Thomas R McCarty1, Kelly E Hathorn1, David W Creighton2, Mohd Amer AlSamman3, Christopher C Thompson4. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. cthompson@hms.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: There is wide variation in choice of sedation and airway management for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate safety outcomes of deep sedation with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) versus general endotracheal anesthesia (GETA). METHODS: Individualized search strategies were performed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. This meta-analysis was performed by calculating pooled proportions using random effects models. Measured outcomes included procedure success, all-cause and anesthesia-associated adverse events, and post-procedure recovery time. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics and publication bias by funnel plot and Egger regression testing. RESULTS: Five studies (MAC: n = 1284 vs GETA: n = 615) were included. Patients in the GETA group were younger, had higher body mass index (BMI), and higher mean ASA scores (all P < 0.001) with no difference in Mallampati scores (P = 0.923). Procedure success, all-cause adverse events, and anesthesia-associated events were similar between groups [OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.51-2.64); OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.29-4.70); OR 1.33 (95% CI 0.27-6.49), respectively]. MAC resulted in fewer hypotensive episodes [OR 0.32 (95% CI 0.12-0.87], increased hypoxemic events [OR 5.61 (95% CI 1.54-20.37)], and no difference in cardiac arrhythmias [OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.13-1.78)]. Procedure time was decreased for MAC [standard difference - 0.39 (95% CI - 0.78-0.00)] with no difference in recovery time [standard difference - 0.48 (95% CI - 1.04-0.07)]. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests MAC may be a safe alternative to GETA for ERCP; however, MAC may not be appropriate in all patients given an increased risk of hypoxemia.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: There is wide variation in choice of sedation and airway management for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate safety outcomes of deep sedation with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) versus general endotracheal anesthesia (GETA). METHODS: Individualized search strategies were performed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. This meta-analysis was performed by calculating pooled proportions using random effects models. Measured outcomes included procedure success, all-cause and anesthesia-associated adverse events, and post-procedure recovery time. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics and publication bias by funnel plot and Egger regression testing. RESULTS: Five studies (MAC: n = 1284 vs GETA: n = 615) were included. Patients in the GETA group were younger, had higher body mass index (BMI), and higher mean ASA scores (all P < 0.001) with no difference in Mallampati scores (P = 0.923). Procedure success, all-cause adverse events, and anesthesia-associated events were similar between groups [OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.51-2.64); OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.29-4.70); OR 1.33 (95% CI 0.27-6.49), respectively]. MAC resulted in fewer hypotensive episodes [OR 0.32 (95% CI 0.12-0.87], increased hypoxemic events [OR 5.61 (95% CI 1.54-20.37)], and no difference in cardiac arrhythmias [OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.13-1.78)]. Procedure time was decreased for MAC [standard difference - 0.39 (95% CI - 0.78-0.00)] with no difference in recovery time [standard difference - 0.48 (95% CI - 1.04-0.07)]. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests MAC may be a safe alternative to GETA for ERCP; however, MAC may not be appropriate in all patients given an increased risk of hypoxemia.
Authors: David R Lichtenstein; Sanjay Jagannath; Todd H Baron; Michelle A Anderson; Subhas Banerjee; Jason A Dominitz; Robert D Fanelli; S Ian Gan; M Edwyn Harrison; Steven O Ikenberry; Bo Shen; Leslie Stewart; Khalid Khan; John J Vargo Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Dayna S Early; Jenifer R Lightdale; John J Vargo; Ruben D Acosta; Vinay Chandrasekhara; Krishnavel V Chathadi; John A Evans; Deborah A Fisher; Lisa Fonkalsrud; Joo Ha Hwang; Mouen A Khashab; V Raman Muthusamy; Shabana F Pasha; John R Saltzman; Amandeep K Shergill; Brooks D Cash; John M DeWitt Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-04-19 Impact factor: 56.272