Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

SEDASYS®, Airway, Oxygenation, and Ventilation: Anticipating and Managing the Challenges

  • Review
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In May 2013, the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) approved SEDASYS®, a device that enables non-anesthesia physicians to provide mild-to-moderate sedation to patients undergoing colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy. SEDASYS® is the first among the devices being built to provide computer-assisted personalized sedation. Although the intention of this approval is to cut the anesthesia related expenses, it is likely to create new challenges to the users—both clinical and administrative—that might even increase the cost. Deep sedation is required frequently for a successful completion of the procedure, which poses unforeseen challenges. The present review aims to provide clear information to the users regarding pre-procedure assessment, possible sedation related complications and management options.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kajiyama M, et al. Safety and effectiveness of propofol sedation during and after outpatient colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:3420–3425.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Goudra BGB, Singh PM. Cardiac arrests during endoscopy with anesthesia assistance. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:1659–1660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cooper GS. Complications following colonoscopy with anesthesia assistance a population-based analysis complications after colonoscopy with anesthesia. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;11:1.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen LB, Benson AA. Issues in endoscopic sedation. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;5:565–570.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pambianco DJ, Vargo JJ, Pruitt RE, Hardi R, Martin JF. Computer-assisted personalized sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: a comparative, multicenter randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:765–772.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Koshy G, Nair S, Norkus EP, Hertan HI, Pitchumoni CS. Propofol versus midazolam and meperidine for conscious sedation in GI endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:1476–1479.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Coté GA, Hovis RM, Ansstas MA, et al. Incidence of sedation-related complications with propofol use during advanced endoscopic procedures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc. 2010;8:137–142.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Langley MS, Heel RC. Propofol. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and use as an intravenous anaesthetic. Drugs. 1988;35:334–372.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fulton B, Sorkin EM. Propofol. An overview of its pharmacology and a review of its clinical efficacy in intensive care sedation. Drugs. 1995;50:636–657.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dahan A, Teppema LJ. Influence of anaesthesia and analgesia on the control of breathing. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91:40–49.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lalley PM. Mu-opioid receptor agonist effects on medullary respiratory neurons in the cat: evidence for involvement in certain types of ventilatory disturbances. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2003;285:R1287–R1304.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Teichtahl H, Wang D, Cunnington D, et al. Ventilatory responses to hypoxia and hypercapnia in stable methadone maintenance treatment patients. Chest. 2005;128:1339–1347.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shook JE, Watkins WD, Camporesi EM. Differential roles of opioid receptors in respiration, respiratory disease, and opiate-induced respiratory depression. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1990;142:895–909.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rowe K, Fletcher S. Sedation in the intensive care unit. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2008;8:50–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wadhwa A, Singh PM, Sinha AC. Airway management in patients with morbid obesity. Int Anesthesiol Clin. 2013;51:26–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Litman RS, Hayes JL, Basco MG, Schwartz AR, Bailey PL, Ward DS. Use of dynamic negative airway pressure (DNAP) to assess sedative-induced upper airway obstruction. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:342–345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Montravers P, Dureuil B, Desmonts JM. Effects of i.v. midazolam on upper airway resistance. Br J Anaesth. 1992;68:27–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mahmoud M, Gunter J, Donnelly LF, Wang Y, Nick TG, Sadhasivam S. A comparison of dexmedetomidine with propofol for magnetic resonance imaging sleep studies in children. Anesth Analg. 2009;109:745–753.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rimaniol JM, D’Honneur G, Duvaldestin P. Recovery of the swallowing reflex after propofol anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1994;79:856–859.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. D’Honneur G, Rimaniol JM, el Sayed A, Lambert Y, Duvaldestin P. Midazolam/propofol but not propofol alone reversibly depress the swallowing reflex. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1994;38:244–247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Iwakiri H, Nishihara N, Nagata O, Matsukawa T, Ozaki M, Sessler DI. Individual effect-site concentrations of propofol are similar at loss of consciousness and at awakening. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:107–110.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Metzner J, Posner KL, Domino KB. The risk and safety of anesthesia at remote locations: the US closed claims analysis. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2009;22:502–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Langeron O, Masso E, Huraux C, et al. Prediction of difficult mask ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2000;92:1229–1236.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. El-Orbany M, Woehlck HJ. Difficult mask ventilation. Anesth Analg. 2009;109:1870–1880.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Salem MR, Ovassapian A. Difficult mask ventilation: what needs improvement? Anesth Analg. 2009;109:1720–1722.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shah PN, Sundaram V. Incidence and predictors of difficult mask ventilation and intubation. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2012;28:451–455.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Goudra B, Singh P, Sinha A. Outpatient endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: safety and efficacy of anesthetic management with a natural airway in 653 consecutive procedures. Saudi J Anaesth. 2013;7:259.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway. A report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology. 1993;78:597–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sinha AC, Purohit M, Singh PM, Goudra BG. Difficult mask ventilation: Tegaderm for sealing a patient’s fate! J Clin Anesth. 2013;25:679–680.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Goudra BG, Penugonda LC, Sinha AC. Intra-lingual succinylcholine for the treatment of adult laryngospasm in the absence of IV access. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2013;29:426–427.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schwilk B, Bothner U, Schraag S, Georgieff M. Perioperative respiratory events in smokers and nonsmokers undergoing general anaesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1997;41:348–355.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Dennis A, Curran J, Sherriff J, Kinnear W. Effects of passive and active smoking on induction of anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 1994;73:450–452.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Tait AR, Knight PR. Intraoperative respiratory complications in patients with upper respiratory tract infections. Can J Anaesth. 1987;34:300–303.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Flisberg P, Paech MJ, Shah T, Ledowski T, Kurowski I, Parsons R. Induction dose of propofol in patients using cannabis. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009;26:192–195.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Culić V. Acute risk factors for myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol. 2007;117:260–269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chung K-C, Juang S-E, Lee K-C, et al. The effect of pre-procedure anxiety on sedative requirements for sedation during colonoscopy. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:253–259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hong J-Y, Jee YS, Luthardt FW. Comparison of conscious sedation for oocyte retrieval between low-anxiety and high-anxiety patients. J Clin Anesth. 2005;17:549–553.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Maranets I, Kain ZN. Preoperative anxiety and intraoperative anesthetic requirements. Anesth Analg. 1999;89:1346–1351.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Osborn TM, Sandler NA. The effects of preoperative anxiety on intravenous sedation. Anesth Prog. 2004;51:46–51.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ansarin K, Sahebi L, Sabur S. Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: complaints and housing characteristics in a population in the United States. São Paulo Med J Rev Paul Med. 2013;131:220–227.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kapsimalis F, Kryger M. Sleep breathing disorders in the U.S. female population. J Womens Health. 2002;18:1211–1219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gambee AM, Hertzka RE, Fisher DM. Preoxygenation techniques: comparison of three minutes and four breaths. Anesth Analg. 1987;66:468–470.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Fairfield JE, Goroszeniuk T, Tully AM, Adams AP. Oxygen delivery systems—a comparison of two devices. Anaesthesia. 1991;46:135–138.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Goudra BG, Penugonda LC, Speck RM, Sinha AC. Comparison of acoustic respiration rate, impedance pneumography and capnometry monitors for respiration rate accuracy and apnea detection during GI endoscopy anesthesia. Open J Anesthesiol. 2013;3:74–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Patanwala AE, Christich AC, Jasiak KD, Edwards CJ, Phan H, Snyder EM. Age-related differences in propofol dosing for procedural sedation in the Emergency Department. J Emerg Med. 2013;44:823–828.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Borrat X, Trocóniz IF, Valencia JF, et al. Modeling the influence of the A118G polymorphism in the OPRM1 gene and of noxious stimulation on the synergistic relation between propofol and remifentanil: sedation and analgesia in endoscopic procedures. Anesthesiology. 2013;118:1395–1407.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Restrepo JG, Garcia-Martín E, Martínez C, Agúndez JAG. Polymorphic drug metabolism in anaesthesia. Curr Drug Metab. 2009;10:236–246.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Basavana Gouda Goudra

  2. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, 160012, India

    Preet Mohinder Singh

  3. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Vinay Chandrasekhara

Authors
  1. Basavana Gouda Goudra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Preet Mohinder Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vinay Chandrasekhara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Basavana Gouda Goudra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goudra, B.G., Singh, P.M. & Chandrasekhara, V. SEDASYS®, Airway, Oxygenation, and Ventilation: Anticipating and Managing the Challenges. Dig Dis Sci 59, 920–927 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-013-2996-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-013-2996-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation