Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Intest Res : Intestinal Research

Search
Advanced Search
IMPACT FACTOR
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Intest Res > Volume 15(4); 2017 > Article
Review Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction
Otto S. Lin
Intestinal Research 2017;15(4):456-466.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2017.15.4.456
Published online: October 23, 2017

Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.

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@vmmc.org
• Received: August 1, 2017   • Revised: August 3, 2017   • Accepted: August 3, 2017

© 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.

prev next
  • 17,924 Views
  • 323 Download
  • 83 Web of Science
  • 79 Crossref
  • 83 Scopus
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • 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.
  • Keywords: Colonoscopy; Propofol; Deep sedation; Endoscopy, digestive system; Anesthesia
In developed countries, the majority of routine, low-risk endoscopic procedures are currently performed with some form of sedation.1 Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is an inherently uncomfortable procedure, with the potential for abdominal pain, cramping and bloating during colonoscopy,2 and gagging, retching and choking during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). The use of sedation allows for a more thorough and relaxed procedure, with higher polyp detection rates and procedures completion rates.3 A sedated, comfortable patient not only enhances endoscopist satisfaction,4 but is associated with a higher likelihood of the patient being willing to undergo the procedure again. The American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) has published definitions for different levels of sedation (Table 1);5 specifically, at the level of “moderate sedation,” the patient maintains ventilatory and cardiovascular function and is able to make purposeful responses to verbal or tactile stimuli, while at “deep sedation,” patients cannot be easily aroused but is still able to respond to noxious or insistent stimuli. Airway support may be required for deep sedation. To allow the procedure to proceed smoothly, sedatives are usually dosed to achieve moderate sedation (benzodiazepine and opiate sedation) or deep sedation (monitored anesthesia care with propofol). In a minority of cases, full “general anesthesia” (with intubation of the patient and the use of anesthetic agents such as nitrous oxide or ketamine) is required because of patient characteristics or procedural complexity. Since full general anesthesia is not commonly used for routine GI endoscopy, it will not be discussed further in this review.
Although sedation for endoscopy is becoming widespread, there is still interest in non-sedated endoscopy, even in countries like the United States where almost all GI procedures are performed with sedation. Non-sedated endoscopy offers several potential advantages−lower cost, wider availability, less risk, higher efficiency and decreased post-procedural impairment, allowing for patients to drive or return to work immediately afterwards. There continue to be attempts to develop unsedated EGD using ultrathin transnasal endoscopes,6 and unsedated colonoscopy using water immersion techniques.7 Motivated patients can successfully undergo unsedated endoscopy,8 but the vast majority of patients in developed countries prefer and demand sedation, and the overall trend in GI endoscopy is moving towards more potent, not less potent, forms of sedation.910
Initial forms of sedation for GI endoscopy involved moderate sedation using such agents as midazolam, diazepam, pethidine, fentanyl, remifentanil and/or meperidine. Midazolam and diazepam are intravenous benzodiazepines, with powerful sedative, anxiolytic, hypnotic and amnestic effects. Fentanyl, remifentanil and meperidine are intravenous opioid analgesics, with only minimal sedative effects. Typically, moderate sedation is induced by a combination of a benzodiazepine sedative and an opioid analgesic, which have complementary and synergistic effects with each other. Midazolam and fentanyl (MF) have now become the most commonly used moderate sedation agents in the United States,11 and many other countries.12 Even though some studies reported similar efficacy for midazolam and diazepam,13 midazolam is now usually favored over diazepam because of its faster onset of action and better safety profile,1415 while fentanyl has now supplanted meperidine because the former is associated with more rapid onset and clearance, with less nausea.1617 Midazolam is a water-soluble compound prepared in an acidic solution. After introduction into the bloodstream, it reconfigures to a lipophilic structure at physiological pH, rapidly diffusing across the blood-brain barrier into the CNS. The usual total dose for GI endoscopy is 2 to 10 mg. Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid agonist with powerful analgesic but only mild sedative properties, is highly lipid soluble and 80 times more potent than morphine. The usual total dose is 50 to 200 µg. Both agents have a relatively fast onset of action when given intravenously and a short duration of effect (Table 2). Effective reversal agents, naloxone for opioids and flumazenil for benzodiazepines, are readily available. In addition to MF, ancillary agents such as diphenhydramine or droperidol are sometimes used. These agents potentiate the actions of the primary benzodiazepine/opioid regimen, and may be needed for patients who are unusually difficult to sedate. The use of droperidol has been limited by its cardiac risks, especially in patients with a history of prolonged QT intervals or electrolyte abnormalities.
Monitoring during sedated endoscopy typically involves assessment of the electrocardiogram (EKG) pattern, blood pressure, pulse oximetry and patient responsiveness;17 in many units, capnography is also used, particularly with propofol sedation. Experimental methods such as bispectral index monitoring, a form of electroencephalography, are not widely available as yet.
MF sedation has been found to be effective for routine GI endoscopy.18 The safety profile for MF compares quite favorably to that of propofol. Studies have shown that the cardiopulmonary complication rates with MF sedation are generally low, between 0.05% to 0.10% for EGDs and colonoscopies.17 A recent meta-analysis of 27 studies (many of them randomized controlled trials) found that propofol was associated with similar risks of hypoxia (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63−1.07), and hypotension (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.64−1.32) as MF or other traditional sedative agents; for non-advanced procedures, propofol was slightly less likely to cause complications (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38−0.99).19
The administration of propofol by anesthesia professionals in order to induce deep sedation in unintubated patients is termed “monitored anesthesia care (MAC)” and is one of the most common sedation methods for GI procedures in North America and Europe. Propofol (2,6-diisopropyl phenol) is a short-acting agent with sedative, amnestic and hypnotic properties. It is not an analgesic, but has synergistic effects when given with opioids or benzodiazepines. The target entity is the type A γ-aminobutyric acid receptor. A typical preparation consists of a 1% solution, prepared in a mixture of soybean oil, glycerol and egg lecithin, hence it is contraindicated in patients with soy or egg allergy. Propofol, a highly lipophilic compound, is 98% plasma-protein bound, and is metabolized in the liver by conjugation to glucuronide sulfate to produce water-soluble metabolites excreted by the kidneys. The time from injection to onset of sedation is 30 to 60 seconds, and its duration of effect is 4 to 8 minutes, although its duration of peak effect is considerably shorter (often 1−2 minutes). Its pharmacokinetics do not change in patients with renal or liver failure (Table 2). Because it reduces cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance, it often causes hypotension, while its sedative effects can lead to hypoventilation. Propofol can also cause pain at the injection site, but it is rare for phlebitis to occur.
1. Effectiveness and Safety Data
Propofol does not have any known reversal agent, but its extremely short half-life enhances its safety profile considerably. Propofol sedation is associated with relatively good cognitive function in the recovery period,2021 and driving and psychomotor skills recover rapidly,22 in contrast to MF sedation.23 There have been numerous randomized controlled trials comparing propofol against MF sedation for GI procedures; these data have been summarized in several meta-analyses. Generally, the studies show that propofol is extremely effective at inducing adequate procedural sedation, with high procedural success rates, rapid recovery times and low complication rates. One of the earliest meta-analyses combined data from 12 studies, concluding that propofol for colonoscopy had lower odds of cardiopulmonary complications compared with traditional agents, but for other procedures, the complication risks were similar.24 A subsequent meta-analysis of 36 randomized studies showed that compared with MF, propofol expeditiously induced deeper sedation, with high patient satisfaction, and faster and more predictable recovery.18 Another meta-analysis that included 22 randomized controlled trials found that propofol was associated with better patient cooperation, shorter recovery and discharge times, higher post-sedation recovery scores and better sedation.25 Finally, a meta-analysis of 5 studies on propofol sedation for EGDs in cirrhotic patients showed that propofol led to more rapid sedation and recovery than MF, but the risk of sedation-related side effects did not differ significantly.26
2. Prevalence of Use
In the United States, where the vast majority of propofol sedation is currently administered by anesthesia professionals, the use of propofol has been fraught with controversy, primarily around the issues of reimbursement and privileging. Over the span of a decade, there has been a 3- to 4-fold increase in the prevalence of anesthesia involvement in routine outpatient endoscopic procedures on low-risk patients, with propofol sedation rates going from 14% in 2003 to 48% in 2013 for Medicare patients, and from 14% in 2003 to 53% in 2013 for privately insured patients.9102728 Canada has also seen analogous increases.29 This has led to significant increases in anesthesia costs for GI endoscopy.3031 Against the current background of national concern about burgeoning health care costs, there is evidence that a large proportion of MAC use is medically unnecessary because they involve low-risk procedures that can presumably be performed with moderate sedation using MF or other traditional agents. Furthermore, there are dramatic regional variations in the use of MAC (with the highest rates in areas like New York and Florida), which further supports the notion that much of MAC use is discretionary and redundant.432
3. Problems
The use of anesthesiologist-administered propofol for low-risk endoscopies is estimated to cost the U.S. health care system an additional $3.2 billion (USD) over a period of 10 years.31 Although it is somewhat difficult to define “discretionary” anesthesia care with exactitude,33 there are widespread concerns that these substantial anesthesia costs are not justified by any improvement in clinical outcomes.34353637 Firstly, the use of MAC does not increase the adenoma or polyp detection rate during colonoscopy.303839 Furthermore, anesthesia-administered propofol sedation may not necessarily be safer than non-anesthesiologist administered MF sedation. Although the use of MAC does not seem to be associated with higher perforation rates,4041 studies looking specifically at force application during colonoscopy found that axial and radial forces tend to be stronger because the patient is more heavily sedated.42 In fact, available data either show similar complication rates,253243 or higher complication rates with MAC compared with MF sedation.444546 Since none of these studies were randomized, there are legitimate concerns about selection bias, but it is clear that currently available data do not support the notion that anesthesia-administered propofol is safer than MF sedation.3536
Because of these issues with MAC, there have been attempts to investigate nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS).47 The NAPS dosing protocol varies between centers and countries. In the United States, specially trained nurses typically administer small boluses of propofol at frequent intervals to achieve moderate sedation. In most cases, an initial bolus of 30 to 50 mg is given through a rapidly running intravenous line, followed by boluses of 10 to 20 mg every 30 to 60 seconds.48 The use of NAPS instead of MAC for low-risk patients undergoing routine GI procedures seems to represent “low lying fruit” for cost savings and better resource allocation,49 but NAPS has remained one of the most controversial aspects of the GI field.3435 European and American GI guidelines endorse the use of NAPS for low-risk GI procedures, provided that practitioners undergo proper training.505152 However, these guidelines are at odds with those issued by the ASA, which states that clinicians who use propofol “should be qualified to rescue patients from any level of sedation including general anesthesia.”53
1. Effectiveness and Safety Data
Numerous studies from Europe and America have shown NAPS to be feasible and safe, as long as it is performed on appropriately selected patients.545556575859 Contraindications to NAPS include the presence of significant comorbidities (ASA class 3 or above), severe sleep apnea, morbid obesity, gastric outlet obstruction, gastroparesis and achalasia; patients undergoing advanced complex endoscopic procedures may also be unsuitable for NAPS.48 Direct comparisons have shown that NAPS is associated with higher patient satisfaction scores and shorter recovery times compared with MF sedation.58 Randomized controlled studies show that NAPS is associated with fewer adverse events and higher satisfaction scores than MAC.60 Generally, NAPS seems to be more easily used for colonoscopy than EGD, with a lower risk of having to resort to mask ventilation.5961 An exhaustive review of worldwide safety data involving 646,080 NAPS procedures reported only 11 emergent endotracheal intubations, no permanent neurological injuries and 4 deaths; only 0.1% of patients required transient mask ventilation.55
2. Regulatory and Financial Obstacles
NAPS is used extensively in several European countries, including Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland.5062 Payment models seem to have a marked impact on whether anesthesia-administered propofol or NAPS is used; in countries where separate anesthesia service fees are charged (such as France), anesthesia-administered propofol is the dominant model, whereas in other countries NAPS is more popular.63 In the United States, NAPS is rarely used.64 In addition to financial issues, there are other barriers to its use in the United States, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling for propofol (which specifies that propofol must be administered by personnel trained in anesthesia), policies of the U.S. Center for Medical Services (the government entity that administers Medicare) on deep sedation, insurance regulations, hospital credentialing rules, and medicolegal concerns.6465 Many U.S. institutions that previously performed many cases with NAPS, such as the University of Indiana, have now abandoned its use because of insurmountable regulatory and medicolegal obstacles.64
Patient controlled sedation (PCS) is analogous to the patient-controlled analgesia used in hospitals, where patients can control their own dosage of pain medications. PCS has been looked at in several studies and found to be effective compared against MAC66 and conventional MF-type sedation.676869 However, PCS is not widely used because most patients are reluctant to take charge of their own sedation.
The SEDASYS® System (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, USA) was approved in the United States in 2013 for providing moderate sedation for ASA class 1 and 2 patients undergoing routine EGD and colonoscopy. Despite considerable media attention, there still seem to be some misconceptions about this technology. SEDASYS® is not a “robotic anesthesiologist.” It is a system with built-in safeguards to allow trained non-anesthesiologist physicians on-label access to propofol. Also, SEDASYS® is not a “closed-loop” system. Depending on patient vital signs, the system may restrict, suspend, decrease or stop the propofol infusion, but any increase in drug delivery must be initiated by the clinician. Finally, SEDASYS® is not a “target controlled” system and does not control delivery based on the propofol concentration in the plasma or at the site of drug effect.
1. Mechanics
Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) allows non-anesthesiologists to administer 1% propofol as a continuous infusion after a premedication dose of fentanyl of 25 to 100 µg. The initial infusion rate is determined by the endoscopist and can range from 25 to 75 µg/kg/min. To achieve a suitable level of sedation, the endoscopist can titrate the maintenance infusion rate upwards or downwards during the procedure. A bolus dose of up to 0.25 mg/kg can also be given.
The CAPS system continuously monitors capnography, oxygen saturation, EKG and blood pressure. In addition, the CAPS system periodically assesses patient alertness by automated response monitoring. With automated response monitoring, patients grip a plastic hand device during the procedure, and are periodically prompted by voice and vibration prompts from the CAPS system to squeeze the device. Longer lag times between the prompt and the squeeze are interpreted as a deeper level of sedation. The initial maintenance rate cannot be more than 75 µg/kg/min, each rate increase cannot be more than 50 µg/kg/min and the overall maximum infusion rate is set at 200 µg/kg/min. To prevent a stacking effect, there is a 180-second lockout period after each infusion rate increase, and a 90-second lockout after each bolus. Finally, hypoventilation, oxygen desaturation or lack of responsiveness will prevent further rate increases, and, if severe enough, can lead the CAPS system to discontinue the propofol infusion. In response to significant hypoxia, the CAPS system will increase supplemental oxygen delivery to the patient and trigger visual and auditory alarms to alert the provider team. To use CAPS, an anesthesia professional must be immediately available in the same building for assistance as needed.
2. Clinical Trial Data
A pilot study involving 48 patients70 was followed by a large, non-blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial,71 in which 1,000 healthy adults undergoing colonoscopy or EGD were randomized to CAPS or MF sedation. The area under the curve for oxygen desaturation (a composite measure of the frequency, severity and duration of hypoxic episodes) was significantly lower for the CAPS group. Furthermore, patient and endoscopist satisfaction were greater for CAPS, and CAPS subjects recovered much faster than the MF controls. The overall incidence of complications was 5.8% for CAPS versus 8.7% for MF. The only serious sedation-related adverse event occurred in a control patient who required transient mask ventilation.
3. Real World Clinical Data
As the only center in the United States to introduce CAPS for large scale, routine clinical use, we assessed the efficacy, safety, efficiency and satisfaction associated with the use of CAPS in a real-world environment. In our first study,72 CAPS was utilized to sedate 55 EGDs and 173 colonoscopy patients; concurrently, 75 EGDs and 223 colonoscopies were performed with MF sedation on controls. Just like in the trials, endoscopists were more satisfied with CAPS than MF sedation. Also, patients were more satisfied with CAPS with regard to recovery parameters (Table 3).7273 Procedural success rates and colonoscopic polyp detection rates were similarly high in both groups. Procedure times were not different, but recovery times were much faster for CAPS than MF. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. For CAPS, 1 patient required brief mask ventilation, 4 experienced mild hypotension or desaturation, and 5 suffered agitation due to undersedation. For MF, 5 patients had mild hypotension or desaturation, and 8 suffered agitation. There were no instances in which a “code” had to be called or an anesthesia professional had to be summoned to assist with sedation-related complications.
We subsequently reported our 1-year experience with CAPS for colonoscopy on a much larger cohort.74 In this study, 2,677 colonoscopies were performed with CAPS, compared against 2,286 historical MF controls. For CAPS, the procedural completion rate was high (98.8%) and similar to that of controls (99.0%, P=0.526). Polyp detection rates and large polyp detection rates were also similar to that of controls (53.4% vs. 50.1% and 8.2% vs. 8.2% respectively, P>0.01 for both). Mean procedure times were slightly shorter for the CAPS group than the controls (22.2 minutes vs. 22.8 minutes, P<0.001). Again, recovery times were markedly shorter (31.0 minutes vs. 45.6 minutes, P<0.001). In the CAPS group, there were 20 (0.7%) cases of mild oxygen desaturation, 21 (0.8%) cases of asymptomatic hypotension, 4 (0.1%) cases of agitation due to undersedation, and 2 (<0.1%) cases of desaturation requiring transient mask ventilation. In a separate study on a 1-year cohort of 926 patients undergoing EGD with CAPS,75 procedural success rates were again similar to that of MF controls. Procedure times were also similar, but recovery time was markedly shorter. There were 11 (1.2%) cases of mild desaturation, 15 (1.6%) cases of agitation due to undersedation, and 1 (0.1%) case of mild hypotension. In addition, there were 6 (0.6%) patients with desaturation that required transient mask ventilation. Aside from one case of delayed fatality from ischemic colitis believed to be unrelated to sedation, none of the EGD or colonoscopy subjects suffered any severe adverse event such as emergent intubation, hospitalization, permanent injury or death.
Overall, CAPS was found to be a safe, effective and efficient means of providing sedation for EGD and colonoscopy in relatively healthy patients. Even though the rapid recovery associated with propofol does not negate limitations such as the prohibition against driving after the procedure, it has a major impact on patient satisfaction, post-procedural education and endoscopy unit flow.7677 In addition, recovery room staffing was made more efficient, with overtime hours reduced by 32%, resulting in over $14,000 (USD) in savings per month despite increased procedure volumes.78
4. SEDASYS®: Closure and Financial Challenges
At the end of 2016, the manufacturer of SEDASYS® closed down its CAPS division due to the company's inability to project profitability from this technology.79 Between 2014 and 2016, reportedly only 10 or fewer CAPS systems were sold in the United States. Despite excellent safety and effectiveness outcomes, financial factors proved to be decisive in the failure of this product. Currently, there are strong financial incentives to use anesthesia-administered propofol,93563 because anesthesia charges represent a major revenue source for many endoscopy practices in the United States. In many cases, insurance plans will cover anesthesia charges for endoscopy. In fact, Medicare covers anesthesia costs for screening colonoscopies without any deductibles. This policy was intended to increase the uptake of colon cancer screening, despite studies showing that anesthesia use is not associated with any increase in screening rates,80 but will increase costs.81 In situations where insurance coverage for anesthesia is denied, patients are charged directly. These factors limit the number of GI providers willing to invest in a CAPS system, since they would have to absorb the sedation costs. In theory, the endoscopy practice would derive other benefits from CAPS such as decreased recovery times, reduced recovery room staffing needs, and increased patient satisfaction. However, these potential benefits are usually not enough to persuade endoscopy units to invest in the considerable upfront costs of a CAPS system.
In our unit, the universal enthusiasm for non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation on the part of nurses, doctors and patients motivated us to develop so-called nurse-administered propofol continuous infusion sedation (NAPCIS), which is a propofol delivery method that replicates the capabilities of CAPS by using programmable intravenous fluid infusion pumps commonly available in the hospital (Alaris® pump module; Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA). Patient selection criteria for NAPCIS are similar to those for CAPS; thus, NAPCIS is reserved for relatively healthy patients undergoing non-advanced, elective, outpatient GI procedures.
1. Mechanics
In NAPS, the propofol is typically delivered as small, frequent intermittent boluses. Given our experience with CAPS, we reasoned that propofol administered as a continuous infusion may be more effective and safer than a bolus strategy,82 even though previous experiences at other centers with continuous infusion propofol had been disappointing.83 NAPCIS delivers propofol as a continuous infusion after an optional loading dose of fentanyl, using a dosing and safety protocol identical to that in CAPS. Towards the end of 2016, we transitioned seamlessly from CAPS to NAPCIS.
2. Preliminary Data
In 2017, we presented preliminary data on NAPCIS.84 Between December 2016 and January 2017, 490 patients underwent outpatient EGD or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at our center. These subjects were compared against 2 historical control groups, consisting of similar low-risk patients who had undergone procedures with CAPS (228) or MF sedation (298). The procedural success rate with NAPCIS was high and similar to that seen in CAPS and MF. NAPCIS procedure times were significantly shorter compared against CAPS and MF; more importantly, recovery times were shorter than CAPS and much shorter than MF (Table 4).84 For NAPCIS, there were 2 cases of transient desaturation that required brief mask ventilation. There were no other serious complications such as intubation, having to call a “code,” unanticipated hospitalization, permanent injury or death. These low complication rates were similar to those seen with CAPS (only one case of mask ventilation) and MF (no mask ventilation). Most endoscopists and nurses found NAPCIS easier to perform than CAPS, and much superior to MF.
We have now performed NAPCIS on over 5,000 patients, with excellent completion rates (>99%), very low complication rates, no serious complications and high patient and endoscopist satisfaction. We believe that NAPCIS is a promising method to deliver non-anesthesiologist administered propofol sedation, but it is important to note that NAPCIS is not designed for medically unstable patients or highly complex endoscopic procedures. Since there is an absolute ceiling for the propofol infusion rate (200 µg/kg/min), NAPCIS may not offer adequate sedation for patients who are very tolerant to sedatives. These more challenging scenarios will still require the expertise of an anesthesia professional delivering general anesthesia or MAC.85
Many of the factors that pose as obstacles to the adoption of NAPS and CAPS also apply to NAPCIS as well. These include various regulatory, political and medicolegal issues. However, the most important obstacles are probably financial. At least in the United States, the current insurance coverage system makes MAC more financially attractive than NAPS or NAPCIS for providers,37 thus explaining the dramatic increase in MAC use while the use of non-anesthesia propofol sedation remains uncommon.10 However, with the anticipated advent of bundled payments for screening and surveillance colonoscopy,868788 non-anesthesiologist administered propofol sedation may become more attractive. Colonoscopy is an ideal candidate for bundling because it is a well-defined episode of care with little variability; elective EGD may also be an appropriate candidate. Bundling would involve payment of a prenegotiated amount that would cover the costs of the index procedure, any sedation or anesthesia, any pathologic analysis of biopsies, any repeat procedures (within a short period) performed because of poor bowel preparation or complications such as post-polypectomy bleed, and any secondary examinations such as virtual colonoscopy in cases of incomplete colonoscopy. Other methods of cost control, such as reference pricing, are also being investigated.8990 There is a delicate balance between cost control and maintenance of quality, making this an area of active research.
In conclusion, endoscopic sedation continues to evolve. In developed countries, it is expected that patients will demand more potent forms of sedation in the future, and thus propofol is likely to assume greater importance. Anesthesia-administered propofol sedation is effective and safe, but is limited by access and cost. CAPS is effective but unfortunately no longer available; nevertheless, non-anesthesia administered propofol sedation continues to be possible in the form of NAPS and NAPCIS. NAPS is already widely used in many European countries. The introduction of bundled payments may eventually make NAPS or NAPCIS the modality of choice in the United States. The roles played by these modalities will be determined by ongoing research on their efficacy and safety, as well by regulatory, medicolegal and financial factors.

Financial support: None.

Conflict of interest: Otto S. Lin served as a consultant for SEDASYS Inc.

  • 1. Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Standards of, Lichtenstein DR, Jagannath S, et al. Sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:815–826.PMID: 18984096.ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Ghanouni A, Plumb A, Hewitson P, Nickerson C, Rees CJ, von Wagner C. Patients' experience of colonoscopy in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Endoscopy 2016;48:232–240.PMID: 26841268.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 3. Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO). Radaelli F, Meucci G, Sgroi G, Minoli G. Technical performance of colonoscopy: the key role of sedation/analgesia and other quality indicators. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:1122–1130.PMID: 18445096.ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Cohen LB, Wecsler JS, Gaetano JN, et al. Endoscopic sedation in the United States: results from a nationwide survey. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:967–974.PMID: 16573781.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Gross JB, Bachenberg KL, Benumof JL, et al. Practice guidelines for the perioperative management of patients with obstructive sleep apnea: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Management of patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Anesthesiology 2006;104:1081–1093.PMID: 16645462.ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Sami SS, Subramanian V, Ortiz-Fernández-Sordo J, et al. Performance characteristics of unsedated ultrathin video endoscopy in the assessment of the upper GI tract: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:782–792.PMID: 26371850.ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Leung FW. Water-aided colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2013;42:507–519.PMID: 23931857.ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Portish V. Patients willing to try colonoscopy without sedation: associated clinical factors and results of a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 1999;49:554–559.PMID: 10228251.ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Liu H, Waxman DA, Main R, Mattke S. Utilization of anesthesia services during outpatient endoscopies and colonoscopies and associated spending in 2003-2009. JAMA 2012;307:1178–1184.PMID: 22436958.ArticlePubMed
  • 10. Predmore Z, Nie X, Main R, Mattke S, Liu H. Anesthesia service use during outpatient gastroenterology procedures continued to increase from 2010 to 2013 and potentially discretionary spending remained high. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:297–302.PMID: 27349340.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 11. Childers RE, Williams JL, Sonnenberg A. Practice patterns of sedation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:503–511.PMID: 25851159.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 12. Riphaus A, Macias-Gomez C, Devière J, Dumonceau JM. Propofol, the preferred sedation for screening colonoscopy, is underused. Results of an international survey. Dig Liver Dis 2012;44:389–392.PMID: 22119619.ArticlePubMed
  • 13. Zakko SF, Seifert HA, Gross JB. A comparison of midazolam and diazepam for conscious sedation during colonoscopy in a prospective double-blind study. Gastrointest Endosc 1999;49:684–689.PMID: 10343209.ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Lee MG, Hanna W, Harding H. Sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a comparative study of midazolam and diazepam. Gastrointest Endosc 1989;35:82–84.PMID: 2619791.ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Cole SG, Brozinsky S, Isenberg JI. Midazolam, a new more potent benzodiazepine, compared with diazepam: a randomized, double-blind study of preendoscopic sedatives. Gastrointest Endosc 1983;29:219–222.PMID: 6618119.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Horn E, Nesbit SA. Pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of sedatives and analgesics. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2004;14:247–268.PMID: 15121142.ArticlePubMed
  • 17. Waring JP, Baron TH, Hirota WK, et al. Guidelines for conscious sedation and monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:317–322.PMID: 14528201.ArticlePubMed
  • 18. McQuaid KR, Laine L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;67:910–923.PMID: 18440381.ArticlePubMed
  • 19. Wadhwa V, Issa D, Garg S, Lopez R, Sanaka MR, Vargo JJ. Similar risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events between propofol and traditional anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15:194–206.PMID: 27451091.ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Ulmer BJ, Hansen JJ, Overley CA, et al. Propofol versus midazolam/ fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003;1:425–432.PMID: 15017641.ArticlePubMed
  • 21. Watkins TJ, Bonds RL, Hodges K, Goettle BB, Dobson DA, Maye JP. Evaluation of postprocedure cognitive function using 3 distinct standard sedation regimens for endoscopic procedures. AANA J 2014;82:133–139.PMID: 24902456.PubMed
  • 22. Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Fujii H, Katsuyama Y, Ohmori S, Tanaka N. Psychomotor recovery and blood propofol level in colonoscopy when using propofol sedation. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:506–512.PMID: 22115604.ArticlePubMed
  • 23. Willey J, Vargo JJ, Connor JT, Dumot JA, Conwell DL, Zuccaro G. Quantitative assessment of psychomotor recovery after sedation and analgesia for outpatient EGD. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:810–816.PMID: 12447290.ArticlePubMed
  • 24. Qadeer MA, Vargo JJ, Khandwala F, Lopez R, Zuccaro G. Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005;3:1049–1056.PMID: 16271333.ArticlePubMed
  • 25. Wang D, Chen C, Chen J, et al. The use of propofol as a sedative agent in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013;8:e53311. PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053311. PMID: 23308191.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 26. Tsai HC, Lin YC, Ko CL, et al. Propofol versus midazolam for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2015;10:e0117585. PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117585. PMID: 25646815.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 27. Inadomi JM, Gunnarsson CL, Rizzo JA, Fang H. Projected increased growth rate of anesthesia professional-delivered sedation for colonoscopy and EGD in the United States: 2009 to 2015. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:580–586.PMID: 20630511.ArticlePubMed
  • 28. Khiani VS, Soulos P, Gancayco J, Gross CP. Anesthesiologist involvement in screening colonoscopy: temporal trends and cost implications in the Medicare population. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:58–64.e1.PMID: 21782768.ArticlePubMed
  • 29. Alharbi O, Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, et al. A population-based analysis of outpatient colonoscopy in adults assisted by an anesthesiologist. Anesthesiology 2009;111:734–740.PMID: 19741486.ArticlePubMed
  • 30. Inadomi JM. Editorial: endoscopic sedation: who, which, when? Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:303–305.PMID: 28154379.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 31. Hassan C, Rex DK, Cooper GS, Benamouzig R. Endoscopist-directed propofol administration versus anesthesiologist assistance for colorectal cancer screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Endoscopy 2012;44:456–464.PMID: 22531982.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 32. Dominitz JA, Baldwin LM, Green P, Kreuter WI, Ko CW. Regional variation in anesthesia assistance during outpatient colonoscopy is not associated with differences in polyp detection or complication rates. Gastroenterology 2013;144:298–306.PMID: 23103615.ArticlePubMed
  • 33. Fleisher LA. Assessing the value of “discretionary” clinical care: the case of anesthesia services for endoscopy. JAMA 2012;307:1200–1201.PMID: 22436962.ArticlePubMed
  • 34. Agrawal D, Rockey DC. Propofol for screening colonoscopy in low-risk patients: are we paying too much? JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:1836–1838.PMID: 23857456.ArticlePubMed
  • 35. Rex DK, Vargo JJ. Anesthetist-directed sedation for colonoscopy: a safe haven or siren's song? Gastroenterology 2016;150:801–803.PMID: 26924093.ArticlePubMed
  • 36. Repici A, Hassan C. The endoscopist, the anesthesiologists, and safety in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:109–111.PMID: 27986104.ArticlePubMed
  • 37. Rex DK. The science and politics of propofol. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:2080–2083.PMID: 15554982.ArticlePubMed
  • 38. Metwally M, Agresti N, Hale WB, et al. Conscious or unconscious: the impact of sedation choice on colon adenoma detection. World J Gastroenterol 2011;17:3912–3915.PMID: 22025879.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 39. Paspatis GA, Tribonias G, Manolaraki MM, et al. Deep sedation compared with moderate sedation in polyp detection during colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 2011;13:e137–e144.PMID: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02555.x. PMID: 21564466.ArticlePubMed
  • 40. Adeyemo A, Bannazadeh M, Riggs T, Shellnut J, Barkel D, Wasvary H. Does sedation type affect colonoscopy perforation rates? Dis Colon Rectum 2014;57:110–114.PMID: 24316954.ArticlePubMed
  • 41. Hsieh TK, Hung L, Kang FC, Lan KM, Poon PW, So EC. Anesthesia does not increase the rate of bowel perforation during colonoscopy: a retrospective study. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan 2009;47:162–166.PMID: 20015815.ArticlePubMed
  • 42. Korman LY, Haddad NG, Metz DC, et al. Effect of propofol anesthesia on force application during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79:657–662.PMID: 24472761.ArticlePubMed
  • 43. Lubarsky DA, Guercio JR, Hanna JW, et al. The impact of anesthesia providers on major morbidity following screening colonoscopies. J Multidiscip Healthc 2015;8:255–270.PMID: 26060404.PubMedPMC
  • 44. Wernli KJ, Brenner AT, Rutter CM, Inadomi JM. Risks associated with anesthesia services during colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2016;150:888–894.PMID: 26709032.ArticlePubMed
  • 45. Cooper GS, Kou TD, Rex DK. Complications following colonoscopy with anesthesia assistance: a population-based analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:551–556.PMID: 23478904.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 46. Vargo JJ, Niklewski PJ, Williams JL, Martin JF, Faigel DO. Patient safety during sedation by anesthesia professionals during routine upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: an analysis of 1.38 million procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:101–108.PMID: 26905938.ArticlePubMed
  • 47. Vargo JJ. Big NAPS, little NAPS, mixed NAPS, computerized NAPS: what is your flavor of propofol? Gastrointest Endosc 2007;66:457–459.PMID: 17725935.ArticlePubMed
  • 48. Rex DK, Overley CA, Walker J. Registered nurse-administered propofol sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: why? when? how? Rev Gastroenterol Disord 2003;3:70–80.PMID: 12776004.PubMed
  • 49. Orkin FK, Duncan PG. Substrate for healthcare reform: anesthesia's low-lying fruit. Anesthesiology 2009;111:697–698.PMID: 19707113.ArticlePubMed
  • 50. Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Beilenhoff U, et al. European curriculum for sedation training in gastrointestinal endoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA). Endoscopy 2013;45:496–504.PMID: 23702777.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 51. Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Schreiber F, et al. Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates guideline. Updated June 2015. Endoscopy 2015;47:1175–1189.PMID: 26561915.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 52. Vargo JJ, Cohen LB, Rex DK, et al. Position statement: nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Gastroenterology 2009;137:2161–2167.PMID: 19961989.ArticlePubMed
  • 53. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologists. Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology 2002;96:1004–1017.PMID: 11964611.ArticlePubMed
  • 54. bng-Study-Group. Sieg A, Beck S, et al. Safety analysis of endoscopist-directed propofol sedation: a prospective, national multicenter study of 24,441 patients in German outpatient practices. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;29:517–523.PMID: 24716213.ArticlePubMed
  • 55. Rex DK, Deenadayalu VP, Eid E, et al. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience. Gastroenterology 2009;137:1229–1237.PMID: 19549528.ArticlePubMed
  • 56. Rex DK, Heuss LT, Walker JA, Qi R. Trained registered nurses/endoscopy teams can administer propofol safely for endoscopy. Gastroenterology 2005;129:1384–1391.PMID: 16285939.ArticlePubMed
  • 57. Sathananthan D, Young E, Nind G, et al. Assessing the safety of physician-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation in low-risk patients undergoing endoscopy and colonoscopy. Endosc Int Open 2017;5:E110–E115.PMID: 28210707.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 58. Sipe BW, Rex DK, Latinovich D, et al. Propofol versus midazolam/ meperidine for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55:815–825.PMID: 12024134.ArticlePubMed
  • 59. Walker JA, McIntyre RD, Schleinitz PF, et al. Nurse-administered propofol sedation without anesthesia specialists in 9152 endoscopic cases in an ambulatory surgery center. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:1744–1750.PMID: 12907328.ArticlePubMed
  • 60. Poincloux L, Laquière A, Bazin JE, et al. A randomized controlled trial of endoscopist vs. anaesthetist-administered sedation for colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 2011;43:553–558.PMID: 21450542.ArticlePubMed
  • 61. Rex DK, Overley C, Kinser K, et al. Safety of propofol administered by registered nurses with gastroenterologist supervision in 2000 endoscopic cases. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1159–1163.PMID: 12014721.ArticlePubMed
  • 62. Riphaus A. NAPS in 2016: why not everywhere? Endosc Int Open 2017;5:E222–E223.PMID: 28317019.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 63. Dumonceau JM. Nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol: it's all about money. Endoscopy 2012;44:453–455.PMID: 22531981.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 64. Rex DK. Effect of the centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy about deep sedation on use of propofol. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:622–626.PMID: 21536938.ArticlePubMed
  • 65. Aisenberg J, Cohen LB, Piorkowski JD Jr. Propofol use under the direction of trained gastroenterologists: an analysis of the medicolegal implications. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:707–713.PMID: 17397402.ArticlePubMed
  • 66. Mandel JE, Lichtenstein GR, Metz DC, Ginsberg GG, Kochman ML. A prospective, randomized, comparative trial evaluating respiratory depression during patient-controlled versus anesthesiologist-administered propofol-remifentanil sedation for elective colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:112–117.PMID: 20493481.ArticlePubMed
  • 67. Külling D, Orlandi M, Inauen W. Propofol sedation during endoscopic procedures: how much staff and monitoring are necessary? Gastrointest Endosc 2007;66:443–449.PMID: 17725933.ArticlePubMed
  • 68. Roseveare C, Seavell C, Patel P, et al. Patient-controlled sedation and analgesia, using propofol and alfentanil, during colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 1998;30:768–773.PMID: 9932756.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 69. Liu SY, Poon CM, Leung TL, et al. Nurse-administered propofol-alfentanil sedation using a patient-controlled analgesia pump compared with opioid-benzodiazepine sedation for outpatient colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2009;41:522–528.PMID: 19440955.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 70. Pambianco DJ, Whitten CJ, Moerman A, Struys MM, Martin JF. An assessment of computer-assisted personalized sedation: a sedation delivery system to administer propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:542–547.PMID: 18511048.ArticlePubMed
  • 71. Pambianco DJ, Vargo JJ, Pruitt RE, Hardi R, Martin JF. Computer-assisted personalized sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: a comparative, multicenter randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:765–772.PMID: 21168841.ArticlePubMed
  • 72. Lin OS, Kozarek RA, Tombs D, et al. The first US clinical experience with computer-assisted propofol sedation: a retrospective observational comparative study on efficacy, safety, efficiency, and endoscopist and patient satisfaction. Anesth Analg 2017;9 17 PMID: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001898.Article
  • 73. Vargo J, Howard K, Petrillo J, Scott J, Revicki DA. Development and validation of the patient and clinician sedation satisfaction index for colonoscopy and upper endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;7:156–162.PMID: 18930167.ArticlePubMed
  • 74. Lin OS, La Selva D, Kozarek RA, et al. One year experience with computer-assisted propofol sedation for colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2017;23:2964–2971.PMID: 28522914.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 75. Lin OS, La Selva D, Tombs D, Kozarek RA, Ross AS. One year experience with computer-assisted propofol sedation for esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83(5 Suppl): AB534–AB535.Article
  • 76. Horiuchi A, Graham DY. Special topics in procedural sedation: clinical challenges and psychomotor recovery. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;80:404–409.PMID: 24981806.ArticlePubMed
  • 77. Vargo JJ, Bramley T, Meyer K, Nightengale B. Practice efficiency and economics: the case for rapid recovery sedation agents for colonoscopy in a screening population. J Clin Gastroenterol 2007;41:591–598.PMID: 17577116.ArticlePubMed
  • 78. Koch J, Tombs D, Lin OS, et al. Economic impact of computer assisted propofol sedation. Gastroenterology 2016;150(4 Suppl 1): S101.Article
  • 79. Singh PM, Borle A, Goudra BG. Use of computer-assisted drug therapy outside the operating room. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2016;29:506–511.PMID: 27054414.ArticlePubMed
  • 80. Hirshman S, Mattke S, Liu H. Anesthesia service use and the uptake of screening colonoscopies. Med Care 2017;55:623–628.PMID: 28002204.ArticlePubMed
  • 81. Liu H, Mattke S, Predmore ZS. Medicare coverage of anesthesia services during screening colonoscopies for patients at low risk of sedation-related complications. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:1848–1850.PMID: 26348629.ArticlePubMed
  • 82. Martínez JF, Aparicio JR, Compañy L, et al. Safety of continuous propofol sedation for endoscopic procedures in elderly patients. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2011;103:76–82.PMID: 21366368.ArticlePubMed
  • 83. Riphaus A, Geist C, Schrader K, Martchenko K, Wehrmann T. Intermittent manually controlled versus continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation during interventional endoscopy: a prospective randomized trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 2012;47:1078–1085.PMID: 22631051.ArticlePubMed
  • 84. Lin OS, Kozarek RA, Tombs D, Ross AS. Nurse administered propofol continuous infusion sedation (NAPCIS): a new paradigm for GI procedure sedation. Gastroenterology 2017;152(5 Suppl 1): S1314.Article
  • 85. Goudra BG, Singh PM. SEDASYS, sedation, and the unknown. J Clin Anesth 2014;26:334–336.PMID: 24916898.ArticlePubMed
  • 86. Brill JV, Jain R, Margolis PS, et al. A bundled payment framework for colonoscopy performed for colorectal cancer screening or surveillance. Gastroenterology 2014;146:849–853.e9.PMID: 24480681.ArticlePubMed
  • 87. Patel K, Presser E, George M, McClellan M. Shifting away from fee-for-service: alternative approaches to payment in gastroenterology. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;14:497–506.PMID: 26122765.ArticlePubMed
  • 88. Dorn SD. The road ahead 3.0: changing payments, changing practice. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;14:785–789.PMID: 27062930.ArticlePubMed
  • 89. Lieberman D, Allen J. New approaches to controlling health care costs: bending the cost curve for colonoscopy. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:1789–1791.PMID: 26348112.ArticlePubMed
  • 90. Robinson JC, Brown TT, Whaley C, Finlayson E. Association of reference payment for colonoscopy with consumer choices, insurer spending, and procedural complications. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:1783–1789.PMID: 26348851.ArticlePubMedPMC
Table 1

Definition of American Society of Anesthesiologists Levels of Sedation and Anesthesia5

ir-15-456-i001.jpg
Minimal sedation (anxiolysis) Moderate sedation (conscious sedation) Deep sedation General anesthesia
Responsiveness Normal response to verbal stimuli Purposeful response to verbal or tactile stimuli Purposeful response to noxious stimuli or insistent verbal stimuli Unarousable
Airway Normal No intervention needed Intervention may be needed Airway support needed
Spontaneous ventilation Normal Adequate Usually inadequate Ventilatory support usually needed
Cardiovascular function Normal Usually maintained Usually maintained May be impaired
Table 2

Properties of Commonly Used Sedative Agents for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

ir-15-456-i002.jpg
Agent Onset of action (min) Peak effect (min) Duration of effect (min) Metabolism Excretion Reversal agent
Midazolam 1.0–2.5 3.0–4.0 15.0–80.0 Hepatic Renal Flumazenil
Fentanyl 1.0–2.0 3.0–5.0 30.0–60.0 Hepatic Renal Naloxone
Propofol 0.5–1.0 1.0–2.0 4.0–8.0 Hepatic Renal None
Table 3

Procedural Success Rate, Colonoscopic Polyp Detection Rates, Procedure Times, Recovery Times, Patient and Endoscopist Satisfaction Scores, and Adverse Events72

ir-15-456-i003.jpg
Prevalence CAPS (n=244) MF (n=328) P-value
Procedural success rate (%)
 EGD 98.2 98.7 0.958
 Colonoscopy 98.9 98.8 0.592
Polyp detection rate (%) 54.5 59.3 0.666
Patient satisfaction (PSSI scores)
 EGD sedation adequacy 92.9 91.7 0.855
 Colonoscopy sedation adequacy 94.8 89.9 0.002a
 EGD recovery process 92.3 92.4 0.795
 Colonoscopy recovery process 96.0 90.1 <0.001a
 EGD global satisfaction 94.8 95.4 0.704
 Colonoscopy global satisfaction 97.0 93.7 <0.001a
Endoscopist satisfaction (CSSI scores)
 EGD recovery process 89.1 69.2 <0.001a
 Colonoscopy recovery process 95.9 75.4 <0.001a
 EGD global satisfaction 79.9 78.6 0.555
 Colonoscopy global satisfaction 94.1 83.8 <0.001a
Procedure time (min)
 EGD 12.5 11.3 0.183
 Colonoscopy 25.0 24.8 0.891
Recovery time (min) 26.4 39.1 <0.001a
Overall adverse events (%) 4.1b,c 4.0d 0.910

Patient satisfaction was measured using a validated 19-item questionnaire, the Patient Sedation Satisfaction Index (PSSI),73 administered immediately prior to the patient's departure from our unit.

Endoscopist satisfaction was measured using another validated 21-item questionnaire, the Clinician Sedation Satisfaction Index (CSSI),73 administered shortly after each procedure. Scores can range from 0 to 100, with higher scores denoting higher satisfaction.

aSignifies statistically significant P-values.

bIncluding 4 cases of agitation due to undersedation during EGDs, and 2 cases of desaturation, 3 of hypotension and 1 of agitation from undersedation during colonoscopies.

cIn terms of serious adverse events, 1 patient required brief mask ventilation for desaturation during colonoscopy. Another patient had presented with bloody diarrhea and was diagnosed with ischemic colitis during the colonoscopy, dying 14 days after the procedure from sepsis and multi-organ failure (this death was not felt to be caused by the colonoscopy).

dIncluding 3 cases of agitation due to undersedation during EGDs, 2 cases of desaturation, 3 of hypotension and 1 of agitation from undersedation during colonoscopies, and 1 case of hypotension and 2 of agitation due to undersedation.

CAPS, computer-assisted propofol sedation; MF, midazolam fentanyl; EGD, esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

Table 4

Outcomes for Procedures Performed with NAPCIS, CAPS, and MF Sedation84

ir-15-456-i004.jpg
NAPCIS (n=490) CAPS (n=228) P-valuea MF (n=298) P-valueb
Procedural success rate (%) 98.6 98.7 0.85 98.8 0.78
Mean upper endoscopy procedure time (min) 8.6 12.5 <0.01c 11.3 <0.01c
Mean colonoscopy procedure time (min) 22.0 25.0 <0.01c 24.8 <0.01c
Mean recovery time (min) 23.2 26.4 <0.01c 39.1 <0.01c

aP-value, nurse-administered propofol continuous infusion sedation (NAPCIS) versus computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) comparison.

bP-value, NAPCIS versus midazolam fentanyl (MF) comparison.

cSignifies statistically significant P-values.

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Association of anaesthesia‐directed sedation with unplanned discharge to a nursing home following non‐ambulatory interventional radiology and endoscopic procedures: a retrospective cohort study*
      Annika Eyth, Felix Borngaesser, Osamah M. Zmily, Maíra I. Rudolph, Ling Zhang, Vilma A. Joseph, Oleg V. Evgenov, Jason Oliveira, Nicholas Kolmel, Seena Dehkharghani, Irene Osborn, Michael E. Kiyatkin, Andrew D. Racine, Peter P. Semczuk, Shweta Garg, Karun
      Anaesthesia.2025; 80(3): 288.     CrossRef
    • Noninferiority Study of the Effects of Remimazolam Tosylate Versus Propofol on Cognitive Function in Elderly Patients Undergoing Elective Outpatient Colonoscopy
      Hang Li, Ze-yu Duan, Ye-Ping Mo, Wei-Feng Yu, Yong-Ming Chen
      American Journal of Therapeutics.2025; 32(1): e40.     CrossRef
    • Pre-endoscopy Anesthesiology Clinic Evaluation Does Not Reduce Adverse Event Rates for High-risk for Sedation Patients
      Tamar Thurm, Niv Zmora, Rafael Bruck, Nir Bar, Adam Philips, Oren Shibolet, Liat Deutsch
      Journal of Patient Safety.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Engineered Living Systems Based on Gelatin: Design, Manufacturing, and Applications
      Zhenwu Wang, Zeng Lin, Xuan Mei, Ling Cai, Ko‐Chih Lin, Jimena Flores Rodríguez, Zixin Ye, Ximena Salazar Parraguez, Emilio Mireles Guajardo, Pedro Cortés García Luna, Jun Yi Joey Zhang, Yu Shrike Zhang
      Advanced Materials.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Randomized Controlled Trial of Ketamine and Moderate Sedation for Outpatient Endoscopy in Adults
      Jerome C Edelson, Cyrus V Edelson, Don C Rockey, Amilcar L Morales, Kevin K Chung, Matthew J Robles, Johanna H Marowske, Anish A Patel, Scott F. D Edelson, Stalin R Subramanian, John G Gancayco
      Military Medicine.2024; 189(1-2): 313.     CrossRef
    • Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation Training Curricula and Propofol Administration in Digestive Endoscopy Procedures
      Andrea Minciullo, Lucia Filomeno
      Gastroenterology Nursing.2024; 47(1): 33.     CrossRef
    • Effect of moderate versus deep sedation on recovery following outpatient gastroscopy in older patients: a randomized controlled trial
      Bing Chen, Lin Lu, Jie Zhai, Zhen Hua
      Surgical Endoscopy.2024; 38(3): 1273.     CrossRef
    • Quality Standards in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Can Deep Sedation Influence It?
      Catarina Correia, Nuno Almeida, Raquel Andrade, Mariana Sant’Anna, Cláudia Macedo, David Perdigoto, Carlos Gregório, Pedro Narra Figueiredo
      GE - Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology.2024; 31(2): 101.     CrossRef
    • Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy within elderly patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
      Wania Ahmer, Sahar Imtiaz, Daniyal Muhammad Alam, Khadija Ahmed, Barka Sajid, Juvairia Yousuf, Sunny Asnani, Muhammad Ahmed Ali Fahim, Rahmeen Ali, Marium Mansoor, Muhammad Talha Safdar, Muhammad Umair Anjum, Muhammad Hasanain, Muhammad Omar Larik
      European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.2024; 80(4): 493.     CrossRef
    • Providing Safe Anesthetic Care and Sedation for GI Endoscopy
      Sheetal Kedar, Ryan M. Chadha
      Current Anesthesiology Reports.2024; 14(2): 161.     CrossRef
    • The effective dose of remimazolam in adult gastroscopy
      Rongyan Zhang, Gang Zhao, Zhangjun Yan, Hongmei Xuan, Yan Chen
      Indian Journal of Pharmacology.2024; 56(1): 10.     CrossRef
    • Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation of acupuncture points improves tolerance in adults undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial
      Jun Sen Chuah, Jih Huei Tan, Mohamad Adam Bujang, Koon Khee Chan, Nik Ritza Kosai
      Surgical Endoscopy.2024; 38(6): 3279.     CrossRef
    • Marijuana and endoscopy: the effects of marijuana on sedation
      Justin Kosirog, Christopher Bouvette, Jiteshwar Pannu, Jalal Gondal, Mohammad Madhoun
      Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2024; 100(2): 177.     CrossRef
    • Remimazolam for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A comprehensive review
      Dushyant Singh Dahiya, Ganesh Kumar, Syeda Parsa, Manesh Kumar Gangwani, Hassam Ali, Amir Humza Sohail, Saqr Alsakarneh, Umar Hayat, Sheza Malik, Yash R Shah, Bhanu Siva Mohan Pinnam, Sahib Singh, Islam Mohamed, Adishwar Rao, Saurabh Chandan, Mohammad Al-
      World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2024; 16(7): 385.     CrossRef
    • The relationship between demographics and reactions during endoscopy under moderate sedation.
      İsmail Çalıkoğlu, Alaaddin Aydın, Şeref Oray, Sercan Yüksel, Uğur Topal, Erdal Karaköse, Zafer Teke, Hasan Bektaş
      Cukurova Anestezi ve Cerrahi Bilimler Dergisi.2024; 7(2): 94.     CrossRef
    • Remimazolam and Its Place in the Current Landscape of Procedural Sedation and General Anesthesia
      Matthew Brohan, Janette Brohan, Basavana Goudra
      Journal of Clinical Medicine.2024; 13(15): 4362.     CrossRef
    • Minimally Invasive Sampling of Mediastinal Lesions
      Alberto Fantin, Nadia Castaldo, Ernesto Crisafulli, Giulia Sartori, Alice Villa, Elide Felici, Stefano Kette, Filippo Patrucco, Erik H. F. M. van der Heijden, Paolo Vailati, Giuseppe Morana, Vincenzo Patruno
      Life.2024; 14(10): 1291.     CrossRef
    • EVALUATION OF THE PROMETHAZINE EFFECT ON SEDATION AND QUALITY OF THE UPPER ESOPHAGEAL GASTRO ENDOSCOPY
      Mohammad Reza Pashaei, Shahram Hoseinlou, Parvin Ayremlou
      Studies in Medical Sciences.2024; 35(5): 418.     CrossRef
    • Analysis of painful situations during unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy
      Hiromitsu Kanzaki, Sakiko Kuraoka, Takuya Satomi, Shotaro Okanoue, Kenta Hamada, Yoshiyasu Kono, Masaya Iwamuro, Seiji Kawano, Yoshiro Kawahara, Hiroyuki Okada, Motoyuki Otsuka
      Endoscopy International Open.2024; 12(11): E1267.     CrossRef
    • Factors affecting patient satisfaction during endoscopic procedures
      Ghazala Maryam, Rashk E-Hinna, Saman Sardar, Jahangir Khan, Javaria Isram, Fayyaz Hassan
      Scripta Medica.2024; 55(6): 749.     CrossRef
    • Effect of visual distraction on pain in adults undergoing colonoscopy: a meta-analysis
      Yuan-Yuan Zhang, Ramoo Vimala, Ping Lei Chui, Ida Normiha Hilmi
      Surgical Endoscopy.2023; 37(4): 2633.     CrossRef
    • Use of Dexmedetomidine in Conscious Sedation for Oesophageal Stent Placement in a High-Risk Patient
      Prashant Sirohiya, Smita Reddy, Jasmeet Gill, Naveen Kumar
      Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy.2023; 37(2): 114.     CrossRef
    • The Emerging Role of Virtual Reality as an Adjunct to Procedural Sedation and Anesthesia: A Narrative Review
      Rita Hitching, Hunter G. Hoffman, Azucena Garcia-Palacios, Maheen M. Adamson, Esmeralda Madrigal, Wadee Alhalabi, Ahad Alhudali, Mariana Sampaio, Barry Peterson, Miles R. Fontenot, Keira P. Mason
      Journal of Clinical Medicine.2023; 12(3): 843.     CrossRef
    • A framework for the assessment and treatment of patients for failed sedation in non-operating room settings
      George Tewfik, Daniel Rodriguez, Erica Spano
      Journal of Clinical Anesthesia.2023; 86: 111078.     CrossRef
    • Time and Motion at the Endoscopy Unit—A University Hospital Experience
      Simon Söderberg, Nils Nyhlin, Axelina Moro, Christina Figaro, Emelie Fransson, Jennie Stefansdotter, Malin Schagerström, Maria Lindblad, Martin Ahlzén, Olga Zukovets, Sofia Borell, Viktoria Johansson, Marianne Axman, Anette Wendt, Hanna Falck, Michiel A.
      Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Gelatin‐Based Ingestible Impedance Sensor to Evaluate Gastrointestinal Epithelial Barriers
      Gaurav Balakrishnan, Arnav Bhat, Durva Naik, Julie Shin Kim, Sona Marukyan, Lily Gido, Mia Ritter, Aditya S. Khair, Christopher J. Bettinger
      Advanced Materials.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Ciprofol versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
      Xiaoyu Qin, Xiaoting Lu, Lu Tang, Chunai Wang, Jianjun Xue
      BMJ Open.2023; 13(5): e071438.     CrossRef
    • Comparison of the Sedative Effect of Ketamine, Magnesium Sulfate, and Propofol in Patients Undergoing Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Double-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial
      Hamed Shafiee, Farahnaz Riahipour, Ahmad Hormati, Sajjad Ahmadpour, Mohammad Amin Habibi, Mostafa Vahedian, Reza Aminnejad, Mohammad Saeidi
      CNS & Neurological Disorders - Drug Targets.2023; 22(8): 1259.     CrossRef
    • Nebulised dexmedetomidine for patient’s comfort and satisfaction during diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A double-blind randomised controlled study
      Bhavna Sriramka, Shikha Awal, Diptimayee Mallik, Jimmy Narayan
      Indian Journal of Anaesthesia.2023; 67(9): 825.     CrossRef
    • Operational outcomes of propofol sedation versus fentanyl, midazolam and diphenhydramine sedation for endoscopies and colonoscopies at an academic medical center
      Andrew L. Mariotti, Jack Pattee, Steven A. Edmundowicz, Terran D. Hardesty, Savita M. Sharma, M. G. Lemley, Scott D. Rist, Nathaen Weitzel, Adeel A. Faruki, Stefano Turi
      PLOS ONE.2023; 18(11): e0294418.     CrossRef
    • Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygenation on the Prevention of Hypoxia During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Elderly Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial
      Man-Jong Lee, Boram Cha, Jin-Seok Park, Jung Soo Kim, Sang Yong Cho, Joung-Ho Han, Mi Hwa Park, Chunwoo Yang, Seok Jeong
      Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2022; 67(8): 4154.     CrossRef
    • Anesthesiological support during gastroscopy and colonoscopy: availability, effectiveness and safety of applied methods
      A. M. Dolgunov, D. A. Dolgunov, T. V. Balashova, N. A. Andreeva
      Pacific Medical Journal.2022; (4): 34.     CrossRef
    • Efficacy of high flow nasal oxygenation against hypoxemia in sedated patients receiving gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis
      Kuo-Chuan Hung, Ying-Jen Chang, I-Wen Chen, Tien-Chou Soong, Chun-Ning Ho, Chung-Hsi Hsing, Chin-Chen Chu, Jen-Yin Chen, Cheuk-Kwan Sun
      Journal of Clinical Anesthesia.2022; 77: 110651.     CrossRef
    • Comparing performance of Wei nasal jet tube and nasal cannula during flexible bronchoscopy with sedation
      Xing Tao, Fu-Shan Xue, Bin Hu, Tian Tian
      European Journal of Anaesthesiology.2022; 39(3): 297.     CrossRef
    • Factors Associated with Withdrawal Time in European Colonoscopy Practice: Findings of the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group
      Cristiano Spada, Anastasios Koulaouzidis, Cesare Hassan, Pedro Amaro, Anurag Agrawal, Lene Brink, Wolfgang Fischbach, Matthias Hünger, Rodrigo Jover, Urpo Kinnunen, Akiko Ono, Árpád Patai, Silvia Pecere, Lucio Petruzziello, Jürgen F. Riemann, Harry Staine
      Diagnostics.2022; 12(2): 503.     CrossRef
    • Evaluation of anesthesia quality with three methods: “propofol + fentanyl” vs. “propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine” vs. “propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine + ketamine” in patients referred to the scoping ward
      Sepehr Edalatkhah, Ebrahim Hazrati, Mahmoodreza Hashemi, Alireza Golaghaei, Behroz Kheradmand, Mohamadreza Rafiei
      Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care.2022; 11(2): 672.     CrossRef
    • Post-procedure Rhinitis After Use of Sedatives and Supplemental Nasal Oxygen
      Sharmela Brijmohan, Tanganyika Barnes
      Cureus.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Meta-analysis comparing the efficiency of high-flow nasal cannula versus low-flow nasal cannula in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
      Mohamed Gamal, Manar Ahmed Kamal, Mohamed Abuelazm, Amman Yousaf, Basel Abdelazeem
      Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings.2022; 35(4): 485.     CrossRef
    • High flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy in gastrointestinal endoscopy with conscious sedation: Systematic review and meta‐analysis with trial sequential analysis
      Wan‐Jie Gu, Hao‐Tian Wang, Jiao Huang, Jun‐Peng Pei, Kazuhiro Nishiyama, Masanobu Abe, Zhe‐Ming Zhao, Chun‐Dong Zhang
      Digestive Endoscopy.2022; 34(6): 1136.     CrossRef
    • Illicit Drug Use and Endoscopy: When Do We Say No?
      John P. Gallagher, Patrick A. Twohig, Agnes Crnic, Fedja A. Rochling
      Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2022; 67(12): 5371.     CrossRef
    • Efficacy and Safety of Exploring Deeper Sections of the Infrapapillary Area of the Duodenum by Using Sedative Esophagogastroduodenoscopy
      Ming-Tse Hsu, Chi-Yi Chen, Kai-Sheng Liao, Wei-Sheng Chung, Tatsuya Toyokawa
      Gastroenterology Research and Practice.2022; 2022: 1.     CrossRef
    • Ketamine as the main analgesic agent during analgesia-based sedation for elective colonoscopy – A randomised, double-blind, control study
      Mirza Kovačević, Nermina Rizvanović, Adisa Šabanović Adilović, Jasmina Smajić, Selma Sijerčić
      Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia.2022; 16(4): 423.     CrossRef
    • Efficacy and safety of midazolam combined with dezocine for sedation and analgesia in digestive endoscopy: A prospective open single-center study
      Yongpeng Chen, Jiachen Sun, Yi Lu, Liping Fu, Xueyuan Xiang, Yanan Liu, Xianhua Zhuo, Mirigul Kurban, Chujun Li
      Frontiers in Pharmacology.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients Who Are Difficult to Sedate
      Hyun Seok Lee, Navroop Nagra, Danielle La Selva, Richard A. Kozarek, Andrew Ross, Wade Weigel, Ryan Beecher, Michael Chiorean, Michael Gluck, Elisa Boden, Nanda Venu, Rajesh Krishnamoorthi, Michael Larsen, Otto S. Lin
      Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2021; 19(1): 180.     CrossRef
    • Estimation of effective dose of propofol mono‐sedation for successful insertion of upper gastrointestinal endoscope in healthy, non‐obese Chinese adults
      Fu K. Liu, Lei Wan, Liu J. Z. Shao, Yi Zou, Shao H. Liu, Fu S. Xue
      Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics.2021; 46(2): 484.     CrossRef
    • Effect of intravenous administration of lidocaine on the ED50 of propofol induction dose during gastroscopy in adult patients: A randomized, controlled study
      Haoran Liu, Mengmeng Chen, Chaohui Lian, Junzheng Wu, Wangning Shangguan
      Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics.2021; 46(3): 711.     CrossRef
    • Leitlinien in der Praxis: Sedierung in der gastrointestinalen Endoskopie
      Peter H. Tonner
      AINS - Anästhesiologie · Intensivmedizin · Notfallmedizin · Schmerztherapie.2021; 56(03): 201.     CrossRef
    • Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation: A New Paradigm for Gastrointestinal Procedural Sedation
      Otto S. Lin, Danielle La Selva, Richard A. Kozarek, Wade Weigel, Ryan Beecher, Michael Gluck, Michael Chiorean, Elisa Boden, Nanda Venu, Rajesh Krishnamoorthi, Michael Larsen, Andrew Ross
      American Journal of Gastroenterology.2021; 116(4): 710.     CrossRef
    • The importance of preoperative instructions and their role in patient safety in the provision of conscious sedation for dental care
      Thomas Flavell, Katherine Wilson, Nicholas Girdler
      Faculty Dental Journal.2021; 12(2): 97.     CrossRef
    • High-flow nasal oxygenation or standard oxygenation for gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation in patients at risk of hypoxaemia: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (ODEPHI trial)
      Mai-Anh Nay, Lucie Fromont, Axelle Eugene, Jean-Louis Marcueyz, Willy-Serge Mfam, Olivier Baert, Francis Remerand, Céline Ravry, Adrien Auvet, Thierry Boulain
      British Journal of Anaesthesia.2021; 127(1): 133.     CrossRef
    • Propofol Combined with Fentanyl Is Superior to Propofol Alone in Sedation Protocols for Painless Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Jie Chang, Chun Yang, Songwen Tan
      Journal of Nanomaterials.2021; 2021: 1.     CrossRef
    • Oxygen supplementation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation
      Bin Hu, Tian Tian, Fu-Shan Xue
      Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie.2021; 68(9): 1444.     CrossRef
    • Comparison of Lidocaine Spray and Lidocaine Ice Popsicle in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A Single Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
      Prasit Mahawongkajit, Nantawat Talalak, Neranchala Soonthornkes
      Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology.2021; Volume 14: 209.     CrossRef
    • Autonomous Nervous Response During Sedation in Colonoscopy and the Relationship With Clinician Satisfaction
      Alexander Hann, Sascha Gruss, Sebastian Goetze, Niklas Mehlhase, Stephan Frisch, Benjamin Walter, Steffen Walter
      Frontiers in Medicine.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Comparative Safety Profiles of Sedatives Commonly Used in Clinical Practice: A 10-Year Nationwide Pharmacovigilance Study in Korea
      Yeo-Jin Choi, Seung-Won Yang, Won-Gun Kwack, Jun-Kyu Lee, Tae-Hee Lee, Jae-Yong Jang, Eun-Kyoung Chung
      Pharmaceuticals.2021; 14(8): 783.     CrossRef
    • Thoughts on factors related to colonoscopy quality
      Jing-Zhai Wang, Yu Zhang, Qiang Guo
      World Chinese Journal of Digestology.2021; 29(17): 977.     CrossRef
    • Risk Factors for Prolonged Hospital Stay after Endoscopy
      Toshihiro Nishizawa, Shuntaro Yoshida, Osamu Toyoshima, Tatsuya Matsuno, Masataka Irokawa, Toru Arano, Hirotoshi Ebinuma, Hidekazu Suzuki, Takanori Kanai, Kazuhiko Koike
      Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(6): 851.     CrossRef
    • Safety of endoscopist-administered deep sedation with propofol in patients ASA III
      Lucía Medina-Prado, Juan Martínez, Maryana Bozhychko, Carolina Mangas-Sanjuan, Luis Compañy Catal�, Francisco Ruiz Gómez, José Ramón Aparicio Tormo, Juan Antonio Casellas Valde
      Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Does propofol mode of administration influence psychomotor recovery time after sedation for colonoscopy
      Philippe J. Van der Linden, Hans Verdoodt, Etienne Métallo, Chantal Plasman, Jean-François Fils, Denis Schmartz
      Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia.2021; 15(4): 390.     CrossRef
    • Sedation During Endoscopy in Patients with Cirrhosis: Safety and Predictors of Adverse Events
      Jerome Edelson, Alejandro L. Suarez, Jingwen Zhang, Don C. Rockey
      Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2020; 65(4): 1258.     CrossRef
    • Are Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures Performed by Anesthesiologists Safer Than When Sedation is Given by the Endoscopist?
      Richard Kozarek
      Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2020; 18(9): 1935.     CrossRef
    • Robotic colonoscopy: efficacy, tolerability and safety. Preliminary clinical results from a pilot study
      Antonello Trecca, Filippo Catalano, Antonino Bella, Raffaele Borghini
      Surgical Endoscopy.2020; 34(3): 1442.     CrossRef
    • A randomized double-blinded non-inferiority trial comparing fentanyl and midazolam with pethidine and diazepam for pain relief during oocyte retrieval
      Shui Fan Lai, Mei Ting Lam, Hang Wun Raymond Li, Ernest Hung Yu Ng
      Reproductive BioMedicine Online.2020; 40(5): 653.     CrossRef
    • Effects of remifentanil on awakening of propofol sedated patients submitted to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized clinical trial
      Gustavo Nadal Uliana, Elizabeth Milla Tambara, Renato Tambara Filho, Giorgio Alfredo Pedroso Baretta
      Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English Edition).2020; 70(3): 262.     CrossRef
    • Efeitos do remifentanil sobre despertar de pacientes sedados com propofol para endoscopia digestiva alta: estudo clínico randomizado
      Gustavo Nadal Uliana, Elizabeth Milla Tambara, Renato Tambara Filho, Giorgio Alfredo Pedroso Baretta
      Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology.2020; 70(3): 262.     CrossRef
    • Medical, Political, and Economic Considerations for the Use of MAC for Endoscopic Sedation: Big Price, Little Justification?
      Basavana Goudra, Preet Mohinder Singh, Gary R. Lichtenstein
      Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2020; 65(9): 2466.     CrossRef
    • Deep sedation using propofol target-controlled infusion for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a retrospective cohort study
      María E. García Guzzo, María S. Fernandez, Delfina Sanchez Novas, Sandra S. Salgado, Sergio A. Terrasa, Gonzalo Domenech, Carlos A. Teijido
      BMC Anesthesiology.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Risk Factors for Predicting Hypoxia in Adult Patients Undergoing Bronchoscopy under Sedation
      Ji Soo Choi, Eun Hye Lee, Sang Hoon Lee, Ah Young Leem, Kyung Soo Chung, Song Yee Kim, Ji Ye Jung, Young Ae Kang, Moo Suk Park, Joon Chang, Young Sam Kim
      Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases.2020; 83(4): 276.     CrossRef
    • Efficacy and Safety of Etomidate in Comparison with Propofol or Midazolam as Sedative for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Jae Hyun Kim, Sanghwan Byun, Youn Jung Choi, Hye Jung Kwon, Kyoungwon Jung, Sung Eun Kim, Moo In Park, Won Moon, Seun Ja Park
      Clinical Endoscopy.2020; 53(5): 555.     CrossRef
    • Feasibility of a transmucosal sublingual fentanyl tablet as a procedural pain treatment in colonoscopy patients: a prospective placebo-controlled randomized study
      Mari Fihlman, E. Karru, P. Varpe, H. Huhtinen, N. Hagelberg, T. I. Saari, K. T. Olkkola
      Scientific Reports.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Discharge following sedation for endoscopic procedures: a best practice implementation project
      Xianli Cai, Alexa McArthur
      JBI Evidence Synthesis.2020; 18(2): 348.     CrossRef
    • Acute abdominal obstruction: Colon stent or emergency surgery? An evidence-based review
      Igor Braga Ribeiro, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura, Christopher C Thompson, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura
      World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2019; 11(3): 193.     CrossRef
    • Factors related to paradoxical reactions during propofol-induced sedated endoscopy
      Seung Hwa Lee, Gyu Min Lee, Dong Ryul Lee, Jung Un Lee
      Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology.2019; 54(3): 371.     CrossRef
    • The rise, fall, and future direction of computer-assisted personalized sedation
      James F. Martin, Paul J. Niklewski, Jeffrey D. White
      Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology.2019; 32(4): 480.     CrossRef
    • Efficiency and scheduling in the nonoperating room anesthesia suite
      Bijan Navidi, Kianusch Kiai
      Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology.2019; 32(4): 498.     CrossRef
    • High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy and hypoxia during gastroscopy with propofol sedation: a randomized multicenter clinical trial
      Yuxuan Lin, Xiaoqing Zhang, Lizhi Li, Mengyun Wei, Bin Zhao, Xiaojing Wang, Zhiying Pan, Jie Tian, Weifeng Yu, Diansan Su
      Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2019; 90(4): 591.     CrossRef
    • Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
      Aureo Augusto de Almeida Delgado, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura, Igor Braga Ribeiro, Ahmad Najdat Bazarbashi, Marcos Eduardo Lera dos Santos, Wanderley Marques Bernardo, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura
      World J Gastrointest Endosc.2019; 11(11): 573.     CrossRef
    • Propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy
      Toshihiro Nishizawa, Hidekazu Suzuki
      United European Gastroenterology Journal.2018; 6(6): 801.     CrossRef
    • Safety of applying midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation combination under the supervision of endoscopy nurse with patient-controlled analgesia pump in colonoscopy
      Selda Kayaaltı, Ömer Kayaaltı
      World Journal of Clinical Cases.2018; 6(16): 1146.     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction
      Intest Res. 2017;15(4):456-466.   Published online October 23, 2017
      DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2017.15.4.456
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction
    Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction

    Definition of American Society of Anesthesiologists Levels of Sedation and Anesthesia5

    Minimal sedation (anxiolysis)Moderate sedation (conscious sedation)Deep sedationGeneral anesthesia
    ResponsivenessNormal response to verbal stimuliPurposeful response to verbal or tactile stimuliPurposeful response to noxious stimuli or insistent verbal stimuliUnarousable
    AirwayNormalNo intervention neededIntervention may be neededAirway support needed
    Spontaneous ventilationNormalAdequateUsually inadequateVentilatory support usually needed
    Cardiovascular functionNormalUsually maintainedUsually maintainedMay be impaired

    Properties of Commonly Used Sedative Agents for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

    AgentOnset of action (min)Peak effect (min)Duration of effect (min)MetabolismExcretionReversal agent
    Midazolam1.0–2.53.0–4.015.0–80.0HepaticRenalFlumazenil
    Fentanyl1.0–2.03.0–5.030.0–60.0HepaticRenalNaloxone
    Propofol0.5–1.01.0–2.04.0–8.0HepaticRenalNone

    Procedural Success Rate, Colonoscopic Polyp Detection Rates, Procedure Times, Recovery Times, Patient and Endoscopist Satisfaction Scores, and Adverse Events72

    PrevalenceCAPS (n=244)MF (n=328)P-value
    Procedural success rate (%)
     EGD98.298.70.958
     Colonoscopy98.998.80.592
    Polyp detection rate (%)54.559.30.666
    Patient satisfaction (PSSI scores)
     EGD sedation adequacy92.991.70.855
     Colonoscopy sedation adequacy94.889.90.002a
     EGD recovery process92.392.40.795
     Colonoscopy recovery process96.090.1<0.001a
     EGD global satisfaction94.895.40.704
     Colonoscopy global satisfaction97.093.7<0.001a
    Endoscopist satisfaction (CSSI scores)
     EGD recovery process89.169.2<0.001a
     Colonoscopy recovery process95.975.4<0.001a
     EGD global satisfaction79.978.60.555
     Colonoscopy global satisfaction94.183.8<0.001a
    Procedure time (min)
     EGD12.511.30.183
     Colonoscopy25.024.80.891
    Recovery time (min)26.439.1<0.001a
    Overall adverse events (%)4.1b,c4.0d0.910

    Patient satisfaction was measured using a validated 19-item questionnaire, the Patient Sedation Satisfaction Index (PSSI),73 administered immediately prior to the patient's departure from our unit.

    Endoscopist satisfaction was measured using another validated 21-item questionnaire, the Clinician Sedation Satisfaction Index (CSSI),73 administered shortly after each procedure. Scores can range from 0 to 100, with higher scores denoting higher satisfaction.

    aSignifies statistically significant P-values.

    bIncluding 4 cases of agitation due to undersedation during EGDs, and 2 cases of desaturation, 3 of hypotension and 1 of agitation from undersedation during colonoscopies.

    cIn terms of serious adverse events, 1 patient required brief mask ventilation for desaturation during colonoscopy. Another patient had presented with bloody diarrhea and was diagnosed with ischemic colitis during the colonoscopy, dying 14 days after the procedure from sepsis and multi-organ failure (this death was not felt to be caused by the colonoscopy).

    dIncluding 3 cases of agitation due to undersedation during EGDs, 2 cases of desaturation, 3 of hypotension and 1 of agitation from undersedation during colonoscopies, and 1 case of hypotension and 2 of agitation due to undersedation.

    CAPS, computer-assisted propofol sedation; MF, midazolam fentanyl; EGD, esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

    Outcomes for Procedures Performed with NAPCIS, CAPS, and MF Sedation84

    NAPCIS (n=490)CAPS (n=228)P-valueaMF (n=298)P-valueb
    Procedural success rate (%)98.698.70.8598.80.78
    Mean upper endoscopy procedure time (min)8.612.5<0.01c11.3<0.01c
    Mean colonoscopy procedure time (min)22.025.0<0.01c24.8<0.01c
    Mean recovery time (min)23.226.4<0.01c39.1<0.01c

    aP-value, nurse-administered propofol continuous infusion sedation (NAPCIS) versus computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) comparison.

    bP-value, NAPCIS versus midazolam fentanyl (MF) comparison.

    cSignifies statistically significant P-values.
    Table 1 Definition of American Society of Anesthesiologists Levels of Sedation and Anesthesia5

    Table 2 Properties of Commonly Used Sedative Agents for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

    Table 3 Procedural Success Rate, Colonoscopic Polyp Detection Rates, Procedure Times, Recovery Times, Patient and Endoscopist Satisfaction Scores, and Adverse Events72

    Patient satisfaction was measured using a validated 19-item questionnaire, the Patient Sedation Satisfaction Index (PSSI),73 administered immediately prior to the patient's departure from our unit.

    Endoscopist satisfaction was measured using another validated 21-item questionnaire, the Clinician Sedation Satisfaction Index (CSSI),73 administered shortly after each procedure. Scores can range from 0 to 100, with higher scores denoting higher satisfaction.

    aSignifies statistically significant P-values.

    bIncluding 4 cases of agitation due to undersedation during EGDs, and 2 cases of desaturation, 3 of hypotension and 1 of agitation from undersedation during colonoscopies.

    cIn terms of serious adverse events, 1 patient required brief mask ventilation for desaturation during colonoscopy. Another patient had presented with bloody diarrhea and was diagnosed with ischemic colitis during the colonoscopy, dying 14 days after the procedure from sepsis and multi-organ failure (this death was not felt to be caused by the colonoscopy).

    dIncluding 3 cases of agitation due to undersedation during EGDs, 2 cases of desaturation, 3 of hypotension and 1 of agitation from undersedation during colonoscopies, and 1 case of hypotension and 2 of agitation due to undersedation.

    CAPS, computer-assisted propofol sedation; MF, midazolam fentanyl; EGD, esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

    Table 4 Outcomes for Procedures Performed with NAPCIS, CAPS, and MF Sedation84

    aP-value, nurse-administered propofol continuous infusion sedation (NAPCIS) versus computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) comparison.

    bP-value, NAPCIS versus midazolam fentanyl (MF) comparison.

    cSignifies statistically significant P-values.

    Table 1

    Table 2

    Table 3

    Table 4

    Intest Res : Intestinal Research
    © Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases.
    Close layer
    TOP