Basavana Goudra; Ahmad Nuzat; Preet Mohinder Singh; Anuradha Borle; Augustus Carlin; Gowri Gouda

doi:10.5946/ce.2016.019

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 50(2); 2017 > Article

Original Article Association between Type of Sedation and the Adverse Events Associated with Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: An Analysis of 5 Years’ Data from a Tertiary Center in the USA: Basavana Goudra^1,, Ahmad Nuzat², Preet Mohinder Singh³, Anuradha Borle⁴, Augustus Carlin¹, Gowri Gouda¹; Clinical Endoscopy 2017;50(2):161-169.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2016.019
Published online: April 29, 2016

¹Department of Clinical Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

²Department of Endoscopy, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

³Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

⁴Department of Anesthesia, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence: Basavana Goudra Department of Clinical Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, 680 Dulles Building, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA Tel: +1-215-279-4321, Fax: +1-215-544-1132, E-mail: goudrab@uphs.upenn.edu

• Received: January 6, 2016 • Revised: March 14, 2016 • Accepted: March 14, 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

11,680 Views
458 Download
58 Web of Science
64 Crossref
65 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
REFERENCES

See letter "Adverse Events by Sedation Type in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy" in Volume 50 on page 97.

Abstract

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

INTRODUCTION

There has been rapid growth in the number and complexity of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures performed during the last decade[1]. In contrast to surgical procedures, the majority of GI endoscopic procedures are conducted outside of the operating rom. The extensive support that is available in the operating room, in terms of equipment and manpower, is typically absent.

Along with an increase in the number and complexity of endoscopic procedures, the type of sedation administered has undergone massive transformation. The sedation practices have varied across the country and within a country. For example, In the Northeastern United States, 53% of all colonoscopies were performed with the use of propofol, while in the Western region only 8% used propofol[2]. The same study, involving 3,168,228 colonoscopy procedures in both men and women (40 to 64 years old), also found a high incidence of all complications, both sedation and non-sedation related, in procedures performed with propofol sedation compared to non-propofol sedation. Non-propofol sedation generally consists of a short-acting benzodiazepine like midazolam and a short-acting opioid like fentanyl. All complications were increased by 13%. Specifically, these compilations included colonic perforation, hemorrhage, and stroke. In a similar study, Cooper et al. [3] demonstrated a higher incidence of aspiration pneumonia in patients sedated with propofol. In this population-based analysis, a total of 165,527 procedures performed in 100,359 patients, including 35,128 procedures with anesthesia services (21.2%), were analyzed. The multivariate analysis concluded that use of anesthesia services was associated with an increased risk of complication. The anesthesia services invariably included propofol for sedation.

The first nationwide survey of endoscopist-directed sedation practices in Korea found room for quality improvement[4]. Although the postal survey had a low response rate (22%), it found that 27.3% of all respondents performed sedation without having undergone sedation training, and 27.4% did so without any formal sedation protocols. Additionally, a large number of endoscopists reported serious sedation-related respiratory events, which are normally underestimated.

Most of the data regarding serious adverse events is patchy. A detailed analysis of such events and their eventual outcome has not been attempted. Having analyzed cardiac arrest data in a similar study, we decided to analyze all serious adverse events associated with GI endoscopic procedures [5].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional Review Board Approval was obtained for this study. At the hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, sedation for endoscopic procedures was provided by using either intravenous conscious sedation (IVCS) or propofol. IVCS generally consisted of a short-acting benzodiazepine like midazolam along with a short-acting opioid like fentanyl. IVCS was administered by a registered nurse under the supervision of the endoscopist who was performing the procedure, while propofol was administered by a physician anesthesiologist or a certified nurse anesthetist under the supervision of an attending anesthesiologist. Any major adverse events that occurred at any time during the hospitalization were entered into an electronic database for discussion at the Continuous Quality Improvement meeting. Additionally, adverse events that occurred during outpatient GI endoscopic procedures were entered into a local registry. The morbidity and mortality data were obtained from these sources for further analysis. Although the data analysis was retrospective, the adverse events themselves were entered soon after they had occurred. The denominator was provided by the billing section of the anesthesia and gastroenterology departments. The data included patients who underwent procedures between September 8, 2008 and May 31, 2013.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 23 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA). The data obtained was assessed for normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The incidence data were expressed as rate per 10,000 procedures. For factor analysis, the automated regression modeling available in SPSS was used to evaluate the contribution/relation of a factor to the outcome variable (in this case, adverse event). The available factors were combined to estimate the goodness of fit of the model for prediction of life-threatening adverse events. As the nature of sedation (propofol anesthesia or IVCS) seemed to have a significant impact on the occurrence of adverse events, we also included the type sedation as one of the determinant factors in the regression modeling (other than patient-related parameters). The results associated with a p<0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 163 adverse events were reported from 73,029 procedures. These adverse events were divided into various subgroups and are presented in Table 1 and illustrated graphically in Fig. 1. As demonstrated in the table, among all adverse events, bleeding was the most common, followed by cardiorespiratory arrest, in both the propofol anesthesia and the IVCS groups. The details of the cardiorespiratory arrests were analyzed in a separate study with its own protocol and are published elsewhere [6]. Briefly, the cardiorespiratory arrest data included all patients who either sustained cardiac arrest and survived or who died in the hospital due to procedure-related factors. Some of these cardiac arrests were hypoventilation related, although comorbidities and postprocedural events played a considerable role.

However, this study analyzed all of the serious adverse events, not only the cardiac arrests and deaths. The relative numbers of adverse events in the individual groups (propofol anesthesia and IVCS) are shown in Table 1. Overall, postprocedure pain was the third most common adverse event. Although, pancreatitis ranked fourth on the list, more than 90% of these cases were associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and with a high predilection to the propofol anesthesia group. Specific incidences of complications for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and ERCP by individual groups are displayed in Tables 2, 3. Colonoscopy is often regarded as a low risk procedure, and the complications related to it can be found in Table 4. The total number of adverse events stated in Tables 2-4 is less than the total stated in Table 1. The remaining adverse events occurred in a heterogeneous group of procedures like sigmoidoscopy, liver biopsy, and fecal disimpaction. It was deemed that a separate table was unnecessary to reflect all of these adverse events.

The adverse events showing statistically significant differences in both of the groups (propofol and IVCS) are presented in Table 5. These events were further divided into “immediate life-threatening” and “non- life-threating.” Life-threatening adverse events included cardiorespiratory arrest, significant hypoxia (needing immediate intervention), and myocardial infarction. First, automated regression modeling was used to see the goodness of fit for the following predictors: age at surgery, body mass index (BMI), Mallampatti airway class (MMP)[7], type of procedure, and type of sedative used (propofol vs. non-propofol). As the nature of the anesthesia (propofol anesthesia or IVCS) was deemed to have a significant impact on the adverse event outcome, type of sedation was included as one of the determinant factors in the regression modeling. The model showed overall predictability of 26.81% (p=0.010) for an analysis of 39 life-threatening adverse events, with the remaining 124 events labelled as non-life-threatening. Among the predictors used, a statistically significant predictive value was attained for three variables (Table 6). The highest predictability was seen for type of sedation, followed by the patient’s American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status and the type of procedure performed (in the order of strength, with predictability shown by standardized β coefficient).

Considering that EGD, ERCP, and colonoscopy are associated with different types of adverse events (due to the nature of each procedure), an analysis of adverse events associated with these procedures was performed. The results distributed by group (propofol anesthesia or IVCS) are presented in Tables 2-4. In addition, the incidence of each adverse event per 10,000 procedures is also presented. Cardiorespiratory events, including arrest (defined as any cessation of cardiac activity; however, brief, requiring cardiac compressions), was the most common adverse event in patients undergoing EGD. Postprocedure pain was the second most common adverse event. The majority of the cardiac arrests with EGD occurred during the conduct of the procedure and were hypoxemia related. Once again, the incidence of almost all adverse events was highest in the patients who were sedated with propofol. Pancreatitis was the most common adverse event in patients undergoing ERCP, followed by bleeding, with rates of 1 per 300 and 1 per 1,000 procedures, respectively. Colonoscopy had a different set of adverse events. Bleeding was the most common adverse event, followed by post procedure pain. The rate of bleeding was 1 per 1,000 procedures.

Understanding that the nature of the procedure can also be a determinant of adverse event distribution, we also compared our outcomes based on the complexity of the procedures. A comparison of the types of adverse events occurring in EGD and ERCP versus colonoscopy is presented in Fig. 2.

DISCUSSION

There are significant differences between the frequency of adverse events in our study and that reported in previously published studies. An often cited study by Rex et al. [8] was published in 2008. In this retrospective analysis of 646,080 (223,656 published and 422,424 unpublished) cases, there were 11 patients who required endotracheal intubation (ETT) and four deaths. In fact, only one death was hypoxemia related. The calculated frequencies of ETT and death were 0.17 and 0.06 per 10,000 cases, respectively. This is in sharp contrast to our own findings, in which the rates were at least 6.06 for ETT (as all patients who sustained cardiac arrest were intubated) and 1.91 for death. Like our study, the study was retrospective in nature. However, some of the data collected relied on the reporter’s recall of past events, instead of relying on a storage system. Irrespective of the limitations of the study, the low frequency of reported adverse events is in sharp contrast to our own findings. It is important to note that all patients in all the patients in the Rex study received propofol from registered nurses under the supervision of a non-anesthesiologist, mainly gastroenterologists. The study population included patients of all ASA statuses and those undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures, including ERCP.

Two other recently published studies analyzed relatively larger numbers of patients. A multicenter German study published in 2014 involved 24,441 outpatients and reported no deaths or any other major adverse events. Three patients needed mask ventilation and one patient experienced laryngospasm [9]. None of the patients needed ETT and there were no reported deaths. It should be noted that patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures were excluded from this study and that propofol was administered by registered nurses under endoscopist supervision.

In an Italian, single-center retrospective study that involved 17,999 procedures performed over 8 years, all patients were sedated by anesthesia providers [10]. Among other events, three patients died; two from uncontrolled bleeding during the procedure and one from a bradyarrhythmia due to acute procedural distention of the bile duct. The frequency of death was 1.66 per 10,000 cases, similar to that found in our study. Cardiorespiratory adverse events were the most common, followed by aspiration. This was in contrast to our findings, which showed bleeding to be the most common adverse event. Of note, there were no deaths related to hypoxemia.

The ability to predict the likelihood of immediate life-threatening complications like cardiorespiratory arrest, myocardial ischemia, and significant hypoxia is an important aspect of our study. Most endoscopic procedures are assumed to be minor and of low risk. In spite of the limitations of the predictive model used, the model suggests the “red flags” for the likelihood of life-threatening complications. These include higher ASA grade (from III onwards), propofol-based sedation, and ERCP. Despite the model’s low accuracy (26%) for predicting such events, it can be used to alert the endoscopist and to reduce the risks. Interestingly, BMI had a negative correlation with these events (although it failed to achieve statistical significance, and we reported a similar finding in a previous study) [1]. This result may seem contrary to contemporary thinking and may be attributed to the fact that most anesthesia providers anticipate airway related problems in obese patients and take extra caution during the procedure. Additionally, obese patients often receive a nasal airway; thus, preventing further airway-related adverse events.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has issued guidelines, with the most recent issued in 2012. In these guidelines, titled “Adverse events of upper GI endoscopy,” cardiopulmonary adverse events are stated to be responsible for 60% of all events during upper GI endoscopic procedures [11]. Although this may be true when all adverse events are taken into consideration, in our analysis, bleeding was the most common, followed by cardiorespiratory events. Moreover, only one of the five studies cited in the guidelines was published after 2001 [12]. Inclusion of more current publications might change the results. Recent changes in the landscape of endoscopy practice with regard to sedation management and procedure complexity are worthy of note. Propofol is used extensively for sedation in modern endoscopy practice. The complexity of the procedures has seen a significant change. The population demographics have changed, with elderly and obese patients forming a significant minority [1]. In our analysis, cardiopulmonary events contribute to less than 40% of all adverse events. However, these events are severe and are often associated with cardiac arrest and death. As mentioned, the details are available for interested readers elsewhere [6].

One disturbing finding of our study is an increase in the frequency of many types of adverse events in the group of patients sedated with propofol. The cardiac arrests, their mechanisms, and their outcomes were analyzed as a separate study and are being published elsewhere. Respiratory adverse events related to sedation played a significant role in patients who experienced periprocedural cardiac arrest. However, establishing a direct relationship between non-respiratory adverse events and periprocedural cardiac arrest is more difficult. It is conceivable that propofol sedation was used predominantly in patients with higher morbidity. Patients sedated with propofol had an increased incidence of bowel perforation, pancreatitis, post procedure pain, febrile reactions, and iatrogenic adverse events (Table 5). Cooper et al. [3] reported an increase in the incidence of colonic perforation in patients undergoing colonoscopy with propofol sedation. Similar findings are reported by other investigators [13]. One proposed mechanism is the diminished ability of the operator to appreciate the amount of force exerted with the endoscope due to diminished patient feedback.

Some practices might be specific to our center and might have contributed to a change in the types of adverse events seen. The incidence of hypoxemia in patients sedated with propofol is low, likely due to a proactive approach to airway management [1,14], even in patients with morbid obesity and sleep apnea. The use of a core group of anesthesiologists in the endoscopy area has facilitated the reduction of these events and shown associated cost savings [15]. Some of the patients had significant comorbidity, such as implanted devices for ventricular assistance. However, the incidence of sedation-related adverse events even in this group was negligible due to modified airway management technique [16]. The experiences of many other centers with advanced endoscopic procedures conducted with propofol sedation are in contrast to our experience [17,18]. Variation in the method of airway management might explain these differences.

Lastly, our findings are in sharp contrast to those of studies involving non-anesthesiologist administered propofol. A meta-analysis comparing the adverse events in patients administered propofol by anesthesia providers to those in patients administered propofol by non-anesthesia providers is available [19]. The study involved only advanced endoscopic procedures and showed a very low incidence of both hypoxemia and airway intervention rates when propofol was administered by non-anesthesia providers. However, in 25 of the 26 studies included in the meta-analysis the corresponding author was a gastroenterologist. Interestingly, all of the studies were published in gastroenterology journals. Only a well-designed, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing the safety of propofol administration by the two groups can answer this question. Considering the debate involves patient safety as well as significant potential cost savings, it is important to explore the issue further.

Being retrospective in nature, the current study has certain limitations. When the data are entered into the charts, the clinician is unlikely to consider the likelihood of the data being analyzed at a future date. Incomplete data and the unavailability of important information pose unique problems. However, the large number of subjects is likely to negate this particular drawback. The same limitation is likely to have played a role in the regression modeling used in our analysis. Only a limited number of patient-related factors were available, and the adverse event severity in the charts was neither presented consistently nor standardized. In predictive models, one cannot negate the presence of undocumented factors that might have contributed to an adverse event.

Rather than investigate the contribution of causative factors for adverse events such as sepsis and pneumonia, we chose to investigate the contribution of the universally available patient characteristics age, BMI, ASA status, and MMP grade.

In conclusion, it is likely that the incidence and nature of the adverse events that occur during GI endoscopic procedures have changed over the last decade. Changing demographics and comorbidities of the patient population, in association with increasing technical complexity of the interventions performed, might explain this. Although the extensive use of propofol has increased patient satisfaction and the acceptability of GI endoscopic procedures, many types of adverse events occur more frequently in the subset of patients that receives propofol. A large, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial might help to understand the mechanisms of these adverse events and their relationship to propofol use, if any.

Conflicts of Interest:The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

Fig. 1.

A graphical representation of the frequency of selected adverse events in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures either with propofol anesthesia or intravenous conscious sedation.

Fig. 2.

A graphical representation of the frequency of selected adverse events in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and colonoscopy. GI, gastrointestinal.

Table 1.

A Simplified Presentation of All 163 Adverse Events Associated with 73,029 Procedures Endoscopic Procedures

Adverse event	Frequency
Adverse event	A	S	Not available	Total
1. Bleed	21	18	12	51
2. Cardiorespiratory arrest	16	4	1	21
3. Postprocedural pain	10	6	4	20
4. Pancreatitis	16	1	0	17
5. Arrhythmias	5	2	1	8
6. Febrile reaction	4	1	1	6
7. Non-cardiac chest pain	2	4	0	6
8. Perforation	3	1	1	5
9. Hypoxia	4	0	0	4
10. Iatrogenic	3	1	0	4
11. Hemodynamic	1	2	0	3
12. Myocardial infarction	2	0	0	2
13. Miscellaneous	1	0	1	2
14. Obstruction	2	0	0	2
15. Tooth break	2	0	0	2
16. Anaphylaxis	0	0	1	1
17. Aspiration pneumonia	1	0	0	1
18. Cognitive dysfunction	1	0	0	1
19. Dyspnoea	0	0	1	1
20. GI obstruction	0	0	1	1
21. Seizures	0	1	0	1
22. Sore throat	1	0	0	1
23. Stricture	1	0	0	1
24. Stridor	1	0	0	1
25. Syncope	0	1	0	1
Total	97	42	24	163

A, anesthesia provider administered sedation; S, gastrointestinal endoscopist directed sedation; GI, gastrointestinal.

Table 2.

Frequency and Incidence (per 10,000 Procedures) of Selected Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Adverse event	A (n=14,534)		S (n=16,907)		NA	Total (n=31,441)
Adverse event	Frequency	Incidence	Frequency	Incidence	Frequency	Frequency	Incidence
Cardiorespiratory arrest^a)	13	8.940	0	0	1	14	4.433
Postprocedure pain	4	2.751	3	1.770	3	10	3.167
Bleed	3	2.063	3	1.770	2	8	2.533
Non-cardiac chest pain	2	1.375	2	1.180	0	4	1.267
Arrhythmias	2	1.375	0	0	1	3	0.950
Hypoxia	3	2.063	0	0	0	3	0.950
Perforation	3	2.063	0	0	0	3	0.950
Iatrogenic	2	1.375	0	0	0	2	0.633
Myocardial infarction	2	1.375	0	0	0	2	0.633
Pancreatitis	2	1.375	0	0	0	2	0.633
Tooth break	2	1.375	0	0	0	2	0.633
Anaphylaxis	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.317
Cognitive dysfunction	1	0.688	0	0	0	1	0.317
Hemodynamic	0	0	1	0.590	0	1	0.317
Obstruction	1	0.688	0	0	0	1	0.317
Seizures	0	0	1	0.590	0	1	0.317
Sore throat	1	0.688	0	0	0	1	0.317
Stricture	1	0.688	0	0	0	1	0.317
Total	42	28.883	10	6	8	60	19.000

A, anesthesia provider administered sedation; S, gastrointestinal endoscopist directed sedation; NA, not available.

^a) Statistically significant different values using chi-square test (p<0.05) are marked.

Table 3.

Frequency and Incidence (per 10,000 Procedures) of Selected Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Adverse event	A (n=3,694)		S (n=1,545)		Total (n=5,239)
Adverse event	Frequency	Incidence	Frequency	Incidence	Frequency	Incidence
Pancreatitis^a)	14	37.900	1	6.472	15	28.631
Bleed^a)	5	13.535	0	0	5	9.544
Febrile reaction^a)	4	10.828	0	0	4	7.635
Cardiorespiratory arrest	2	5.414	1	6.472	3	5.726
Postprocedural pain	2	5.414	0	0	2	3.818
Arrhythmias	1	2.707	0	0	1	1.909
Hypoxia	1	2.707	0	0	1	1.909
Iatrogenic	1	2.707	0	0	1	1.909
Miscellaneous	1	2.707	0	0	1	1.909
Total	31	83.920	2	12.945	33	62.989

A, anesthesia provider administered sedation; S, gastrointestinal endoscopist directed sedation.

^a) Statistically significant different values using chi-square test (p<0.05) are marked.

Table 4.

Frequency and Incidence (per 10,000 Procedures) of Selected Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy

Adverse event	A (n=9,767)		S (n=23,536)		NA	Total (n=33,303)
Adverse event	Frequency	Incidence	Frequency	Incidence	Frequency	Frequency	Incidence
Bleed	13	13.310	13	5.523	10	36	10.810
Postprocedural pain	3	3.072	2	0.850	1	6	1.802
Arrhythmias	2	2.048	2	0.850	0	4	1.201
Cardiorespiratory arrest	1	1.024	2	0.850	0	3	0.900
Febrile reaction	0	0	1	0.425	1	2	0.601
Hemodynamic	1	1.024	1	0.425	0	2	0.601
Perforation	0	0	1	0.425	1	2	0.601
Aspiration pneumonia	1	1.024	0	0	0	1	0.300
Dyspnoea	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.300
GI obstruction	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.300
Non-cardiac chest pain	0	0	1	0.425	0	1	0.300
Obstruction	1	1.024	0	0	0	1	0.300
Stridor	1	1.024	0	0	0	1	0.300
Total	23	23.549	23	9.772	15	61	18.317

None of the values were statistically different in any of the groups.

A, anesthesia provider administered sedation; S, gastrointestinal endoscopist directed sedation; NA, not available; GI, gastrointestinal.

Table 5.

Comparison of Frequency of Selected Adverse Events Showing Statistically Significant Difference between Propofol and Non-Propofol Sedation

	Propofol	Intravenous conscious sedation	p-value (chi-square test)
Cardiac arrest	6.069	0.666	<0.0001
Pancreatitis	5.698	0.222	<0.0001
Postprocedure pain	3.561	1.322	<0.0001
Febrile reaction	1.780	0.222	<0.0001
Iatrogenic	2.137	0.222	<0.0001

Table 6.

Regression Modelling for Predictors of “Immediate Life Threatening Complications”

Factor	Life threatening vs. Non-life threatening
Factor	Standardized coefficients β^a)	Statistical significance (p-value)
BMI	–0.179	0.103
MMP	0.188	0.112
ASA^b)	0.243	0.032
Age at surgery	0.056	0.639
Procedure type^c)	0.210	0.041
Sedation type^d)	0.428	0.002
Overall predictability	26.81% (p=0.001)

BMI, body mass index; MMP, Mallampatti airway class; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists.

^a) The strength of association is shown by “β coefficient” and the negative β coefficient denotes a negative relation between factor and outcome (life threatening complications included cardiorespiratory arrest, significant hypoxia [needing immediate intervention] and myocardial infarction);

^b) American Society of Anaesthesiologists status 3 and above is associated with higher risk life threatening events;

^c) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is associated with higher risk of life threatening events;

^d) Propofol sedation is associated with higher risk of life threatening events.

REFERENCES

1. Goudra BG, Singh PM, Penugonda LC, Speck RM, Sinha AC. Significantly reduced hypoxemic events in morbidly obese patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: predictors and practice effect. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2014;30:71–77.Article PubMed PMC
2. Wernli KJ, Brenner AT, Rutter CM, Inadomi JM. Risks associated with anesthesia services during colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2016;150:888–894.Article PubMed PMC
3. Cooper GS, Kou TD, Rex DK. Complications following colonoscopy with anesthesia assistance: a population-based analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:551–556.Article PubMed PMC
4. Lee CK, Dong SH, Kim ES, et al. Room for quality improvement in endoscopist-directed sedation: results from the first nationwide survey in Korea. Gut Liver 2016;10:83–94.Article PubMed PMC PDF
5. Goudra BG, Singh PM. Cardiac arrests during endoscopy with anesthesia assistance. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:1659–1660.Article
6. Goudra B, Nuzat A, Singh PM, Gouda GB, Carlin A, Manjunath AK. Cardiac arrests in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a retrospective analysis of 73,029 procedures. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2015;21:400–411.Article PubMed PMC
7. Mallampati SR, Gatt SP, Gugino LD, et al. A clinical sign to predict difficult tracheal intubation: a prospective study. Can Anaesth Soc J 1985;32:429–434.Article PubMed
8. Rex DK, Deenadayalu VP, Eid E, et al. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience. Gastroenterology 2009;137:1229–1237.Article PubMed
9. Sieg A; bng-Study-Group, 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.Article PubMed
10. Agostoni M, Fanti L, Gemma M, Pasculli N, Beretta L, Testoni PA. Adverse events during monitored anesthesia care for GI endoscopy: an 8-year experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:266–275.Article PubMed
11. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Ben-Menachem T, Decker GA, et al. Adverse events of upper GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:707–718.Article PubMed
12. Sharma VK, Nguyen CC, Crowell MD, Lieberman DA, de Garmo P, Fleischer DE. A national study of cardiopulmonary unplanned events after GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;66:27–34.Article PubMed
13. 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.Article PubMed
14. Goudra BG, Singh PM, Sinha AC. Outpatient endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: safety and efficacy of anesthetic management with a natural airway in 653 consecutive procedures. Saudi J Anaesth 2013;7:259–265.Article PubMed PMC
15. Goudra BG, Singh PM, Sinha AC. Anesthesia for ERCP: impact of anesthesiologist’s experience on outcome and cost. Anesthesiol Res Pract 2013;2013:570518.Article PubMed PMC PDF
16. Goudra BG, Singh PM. Anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with left ventricular assist devices: initial experience with 68 procedures. Ann Card Anaesth 2013;16:250–256.Article PubMed
17. Coté GA, Hovis RM, Ansstas MA, et al. Incidence of sedation-related complications with propofol use during advanced endoscopic procedures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;8:137–142.Article PubMed
18. Barnett SR, Berzin T, Sanaka S, Pleskow D, Sawhney M, Chuttani R. Deep sedation without intubation for ERCP is appropriate in healthier, non-obese patients. Dig Dis Sci 2013;58:3287–3292.Article PubMed
19. Goudra BG, Singh PM, Gouda G, et al. Safety of non-anesthesia provider-administered propofol (NAAP) sedation in advanced gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: comparative meta-analysis of pooled results. Dig Dis Sci 2015;60:2612–2627.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy procedure volume trends, perioperative mortality, and malpractice claims: Population-based analysis
Nelli Nurminen, Tommi Järvinen, Eric Robinson, Nanruoyi Zhou, Silja Salo, Jari Räsänen, Ville Kytö, Ilkka Ilonen
Endoscopy International Open.2024; 12(03): E385. CrossRef
Predictors and impact of aspiration pneumonia in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy: national inpatient sample 2016–2020
Jay Patel, Aalam Sohal, Hunza Chaudhry, Shivam Kalra, Isha Kohli, Ishandeep Singh, Dino Dukovic, Juliana Yang
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.2024; 36(3): 298. CrossRef
Providing Safe Anesthetic Care and Sedation for GI Endoscopy
Sheetal Kedar, Ryan M. Chadha
Current Anesthesiology Reports.2024; 14(2): 161. CrossRef
Sedation for GI Endoscopy in the Morbidly Obese: Challenges and Possible Solutions
Lalitha Sundararaman, Basavana Goudra
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2024; 13(16): 4635. CrossRef
Epidemiology of complications in anesthesiology and possible ways of their prevention
A. M. Ziganshin, R. M. Marakanov, A. R. Mulyukov, D. O. Baboyan, R. B. Nadyrgulov, N. M. Gilyazitdinov
Acta Biomedica Scientifica.2024; 9(4): 203. CrossRef
Cost-Effectiveness of Earlier or More Intensive Colorectal Cancer Screening in Overweight and Obese Patients
Aaron Yeoh, Ajitha Mannalithara, Uri Ladabaum
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2023; 21(2): 507. CrossRef
Gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures under intravenous sedation in the prone position: keep LMA gastro handy!
Anju Gupta, Rajeshwari Subramaniam, Pyarelal R Rathod, Mussavvir Agha
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing.2023; 37(2): 715. CrossRef
Utility of high-flow nasal oxygen in comparison to conventional oxygen therapy during upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures under sedation: A systematic review and meta-analyses
Puneet Khanna, Damarla Haritha, Aditi Das, Soumya Sarkar, Avishek Roy
Indian Journal of Gastroenterology.2023; 42(1): 53. CrossRef
Hallazgos endoscópicos observados en pacientes con COVID-19 moderado a severo: un estudio de corte transversal
Viviana Parra Izquierdo, Juan Sebastián Frías Ordoñez, Jenny Paola Navarro Morantes, Humberto Navarro Morantes, Kimberly Tatiana Castro Ruíz, Cristina Navarro Morantes, Jesús David Castillo, Cristian Flórez Sarmiento
Revista colombiana de Gastroenterología.2023; 38(1): 28. CrossRef
Nasal continuous positive pressure versus simple face mask oxygenation for adult obese and obstructive sleep apnea patients undergoing colonoscopy under propofol-based general anesthesia without tracheal intubation: A randomized controlled trial
Daniel S. Cukierman, Manuel Perez, Juan J. Guerra-Londono, Richard Carlson, Katherine Hagan, Semhar Ghebremichael, Carin Hagberg, Phillip S. Ge, Gottumukkala S. Raju, Andrew Rhim, Juan P. Cata
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia.2023; 89: 111196. CrossRef
Comparison of the Jcerity endoscoper airway and the endotracheal tube in endoscopic esophageal variceal ligation: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Le Zhang, Lu Li, Jun Wang, Can Zhao, Erxian Zhao, Yanrong Li, Yunqi Lv
Scientific Reports.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Leitlinienreport der aktualisierten S3-Leitlinie „Sedierung in der gastrointestinalen Endoskopie“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie, Verdauungs- und Stoffwechselkrankheiten (DGVS)
Pia Lorenz, Till Wehrmann, Andrea Riphaus, Alexander J. Eckardt, Peter Klare, Ina Koop, Nadine Fischer, Petra Lynen Jansen
Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie.2023; 61(09): e628. CrossRef
Aktualisierte S3-Leitlinie „Sedierung in der gastrointestinalen Endoskopie“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie, Verdauungs- und Stoffwechselkrankheiten (DGVS)
Till Wehrmann, Andrea Riphaus, Alexander J. Eckardt, Peter Klare, Ina Kopp, Stefan von Delius, Ulrich Rosien, Peter H. Tonner
Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie.2023; 61(09): 1246. CrossRef
Updated S3 Guideline “Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy” of the German Society of Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS) – June 2023 – AWMF-Register-No. 021/014
Till Wehrmann, Andrea Riphaus, Alexander J. Eckardt, Peter Klare, Ina Kopp, Stefan von Delius, Ulrich Rosien, Peter H. Tonner
Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie.2023; 61(11): e654. CrossRef
Effect of Premedication with Glycopyrrolate on Patient Tolerance and Procedure Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial
Pazhanivel Mohan, Kuppusamy Senthamizhselvan, Rajendiran Ramalingam, KT Harichandrakumar
Euroasian journal of hepato-gastroenterology.2023; 13(2): 55. CrossRef
Procedural sedation analgesia in the elderly patient
Abdelazeem Ali Eldawlatly, Mohamed Bilal Delvi, Abdulaziz Ahmad
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia.2023; 17(4): 533. 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
Oliceridine- Opioid of the 21st Century
Basavana Goudra
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia.2022; 16(1): 69. CrossRef
Effect of remimazolam tosilate on early cognitive function in elderly patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy
Yingjie Tan, Wen Ouyang, Yongzhong Tang, Ning Fang, Chao Fang, Chengxuan Quan
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2022; 37(3): 576. CrossRef
Academy of Medicine, Singapore clinical guideline on the use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting
Tiing Leong Ang, Edwin Seet, Yaw Chong Goh, Wee Khoon Ng, Calvin Jianyi Koh, Hock Foong Lui, James Weiquan Li, Aung Myint Oo, Kieron Boon Leng Lim, Kok Sun Ho, Min Hoe Chew, Wai Leong Quan, Damien Meng Yew Tan, Kheng Hong Ng, Hak Su Goh, Wai Kit Cheong, P
Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore.2022; 51(1): 24. CrossRef
Patient-reported experiences and views on the Cytosponge test: a mixed-methods analysis from the BEST3 trial
Roberta Maroni, Jessica Barnes, Judith Offman, Fiona Scheibl, Samuel G Smith, Irene Debiram-Beecham, Jo Waller, Peter Sasieni, Rebecca C Fitzgerald, Greg Rubin, Fiona M Walter
BMJ Open.2022; 12(4): e054258. CrossRef
A self-assessment tool for predicting discomfort and tolerance in Chinese patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Jinqing Ou, Kuiqing Lu, Junzhen Li, Xi Deng, Junhui He, Guijin Luo, Hongdan Mo, Lingli Lu, Man Yang, Jinqiu Yuan, Pingguang Lei
BMC Gastroenterology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Adverse events associated with EGD and EGD-related techniques
Nayantara Coelho-Prabhu, Nauzer Forbes, Nirav C. Thosani, Andrew C. Storm, Swati Pawa, Divyanshoo R. Kohli, Larissa L. Fujii-Lau, Sherif Elhanafi, Audrey H. Calderwood, James L. Buxbaum, Richard S. Kwon, Stuart K. Amateau, Mohammad A. Al-Haddad, Bashar J.
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2022; 96(3): 389. CrossRef
Sedation by non-anaesthesiologists in gastrointestinal endoscopy
Andrew Ming-Liang Ong, How Cheng Low, Christopher Tze Wei Chia
Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore.2022; 51(7): 446. CrossRef
Remimazolam versus propofol for deep sedation/anaesthesia in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial
Kejian Lu, Shanshan Wei, Wenwen Ling, Yanxia Wei, Xuelian Ran, Huageng Huang, Meixu Wang, Ning Wei, Yanying Liao, Zailing Qin, Meitao Pan, Qimei Wei, Liuhui Fu, Boquan Xiong, Chendong Ma, Jun Jiang, Yanjuan Huang
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics.2022; 47(12): 2230. CrossRef
High-flow nasal oxygenation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Systematic review and meta-analysis
Michele Carron, Enrico Tamburini, Bijan Safaee Fakhr, Alessandro De Cassai, Federico Linassi, Paolo Navalesi
BJA Open.2022; 4: 100098. CrossRef
Effect of Remimazolam Tosilate on Respiratory Depression in Elderly Patients Undergoing Gastroscopy: A Multicentered, Prospective, and Randomized Study
Bailong Hu, Ke Jiang, Wenyan Shi, Shixiang Xiao, Shili Zhang, Yongguo Zhang, Yuancheng Zhou, Chengwei Tan, Songjiang Tan, Xiaohua Zou
Drug Design, Development and Therapy.2022; Volume 16: 4151. CrossRef
Prospective audit of the safety of endoscopist‐directed nurse‐administered propofol sedation in an Australian referral hospital
Montri Gururatsakul, Richard Lee, Sureshkumar Kallippatti Ponnuswamy, Rajit Gilhotra, Cathal McGowan, Debra Whittaker, John Ombiga, Peter Boyd
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2021; 36(2): 490. CrossRef
Propofol-Induced Severe Necrotizing Pancreatitis
Akarsh Parekh, Howard Zhang
ACG Case Reports Journal.2021; 8(1): e00528. CrossRef
Recent Developments in Devices Used for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Sedation
Basavana Goudra, Gowri Gouda, Preet Mohinder Singh
Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(2): 182. CrossRef
The role of endoscopy and findings in COVID-19 patients, an early North American Cohort
Gabriela Kuftinec, B. Joseph Elmunzer, Sunil Amin
BMC Gastroenterology.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Safety and Recipient Satisfaction of Propofol Sedation in Outpatient Endoscopy: A 24-Hour Prospective Investigation Using a Questionnaire Survey
Yoshihide Kanno, Tetsuya Ohira, Yoshihiro Harada, Shinsuke Koshita, Takahisa Ogawa, Hiroaki Kusunose, Yoshiki Koike, Taku Yamagata, Toshitaka Sakai, Kaori Masu, Keisuke Yonamine, Kazuaki Miyamoto, Megumi Tanaka, Tomohiro Shimada, Fumisato Kozakai, Kazuki
Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(3): 340. CrossRef
Efficacy and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the very elderly by using a combination of intravenous midazolam, ketamine and pethidine
Salih Tokmak, Mehmet F Cetin, Serkan Torun
Geriatrics & Gerontology International.2021; 21(10): 887. CrossRef
Implementing capnography to help improve patient safety during procedural sedation: quality improvement in a high-volume gastroenterology department
Raf Bisschops, Rhodri Saunders, Christophe Dooms, Ilse Hoffman, Schalk van der Merwe, Rachel Weissbrod, Rafael Torrejon Torres, Gert Van Assche, Ingrid Demedts
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.2021; 33(1S): e522. CrossRef
High Incidence of Burst Suppression during Propofol Sedation for Outpatient Colonoscopy: Lessons Learned from Neuromonitoring
Jamie Bloom, David Wyler, Marc C. Torjman, Tuan Trinh, Lucy Li, Amy Mehta, Evan Fitchett, David Kastenberg, Michael Mahla, Victor Romo
Anesthesiology Research and Practice.2020; 2020: 1. CrossRef
Comparison of the effects of methadone and butorphanol combined with acepromazine for canine gastroduodenoscopy
Kati Maria Salla, Jaan Lepajoe, Marcus Vinicius Candido, Thomas Spillmann, Daniela Casoni
Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia.2020; 47(6): 748. 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
Comparison of post-anesthesia recovery time in sedated patients for colonoscopy using midazolam or fentanyl associated with propofol
Gisela Magnus, Gustavo de Freitas Flausino, Caroline Guimaraes Dantas de Siqueira, Gabriela Carvalho Simões Coelho, Maria Eduarda Casasanta Caetano, Renato Santiago Gomez
Journal of Coloproctology.2020; 40(04): 368. CrossRef
Polypectomy Techniques
Kelly T. Wagner, Eleanor Fung
Surgical Clinics of North America.2020; 100(6): 1049. CrossRef
Safety of the LMA®Gastro™ for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
Katherine B. Hagan, Richard Carlson, Benjamin Arnold, Linh Nguyen, Jeffrey Lee, Brian Weston, Mike Hernandez, Lei Feng, Tariq Syed, Carin A. Hagberg
Anesthesia & Analgesia.2020; 131(5): 1566. CrossRef
Sedasyon Uygulanan Gastroskopik Girişimlerde Aneminin Integrated Pulmonary Index (IPI ) Skoruna Etkisi
Hizir KAZDAL, Şule BATÇIK, Leyla KAZANCIOĞLU, İlkay BAHÇECİ, Remzi AKDOĞAN
Akademik Gastroenteroloji Dergisi.2020; 19(3): 109. CrossRef
GI Endoscopy Sedation in Patients with Cirrhosis: Routine or Unpredictable?
Basavana Goudra, Preet Mohinder Singh
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2020; 65(4): 931. CrossRef
Acute pancreatitis associated with intravenous administration of propofol: evaluation of causality in a systematic review of the literature
Samir Haffar, Ravinder Jeet Kaur, Sushil Kumar Garg, Joseph A Hyder, M Hassan Murad, Barham K Abu Dayyeh, Fateh Bazerbachi
Gastroenterology Report.2019; 7(1): 13. CrossRef
Associations of anxiety with discomfort and tolerance in Chinese patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Man Yang, Ling-Li Lu, Miao Zhao, Jun Liu, Qiu-Lan Li, Qin Li, Peng Xu, Lin Fu, Ling-Min Luo, Jun-Hui He, Wen-Bo Meng, Ping-Guang Lei, Jin-Qiu Yuan, John Green
PLOS ONE.2019; 14(2): e0212180. CrossRef
Airway rescue during sedation
Elizabeth M. Thackeray, Ken B. Johnson
Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology.2019; 32(4): 464. 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
Comparative Analysis of Anesthetic Legal Disputes between Older and Younger Patients Referred to the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists in 2009–2018
Sung-Ae Cho, Seok-Jin Lee, Tae-Yun Sung, Duk-Kyung Kim, Choon-Kyu Cho
Annals of Geriatric Medicine and Research.2019; 23(4): 204. CrossRef
Comparison of a simplified nasal continuous positive airways pressure device with nasal cannula in obese patients undergoing colonoscopy during deep sedation
Yiping Bai, Zeping Xu, Meera Chandrashekar, Paul J. St Jacques, Yafen Liang, Yandong Jiang, Koffi Kla
European Journal of Anaesthesiology.2019; 36(9): 633. CrossRef
Rare Entities of Histopathological Findings in 755 Sleeve Gastrectomy Cases: a Synopsis of Preoperative Endoscopy Findings and Histological Evaluation of the Specimen
Erkan Yardimci, Suleyman Bozkurt, Lutfullah Baskoy, Huseyin Kazim Bektasoglu, Melin Ozgun Gecer, Samet Yigman, Huseyin Akbulut, Halil Coskun
Obesity Surgery.2018; 28(5): 1289. CrossRef
No increased risk of perforation during colonoscopy in patients undergoing propofol versus traditional sedation: A meta-analysis
Minmin Xue, Jian Tian, Jing Zhang, Hongbin Zhu, Jun Bai, Sujuan Zhang, Qili Wang, Shuge Wang, Xuzheng Song, Donghong Ma, Jia Li, Yongmin Zhang, Wei Li, Dongxu Wang
Indian Journal of Gastroenterology.2018; 37(2): 86. CrossRef
2017 WSES guidelines for the management of iatrogenic colonoscopy perforation
Nicola de’Angelis, Salomone Di Saverio, Osvaldo Chiara, Massimo Sartelli, Aleix Martínez-Pérez, Franca Patrizi, Dieter G. Weber, Luca Ansaloni, Walter Biffl, Offir Ben-Ishay, Miklosh Bala, Francesco Brunetti, Federica Gaiani, Solafah Abdalla, Aurelien Ami
World Journal of Emergency Surgery.2018;[Epub] CrossRef
Needs assessment survey for simulation‐based training for gastrointestinal endoscopy nurses
Sol Yu, Young Sook Roh
Nursing & Health Sciences.2018; 20(2): 247. CrossRef
Do we really need an anesthesiologist for routine colonoscopy in American Society of Anesthesiologist 1 and 2 patients?
Joshua W. Sappenfield, Jeffrey D. White
Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology.2018; 31(4): 463. CrossRef
Sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Australia
Kate Leslie, James Sgroi
Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology.2018; 31(4): 481. CrossRef
Airway Management During Upper GI Endoscopic Procedures: State of the Art Review
Basavana Goudra, Preet Mohinder Singh
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2017; 62(1): 45. CrossRef
Training in ERCP and EUS in the UK anno 2017
Noor LH Bekkali, Gavin J Johnson
Frontline Gastroenterology.2017; 8(2): 124. CrossRef
Raise the bar for safe sedation, not barriers for access to care
Raymond A. Dionne
The Journal of the American Dental Association.2017; 148(3): 133. CrossRef
Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prior to Bariatric Surgery-Mandatory or Expendable? An Analysis of 801 Cases
Stefan Wolter, Anna Duprée, Jameel Miro, Cornelia Schroeder, Marie-Isabelle Jansen, Clarissa Schulze-zur-Wiesch, Stefan Groth, Jakob Izbicki, Oliver Mann, Philipp Busch
Obesity Surgery.2017;[Epub] CrossRef
Reply to “State of the Art in Airway Management During GI Endoscopy: The Missing Pieces”
Basavana Goudra, Preet Mohinder Singh
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2017; 62(5): 1388. CrossRef
Adverse Events by Sedation Type in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Joon Sung Kim, Byung-Wook Kim
Clinical Endoscopy.2017; 50(2): 97. CrossRef
Nonoperating room anesthesia for endoscopic procedures
Stephan Knigge, Klaus Hahnenkamp
Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology.2017; 30(6): 652. CrossRef
Sedation-related Adverse Events Associated with a Diagnostic Upper Endoscopy: A Single Center-observational Study
Jihyun Lee, Ki-Nam Shim, Kang Hoon Lee, Ko Eun Lee, Ji Young Chang, Chung Hyun Tae, Chang Mo Moon, Seong-Eun Kim, Hye-Kyung Jung, Sung-Ae Jung
The Korean Journal of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research.2017; 17(4): 185. CrossRef
Sedation during Endoscopy, Can We Take It Easy?
Joo Hyun Lim
The Korean Journal of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research.2017; 17(4): 163. CrossRef
Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma identified at laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
Halle B. Ellison, David M. Parker, Ryan D. Horsley, Daaron McField, Michael E. Friscia, Anthony T. Petrick
International Journal of Surgery Case Reports.2016; 25: 179. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; 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
Citation and abstract for the content below

Association between Type of Sedation and the Adverse Events Associated with Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: An Analysis of 5 Years’ Data from a Tertiary Center in the USA

Clin Endosc. 2017;50(2):161-169. Published online April 29, 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2016.019

XML Download

Figure

Association between Type of Sedation and the Adverse Events Associated with Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: An Analysis of 5 Years’ Data from a Tertiary Center in the USA

Fig. 1. A graphical representation of the frequency of selected adverse events in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures either with propofol anesthesia or intravenous conscious sedation.

Fig. 2. A graphical representation of the frequency of selected adverse events in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and colonoscopy. GI, gastrointestinal.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Association between Type of Sedation and the Adverse Events Associated with Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: An Analysis of 5 Years’ Data from a Tertiary Center in the USA

Adverse event	Frequency
Adverse event	A	S	Not available	Total
1. Bleed	21	18	12	51
2. Cardiorespiratory arrest	16	4	1	21
3. Postprocedural pain	10	6	4	20
4. Pancreatitis	16	1	0	17
5. Arrhythmias	5	2	1	8
6. Febrile reaction	4	1	1	6
7. Non-cardiac chest pain	2	4	0	6
8. Perforation	3	1	1	5
9. Hypoxia	4	0	0	4
10. Iatrogenic	3	1	0	4
11. Hemodynamic	1	2	0	3
12. Myocardial infarction	2	0	0	2
13. Miscellaneous	1	0	1	2
14. Obstruction	2	0	0	2
15. Tooth break	2	0	0	2
16. Anaphylaxis	0	0	1	1
17. Aspiration pneumonia	1	0	0	1
18. Cognitive dysfunction	1	0	0	1
19. Dyspnoea	0	0	1	1
20. GI obstruction	0	0	1	1
21. Seizures	0	1	0	1
22. Sore throat	1	0	0	1
23. Stricture	1	0	0	1
24. Stridor	1	0	0	1
25. Syncope	0	1	0	1
Total	97	42	24	163

Adverse event	A (n=14,534)		S (n=16,907)		NA	Total (n=31,441)
Adverse event	Frequency	Incidence	Frequency	Incidence	Frequency	Frequency	Incidence
Cardiorespiratory arrest^a)	13	8.940	0	0	1	14	4.433
Postprocedure pain	4	2.751	3	1.770	3	10	3.167
Bleed	3	2.063	3	1.770	2	8	2.533
Non-cardiac chest pain	2	1.375	2	1.180	0	4	1.267
Arrhythmias	2	1.375	0	0	1	3	0.950
Hypoxia	3	2.063	0	0	0	3	0.950
Perforation	3	2.063	0	0	0	3	0.950
Iatrogenic	2	1.375	0	0	0	2	0.633
Myocardial infarction	2	1.375	0	0	0	2	0.633
Pancreatitis	2	1.375	0	0	0	2	0.633
Tooth break	2	1.375	0	0	0	2	0.633
Anaphylaxis	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.317
Cognitive dysfunction	1	0.688	0	0	0	1	0.317
Hemodynamic	0	0	1	0.590	0	1	0.317
Obstruction	1	0.688	0	0	0	1	0.317
Seizures	0	0	1	0.590	0	1	0.317
Sore throat	1	0.688	0	0	0	1	0.317
Stricture	1	0.688	0	0	0	1	0.317
Total	42	28.883	10	6	8	60	19.000

Adverse event	A (n=3,694)		S (n=1,545)		Total (n=5,239)
Adverse event	Frequency	Incidence	Frequency	Incidence	Frequency	Incidence
Pancreatitis^a)	14	37.900	1	6.472	15	28.631
Bleed^a)	5	13.535	0	0	5	9.544
Febrile reaction^a)	4	10.828	0	0	4	7.635
Cardiorespiratory arrest	2	5.414	1	6.472	3	5.726
Postprocedural pain	2	5.414	0	0	2	3.818
Arrhythmias	1	2.707	0	0	1	1.909
Hypoxia	1	2.707	0	0	1	1.909
Iatrogenic	1	2.707	0	0	1	1.909
Miscellaneous	1	2.707	0	0	1	1.909
Total	31	83.920	2	12.945	33	62.989

Adverse event	A (n=9,767)		S (n=23,536)		NA	Total (n=33,303)
Adverse event	Frequency	Incidence	Frequency	Incidence	Frequency	Frequency	Incidence
Bleed	13	13.310	13	5.523	10	36	10.810
Postprocedural pain	3	3.072	2	0.850	1	6	1.802
Arrhythmias	2	2.048	2	0.850	0	4	1.201
Cardiorespiratory arrest	1	1.024	2	0.850	0	3	0.900
Febrile reaction	0	0	1	0.425	1	2	0.601
Hemodynamic	1	1.024	1	0.425	0	2	0.601
Perforation	0	0	1	0.425	1	2	0.601
Aspiration pneumonia	1	1.024	0	0	0	1	0.300
Dyspnoea	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.300
GI obstruction	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.300
Non-cardiac chest pain	0	0	1	0.425	0	1	0.300
Obstruction	1	1.024	0	0	0	1	0.300
Stridor	1	1.024	0	0	0	1	0.300
Total	23	23.549	23	9.772	15	61	18.317

	Propofol	Intravenous conscious sedation	p-value (chi-square test)
Cardiac arrest	6.069	0.666	<0.0001
Pancreatitis	5.698	0.222	<0.0001
Postprocedure pain	3.561	1.322	<0.0001
Febrile reaction	1.780	0.222	<0.0001
Iatrogenic	2.137	0.222	<0.0001

Factor	Life threatening vs. Non-life threatening
Factor	Standardized coefficients β^a)	Statistical significance (p-value)
BMI	–0.179	0.103
MMP	0.188	0.112
ASA^b)	0.243	0.032
Age at surgery	0.056	0.639
Procedure type^c)	0.210	0.041
Sedation type^d)	0.428	0.002
Overall predictability	26.81% (p=0.001)

Table 1. A Simplified Presentation of All 163 Adverse Events Associated with 73,029 Procedures Endoscopic Procedures

A, anesthesia provider administered sedation; S, gastrointestinal endoscopist directed sedation; GI, gastrointestinal.

Table 2. Frequency and Incidence (per 10,000 Procedures) of Selected Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

A, anesthesia provider administered sedation; S, gastrointestinal endoscopist directed sedation; NA, not available.

Statistically significant different values using chi-square test (p<0.05) are marked.

Table 3. Frequency and Incidence (per 10,000 Procedures) of Selected Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

A, anesthesia provider administered sedation; S, gastrointestinal endoscopist directed sedation.

Statistically significant different values using chi-square test (p<0.05) are marked.

Table 4. Frequency and Incidence (per 10,000 Procedures) of Selected Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy

None of the values were statistically different in any of the groups.

A, anesthesia provider administered sedation; S, gastrointestinal endoscopist directed sedation; NA, not available; GI, gastrointestinal.

Table 5. Comparison of Frequency of Selected Adverse Events Showing Statistically Significant Difference between Propofol and Non-Propofol Sedation

Table 6. Regression Modelling for Predictors of “Immediate Life Threatening Complications”

BMI, body mass index; MMP, Mallampatti airway class; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists.

The strength of association is shown by “β coefficient” and the negative β coefficient denotes a negative relation between factor and outcome (life threatening complications included cardiorespiratory arrest, significant hypoxia [needing immediate intervention] and myocardial infarction);

American Society of Anaesthesiologists status 3 and above is associated with higher risk life threatening events;

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is associated with higher risk of life threatening events;