A randomized controlled trial evaluating general endotracheal anesthesia versus monitored anesthesia care and the incidence of sedation-related adverse events during ERCP in high-risk patients

Published:September 11, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.09.001

      Background and Aims

      ERCP is a complex procedure often performed in patients at high risk for sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs). However, there is no current standard of care with regard to mode of sedation and airway management during ERCP. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of general endotracheal anesthesia (GEA) versus propofol-based monitored anesthesia care (MAC) without endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing ERCP at high risk for SRAEs.

      Methods

      Consecutive patients undergoing ERCP at high risk for SRAEs at a single center were invited to participate in this randomized controlled trial comparing GEA and MAC. Inclusion criteria were STOP-BANG score ≥3, abdominal ascites, body mass index ≥35, chronic lung disease, American Society of Anesthesiologists class >3, Mallampati class 4 airway, and moderate to heavy alcohol use. Exclusion criteria were preceding EUS, emergent ERCP, tracheostomy, unstable airway, gastric outlet obstruction or delayed gastric emptying, and altered foregut anatomy. The primary endpoint was composite incidence of SRAEs: hypoxemia, use of airway maneuvers, hypotension requiring vasopressors, sedation-related procedure interruption, cardiac arrhythmia, and respiratory failure. Secondary outcomes included procedure duration, cannulation success, in-room time, and immediate adverse events.

      Results

      Two hundred patients (mean age, 61.1 ± 13.6 years; 36.5% women) were randomly assigned to GEA (n = 101) or MAC (n = 99) groups. Composite SRAEs were significantly higher in the MAC group compared with the GEA group (51.5% vs 9.9%, P < .001). This was primarily driven by the frequent need for airway maneuvers in the MAC group. Additionally, ERCP was interrupted in 10.1% of patients in the MAC group to convert to GEA because of respiratory instability refractory to airway maneuvers (n = 8) or significant retained gastric contents (n = 2). There were no statistically significant differences in cannulation, in-room, procedure, or fluoroscopy times between the 2 groups. All patients undergoing GEA were successfully extubated in the procedure room at completion of ERCP, and Aldrete scores in recovery did not differ between the 2 groups. There were no immediate adverse events.

      Conclusion

      In patients at high risk for SRAEs undergoing ERCP, sedation with GEA is associated with a significantly lower incidence of SRAEs, without impacting procedure duration, success, recovery, or in-room time. These data suggest that GEA should be used for ERCP in patients at high risk for SRAEs (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02850887.)

      Abbreviations:

      ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists), BMI (body mass index), GEA (general endotracheal anesthesia), MAC (monitored anesthesia care), OSA (obstructive sleep apnea), PRAE (procedure-related adverse event), SRAE (sedation-related adverse event)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Adler D.G.
        • Baron T.H.
        • Davila R.E.
        • et al.
        ASGE guideline: the role of ERCP in diseases of the biliary tract and the pancreas.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2005; 62: 1-8
        • Chathadi K.V.
        • Chandrasekhara V.
        • et al.
        • Committee ASoP
        The role of ERCP in benign diseases of the biliary tract.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 81: 795-803
        • Coelho-Prabhu N.
        • Shah N.D.
        • Van Houten H.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: utilisation and outcomes in a 10-year population-based cohort.
        BMJ Open. 2013; 3: 1-8
        • Raymondos K.
        • Panning B.
        • Bachem I.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography under conscious sedation and general anesthesia.
        Endoscopy. 2002; 34: 721-726
        • Buxbaum J.
        • Roth N.
        • Motamedi N.
        • et al.
        Anesthetist-directed sedation favors success of advanced endoscopic procedures.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2017; 112: 290-296
        • Early D.S.
        • Lightdale J.R.
        • Vargo J.J.
        • et al.
        • ASGE Standards of Practice Committee
        Guidelines for sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 87: 327-337
        • Goudra B.
        • Singh P.M.
        ERCP: the unresolved question of endotracheal intubation.
        Dig Dis Sci. 2014; 59: 513-519
        • Cote G.A.
        • Hovis R.M.
        • Ansstas M.A.
        • et al.
        Incidence of sedation-related complications with propofol use during advanced endoscopic procedures.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010; 8: 137-142
        • Berzin T.M.
        • Sanaka S.
        • Barnett S.R.
        • et al.
        A prospective assessment of sedation-related adverse events and patient and endoscopist satisfaction in ERCP with anesthesiologist-administered sedation.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 73: 710-717
        • Wani S.
        • Azar R.
        • Hovis C.E.
        • et al.
        Obesity as a risk factor for sedation-related complications during propofol-mediated sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 74: 1238-1247
        • Barnett S.R.
        • Berzin T.
        • Sanaka S.
        • et al.
        Deep sedation without intubation for ERCP is appropriate in healthier, non-obese patients.
        Dig Dis Sci. 2013; 58: 3287-3292
        • Chung F.
        • Yegneswaran B.
        • Liao P.
        • et al.
        STOP questionnaire: a tool to screen patients for obstructive sleep apnea.
        Anesthesiology. 2008; 108: 812-821
        • Mills G.H.
        Respiratory complications of anaesthesia.
        Anaesthesia. 2018; 73: 25-33
        • Hung A.
        • Marshall J.
        • Barnett S.
        • et al.
        Risk factors and outcomes of reversal agent use in moderate sedation during endoscopy and colonoscopy.
        J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016; 50: e25-e29
        • Vaja R.
        • McNicol L.
        • Sisley I.
        Anaesthesia for patients with liver disease.
        Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2017; 10: 15-19
        • American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologists
        Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists.
        Anesthesiology. 2002; 96: 1004-1017
        • Aldrete J.A.
        • Kroulik D.
        A postanesthetic recovery score.
        Anesth Analg. 1970; 49: 924-934
        • Cotton P.B.
        • Eisen G.M.
        • Aabakken L.
        • et al.
        A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 71: 446-454
        • Sorser S.A.
        • Fan D.S.
        • Tommolino E.E.
        • et al.
        Complications of ERCP in patients undergoing general anesthesia versus MAC.
        Dig Dis Sci. 2014; 59: 696-697
        • Chen X.
        • Wang R.
        • Zee P.
        • et al.
        Racial/ethnic differences in sleep disturbances: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).
        Sleep. 2015; 38: 877-888
        • Cote G.A.
        • Hovis C.E.
        • Hovis R.M.
        • et al.
        A screening instrument for sleep apnea predicts airway maneuvers in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010; 8: 660-665
        • Wehrmann T.
        • Riphaus A.
        Sedation with propofol for interventional endoscopic procedures: a risk factor analysis.
        Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008; 43: 368-374
        • Sudheer P.S.
        • Logan S.W.
        • Ateleanu B.
        • et al.
        Haemodynamic effects of the prone position: a comparison of propofol total intravenous and inhalation anaesthesia.
        Anaesthesia. 2006; 61: 138-141
        • Edgcombe H.
        • Carter K.
        • Yarrow S.
        Anaesthesia in the prone position.
        Br J Anaesth. 2008; 100: 165-183
        • Perbtani Y.B.
        • Summerlee R.J.
        • Yang D.
        • et al.
        Impact of endotracheal intubation on interventional endoscopy unit efficiency metrics at a tertiary academic medical center.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2016; 111: 800-807
        • Vargo J.J.
        Anesthesia-mediated sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures and cardiopulmonary complications: of mountains and molehills.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010; 8: 103-104