Search

Objectives: Regulatory changes requiring the use of capnographic monitoring for endoscopic procedures using moderate sedation have placed financial challenges on ambulatory and hospital endoscopy centers across the United States due to the increased cost of training endoscopy personnel and purchasing both capnography-monitoring devices and specialized sampling ports. To date, there has been no published data supporting the use of capnographic monitoring in adult patients undergoing routine endoscopic procedures with moderate sedation. The aim of this randomized, parallel group assignment trial was to determine whether intervention based on capnographic monitoring improves detection of hypoxemia in patients undergoing routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or colonoscopy with moderate sedation., Methods: Healthy patients (ASA Physical Classification (ASAPS) I and II)) scheduled for routine outpatient EGD or colonoscopy under moderate sedation utilizing opioid and benzodiazepine combinations were randomly assigned to a blinded capnography alarm or open capnography alarm group. In both study arms, standard cardiopulmonary monitoring devices were utilized with additional capnographic monitoring. The primary end point was the incidence of hypoxemia defined as a fall in oxygen saturation (SaO2) to <90% for ≥10 s. Secondary outcomes included severe hypoxemia, apnea, disordered respirations, hypotension, bradycardia, and early procedure termination for any cause., Results: A total of 452 patients were randomized; 218 in the EGD and 234 in the colonoscopy groups; 75 subjects in the EGD group (35.9%) and 114 patients (49.4%) in the colonoscopy group were male, and average body mass index was 27.9 and 29.1 (kg/m(2)), respectively. The blinded and open alarm groups in each study arm were similar in regards to use of opioids and/or benzodiazepines and ASAPS classification. There was no significant difference in rates of hypoxemia between the blinded and open capnography arms for EGD (54.1% vs. 49.5; P=0.5) or colonoscopy (53.8 vs. 52.1%; P=0.79)., Conclusions: Capnographic monitoring in routine EGD or colonoscopy for ASAPS I and II patients does not reduce the incidence of hypoxemia (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01994785).

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), which is linked to the prevalence of obesity, continues to rise in the United States. There are limited data on the risk for sedation-related adverse events (SRAE) in patients with undiagnosed OSA receiving propofol for routine EGD and colonoscopy., Objective: To identify the prevalence of OSA by using the STOP-BANG questionnaire (SB) and subsequent risk factors for airway interventions (AI) and SRAE in patients undergoing elective EGD and colonoscopy., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Tertiary-care teaching hospital., Patients: A total of 243 patients undergoing routine EGD or colonoscopy at Cleveland Clinic., Intervention: Chin lift, mask ventilation, placement of nasopharyngeal airway, bag mask ventilation, unplanned endotracheal intubation, hypoxia, hypotension, or early procedure termination., Main Outcome Measurements: Rates of AI and SRAE., Results: Mean age of the cohort was 50 ± 16.2 years, and 41% were male. The prevalence of SB+ was 48.1%. The rates of hypoxia (11.2% vs 16.9%; P = .20) and hypotension (10.4% vs 5.9%; P = .21) were similar between SB- and SB+ patients. An SB score ≥3 was found not to be associated with occurrence of AI (relative risk [RR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.5) or SRAE (RR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.53-1.2) after we adjusted for total and loading dose of propofol, body mass index (BMI), smoking, and age. Higher BMI was associated with an increased risk for AI (RR 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04) and SRAE (RR 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05). Increased patient age (RR 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.2), higher loading propofol doses (RR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8), and smoking (RR 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9) were associated with higher rates of SRAE., Limitations: Non-randomized study., Conclusion: A significant number of patients undergoing routine EGD and colonoscopy are at risk for OSA. SB+ patients are not at higher risk for AI or SRAE. However, other risk factors for AI and SRAE have been identified and must be taken into account to optimize patient safety., (Copyright © 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aim: Colonoscopic perforation is a rare complication. We sought to determine its risk factors in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)., Materials and Methods: The study group consisted of 19 IBD patients who had perforation secondary to diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopy from January 2002 to October 2010. The control group consists of 76 IBD patients undergoing colonoscopy and no perforations that were matched based on indication in a 4:1 ratio to the study group. Demographic and clinical variables as well as perforation outcomes were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses., Results: There were a total of 5295 colonoscopies done during the study period in IBD patients of which 19 patients had perforation. The prevalence of perforation in IBD patients was 0.3%. Of the 19 patients, 12 had Crohn's disease (CD) and 7 had ulcerative colitis (UC). Patients in the perforation group were more likely treated with steroids (68.4% vs. 21.1%, p<0.001) and had severe disease on endoscopy (31.6% vs. 10.1%, p=0.03) than that in the control groups. On multivariate analysis, severe disease on endoscopy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=3.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.03-15.24) and steroid treatment (aOR=7.68; 95% CI=1.48, 39.81) were independently associated with the risk of perforation. The median length of stay in the perforation group was 10 days (range 2-23 days). There was no mortality in our study., Conclusions: There appears to be a higher risk of colonoscopy-associated perforation in IBD patients with active disease and on steroids., (Copyright © 2011 European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)