Article Search
검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Metrics

Help

  • 1. Aims and Scope

    Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE

  • 2. Editorial Board

    Editor-in-Chief + MORE

    Editor-in-Chief
    Yong Chan Lee Professor of Medicine
    Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory
    Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco
    San Francisco, USA

    Deputy Editor

    Deputy Editor
    Jong Pil Im Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    Robert S. Bresalier University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
    Steven H. Itzkowitz Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA
  • 3. Editorial Office
  • 4. Articles
  • 5. Instructions for Authors
  • 6. File Download (PDF version)
  • 7. Ethical Standards
  • 8. Peer Review

    All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
    The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.

    The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.

Search

Search

Year

to

Article Type

Original Article

Split Viewer

Endoscopist-Driven Sedation Practices in South Korea: Re-evaluation Considering the Nationwide Survey in 2019

Seon-Young Park1 , Jun Kyu Lee2 , Chang-Hwan Park1 , Byung-Wook Kim3 , Chang Kyun Lee4 , Hong Jun Park5 , Byung Ik Jang6 , Dong Uk Kim7 , Jin Myung Park8 , Jae Min Lee9 , Young Sin Cho10 , Hyung Ku Chon11 , Seung Young Seo12 , Woo Hyun Paik13 , the Committees of Quality Management and Conscious Sedation of Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, 2Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, 3Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Incheon, 4Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, 5Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, 6Department of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, 7Department of Internal Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Pusan, 8Department of Internal Medicine, Kangwon National University School of Medicine, Chuncheon, 9Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, 10Division of Gastroenterology, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Cheonan, 11Institute of Wonkwang Medical Science, Wonkwang University Hospital, Wonkwang University College of Medicine, Iksan, 12Department of Internal Medicine, Jeonbuk National University Hospital, Jeonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, and 13Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to: Chang-Hwan Park
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2995-8779
E-mail p1052ccy@hanmail.net
Byung-Wook Kim
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2290-4954
E-mail gastro@catholic.ac.kr

Seon-Young Park and Jun Kyu Lee contributed equally to this work as first authors.

Received: November 4, 2021; Revised: January 17, 2022; Accepted: February 10, 2022

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Gut Liver 2022;16(6):899-906. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl210466

Published online August 1, 2022, Published date November 15, 2022

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to determine changes in endoscopist-driven sedation practices 5 years after the first nationwide survey in 2014 by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE).
Methods: A 59-item survey covering current practices was electronically mailed to all members of the KSGE in 2019.
Results: In total, 955 (12.8%) out of 7,486 questionnaires were returned. A total of 738 (77.7%) out of 955 respondents attended dedicated sedation education programs. The American Society of Anesthesiologists class was recorded by 464 (51.2%) out of 907 respondents. The recording rate was higher in respondents who completed sedation education (p=0.014) and worked in general or tertiary hospitals (p<0.001). Compared to that reported in the previous survey, the reported use of propofol was higher in 2019. The respondents had higher satisfaction scores for propofol-based sedation compared with midazolam monotherapy (p<0.001). The rates of oxygen supplementation (p<0.001) and oxygen saturation level monitoring (p<0.001) during sedative endoscopy were higher in 2019 than in the previous survey. A total of 876 (98.4%) out of 890 respondents reported a separate recovery bay, and 615 (70.5%) out of 872 respondents reported that personnel were assigned solely to the recovery bay.
Conclusions: Endoscopist-driven sedation and monitoring practices in 2019 were significantly different than those in 2014. The respondents favored propofol-based sedation and utilized oxygen supplementation and monitoring of O2 saturation more frequently in 2019 than in 2014.

Keywords: Gastrointestinal endoscopy, Sedation, Survey, Propofol

Endoscopist-driven sedation has been widely used to facilitate effective endoscopic procedures with satisfaction for both patients and endoscopists.1-3 Sedation methods should be tailored to the individual patients, available facilities, and their experiences based on the updated guidelines.4-6 There were survey studies to show sedation and monitoring practices in local areas.7-10 In South Korea, a nationwide survey was carried out among members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) in 2014 for the first time.11 In 2016, the Korean Medical Association stated that an educational program should be performed for every doctor and member of the nursing personnel involved in propofol-based sedation. Recently, the KSGE has updated the Accreditation of Qualified Endoscopy Unit (AQEU) program to enhance the quality of endoscopy units, which emphasizes the facilities, personnel, and education programs related to endoscopic sedation.12,13 Since the introduction of mandatory education program by the Korean Medical Association and reinforcement of the AQEU program related to endoscopic sedation by the KSGE, change of facilities or personnel involved to endoscopic sedation would be expected. Herein, a survey-based study to determine the changes in sedation and monitoring practice of gastrointestinal endoscopists brought on by reinforcement of educational program and supplementation of regulations since 2014 are presented.

The survey was electronically mailed to all the members of KSGE via a link to a SurveyMonkey questionnaire, which could be completed in about 15 minutes. No responses up to five attempts were regarded as refusal. The results provided were automatically recorded in the system. The survey questionnaire composed of 59 items were updated from that of the previous survey 11 by the KSGE Task Force on Endoscopic sedation.

Data were expressed as number (percentage), mean± standard deviation, or median (range or interquartile range [IQR]). The satisfaction score with sedation, assessment of patient cooperation, and assessment of examination quality for current sedation pattern range from 1 to 10. Comparisons of data between the results of the year 2014 and that of the year 2019 were performed with the chi-square test for qualitative data or with the t-test or non-parametric test for quantitative tests. A p-value <0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. All statistical analysis was performed with the statistical package IBM SPSS Statistics version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

1. Characteristics of respondents

Among 7,486 KSGE members, a total of 955 (12.8%) responded to the survey, comprised of 768 (80.4%) men and 187 (19.6%) women. The mean age of the respondents was 42.6±7.6 years (range, 22 to 85 years). Among 949 respondents, 354 (37.3%) worked in private clinics, 133 (14.0%) in hospitals, 243 (26.5%) in general hospitals, and 219 (23.1%) in tertiary hospitals. There were 354 (37.2%) out of 952 respondents who had >10 years of endoscopic practice (Table 1). The median numbers (IQR) of esophagogastroduodenoscopies and colonoscopies per day were 10 (range, 5 to 15) and 4 (range, 2 to 5), respectively. Only 90 of respondents (9.4%) performed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures.

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the 955 Respondents

CharacteristicsNo. (%)
Sex (n=955)
Men768 (80.4)
Women187 (19.6)
Age, mean±SD, yr42.6±7.6
Level of institutions (n=949)
Private clinic354 (37.3)
Hospital133 (14.0)
General hospital243 (25.6)
Tertiary hospital219 (23.1)
Years of experience as an endoscopist (n=952)
<5 yr298 (31.3)
5–10 yr300 (31.5)
11–15 yr140 (14.7)
16–20 yr112 (11.8)
>20 yr102 (10.7)


2. Education and training in endoscopist-driven sedation

While 738 (77.7%) out of 955 respondents received dedicated sedation education programs, 721 (77.7%) out of 928 responded that it would be necessary to develop clinical practice guidelines for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy by the authorized organization, especially for selection and use of sedative agents. Also 432 (46.6%) out of 928 respondents received dedicated training for sedation during their fellowship. Among 928 respondents, 542 (58.4%) received continuing medical education for basic life support techniques.

3. Pre-procedural preparation and assessment: risk assessment of endoscopic sedation

Among 955 respondents, 907 answered about the recording of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and Mallampati score. Among them, 464 respondents (51.2%) recorded ASA class and 218 (24.0%) the Mallampati score for risk stratification prior to providing sedation. The recording rate of ASA class was higher in respondents who completed the sedation education (p=0.014) and worked in general hospitals or tertiary hospitals (p<0.001) (Table 2).

Table 2. Reported ASA Class and Mallampati Score

VariableRecording ASA classRecording Mallampati score
No (n=443)Yes (n=464)p-valueNo (n=689)Yes (n=218)p-value
Sedation education program0.0140.748
No111/196 (56.6)85/196 (43.4)154/205 (75.1)51/205 (24.9)
Yes332/711 (46.7)379/711 (53.3)535/702 (76.2)167/702 (23.8)
Level of complexity of clinics<0.0010.193
Clinic214/335 (63.9)121/335 (36.1)244/339 (72.0)95/339 (28.0)
Hospital70/132 (53.0)62/132 (47.0)100/128 (78.1)28/128 (21.9)
General hospital90/233 (38.6)143/233 (61.4)182/232 (78.4)50/232 (21.6)
Tertiary hospital69/207 (33.3)138/207 (66.7)163/208 (78.4)45/208 (21.6)

Data are presented as number/number (%).

ASA, American society of Anesthesiologists.



4. Intra-procedure assessment

1) Monitoring practices

Four hundred eighty-seven (53.7%) out of 907 respondents administered oxygen before sedative endoscopy and 624 (69.8%) out of 894 administered supplemental oxygen during sedative endoscopy. Eight hundred and eighty-seven (99.2%) out of 894 respondents monitored pulse oximetry during endoscopic sedation. Regular automated blood pressure (BP) monitoring was performed by 370 (41.4%) out of 894 respondents, regular or intermittent electrocardiographic monitoring was performed by 57.8% (517/894) of respondents and the level of consciousness was assessed by 774 (86.6%) out of 894 respondents (Table 3). There were significant differences in oxygen administration and monitoring of pulse oximetry during sedative endoscopy between the survey by the KSGE in 2014 and the survey by the KSGE in 2019 (Table 3).

Table 3. Change in Patient Monitoring Practices after Dedicated Sedation Education

Patient monitoring practices2014 (Lee et al.11)2019 (current study)p-value
O2 supply before sedative endoscopyNA53.7 (487/907)
O2 supply during sedative endoscopy42.5 (560/1,318)69.8 (624/894)<0.001
Monitoring of O2 saturation during sedative endoscopy94.1 (1,240/1,318)99.2 (887/894)<0.001
Monitoring of BP during sedative endoscopyNA41.4 (370/894)
Monitoring of ECG during sedative endoscopyNA57.8 (517/894)
Regular assessment of level of consciousnessNA86.6 (774/894)

Data are presented as % (number/number).

BP, blood pressure; ECG, electrocardiography; NA, not available.



Equipment for cardiopulmonary resuscitation was available in the endoscopy room of 877 (98.1%) out of 894 respondents. There were significant differences in pattern of monitoring practices and equipment for cardiopulmonary resuscitation between the private clinics/the hospitals and general hospitals/tertiary hospitals (p<0.05) (Table 4).

Table 4. Differences in Patient Monitoring Practices According to the Level of Complexity of Clinics

Patient monitoring practicesClinics and hospitals (n=467)General and tertiary hospitals (n=440)p-value
O2 supply before sedative endoscopy221/467 (47.3)266/440 (60.5)<0.001
O2 supply during sedative endoscopy292/460 (63.5)332/434 (76.5)<0.001
Monitoring of O2 saturation during sedative endoscopy453/460 (98.5)434/434 (100)0.016*
Monitoring of BP during sedative endoscopy110/460 (23.9)260/434 (59.9)<0.001
Monitoring of ECG during sedative endoscopy<0.001
Intermittent77/460 (16.7)140/460 (30.4)
Always101/434 (23.3)199/434 (45.9)
Regular assessment of level of consciousness386/460 (83.9)388/434 (89.4)0.016
Equipment for CPR in endoscopy room444/460 (96.5)433/434 (99.8)<0.001

Data are presented as number/number (%).

BP, blood pressure; ECG, electrocardiography; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

*Fisher exact test.



2) Sedation practices

For patients undergoing diagnostic procedures with endoscopist-driven sedation, 869 (97.2%) of 894 respondents answered that there was at least one endoscopy staff member (an assistant physician, a nurse, an endoscopy technician, or an unlicensed personnel) in the endoscopy room. Eight hundred and seventy-eight (98.3%) out of 893 responded that the types, an initial and additional doses and dosing intervals of sedatives were decided by an endoscopist. Administration of the sedatives was mostly performed by trained nurses 759 (84.9%) out of 894 respondents.

(1) Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Among 916 respondents 734 respondents (80.1%) performed endoscopic sedation for more than 50% of cases (Table 5). Propofol-based sedation, as monotherapy or in combination with midazolam, was the preferred method. Moreover, propofol-based sedation during endoscopy were more frequently used in the survey in 2019 (67.5%), compared to in the survey in 2014 (55.6%, p<0.001). Analgesics were combined by 55 (6.0%) out of 916 respondents. There was no difference in sedation pattern according to the completion of education programs (p=0.543). The mean satisfaction score for current sedation pattern was 7.52±1.52. There was a significant difference in endoscopists’ satisfaction score according to their sedation pattern (p<0.001). Mean satisfaction score of “midazolam monotherapy,” “propofol monotherapy,” “balanced propofol therapy (propofol plus midazolam),” and “others” was 6.9±1.5, 7.9±1.4, 7.7±1.4, and 8.2±1.6, respectively. The higher satisfaction scores were reported with propofol monotherapy and balanced propofol therapy compared with midazolam monotherapy (p<0.001, respectively). There was no difference in satisfaction scores between propofol monotherapy and balanced propofol therapy (p=0.481).

Table 5. Sedation Practices in 2014 and 2019

VariableEGDColon
2014 (Lee et al.11)2019 (current study)2014 (Lee et al.11)2019 (current study)
Current use of sedation, if any1,305 (99.0)916 (95.9)1,205 (91.4)916 (95.9)
Proportion of sedative endoscopy
≤25% of cases124/1,305 (9.5)42/916 (4.6)19/1,205 (1.6)20/916 (2.2)
26%–50% of cases298/1,305 (22.8)140/916 (15.3)57/1,205 (4.7)37/916 (4.0)
51%–75% of cases474/1,305 (36.3)314/916 (34.3)188/1,205 (15.6)136/916 (14.9)
≥76% of cases409/1,305 (31.3)420/916 (45.9)941/1,205 (78.1)723/916 (78.9)
Sedation pattern
Midazolam only537/1,305 (41.2)278/916 (30.4)545/1,205 (45.2)323/916 (35.3)
Propofol only380/1,305 (29.1)332/916 (36.2)85/1,205 (7.1)77/916 (8.4)
Midazolam + propofol345/1,305 (26.4)286/916 (31.2)550/1,205 (45.6)491/916 (53.6)
Etc.43/1,305 (3.3)20/916 (2.2)25/1,205 (2.1)25/916 (2.7)
Use of analgesic medicationNA55/916 (6.0)NA529/953 (55.5)
MeperidineNA33/916 (3.6)NA381/953 (40.0)
FentanylNA11/916 (1.2)NA81/953 (8.5)
Etc.NA11/916 (1.2)NA67/953 (7.0)
Overall endoscopists’ satisfaction with sedation
9–10339/1,305 (26.0)231/916 (24.2)457/1,205 (37.9)NA
7–8688/1,305 (52.7)498/916 (52.1)577/1,205 (47.9)NA
5–6191/1,305 (14.6)153/916 (16.7)129/1,205 (10.7)NA
≤487/1,305 (6.7)34/916 (3.7)42/1,205 (3.5)NA

Data are presented as number/number (%).

EGD, esophagogastroduodenoscopy; NA, not available.



(2) Colonoscopy

Among 916 respondents who performed sedative colonoscopies, 859 (93.8%) performed endoscopic sedation for more than 50% of cases (Table 5). In colonoscopy procedures, 35.3% of respondents used midazolam monotherapy and 62.0% of respondents used propofol-based sedation. Propofol-based sedation during colonoscopy were more frequently used in the survey in 2019 (62.0%), compared to in the survey in 2014 (52.7%, p<0.001). Analgesics were combined by 496 (54.1%) out of 916 respondents.

3) Sedation-related complications

Among 916 respondents, 581 (63.4%) experienced sedation-related complications; 513 (56.0%) experienced of mask-bag ventilation and 115 (12.6%) endotracheal intubation during sedative endoscopy. Seven (0.8%) respondents had experience of permanent injury of patients and 21 (2.3%) respondents had experience of their patient’s death because of sedation-related complications. Respondents working in general hospitals or tertiary hospitals had more frequent experiences of sedation-related complications (0.8±0.7 times) than respondents working in clinics and hospitals (0.6±0.6, p<0.001) (Table 6).

Table 6. Sedation-Related Complications

ComplicationsClinic (n=339)Hospital (n=132)General hospital (n=235)Tertiary hospital (n=137)p-value
Bag-mask ventilation174 (51.3)70 (53.0)132 (56.2)137 (65.2)0.013
Endotracheal intubation24 (7.1)11 (8.3)35 (14.9)45 (21.4)<0.001
Permanent injury003 (1.3)4 (1.9)0.045
Death1 (0.3)1 (0.8)8 (3.4)11 (5.2)0.001

Data are presented as number (%).



Management of patients with paradoxical response was as follows; re-examination under non-sedation state after recovery with or without the use of antidote by 567 (63.5%), administration of additional dose of same sedatives by 132 (14.8%), switch to another sedative by 158 (17.7%) and etc. by 36 out of 893 respondents (4.0%). Antidotes such as flumazenil or naloxone were available in the endoscopy room of 93.8% of respondents (839/894). Seven hundred and fourteen of respondents (79.9%) had experience for use of antidote; 36 respondents (5.0%) used antidotes for every case, 500 respondents (70.0%) had experience of antidotes in case of hypoxia and 400 respondents (56.0%) had experience of antidotes in case of paradoxical reaction.

5. Post-procedural assessment

Out of 890 respondents who responded the questionnaire about presence of separate recovery bay, 876 (98.4%) respondents had a separate recovery bay in endoscopic units. The median size (IQR) of recovery bay was 25 m2 (range, 12 to 50 m2). The median number (IQR) of beds in a recovery bay was 8 (range, 4 to 10). Of 858 respondents who responded the questionnaire about facilities including various monitoring equipment, 661 (77.0%) performed the tracking of the oxygen saturation level monitoring for each bed in the recovery bay, 661 (77.0%) respondents had BP/oxygen saturation level monitoring equipment for each bed in the recovery bay and 709 (82.6%) respondents supplied oxygen for patients in the recovery bay.

There were 615 (70.5%) out of 872 respondents who had working personnel assigned solely to the recovery bay. The median number (IQR) of the nursing personnel was 2 (range, 1 to 3). The number of respondents with less than five patients per bed was 310 out of 587 (52.8%). There were 78.6% (463/589) of respondents with the ratio of the number of nursing personnel in a recovery bay to the number of patients greater than 1:10 (Supplementary Table 1).

This survey, which was performed as the 5-year follow-up for the first nationwide survey in 2014 by the KSGE, showed the improvements of clinical practice after the reinforcement of regulations and introduction of obligatory education programs for endoscopic sedation. Compared to the previous survey, there was an increased use of propofol during esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy. The rates of supplement of oxygen (p<0.001) and tracking of the oxygen saturation level (p<0.001) during sedative endoscopy were increased in 2019 compared to the previous survey.

In South Korea, recently since the scientific societies including Korean Medical Association and KSGE have emphasized the importance of education for endoscopist-driven sedation, 77.7% of respondents received dedicated sedation education program and 58.4% of respondents received continuing medical education for basic life support techniques.

About half of respondents received dedicated training for sedation during their fellowship. In pre-procedural assessment, the ASA classification is important as it was associated with increased risk of adverse events during endoscopic procedures, especially cardiopulmonary complications. The ASA class stratifies the risks of patients for sedation and anesthesia and is recommended as a quality indicator for AQEU program by the KSGE.4,14 In our study, the proportion of recording ASA class was higher in respondents in general hospitals or tertiary hospitals accredited for the AQEUs by the KSGE. Moreover, it was higher in respondents who received the sedation education program. On the other hand, recording the Mallampati classification, by which physician can predict the difficulty the airway management, was not different according to the level of clinics or the sedation education.

Monitoring practices during the procedure depend on the level of institution. In this study, respondents working in general and tertiary hospitals perform more monitoring of oxygen saturation and oxygen supply during sedative endoscopy than respondents working in clinics and hospitals. This survey also showed the increased rates of oxygen supply and tracking of oxygen saturation during endoscopic sedation in 2019 compared to in 2014,11 even though survey in 2019 included more respondents in clinics and hospitals than survey in 2014. While the rate of oxygen supply starting before endoscopic sedation was not surveyed in 2014, it was over 50% in 2019. The use of oxygen supply before endoscopic sedation increases the dissolved oxygen level in blood so that it will be helpful to decrease the risk of hypoxic damage by prolonging the protective period.15,16 Monitoring of BP and electrocardiography as well as regular assessment of level of consciousness were also not surveyed in 2014. However, these monitoring indices were included on 2019 survey with having affected by obligatory education programs. Monitoring rates of BP and electrocardiography (41.4% and 57.8%) were relatively lower compared with regular assessment rate of level of consciousness (86.6%). We believe that regular and mandatory education programs would keep improving real world practices for endoscopic sedation.

In this study, sedation-related complication rates were higher in general hospitals and tertiary hospitals despite of better monitoring practices pattern. The reasons might be that there are more patients with higher morbidity and high-risk procedures are usually performed in general and tertiary hospitals.

Propofol-based sedation was the most preferred method for endoscopist with better satisfaction, which was similar with the results of other surveys.3,7-9 Recent meta-analysis about the use of propofol for endoscopic sedation demonstrated that propofol had benefits regarding better sedation level, shorter recovery time and better patient satisfaction without increasing the risk of cardiopulmonary complications.17 Compared to the survey by the KSGE in 2014, more respondents used propofol when performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy. It seems that there is no more issue for safety regarding the use of propofol by non-anesthesiologists in South Korea.18

In this survey, about 55% of respondents added opioid to achieve sedation and analgesia during colonoscopy. Fentanyl is known to be associated with faster recovery time and better quality of procedures.19,20 However, a majority of endoscopists in South Korea preferred meperidine rather than fentanyl, which should be changed according to recommendation by other guidelines.4,21 There is room for change of opioids selection for endoscopic sedation through education program.

In this survey, we included the questionnaire about post-procedural assessment and environment of recovery bay in endoscopic units, as it is important to monitor and care the patients regarding vital sign, consciousness and the risk of fall. Especially, in high volume endoscopy unit, identification of risks for patient falls and small efforts such as close observation and assistance by health staffs in recovery bay could prevent sedation-related adverse events and patient falls.22 According to our results, about 30% of respondents still did not have working personnel assigned to recovery bay although dedicated personnel is necessary. As the facilities and working personnel in procedural rooms of most endoscopic units improved, more efforts are needed for appropriate monitoring and caring of recovering patients in South Korea.

This study has several limitations. First, the response rate of 12.8% was relatively lower compared with previous studies.8-11 It might be because the questionnaire had more survey items than the previous and we sent the questionnaire to all the members of KSGE including members working at non-educational centers. However, this survey had more responses from the endoscopists in clinics and hospitals compared to survey 2014. Therefore, this survey would reflect real-world clinical practices. Second, methods of oxygen supply (e.g., nasal cannula, face mask, or other high-flow methods) and the equipment and accessories for emergency airway support were not surveyed. Third, capnographic monitoring was not surveyed. A recent meta-analysis suggested that ventilation adequacy should be assessed by continuous capnographic monitoring.23 If more studies confirm the beneficial effect of capnographic monitoring in the near future, the application of capnographic monitoring will be included in next survey. Fourth, this study conducted the survey from different group, not in the same group in the survey 2014.

In conclusion, endoscopist-driven sedation endoscopy and monitoring practices in 2019 underwent significant changes compared to status quo ante 2014. The respondents favored propofol-based sedation, and use of oxygen supplementation and monitoring of oxygen saturation more frequently.

B.W.K. is an editorial board member of the journal but was not involved in the peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision process of this article. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Study concept and design: C.H.P., B.W.K. Data acquisition: J.K.L., S.Y.P., C.K.L., H.J.P., B.I.J., D.U.K., J.M.P., J.M.L., Y.S.C., H.K.C., S.Y.S., W.H.P., the Committees of Quality Management and Conscious Sedation of Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE). Data analysis and interpretation: J.K.L., S.Y.P., C.H.P. Drafting of the manuscript; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: J.K.L., S.Y.P., C.H.P. Statistical analysis: S.Y.P. Administrative, technical, or material support; study supervision: C.H.P., B.W.K., the Committees of Quality Management and Conscious Sedation of KSGE.

  1. Protopapas AA, Stournaras E, Neokosmidis G, Stogiannou D, Filippidis A, Protopapas AN. Endoscopic sedation practices of Greek gastroenterologists: a nationwide survey. Ann Gastroenterol 2020;33:366-373.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Friedrich K, Stremmel W, Sieg A. Endoscopist-administered propofol sedation is safe: a prospective evaluation of 10,000 patients in an outpatient practice. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2012;21:259-263.
    Pubmed
  3. Sieg A, Beck S, et al; bng-Study-Group. Safety analysis of endoscopist-directed propofol sedation: a prospective, national multicenter study of 24 441 patients in German outpatient practices. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;29:517-523.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Early DS, Lightdale JR, et al; ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. Guidelines for sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87:327-337.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Igea F, Casellas JA, González-Huix F, et al. Sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2014;46:720-731.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Moon SH. Sedation regimens for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Clin Endosc 2014;47:135-140.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  7. Lucendo AJ, González-Huix F, Tenias JM, et al. Gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation and monitoring practices in Spain: a nationwide survey in the year 2014. Endoscopy 2015;47:383-390.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Fanti L, Agostoni M, Gemma M, et al. Sedation and monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a nationwide web survey in Italy. Dig Liver Dis 2011;43:726-730.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Cohen LB, Wecsler JS, Gaetano JN, et al. Endoscopic sedation in the United States: results from a nationwide survey. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:967-974.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Ferreira AO, Torres J, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Cravo M. Endoscopic sedation and monitoring practices in Portugal: a nationwide web-based survey. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;27:265-270.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Lee CK, Dong SH, Kim ES, et al. Room for quality improvement in endoscopist-directed sedation: results from the first nationwide survey in Korea. Gut Liver 2016;10:83-94.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  12. Kim JW, Cho YK, Kim JO, Jang JY. Accredited endoscopy unit program of Korea: overview and qualification. Clin Endosc 2019;52:426-430.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  13. Lee JK, Lee YJ, Cho JH, et al. Updates on the sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Clin Endosc 2019;52:451-457.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  14. Lee TH, Yoon JY, Paik CN, Choi HS, Jang JY. Updates on the facilities, procedures, and performance of the accredited endoscopy unit. Clin Endosc 2019;52:431-442.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Vargo JJ. Minimizing complications: sedation and monitoring. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2007;17:11-28.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Nimmagadda U, Chiravuri SD, Salem MR, et al. Preoxygenation with tidal volume and deep breathing techniques: the impact of duration of breathing and fresh gas flow. Anesth Analg 2001;92:1337-1341.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Wang D, Chen C, Chen J, et al. The use of propofol as a sedative agent in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013;8:e53311.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Lee JK, Jang DK, Kim WH, Kim JW, Jang BI. Safety of non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Korean J Gastroenterol 2017;69:55-58.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Hong GW, Lee JK, Lee JH, et al. Comparison of fentanyl versus meperidine in combination with midazolam for sedative colonoscopy in Korea. Clin Endosc 2020;53:562-567.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Hayee B, Dunn J, Loganayagam A, et al. Midazolam with meperidine or fentanyl for colonoscopy: results of a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69(3 Pt 2):681-687.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Schreiber F, et al. Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates Guideline. Updated June 2015. Endoscopy 2015;47:1175-1189.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Francis DL, Prabhakar S, Bryant-Sendek DM, Larson MV. Quality improvement project eliminates falls in recovery area of high volume endoscopy unit. BMJ Qual Saf 2011;20:170-173.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Kim SH, Park M, Lee J, Kim E, Choi YS. The addition of capnography to standard monitoring reduces hypoxemic events during gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2018;14:1605-1614.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef

Article

Original Article

Gut and Liver 2022; 16(6): 899-906

Published online November 15, 2022 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl210466

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Endoscopist-Driven Sedation Practices in South Korea: Re-evaluation Considering the Nationwide Survey in 2019

Seon-Young Park1 , Jun Kyu Lee2 , Chang-Hwan Park1 , Byung-Wook Kim3 , Chang Kyun Lee4 , Hong Jun Park5 , Byung Ik Jang6 , Dong Uk Kim7 , Jin Myung Park8 , Jae Min Lee9 , Young Sin Cho10 , Hyung Ku Chon11 , Seung Young Seo12 , Woo Hyun Paik13 , the Committees of Quality Management and Conscious Sedation of Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE)

1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, 2Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, 3Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Incheon, 4Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, 5Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, 6Department of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, 7Department of Internal Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Pusan, 8Department of Internal Medicine, Kangwon National University School of Medicine, Chuncheon, 9Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, 10Division of Gastroenterology, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Cheonan, 11Institute of Wonkwang Medical Science, Wonkwang University Hospital, Wonkwang University College of Medicine, Iksan, 12Department of Internal Medicine, Jeonbuk National University Hospital, Jeonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, and 13Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to:Chang-Hwan Park
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2995-8779
E-mail p1052ccy@hanmail.net
Byung-Wook Kim
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2290-4954
E-mail gastro@catholic.ac.kr

Seon-Young Park and Jun Kyu Lee contributed equally to this work as first authors.

Received: November 4, 2021; Revised: January 17, 2022; Accepted: February 10, 2022

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background/Aims: This study aimed to determine changes in endoscopist-driven sedation practices 5 years after the first nationwide survey in 2014 by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE).
Methods: A 59-item survey covering current practices was electronically mailed to all members of the KSGE in 2019.
Results: In total, 955 (12.8%) out of 7,486 questionnaires were returned. A total of 738 (77.7%) out of 955 respondents attended dedicated sedation education programs. The American Society of Anesthesiologists class was recorded by 464 (51.2%) out of 907 respondents. The recording rate was higher in respondents who completed sedation education (p=0.014) and worked in general or tertiary hospitals (p<0.001). Compared to that reported in the previous survey, the reported use of propofol was higher in 2019. The respondents had higher satisfaction scores for propofol-based sedation compared with midazolam monotherapy (p<0.001). The rates of oxygen supplementation (p<0.001) and oxygen saturation level monitoring (p<0.001) during sedative endoscopy were higher in 2019 than in the previous survey. A total of 876 (98.4%) out of 890 respondents reported a separate recovery bay, and 615 (70.5%) out of 872 respondents reported that personnel were assigned solely to the recovery bay.
Conclusions: Endoscopist-driven sedation and monitoring practices in 2019 were significantly different than those in 2014. The respondents favored propofol-based sedation and utilized oxygen supplementation and monitoring of O2 saturation more frequently in 2019 than in 2014.

Keywords: Gastrointestinal endoscopy, Sedation, Survey, Propofol

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopist-driven sedation has been widely used to facilitate effective endoscopic procedures with satisfaction for both patients and endoscopists.1-3 Sedation methods should be tailored to the individual patients, available facilities, and their experiences based on the updated guidelines.4-6 There were survey studies to show sedation and monitoring practices in local areas.7-10 In South Korea, a nationwide survey was carried out among members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) in 2014 for the first time.11 In 2016, the Korean Medical Association stated that an educational program should be performed for every doctor and member of the nursing personnel involved in propofol-based sedation. Recently, the KSGE has updated the Accreditation of Qualified Endoscopy Unit (AQEU) program to enhance the quality of endoscopy units, which emphasizes the facilities, personnel, and education programs related to endoscopic sedation.12,13 Since the introduction of mandatory education program by the Korean Medical Association and reinforcement of the AQEU program related to endoscopic sedation by the KSGE, change of facilities or personnel involved to endoscopic sedation would be expected. Herein, a survey-based study to determine the changes in sedation and monitoring practice of gastrointestinal endoscopists brought on by reinforcement of educational program and supplementation of regulations since 2014 are presented.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The survey was electronically mailed to all the members of KSGE via a link to a SurveyMonkey questionnaire, which could be completed in about 15 minutes. No responses up to five attempts were regarded as refusal. The results provided were automatically recorded in the system. The survey questionnaire composed of 59 items were updated from that of the previous survey 11 by the KSGE Task Force on Endoscopic sedation.

Data were expressed as number (percentage), mean± standard deviation, or median (range or interquartile range [IQR]). The satisfaction score with sedation, assessment of patient cooperation, and assessment of examination quality for current sedation pattern range from 1 to 10. Comparisons of data between the results of the year 2014 and that of the year 2019 were performed with the chi-square test for qualitative data or with the t-test or non-parametric test for quantitative tests. A p-value <0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. All statistical analysis was performed with the statistical package IBM SPSS Statistics version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

1. Characteristics of respondents

Among 7,486 KSGE members, a total of 955 (12.8%) responded to the survey, comprised of 768 (80.4%) men and 187 (19.6%) women. The mean age of the respondents was 42.6±7.6 years (range, 22 to 85 years). Among 949 respondents, 354 (37.3%) worked in private clinics, 133 (14.0%) in hospitals, 243 (26.5%) in general hospitals, and 219 (23.1%) in tertiary hospitals. There were 354 (37.2%) out of 952 respondents who had >10 years of endoscopic practice (Table 1). The median numbers (IQR) of esophagogastroduodenoscopies and colonoscopies per day were 10 (range, 5 to 15) and 4 (range, 2 to 5), respectively. Only 90 of respondents (9.4%) performed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures.

Table 1 . Demographic Characteristics of the 955 Respondents.

CharacteristicsNo. (%)
Sex (n=955)
Men768 (80.4)
Women187 (19.6)
Age, mean±SD, yr42.6±7.6
Level of institutions (n=949)
Private clinic354 (37.3)
Hospital133 (14.0)
General hospital243 (25.6)
Tertiary hospital219 (23.1)
Years of experience as an endoscopist (n=952)
<5 yr298 (31.3)
5–10 yr300 (31.5)
11–15 yr140 (14.7)
16–20 yr112 (11.8)
>20 yr102 (10.7)


2. Education and training in endoscopist-driven sedation

While 738 (77.7%) out of 955 respondents received dedicated sedation education programs, 721 (77.7%) out of 928 responded that it would be necessary to develop clinical practice guidelines for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy by the authorized organization, especially for selection and use of sedative agents. Also 432 (46.6%) out of 928 respondents received dedicated training for sedation during their fellowship. Among 928 respondents, 542 (58.4%) received continuing medical education for basic life support techniques.

3. Pre-procedural preparation and assessment: risk assessment of endoscopic sedation

Among 955 respondents, 907 answered about the recording of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and Mallampati score. Among them, 464 respondents (51.2%) recorded ASA class and 218 (24.0%) the Mallampati score for risk stratification prior to providing sedation. The recording rate of ASA class was higher in respondents who completed the sedation education (p=0.014) and worked in general hospitals or tertiary hospitals (p<0.001) (Table 2).

Table 2 . Reported ASA Class and Mallampati Score.

VariableRecording ASA classRecording Mallampati score
No (n=443)Yes (n=464)p-valueNo (n=689)Yes (n=218)p-value
Sedation education program0.0140.748
No111/196 (56.6)85/196 (43.4)154/205 (75.1)51/205 (24.9)
Yes332/711 (46.7)379/711 (53.3)535/702 (76.2)167/702 (23.8)
Level of complexity of clinics<0.0010.193
Clinic214/335 (63.9)121/335 (36.1)244/339 (72.0)95/339 (28.0)
Hospital70/132 (53.0)62/132 (47.0)100/128 (78.1)28/128 (21.9)
General hospital90/233 (38.6)143/233 (61.4)182/232 (78.4)50/232 (21.6)
Tertiary hospital69/207 (33.3)138/207 (66.7)163/208 (78.4)45/208 (21.6)

Data are presented as number/number (%)..

ASA, American society of Anesthesiologists..



4. Intra-procedure assessment

1) Monitoring practices

Four hundred eighty-seven (53.7%) out of 907 respondents administered oxygen before sedative endoscopy and 624 (69.8%) out of 894 administered supplemental oxygen during sedative endoscopy. Eight hundred and eighty-seven (99.2%) out of 894 respondents monitored pulse oximetry during endoscopic sedation. Regular automated blood pressure (BP) monitoring was performed by 370 (41.4%) out of 894 respondents, regular or intermittent electrocardiographic monitoring was performed by 57.8% (517/894) of respondents and the level of consciousness was assessed by 774 (86.6%) out of 894 respondents (Table 3). There were significant differences in oxygen administration and monitoring of pulse oximetry during sedative endoscopy between the survey by the KSGE in 2014 and the survey by the KSGE in 2019 (Table 3).

Table 3 . Change in Patient Monitoring Practices after Dedicated Sedation Education.

Patient monitoring practices2014 (Lee et al.11)2019 (current study)p-value
O2 supply before sedative endoscopyNA53.7 (487/907)
O2 supply during sedative endoscopy42.5 (560/1,318)69.8 (624/894)<0.001
Monitoring of O2 saturation during sedative endoscopy94.1 (1,240/1,318)99.2 (887/894)<0.001
Monitoring of BP during sedative endoscopyNA41.4 (370/894)
Monitoring of ECG during sedative endoscopyNA57.8 (517/894)
Regular assessment of level of consciousnessNA86.6 (774/894)

Data are presented as % (number/number)..

BP, blood pressure; ECG, electrocardiography; NA, not available..



Equipment for cardiopulmonary resuscitation was available in the endoscopy room of 877 (98.1%) out of 894 respondents. There were significant differences in pattern of monitoring practices and equipment for cardiopulmonary resuscitation between the private clinics/the hospitals and general hospitals/tertiary hospitals (p<0.05) (Table 4).

Table 4 . Differences in Patient Monitoring Practices According to the Level of Complexity of Clinics.

Patient monitoring practicesClinics and hospitals (n=467)General and tertiary hospitals (n=440)p-value
O2 supply before sedative endoscopy221/467 (47.3)266/440 (60.5)<0.001
O2 supply during sedative endoscopy292/460 (63.5)332/434 (76.5)<0.001
Monitoring of O2 saturation during sedative endoscopy453/460 (98.5)434/434 (100)0.016*
Monitoring of BP during sedative endoscopy110/460 (23.9)260/434 (59.9)<0.001
Monitoring of ECG during sedative endoscopy<0.001
Intermittent77/460 (16.7)140/460 (30.4)
Always101/434 (23.3)199/434 (45.9)
Regular assessment of level of consciousness386/460 (83.9)388/434 (89.4)0.016
Equipment for CPR in endoscopy room444/460 (96.5)433/434 (99.8)<0.001

Data are presented as number/number (%)..

BP, blood pressure; ECG, electrocardiography; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation..

*Fisher exact test..



2) Sedation practices

For patients undergoing diagnostic procedures with endoscopist-driven sedation, 869 (97.2%) of 894 respondents answered that there was at least one endoscopy staff member (an assistant physician, a nurse, an endoscopy technician, or an unlicensed personnel) in the endoscopy room. Eight hundred and seventy-eight (98.3%) out of 893 responded that the types, an initial and additional doses and dosing intervals of sedatives were decided by an endoscopist. Administration of the sedatives was mostly performed by trained nurses 759 (84.9%) out of 894 respondents.

(1) Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Among 916 respondents 734 respondents (80.1%) performed endoscopic sedation for more than 50% of cases (Table 5). Propofol-based sedation, as monotherapy or in combination with midazolam, was the preferred method. Moreover, propofol-based sedation during endoscopy were more frequently used in the survey in 2019 (67.5%), compared to in the survey in 2014 (55.6%, p<0.001). Analgesics were combined by 55 (6.0%) out of 916 respondents. There was no difference in sedation pattern according to the completion of education programs (p=0.543). The mean satisfaction score for current sedation pattern was 7.52±1.52. There was a significant difference in endoscopists’ satisfaction score according to their sedation pattern (p<0.001). Mean satisfaction score of “midazolam monotherapy,” “propofol monotherapy,” “balanced propofol therapy (propofol plus midazolam),” and “others” was 6.9±1.5, 7.9±1.4, 7.7±1.4, and 8.2±1.6, respectively. The higher satisfaction scores were reported with propofol monotherapy and balanced propofol therapy compared with midazolam monotherapy (p<0.001, respectively). There was no difference in satisfaction scores between propofol monotherapy and balanced propofol therapy (p=0.481).

Table 5 . Sedation Practices in 2014 and 2019.

VariableEGDColon
2014 (Lee et al.11)2019 (current study)2014 (Lee et al.11)2019 (current study)
Current use of sedation, if any1,305 (99.0)916 (95.9)1,205 (91.4)916 (95.9)
Proportion of sedative endoscopy
≤25% of cases124/1,305 (9.5)42/916 (4.6)19/1,205 (1.6)20/916 (2.2)
26%–50% of cases298/1,305 (22.8)140/916 (15.3)57/1,205 (4.7)37/916 (4.0)
51%–75% of cases474/1,305 (36.3)314/916 (34.3)188/1,205 (15.6)136/916 (14.9)
≥76% of cases409/1,305 (31.3)420/916 (45.9)941/1,205 (78.1)723/916 (78.9)
Sedation pattern
Midazolam only537/1,305 (41.2)278/916 (30.4)545/1,205 (45.2)323/916 (35.3)
Propofol only380/1,305 (29.1)332/916 (36.2)85/1,205 (7.1)77/916 (8.4)
Midazolam + propofol345/1,305 (26.4)286/916 (31.2)550/1,205 (45.6)491/916 (53.6)
Etc.43/1,305 (3.3)20/916 (2.2)25/1,205 (2.1)25/916 (2.7)
Use of analgesic medicationNA55/916 (6.0)NA529/953 (55.5)
MeperidineNA33/916 (3.6)NA381/953 (40.0)
FentanylNA11/916 (1.2)NA81/953 (8.5)
Etc.NA11/916 (1.2)NA67/953 (7.0)
Overall endoscopists’ satisfaction with sedation
9–10339/1,305 (26.0)231/916 (24.2)457/1,205 (37.9)NA
7–8688/1,305 (52.7)498/916 (52.1)577/1,205 (47.9)NA
5–6191/1,305 (14.6)153/916 (16.7)129/1,205 (10.7)NA
≤487/1,305 (6.7)34/916 (3.7)42/1,205 (3.5)NA

Data are presented as number/number (%)..

EGD, esophagogastroduodenoscopy; NA, not available..



(2) Colonoscopy

Among 916 respondents who performed sedative colonoscopies, 859 (93.8%) performed endoscopic sedation for more than 50% of cases (Table 5). In colonoscopy procedures, 35.3% of respondents used midazolam monotherapy and 62.0% of respondents used propofol-based sedation. Propofol-based sedation during colonoscopy were more frequently used in the survey in 2019 (62.0%), compared to in the survey in 2014 (52.7%, p<0.001). Analgesics were combined by 496 (54.1%) out of 916 respondents.

3) Sedation-related complications

Among 916 respondents, 581 (63.4%) experienced sedation-related complications; 513 (56.0%) experienced of mask-bag ventilation and 115 (12.6%) endotracheal intubation during sedative endoscopy. Seven (0.8%) respondents had experience of permanent injury of patients and 21 (2.3%) respondents had experience of their patient’s death because of sedation-related complications. Respondents working in general hospitals or tertiary hospitals had more frequent experiences of sedation-related complications (0.8±0.7 times) than respondents working in clinics and hospitals (0.6±0.6, p<0.001) (Table 6).

Table 6 . Sedation-Related Complications.

ComplicationsClinic (n=339)Hospital (n=132)General hospital (n=235)Tertiary hospital (n=137)p-value
Bag-mask ventilation174 (51.3)70 (53.0)132 (56.2)137 (65.2)0.013
Endotracheal intubation24 (7.1)11 (8.3)35 (14.9)45 (21.4)<0.001
Permanent injury003 (1.3)4 (1.9)0.045
Death1 (0.3)1 (0.8)8 (3.4)11 (5.2)0.001

Data are presented as number (%)..



Management of patients with paradoxical response was as follows; re-examination under non-sedation state after recovery with or without the use of antidote by 567 (63.5%), administration of additional dose of same sedatives by 132 (14.8%), switch to another sedative by 158 (17.7%) and etc. by 36 out of 893 respondents (4.0%). Antidotes such as flumazenil or naloxone were available in the endoscopy room of 93.8% of respondents (839/894). Seven hundred and fourteen of respondents (79.9%) had experience for use of antidote; 36 respondents (5.0%) used antidotes for every case, 500 respondents (70.0%) had experience of antidotes in case of hypoxia and 400 respondents (56.0%) had experience of antidotes in case of paradoxical reaction.

5. Post-procedural assessment

Out of 890 respondents who responded the questionnaire about presence of separate recovery bay, 876 (98.4%) respondents had a separate recovery bay in endoscopic units. The median size (IQR) of recovery bay was 25 m2 (range, 12 to 50 m2). The median number (IQR) of beds in a recovery bay was 8 (range, 4 to 10). Of 858 respondents who responded the questionnaire about facilities including various monitoring equipment, 661 (77.0%) performed the tracking of the oxygen saturation level monitoring for each bed in the recovery bay, 661 (77.0%) respondents had BP/oxygen saturation level monitoring equipment for each bed in the recovery bay and 709 (82.6%) respondents supplied oxygen for patients in the recovery bay.

There were 615 (70.5%) out of 872 respondents who had working personnel assigned solely to the recovery bay. The median number (IQR) of the nursing personnel was 2 (range, 1 to 3). The number of respondents with less than five patients per bed was 310 out of 587 (52.8%). There were 78.6% (463/589) of respondents with the ratio of the number of nursing personnel in a recovery bay to the number of patients greater than 1:10 (Supplementary Table 1).

DISCUSSION

This survey, which was performed as the 5-year follow-up for the first nationwide survey in 2014 by the KSGE, showed the improvements of clinical practice after the reinforcement of regulations and introduction of obligatory education programs for endoscopic sedation. Compared to the previous survey, there was an increased use of propofol during esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy. The rates of supplement of oxygen (p<0.001) and tracking of the oxygen saturation level (p<0.001) during sedative endoscopy were increased in 2019 compared to the previous survey.

In South Korea, recently since the scientific societies including Korean Medical Association and KSGE have emphasized the importance of education for endoscopist-driven sedation, 77.7% of respondents received dedicated sedation education program and 58.4% of respondents received continuing medical education for basic life support techniques.

About half of respondents received dedicated training for sedation during their fellowship. In pre-procedural assessment, the ASA classification is important as it was associated with increased risk of adverse events during endoscopic procedures, especially cardiopulmonary complications. The ASA class stratifies the risks of patients for sedation and anesthesia and is recommended as a quality indicator for AQEU program by the KSGE.4,14 In our study, the proportion of recording ASA class was higher in respondents in general hospitals or tertiary hospitals accredited for the AQEUs by the KSGE. Moreover, it was higher in respondents who received the sedation education program. On the other hand, recording the Mallampati classification, by which physician can predict the difficulty the airway management, was not different according to the level of clinics or the sedation education.

Monitoring practices during the procedure depend on the level of institution. In this study, respondents working in general and tertiary hospitals perform more monitoring of oxygen saturation and oxygen supply during sedative endoscopy than respondents working in clinics and hospitals. This survey also showed the increased rates of oxygen supply and tracking of oxygen saturation during endoscopic sedation in 2019 compared to in 2014,11 even though survey in 2019 included more respondents in clinics and hospitals than survey in 2014. While the rate of oxygen supply starting before endoscopic sedation was not surveyed in 2014, it was over 50% in 2019. The use of oxygen supply before endoscopic sedation increases the dissolved oxygen level in blood so that it will be helpful to decrease the risk of hypoxic damage by prolonging the protective period.15,16 Monitoring of BP and electrocardiography as well as regular assessment of level of consciousness were also not surveyed in 2014. However, these monitoring indices were included on 2019 survey with having affected by obligatory education programs. Monitoring rates of BP and electrocardiography (41.4% and 57.8%) were relatively lower compared with regular assessment rate of level of consciousness (86.6%). We believe that regular and mandatory education programs would keep improving real world practices for endoscopic sedation.

In this study, sedation-related complication rates were higher in general hospitals and tertiary hospitals despite of better monitoring practices pattern. The reasons might be that there are more patients with higher morbidity and high-risk procedures are usually performed in general and tertiary hospitals.

Propofol-based sedation was the most preferred method for endoscopist with better satisfaction, which was similar with the results of other surveys.3,7-9 Recent meta-analysis about the use of propofol for endoscopic sedation demonstrated that propofol had benefits regarding better sedation level, shorter recovery time and better patient satisfaction without increasing the risk of cardiopulmonary complications.17 Compared to the survey by the KSGE in 2014, more respondents used propofol when performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy. It seems that there is no more issue for safety regarding the use of propofol by non-anesthesiologists in South Korea.18

In this survey, about 55% of respondents added opioid to achieve sedation and analgesia during colonoscopy. Fentanyl is known to be associated with faster recovery time and better quality of procedures.19,20 However, a majority of endoscopists in South Korea preferred meperidine rather than fentanyl, which should be changed according to recommendation by other guidelines.4,21 There is room for change of opioids selection for endoscopic sedation through education program.

In this survey, we included the questionnaire about post-procedural assessment and environment of recovery bay in endoscopic units, as it is important to monitor and care the patients regarding vital sign, consciousness and the risk of fall. Especially, in high volume endoscopy unit, identification of risks for patient falls and small efforts such as close observation and assistance by health staffs in recovery bay could prevent sedation-related adverse events and patient falls.22 According to our results, about 30% of respondents still did not have working personnel assigned to recovery bay although dedicated personnel is necessary. As the facilities and working personnel in procedural rooms of most endoscopic units improved, more efforts are needed for appropriate monitoring and caring of recovering patients in South Korea.

This study has several limitations. First, the response rate of 12.8% was relatively lower compared with previous studies.8-11 It might be because the questionnaire had more survey items than the previous and we sent the questionnaire to all the members of KSGE including members working at non-educational centers. However, this survey had more responses from the endoscopists in clinics and hospitals compared to survey 2014. Therefore, this survey would reflect real-world clinical practices. Second, methods of oxygen supply (e.g., nasal cannula, face mask, or other high-flow methods) and the equipment and accessories for emergency airway support were not surveyed. Third, capnographic monitoring was not surveyed. A recent meta-analysis suggested that ventilation adequacy should be assessed by continuous capnographic monitoring.23 If more studies confirm the beneficial effect of capnographic monitoring in the near future, the application of capnographic monitoring will be included in next survey. Fourth, this study conducted the survey from different group, not in the same group in the survey 2014.

In conclusion, endoscopist-driven sedation endoscopy and monitoring practices in 2019 underwent significant changes compared to status quo ante 2014. The respondents favored propofol-based sedation, and use of oxygen supplementation and monitoring of oxygen saturation more frequently.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary materials can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl210466.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

B.W.K. is an editorial board member of the journal but was not involved in the peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision process of this article. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Study concept and design: C.H.P., B.W.K. Data acquisition: J.K.L., S.Y.P., C.K.L., H.J.P., B.I.J., D.U.K., J.M.P., J.M.L., Y.S.C., H.K.C., S.Y.S., W.H.P., the Committees of Quality Management and Conscious Sedation of Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE). Data analysis and interpretation: J.K.L., S.Y.P., C.H.P. Drafting of the manuscript; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: J.K.L., S.Y.P., C.H.P. Statistical analysis: S.Y.P. Administrative, technical, or material support; study supervision: C.H.P., B.W.K., the Committees of Quality Management and Conscious Sedation of KSGE.

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of the 955 Respondents

CharacteristicsNo. (%)
Sex (n=955)
Men768 (80.4)
Women187 (19.6)
Age, mean±SD, yr42.6±7.6
Level of institutions (n=949)
Private clinic354 (37.3)
Hospital133 (14.0)
General hospital243 (25.6)
Tertiary hospital219 (23.1)
Years of experience as an endoscopist (n=952)
<5 yr298 (31.3)
5–10 yr300 (31.5)
11–15 yr140 (14.7)
16–20 yr112 (11.8)
>20 yr102 (10.7)

Table 2 Reported ASA Class and Mallampati Score

VariableRecording ASA classRecording Mallampati score
No (n=443)Yes (n=464)p-valueNo (n=689)Yes (n=218)p-value
Sedation education program0.0140.748
No111/196 (56.6)85/196 (43.4)154/205 (75.1)51/205 (24.9)
Yes332/711 (46.7)379/711 (53.3)535/702 (76.2)167/702 (23.8)
Level of complexity of clinics<0.0010.193
Clinic214/335 (63.9)121/335 (36.1)244/339 (72.0)95/339 (28.0)
Hospital70/132 (53.0)62/132 (47.0)100/128 (78.1)28/128 (21.9)
General hospital90/233 (38.6)143/233 (61.4)182/232 (78.4)50/232 (21.6)
Tertiary hospital69/207 (33.3)138/207 (66.7)163/208 (78.4)45/208 (21.6)

Data are presented as number/number (%).

ASA, American society of Anesthesiologists.


Table 3 Change in Patient Monitoring Practices after Dedicated Sedation Education

Patient monitoring practices2014 (Lee et al.11)2019 (current study)p-value
O2 supply before sedative endoscopyNA53.7 (487/907)
O2 supply during sedative endoscopy42.5 (560/1,318)69.8 (624/894)<0.001
Monitoring of O2 saturation during sedative endoscopy94.1 (1,240/1,318)99.2 (887/894)<0.001
Monitoring of BP during sedative endoscopyNA41.4 (370/894)
Monitoring of ECG during sedative endoscopyNA57.8 (517/894)
Regular assessment of level of consciousnessNA86.6 (774/894)

Data are presented as % (number/number).

BP, blood pressure; ECG, electrocardiography; NA, not available.


Table 4 Differences in Patient Monitoring Practices According to the Level of Complexity of Clinics

Patient monitoring practicesClinics and hospitals (n=467)General and tertiary hospitals (n=440)p-value
O2 supply before sedative endoscopy221/467 (47.3)266/440 (60.5)<0.001
O2 supply during sedative endoscopy292/460 (63.5)332/434 (76.5)<0.001
Monitoring of O2 saturation during sedative endoscopy453/460 (98.5)434/434 (100)0.016*
Monitoring of BP during sedative endoscopy110/460 (23.9)260/434 (59.9)<0.001
Monitoring of ECG during sedative endoscopy<0.001
Intermittent77/460 (16.7)140/460 (30.4)
Always101/434 (23.3)199/434 (45.9)
Regular assessment of level of consciousness386/460 (83.9)388/434 (89.4)0.016
Equipment for CPR in endoscopy room444/460 (96.5)433/434 (99.8)<0.001

Data are presented as number/number (%).

BP, blood pressure; ECG, electrocardiography; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

*Fisher exact test.


Table 5 Sedation Practices in 2014 and 2019

VariableEGDColon
2014 (Lee et al.11)2019 (current study)2014 (Lee et al.11)2019 (current study)
Current use of sedation, if any1,305 (99.0)916 (95.9)1,205 (91.4)916 (95.9)
Proportion of sedative endoscopy
≤25% of cases124/1,305 (9.5)42/916 (4.6)19/1,205 (1.6)20/916 (2.2)
26%–50% of cases298/1,305 (22.8)140/916 (15.3)57/1,205 (4.7)37/916 (4.0)
51%–75% of cases474/1,305 (36.3)314/916 (34.3)188/1,205 (15.6)136/916 (14.9)
≥76% of cases409/1,305 (31.3)420/916 (45.9)941/1,205 (78.1)723/916 (78.9)
Sedation pattern
Midazolam only537/1,305 (41.2)278/916 (30.4)545/1,205 (45.2)323/916 (35.3)
Propofol only380/1,305 (29.1)332/916 (36.2)85/1,205 (7.1)77/916 (8.4)
Midazolam + propofol345/1,305 (26.4)286/916 (31.2)550/1,205 (45.6)491/916 (53.6)
Etc.43/1,305 (3.3)20/916 (2.2)25/1,205 (2.1)25/916 (2.7)
Use of analgesic medicationNA55/916 (6.0)NA529/953 (55.5)
MeperidineNA33/916 (3.6)NA381/953 (40.0)
FentanylNA11/916 (1.2)NA81/953 (8.5)
Etc.NA11/916 (1.2)NA67/953 (7.0)
Overall endoscopists’ satisfaction with sedation
9–10339/1,305 (26.0)231/916 (24.2)457/1,205 (37.9)NA
7–8688/1,305 (52.7)498/916 (52.1)577/1,205 (47.9)NA
5–6191/1,305 (14.6)153/916 (16.7)129/1,205 (10.7)NA
≤487/1,305 (6.7)34/916 (3.7)42/1,205 (3.5)NA

Data are presented as number/number (%).

EGD, esophagogastroduodenoscopy; NA, not available.


Table 6 Sedation-Related Complications

ComplicationsClinic (n=339)Hospital (n=132)General hospital (n=235)Tertiary hospital (n=137)p-value
Bag-mask ventilation174 (51.3)70 (53.0)132 (56.2)137 (65.2)0.013
Endotracheal intubation24 (7.1)11 (8.3)35 (14.9)45 (21.4)<0.001
Permanent injury003 (1.3)4 (1.9)0.045
Death1 (0.3)1 (0.8)8 (3.4)11 (5.2)0.001

Data are presented as number (%).


References

  1. Protopapas AA, Stournaras E, Neokosmidis G, Stogiannou D, Filippidis A, Protopapas AN. Endoscopic sedation practices of Greek gastroenterologists: a nationwide survey. Ann Gastroenterol 2020;33:366-373.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Friedrich K, Stremmel W, Sieg A. Endoscopist-administered propofol sedation is safe: a prospective evaluation of 10,000 patients in an outpatient practice. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2012;21:259-263.
    Pubmed
  3. Sieg A, Beck S, et al; bng-Study-Group. Safety analysis of endoscopist-directed propofol sedation: a prospective, national multicenter study of 24 441 patients in German outpatient practices. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;29:517-523.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Early DS, Lightdale JR, et al; ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. Guidelines for sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87:327-337.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Igea F, Casellas JA, González-Huix F, et al. Sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2014;46:720-731.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Moon SH. Sedation regimens for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Clin Endosc 2014;47:135-140.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  7. Lucendo AJ, González-Huix F, Tenias JM, et al. Gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation and monitoring practices in Spain: a nationwide survey in the year 2014. Endoscopy 2015;47:383-390.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Fanti L, Agostoni M, Gemma M, et al. Sedation and monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a nationwide web survey in Italy. Dig Liver Dis 2011;43:726-730.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Cohen LB, Wecsler JS, Gaetano JN, et al. Endoscopic sedation in the United States: results from a nationwide survey. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:967-974.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Ferreira AO, Torres J, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Cravo M. Endoscopic sedation and monitoring practices in Portugal: a nationwide web-based survey. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;27:265-270.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Lee CK, Dong SH, Kim ES, et al. Room for quality improvement in endoscopist-directed sedation: results from the first nationwide survey in Korea. Gut Liver 2016;10:83-94.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  12. Kim JW, Cho YK, Kim JO, Jang JY. Accredited endoscopy unit program of Korea: overview and qualification. Clin Endosc 2019;52:426-430.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  13. Lee JK, Lee YJ, Cho JH, et al. Updates on the sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Clin Endosc 2019;52:451-457.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  14. Lee TH, Yoon JY, Paik CN, Choi HS, Jang JY. Updates on the facilities, procedures, and performance of the accredited endoscopy unit. Clin Endosc 2019;52:431-442.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Vargo JJ. Minimizing complications: sedation and monitoring. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2007;17:11-28.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Nimmagadda U, Chiravuri SD, Salem MR, et al. Preoxygenation with tidal volume and deep breathing techniques: the impact of duration of breathing and fresh gas flow. Anesth Analg 2001;92:1337-1341.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Wang D, Chen C, Chen J, et al. The use of propofol as a sedative agent in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013;8:e53311.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Lee JK, Jang DK, Kim WH, Kim JW, Jang BI. Safety of non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Korean J Gastroenterol 2017;69:55-58.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Hong GW, Lee JK, Lee JH, et al. Comparison of fentanyl versus meperidine in combination with midazolam for sedative colonoscopy in Korea. Clin Endosc 2020;53:562-567.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Hayee B, Dunn J, Loganayagam A, et al. Midazolam with meperidine or fentanyl for colonoscopy: results of a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69(3 Pt 2):681-687.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Schreiber F, et al. Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates Guideline. Updated June 2015. Endoscopy 2015;47:1175-1189.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Francis DL, Prabhakar S, Bryant-Sendek DM, Larson MV. Quality improvement project eliminates falls in recovery area of high volume endoscopy unit. BMJ Qual Saf 2011;20:170-173.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Kim SH, Park M, Lee J, Kim E, Choi YS. The addition of capnography to standard monitoring reduces hypoxemic events during gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2018;14:1605-1614.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
Gut and Liver

Vol.16 No.6
November, 2022

pISSN 1976-2283
eISSN 2005-1212

qrcode
qrcode

Supplementary

Share this article on :

  • line

Popular Keywords

Gut and LiverQR code Download
qr-code

Editorial Office