Background and Aim: The ideal method to remove small colorectal polyps is unknown. We compared removal by colon snare transection without electrocautery (cold snare polypectomy) with conventional electrocautery snare polypectomy (hot polypectomy) in terms of procedure duration, difficulty in retrieving polyps, bleeding, and post-polypectomy symptoms. Methods: Patients with colorectal polyps up to 8 mm in diameter were randomized to polypectomy by cold snare technique (cold group) or conventional polypectomy (conventional group). The principal outcome measures were abdominal symptoms within 2 weeks after polypectomy. Secondary outcome measures were the rates of retrieval of colorectal polyps and bleeding. Results: Eighty patients were randomized: cold group, n = 40 (101 polyps) and conventional group, n = 40 (104 polyps). The patients’ demographic characteristics and the number and size of polyps removed were similar between the two techniques. Procedure time was significantly shorter with cold polypectomy vs. conventional polypectomy (18 vs. 25 min, p < 0.0001). Complete polyp retrieval rates were identical [96% (97/101) vs. 96% (100/104)]. No bleeding requiring hemostasis occurred in either group. Abdominal symptoms shortly after polypectomy were more common with conventional polypectomy (i.e. 20%; 8/40) than with cold polypectomy (i.e. 2.5%; 1/40; p = 0.029). Conclusion: Cold polypectomy was superior to conventional polypectomy in terms of procedure time and post-polypectomy abdominal symptoms. The two methods were otherwise essentially identical in terms of bleeding risk and complete polyp retrieval. Cold polypectomy is therefore the preferred method for removal of small colorectal polyps.

Low-dose nurse-administered propofol sedation is safe and practical for diagnostic EGD.

Background and Aim: There are only a few studies on propofol sedation for very elderly patients. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the safety of propofol sedation in patients 90 years of age and older undergoing endoscopic procedures. Methods: We prospectively assessed endoscopic procedures for patients 90 years of age and older using propofol sedation. Endoscopic procedures, dosage used, respiratory depression, complications and 30-day mortality were evaluated. In a subset of the enrolled patients, the blood concentrations of propofol were measured. Results: All 241 patients completed endoscopic procedures. For esophagogastroduodenoscopy, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, colonoscopy, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, the mean propofol doses used were 22, 24, 46 and 42 mg, respectively. Four patients required oxygen and 1 patient was treated by short periods of mask ventilation. There was no perforation, bleeding, pancreatitis or 30-day mortality. In diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the level of sedation and propofol blood concentrations after administration of propofol (24 ± 6.8 mg) in patients 90 years of age and older corresponded to those of propofol (61 ± 13 mg) in middle-aged patients (control). Conclusion: Low-dose propofol sedation is safe and may be enough for patients 90 years of age and older undergoing endoscopic procedures.

No abstract

Background and Aim: Automobile driving is prohibited after midazolam sedation because of the slow recovery of psychomotor function. This study prospectively assessed the safety of low-dose propofol sedation (study 1) and compared driving ability following propofol and midazolam sedation (study 2). Methods: Study 1: We prospectively investigated bolus injection of a low-dose of propofol (40–80 mg for <70 years and 30 mg for ≥70 years) for diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Respiratory depression, time to full recovery, and overall patient satisfaction were evaluated and blood concentrations of propofol were measured. Study 2: A subset of subjects undergoing diagnostic EGD were randomized to receive 40 mg of propofol (n = 30), 4 mg of midazolam (n = 30) or no sedation controls (n = 20), and the residual effects of each drug were tested using a driving simulator. The primary outcome measure was driving ability. The second outcome measures were overall patient satisfaction and complications. Results: Study 1: Only 1.1% of 12,031 healthy subjects developed transient oxygen desaturation. Full recovery was present in 97.5% 30 min after the procedure; 99.8% were willing to repeat the same procedure. The blood levels of propofol (40–80 mg) at 60 min were <100 ng/ml. Study 2: Driving ability recovered to the basal level within 60 min of propofol administration but not with 120 min with midazolam. There were no complications; overall patient satisfaction was similar between propofol and midazolam (8.9 vs. 8.5, p = 0.34). Conclusion: Low-dose propofol sedation was safe and recovery including driving ability was with 60 min.