Safety and risk factors for difficult endoscopist-directed ERCP sedation in daily practice: a hospital-based case-control study

Background: There are limited data concerning endoscopist-directed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography deep sedation. The aim of this study was to establish the safety and risk factors for difficult sedation in daily practice. Patients and methods: Hospital-based, frequency matched case-control study. All patients were identified from a database of 1,008 patients between 2014 and 2015. The cases were those with difficult sedations. This concept was defined based on the combination of the receipt of high-doses of midazolam or propofol, poor tolerance, use of reversal agents or sedation-related adverse events. The presence of different factors was evaluated to determine whether they predicted difficult sedation. Results: One-hundred and eighty-nine patients (63 cases, 126 controls) were included. Cases were classified in terms of high-dose requirements (n = 35, 55.56%), sedation-related adverse events (n = 14, 22.22%), the use of reversal agents (n = 13, 20.63%) and agitation/discomfort (n = 8, 12.7%). Concerning adverse events, the total rate was 1.39%, including clinically relevant hypoxemia (n = 11), severe hypotension (n = 2) and paradoxical reactions to midazolam (n = 1). The rate of hypoxemia was higher in patients under propofol combined with midazolam than in patients with propofol alone (2.56% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001). Alcohol consumption (OR: 2.674 [CI 95%: 1.098-6.515], p = 0.030), opioid consumption (OR: 2.713 [CI 95%: 1.096-6.716], p = 0.031) and the consumption of other psychoactive drugs (OR: 2.015 [CI 95%: 1.017-3.991], p = 0.045) were confirmed to be independent risk factors for difficult sedation. Conclusions: Endoscopist-directed deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is safe. The presence of certain factors should be assessed before the procedure to identify patients who are high-risk for difficult sedation.

Threshold values of sagittal abdominal diameter for the detection of cardio-metabolic risk factors in Northeastern Mexico: a cross-sectional study

Background: The use of sagittal abdominal diameter (SAD) has been proposed for screening cardio-metabolic risk factors; however, its accuracy can be influenced by the choice of thresholds values. Aim: To determine the SAD threshold values for cardio-metabolic risk factors in Mexican adults; to assess whether parallel and serial SAD testing can improve waist circumference (WC) sensitivity and specificity; and to analyze the effect of considering SAD along with WC and body mass index (BMI) in detecting cardio-metabolic risk. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted during 2012-2014 in Northeast Mexico (n = 269). Data on anthropometric, clinical, and biochemical measurements were collected. Sex-adjusted receiver-operating characteristic curves (ROC) were obtained using hypertension, dysglycemia, dyslipidemia and insulin resistance as individual outcomes and metabolic syndrome as a composite outcome. Age-adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using logistic regression. Results: The threshold value for SAD with acceptable combination of sensitivity and specificity was 24.6 cm in men and 22.5 cm in women. Parallel SAD testing improved WC sensitivity and serial testing improved WC specificity. The co-occurrence of high WC/high SAD increased the risk for insulin resistance by 2.4-fold (95% CI: 1.1-5.3), high BMI/high SAD by 4.3-fold (95% CI: 1.7-11.9) and SAD alone by 2.2-fold (95% CI: 1.2.-4.2). Conclusions: The use of SAD together with traditional obesity indices such as WC and BMI has advantages over using either of these indices alone. SAD may be a powerful screening tool for interventions for high-risk individuals.