Propofol administration by anesthesiologists versus endoscopists during colonoscopy: Does it make a difference?

M. Abbas, M. Shalabi, D. Gopalan, Princess Bianzon, F. Georgopoulos
{"title":"Propofol administration by anesthesiologists versus endoscopists during colonoscopy: Does it make a difference?","authors":"M. Abbas, M. Shalabi, D. Gopalan, Princess Bianzon, F. Georgopoulos","doi":"10.4103/WJCS.WJCS_23_19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Propofol anesthesia for endoscopic procedures has gained wide acceptance among physicians and patients. Much debate remains though whether propofol can be safely administered by non-anesthesiologists. Objective: To compare the procedural outcome of patients undergoing colonoscopy with Propofol target-controlled infusion administered by anesthesiologists vs. non-anesthesiologists. Design: A retrospective review. Setting: A private community hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Patients and Methods: All consecutive patients (age > 13 years, with American Society of Anesthesiologists class I-II and no other contraindications to administration of sedation by non-anesthesiologists) who underwent colonoscopy between January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2017. In the initial part of the study, propofol was administered by an anesthesiologist until the endoscopists were trained to provide propofol anesthesia via targeted-controlled infusion [TCI] by syringe pump. Intraprocedural data was collected in a prospective registry. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi square and student t test. Main Outcome Measures: Cecal intubation rate, procedural time, procedural-related complications, and polypectomy/biopsy rate. Sample Size: 347 patients. Results: Group 1 [anesthesiologists] 84 patients, Group 2 [endoscopists] 263 patients. Mean age was 44.8 and 46.9 years in Group 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.17). There was no difference in gender distribution. The mean procedural time was 21 minutes in both groups (P = 0.93). The cecal intubation rate was similar [92.9% in Group 1 vs. 94.3% in Group 2, P = 0.40). No difference in procedural-related complications was noted between groups, with 1 patient in Group 2 sustaining endoscopic perforation during balloon dilation of a near obstructing anastomotic stricture. Except for the patient with endoscopic perforation, no patient required advanced airway management. Conclusions: Propofol can be safely administered by endoscopists using target-controlled infusion. Similar total procedural time and cecal intubation rate can be achieved without increased risk of procedural-related complications. Limitations: Retrospective review, community-based hospital, elective cases, small cohort size. Conflict of Interest: None.","PeriodicalId":90396,"journal":{"name":"World journal of colorectal surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of colorectal surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/WJCS.WJCS_23_19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Propofol anesthesia for endoscopic procedures has gained wide acceptance among physicians and patients. Much debate remains though whether propofol can be safely administered by non-anesthesiologists. Objective: To compare the procedural outcome of patients undergoing colonoscopy with Propofol target-controlled infusion administered by anesthesiologists vs. non-anesthesiologists. Design: A retrospective review. Setting: A private community hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Patients and Methods: All consecutive patients (age > 13 years, with American Society of Anesthesiologists class I-II and no other contraindications to administration of sedation by non-anesthesiologists) who underwent colonoscopy between January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2017. In the initial part of the study, propofol was administered by an anesthesiologist until the endoscopists were trained to provide propofol anesthesia via targeted-controlled infusion [TCI] by syringe pump. Intraprocedural data was collected in a prospective registry. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi square and student t test. Main Outcome Measures: Cecal intubation rate, procedural time, procedural-related complications, and polypectomy/biopsy rate. Sample Size: 347 patients. Results: Group 1 [anesthesiologists] 84 patients, Group 2 [endoscopists] 263 patients. Mean age was 44.8 and 46.9 years in Group 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.17). There was no difference in gender distribution. The mean procedural time was 21 minutes in both groups (P = 0.93). The cecal intubation rate was similar [92.9% in Group 1 vs. 94.3% in Group 2, P = 0.40). No difference in procedural-related complications was noted between groups, with 1 patient in Group 2 sustaining endoscopic perforation during balloon dilation of a near obstructing anastomotic stricture. Except for the patient with endoscopic perforation, no patient required advanced airway management. Conclusions: Propofol can be safely administered by endoscopists using target-controlled infusion. Similar total procedural time and cecal intubation rate can be achieved without increased risk of procedural-related complications. Limitations: Retrospective review, community-based hospital, elective cases, small cohort size. Conflict of Interest: None.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
麻醉医师与内镜医师在结肠镜检查时使用异丙酚有区别吗?
背景:用于内镜手术的丙泊酚麻醉已被医生和患者广泛接受。尽管如此,非麻醉师是否可以安全地使用丙泊酚仍有许多争论。目的:比较麻醉师和非麻醉师使用丙泊酚靶向控制输注进行结肠镜检查的患者的手术结果。设计:回顾性回顾。背景:阿拉伯联合酋长国迪拜的一家私人社区医院。患者和方法:2017年1月1日至2017年9月30日期间接受结肠镜检查的所有连续患者(年龄>13岁,美国麻醉师学会I-II级,无其他非麻醉师镇静禁忌症)。在研究的最初部分,麻醉师给药丙泊酚,直到内窥镜医生接受培训,通过注射泵靶向控制输注[TCI]提供丙泊酚麻醉。在前瞻性登记中收集术中数据。采用卡方检验和学生t检验进行统计分析。主要结果指标:Cecal插管率、手术时间、手术相关并发症和息肉切除/活检率。样本量:347名患者。结果:第1组[麻醉师]84例,第2组[内镜医生]263例。第1组和第2组的平均年龄分别为44.8岁和46.9岁(P=0.017),性别分布无差异。两组的平均手术时间均为21分钟(P=0.093)。盲肠插管率相似[第1组为92.9%,第2组为94.3%,P=0.40)。两组之间的手术相关并发症没有差异,其中第2组有1名患者在球囊扩张近梗阻性吻合口狭窄时出现内窥镜穿孔。除了内窥镜打孔的患者外,没有患者需要进一步的气道管理由内镜医生使用靶控输注进行过滤。在不增加手术相关并发症风险的情况下,可以实现类似的总手术时间和盲肠插管率。局限性:回顾性审查,社区医院,选择性病例,小规模队列。利益冲突:无。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Real-time artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy and the effect of endoscopist experience on polyp detection rates at a tertiary referral center A case of acute intestinal obstruction in an infant during the COVID-19 pandemic Anal pruritus: Diagnosis and management Charity colonoscopy event and fund in Singapore: A Novel Method to Raise Awareness of Colorectal Cancer Screening The structural relationships between quality of life and mental conditions in stoma patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1