TY - JOUR
T1 - Safety of non-anesthesia provider administered propofol sedation in non-advanced gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures
T2 - A meta-analysis
AU - Gouda, Basavana
AU - Gouda, Gowri
AU - Borle, Anuradha
AU - Singh, Akash
AU - Sinha, Ashish
AU - Singh, Preet M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology.
PY - 2017/5/1
Y1 - 2017/5/1
N2 - Background/Aims: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAPP) administered propofol sedation in patients undergoing non-advanced gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. Materials and Methods: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving non-advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 608 publications, 25 [colonoscopy (9), upper GI endoscopy (5), and combined procedures (11)] were identified to meet inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Data was analyzed for hypoxia rates, airway intervention rates, and airway complication rates. Results: A total of 137,087 patients were involved. A total of 2931 hypoxia episodes (defined as an oxygen saturation below 90%) were reported with a pooled hypoxia rate of 0.014 (95% CI being 0.008-0.023). Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates and pooled airway complication rates were 0.002 (95% CI being 0.006-0.001) and 0.001 (95% CI being 0.000-0.001), respectively. Conclusions: The rates of adverse events in patients undergoing non-advanced GI endoscopic procedures with NAPP sedation are extremely small. Similar data for anesthesia providers is not available. It is prudent for anesthesia providers to demonstrate their superiority in prospective randomized controlled trials, if they like to retain exclusive ownership over propofol sedation in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.
AB - Background/Aims: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAPP) administered propofol sedation in patients undergoing non-advanced gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. Materials and Methods: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving non-advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 608 publications, 25 [colonoscopy (9), upper GI endoscopy (5), and combined procedures (11)] were identified to meet inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Data was analyzed for hypoxia rates, airway intervention rates, and airway complication rates. Results: A total of 137,087 patients were involved. A total of 2931 hypoxia episodes (defined as an oxygen saturation below 90%) were reported with a pooled hypoxia rate of 0.014 (95% CI being 0.008-0.023). Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates and pooled airway complication rates were 0.002 (95% CI being 0.006-0.001) and 0.001 (95% CI being 0.000-0.001), respectively. Conclusions: The rates of adverse events in patients undergoing non-advanced GI endoscopic procedures with NAPP sedation are extremely small. Similar data for anesthesia providers is not available. It is prudent for anesthesia providers to demonstrate their superiority in prospective randomized controlled trials, if they like to retain exclusive ownership over propofol sedation in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.
KW - Airway complication
KW - airway intervention
KW - colonoscopy
KW - endoscopy
KW - esophagogastroduodenoscopy
KW - hypoxia
KW - non-advanced endoscopic procedures
KW - propofol
KW - sedation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020821042&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4103/sjg.SJG_501_16
DO - 10.4103/sjg.SJG_501_16
M3 - Review article
C2 - 28611336
AN - SCOPUS:85020821042
SN - 1319-3767
VL - 23
SP - 133
EP - 143
JO - Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology
JF - Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology
IS - 3
ER -