Ian Smith1, Damien Durkin2, Kaw Wai Lau3, Srisha Hebbar3. 1. Directorate of Anaesthesia, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK. 2. Surgery, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK. 3. Gastroenterology, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following recommendations from the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the British Society of Gastroenterology, we report our results of propofol sedation for complex endoscopic procedures delivered by a single consultant anaesthetist over a 5-year period. METHODS: A weekly session was provided in the endoscopy department for procedures that were complex or could previously not be completed successfully. Deep sedation was provided by intermittent propofol bolus doses, supplemented with fentanyl where necessary, titrated to clinical effect. Patients were usually in semiprone or lateral positions and spontaneously breathed air supplemented with nasal oxygen. Service evaluation included patient recall, endoscopist satisfaction with conditions, procedural success and airway-related adverse outcomes. RESULTS: We completed 1000 procedures, 42.5% of which were endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, with the remainder comprising a diverse range of endoscopic procedures of 3-156 min duration. Procedural conditions were excellent in 79% of cases, 261 procedures were completed which had been previously abandoned, 246 patients (24.6%) had a better experience than previously and none recalled any part of their procedure. Three patients required transient bag and mask ventilation, and nasal airways were used in 12 patients, but none required tracheal intubation or vasopressor support. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines facilitated a propofol sedation service with considerable benefits for patients and endoscopists. Provision of deep propofol sedation by an anaesthetist, in patients with an unsecured airway, appears practical, effective and efficient. Small adjustments to the airway were fairly common, but the incidence of adverse events and requirement for airway instrumentation was low.
BACKGROUND: Following recommendations from the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the British Society of Gastroenterology, we report our results of propofol sedation for complex endoscopic procedures delivered by a single consultant anaesthetist over a 5-year period. METHODS: A weekly session was provided in the endoscopy department for procedures that were complex or could previously not be completed successfully. Deep sedation was provided by intermittent propofol bolus doses, supplemented with fentanyl where necessary, titrated to clinical effect. Patients were usually in semiprone or lateral positions and spontaneously breathed air supplemented with nasal oxygen. Service evaluation included patient recall, endoscopist satisfaction with conditions, procedural success and airway-related adverse outcomes. RESULTS: We completed 1000 procedures, 42.5% of which were endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, with the remainder comprising a diverse range of endoscopic procedures of 3-156 min duration. Procedural conditions were excellent in 79% of cases, 261 procedures were completed which had been previously abandoned, 246 patients (24.6%) had a better experience than previously and none recalled any part of their procedure. Three patients required transient bag and mask ventilation, and nasal airways were used in 12 patients, but none required tracheal intubation or vasopressor support. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines facilitated a propofol sedation service with considerable benefits for patients and endoscopists. Provision of deep propofol sedation by an anaesthetist, in patients with an unsecured airway, appears practical, effective and efficient. Small adjustments to the airway were fairly common, but the incidence of adverse events and requirement for airway instrumentation was low.
Authors: Earl J Williams; Steve Taylor; Peter Fairclough; Adrian Hamlyn; Richard F Logan; Derrick Martin; Stuart A Riley; Peter Veitch; Mark Wilkinson; Paula R Williamson; Martin Lombard Journal: Gut Date: 2006-12-04 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Gregory A Coté; Robert M Hovis; Michael A Ansstas; Lawrence Waldbaum; Riad R Azar; Dayna S Early; Steven A Edmundowicz; Daniel K Mullady; Sreenivasa S Jonnalagadda Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Viju P Deenadayalu; Emely Eid; Thomas F Imperiale; John A Walker; Kuldip Sandhu; Anthony C Clarke; Lybus C Hillman; Akira Horiuchi; Lawrence B Cohen; Ludwig T Heuss; Shajan Peter; Christoph Beglinger; James A Sinnott; Thomas Welton; Magdy Rofail; Iyad Subei; Rodger Sleven; Paul Jordan; John Goff; Patrick D Gerstenberger; Harold Munnings; Martin Tagle; Brian W Sipe; Till Wehrmann; Jack A Di Palma; Kaitlin E Occhipinti; Egidio Barbi; Andrea Riphaus; Stephen T Amann; Gen Tohda; Timothy McClellan; Charles Thueson; John Morse; Nizam Meah Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2009-06-21 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Hala Fatima; John DeWitt; Julia LeBlanc; Stuart Sherman; Kathleen McGreevy; Thomas F Imperiale Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2008-06-28 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Xianwen Liu; Baofeng Ding; Fu Shi; Yang Zhang; Lei Liu; Yongwei Sha; Tonghang Zhao Journal: Drug Des Devel Ther Date: 2021-11-16 Impact factor: 4.162