Safety and Efficacy of the Moderate Sedation During Flexible Bronchoscopic Procedure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Moderate sedatives have been increasingly used to improve patient comfort during flexible bronchoscopy (FB). However, routine use of moderate sedation during FB is controversial because its efficacy and safety are not well established.This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of moderate sedation during FB.A search was made of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to May 2014.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were included.The main analysis was designed to examine the efficacy of moderate sedation during FB in sedation than no-sedation.The willingness to repeat FB was significantly more in sedation than no-sedation (odds ratio [OR] 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–4.73; P = 0.02; I² = 22.5). The duration of FB was shorter in sedation group than no-sedation group (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.21; 95% CI −0.38 to −0.03; P = 0.02; I² = 78.3%). Event of hypoxia was not significantly different between sedation and no-sedation groups (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.42–1.73; P = 0.67; I² = 0%). The SpO₂ during procedure was not different between sedation and no-sedation groups (SMD −0.14; 95% CI −0.37 to 0.08; P = 0.21; I² = 49.9%). However, in subgroup analysis without supplemental oxygen, the SpO₂ was significantly lower in sedation than no-sedation group (SMD −0.45; 95% CI −0.78 to −0.11; P = 0.01; I² = 0.0%).According to this meta-analysis, moderate sedation in FB would be useful in patients who will require repeated bronchoscopies as well as safe in respiratory depression. To our knowledge, although the various sedative drugs are already used in the real field, this analysis was the first attempt to quantify objective results. We anticipate more definite and studies designed to elucidate standardized outcomes for moderate sedation in FB.     

Direct insertion of an ultra‐slim upper endoscope for cholangioscopy in patients undergoing choledochoduodenostomy

Direct peroral cholangioscopy (POC) using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope is one modality of POC for intraductal endoscopic evaluation and treatment of the bile duct. Choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) is one modality of biliary bypass surgery that provides a new route to the bile duct. We carried out direct POC using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope without the use of accessories in 10 patients (four sump syndromes, three bile duct strictures and three intrahepatic duct stones) previously undergoing surgical CDS. Direct POC was successful in all patients. The use of an intraductal balloon catheter was required in one patient for advancement of the endoscope into the bile duct. Distal bile ducts with sump syndromes were cleared using baskets and water irrigation under direct POC. Cholangiocarcinoma was diagnosed in one patient with hilar bile duct stricture after cholangioscopic evaluation and a targeting forceps biopsy under direct POC. Intrahepatic duct stones were successfully extracted after intraductal fragmentation under direct POC. Oozing bleeding occurred during intraductal lithotripsy but stopped spontaneously. Direct POC using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope without the assistance of accessories can easily be carried out in patients undergoing CDS.     

Comparative outcomes of vascular access in patients older than 70 years with end-stage renal disease

Objective

The advantage of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) in older patients requiring dialysis is controversial. We reviewed our vascular access experience in patients ≥70 years of age (older group) compared with younger patients.

Is Atrial Fibrillation a Risk Factor for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Occurrence?

Recent studies have reported an association between gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and atrial fibrillation (AF). The objective of the present study was to evaluate whether AF is one of the risk factors for GERD occurrence.In this hospital-based, retrospective, case–control study, the patients were classified into 2 groups. The patients diagnosed with new AF were assigned to the AF group (n = 1612); those diagnosed without AF and GERD were assigned to the control group (n = 1612). The subjects in the control group were selected from outpatients of total healthcare center without a history of AF or GERD, and matched for age and gender. We evaluated the incidence of GERD and risk factors for GERD occurrence between the 2 groups.The number of patients experiencing occurrence of GERD during the follow-up period was significantly higher in the AF group than those in the control group, respectively (129 patients vs 98 subjects, P = 0.037). The incidence of GERD was significantly higher in the AF group than in the control group by Kaplan–Meier analysis with log-rank test (P = 0.008). The AF group''s adjusted hazard ratio of GERD occurrence against that of the control group was 1.37 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16–1.57; P = 0.009) according to Cox''s proportional hazard model.The presence of AF appears to increase the incidence of GERD and may be considered a risk factor for the development of GERD. Further, large prospective and cohort studies will be required to better establish the correlation of GERD with AF.