The use of propofol sedation during endoscopic procedures has increased in recent years. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of nurse-administered low-dose propofol sedation for diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). We prospectively assessed the outcome and complications of low-dose bolus propofol for endoscopic sedation for diagnostic EGD. Propofol was administered by bolus injection, with a standard protocol of 40 mg for patients <70 years old, 30 mg for patients 70–89 years old, and 20 mg for patients 90 years or older. When required for adequate sedation, additional doses were given, to a maximum of 120 mg. The primary outcome measure was respiratory depression, defined as oxygen desaturation (SpO₂ <90%) that continued for more than 20 s. Secondary measures included successful procedures, full recovery within 60 min of the procedure, and complications. All procedures were successful; 8,431 of 10,662 patients (79.1%) completed diagnostic EGD with a single bolus of propofol. Only 0.26% (28 patients) required transient supplemental oxygen supply; neither mask ventilation nor endotracheal intubation was required. Full recovery occurred in 99.9% of patients 60 min after the procedure. Men and younger patients required significantly higher doses of propofol than did the women and older patients (men vs. women, 46.5±19 vs. 42.7±15 mg, P=0.0008; age 40–49 vs. age 50–59, 51.5±16 vs. 46.3±13 mg, P<0.0001). Of the 400 patients, 368 (92%) wanted to drive home or to their offices, and all did so without incident. A total of 99% were willing to repeat the same procedure again. Low-dose nurse-administered propofol sedation is safe and practical for diagnostic EGD.

Background and study aims: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the preferred route for long-term enteral feeding. The aim of this study was to compare a direct, modified introducer method using a bumper-button-type device with the standard pull method for PEG. Patients and methods: Between October 2005 and January 2007 consecutive patients with dysphagia were randomly assigned to PEG using either the direct method or the pull method. The direct method directly placed a 24 Fr bumper-button-type device assisted by dual gastropexy. The primary outcome measure was the rate of peristomal infections. Secondary measures included success rates, procedure times, and other complications. The long-term outcome measure was the need for catheter change within 180 days of the PEG procedure. Results: Of the 140 patients enrolled, 68 were assigned to the direct method and 72 to the pull method. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to clinical baseline parameters. The occurrence of peristomal infection within 30 days was significantly lower following the direct method (0 vs. 6, P = 0.028). The success rates and duration of both methods were similar (100 % vs. 100 %; 10.5 vs. 9.6 minutes, P = 0.48). The catheters used in the direct method required replacement significantly less often than those placed using the pull method (no catheter change in 180 days: 75 % vs. 45.2 %, P = 0.0019). Conclusions: The direct method using a 24 Fr bumper-button-type device was associated with reduced peristomal infections in the early phase and reduced catheter changes compared with a 20 Fr catheter placed using the standard pull method.

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.

To study the safety and effectiveness of propofol sedation for outpatient colonoscopy. Propofol was given by bolus injection with an age-adjusted standard protocol consisting of 60 mg for patients < 70 years old, 40 mg for patients age 70-89 years, and 20 mg for those ≥ 90 years, and additional injections of 20 mg propofol were given up to a maximum of 200 mg. The principal parameters were the occurrence of adverse events within 24 h after colonoscopy and overall satisfaction for this procedure. Secondary parameters included successful procedure, respiratory depression, and other complications. Consecutive patients were entered prospectively and all 2101 entered successfully completed outpatient colonoscopy. The mean dose of propofol used was 96.4 mg (range 40-200 mg). Younger patients required higher doses of propofol than older patients (20-40 years vs ≥ 61 years: 115.3 ± 32 mg vs 89.7 ± 21 mg, P < 0.001). Transient supplemental oxygen supply was needed by five patients (0.2%); no other complications occurred. The questionnaires were completed by 1820 (87%) of 2101 patients and most rated their overall satisfaction as excellent (80%) or good (17%). The majority (65%) of patients drove home or to their office after their colonoscopy. Most (99%) were willing to repeat the same procedure. No incidents occurred within 24 h after colonoscopy. Propofol sedation using a dose < 200 mg proved both safe and practical for outpatient colonoscopy.