Safety of Non-anesthesia Provider-Administered Propofol (NAAP) Sedation in Advanced Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures: Comparative Meta-Analysis of Pooled Results

Abstract

Background and Aims: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAAP)-administered propofol sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures with those of anesthesia provider (AAP). Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 519 publications, 26 were identified to meet inclusion criteria (10 AAPs and 16 NAAPs) and were analyzed. Data were analyzed for hypoxia rate, airway intervention rates, endoscopist, and patient satisfaction scores and total propofol administered. Results: Total number of procedures in NAAP and AAP groups was 3018 and 2374, respectively. Pooled hypoxia (oxygen saturation less than 90 %) rates were 0.133 (95 % CI 0.117–0.152) and 0.143 (95 % CI 0.128–0.159) in NAAP and AAP, respectively. Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates were 0.035 (95 % CI 0.026–0.047) and 0.133 (95 % CI 0.118–0.150), respectively. Pooled patient satisfaction rate, pooled endoscopist satisfaction rate, and mean propofol administered dose for NAAP were 7.22 (95 % CI 7.17–7.27), 6.03 (95 % CI 5.94–6.11), and 251.44 mg (95 % CI 244.39–258.49) in that order compared with 9.82 (95 % CI 9.76–9.88), 9.06 (95 % CI 8.91–9.21), and 340.32 mg (95 % CI 327.30–353.33) for AAP. Conclusions: The safety of NAAP sedation compared favorably with AAP sedation in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures. However, it came at the cost of decreased patient and endoscopist satisfaction.