Anesthesia-administered sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: monitored anesthesia care or general endotracheal anesthesia?
Anesthesia, Endotracheal
/ adverse effects
Anesthesia, General
/ adverse effects
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde
/ adverse effects
Clinical Decision-Making
Conscious Sedation
/ adverse effects
Female
Humans
Hypnotics and Sedatives
/ administration & dosage
Male
Monitoring, Intraoperative
Pain, Procedural
/ etiology
Patient Positioning
Patient Satisfaction
Patient Selection
Propofol
/ administration & dosage
Journal
Current opinion in anaesthesiology
ISSN: 1473-6500
Titre abrégé: Curr Opin Anaesthesiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8813436
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Aug 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
18
4
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
entrez:
18
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The decision to undertake monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or general endotracheal anesthesia (GEA) for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is influenced by many factors. These include locoregional practice preferences, procedure complexity, patient position, and comorbidities. We aim to review the data regarding anesthesia-administered sedation for ERCP and identify the impact of airway management on procedure success, adverse event rates and endoscopy unit efficiency. Several studies have consistently identified patients at high risk for sedation-related adverse events during ERCP. This group includes those with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class and (BMI). ERCP is commonly performed in the prone position, which can make the placement of an emergent advanced airway challenging. Although this may be alleviated by performing ERCP in the supine position, this technique is more technically cumbersome for the endoscopist. Data regarding the impact of routine GEA on endoscopy unit efficiency remain controversial. Pursuing MAC or GEA for patients undergoing ERCP is best-approached on an individual basis. Patients at high risk for sedation-related adverse events likely benefit from GEA. Larger, multicenter randomized controlled trials will aid significantly in better delineating which sedation approach is best for an individual patient.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30994476
doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000741
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hypnotics and Sedatives
0
Propofol
YI7VU623SF
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM