Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23877477›Full record

ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2013

Deep sedation without intubation for ERCP is appropriate in healthier, non-obese patients.

Sheila Ryan Barnett, Tyler Berzin, Sirish Sanaka, Douglas Pleskow, Mandeep Sawhney, Ram Chuttani

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04087668 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Deep Sedation and General Anesthesia for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical UniversityRan2019 to 2019Enrolled405ConditionsAnesthesia, Adverse EffectArmsMonitored Anesthesia Care, General Anesthesia, Induction Without Neuromuscular Blockade
NCT04831489 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Risk of Pulmonary Micro-aspiration in Intubated vs Sedated Patients Undergoing ERCP

TypeobservationalSponsorTheodor Bilharz Research InstituteRan2021 to 2022Enrolled50ConditionsPulmonary MicroaspirationArmsImaging
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. ERCP: the unresolved question of endotracheal intubation.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2014
    Review
  19. Deep sedation or general anesthesia for ERCP?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2013
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sheila Ryan BarnettDepartment of Anesthesiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA, sbarnett@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Tyler Berzin
Sirish Sanaka
Douglas Pleskow
Mandeep Sawhney
Ram Chuttani
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProviding the appropriate anesthesia for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) cases is challenging.

aimThe aim of our study was to prospectively assess the safety of anesthesia directed deep sedation (ADDS) in non-intubated patients compared to general endotracheal anesthesia (GET) during an ERCP.

methodsWe conducted a prospective observational study in patients undergoing an ERCP. The choice of anesthetic-ADDS or GET-was made by the anesthesiologist. The pre-anesthesia assessment, intraoperative vital signs, and medications administered were collected. A standardized study instrument was used to record the number of procedure interruptions, intraprocedure and recovery room adverse events (AE).

resultsA total of 393 (89.7 %) patients received ADDS (no intubation) and 45 (10.2 %) received a GET. Age and comorbidities were similar in ADDS and GET groups. BMI was higher in the GET (32.6 ± 9.5) versus in the ADDS (27.3 ± 6.1) group; p < 0.001. The number of ASA 2 patients was higher in the ADDS versus the GET group (38.7 versus 22.2 %; p < 0.04); the number of ASA 4 patients was 15.6 % of GET versus 6.6 % of the ADDS cases (p = 0.05). During the procedure 16 (3.7 %) ADDS patients were intubated and converted to a GET anesthetic; 4 (25 %) of the converted ADDS cases were ASA 4 versus 6.4 % of ADDS patients (p = 0.006). Intraprocedure events occurred in 35.6 % of GET and 25.7 % of ADDS cases, without significant complications.

conclusionOur data suggest that the administration of anesthesia without intubation for prone ERCP cases is feasible especially in non-obese, healthier patients.

Indexed as

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeAnesthesia, InhalationAnestheticsBody WeightDeep SedationHumansIntubation, IntratrachealAnesthetics

Identifiers

PMID23877477
OpenAlexW2040770146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.