Position statement

Nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy

John J. Vargo, Lawrence B. Cohen, Douglas Rex, Paul Y. Kwo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

1. The administration of propofol and standard sedation by nonanesthesiologists is comparable with respect to their efficacy and safety profiles. Proper training and patient selection are crucial for the safe practice of NAAP sedation. 2. Gastroenterologists and registered nurses in many countries have successfully acquired the skills necessary to safely administer propofol-based sedation. Both didactic and hands-on experience as well as airway training and a preceptorship are currently believed to be important elements of a training program. 3. Most studies show that NAAP sedation is superior to standard sedation regimens regarding time to sedation and time to recovery. Patient satisfaction with propofol sedation ranges from equivalent to slightly superior when compared to standard sedation. 4. The use of anesthesiologist- administered propofol for healthy individuals undergoing elective endoscopy without risk factors for sedationrelated complications is very costly, with no demonstrated improvement in patient safety or procedural outcome. 5. Further comparative trials of NAPS and BPS are warranted.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2886-2892
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume104
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2009

Fingerprint

Propofol
Endoscopy
Preceptorship
Patient Safety
Patient Satisfaction
Patient Selection
Nurses
Safety
Education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Position statement : Nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. / Vargo, John J.; Cohen, Lawrence B.; Rex, Douglas; Kwo, Paul Y.

In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 104, No. 12, 12.2009, p. 2886-2892.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Vargo, John J. ; Cohen, Lawrence B. ; Rex, Douglas ; Kwo, Paul Y. / Position statement : Nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. In: American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2009 ; Vol. 104, No. 12. pp. 2886-2892.
@article{4f9881b5175a4651b623a792083ee313,
title = "Position statement: Nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy",
abstract = "1. The administration of propofol and standard sedation by nonanesthesiologists is comparable with respect to their efficacy and safety profiles. Proper training and patient selection are crucial for the safe practice of NAAP sedation. 2. Gastroenterologists and registered nurses in many countries have successfully acquired the skills necessary to safely administer propofol-based sedation. Both didactic and hands-on experience as well as airway training and a preceptorship are currently believed to be important elements of a training program. 3. Most studies show that NAAP sedation is superior to standard sedation regimens regarding time to sedation and time to recovery. Patient satisfaction with propofol sedation ranges from equivalent to slightly superior when compared to standard sedation. 4. The use of anesthesiologist- administered propofol for healthy individuals undergoing elective endoscopy without risk factors for sedationrelated complications is very costly, with no demonstrated improvement in patient safety or procedural outcome. 5. Further comparative trials of NAPS and BPS are warranted.",
author = "Vargo, {John J.} and Cohen, {Lawrence B.} and Douglas Rex and Kwo, {Paul Y.}",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1038/ajg.2009.607",
language = "English",
volume = "104",
pages = "2886--2892",
journal = "American Journal of Gastroenterology",
issn = "0002-9270",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Position statement

T2 - Nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy

AU - Vargo, John J.

AU - Cohen, Lawrence B.

AU - Rex, Douglas

AU - Kwo, Paul Y.

PY - 2009/12

Y1 - 2009/12

N2 - 1. The administration of propofol and standard sedation by nonanesthesiologists is comparable with respect to their efficacy and safety profiles. Proper training and patient selection are crucial for the safe practice of NAAP sedation. 2. Gastroenterologists and registered nurses in many countries have successfully acquired the skills necessary to safely administer propofol-based sedation. Both didactic and hands-on experience as well as airway training and a preceptorship are currently believed to be important elements of a training program. 3. Most studies show that NAAP sedation is superior to standard sedation regimens regarding time to sedation and time to recovery. Patient satisfaction with propofol sedation ranges from equivalent to slightly superior when compared to standard sedation. 4. The use of anesthesiologist- administered propofol for healthy individuals undergoing elective endoscopy without risk factors for sedationrelated complications is very costly, with no demonstrated improvement in patient safety or procedural outcome. 5. Further comparative trials of NAPS and BPS are warranted.

AB - 1. The administration of propofol and standard sedation by nonanesthesiologists is comparable with respect to their efficacy and safety profiles. Proper training and patient selection are crucial for the safe practice of NAAP sedation. 2. Gastroenterologists and registered nurses in many countries have successfully acquired the skills necessary to safely administer propofol-based sedation. Both didactic and hands-on experience as well as airway training and a preceptorship are currently believed to be important elements of a training program. 3. Most studies show that NAAP sedation is superior to standard sedation regimens regarding time to sedation and time to recovery. Patient satisfaction with propofol sedation ranges from equivalent to slightly superior when compared to standard sedation. 4. The use of anesthesiologist- administered propofol for healthy individuals undergoing elective endoscopy without risk factors for sedationrelated complications is very costly, with no demonstrated improvement in patient safety or procedural outcome. 5. Further comparative trials of NAPS and BPS are warranted.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=72949092473&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=72949092473&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/ajg.2009.607

DO - 10.1038/ajg.2009.607

M3 - Article

VL - 104

SP - 2886

EP - 2892

JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology

JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology

SN - 0002-9270

IS - 12

ER -