1119 SAFETY OF ENDOSCOPIST DIRECTED NURSE ADMINISTERED BALANCED PROPOFOL SEDATION (EDNAPS) FOR ROUTINE OUTPATIENT ENDOSCOPY IN ASA CLASS III PATIENTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 89 (6) ◽  
pp. AB140-AB141
Author(s):  
Patrick McKenzie ◽  
Janice Davis ◽  
Linda J. Taylor ◽  
Andrew J. Gawron ◽  
Douglas G. Adler ◽  
...  
2011 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 206-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Kyun Lee ◽  
Suck-Ho Lee ◽  
Il-Kwun Chung ◽  
Tae Hoon Lee ◽  
Sang-Heum Park ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (04) ◽  
pp. 158-162
Author(s):  
Joseph H. Nathan ◽  
Amir Klein ◽  
Ian M. Gralnek ◽  
Iyad Khamaysi

Abstract Background and Aims: Propofol administered in combination with other moderate sedation medications (balanced propofol sedation [BPS]) is an appealing and effective sedation regimen for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures. However, product labeling dictates propofol be administered only by anesthesiology personnel. We evaluated the safety of endoscopist-directed as well as anesthesiologist-administered BPS during outpatient colonoscopy. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected endoscopy data where endoscopist-directed BPS is standard practice. Measured patient outcomes included: BPS drug dosages, postcolonoscopy oxygen saturation levels, pulse, and systolic/diastolic blood pressures, need for mask bag ventilation or endotracheal intubation, aborted colonoscopy due to sedation, hospital admission postcolonoscopy, and mortality. Results: From April 1 to November 30, 2013, 1036 patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy (mean age 56.4 years, 55% males, 32% American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] I, 59% ASA II, 9% ASA III) received endoscopist-directed BPS. During the same time period, 40 patients (mean age 66.6 years, 55% males, 33% ASA II, 67% ASA III) received anesthesiologist-administered BPS. Indications for colonoscopy for the endoscopist-directed BPS included 352 (34%) colorectal cancer screening/surveillance, 404 (39%) evaluation of lower GI symptoms, 156 (15%) positive fecal occult blood, and 124 (12%) inflammatory bowel disease. BPS dosages (mean ± standard deviation) per patient were Fentanyl 0.05 mg (fixed dose), midazolam 1.6 mg ± 0.5 mg (range: 1-5 mg), and propofol 104 mg ± 62 mg (range: 10-460 mg). Propofol doses correlated inversely with patient age (r = −0.35; P < 0.001), and the mean Propofol dose was lower as ASA score increased: ASA I - 115 mg, ASA II - 103 mg, and ASA III - 75 mg (P < 0.01). No patient required bag mask ventilation, endotracheal intubation, or hospital admission. There were no aborted colonoscopies secondary to sedation and no mortality. All patients were discharged directly to home. Conclusions: Endoscopist-directed BPS appears safe and effective for low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 05 (02) ◽  
pp. E110-E115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dharshan Sathananthan ◽  
Edward Young ◽  
Garry Nind ◽  
Biju George ◽  
Angelie Ashby ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document