Dataset Information

High-flow nasal oxygenation versus standard oxygenation for gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation. The prospective multicentre randomised controlled ODEPHI study protocol.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Hypoxaemia is a major complication during gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) procedures (upper/lower) when performed under deep sedation in the procedure room. Standard oxygen therapy (SOT) is used to prevent hypoxaemia. Data suggest that risk factors for hypoxaemia under deep sedation during GIE are obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome, a body mass index above 30?kg/m², high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, age over 60 years old, high American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class and the association of upper and lower GIE. High-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) may potentially improve oxygenation during GIE under deep sedation. We hypothesised that HFNO could decrease the incidence of hypoxaemia in comparison with SOT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The ODEPHI (High-flow nasal oxygenation versus standard oxygenation for gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation. The prospective multicentre randomised controlled) study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing HFNO to SOT during GIE (upper and/or lower) under deep sedation administered by anaesthesiologists in the procedure room. Three hundred and eighty patients will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio in two parallel groups.The primary outcome is the occurrence of hypoxaemia, defined by a pulse oximetry measurement of peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) below or equal to 92% during the GIE procedure. Secondary outcomes include prolonged hypoxaemia, severe hypoxaemia, need for manoeuvres to maintain upper airway patency and other adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study has been approved by the ethics committee (CPP Sud Est Paris V, France), and patients are included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. As provided for by French law, patients participating in the study are informed that they have the possibility to ask the investigators, once the study is completed, to be informed of the overall results of the study. Thus, a summary of the results will be sent by post to the participants on request. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03829293).

SUBMITTER: Eugene A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7045106 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High-flow nasal oxygenation versus standard oxygenation for gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation. The prospective multicentre randomised controlled ODEPHI study protocol.

Eugene Axelle A Fromont Lucie L Auvet Adrien A Baert Olivier O Mfam Willy-Serge WS Remerand Francis F Boulain Thierry T Nay Mai-Anh MA

BMJ open 20200218 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Hypoxaemia is a major complication during gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) procedures (upper/lower) when performed under deep sedation in the procedure room. Standard oxygen therapy (SOT) is used to prevent hypoxaemia. Data suggest that risk factors for hypoxaemia under deep sedation during GIE are obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome, a body mass index above 30 kg/m², high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, age over 60 years old, high American Society of Anesthesiologist ...[more]

PMID: 32075842

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although colonoscopy is the accepted standard for detection of colorectal adenomas and cancers, many adenomas and some cancers are missed. To avoid interval colorectal cancer, the adenoma miss rate of colonoscopy needs to be reduced by improvement of colonoscopy technique and imaging capability. We aimed to compare the adenoma miss rates of full-spectrum endoscopy colonoscopy with those of standard forward-viewing colonoscopy.We did an international, multicentre, randomised trial at three sites in Israel, one site in the Netherlands, and two sites in the USA between Feb 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. Patients aged 18-70 years referred for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or diagnostic assessment underwent same-day, back-to-back tandem colonoscopy with standard forward-viewing colonoscope and the full-spectrum endoscopy colonoscope. The patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via computer-generated randomisation with block size of 20, to which procedure was done first. The endoscopist was masked to group allocation until immediately before the start of colonoscopy examinations; patients were not masked. The primary endpoint was adenoma miss rates. We did per-protocol analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01549535.197 participants were enrolled. 185 participants were included in the per-protocol analyses: 88 (48%) were randomly assigned to receive standard forward-viewing colonoscopy first, and 97 (52%) to receive full-spectrum endoscopy colonoscopy first. By per-lesion analysis, the adenoma miss rate was significantly lower in patients in the full-spectrum endoscopy group than in those in the standard forward-viewing procedure group: five (7%) of 67 vs 20 (41%) of 49 adenomas were missed (p<0·0001). Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy missed 20 adenomas in 15 patients; of those, three (15%) were advanced adenomas. Full-spectrum endoscopy missed five adenomas in five patients in whom an adenoma had already been detected with first-pass standard forward-viewing colonoscopy; none of these missed adenomas were advanced. One patient was admitted to hospital for colitis detected at colonoscopy, whereas five minor adverse events were reported including vomiting, diarrhoea, cystitis, gastroenteritis, and bleeding.Full-spectrum endoscopy represents a technology advancement for colonoscopy and could improve the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance.EndoChoice.

Project description:Background High flow nasal cannula is gaining increasingly used in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. We undertook this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) could effectively minimize the risk of hypoxemia as compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT). Methods We performed a comprehensive search of Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and Web of Science. Studies involving the application of HFNC during endoscopic procedures were identified. Results We included 15 randomized controlled trials (7 bronchoscopy, 8 gastrointestinal endoscopy). Patients receiving HFNC during endoscopic procedures had a significantly lower risk of hypoxemia (defined as SpO2 < 90%) versus COT group (risk ratio = 0.32; 95%CI (0.22–0.47), 13 studies, 4,093 patients, moderate-quality evidence, I2 = 48.82%, P < 0.001). The lowest SpO2 was significantly higher in HFNC group (mean difference = 4.41; 95%CI (2.95–5.86), 9 studies, 1,449 patients, moderate-quality evidence, I2 = 81.17%, P < 0.001) than those receiving COT. No significant difference was detected between groups in end-procedure partial pressure of CO2 (standard mean difference = −0.18; 95%CI (−0.52–0.15), 5 studies, 238 patients, moderate-quality evidence, I2 = 42.25%, P = 0.29). Patients receiving HFNC were associated a lower need for airway intervention (risk ratio = 0.45; 95%CI (0.24–0.84), 8 studies, 2,872 patients, moderate-quality evidence, I2 = 85.97%, P = 0.01) and less procedure interruption (risk ratio = 0.36; 95%CI (0.26–0.51), 6 studies, 1,562 patients, moderate-quality evidence, I2 = 0.00%, P < 0.001). The overall intubation rate after endoscopy was 0.20% in both group, with no difference detected (risk ratio = 1.00; 95%CI (0.30–3.35), 7 studies, 2,943 patients, low-quality evidence, I2 = 0.00%, P = 1.00). Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis found moderate to low evidence that the application of HFNC was associated with improved oxygenation, decreased need for airway intervention, and reduced procedure interruption in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. Future larger sample and high-quality studies are warranted to confirm our result and further investigate the effectiveness of HFNC in patients at risk.

Project description:BackgroundSedation is commonly used in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, considerable variability in sedation practices has been reported. The objective of this review was to identify and synthesize existing recommendations on sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures.MethodsWe systematically reviewed guidelines and position statements identified through a search of PubMed, guidelines databases, and websites of relevant professional associations from January 1, 2005 to May 10, 2019. We included English-language guidelines/position statements with recommendations relating to sedation for adults undergoing routine gastrointestinal endoscopy. Documents with guidance only for complex endoscopic procedures were excluded. We extracted and synthesized recommendations relating to: 1) choice of sedatives, 2) sedation administration, 3) personnel responsible for monitoring sedated patients, 4) skills and training of individuals involved in sedation, and 5) equipment required for monitoring sedated patients. We assessed the quality of included documents using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.ResultsWe identified 19 guidelines and 7 position statements meeting inclusion criteria. Documents generally agreed that a single, trained registered nurse can administer moderate sedation, monitor the patient, and assist with brief, interruptible tasks. Documents also agreed on the routine use of pulse oximetry and blood pressure monitoring during endoscopy. However, recommendations relating to the drugs to be used for sedation, the healthcare personnel capable of administering propofol and monitoring patients sedated with propofol, and the need for capnography when monitoring sedated patients varied. Only 9 documents provided a grade or level of evidence in support of their recommendations.ConclusionsRecommendations for sedation practices in routine gastrointestinal endoscopy differ across guidelines/position statements and often lack supporting evidence with potential implications for patient safety and procedural efficiency.

Dataset Information

High-flow nasal oxygenation versus standard oxygenation for gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation. The prospective multicentre randomised controlled ODEPHI study protocol.

Publications

High-flow nasal oxygenation versus standard oxygenation for gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation. The prospective multicentre randomised controlled ODEPHI study protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets