Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Safety of endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk collective
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Introduction Worldwide, gastrointestinal endoscopies are predominantly performed under sedation. National and international guidelines and recommendations contain very different specifications for the use of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. These differences come from specific requirements for staffing during endoscopy.
Aim The aim of the study is to evaluate whether endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance is not inferior to endoscopist-guided sedation with additional sedation assistance with respect to the rate of sedation-associated complications in a defined low-risk population (low-risk procedure and low-risk patient).
Methods Prospective, multicenter, randomized study.
Results 27 German study centers participated in the study. A total of 30 569 endoscopies were recorded during the study period from 1.8.2015 to 10.3.2020. The final data analysis included 28 673 examinations (64.1 % esophagosgastroduodenoscopies and 35.9 % colonoscopies). In 307 (1.1 %) examinations, 322 sedation-associated complications occurred. Of these, 321 (1.1 %) were minor complications and one (0.003 %) was a major complication. There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of sedation-associated complications between endoscopist-guided sedation with versus without additional sedation assistance. Within the legal framework, a “shadow” sedation assistant was present in the study group without sedation assistance. This assistant intervened because of sedation-associated complications in 101 (0.7 %) of the endoscopies.
Conclusion The study documents the safety of propofol-based endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk population. In 98.9 % of all endoscopies, no sedation-associated complication occurred or it was so minimal that no intervention (e. g., increase of oxygen supply) was necessary. The study cannot answer to what extent a serious complication was avoided by the active intervention of the “shadow” sedation assistance in the group without sedation assistance.The study proves in a randomized, prospective design that sedation in low-risk endoscopy (low-risk patient, low-risk procedure) can be performed as endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance, without demonstrably accepting a reduction in safety.
Title: Safety of endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk collective
Description:
Abstract
Introduction Worldwide, gastrointestinal endoscopies are predominantly performed under sedation.
National and international guidelines and recommendations contain very different specifications for the use of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.
These differences come from specific requirements for staffing during endoscopy.
Aim The aim of the study is to evaluate whether endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance is not inferior to endoscopist-guided sedation with additional sedation assistance with respect to the rate of sedation-associated complications in a defined low-risk population (low-risk procedure and low-risk patient).
Methods Prospective, multicenter, randomized study.
Results 27 German study centers participated in the study.
A total of 30 569 endoscopies were recorded during the study period from 1.
8.
2015 to 10.
3.
2020.
The final data analysis included 28 673 examinations (64.
1 % esophagosgastroduodenoscopies and 35.
9 % colonoscopies).
In 307 (1.
1 %) examinations, 322 sedation-associated complications occurred.
Of these, 321 (1.
1 %) were minor complications and one (0.
003 %) was a major complication.
There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of sedation-associated complications between endoscopist-guided sedation with versus without additional sedation assistance.
Within the legal framework, a “shadow” sedation assistant was present in the study group without sedation assistance.
This assistant intervened because of sedation-associated complications in 101 (0.
7 %) of the endoscopies.
Conclusion The study documents the safety of propofol-based endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk population.
In 98.
9 % of all endoscopies, no sedation-associated complication occurred or it was so minimal that no intervention (e.
g.
, increase of oxygen supply) was necessary.
The study cannot answer to what extent a serious complication was avoided by the active intervention of the “shadow” sedation assistance in the group without sedation assistance.
The study proves in a randomized, prospective design that sedation in low-risk endoscopy (low-risk patient, low-risk procedure) can be performed as endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance, without demonstrably accepting a reduction in safety.
Related Results
Effect of Moderate Sedation Versus Deep Sedation on Recovery Following Outpatient Gastroscopy in Older Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Effect of Moderate Sedation Versus Deep Sedation on Recovery Following Outpatient Gastroscopy in Older Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract
Background
Although gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation is being increasingly performed in older patients, the appropriate level of sedation remains unclear....
Pharmacodynamic modeling of moderate sedation and rationale for dosing using midazolam, propofol and alfentanil
Pharmacodynamic modeling of moderate sedation and rationale for dosing using midazolam, propofol and alfentanil
Abstract
Purpose:
Regulations have broadened to allow moderate sedation administration for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-an...
Pharmacodynamic modeling of moderate sedation and rationale for dosing using midazolam, propofol and alfentanil
Pharmacodynamic modeling of moderate sedation and rationale for dosing using midazolam, propofol and alfentanil
Abstract
Purpose:
Regulations have broadened to allow moderate sedation administration for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-an...
Evaluating the Need for Pediatric Procedural Sedation Training in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Fellowship*
Evaluating the Need for Pediatric Procedural Sedation Training in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Fellowship*
Objectives:
Pediatric procedural sedation has been increasingly performed by pediatric intensivists over the past decade. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine fellowship gu...
PARENTAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION TOWARDS THE USE OF CONSCIOUS SEDATION
PARENTAL KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION TOWARDS THE USE OF CONSCIOUS SEDATION
Background: Behavioural management alleviates dental anxiety and instils a positive dental attitude. Conscious Sedation is a pharmacological behavioural management where medication...
Safety of balanced propofol and midazolam in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for sedation in cirrhotic patients
Safety of balanced propofol and midazolam in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for sedation in cirrhotic patients
Abstract
Objective: Sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) in patients with cirrhosis is theoretically associated with high incidence of adverse events due to low le...
Effective Sedation Strategies for Pediatric MRI: A Comprehensive Analysis
Effective Sedation Strategies for Pediatric MRI: A Comprehensive Analysis
This study presents a structured sedation program for pediatric patients undergoing MRI, aiming to optimize safety and resource utilization. A total of 1857 children were included,...
Rectal chloral hydrate sedation for computed tomography in young children with head trauma
Rectal chloral hydrate sedation for computed tomography in young children with head trauma
Abstract
Children evaluated in the emergency department for head trauma often undergo computed tomography (CT), with some uncooperative children requiring pharmacologic...

