Search

Purpose of Review: More than 25% of the procedures necessitating an anesthesia provider's involvement are performed outside the operating room. As a result, it is imperative that the expansion of anesthesia services to any new nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) location takes into account the challenges and safety considerations associated with such a transformation., Recent Findings: Although the adverse events encountered in the NORA suite are similar to those met in the operating room, the frequency and implications are different. In addition, many adverse events are site specific. Hypoxemia events, including cardiac arrest continue to dominate all areas of NORA practice. Challenges posed by new minimally invasive procedures continue to grow. Electronic documentation is rapidly expanding into the NORA suite, which brings both advantages and challenges., Summary: Involvement of anesthesia providers at the development stage and an understanding of the administrative and clinical challenges are essential elements in the building of a NORA practice.

As a result of COVID-19, the last few weeks have necessitated a reevaluation of the sedation paradigm for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. Routine screening and some surveillance procedures have taken a backseat and likely to remain so until a vaccine or effective treatment becomes available. Anesthesia providers and endoscopists are required to adapt to this new reality rapidly. The general aim of sedation remains the same-patient comfort, reduced hypoxia, prevention of aspiration along with rapid recovery, and discharge. The present review focuses on necessary modification to reduce the risk of virus contagion for both patients (from health-care providers) and vice versa. A preprocedure evaluation and consenting should be modified and provided remotely. Unsedated GI endoscopy, sedation with minimal respiratory depression, and modification of general anesthesia are explored. Challenges with supplemental oxygen administration and monitoring are addressed. Guidelines for appropriate use of personal protective equipment are discussed. Measures for limiting aerosolization are deliberated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The last few decades of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy have seen phenomenal growth. In many aspects, GI endoscopy has led the field of nonsurgical interventional medicine. In many aspects, this growth is facilitated by advancements in sedation—both drugs and techniques. Unfortunately, the topic of GI endoscopy sedation is also mired in many controversies, mainly emanating from the cost of anesthesia providers. While no one debates their role in the majority of advanced endoscopic procedures, the practice of universal propofol sedation in the USA, delivered by anesthesia providers, needs a closer look. In this review, medical, political, and economic considerations of this important topic are discussed in a very frank and honest way. While such ubiquitous propofol use has increased satisfaction of both patients and gastroenterologists, there is little justification. More importantly, going by the evidence, there is even less justification for the mandated anesthesia providers use for such delivery. Unfortunately, the FDA could not be convinced otherwise. The new drug fospropofol met the same fate. Approval of SEDASYS®, the first computer-assisted personalized sedation system, was a step in the right direction, nevertheless an insufficient step that failed to takeoff. As a result, in spite of years of research and efforts of many august societies, the logjam of balancing cost and justification of propofol sedation has continued. We hope that recent approval of remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, and potential approval of oliceridine, a novel short-acting opioid, might be able to contain the cost without compromising the quality of sedation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Providing sedation to patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is a controversial and emotive issue. The mainstay of sedation is propofol, whose administration is within the sole jurisdiction of anesthesia providers, at least in the USA. Attempts have been made to seize the authority by the GI community. One of the first attempts was the use of the prodrug of propofol –fospropofol. However, as the drug has a similar adverse effect profile as propofol in terms of respiratory depression, the FDA did not approve its use by providers other than those trained in airway management. Sedasy was the next attempt, which was a computer‑assisted personalized sedation system. As a result of insufficient sedation that could be provided with the device, although very successful in research settings, it was not a commercial success. It seems that remimazolam is the next effort in this direction. It is likely to fail in this regard unless its respiratory depressant properties and failure rates could be addressed. G protein‑biased µ‑receptor agonists are a new class of opioids exhibiting analgesic properties similar to morphine without equivalent respiratory depressant properties. Oliceridine is the prototype. As a result, the drug can be additive to midazolam or remimazolam and allow screening colonoscopy to be comfortably completed without the need for propofol. For an anesthesia provider, the administration of oliceridine can eliminate the need for drugs such as fentanyl that add to the respiratory depressant properties of propofol. As a result, oliceridine has the potential to render the sedation for GI endoscopy procedures both safe and cost‑effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the growing popularity of propofol mediated deep sedation for upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures, challenges are being felt and appreciated. Research suggests that management of the airway is anything but routine in this setting. Although many studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated the safety of propofol sedation administered by registered nurses under the supervision of gastroenterologists (likely related to the lighter degrees of sedation than those provided by anesthesia providers and is under medicolegal controversy in the United States), there is no agreement on the optimum airway management for procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Failure to rescue an airway at an appropriate time has led to disastrous consequences. Inability to evaluate and appreciate the risk factors for aspiration can ruin the day for both the patient and the health care providers. This review apprises the reader of various aspects of airway management relevant to the practice of sedation during upper GI endoscopy. New devices and modification of existing devices are discussed in detail. Recognizing the fact that appropriate monitoring is important for timely recognition and management of potential airway disasters, these issues are explored thoroughly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAPP) administered propofol sedation in patients undergoing non-advanced gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. Materials and Methods: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving non-advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 608 publications, 25 [colonoscopy (9), upper GI endoscopy (5), and combined procedures (11)] were identified to meet inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Data was analyzed for hypoxia rates, airway intervention rates, and airway complication rates. Results: A total of 137,087 patients were involved. A total of 2931 hypoxia episodes (defined as an oxygen saturation below 90%) were reported with a pooled hypoxia rate of 0.014 (95% CI being 0.008-0.023). Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates and pooled airway complication rates were 0.002 (95% CI being 0.006-0.001) and 0.001 (95% CI being 0.000-0.001), respectively. Conclusions: The rates of adverse events in patients undergoing non-advanced GI endoscopic procedures with NAPP sedation are extremely small. Similar data for anesthesia providers is not available. It is prudent for anesthesia providers to demonstrate their superiority in prospective randomized controlled trials, if they like to retain exclusive ownership over propofol sedation in patients undergoing GI endoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: The landscape of sedation for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures and the nature of the procedures themselves have changed over the last decade. In this study, an attempt is made to analyze the frequency and etiology of all major adverse events associated with GI endoscopy. Methods: All adverse events extracted from the electronic database and local registry were analyzed. Although the data analysis was retrospective, the adverse events themselves were documented prospectively. These events were evaluated after subdivision into propofol-based anesthesia and intravenous conscious sedation groups. Results: Cardiorespiratory events, including cardiac arrest, were the most common adverse events during esophagogastroduodenoscopy, while bleeding was more frequent in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Pancreatitis was the most frequent adverse event in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The frequencies of most adverse events were significantly higher in patients anesthetized with propofol. Automatic regression modeling showed that the type of sedation, the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, and the procedure type were some of the predictors of immediate life-threatening complications. Conclusions: Clearly, our regression modeling suggests a strong association between the type of sedation as well as various patient factors and the frequency of adverse events. The possible reasons for our results are the changing demographics, the worsening comorbidities of the patient population, and the increasing technical complexity of these procedures. Although extensive use of propofol has increased patient satisfaction and procedure acceptability, its use is also associated with more frequent adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: Airway difficulties leading to cardiac arrest are frequently encountered during propofol sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. With a noticeable increase in the use of propofol for endoscopic sedation, we decided to examine the incidence and outcome of cardiac arrests in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy with sedation. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective study, cardiac arrest data obtained from the clinical quality improvement and local registry over 5 years was analyzed. The information of patients who sustained cardiac arrest attributable to sedation was studied in detail. Analysis included comparison of cardiac arrests due to all causes until discharge (or death) versus the cardiac arrests and death occurring during the procedure and in the recovery area. Results: The incidence of cardiac arrest and death (all causes, until discharge) was 6.07 and 4.28 per 10,000 in patients sedated with propofol, compared with non-propofol-based sedation (0.67 and 0.44). The incidence of cardiac arrest during and immediately after the procedure (recovery area) for all endoscopies was 3.92 per 10,000; of which, 72% were airway management related. About 90.0% of all peri-procedural cardiac arrests occurred in patients who received propofol. Conclusions: The incidence of cardiac arrest and death is about 10 times higher in patients receiving propofol-based sedation compared with those receiving midazolam-fentanyl sedation. More than two thirds of these events occur during EGD and ERCP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although propofol has been the backbone for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy, both anesthesiologists and endoscopists are faced with situations where an alternative is needed. Recent national shortages forced many physicians to explore these options. A midazolam and fentanyl combination is the mainstay in this area. However, there are other options. The aim of this review is to explore these options. The future would be, invariably, to move away from propofol. The reason is not in any way related to the drawbacks of propofol as a sedative. The mandate that requires an anesthesia provider to administer propofol has been a setback in many countries. New sedative drugs like Remimazolam might fill this void in the future. In the meantime, it is important to keep an open eye to the existing alternatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Providing anesthesia for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures in morbidly obese patients is a challenge for a variety of reasons. The negative impact of obesity on the respiratory system combined with a need to share the upper airway and necessity to preserve the spontaneous ventilation, together add to difficulties. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with a body mass index (BMI) >40 kg/m² that underwent out-patient GI endoscopy between September 2010 and February 2011. Patient data was analyzed for procedure, airway management technique as well as hypoxemic and cardiovascular events. Results: A total of 119 patients met the inclusion criteria. Our innovative airway management technique resulted in a lower rate of intraoperative hypoxemic events compared with any published data available. Frequency of desaturation episodes showed statistically significant relation to previous history of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). These desaturation episodes were found to be statistically independent of increasing BMI of patients. Conclusion: Pre-operative history of OSA irrespective of associated BMI values can be potentially used as a predictor of intra-procedural desaturation. With suitable modification of anesthesia technique, it is possible to reduce the incidence of adverse respiratory events in morbidly obese patients undergoing GI endoscopy procedures, thereby avoiding the need for endotracheal intubation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and Objectives: Continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have emerged as a reliable treatment option for heart failure. Because of bleeding secondary to anticoagulation, these patients present frequently for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. The presently available literature on perioperative management of these patients is extremely limited and is primarily based upon theoretical principles. Materials and Methods: Perioperative records of patients with LVAD undergoing (GI) endoscopy between 2008 and 2012 were reviewed. Patient, device and procedure specific information was analyzed. Results: A total of 105 LVADs were implanted, and 68 procedures were performed in 39 patients. The most common indication was GI bleed (48/68), with yearly risk of 8.57% per patient. A total of 63 procedures were performed under deep sedation, with five procedures requiring general anesthesia. Intra-procedure hypotension was managed by fluids and (or) vasopressors/inotropes (phenylephrine, ephedrine or milrinone) guided by plethysmographic waveform, non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) and LVADs pulsatility index (for HeartMate II)/flow pulsatility (for HeartWare). No patient required invasive monitoring and both NIBP and pulse oximeter could be reliably used for monitoring (and guided management) in all patients due to the presence of native heart's pulsatile output. Conclusion: In the presence of residual heart function, with optimal device settings, non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring can be reliably used in these patients while undergoing GI endoscopy under general anesthesia or monitored anesthesia care. Transient hypotensive episodes respond well to fluids/vasopressors without the need of increasing device speed that can be detrimental. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The original version of the article is unfortunately missing the surname of last author in the author group. Last author name was published as 'Preet Mohinder' and the full name of the author is 'Preet Mohinder Singh'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the author's views on concept of balanced anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopy. It mentions that gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is a growing commitment. Topics discussed includes endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and challenges faced by the anesthesiologist while sedating patients for upper GI endoscopy and colonoscopy