Evaluation of Effect of End Tidal Carbondioxide (Etco2) Monitoring on Patient's Safety during Propofol and Fentanyl Based Sedation for Short Surgical Procedures Compared to Standard Monitoring- An Observational Study
Authors/Creators
- 1. Assistant professor, MGIMS, Sewagram
- 2. Professor, MGIMS, Sewagram
- 3. Associate professor, MGIMS, Sewagram
- 4. Senior Resident, MGIMS, Sewagram
- 5. Professor and Head of department, MGIMS, Sewagram
Description
Background: Currently, day care procedures are more frequently performed under procedural anaesthesia. It helps patient to tolerate unpleasant or painful procedures, avoiding intraoperative awareness. Compared to general anaesthesia, PSA may be linked with an even higher incidence of major sedation-related adverse events. Frequent monitoring is advised because sedation-induced depression of the central nervous system may compromise respiratory function. Even with low breathing frequencies, oxygen saturation is commonly maintained, and respiratory depression, hypoventilation, and apnoeic episodes are usually missed by pulse oximetry. With the aid of non-invasive EtCO2 monitoring, CO2 retention and hypoventilation can be identified early and appropriate action can be taken. However, in many places, EtCO2 monitoring is not a standard procedure during PS [2,3]. Hence, we have focused to evaluate the effect of EtCO2 on patients’ safety in terms of CO2 retention and apnoeic events in propofol and fentanyl-based sedation for short surgical procedures as compared to standard monitoring. Objective: To evaluate whether EtCO2 monitoring decreases the incidences of CO2 retention and apnoeic events in propofol and fentanyl-based sedation in short surgical procedures as compared to standard monitoring. Methods: 80 patients between 18-65 years age of either gender with ASA status I and II posted electively for short surgical procedure and receiving total intravenous anaesthesia using propofol and fentanyl were selected. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group A: Patients monitored with end tidal CO2 in addition to standard monitoring. Group B: Patients monitored with standard monitoring. All patients were administered drugs according to the standard protocol. Baseline vitals were noted and ABG was done. Thereafter vitals were recorded at 5 min interval till 30 min and ABG at 15 min and end of the procedure. Results: CO2 retention occurred significantly less often in the EtCO2 monitoring group. In the standard monitoring group, the mean PaCO2 was more than 45mmHg and the pH was less than 7.35 at 15 min after induction of anaesthesia and at the end of the procedure. Both values were within the normal range in the EtCO2 monitoring group. The number of airway interventions performed was significantly higher in the EtCO2 monitoring group. Apnoea occurred less often in the EtCO2 monitoring group and recovery time was shorter. Conclusion: The addition of EtCO2 monitoring to standard monitoring during propofol-based sedation can improve patient safety by decreasing the incidence of CO2 retention, and therefore the risk of hypoxaemia through early recognition of apnoea, and can also shorten recovery time.
Abstract (English)
Background: Currently, day care procedures are more frequently performed under procedural anaesthesia. It helps patient to tolerate unpleasant or painful procedures, avoiding intraoperative awareness. Compared to general anaesthesia, PSA may be linked with an even higher incidence of major sedation-related adverse events. Frequent monitoring is advised because sedation-induced depression of the central nervous system may compromise respiratory function. Even with low breathing frequencies, oxygen saturation is commonly maintained, and respiratory depression, hypoventilation, and apnoeic episodes are usually missed by pulse oximetry. With the aid of non-invasive EtCO2 monitoring, CO2 retention and hypoventilation can be identified early and appropriate action can be taken. However, in many places, EtCO2 monitoring is not a standard procedure during PS [2,3]. Hence, we have focused to evaluate the effect of EtCO2 on patients’ safety in terms of CO2 retention and apnoeic events in propofol and fentanyl-based sedation for short surgical procedures as compared to standard monitoring. Objective: To evaluate whether EtCO2 monitoring decreases the incidences of CO2 retention and apnoeic events in propofol and fentanyl-based sedation in short surgical procedures as compared to standard monitoring. Methods: 80 patients between 18-65 years age of either gender with ASA status I and II posted electively for short surgical procedure and receiving total intravenous anaesthesia using propofol and fentanyl were selected. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group A: Patients monitored with end tidal CO2 in addition to standard monitoring. Group B: Patients monitored with standard monitoring. All patients were administered drugs according to the standard protocol. Baseline vitals were noted and ABG was done. Thereafter vitals were recorded at 5 min interval till 30 min and ABG at 15 min and end of the procedure. Results: CO2 retention occurred significantly less often in the EtCO2 monitoring group. In the standard monitoring group, the mean PaCO2 was more than 45mmHg and the pH was less than 7.35 at 15 min after induction of anaesthesia and at the end of the procedure. Both values were within the normal range in the EtCO2 monitoring group. The number of airway interventions performed was significantly higher in the EtCO2 monitoring group. Apnoea occurred less often in the EtCO2 monitoring group and recovery time was shorter. Conclusion: The addition of EtCO2 monitoring to standard monitoring during propofol-based sedation can improve patient safety by decreasing the incidence of CO2 retention, and therefore the risk of hypoxaemia through early recognition of apnoea, and can also shorten recovery time.
Files
IJPCR,Vol16,Issue11,Article78.pdf
Files
(504.3 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:6cc0e9b4d039fd40b01ce745ea960bf8
|
504.3 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2024-10-26
Software
- Repository URL
- http://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/16/IJPCR,Vol16,Issue11,Article78.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Cascella M, Fusco R, Caliendo D, Granata V, Carbone D, Muzio MR, Laurelli G, Greggi S, Falcone F, Forte CA, Cuomo A. Anesthetic dreaming, anesthesia awareness and patient satisfaction after deep sedation with propofol target controlled infusion: A prospective cohort study of patients undergoing day case breast surgery. Oncotarget. 2017 Oct 03;8(45): 79248-79256 2. Benzoni T, Cascella M. Procedural Sedation. [Updated 2022 Jul 4]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551685/ 3. Tobias JD, Leder M. Procedural sedation: A review of sedative agents, monitoring, and management of complications. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011 Oct; 5(4):395-410. 4. Green SM, Roback MG, Krauss BS, Miner JR, Schneider S, Kivela PD, Nelson LS, Chumpitazi CE, Fisher JD, Gesek D, Jackson B, Kamat P, Kowalenko T, Lewis B, Papo M, Phillips D, Ruff S, Runde D, Tobin T, Vafaie N, Vargo J, Walser E, Yealy DM, O'Connor RE. Unscheduled Procedural Sedation: A Multidisciplinary Consensus Practice Guideline. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 May; 73(5):e51-e65. 5. Report of the International Narcotics Control Board on the Availability of Internationally Controlled Drugs: Ensuring Adequate Access for Medical and Scientific Purposes [Internet]. [Cited 2020 Apr 7]. Available online: https:// apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/m/abstract/Js21 969en/ 6. Gross J, Farmington C, Bailey P, Connis R, Cote C, Davis F, Epstein B, Gilbertson L, Nickinovich D, Zerwas J, et al. Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by nonanesthesiologists. Anesthesiology. 2002; 96(4):1004–1017. 7. Webb S, Hunter D. Is sedation by nonanaesthetists really safe? Br J Anaesth. 2013; 111(2):136–138. 8. American Society of Anesthesiologists. Practice Guidelines for Moderate Procedural Sedation and Analgesia 2018: A Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Moderate Procedural Sedation and Analgesia, the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, American College of Radiology, American Dental Association, American Society of Dentist Anesthesiologists, and Society of Interventional Radiology. Anesthesiology. 2018 Mar; 128(3):437-79. 9. Conway A, Douglas C, Sutherland J. Capnography monitoring during procedural sedation and analgesia: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 14; 4:92. 10. Weaver J. The latest ASA mandate: CO(2) monitoring for moderate and deep sedation. Anesth Prog. 2011; 58(3):111–112. 11. Early DS, Lightdale JR, Vargo JJ, 2nd, et al. Guidelines for sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 87(2):327–337. 12. Li M, Liu Z, Lin F, Wang H, Niu X, Ge X, Fu S, Fang L, Li C. End-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring improves patient safety during propofol-based sedation for breast lumpectomy: A randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Anaesthesiology| EJA. 2018 Nov 1; 35(11):848-55. 13. Cacho G, Perez-Calle JL, Barbado A, et al. Capnography is superior to pulse oximetry for the detection of respiratory depression during colonoscopy. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2010; 102:86–89. 14. Beitz A, Riphaus A, Meining A, et al. Capnographic monitoring reduces the incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation and hypoxemia during propofol sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled study (ColoCapStudy). Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107:1205– 1212. 15. Harris CE, Grounds RM, Murray AM, Lumley J, Royston D, Morgan M. Propofol for longterm sedation in the intensive care unit.A comparison with papaveretum and midazolam. Anaesthesia. 1990; 45:366–72. 16. Kassam SI, Lu C, Buckley N, Lee RM. The mechanisms of propofol-induced vascular relaxation and modulation by perivascular adipose tissue and endothelium. Anesth Analg. 2011; 112:1339–45. 17. Satoh M, Minami M. Molecular pharmacology of the opioid receptors. Pharmacol Ther. 1995; 68:343–64. 18. Fahnenstich H, Steffan J, Kau N, Bartmann P. Fentanyl-induced chest wall rigidity and laryngospasm in preterm and term infants. Crit Care Med. 2000; 28:835–9. 19. Miner JR, Heegaard W, Plummer D. End-tidal Carbon Dioxide Monitoring during Procedural Sedation. Acad Emerg Med. 2002; 9(4):275– 80. 20. Sivilotti MLA, Messenger DW, Van Vlymen J, Dungey PE, Murray HE. A comparative evaluation of capnometry versus pulse oximetry during procedural sedation and analgesia on room air. Can J Emerg Med. 2010; 12(5):397– 404. 21. Forster A, Gardaz JP, Suter PM, Gemperle M. Respiratory depression by midazolam and diazepam. Anesthesiology. 1980; 53(6):494–7. 22. Barnett S, Hung A, Tsao R, Sheehan J, Bukoye B, Sheth SG, Leffler DA. Capnographic Monitoring of Moderate Sedation During Low-Risk Screening Colonoscopy Does Not Improve Safety or Patient Satisfaction: A Prospective Cohort Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Mar; 111(3):388-94. 23. Klare P, Reiter J, Meining A, Wagenpfeil S, Kronshage T, Geist C, Heringlake S, Schlag C, Bajbouj M, Schneider G, Schmid RM, Wehrmann T, von Delius S, Riphaus A. Capnographic monitoring of midazolam and propofol sedation during ERCP: a randomized controlled study (EndoBreath Study). Endoscopy. 2016 Jan;v 48(1):42-50. 24. Friedrich-Rust M, Welte M, Welte C, Albert J, Meckbach Y, Herrmann E, Kannengiesser M, Trojan J, Filmann N, Schroeter H, Zeuzem S, Bojunga J. Capnographic monitoring of propofol-based sedation during colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2014 Mar; 46(3):236-44. 25. Minami D, Takigawa N, Watanabe H, et al. Safety and discomfort during bronchoscopy performed under sedation with fentanyl and midazolam: a prospective study. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2016; 46:871-4. 26. Minami D, Nakasuka T, Ando C, et al. Bronchoscopic diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lung cancer employing sedation with fentanyl and midazolam. Respir Investig 2017; 55:314- 7. 27. Ishiwata T, Tsushima K, Terada J, et al. Efficacy of End-Tidal Capnography Monitoring during Flexible Bronchoscopy in Nonintubated Patients under Sedation: A Randomized Controlled Study. Respiration 2018; 96:355-62. 28. Burton JH HJ, Germann CA, Dillon DC. Does end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring detect respiratory events prior to current sedation monitoring practices? Acad Emerg Med. 2006; 13:500–504. 29. Kasuya Y, Akca O, Sessler DI, et al. Accuracy of postoperative end-tidal PCO2 measurements with mainstream and sidestream capnography in nonobese patients and in obese patients with and without obstructive sleep apnea. Anesthesiology 2009; 111:609-615. 30. Miner JR, Heegaard W, Plummer D. End-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring during procedural sedation. Acad Emerg Med 2002; 9:275-280. 31. Hart LS, Berns SD, Houck CS, et al. The value of end-tidal Co2 monitoring when comparing three methods of conscious sedation for children undergoing painful procedures in the emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care 1997; 13:189-193. 32. Poirier MP, Gonzalez Del-Rey JA, McAneney CM, et al. Utility of monitoring capnography, pulse oximetry, and vital signs in the detection of airway mishaps: a hyperoxemic animal model. Am J Emerg Med 1998; 16:350-352. 33. Campbell SG, Magee KD, Zed PJ, Froese P, Etsell G, LaPierre A, Warren D, MacKinley RR, Butler MB, Kovacs G, Petrie DA. Endtidal capnometry during emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia: a randomized, controlled study. World J Emerg Med. 2016; 7(1):13-8. 34. Deitch K MJ, Chudnofsky CR, Dominici P, Latta D. Does end tidal CO2 monitoring during emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol decrease the incidence of hypoxic events? A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2010; 55:258– 264. 35. Langhan ML, Shabanova V, Li FY, Bernstein SL, Shapiro ED. A randomized controlled trial of capnography during sedation in a pediatric emergency setting. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2015; 33 (1):25‐30.