PMO-004 Do we need propofol sedation and a cytologist present during endoscopic ultrasound? Initial experience from a UK centre
IntroductionEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a prolonged procedure using endoscopes nearly twice the diameter of a standard gastroscope and relies on a compliant still patient to obtain images and fine needle aspiration (FNA) samples. Propofol or anaesthetic delivered sedation is used to ensure proced...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Gut 2012-07, Vol.61 (Suppl 2), p.A74-A74 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | A74 |
---|---|
container_issue | Suppl 2 |
container_start_page | A74 |
container_title | Gut |
container_volume | 61 |
creator | Hopper, A D Irvine, A Vinayagam, R Dube, A |
description | IntroductionEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a prolonged procedure using endoscopes nearly twice the diameter of a standard gastroscope and relies on a compliant still patient to obtain images and fine needle aspiration (FNA) samples. Propofol or anaesthetic delivered sedation is used to ensure procedure success and tolerability in many international centres with in-room cytology expertise to optimise the yield of FNA. This practice is potentially costly and labour intensive. We retrospectively and prospectively examined tolerability, completion and FNA accuracy in a recently expanded EUS centre in the UK using midazolam and fentanyl sedation only and no in room cytologist.MethodsElectronic array radial and linear ultrasound scopes with FNA procedures were available to our centre from July 2010. A cytology processing methodology was used with complete expulsion of FNA material into a “cytorich red” medium with no in room slide processing or viewing. A standard three FNA passes was used for pancreatic masses (20 ml suction) and lymph nodes (0–10 ml suction). Accuracy was calculated with follow-up of patients for >3 months for specimens. Also from this time analysis of sedation used, procedure success and any reversal agent/respiratory support required was documented. From 1 September 2011 patients undergoing EUS and gastroscopy examinations were invited to complete questionnaires to score pain during the procedure.ResultsFrom 1 July 2010 until 31 December 2011 450 EUS procedures were performed. 11 were incomplete and all due to luminal stricture formation only. FNA was performed in 126 patients. Accuracy for all lesions was 84.9%, and for solid pancreatic tumours 82.4% (n=68). Midazolam use ranged from 0 to 10 mg (mean 3.44 median 4) and fentanyl use ranged from 0 to 200 μg (mean 67.9; median 50). No reversal agent was used and no patients required any assisted ventilation. Prospective recruitment from 1 September 2011 included 49 patients which participated for EUS. The mean procedure time was 19.5 min (range 8–35), mean pain score during the procedure was 2.26/10 (range 0–9 median 2), and the average dose of sedation was 3.45 mg midazolam and 72.8 μg fentanyl. During the same time period 75 consecutive patients undergoing gastroscopy participated. There was no difference in the average pain score during the procedure compared to EUS: mean=2.6/10 (t test p=0.36) (mean procedure time=6.7 min; sedation given in 14/75; mean=3.3 mg midazolam).ConclusionDespite p |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302514b.4 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2038752428</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2038752428</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b2004-4fe6689d0e02f997ff28b7779503d8134f668972320c2a7b8c7c4a49d84e667c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMtu1DAUQC1EJYbCJyBZYu3iV2JnhdBAH5pCu6As2FiOfTPKkLGDnYh2B4v-aL-kHqVi3ZUXPude-yD0jtETxkT9YTtPuzAQThkngvKKyfZEvkArJmtNBNf6JVpRyhSplGxeodc57yilWjdshf5df70ilMqHv_efI_4DOAB4PKY4xi4OOIO3Ux8DtsFji93dFIe47fNUEMgQJuzn1IcthuBjdnHsHZ6HKdkc5-A_4ovQT70dMNyOkHoIDnCX4r6MutlgV_wEb9BRZ4cMb5_OY3Rz-uX7-pxcXp1drD9dkpaX9xHZQV3rxlOgvGsa1XVct0qppqLCayZkd7hWXHDquFWtdspJKxuvZRGVE8fo_TK3fO73DHkyuzinUFYaToVWFZdcF6paKJdizgk6M6Z-b9OdYdQcapultjnUNk-1jSweWbzSBm7_Szb9MrUSqjLffqzNpjo7Pd-wn0YVni58u989c8Uj86qUKg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2038752428</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>PMO-004 Do we need propofol sedation and a cytologist present during endoscopic ultrasound? Initial experience from a UK centre</title><source>BMJ Journals - NESLi2</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Hopper, A D ; Irvine, A ; Vinayagam, R ; Dube, A</creator><creatorcontrib>Hopper, A D ; Irvine, A ; Vinayagam, R ; Dube, A</creatorcontrib><description>IntroductionEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a prolonged procedure using endoscopes nearly twice the diameter of a standard gastroscope and relies on a compliant still patient to obtain images and fine needle aspiration (FNA) samples. Propofol or anaesthetic delivered sedation is used to ensure procedure success and tolerability in many international centres with in-room cytology expertise to optimise the yield of FNA. This practice is potentially costly and labour intensive. We retrospectively and prospectively examined tolerability, completion and FNA accuracy in a recently expanded EUS centre in the UK using midazolam and fentanyl sedation only and no in room cytologist.MethodsElectronic array radial and linear ultrasound scopes with FNA procedures were available to our centre from July 2010. A cytology processing methodology was used with complete expulsion of FNA material into a “cytorich red” medium with no in room slide processing or viewing. A standard three FNA passes was used for pancreatic masses (20 ml suction) and lymph nodes (0–10 ml suction). Accuracy was calculated with follow-up of patients for >3 months for specimens. Also from this time analysis of sedation used, procedure success and any reversal agent/respiratory support required was documented. From 1 September 2011 patients undergoing EUS and gastroscopy examinations were invited to complete questionnaires to score pain during the procedure.ResultsFrom 1 July 2010 until 31 December 2011 450 EUS procedures were performed. 11 were incomplete and all due to luminal stricture formation only. FNA was performed in 126 patients. Accuracy for all lesions was 84.9%, and for solid pancreatic tumours 82.4% (n=68). Midazolam use ranged from 0 to 10 mg (mean 3.44 median 4) and fentanyl use ranged from 0 to 200 μg (mean 67.9; median 50). No reversal agent was used and no patients required any assisted ventilation. Prospective recruitment from 1 September 2011 included 49 patients which participated for EUS. The mean procedure time was 19.5 min (range 8–35), mean pain score during the procedure was 2.26/10 (range 0–9 median 2), and the average dose of sedation was 3.45 mg midazolam and 72.8 μg fentanyl. During the same time period 75 consecutive patients undergoing gastroscopy participated. There was no difference in the average pain score during the procedure compared to EUS: mean=2.6/10 (t test p=0.36) (mean procedure time=6.7 min; sedation given in 14/75; mean=3.3 mg midazolam).ConclusionDespite prolonged procedure duration and large scope diameter, EUS procedures are safely and well tolerated with midazolam and fentanyl sedation. A high FNA accuracy can be achieved without a cytologist present in the room.Competing interestsNone declared.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0017-5749</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-3288</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302514b.4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Society of Gastroenterology</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Anesthesia ; Cellular biology ; Cytology ; Endoscopes ; Endoscopy ; Fentanyl ; Gastroscopy ; Lymph nodes ; Mechanical ventilation ; Midazolam ; Pain ; Pancreas ; Propofol ; Stricture ; Tumors ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>Gut, 2012-07, Vol.61 (Suppl 2), p.A74-A74</ispartof><rights>2012, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.</rights><rights>Copyright: 2012 © 2012, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttp://gut.bmj.com/content/61/Suppl_2/A74.1.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://gut.bmj.com/content/61/Suppl_2/A74.1.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>114,115,314,780,784,3196,23571,27924,27925,77600,77631</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hopper, A D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Irvine, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vinayagam, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dube, A</creatorcontrib><title>PMO-004 Do we need propofol sedation and a cytologist present during endoscopic ultrasound? Initial experience from a UK centre</title><title>Gut</title><addtitle>Gut</addtitle><description>IntroductionEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a prolonged procedure using endoscopes nearly twice the diameter of a standard gastroscope and relies on a compliant still patient to obtain images and fine needle aspiration (FNA) samples. Propofol or anaesthetic delivered sedation is used to ensure procedure success and tolerability in many international centres with in-room cytology expertise to optimise the yield of FNA. This practice is potentially costly and labour intensive. We retrospectively and prospectively examined tolerability, completion and FNA accuracy in a recently expanded EUS centre in the UK using midazolam and fentanyl sedation only and no in room cytologist.MethodsElectronic array radial and linear ultrasound scopes with FNA procedures were available to our centre from July 2010. A cytology processing methodology was used with complete expulsion of FNA material into a “cytorich red” medium with no in room slide processing or viewing. A standard three FNA passes was used for pancreatic masses (20 ml suction) and lymph nodes (0–10 ml suction). Accuracy was calculated with follow-up of patients for >3 months for specimens. Also from this time analysis of sedation used, procedure success and any reversal agent/respiratory support required was documented. From 1 September 2011 patients undergoing EUS and gastroscopy examinations were invited to complete questionnaires to score pain during the procedure.ResultsFrom 1 July 2010 until 31 December 2011 450 EUS procedures were performed. 11 were incomplete and all due to luminal stricture formation only. FNA was performed in 126 patients. Accuracy for all lesions was 84.9%, and for solid pancreatic tumours 82.4% (n=68). Midazolam use ranged from 0 to 10 mg (mean 3.44 median 4) and fentanyl use ranged from 0 to 200 μg (mean 67.9; median 50). No reversal agent was used and no patients required any assisted ventilation. Prospective recruitment from 1 September 2011 included 49 patients which participated for EUS. The mean procedure time was 19.5 min (range 8–35), mean pain score during the procedure was 2.26/10 (range 0–9 median 2), and the average dose of sedation was 3.45 mg midazolam and 72.8 μg fentanyl. During the same time period 75 consecutive patients undergoing gastroscopy participated. There was no difference in the average pain score during the procedure compared to EUS: mean=2.6/10 (t test p=0.36) (mean procedure time=6.7 min; sedation given in 14/75; mean=3.3 mg midazolam).ConclusionDespite prolonged procedure duration and large scope diameter, EUS procedures are safely and well tolerated with midazolam and fentanyl sedation. A high FNA accuracy can be achieved without a cytologist present in the room.Competing interestsNone declared.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Cellular biology</subject><subject>Cytology</subject><subject>Endoscopes</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Fentanyl</subject><subject>Gastroscopy</subject><subject>Lymph nodes</subject><subject>Mechanical ventilation</subject><subject>Midazolam</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Pancreas</subject><subject>Propofol</subject><subject>Stricture</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>0017-5749</issn><issn>1468-3288</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkMtu1DAUQC1EJYbCJyBZYu3iV2JnhdBAH5pCu6As2FiOfTPKkLGDnYh2B4v-aL-kHqVi3ZUXPude-yD0jtETxkT9YTtPuzAQThkngvKKyfZEvkArJmtNBNf6JVpRyhSplGxeodc57yilWjdshf5df70ilMqHv_efI_4DOAB4PKY4xi4OOIO3Ux8DtsFji93dFIe47fNUEMgQJuzn1IcthuBjdnHsHZ6HKdkc5-A_4ovQT70dMNyOkHoIDnCX4r6MutlgV_wEb9BRZ4cMb5_OY3Rz-uX7-pxcXp1drD9dkpaX9xHZQV3rxlOgvGsa1XVct0qppqLCayZkd7hWXHDquFWtdspJKxuvZRGVE8fo_TK3fO73DHkyuzinUFYaToVWFZdcF6paKJdizgk6M6Z-b9OdYdQcapultjnUNk-1jSweWbzSBm7_Szb9MrUSqjLffqzNpjo7Pd-wn0YVni58u989c8Uj86qUKg</recordid><startdate>201207</startdate><enddate>201207</enddate><creator>Hopper, A D</creator><creator>Irvine, A</creator><creator>Vinayagam, R</creator><creator>Dube, A</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Society of Gastroenterology</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201207</creationdate><title>PMO-004 Do we need propofol sedation and a cytologist present during endoscopic ultrasound? Initial experience from a UK centre</title><author>Hopper, A D ; Irvine, A ; Vinayagam, R ; Dube, A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b2004-4fe6689d0e02f997ff28b7779503d8134f668972320c2a7b8c7c4a49d84e667c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Cellular biology</topic><topic>Cytology</topic><topic>Endoscopes</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Fentanyl</topic><topic>Gastroscopy</topic><topic>Lymph nodes</topic><topic>Mechanical ventilation</topic><topic>Midazolam</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Pancreas</topic><topic>Propofol</topic><topic>Stricture</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hopper, A D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Irvine, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vinayagam, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dube, A</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Gut</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hopper, A D</au><au>Irvine, A</au><au>Vinayagam, R</au><au>Dube, A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>PMO-004 Do we need propofol sedation and a cytologist present during endoscopic ultrasound? Initial experience from a UK centre</atitle><jtitle>Gut</jtitle><addtitle>Gut</addtitle><date>2012-07</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>61</volume><issue>Suppl 2</issue><spage>A74</spage><epage>A74</epage><pages>A74-A74</pages><issn>0017-5749</issn><eissn>1468-3288</eissn><abstract>IntroductionEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a prolonged procedure using endoscopes nearly twice the diameter of a standard gastroscope and relies on a compliant still patient to obtain images and fine needle aspiration (FNA) samples. Propofol or anaesthetic delivered sedation is used to ensure procedure success and tolerability in many international centres with in-room cytology expertise to optimise the yield of FNA. This practice is potentially costly and labour intensive. We retrospectively and prospectively examined tolerability, completion and FNA accuracy in a recently expanded EUS centre in the UK using midazolam and fentanyl sedation only and no in room cytologist.MethodsElectronic array radial and linear ultrasound scopes with FNA procedures were available to our centre from July 2010. A cytology processing methodology was used with complete expulsion of FNA material into a “cytorich red” medium with no in room slide processing or viewing. A standard three FNA passes was used for pancreatic masses (20 ml suction) and lymph nodes (0–10 ml suction). Accuracy was calculated with follow-up of patients for >3 months for specimens. Also from this time analysis of sedation used, procedure success and any reversal agent/respiratory support required was documented. From 1 September 2011 patients undergoing EUS and gastroscopy examinations were invited to complete questionnaires to score pain during the procedure.ResultsFrom 1 July 2010 until 31 December 2011 450 EUS procedures were performed. 11 were incomplete and all due to luminal stricture formation only. FNA was performed in 126 patients. Accuracy for all lesions was 84.9%, and for solid pancreatic tumours 82.4% (n=68). Midazolam use ranged from 0 to 10 mg (mean 3.44 median 4) and fentanyl use ranged from 0 to 200 μg (mean 67.9; median 50). No reversal agent was used and no patients required any assisted ventilation. Prospective recruitment from 1 September 2011 included 49 patients which participated for EUS. The mean procedure time was 19.5 min (range 8–35), mean pain score during the procedure was 2.26/10 (range 0–9 median 2), and the average dose of sedation was 3.45 mg midazolam and 72.8 μg fentanyl. During the same time period 75 consecutive patients undergoing gastroscopy participated. There was no difference in the average pain score during the procedure compared to EUS: mean=2.6/10 (t test p=0.36) (mean procedure time=6.7 min; sedation given in 14/75; mean=3.3 mg midazolam).ConclusionDespite prolonged procedure duration and large scope diameter, EUS procedures are safely and well tolerated with midazolam and fentanyl sedation. A high FNA accuracy can be achieved without a cytologist present in the room.Competing interestsNone declared.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Society of Gastroenterology</pub><doi>10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302514b.4</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0017-5749 |
ispartof | Gut, 2012-07, Vol.61 (Suppl 2), p.A74-A74 |
issn | 0017-5749 1468-3288 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2038752428 |
source | BMJ Journals - NESLi2; PubMed Central |
subjects | Accuracy Anesthesia Cellular biology Cytology Endoscopes Endoscopy Fentanyl Gastroscopy Lymph nodes Mechanical ventilation Midazolam Pain Pancreas Propofol Stricture Tumors Ultrasonic imaging Ultrasound |
title | PMO-004 Do we need propofol sedation and a cytologist present during endoscopic ultrasound? Initial experience from a UK centre |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T01%3A39%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=PMO-004%E2%80%85Do%20we%20need%20propofol%20sedation%20and%20a%20cytologist%20present%20during%20endoscopic%20ultrasound?%20Initial%20experience%20from%20a%20UK%20centre&rft.jtitle=Gut&rft.au=Hopper,%20A%20D&rft.date=2012-07&rft.volume=61&rft.issue=Suppl%202&rft.spage=A74&rft.epage=A74&rft.pages=A74-A74&rft.issn=0017-5749&rft.eissn=1468-3288&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302514b.4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2038752428%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2038752428&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |