Background/AimsThe landscape of sedation for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures and the nature of the procedures themselves have changed over the last decade. In this study, an attempt is made to analyze the frequency and etiology of all major adverse events associated with GI endoscopy. MethodsAll adverse events extracted from the electronic database and local registry were analyzed. Although the data analysis was retrospective, the adverse events themselves were documented prospectively. These events were evaluated after subdivision into propofol-based anesthesia and intravenous conscious sedation groups. ResultsCardiorespiratory events, including cardiac arrest, were the most common adverse events during esophagogastroduodenoscopy, while bleeding was more frequent in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Pancreatitis was the most frequent adverse event in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The frequencies of most adverse events were significantly higher in patients anesthetized with propofol. Automatic regression modeling showed that the type of sedation, the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, and the procedure type were some of the predictors of immediate life-threatening complications. ConclusionsClearly, our regression modeling suggests a strong association between the type of sedation as well as various patient factors and the frequency of adverse events. The possible reasons for our results are the changing demographics, the worsening comorbidities of the patient population, and the increasing technical complexity of these procedures. Although extensive use of propofol has increased patient satisfaction and procedure acceptability, its use is also associated with more frequent adverse events.

In morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery, addition of aprepitant to ondansetron can significantly delay vomiting episodes simultaneously lowering the incidence of postoperative vomiting.

Application of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) to the bariatric surgical procedures is at its early stages with little consolidated evidence. This meta-analysis evaluates present literature and indicates pathways for development of evidence-based standardized ERAS protocols for bariatric surgery. Comparative trials between ERAS and conventional bariatric surgery published till June 2016 were searched in the medical database. Comparisons were made for length of stay (LOS), readmission, complications (major/minor), and reoperation rates. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) for the strength of meta-analysis was performed for the primary outcome LOS. Five subgroups with a total of 394 and 471 patients in ERAS and conventional group respectively were included. LOS was shorter in ERAS group by 1.56 ± 0.18 days (random-effects, p < 0.001, I = 93.07 %). The sample size in ERAS was well past the "information size" variable which was calculated to be 189 as per the TSA for power 85%. MH odds ratio [1.41 (95% CI 1.13 to1.76)] was higher for minor complications in the ERAS group (fixed effects, I = 0, p < 0.001). Superiority/inferiority of ERAS could not be established for major or overall complications, readmission, and anastomotic leak rates. No publication bias was found in the included trials (Egger's test, X-intercept = 6.14, p = 0.66). Evaluation based on Cochrane collaboration recommendations suggested that all the five included trials had a high risk of methodological bias. ERAS protocols for bariatric procedures allow faster return to home for patients. The present bariatric ERAS protocols have high heterogeneity and would benefit from standardization. Minor complication rates increase with implementation of ERAS, however without any significant effect on overall patient morbidity. Further randomized trials comparing ERAS with conventional care are required to consolidate these findings.

No abstract

Background/Aims:Airway difficulties leading to cardiac arrest are frequently encountered during propofol sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. With a noticeable increase in the use of propofol for endoscopic sedation, we decided to examine the incidence and outcome of cardiac arrests in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy with sedation.Patients and Methods:In this retrospective study, cardiac arrest data obtained from the clinical quality improvement and local registry over 5 years was analyzed. The information of patients who sustained cardiac arrest attributable to sedation was studied in detail. Analysis included comparison of cardiac arrests due to all causes until discharge (or death) versus the cardiac arrests and death occurring during the procedure and in the recovery area.Results:The incidence of cardiac arrest and death (all causes, until discharge) was 6.07 and 4.28 per 10,000 in patients sedated with propofol, compared with non–propofol-based sedation (0.67 and 0.44). The incidence of cardiac arrest during and immediately after the procedure (recovery area) for all endoscopies was 3.92 per 10,000; of which, 72% were airway management related. About 90.0% of all peri-procedural cardiac arrests occurred in patients who received propofol.Conclusions:The incidence of cardiac arrest and death is about 10 times higher in patients receiving propofol-based sedation compared with those receiving midazolam–fentanyl sedation. More than two thirds of these events occur during EGD and ERCP.