Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of expert consultation referrals to the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists (KSA): a comparison of procedural sedation and general anesthesia

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Anesthesia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Procedural sedation during diagnostic or therapeutic procedures is currently widely used by clinicians across a broad range of specialties. However, procedural sedation is a poorly controlled practice in many countries, often performed in potentially unsafe environments.

Methods

In 2009, the Legislation Committee of the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists, based on expert consultation referrals provided by police departments, civil courts, and criminal courts, initiated the construction of database to compile all anesthesia-related adverse events. Using this database (July 2009 to April 2012), we have compared causative mechanisms and injury patterns in procedural sedation (Sedation) cases (N = 25) with those in general anesthesia (GA) cases (N = 29).

Results

The severity of injury in Sedation cases was similar to that in GA cases, with death occurring in 72.0 % of cases. Hypoxia secondary to airway obstruction or respiratory depression was the most common specific mechanism of Sedation-related injuries (64.0 %). In-depth analysis of pre-procedural evaluation and intraoperative monitoring revealed a common lack of vigilance in the Sedation cases, and most injuries were judged as preventable with better monitoring. Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) was performed in the great majority of Sedation cases (88.0 %).

Conclusion

Our analysis of procedural sedation based on anesthesia-related adverse events compiled in the national database revealed a high severity of patient injury similar to that due to general anesthesia. Most procedural sedations were shown to be poorly controlled without adequate pre-procedural patient evaluation or intraoperative monitoring. Thus, it is essential to establish proper practical guidelines for procedural sedation and ensure strict adherence to these guidelines, especially during the NAAP.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lee KH, An TH, Choi JH, Lim DG, Lee YJ, Kim DK. Analysis of expert consultation referrals for anesthesia-related issues (December 2008–July 2010): KSA legislation committee report. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011;60:260–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bhananker SM, Posner KL, Cheney FW, Caplan RA, Lee LA, Domino KB. Injury and liability associated with monitored anesthesia care: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 2006;104:228–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologists. Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:1004–17.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Green SM, Krauss B. Procedural sedation terminology: moving beyond “conscious sedation”. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;39:433–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. American Society of Anesthesiology. Distinguishing monitored anesthesia care (“MAC”) from moderate sedation/analgesia (conscious sedation). Available at: http://www.asahq.org/For-Members/Standards-Guidelines-and-Statements.aspx. Accessed 4 Sept 2012.

  6. Perel A. Non-anaesthesiologists should not be allowed to administer propofol for procedural sedation: a Consensus Statement of 21 European National Societies of Anaesthesia. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011;28:580–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hug CC Jr. MAC should stand for maximum anesthesia caution, not minimal anesthesiology care. Anesthesiology. 2006;104:221–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Godwin SA, Caro DA, Wolf SJ, Jagoda AS, Charles R, Marett BE, Moore J, American College of Emergency Physicians. Clinical policy: procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;45:177–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society of Gastrointestinal endoscopy, Lichtenstein DR, Jagannath S, Baron TH, Anderson MA, Banerjee S, Dominitz JA, Fanelli RD, Gan SI, Harrison ME, Ikenberry SO, Shen B, Stewart L, Khan K, Vargo JJ. Sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:815–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Iverson RE. Sedation and analgesia in ambulatory settings. American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia in Ambulatory Settings. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104:1559–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Eichhorn V, Henzler D, Murphy MF. Standardizing care and monitoring for anesthesia or procedural sedation delivered outside the operating room. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2010;23:494–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Downs JB. Has oxygen administration delayed appropriate respiratory care? Fallacies regarding oxygen therapy. Respir Care. 2003;48:611–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dinis-Ribeiro M, Vargo JJ. Sedation by non-anesthesiologists: are opioids and benzodiazepines outdated? Digestion. 2010;82:100–1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Coté GA. The debate for nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in endoscopy rages on: who will be the “King of Prop?”. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:773–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rex DK, Deenadayalu VP, Eid E, Imperiale TF, Walker JA, Sandhu K, Clarke AC, Hillman LC, Horiuchi A, Cohen LB, Heuss LT, Peter S, Beglinger C, Sinnott JA, Welton T, Rofail M, Subei I, Sleven R, Jordan P, Goff J, Gerstenberger PD, Munnings H, Tagle M, Sipe BW, Wehrmann T, Di Palma JA, Occhipinti KE, Barbi E, Riphaus A, Amann ST, Tohda G, McClellan T, Thueson C, Morse J, Meah N. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:1229–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Werner C, Smith A, Van Aken H. Guidelines on non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a double-edged sword. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011;28:553–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Brennan TA, Laird NM, Hebert LE, Peterson LM, Newhouse JP, Weiler PC, Hiatt HH. Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study III. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:245–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jordan LM, Kremer M, Crawforth K, Shott S. Data-driven practice improvement: the AANA Foundation closed malpractice claims study. AANA J. 2001;69:301–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bogod D. Negligence litigation and medicine: force for good or root of all evil. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:247–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, School of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Sung-Jin Hong

  2. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Saint Vincent’s Hospital, School of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Yoo-Jin Kang

  3. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea

    Young-Hun Jeon

  4. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Republic of Korea

    Ji-Seon Son

  5. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Republic of Korea

    Jang-Ho Song

  6. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50 Irwon-Dong, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, 135-710, Republic of Korea

    Chan-Seon Yoo & Duk-Kyung Kim

Authors
  1. Sung-Jin Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yoo-Jin Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Young-Hun Jeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ji-Seon Son
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jang-Ho Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chan-Seon Yoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Duk-Kyung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Duk-Kyung Kim.

About this article

Cite this article

Hong, SJ., Kang, YJ., Jeon, YH. et al. Analysis of expert consultation referrals to the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists (KSA): a comparison of procedural sedation and general anesthesia. J Anesth 27, 218–223 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-012-1497-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-012-1497-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation