• Achalasia
• Esophageal Motility
• Functional Lumen Imaging Probe (FLIP) Panometry
• Manometry

• P01 DK117824 NIDDK NIH HHS

• EndoFLIP
• achalasia
• anesthesia
• impedance
• pediatric

• Humans
• Female
• Retrospective Studies
• Male
• Adolescent
• Child
• Perioperative Care/methods
• Clinical Protocols
• Esophageal Achalasia/surgery
• Anesthesia/methods
• Esophageal Motility Disorders/diagnosis
• Child, Preschool

• K23 DK135797 NIDDK NIH HHS
• P30 DK078392 NIDDK NIH HHS
• None

• anesthesiabarostat
• digestive motility
• endoFLIP
• manometry

• Humans
• Anesthetics/administration & dosage
• Anesthetics/adverse effects
• Gastrointestinal Motility/drug effects
• Manometry/methods

• dexmedetomidine
• esophageal motility
• pulmonary aspiration
• sedatives
• swallowing function

• Humans
• Dexmedetomidine/pharmacology
• Cross-Over Studies
• Deglutition
• Healthy Volunteers
• Esophageal Sphincter, Upper
• Deglutition Disorders/chemically induced
• Manometry
• Hypnotics and Sedatives/pharmacology
• Pharynx

• Örebro Universitet
• University of Turku

• GOR
• anesthesia
• dog
• gastroesophageal reflux
• pH
• premedication

Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) affects up to 20% of the adult population and is defined as troublesome and frequent symptoms of heartburn or regurgitation. GER produces significantly harmful impacts on quality of life and precipitates poor mental well-being. However, the potential risk factors for the incidence and extent of GER in adults undergoing general anesthesia remain unclear.

To explore independent risk factors for the incidence and extent of GER during general anesthesia induction.

A retrospective study was conducted, and 601 adult patients received general anesthesia intubation or laryngeal mask surgery between July 2016 and January 2019 in Shanghai General Hospital of Nanjing Medical University. This study recruited a total of 601 adult patients undergoing general anesthesia, and the characteristics of patients and the incidence or extent of GER were recorded. The potential risk factors for the incidence of GER were explored using multivariate logistic regression, and the risk factors for the extent of GER were evaluated using multivariate linear regression.

The current study included 601 adult patients, 82 patients with GER and 519 patients without GER. Overall, we noted significant differences between GER and non-GER for pharyngitis, history of GER, other digestive tract diseases, history of asthma, and the use of sufentanil (P < 0.05), while no significant differences between groups were observed for sex, age, type of surgery, operative time, body mass index, intraoperative blood loss, smoking status, alcohol intake, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, psychiatric history, history of respiratory infection, history of surgery, the use of lidocaine, palliative strategies, propofol, or rocuronium bromide, state anxiety inventory, trait anxiety inventory, and self-rating depression scale (P > 0.05). The results of multivariate logistic regression indicated that female sex [odds ratio (OR): 2.702; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.144-6.378; P = 0.023], increased age (OR: 1.031; 95%CI: 1.008-1.056; P = 0.009), pharyngitis (OR: 31.388; 95%CI: 15.709-62.715; P < 0.001), and history of GER (OR: 11.925; 95%CI: 4.184-33.989; P < 0.001) were associated with an increased risk of GER, whereas the use of propofol could protect against the risk of GER (OR: 0.942; 95%CI: 0.892-0.994; P = 0.031). Finally, age (P = 0.004), operative time (P < 0.001), pharyngitis (P < 0.001), history of GER (P = 0.024), and hypertension (P = 0.017) were significantly associated with GER time.

This study identified the risk factors for GER in patients undergoing general anesthesia including female sex, increased age, pharyngitis, and history of GER.

• Gastroesophageal reflux
• Intraoperative period
• Risk factors
• Anesthesia, General
• Surgery
• Retrospective studies

• Dexmedetomidine
• Interstitial pneumonia
• Ketamine
• Microstomia
• Systemic sclerosis

Esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) is performed for evaluation of dysphagia or the pre-operative evaluation before esophageal surgery. The esophageal manometry parameters, interpreted as per the Chicago classification (CC), are meant to be acquired in an awake state. At times, the patient intolerance or inability to traverse the manometry catheter across the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) renders incomplete esophageal motility evaluation; hence, sedation or endoscopy assistance is required. There have been concerns raised regarding the use of sedation and resultant alteration of the manometry parameters. The aims were to study the effects of intravenous sedation on esophageal motility parameters and analyze its impact on outcomes of patients with dysphagia who are intolerant to awake manometry procedure.

The study population comprised patients who had sedation or the endoscopy assistance for the HRM. The indication for HRM, necessity for the sedation, manometry findings, barium esophagogram results, procedural timings and patient outcomes were reviewed. The diagnostic impact of the 10% correction in integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) was also studied.

There were 14 patients from 179 awake manometry procedures that required the sedation or the endoscopy assistance. The mean age was 60.7 years and there was equal gender distribution. Dysphagia (n = 9) remained the predominant indication for the HRM, followed by the pre-operative evaluation for the esophageal surgery (n = 5). In eight patients, awake manometry failed due to the coiling of the catheter above the EGJ and six patients were intolerant to awake catheter insertion technique. Six patients were diagnosed with achalasia and two with EGJ obstruction. The correction of the possible 10% inflation of the IRP did not alter the final diagnosis in majority except one patient with the EGJ obstruction. The findings of the barium esophagogram corroborated the manometry diagnosis.

Esophageal HRM should be done in awake state as much as possible. Sedation may be a feasible option as against aborting the further workup in patients who fail with current techniques involving awake catheter insertion. However, one needs to be mindful of sedation effects on manometry parameters and interpret results carefully.

• Esophageal manometry and anesthesia
• Failed awake HRM
• HRM in intolerant patients
• High-resolution manometry and sedation
• Reliability of HRM and sedation

• Anesthetic management
• Peroral endoscopic myotomy
• Ventilatory impairment

High-resolution impedance manometry (HRiM) is the test of choice to diagnose esophageal motility disorders and is particularly useful for identifying achalasia subtypes, which often guide therapy. HRiM is typically performed without sedation in the office setting. However, a substantial number of patients fail this approach. We report our single-center experience on endoscopy-assisted HRiM under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) in adults to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of this approach.

Patients who had failed prior HRiM attempts received propofol under MAC. Patients then underwent an upper endoscopy, followed immediately by passage of a Diversateck HRiM motility catheter through the nares and under direct visualization into the stomach, often using the tip of the endoscope to guide the catheter. We then awakened the patients and asked them to perform 10 saline swallows.

We successfully completed HRiM studies in 14 consecutive patients. Six patients had achalasia; two had esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction; two had absent contractility; one had distal esophageal spasm; one had ineffective esophageal motility; and one had a normal study. The majority of these patients were treated successfully with targeted interventions, including per oral endoscopic myotomy, gastrostomy, botox injection, medical therapy, and dietary modifications.

• antroduodenal manometry
• children
• high resolution esophageal manometry
• impedance

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is the gold standard in the examination and the treatment of the diseases of gastrointestinal system, but the disadvantage of being painful process. At this point the sedative and analgesic agents may be important. Dexmedetomidine is a new sedoanalgesic agent which is alternative to benzodiazepines and opioids. It has analgesia, amnesia, sedative and anxiolytic properties. The use of dexmedetomidine as the sole anesthetic agent and as the adjuvant analgesic agent has been published but has not been approved because of the inconsistency of efficacy and safety. The author has been collected the published papers in the literature. This article is aimed to describe the use of dexmedetomidine in various gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

• Complication
• Safety
• Dexmedetomidine
• Gastrointestinal endoscopy
• Sedation

AIM: To compare the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) areas observed in sedated and non-sedated patients during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from consecutive patients who underwent EGD for various reasons. The patients were divided into three groups according to the sedation used: propofol, midazolam, and control (no sedation). The EGJ was observed during both insertion and withdrawal of the endoscope. The extent of the EGJ territory observed was classified as excellent, good, fair, or poor. In addition, the time the EGJ was observed was estimated.

RESULTS: The study included 103 patients (50 males; mean age 58.44 ± 10.3 years). An excellent observation was achieved less often in the propofol and midazolam groups than in the controls (27.3%, 28.6% and 91.4%, respectively, P < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the time at which EGJ was observed among the groups (propofol 20.7 ± 11.7 s vs midazolam 16.3 ± 7.3 s vs control 11.6 ± 5.8 s, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that sedation use was the only independent risk factor for impaired EGJ evaluation (propofol, OR = 24.4, P < 0.001; midazolam, OR = 25.3, P < 0.001). Hiccoughing was more frequent in the midazolam group (propofol 9% vs midazolam 25.7% vs control 0%, P = 0.002), while hypoxia (SaO2 < 90%) tended to occur more often in the propofol group (propofol 6.1% vs midazolam 0% vs control 0%, P = 0.101).

CONCLUSION: Sedation during EGD has a negative effect on evaluation of the EGJ.

• Esophagogastric junction
• Endoscopy
• Esophagus
• Propofol
• Midazolam

• Aged
• Case-Control Studies
• Chi-Square Distribution
• Endoscopy, Digestive System
• Esophagogastric Junction/pathology
• Female
• Humans
• Hypnotics and Sedatives/adverse effects
• Logistic Models
• Male
• Midazolam/adverse effects
• Middle Aged
• Multivariate Analysis
• Odds Ratio
• Predictive Value of Tests
• Propofol/adverse effects
• Prospective Studies
• Risk Factors
• Time Factors

Many anesthetics reduce lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP) and consequently the gastro-esophageal pressure gradient (GEPG); thus they may promote gastro-esophageal reflux and contribute to aspiration pneumonia. Our goals were to evaluate the association between LESP and 2 measures of sedation: bispectral index (BIS) and the responsiveness component of the Observer’s Assessment of Alertness score (OAA/S).

Eleven healthy volunteers were each sedated on 2 separate days. Subjects were given sedative infusions of increasing target plasma concentrations of dexmedetomidine or propofol. LESP and GEPG were recorded after starting each infusion phase. Generalized estimating equation modeling was used to assess the relationship between LESP and, respectively, BIS and OAA/S. The existence of a drug-dependent association was evaluated within these models by testing an interaction term. Wald tests were used to evaluate the relationships within the models.

We found a significant relationship between LESP and BIS (P=0.0043) after adjusting for the main effect of sedative type – a deepening of sedation as measured by a decrease in BIS of 10% was associated with a decrease [Bonferroni-adjusted 95% CI] in LESP of −1.34 [−2.39, −0.29] mmHg. After adjusting for the main effect of sedative drug, LESP significantly declined with declining OAA/S (P=0.001); a unit decrease of OAA/S was associated with a decrease [Bonferroni-adjusted 95% CI] in LESP of −2.01 [−3.20, −0.81] mmHg.

Deeper sedation, as measured by either BIS or OAA/S, significantly reduces LESP.