How patient-controlled sedation is adopted in clinical practice of sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? A prospective study of 1196 cases*. (1st February 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jokelainen, Jarno; Udd, Marianne; Kylänpää, Leena; Mustonen, Harri; Halttunen, Jorma; Lindström, Outi; Pöyhiä, Reino
• Is Part Of: Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology. Volume 52:Number 2(2017)
• Page Start: 166
• Page End: 172
• Publication Date: 2017-02-01
• Subjects: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography -- patient-controlled sedation -- sedation; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.33
• DOI: 10.1080/00365521.2016.1242024
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0036-5521

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) has been shown to be a valid choice for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in randomized studies. However, large-scale studies are lacking. Material and methods: A single center, prospective observational study to determine how sedation for ERCP is administered in clinical setting. All 956 patients undergoing 1196 ERCPs in the endoscopy unit of Helsinki University Central Hospital 2012–2013, methods of sedation and adverse events associated with different sedations were recorded. Results: PCS was attempted a total of 685 times (57%), successful use of PCS was achieved with 526 patients (77% of attempts). PCS device was operated by the anesthesiologist or anesthesia nurse 268 times (22%). PCS was more likely chosen for younger (80.6% for < =60 years vs. 63.8% for >60 years, p <.001) patients and by trainee anesthetists. Anesthesiologist administered propofol sedation was used 240 times (20%). The risk of failure of PCS was increased, if systolic arterial pressure was <90 mmHg, dosage of PCS >17 ml, duration of procedure exceeded 23 min. The risk of failure was lower in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and if sedation was deeper RASS < =−2. Uneventful PCS was associated with less respiratory and cardiovascular depression than other methods. There were no statistically significant differences in safety profiles with all the methods of sedation. Conclusions : PCS is readily implemented in clinical practice, is suitable for younger and low-risk patients and is associated with less cardiorespiratory adverse effects.