Search

Background & Aims: Endoscopist-directed propofol sedation (EDP) remains controversial. We sought to update the safety experience of EDP and estimate the cost of using anesthesia specialists for endoscopic sedation., Methods: We reviewed all published work using EDP. We contacted all endoscopists performing EDP for endoscopy that we were aware of to obtain their safety experience. These complications were available in all patients: endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and death., Results: A total of 646,080 (223,656 published and 422,424 unpublished) EDP cases were identified. Endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and deaths were 11, 0, and 4, respectively. Deaths occurred in 2 patients with pancreatic cancer, a severely handicapped patient with mental retardation, and a patient with severe cardiomyopathy. The overall number of cases requiring mask ventilation was 489 (0.1%) of 569,220 cases with data available. For sites specifying mask ventilation risk by procedure type, 185 (0.1%) of 185,245 patients and 20 (0.01%) of 142,863 patients required mask ventilation during their esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy, respectively (P < .001). The estimated cost per life-year saved to substitute anesthesia specialists in these cases, assuming they would have prevented all deaths, was $5.3 million., Conclusions: EDP thus far has a lower mortality rate than that in published data on endoscopist-delivered benzodiazepines and opioids and a comparable rate to that in published data on general anesthesia by anesthesiologists. In the cases described here, use of anesthesia specialists to deliver propofol would have had high costs relative to any potential benefit.

Background & Aims: Propofol has advantages as a sedative for endoscopic procedures. Its administration by anesthesia specialists is associated with high cost. Administration by nonanesthesiologists is controversial because of concerns about safety, particularly respiratory depression., Methods: Three endoscopy units developed programs to train registered nurses supervised only by endoscopists in the administration of propofol for endoscopic procedures. The rate of adverse respiratory events was tracked from the inception of the programs. To estimate whether training nurses to give propofol on a widespread basis might be effective, we evaluated the individual safety records of all nurses and endoscopists involved in propofol delivery at the 3 centers., Results: Among a total of 36,743 cases of nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) at the 3 centers, there were no cases requiring endotracheal intubation or resulting in death, neurologic sequelae, or other permanent injury. The rate of respiratory events requiring assisted ventilation was not significantly different among the 3 centers and ranged from just <1 per 500 cases to just <1 per 1000 cases among the 3 centers. There was no individual nurse or physician for whom the rate of respiratory events requiring assisted ventilation differed from the overall rate of events at the respective centers., Conclusions: Trained nurses and endoscopists can administer propofol safely for endoscopic procedures. Nurse-administered propofol sedation is one potential solution to the high cost associated with anesthetist-delivered sedation for endoscopy.