14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used, but propofol sedation is becoming more popular because its unique pharmacokinetic properties make endoscopy almost painless, with a very predictable and rapid recovery process. There is controversy as to whether propofol should be administered only by anesthesia professionals (monitored anesthesia care) or whether properly trained non-anesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation. The deployment of non-anesthesia administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall health care costs without sacrificing sedation quality. This review will discuss efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction issues with various modes of sedation for non-advanced, non-emergent endoscopic procedures, mainly esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references86

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists.

          (2002)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience.

              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. 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. 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. 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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Intest Res
                Intest Res
                IR
                Intestinal Research
                Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases
                1598-9100
                2288-1956
                October 2017
                23 October 2017
                : 15
                : 4
                : 456-466
                Affiliations
                Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Otto S. Lin, Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, 1100 Ninth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, USA. Tel: +1-206-625-7373 (ext. 67694), Fax: +1-206-341-1405, Otto.Lin@ 123456vmmc.org
                Article
                10.5217/ir.2017.15.4.456
                5683976
                29142513
                733535b7-9daf-4a63-8d85-29c8dba4da6f
                © Copyright 2017. Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 01 August 2017
                : 03 August 2017
                : 03 August 2017
                Categories
                Review

                colonoscopy,propofol,deep sedation,endoscopy, digestive system,anesthesia

                Comments

                Comment on this article