedure in sick elderly patients by trained anesthetic personnel with appropriate monitoring was safe and effective. The clinical efficacy of this technique in sick elderly patients was not different or worse than in nonsick elderly patients. Serious adverse events were rare in our population.
doi:10.2147/TCRM.S21519
PMCID: PMC3132095  PMID: 21753887
deep sedation; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; propofol (ERCP); sick; elderly; American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA); developing country
22.  Assessment of the effects of ketamine-fentanyl combination versus propofol-remifentanil combination for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography 
Background:
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as a diagnostic and treatment procedure is used in most biliary tract and pancreatic. Either sedation or general anesthesia could be considered for this procedure. Combining a sedative with an opioid agent can provide effective moderate sedation. This study compared the impact of ketamine-fentanyl (KF) versus propofol-remifentanil (PR) on sedation scale in patients undergoing ERCP.
Materials and Methods:
As a double-blinded randomized clinical trial, 80 patients selected by convenient sampling, allocated randomly into two groups. KF group received ketamine 0.5 mg/kg body weight intravenously over 60 s and then fentanyl 1 mcg/kg body weight intravenously. PR group received propofol l mg/kg body weight intravenously over 60 s and then remifentanil 0.05 mcg/kg body weight/min intravenously. Intravenous (IV) infusion of propofol was maintained by 50 mcg/kg body weight/min throughout ERCP. Ramsay Sedation Score, vital signs, oxygen saturation (SpO2), recovery score (modified Aldrete score) and visual analog scales of pain intensity, and endoscopist's satisfaction were considered as measured outcomes. All analysis were analyzed by SPSS Statistics version 22 and using t-test, Chi-square and repeated measured ANOVA and Mann-Whitney tests for data analysis.
Results:
Respiratory rate and SpO2 level during the time intervals were lower in PR group (P < 0.001). Sedation score at intervals was not significantly different (P = 0.07). The frequency of apnea in PR group was significantly higher than the KF group (P = 0.003). The percentage of need to supplemental oxygen in PR group was 35.1% that was also significantly higher than 8.8% in the KF group (P = 0.008), but the dosage frequency was significantly higher in KF group (P < 0.001). The KF and PR groups average length of stay in the recovery room were 50.71 standard deviation (SD = 9.99) and 42.57 (SD = 11.99) minutes, respectively, indicating a significant difference (P = 0.003). The mean severity of nausea in KF and PR groups was, respectively, 2.74 confidence interval (CI = 1.68-3.81) and 0.43 (CI = 0.11-0.75), that was significantly higher in KF group (P < 0.001). The average score of surgeon satisfaction in both KF and PR groups were 7.69 (CI = 7.16-8.21) and 8.65 (CI = 8.25-9.05), respectively, which was higher in KF group (P = 0.004), but the average level of patients satisfaction in KF group was 8.86 (CI = 8.53-9.19) and in PR group was 8.95 (CI - 8.54-9.35) that were not significantly different (P = 0.074).
Conclusion:
There is no statistically significant difference between KF and PR combinations in sedation score, but PR combination provides better pain control, with less nausea and shorter recovery time while causing more respiratory side effects, that is, apnea and need to oxygen.
PMCID: PMC4268195  PMID: 25535501
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; fentanyl; ketamine; propofol; remifentanil
23.  Carbon dioxide accumulation during analgosedated colonoscopy: Comparison of propofol and midazolam 
AIM: To characterize the profiles of alveolar hypoventilation during colonoscopies performed under sedoanalgesia with a combination of alfentanil and either midazolam or propofol.
METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to sedation with either propofol or midazolam in an open-labeled design using a titration scheme. All patients received 4 μg/kg per body weight alfentanil for analgesia and 3 L of supplemental oxygen. Oxygen saturation (SpO2) was measured by pulse oximetry (POX), and capnography (PcCO2) was continuously measured using a combined dedicated sensor at the ear lobe. Instances of apnea resulting in measures such as stimulation of the patient, a chin lift, a mask maneuver, or withholding of sedation were recorded. PcCO2 values (as a parameter of sedation-induced hypoventilation) were compared between groups at the following distinct time points: baseline, maximal rise, termination of the procedure and 5 min after termination of the procedure. The number of patients in both study groups who regained baseline PcCO2 values (± 1.5 mmHg) five minutes after the procedure was determined.
RESULTS: A total of 97 patients entered this study. The data from 14 patients were subsequently excluded for clinical procedure-related reasons or for technical problems. Therefore, 83 patients (mean age 62 ± 13 years) were successfully randomized to receive propofol (n = 42) or midazolam (n = 41) for sedation. Most of the patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) II [16 (38%) in the midazolam group and 15 (32%) in the propofol group] and ASA III [14 (33%) and 13 (32%) in the midazolam and propofol groups, respectively]. A mean dose of 5 (4-7) mg of IV midazolam and 131 (70-260) mg of IV propofol was used during the procedure in the corresponding study arms. The mean SpO2 at baseline (%) was 99 ± 1 for the midazolam group and 99 ± 1 for the propofol group. No cases of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 85%) or apnea were recorded. However, an increase in PcCO2 that indicated alveolar hypoventilation occurred in both groups after administration of the first drug and was not detected with pulse oximetry alone. The mean interval between the initiation of sedation and the time when the PcCO2 value increased to more than 2 mmHg was 2.8 ± 1.3 min for midazolam and 2.8 ± 1.1 min for propofol. The mean maximal rise was similar for both drugs: 8.6 ± 3.7 mmHg for midazolam and 7.4 ± 3.2 mmHg for propofol. Five minutes after the end of the procedure, the mean difference from the baseline values was significantly lower for the propofol treatment compared with midazolam (0.9 ± 3.0 mmHg vs 4.3 ± 3.7 mmHg, P = 0.0000169), and significantly more patients in the propofol group had regained their baseline value ± 1.5 mmHg (32 of 41 vs 12 of 42, P = 0.0004).
CONCLUSION: A significantly higher number of patients sedated with propofol had normalized PcCO2 values five minutes after sedation when compared with patients sedated with midazolam.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v18.i38.5389
PMCID: PMC3471107  PMID: 23082055
Colonoscopy; Deep sedation; Propofol; Hypoventilation; Blood gas monitoring; Transcutaneous
24.  A randomized trial evaluating low doses of propofol infusion after intravenous ketamine for ambulatory pediatric magnetic resonance imaging 
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia  2014;8(4):510-516.
Objective:
Our study compared the discharge time after pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) following sedation with propofol infusion dose of 100, 75 and 50 mcg/kg/min given after a bolus dose of ketamine and propofol.
Materials and Methods:
One hundred children of American Society of Anesthesiologists status 1/2, aged 6 months to 8 years, scheduled for elective MRI were enrolled and randomized to three groups to receive propofol infusion of 100, 75 or 50 mcg/kg/min (Groups A, B, and C, respectively). After premedicating children with midazolam 0.05 mg/kg intravenous (i.v.), sedation was induced with bolus dose of ketamine and propofol (1 mg/kg each) and the propofol infusion was connected. During the scan, heart rate, noninvasive blood pressure, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation were monitored.
Results:
The primary outcome that is, discharge time was shortest for Group C (44.06 ± 18.64 min) and longest for Group A (60.00 ± 18.66 min), the difference being statistically and clinically significant. The secondary outcomes that is, additional propofol boluses, scan quality and awakening time were comparable for the three groups. The systolic blood pressure at 20, 25 and 30 min was significantly lower in Groups A and B compared with Group C. The incidence of sedation related adverse events was highest in Group A and least in Group C.
Conclusion:
After a bolus dose of ketamine and propofol (1 mg/kg each), propofol infusion of 50 mcg/kg/min provided sedation with shortest discharge time for MRI in children premedicated with midazolam 0.05 mg/kg i.v. It also enabled stable hemodynamics with less adverse events.
doi:10.4103/1658-354X.140871
PMCID: PMC4236939  PMID: 25422610
Ambulatory; ketamine; magnetic resonance imaging; pediatric; propofol; sedation
25.  Comparison of a novel bedside portable endoscopy device with nasogastric aspiration for identifying upper gastrointestinal bleeding 
AIM: To compare outcomes using the novel portable endoscopy with that of nasogastric (NG) aspiration in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding.
METHODS: Patients who underwent NG aspiration for the evaluation of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding were eligible for the study. After NG aspiration, we performed the portable endoscopy to identify bleeding evidence in the UGI tract. Then, all patients underwent conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy as the gold-standard test. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the portable endoscopy for confirming UGI bleeding were compared with those of NG aspiration.
RESULTS: In total, 129 patients who had GI bleeding signs or symptoms were included in the study (age 64.46 ± 13.79, 91 males). The UGI tract (esophagus, stomach, and duodenum) was the most common site of bleeding (81, 62.8%) and the cause of bleeding was not identified in 12 patients (9.3%). Specificity for identifying UGI bleeding was higher with the portable endoscopy than NG aspiration (85.4% vs 68.8%, P = 0.008) while accuracy was comparable. The accuracy of the portable endoscopy was significantly higher than that of NG in the subgroup analysis of patients with esophageal bleeding (88.2% vs 75%, P = 0.004). Food material could be detected more readily by the portable endoscopy than NG tube aspiration (20.9% vs 9.3%, P = 0.014). No serious adverse effect was observed during the portable endoscopy.
CONCLUSION: The portable endoscopy was not superior to NG aspiration for confirming UGI bleeding site. However, this novel portable endoscopy device might provide a benefit over NG aspiration in patients with esophageal bleeding.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i25.8221
PMCID: PMC4081696  PMID: 25009396
Endoscopy; Gastrointestinal bleeding; Nasogastric aspiration

Results 1-25 (955894)