Background: Propofol use during sedation for colonoscopy can result in cardiopulmonary complications. Intravenous lidocaine can alleviate visceral pain and decrease propofol requirements during surgery. We tested the hypothesis that i.v. lidocaine reduces propofol requirements during colonoscopy and improves post-colonoscopy recovery. Methods: Forty patients undergoing colonoscopy were included in this randomised placebo-controlled study. After titration of propofol to produce unconsciousness, patients were given i.v. lidocaine (1.5 mg kg À1 then 4 mg kg À1 h À1) or the same volume of saline. Sedation was standardised and combined propofol and ketamine. The primary endpoint was propofol requirements. Secondary endpoints were: number of oxygen desaturation episodes, endoscopists' working conditions, discharge time to the recovery room, post-colonoscopy pain, fatigue. Results: Lidocaine infusion resulted in a significant reduction in propofol requirements: 58 (47) vs 121 (109) mg (P¼0.02). Doses of ketamine were similar in the two groups: 19 (2) vs 20 (3) mg in the lidocaine and saline groups, respectively. Number of episodes of oxygen desaturation, endoscopists' comfort, and times for discharge to the recovery room were similar in both groups. Post-colonoscopy pain (P<0.01) and fatigue (P¼0.03) were significantly lower in the lidocaine group. Conclusions: Intravenous infusion of lidocaine resulted in a 50% reduction in propofol dose requirements during colonoscopy. Immediate post-colonoscopy pain and fatigue were also improved by lidocaine. Clinical trial registration: NCT 02784860.

This study suggests that EUS could be helpful in differentiating acute UC from CD, and to predict remission in CD.

No abstract

Background and study aims Flexible endoscopes are potential vectors of pathogen transmission to patients that are subjected to cleaning and high-level disinfection after each procedure. Efficient manual cleaning is a prerequisite for effective high-level disinfection. The goal of this study was to demonstrate the impact of the cleaning chemistry in the outcome of the manual cleaning of endoscopes. Materials and methods Twelve endoscopes were included in this study: four colonoscopes, four gastroscopes, two duodenoscopes and two bronchoscopes. This study was designed with two phases; in each of them, the manual cleaning procedure remained identical, but a different detergent was used: a non-enzymatic detergent-disinfectant (NEDD) and an enzymatic detergent (ED). Biopsy and suction channels of endoscopes were sampled using 10 mL of physiological saline at two points: before and after manual cleaning, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) was measured on each sample. In total, 208 procedures were analyzed for the NEDD phase and 253 for the ED phase. Results For each endoscope type, cleaning endoscopes with ED resulted in larger median decrease in ATP than with NEDD: respectively 99.43 % and 95.95 % for bronchoscopes (P = 0.0007), 99.28 % and 96.93 % for colonoscopes (P < 0.0001) and 98.36 % and 95.36 % for gastroscopes (P < 0.0001). In addition, acceptability rates of endoscopes based on defined post-manual cleaning ATP thresholds (200, 150, 100 or 50 relative light units) for all endoscope types were significantly higher with ED compared to NEDD. Conclusions With all other parameters of manual cleaning remaining unchanged, the enzymatic chemistry of ED provided more consistent and improved cleaning of endoscopes compared to NEDD. Therefore, choice of the detergent for endoscope cleaning has an impact on the outcome of this process.