CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2017; 05(02): E110-E115
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-121667
Original article
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2017

Assessing the safety of physician-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation in low-risk patients undergoing endoscopy and colonoscopy

Dharshan Sathananthan
1   Royal Adelaide Hospital – Gastroenerology, Adelaide, South Australia
,
Edward Young
2   University of Adelaide Medical School, Adelaide, South Australia
,
Garry Nind
3   Lyell McEwin Hospital – Gastroenterology, Adelaide, South Australia
,
Biju George
3   Lyell McEwin Hospital – Gastroenterology, Adelaide, South Australia
,
Angelie Ashby
4   University of Adelaide/Lyell McEwin Hospital, Endoscopy Unit, Elizabeth Vale, South Australia
,
Sharon Drummond
4   University of Adelaide/Lyell McEwin Hospital, Endoscopy Unit, Elizabeth Vale, South Australia
,
Kasia Redel
4   University of Adelaide/Lyell McEwin Hospital, Endoscopy Unit, Elizabeth Vale, South Australia
,
Neville Green
5   Lyell McEwin Hospital – Anaesthetics, Elizabeth Vale, South Australia
,
Rajvinder Singh
3   Lyell McEwin Hospital – Gastroenterology, Adelaide, South Australia
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 15 June 2016

accepted after revision 02 November 2016

Publication Date:
13 February 2017 (online)

Abstract

Background and study aims Physician-directed nurse-administered balanced propofol sedation (PhD NAPS) in patients undergoing endoscopy and/or colonoscopy is being increasingly utilized worldwide. However, this method of sedation is not universally employed in Australian hospitals due to concerns surrounding its safety. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of PhD NAPS in low-risk patients undergoing endoscopy and/or colonoscopy.

Patients and methods This study was conducted at a single tertiary teaching hospital in Adelaide, Australia. It was a prospective study involving 1000 patients with an ASA score of 1 – 3 presenting with any indication for endoscopy, colonoscopy or both. A total of 981 patients (451 male) with a mean age of 53 years (range: 16 – 87) were recruited from January 2010 to October 2012. 440 endoscopies, 420 colonoscopies, and 121 combined procedures were performed. The intra-procedural adverse events (AEs) were recorded.

Results There were no major intra-procedural adverse events. Minor AEs occurred in 6.42 % of patients, and resolved spontaneously or with intravenous fluid boluses in all cases.

Conclusion PhD NAPS is safe when the proceduralist and nursing staff are adequately trained and strict patient selection criteria are used.

 
  • References

  • 1 Mackenzie N, Grant IS. Propofol for intravenous sedation. Anesthesia 1987; 42: 3-6
  • 2 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
  • 3 Deenadayalu VP, Eid EF, Goff JS. et al. Non-anesthesiologist Administered Propofol Sedation for Endoscopic Procedures: A Worldwide Safety Review. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: AB107
  • 4 Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Aparicio JR. et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 960-974
  • 5 Vargo JJ, Cohen LB, Rex DK. et al. Position statement: Nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Gastroenterology 2009; 137: 2161-2167
  • 6 Daneshmend TK, Bell GD, Logan RF. Sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of a nationwide survey. Gut 1991; 32: 12-15
  • 7 Froehlich F, Gonvers JJ, Fried M. Conscious sedation, clinically relevant complications and monitoring of endoscopy: results of a nationwide survey in Switzerland. Endoscopy 1994; 26: 231-234
  • 8 Quine MA, Bell GD, McCloy RF. et al. Prospective audit of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in two regions of England: safety, staffing, and sedation methods. Gut 1995; 36: 462-467
  • 9 Thompson AM, Wright DJ, Murray W. et al. Analysis of 153 deaths after upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: room for improvement. Surg Endosc 2004; 18: 22-25.15
  • 10 Rex DK, Deenadayalu VP, Eid E. et al. Endoscopist-Directed Administration of Propofol: A Worldwide Safety Experience. Ygast 2009; 137: 1229-1237
  • 11 Goudra B, 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
  • 12 Qadeer MA, Vargo JJ, Khandwala F. et al. Propofol Versus Traditional Sedative Agents for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 3: 1049-1056
  • 13 American Society of Anesthesiologists. Statement on safe use of propofol. ASA House of Delagates, Illanois, USA: 2014
  • 14 Ong WC, Santosh D, Lakhtakia S. et al. A randomized controlled trial on use of propofol alone versus propofol with midazolam, ketamine, and pentazocine “sedato-analgesic cocktail” for sedation during ERCP. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 807-812
  • 15 Padmanabhan U, Leslie K, Eer AS. et al. Early cognitive impairment after sedation for colonoscopy: the effect of adding midazolam and/or fentanyl to propofol. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2009; 109: 1448-1455
  • 16 Paspatis GA, Manolaraki MM, Vardas E. et al. Deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: intravenous propofol alone versus intravenous propofol with oral midazolam premedication. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 308-313
  • 17 VanNatta ME, Rex DK. Propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus propofol in combination with opioids and/or benzodiazepines and titrated to moderate sedation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 2209-2217
  • 18 Perel A. Non-anaesthesiologists should not be allowed to administer propofol for procedural sedation: a Consensus Statementof 21 European National Societies of Anesthesia. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28: 580-584