Search

Background: Pre-medication with droperidol has been used to improve sedation during endoscopy, especially in patients with a history of alcohol or narcotic abuse. We studied whether routine use of droperidol pre-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) could improve patient and physician satisfaction with sedation. Methods: Sixty-seven patients undergoing routine ERCP were enrolled in this double-blind placebo-controlled study. Patients were given either parenteral normal saline solution or 5 mg of droperidol 15 minutes before the procedure. After the ERCP, several parameters of procedural sedation were scored on an ordinal scale by the endoscopist, the endoscopy nurse, and the recovered patient. In addition, a follow-up telephone call was made to the patient after 24 hours. Results: The mean procedural room time was similar in the two groups. Nearly 25% less meperidine and diazepam was used in the droperidol-treated patients, making the overall medication cost similar in both groups. The mean recovery room time was 113 minutes for the placebo group and 106 minutes for the droperidol group. Droperidol premedication significantly decreased post-procedure nausea and vomiting, reduced gagging at intubation, and decreased retching during the procedure. Droperidol also improved physician (p = 0.001), nurse (p = 0.001), and patient (p = 0.0001) impressions of overall sedation and decreased the need for physical restraint during the procedure. Droperidol significantly increased the number of patients with no memory of the procedure. Conclusion: Droperidol improved overall patient, physician, and nurse satisfaction with sedation during ERCP. It also reduced post-ERCP nausea and vomiting without increasing recovery time or medication cost. Droperidol is recommended for routine pre-ERCP sedation. (Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:362-6).

Background: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is highly accurate in the localization of small pancreatic tumors. We determined the cost effectiveness of EUS used early in the preoperative evaluation of pancreatic endocrine tumors. Methods: In a study with a case-control design, 36 patients (19 men, 17 women) who underwent preoperative EUS were matched retrospectively with 36 patients who underwent surgical exploration immediately before the introduction of EUS. The number, cost, and effectiveness of preoperative localization studies, days of hospitalization, and surgical and anesthesia times were assessed. Results: The EUS group had reduced charges for preoperative localization studies: $2620 versus $4846 per patient (p < 0.05), largely because of reductions in the number of diagnostic angiograms and venous sampling procedures performed. Surgical and total anesthesia times were decreased, as were the number of preoperative admissions for angiographic procedures. The cost-effectiveness ratio for the EUS group was $3144 per tumor localized compared with $5628 per tumor localized for the group treated before EUS became available (p < 0.05). Conclusion: EUS is highly accurate in the localization of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and is cost effective when used early in the preoperative localization strategy. EUS decreased the need for additional invasive tests and avoided unnecessary morbidity and resource consumption. EUS should play a primary role in preoperative localization of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. (Gastrointest Endosc 1999;49:19-25.)

Background: Complications after endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy occur in 8% to 10% of patients when studied prospectively. It is not known whether the type of electrocautery current affects this rate. Theoretically, less edema of the ampulla after a pure cutting current sphincterotomy could decrease the risk of pancreatitis although the risk of postsphincterotomy hemorrhage might be greater. Methods : One hundred seventy patients undergoing sphincterotomy were prospectively randomized to either a blended or pure cut current on the Valleylab electrosurgical unit. The settings were a blended three current at a power setting of 30 watts/sec for both the cut and coagulation currents or a pure cut current at a power setting of 30 watts/sec. The individual determining whether a complication occurred was blinded to the type of current used, and all patients were hospitalized for 24 hours post-procedure. Pancreatitis was defined as mild if fewer than 5 days, moderate if 5 to 14 days, and severe if more than 14 days of hospitalization were required. Results: Indications for sphincterotomy were choledocholithiasis in 111 patients, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction in 36 patients, stent placement in 15 patients, and miscellaneous in 8 patients. There were a total of 16 complications in 170 patients (9%); 4 (5%) were in the pure cut current group of 86 patients (one episode of bleeding that required transfusion of 4 U and three episodes of mild pancreatitis), and 12 (14%) were in the blended current group of 84 patients (7 mild, 2 moderate, and 1 severe pancreatitis; 1 case of cholangitis; and one episode of bleeding that required transfusion of 2 U). There were significantly fewer complications in the pure cut group (p < 0.05 by chi-square). Conclusion: The use of pure cut current is associated with a lower incidence of pancreatitis, the most common ERCP complication, than with blended current sphincterotomy. An insufficient number of patients were studied to comment on the relative risk of hemorrhage. However, because the complication of hemorrhage is much less common than pancreatitis, pure cut current is safer overall. (Gastrointest Endosc 1998;47:149-53)