The relationship between demographics and reactions during endoscopy under moderate sedation.

Year 2024, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 94 - 98, 30.06.2024

İsmail Çalıkoğlu , Alaaddin Aydın , Şeref Oray , Sercan Yüksel , Uğur Topal , Erdal Karaköse , Zafer Teke , Hasan Bektaş

https://doi.org/10.36516/jocass.1458310

Abstract

Objective: Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopic procedures are performed under varying levels of anesthesia, with moderate sedation commonly utilized. However, some patients may exhibit reactions such as coughing, retching, and struggling, potentially affecting procedure quality. This study aims to investigate the relationship between patient characteristics and demographic variables and the occurrence of these reactions during UGI endoscopy under moderate sedation.
Materials and Methods: This prospective observational cohort study included patients scheduled for UGI endoscopy under moderate sedation. Patient reactions, including coughing, retching, and struggling, were documented during the procedure. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the presence or absence of reactions, and demographic characteristics were compared between groups. Institutional review board approval was obtained.
Results: Between December 2021 and May 2022, 79 patients (44 female, 35 male) were enrolled, with 51.9% experiencing reactions during UGI endoscopy. Coughing was the most common reaction (65%), followed by struggling with the scope (52.5%) and retching (47.5%). Procedure cancellation due to intolerance occurred in 12.2% of cases. No significant differences were observed between groups in terms of demographic variables or medical history. Additionally, no cardiac or pulmonary complications were reported.
Conclusion: Moderate sedation appears to be safe and effective for UGI endoscopy, facilitating adequate visualization of the UGI system while ensuring patient comfort. The occurrence of patient reactions during the procedure does not appear to be significantly influenced by demographic or clinical characteristics. Ensuring appropriate sedation levels remains essential for optimizing procedural quality and patient experience.

Keywords

Endoscopy, Sedation, Moderate sedation, Complication

Ethical Statement

The authors declare that they have no financial conflict of interest with regard to the content of this report.

Supporting Institution

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Thanks

None

Orta düzeyde sedasyon altında yapılan endoskopi sırasında ortaya çıkan reaksiyonların demografik özellikler ile ilişkisi.

Abstract

Amaç: Üst gastrointestinal (ÜGI) endoskopik işlemler, genellikle orta düzeyde sedasyonla olmak üzere farklı anestezi derinliklerinde gerçekleştirilir. Ancak, bazı hastalar işlem sırasında öksürme, kusma ve mücadele gibi reaksiyonlar gösterebilir ve bu, işlem kalitesini olumsuz etkileyebilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, orta düzeyde sedasyon altında ÜGI endoskopisi sırasında hastaların karakteristik özellikleri ve demografik verileri ile bu reaksiyonların oluşumu arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmaktır.
Materyal ve Metod: Bu çalışma prospektif gözlemsel kohort çalışma olarak dizayn edilmiştir. Orta düzeyde sedasyon altında ÜGI endoskopisi için planlanan hastaları içermektedir. Hastaların işlem sırasında öksürme, kusma ve skop ile mücadele gibi reaksiyonları kayıt edilmiştir. Hastalar, reaksiyonların varlığına veya yokluğuna göre iki gruba ayrılmış ve gruplar arasında demografik özellikler karşılaştırılmıştır. Etik kurul onayı alınmıştır.
Bulgular: Aralık 2021 ile Mayıs 2022 arasında, 79 hasta (44 kadın, 35 erkek) çalışmaya dahil edilmiş ve bunların %51,9'u ÜGI endoskopisi sırasında reaksiyonlar göstermiştir. En yaygın reaksiyon öksürme (%65) olmuştur, bunu aletle mücadele (%52,5) ve kusma (%47,5) izlemiştir. İşlem iptali %12,2 oranında gerçekleşmiştir. Demografik değişkenler veya tıbbi geçmiş açısından gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılık gözlenmemiştir. Ayrıca, kardiyak veya pulmoner komplikasyon meydana gelmemiştir.
Sonuç: Orta düzeyde sedasyon, ÜGI endoskopisi için güvenli ve etkili bir yöntem olarak görünmektedir ve hastaların konforunu sağlarken ÜGI sisteminin yeterli bir şekilde görüntülenmesini kolaylaştırmaktadır. İşlem sırasında hastaların reaksiyonlarının, demografik veya klinik özelliklerden etkilenmediği görülmüştür. Uygun sedasyon seviyelerinin sağlanması, işlem kalitesini ve hasta deneyimini optimize etmek için önemlidir.

Keywords

Endoskopi, Sedasyon, Orta düzey sedasyon, Komplikasyon

References

• 1. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Early DS, Lightdale JR, Vargo JJ 2nd, et al. Guidelines for sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:327-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.07.018.
• 2. Dossa F, Megetto O, Yakubu M, et al. Sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review of recommendations. BMC Gastroenterol. 2021;7;21:22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-020-01561-z.
• 3. Gross JB, Bachenberg KL, Benumof JL, et al. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Management. Practice guidelines for the perioperative management of patients with obstructive sleep apnea: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Management of patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Anesthesiology. 2006;104:1081-93. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200605000-00026.
• 4. Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT, et al. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut. 2013;62:242-249. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200605000-00026.
• 5. Lin OS. Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction. Intest Res. 2017;15:456-466. https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2017.15.4.456.
• 6. Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators common to all GI endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:3-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.055.
• 7. Veldhuijzen G, de Jong MJP, Roosen CM, et al. The gastrointestinal endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire captures patient satisfaction as a key quality indicator of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;32:832-837. https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000001764.
• 8. Gotoda T, Akamatsu T, Abe S, et al. Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition). Dig Endosc. 2021;33:21-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.13882.
• 9. Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Schreiber F, et al. Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates Guideline--Updated June 2015. Endoscopy. 2015;47:1175-1189. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1393414.
• 10. Bhutiani N, Bruenderman E, Davidyuk V, et al. Is more anesthesia care better in endoscopy? Comparing the safety and cost of conscious sedation and anesthesia provider-based care. J Gastrointest Surg. 2022;26:483-485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-021-05120-z.
• 11. Terui T, Inomata M. Administration of additional analgesics can decrease the incidence of paradoxical reactions in patients under benzodiazepine-induced sedation during endoscopic transpapillary procedures: prospective randomized controlled trial. Dig Endosc. 2013;25:53-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1443-1661.2012.01325.x.
• 12. Yüksel O, Parlak E, Köklü S, et al. Conscious sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: midazolam or midazolam plus meperidine? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;19:1002-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0b013e3282cf5167.
• 13. Wadhwa V, Issa D, Garg S, et al. Similar risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events between propofol and traditional anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15:194-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2016.07.013.
• 14. Petrini J, Egan JV. Risk management regarding sedation/analgesia. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2004;14:401-414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giec.2004.01.007.
• 15. Cohen LB, Delegge MH, Aisenberg J, et al. AGA Institute. AGA Institute review of endoscopic sedation. Gastroenterology. 2007;133:675-701. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2007.06.002.
• 16. Stepanikova I, Oates GR. Perceived discrimination and privilege in health care: the role of socioeconomic status and race. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52:86-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.09.024.
• 17. Marques S, Mariano J, Mendonça J, et al. Determinants of ageism against older adults: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:2560. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072560.
• 18. Drewniak D, Krones T, Wild V. Do attitudes and behavior of health care professionals exacerbate health care disparities among immigrant and ethnic minority groups? An integrative literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;70:89-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.02.015.
• 19. Hall WJ, Chapman MV, Lee KM, et al. Implicit racial/ethnic bias among health care professionals and ıts ınfluence on health care outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Public Health. 2015;105:e60-76. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302903.
• 20. Alkan A, Erdem R, Çelik R. Discrimative attitudes and behaviour in field of healthcare: a conceptual review. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi. 2016; 19:365-390.