Next Article in Journal
Prediction of Cardiac Arrhythmias in Cancer Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Using Electrocardiogram
Previous Article in Journal
Fully Automated Photoplethysmography-Based Wearable Atrial Fibrillation Screening in a Hospital Setting
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/diagnostics15101234
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

The Incidence of Adverse Events in Adults Undergoing Procedural Sedation with Propofol Administered by Non-Anesthetists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Flavia Pigò
1,*,
Matteo Gottin
2 and
Rita Conigliaro
1
1
Digestive Endoscopy, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria of Modena, 41125 Modena, Italy
2
Gastroenterology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, 50134 Firenze, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2025, 15(10), 1234; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15101234
Submission received: 10 March 2025 / Revised: 15 April 2025 / Accepted: 8 May 2025 / Published: 14 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Clinical Diagnosis and Prognosis)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background/Objectives: The administration of propofol without an anesthesiologist (NAAP) during endoscopic procedures is generally considered safe. However, the available data remain limited and fragmented due to legal constraints. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in adults undergoing procedural sedation with NAAP. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) for studies published between 2010 and 2023. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that reported predefined adverse events in adult patients receiving NAAP for procedural sedation. The analysis encompassed various types of endoscopic procedures and sedation protocols, including both balanced sedation and propofol monotherapy. Clinical heterogeneity was assessed by comparing patient characteristics, sedation methods, and outcome measures across studies. A random effects model was used for the meta-analysis, with results presented as estimated incidence rates. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the hypoxia severity, sedation approach, and procedure type. Results: The search yielded 2963 records, of which 73 studies met the inclusion criteria, covering a total of 967,238 procedural sedations. Hypoxia was the most frequently reported adverse event, occurring in 40‰ of cases, followed by hypotension (38‰) and bradycardia (9‰). Severe adverse events requiring emergency intervention were rare, with an incidence of 0.12‰. The subgroup analysis indicated a low occurrence (6‰) of severe desaturation (SpO2 < 80%) and no significant differences in adverse event rates between balanced propofol sedation and propofol-only sedation. However, advanced endoscopic procedures (EUS, ERCP, PEG, enteroscopy, EMR/ESD) were associated with a higher risk of hypoxia (10% vs. 26‰; p < 0.00001) and major complications (3.1‰ vs. 0.1‰; p = 0.015) compared to diagnostic procedures. Conclusions: NAAP-based procedural sedation appears to be generally safe. While the minor adverse event rates vary depending on the sedation regimen and procedure type, major complications remain exceptionally rare.

1. Introduction

Propofol is widely favored for both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic procedures due to its ease of administration, rapid onset, and short duration of effect. Although its use is typically restricted to anesthesiologists under regulations set by agencies such as AIFA and the FDA, non-anesthesiologist administration (NAAP) during endoscopic procedures has been reported to be safe. However, the data on this practice remain limited and dispersed due to legal constraints [1,2].
The growing shortage of both financial and human resources in public healthcare systems has led to the exploration of alternative sedation strategies. In this context, NAAP has emerged as a cost-effective approach [3,4]. Meta-analyses comparing propofol administration by anesthesiologists versus non-anesthesiologists suggest that both methods have similar safety profiles. Moreover, NAAP procedures often involve lower propofol doses and have been associated with higher satisfaction rates among patients and endoscopists [5,6,7].
Various retrospective and prospective studies have evaluated the safety of NAAP, consistently reporting low incidences of both minor and major adverse events [8,9,10,11]. However, a comprehensive analysis that integrates findings from both retrospective and prospective studies is still lacking. Despite methodological differences, these studies typically involve significantly larger populations than randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Conducting a comprehensive meta-analysis aimed at summarizing the incidence of adverse events could yield critical evidence regarding the safety profile of NAAP. Such findings would provide valuable contributions to international scientific societies, supporting the integration of NAAP into clinical practice. This process would enable the development of standardized protocols to be included in clinical guidelines, thereby facilitating its adoption not only from a clinical but also a medico-legal perspective, ultimately leading to significant improvements in the cost-effectiveness, quality, and safety of endoscopic procedures.
This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis to assess the incidence of adverse events in adults undergoing procedural sedation with propofol administered by non-anesthesiologists during digestive endoscopy.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in the Prospero register (ID CRD420250654453).

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Types of studies. We aimed to include original research studies, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and retrospective analyses, that investigated the use of propofol for sedo-analgesia in adult patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, administered by non-anesthesiologist personnel. No language restrictions were applied. To minimize the variability in findings, only studies published from 2010 onward were considered for inclusion.
Types of patients and procedures. All pharmacological agents used for procedural sedation in adult patients were considered. The included procedures encompassed esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGDS), colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), and enteroscopy.
Types of interventions. For inclusion, procedural sedation with propofol had to be administered by non-anesthesiologist personnel, including endoscopists, nurses, or nurses under the supervision of an endoscopist. Both single-agent and combination drug regimens were considered. Propofol is commonly used alone or in conjunction with other medications, such as benzodiazepines or opioids, as part of a balanced sedation approach. Patients receiving sedation were monitored in accordance with the guidelines outlined in each study’s protocol.

2.3. Study Protocol

Search strategy. A comprehensive search of three electronic databases—MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library—was designed and conducted by an expert methodologist, covering the period from 2010 to 2023. The detailed search strategy can be found in File S1.
Study selection. Two investigators (FP, MG) independently reviewed all titles and abstracts to determine eligibility. Studies that were deemed potentially relevant were obtained in full text for further assessment. Any discrepancies were discussed with a third investigator (RC) and resolved through consensus.
Data extraction. Collected data included study design and the incidence of each reported adverse event. The information was cross-checked between the two investigators, with any discrepancies being resolved through discussion. Details on the medications that were used were documented, specifying whether a single agent or a combination was administered. For studies comparing different sedation regimens, only cases involving propofol sedation were included. If a study analyzed multiple patient cohorts (e.g., different age groups), the overall incidence of adverse events was calculated. Additionally, the total number of patients who experienced adverse events and the total number of procedures performed were recorded.
Risk of bias assessment. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration’s bias assessment tool [12]. For cohort studies, the risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale [13]. Clinical heterogeneity was examined by comparing the participant characteristics, interventions, and outcome measures to determine their similarity across the studies.
Missing data. Outcomes were collected as reported in the published studies, and authors were contacted via email if any data were missing or unclear. If the data remained unavailable after contacting the authors, the study was categorized as unclear. Any outcomes not reported in the study were also noted in the data extraction form.
Variable criteria of outcomes. The studies included in the analysis defined outcome events like hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia using varying criteria. We analyzed these outcomes according to the specific definitions provided in each study. For hypoxia, the following saturation categories were considered: SpO2 95–91%, SpO2 90–86%, SpO2 85–81%, and SpO2 < 80%.
Clinical outcomes. To select the adverse events for extraction and reporting, we referred to commonly reported outcomes in the existing literature. After discussion, we reached an agreement on the following outcome measures: minor events (hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia) and major events (death, sustained reduced awareness, permanent injury, the requirement for emergency anesthesiologist evaluation, or the need for hospitalization or endotracheal intubation).

2.4. Data Analysis

We used Stata 13® software for the meta-analysis (metaprop function) following a random effects model as described by DerSimonian-Laird [14]. I2 was used to quantify the degree of statistical heterogeneity between studies [15]. We estimated the incidence per 1000 patients with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Only studies that reported the adverse events rate were used to calculate the incidence. When the number was zero, we calculated the CI using the modified Wald method [16]. To compare the incidence rate differences between balanced propofol sedation and sedation regimen with propofol only, the test of heterogeneity between subgroups was used [17]. Incidence rate differences were also calculated between diagnostic and operative procedures and between ASA I/II and ASA III/IV patients [18].
Subgroup analysis. Because of variation in the cutoff and definition of hypoxia in different studies, we performed a subgroup analysis for the incidence of hypoxia by oxygen saturation (SO2). We also performed a subgroup analysis according to the medication used, procedure type, and ASA classes.
Sensitivity analysis. We performed an a priori selected sensitivity analysis with inclusion of only RCTs. These results were analyzed as a separate group.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of Included Studies

Figure 1 illustrates the process that we used for study selection. The search strategy yielded 2981 records for review. After eliminating duplicates, 1408 potentially relevant studies remained. Following the abstract review, 136 studies were assessed for eligibility. Ultimately, 73 articles met the inclusion criteria (see File S2, available as Supporting Information in the online version of this paper).

3.2. Study Characteristics

Table 1 and File S3 (available as Supporting Information in the online version of this paper) provide a summary of the included studies. Among the 73 studies, 22 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 51 were observational studies (33 prospective and 18 retrospective cohorts). The studies collectively involved 943,249 patients. A total of 37 studies were conducted in Europe, 9 in America, 24 in Asia, and 3 in Oceania, with none from Africa. Fifty-one studies focused on EGDS or colonoscopy procedures, while fifteen studies included EUS procedures and nineteen studies involved ERCP procedures. Other studies covered PEG (n = 3), enteroscopy (n = 9), and ESD (n = 4). In 31 studies (42%), propofol was used alone, while the remaining studies employed balanced sedation. In 53 studies (73%), a nurse was responsible for administering sedo-analgesia, and propofol was delivered via bolus in 54 studies (74%), with the rest using a Target-Controlled Infusion (TCI) pump. File S4 (available as Supporting Information in the online version of this paper) details the definitions of adverse events used in each study.

3.3. Quality and Risk of Bias Assessment

The quality assessment of the randomized controlled trials is provided in File S5 (available as Supporting Information in the online version of this paper), and the quality of the cohort studies is detailed in File S6 (available as Supporting Information in the online version of this paper). All included studies involved moderate and deep sedation. The timing of outcome measurements was consistent across studies, as sedation is closely monitored during procedures. Some clinical heterogeneity was observed due to variations in sample sizes and differences in the types of endoscopic procedures performed. The majority of RCTs (14 out of 22) had a moderate risk of bias, primarily due to the absence of blinding. Among the 51 observational studies, 46 reported results by subgroups of patients or sedation regimens, and pooling the incidence of adverse events could introduce clinical heterogeneity due to differences in study design and research questions. We did not exclude studies based on quality assessments, as this could have led to the exclusion of studies reporting rare events, particularly major adverse events.

3.4. Outcomes

A total of 967,238 procedural sedations involving 943,249 patients were included. Table 2 presents the incidence of adverse events per 1000 sedations. Hypoxia was the most common event, occurring in 40‰ (95% CI 34–47; I2 = 99%), followed by hypotension, which had an incidence of 38‰ (95% CI 28–50; I2 = 99%), and bradycardia at 9‰ (95% CI 6–13; I2 = 98%). Severe adverse events that required emergency medical intervention were rare, with an incidence of 0.12‰ (95% CI 0.04–0.16; I2 = 27%).

3.5. Subgroup Analysis

3.5.1. Hypoxia Classes

A total of 71 studies involving 939,830 patients reported on the outcome of hypoxia. A subgroup analysis was performed based on each study’s definition of hypoxia (see File S7, available as Supporting Information in the online version of this paper). Some studies reported the incidence of hypoxia at different oxygen saturation cutoffs. Seven studies with a hypoxia cutoff of 91% < SpO2 < 95% reported an incidence of 37‰, which was similar to the cutoff of 86% < SpO2 < 90% (58 studies), with an incidence of 37‰, and 81% < SpO2 < 85% (15 studies), with an incidence of 48‰. The incidence of hypoxia with SpO2 ≤ 80% (7 studies) was lower, at 6‰. File S8 (available as Supporting Information in the online version of this paper) shows the forest plot estimating the incidence of hypoxia by oxygen saturation categories, along with the weight of each individual study.

3.5.2. Sedation Regimen

The incidence of adverse events per medication used is displayed in File S9 (available as Supporting Information in the online version of this paper). Figure 2 shows a forest plot of the incidence of hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, and major events with respect to the type of sedation and representation of weight of single study.
Midazolam/Propofol. The hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia rates were 29‰, 35‰, and 4‰. The incidence of major events was notably low (0.1‰; 95%CI 0.05–0.2) with heterogeneity I2 = 0%.
Midazolam/Opioid/Propofol. The hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia rates were 26‰, 12‰, and 0.1‰. The incidence of major events was low (0.1‰; 95%CI 0.001–0.12; I2 = 10%).
Opioid/Propofol. Opioid/propofol studies had the highest rate of hypoxia (87‰) but with a high degree of variability because different opioids were used (alfentanil, fentanyl, pentazocine). The incidence of hypotension was highest with opioid/propofol (96‰) for the same reason as above. In the study of Poincloux, the definition of a hypotensive episode was based on the mean arterial pressure rather than systolic pressure. The incidence of bradycardia was highest with the use of opioid/propofol (22‰). In the study of Poincloux, bradycardia events were reported but not the definition of the event. Opioid/propofol sedation regimen showed a low rate of major adverse events (1‰; 95%CI 0.05–5.0; I2 = 79%).
Propofol only. Procedural sedation with propofol only showed a significantly higher incidence rate of hypoxia (42) and hypotension (33‰). The bradycardia rate was 13‰. Major events were, however, low (0.1‰).
Propofol vs. balanced propofol sedation. A total of 31 studies reported sedation with only propofol on 282,713 patients, and a total of 42 studies on 660,536 patients reported adverse events for procedures with balanced propofol sedation (midazolam/propofol or midazolam/opioid/propofol or opioid/propofol). Balanced propofol sedation showed less hypoxia events (37‰) compared with a propofol-only sedation regimen but without significance (p-value 0.45). Procedural sedation with balanced propofol sedation showed, also if not significant, a higher incidence rate of hypotension (42‰ vs. 33‰) compared with propofol only (p-value 0.48). Bradycardia was reported for balanced propofol sedation with an incidence of 13‰. No differences exist in major events between balanced propofol sedation (0.1‰) and propofol (0.1‰) only (p-value 0.2).

3.5.3. Procedure Type

A total of 19/73 studies reported adverse events for different types of procedure in the same article, so they were not considered for this subgroup analysis. File S10 (available as Supporting Information in the online version of this paper) shows adverse events divided according to the type of procedure. Figure 3 shows a forest plot of the incidence of hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, and major events with respect to the type of procedure and representation of weight of a single study. Forest plots for PEG and enteroscopy are not displayed due to a paucity of studies.
EGDS/Colonoscopy. In total, 38 studies examined adverse events on EGDS, colonoscopies, or both in 483,681 patients. The incidence of hypoxia was 30‰, that of hypotension was 40‰, and for bradycardia, it was 10‰. Major events during EGDS and colonoscopies were 0.03‰.
Echoendoscopy. Four studies reported adverse events based on 927 patients. Hypoxia events were reported in 98 cases per 1000 exams, and the hypotension rate was 10‰. Bradycardia events were reported in 28 cases per 1000 exams. Major events occurred in 0.001‰ of cases.
ERCP. Eight studies reported adverse events based on 1937 patients. Hypoxia occurred with a rate of 86 cases per 1000 procedures. Hypotensive cases and bradycardia cases were reported with an incidence of 35‰ and 34‰, respectively. Major events were reported in 0.01‰ of cases.
PEG. Two studies based on 194 patients reported adverse events. The hypoxia rate was notably high (42.7%), because Michael et al. considered mild desaturation (SO2 < 90% > 15 s) and severe oxygen desaturation (SO2 < 85%) to be adverse events. The rates of hypotension and bradycardia cases were 42‰ and 0, but these data only refer to one study. In addition, the occurrence of major events was zero, but they were only reported only in one study.
Enteroscopy. Two studies (one on single-balloon procedures and one with double-balloon procedures) on 73 patients reported adverse events. Hypoxia occurred at a rate of 40 cases per 1000 procedures. Hypotensive cases and bradycardia cases were reported with an incidence of 68‰ and 18‰, respectively. No major events were reported.

3.5.4. First-Level vs. Second-Level Procedures

A total of 38 studies only reported adverse events for first-level procedures (diagnostic EGDS/colonoscopy). In addition, 42 studies only reported adverse events for second-level procedures (EGDS/colonoscopy with EMR/ESD, EUS, ERCP, PEG, enteroscopy). Significant differences were clear in terms of hypoxia events (26‰ vs. 10%; p-value < 0.00001) and major events (0.1‰ vs. 3.1‰; p-value 0.015) for first-level and second-level procedures, respectively.

3.5.5. ASA Classes

Sixty studies reported the ASA classification of patients. Overall, in the studies that classified patients according to the ASA score, adverse events were reported for 520,565 ASA I/II patients and for 83,051 ASA III/IV patients. With the exception of one study [88], conducted only on ASA III/IV patients, the rest of the studies involving ASA III/IV patients reported adverse events without distinguishing which ASA score the patients belonged to. Therefore, an incidence analysis for ASA subgroups was not performed.

3.5.6. Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis of 22 RCT studies was performed. The incidence of hypoxia (84‰) was significantly higher compared to prospective/retrospective studies (30‰; p-value = 0.003). Bradycardia was also higher (22‰) for RCT studies compared with prospective/retrospective studies (7‰; p-value = 0.039). Hypotension (36‰) and major adverse events (0.03‰) were similar to non-randomized studies (40‰ and 0.06‰, respectively). File S11 (available as Supporting Information in the online version of this paper) presents an overview of these findings.

4. Discussion

We documented the occurrence of adverse events during procedural sedation with propofol administered by non-anesthesiologist personnel. Our analysis included 73 studies, encompassing a total of 943,249 patients. The frequency of severe adverse events requiring emergency intervention, causing permanent harm, or resulting in death was notably low (fewer than 1 event per 1000 sedations).
Endoscopic procedural sedation is beneficial in improving patient compliance, enhancing satisfaction for both patients and endoscopists, and ensuring procedural safety and efficiency.
However, the use of propofol for sedation during GI endoscopy still presents challenges, particularly in relation to legal concerns regarding who is authorized to administer sedation, as well as the increased risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events. These issues contribute to growing uncertainty regarding the feasibility of implementing NAAP in endoscopic procedures and have led to an increasing demand for the standardization of NAAP protocols. Furthermore, there is substantial variability in adherence to sedation guidelines, pre-procedural risk stratification, and the management of sedation-related complications, as recently highlighted in a European survey on this topic [89].
This meta-analysis incorporates a substantial number of patients and procedures; as expected, both the clinical and statistical heterogeneity were high. This variability is a strength and a limitation of the study. Clinical heterogeneity is represented by the differences in sedation types (balanced sedation, propofol-only boluses, propofol in TCI), procedure types (diagnostic vs. operative), patient populations (ASA I/II vs. ASA III/IV), and the classification of minor adverse events. For example, hypoxia was categorized in several ways across studies, with variations in oxygen saturation cutoffs ranging from 95% to 80%, and some studies considered transient drops in saturation for brief periods as an adverse event. While such fluctuations are common and can be managed with non-invasive interventions (e.g., chin extension, jaw thrust, or increasing oxygen flow), persistent desaturation rarely necessitates invasive interventions like mechanical ventilation. The incidence of major adverse events remained low, reinforcing the reliability of the classification of severe events across studies (I2 = 27%).
The effects of sedative drugs on blood pressure and heart rate were similarly influenced by variations in how adverse events were categorized (see File S5). Hypotension during sedation is generally transient and typically managed with fluid infusion, requiring minimal intervention. The effect on the heart rate can result from both drug effects and the physiological responses to painful stimuli during the procedure (e.g., vagal response). The clinical relevance of mild hypoxemia or hypotension is debated, with some suggesting that severe hypoxia or hypotension may contribute to ischemic changes. However, patients with pre-existing conditions are at higher risk of cardiac or cerebral damage. Furthermore, a study by Aguirre et al. highlighted a greater adverse impact on neurobehavioral function 24 h post-surgery in patients experiencing cerebral desaturation [88,90]. Therefore, thorough pre-procedural assessments of the cardiovascular and respiratory risks are essential, and most guidelines do not recommend NAAP for ASA III/IV patients [91].
We also assessed different sedation regimens and found no significant differences in the rate of serious adverse events between them. We compared 31 studies using propofol-only sedation and 42 studies using balanced propofol sedation, finding no notable differences in hypoxia, hypotension, or bradycardia events. Major adverse events were also similar between the two regimens (0.1‰ vs. 0.1‰; p-value = 0.2). Both NAAP regimens appear to be safe, with the choice of sedation method depending on the patient’s characteristics, the type of procedure, and the setting of the endoscopic unit. Propofol-only sedation is recommended for quick procedures, although it should be avoided in elderly patients or those with impaired left ventricular function. The main benefit of balanced sedation is the reduced overall propofol dosage, although this can result in a slower recovery post-procedure [92,93,94].
There is still uncertainty regarding NAAP for advanced endoscopic procedures, as these procedures typically require more sedation and can be complicated by factors such as abdominal distension from air insufflation, which increases the risk of cardiopulmonary events. Three meta-analyses have addressed this issue. A meta-analysis of 26 prospective observational studies compared propofol sedation administered by non-anesthesia providers with that provided by anesthesia providers in over 5000 advanced procedures (EUS, ERCP, and small-intestinal enteroscopy). NAAP was associated with similar safety outcomes, although it led to lower satisfaction levels among both patients and endoscopists compared to sedation provided by anesthesia providers. Two other meta-analyses compared propofol sedation to traditional sedation methods for advanced procedures in general (nine RCTs, 969 patients) and specifically for ERCP (six RCTs, 663 patients). Both studies found that propofol sedation was associated with shorter recovery times and comparable cardiopulmonary adverse events; additionally, the largest study indicated better sedation and amnesia outcomes with propofol [5,6,7].
In our analysis, 38 studies only reported adverse events for first-level procedures (diagnostic EGDS/colonoscopy), while 42 studies focused on second-level procedures (EGDS/colonoscopy with EMR/ESD, EUS, ERCP, PEG, enteroscopy). Significant differences were found in hypoxia events (26‰ vs. 10‰; p-value < 0.00001) and major events (0.1‰ vs. 3.1‰; p-value = 0.015) for first- and second-level procedures, respectively. These differences, compared to other meta-analyses, may stem from a larger number of studies, including more recent data [95,96,97]. Although NAAP appears to be relatively safe even in advanced procedures, further studies are needed to thoroughly assess its safety profile in this setting. Its use may be more easily standardized in complex procedures performed by a more selected and experienced group of operators, typically within a limited number of specialized centers. However, the greater procedural complexity, longer operative times, and need for increased intra-procedural assistance must be considered, especially in situations where dedicated staff for the exclusive administration and monitoring of sedation may not always be available.
Our sensitivity analysis showed a higher incidence of hypoxia and bradycardia in RCTs compared to non-randomized studies, suggesting that minor adverse events might be overestimated in randomized trials. However, the incidence of major adverse events remained consistently low, indicating that severe complications are less influenced by the variability in definitions and potential recall bias.
To further reduce adverse events, standardization of procedures is essential across all endoscopic units. Several clinical recommendations advocate for education and training, such as the European Curriculum for Sedation, which sets guidelines for training non-anesthesiologists (physicians and nurses) who will administer sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopies. This course integrates theoretical and practical knowledge and covers various topics, including anatomy, pharmacology, patient risk assessment, sedation management, and guidelines for sedation complications [98,99,100,101].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, our meta-analysis strengthens the existing evidence that NAAP is a safe sedation strategy for first-level diagnostic procedures when administered as balanced or propofol-only sedation. The implementation of standardized protocols in endoscopic units, accounting for patient- and procedure-related risk factors, as well as proper training of personnel involved in NAAP administration, is essential to ensure effective and safe sedation. Moreover, such an approach could facilitate the integration of NAAP into routine clinical practice, yielding significant benefits in terms of procedural quality, patient satisfaction, and healthcare cost-effectiveness.

Supplementary Materials

The following Supporting Information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/diagnostics15101234/s1. References [8,9,10,11,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87] are cited in the supplementary materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.P.; methodology, F.P.; software, F.P.; validation, F.P. and M.G.; formal analysis, F.P. and M.G.; investigation, F.P. and M.G.; resources, F.P. and M.G.; data curation, F.P. and M.G.; writing—original draft preparation, F.P. and M.G.; writing—review and editing, F.P. and R.C.; visualization, F.P.; supervision F.P. and R.C.; project administration, F.P.; funding acquisition, R.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The analysis of de-identified, publicly available data does not constitute research involving human subjects. This study does not involve human participants or animal subjects. The protocol research was registered in the Prospero Database (ID CRD420250654453, approval date 24 February 2025). No amendments were made to the information provided in the protocol.

Informed Consent Statement

Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy/ethical restrictions.

Acknowledgments

No organizations funded the research. R.C. and F.P. designed the study. F.P. and M.G. collected the data. F.P. and M.G. revised the data. F.P. wrote the manuscript. R.C. revised the paper. The authors would like to thank Carmela Palazzi (Medical Library, University of Modena and Reggio-Emilia, Italy) for her assistance in the search strategy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Petrini, F.; Giarratano, A.; Giaccone, P.; De Robertis, E.; Monzani, R.; Rossi, M.; Tritapepe, L.; Pasquale, L.; Conigliaro, R.; Fanti, L.; et al. Analgo-Sedazione in Endoscopia Digestiva. Verso un Approccio Multidisciplinare per la Qualitàè la Sicurezza: La Posizione Inter-Societaria SIAARTI-SIED per un Percorso di Buona Pratica Clinica. 2020. Available online: https://www.siaarti.it/news/338126 (accessed on 11 January 2022).
  2. Axon, A. The use of propofol by gastroenterologists: Medico-legal issues. Digestion 2010, 82, 110–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Nishizawa, T.; Suzuki, H. Propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2018, 6, 801–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Conigliaro, R.; Fanti, L.; Manno, M.; Brosolo, P. Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) position paper on the non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Dig. Liver Dis. 2017, 49, 1185–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Goudra, B.G.; Singh, P.M.; Gouda, G.; Borle, A.; Gouda, D.; Dravida, A.; Chandrashakhara, V. Safety of Non-anesthesia Provider- Administered Propofol (NAAP) Sedation in Advanced Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures: Comparative Meta-Analysis of Pooled Results. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2015, 60, 2612–2627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Daza, J.F.; Tan, C.M.; Fielding, R.J.; Brown, A.; Farrokhyar, F.; Yang, I. Propofol administration by endoscopists versus anesthesiologists in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient safety outcomes Can. J. Surg. 2018, 61, 226–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wadhwa, V.; Issa, D.; Garg, S.; Lopez, R.; Sanaka, M.R.; Vargo, J.J. Similar Risk of Cardiopulmonary Adverse Events Between Propofol and Traditional Anesthesia for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 15, 194–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Frieling, T.; Heise, J.; Kreysel, C.; Kuhlen, R.; Schepke, M. Sedation-associated complications in endoscopy—Prospective multicentre survey of 191,142 patients. Z. Gastroenterol. 2013, 51, 568–572. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ruiz-Curiel, R.E.; Bonilla, H.Y.; Baptista, A.; Bronstein, M. Sedation with propofol in digestive endoscopy administered by gastroenterologists. Experience in a Venezuelan hospital. Rev. Espanola Enfermedades Dig. 2018, 110, 246–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sato, M.; Horiuchi, A.; Tamaki, M.; Ichise, Y.; Kajiyama, M.; Yamamoto, Y.; Tanaka, N. Safety and Effectiveness of Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation in Outpatients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019, 17, 1098–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ooi, M.; Thomson, A. Morbidity and mortality of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) in a tertiary referral center. Endosc. Int. Open 2015, 3, E393–E397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Higgins, J.P.T.; Altman, D.G.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Jüni, P.; Moher, D.; Oxman, A.D.; Savović, J.; Schulz, K.F.; Weeks, L.; Sterne, J.A.C.; et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011, 343, d5928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wells, G.A.; Shea, B.; O’Connell, D.; Pereson, J.; Welch, V.; Losos, M.; Tugwell, P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Available online: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed on 3 May 2021).
  14. DerSimonian, R.; Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control. Clin. Trials 1986, 7, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Higgins, J.P.T. Commentary: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2008, 37, 1158–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Afreixo, V.; Cruz, S.; Freitas, A.; Hernandez, M.A. Meta-Analysis of a Very Low Proportion Through Adjusted Wald Confidence Intervals. Open Access Biostat. Bioinform. 2019, 2, 10–31031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Higgins, J.P.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  18. American Society of Anesthesiologists. Statement on ASA Physical Status Classification System. Available online: https://www.asahq.org/standards-and-practice-parameters/statement-on-asa-physical-status-classification-system (accessed on 24 August 2024).
  19. Akyuz, U.; Pata, C.; Senkal, V.; Erzin, Y. Is propofol sedation with midazolam induction safe during endoscopic procedures without anesthesiologist? Hepatogastroenterology 2010, 57, 685–687. [Google Scholar]
  20. García-Suárez, C.; López-Rosés, L.; Olivencia, P.; Lancho, A.; González-Ramírez, A.; Santos, E.; Carral, D.; Castro, E.; Avila, S. Sedation with propofol controlled by endoscopists during percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Rev. Esp. De Enfermedades Dig. 2010, 102, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Poincloux, L.; Laquière, A.; Bazin, J.E.; Monzy, F.; Artigues, F.; Bonny, C.; Abergel, A.; Dapoigny, M.; Bommelaer, G. A randomized controlled trial of endoscopist vs. anaesthetist-administered sedation for colonoscopy. Dig. Liver Dis. 2011, 43, 553–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Repici, A.; Pagano, N.; Hassan, C.; Carlino, A.; Rando, G.; Strangio, G.; Romeo, F.; Zullo, A.; Ferrara, E.; Vitetta, E.; et al. Balanced propofol sedation administered by nonanesthesiologists: The first Italian experience. World J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 17, 3818–3823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lee, C.K.; Lee, S.H.; Chung, I.K.; Lee, T.H.; Park, S.H.; Kim, E.O.; Lee, S.H.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, S.J. Balanced propofol sedation for therapeutic GI endoscopic procedures: A prospective, randomized study. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2011, 73, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pagano, N.; Arosio, M.; Romeo, F.; Rando, G.; Del Conte, G.; Carlino, A.; Strangio, G.; Vitetta, E.; Malesci, A.; Repici, A. Balanced Propofol Sedation in Patients Undergoing EUS-FNA: A Pilot Study to Assess Feasibility and Safety. Diagn. Ther. Endosc. 2011, 2011, 542159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Jensen, J.T.; Vilmann, P.; Horsted, T.; Hornslet, P.; Bodtger, U.; Banning, A.; Hammering, A. Nurse-administered propofol sedation for endoscopy: A risk analysis during an implementation phase. Endoscopy 2011, 43, 716–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Heuss, L.T.; Hanhart, A.; Dell-Kuster, S.; Zdrnja, K.; Ortmann, M.; Beglinger, C.; Bucher, H.C.; Degen, L. Propofol sedation alone or in combination with pharyngeal lidocaine anesthesia for routine upper GI endoscopy: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2011, 74, 1207–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Martínez, J.F.; Aparicio, J.R.; Ruiz, F.; Gómez-Escolar, L.; Mozas, I.; Casellas, J.A. Safety of continuous propofol sedation for endoscopic procedures in elderly patients. Rev. Esp. De Enfermedades Dig. 2011, 103, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Slagelse, C.; Vilmann, P.; Hornslet, P.; Hammering, A.; Mantoni, T. Nurse-administered propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: First Nordic results from implementation of a structured training program. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 46, 1503–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lee, T.H.; Lee, C.K.; Park, S.H.; Lee, S.H.; Chung, I.K.; Choi, H.J.; Cha, S.W.; Moon, J.H.; Cho, Y.D.; Hwangbo, Y.; et al. Balanced propofol sedation versus propofol monosedation in therapeutic pancreaticobiliary endoscopic procedures. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2012, 57, 2113–2121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Díez-Redondo, P.; Gil-Simón, P.; Alcaide-Suárez, N.; Atienza-Sánchez, R.; Barrio-Andrés, J.; De-la-Serna-Higuera, C.; Pérez-Miranda, M. Comparación entre la insuflación con aire ambiente o con dióxido de carbono durante la colonoscopia en pacientes sedados con propofol [Comparison between insufflation with air or carbon dioxide during the colonoscopy in sedated patients with propofol]. Rev. Esp. Enferm Dig. 2012, 104, 411–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Friedrich, K.; Stremmel, W.; Sieg, A. Endoscopist-administered propofol sedation is safe—A prospective evaluation of 10,000 patients in an outpatient practice. J. Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2012, 21, 259–263. [Google Scholar]
  32. Redondo-Cerezo, E.; Sánchez-Robaina, A.; Cara, J.G.; Ojeda-Hinojosa, M.; Matas-Cobos, A.; Capilla, A.D.; de Hierro Ruíz, M.L.; Pleguezuelo-Díaz, J.; de Teresa, J. Gastroenterologist-guided sedation with propofol for endoscopic ultrasonography in average-risk and high-risk patients: A prospective series. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2012, 24, 506–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Levitzky, B.E.; Lopez, R.; Dumot, J.A.; Vargo, J.J. Moderate sedation for elective upper endoscopy with balanced propofol versus fentanyl and midazolam alone: A randomized clinical trial. Endoscopy 2012, 44, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lucendo, A.J.; Olveira, A.; Friginal-Ruiz, A.B.; Guagnozzi, D.; Angueira, T.; Fernández-Fuente, M.; Cruz-Campos, M.; Serrano-Valverde, M.; Sánchez-Cazalilla, M.; Tenias, J.M.; et al. Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation for colonoscopy is safe and effective: A prospective Spanish study over 1000 consecutive exams. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2012, 24, 787–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Molina-Infante, J.; Dueñas-Sadornil, C.; Mateos-Rodriguez, J.M.; Perez-Gallardo, B.; Vinagre-Rodríguez, G.; Hernandez-Alonso, M.; Fernandez-Bermejo, M.; Gonzalez-Huix, F. Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol versus midazolam and propofol, titrated to moderate sedation, for colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2012, 57, 2385–2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bastaki, M.; Douzinas, E.E.; Fotis, T.G.; Bakos, D.S.; Mitsos, A.P.; Argyra, E.; Konstantinou, M.I.; Soultati, A.S.; Kapritsou, M.; Katostaras, T.; et al. A randomized double-blind trial of anesthesia provided for colonoscopy by university-degreed anesthesia nurses in Greece: Safety and efficacy. Gastroenterol. Nurs. 2013, 36, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. González-Santiago, J.M.; Martín-Noguerol, E.; Vinagre-Rodríguez, G.; Hernández-Alonso, M.; Dueñas-Sadornil, C.; Pérez-Gallardo, B.; Mateos-Rodríguez, J.M.; Fernández-Bermejo, M.; Robledo-Andrés, P.; Molina-Infante, J. Intermittent boluses versus pump continuous infusion for endoscopist-directed propofol administration in colonoscopy. Rev. Esp. Enferm Dig. 2013, 105, 378–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Slagelse, C.; Vilmann, P.; Hornslet, P.; Jørgensen, H.L.; Horsted, T.I. The role of capnography in endoscopy patients undergoing nurse-administered propofol sedation: A randomized study. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 2013, 48, 1222–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lucendo, A.J.; Arias, Á.; González-Castillo, S.; Angueira, T.; Guagnozzi, D.; Fernández-Fuente, M.; Serrano-Valverde, M.; Sanchez-Cazalilla, M.; Chumillas, O.; Fernandez-Ordonez, M.; et al. Same-day bidirectional endoscopy with nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol: Safety and cost-effectiveness compared with separated exams. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 26, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yu, Y.H.; Han, D.S.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, E.K.; Eun, C.S.; Yoo, K.S.; Shin, W.J.; Ryu, S. Efficacy of bispectral index monitoring during balanced propofol sedation for colonoscopy: A prospective, randomized controlled trial. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2013, 58, 3576–3583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kim, Y.S.; Kim, M.H.; Jeong, S.U.; Lee, B.U.; Lee, S.S.; Park, D.H.; Seo, D.W.; Lee, S.K. Comparison between Midazolam Used Alone and in Combination with Propofol for Sedation during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. Clin. Endosc. 2014, 47, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gotoda, T.; Kusano, C.; Nonaka, M.; Fukuzawa, M.; Kono, S.; Suzuki, S.; Sato, T.; Tsuji, Y.; Itoi, T.; Moriyasu, F. Non-anesthesiologist administrated propofol (NAAP) during endoscopic submucosal dissection for elderly patients with early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2014, 17, 686–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sieg, A.; bng-Study-Group Beck, S.; Scholl, S.G.; Heil, F.J.; Gotthardt, D.N.; Stremmel, W.; Rex, D.K.; Friedrich, K. Safety analysis of endoscopist-directed propofol sedation: A prospective, national multicenter study of 24,441 patients in German outpatient practices. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 29, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Khan, H.A.; Umar, M.; Nisar, G.; Bilal, M.; Umar, S. Safety of non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in ERCP. Arab. J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 15, 32–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gurung, R.B.; Purbe, B.; Malla, B.; Dhungel, A.; Yogol, S.; Poudel, A.; Konwor, K.; Byanju, S. Safety profile and patient satisfaction of the routine use of propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Kathmandu Univ. Med. J. 2014, 12, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. de Paulo, G.A.; Martins, F.P.; Macedo, E.P.; Gonçalves, M.E.; Mourão, C.A.; Ferrari, A.P. Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A prospective study comparing nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol and monitored anesthesia care. Endosc. Int. Open 2015, 3, E7–E13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Kawano, S.; Okada, H.; Iwamuro, M.; Kouno, Y.; Miura, K.; Inokuchi, T.; Kanzaki, H.; Hori, K.; Harada, K.; Hiraoka, S.; et al. An effective and safe sedation technique combining target-controlled infusion pump with propofol, intravenous pentazocine, and bispectral index monitoring for peroral double-balloon endoscopy. Digestion 2015, 91, 112–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lee, S.; Han, J.H.; Lee, H.S.; Kim, K.B.; Lee, I.K.; Cha, E.J.; Shin, Y.D.; Park, N.; Park, S.M. Efficacy and safety of a patient-positioning device (EZ-FIX) for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. World J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 21, 5995–6000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ikeuchi, N.; Itoi, T.; Gotoda, T.; Kusano, C.; Kono, S.; Kamada, K.; Tsuchiya, T.; Tominaga, N.; Mukai, S.; Moriyasu, F. Feasibility of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation for emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterol. Res. Pract. 2015, 2015, 685476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jensen, J.T.; Møller, A.; Hornslet, P.; Konge, L.; Vilmann, P. Moderate and deep nurse-administered propofol sedation is safe. Dan Med. J. 2015, 62, A5049. [Google Scholar]
  51. Nonaka, M.; Gotoda, T.; Kusano, C.; Fukuzawa, M.; Itoi, T.; Moriyasu, F. Safety of gastroenterologist-guided sedation with propofol for upper gastrointestinal therapeutic endoscopy in elderly patients compared with younger patients. Gut Liver 2015, 9, 38–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fanti, L.; Gemma, M.; Agostoni, M.; Rossi, G.; Ruggeri, L.; Azzolini, M.L.; Dabizzi, E.; Beretta, L.; Testoni, P.A. Target Controlled Infusion for non-anaesthesiologist propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: The first double blind randomized controlled trial. Dig. Liver Dis. 2015, 47, 566–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Okeke, F.C.; Shaw, S.; Hunt, K.K.; Korsten, M.A.; Rosman, A.S. Safety of Propofol Used as a Rescue Agent During Colonoscopy. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2016, 50, e77–e80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Heo, J.; Jung, M.K.; Lee, H.S.; Cho, C.M.; Jeon, S.W.; Kim, S.K.; Jeon, Y.H. Effects of bispectral index monitoring as an adjunct to nurse-administered propofol combined sedation during colonoscopy: A randomized clinical trial. Korean J. Intern. Med. 2016, 31, 260–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jensen, J.T.; Hornslet, P.; Konge, L.; Møller, A.M.; Vilmann, P. High efficacy with deep nurse-administered propofol sedation for advanced gastroenterologic endoscopic procedures. Endosc. Int. Open 2016, 4, E107–E111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Klare, P.; Hartrampf, B.; Haller, B.; Schlag, C.; Geisler, F.; Abdelhafez, M.; Einwächter, H.; Bajbouj, M.; RM, S.; von Delius, S. Magnetic endoscope imaging for routine colonoscopy: Impact on propofol dosage and patient safety—A randomized trial. Endoscopy 2016, 48, 916–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Ferreira, A.O.; Torres, J.; Barjas, E.; Nunes, J.; Glória, L.; Ferreira, R.; Rocha, M.; Pereira, S.; Dias, S.; Santos, A.A.; et al. Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol sedation for colonoscopy is safe in low risk patients: Results of a noninferiority randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2016, 48, 747–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Seo, S.I.; Ryu, J.Y.; Kang, S.S.; Lee, J.S.; Kim, H.S.; Jang, M.K.; Kim, H.Y.; Shin, W.G. Safety of Target-Controlled Propofol Infusion by Gastroenterologists in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Resection. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2016, 61, 3199–3206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Sathananthan, D.; Young, E.; Nind, G.; George, B.; Ashby, A.; Drummond, S.; Redel, K.; Green, N.; Singh, R. Assessing the safety of physician-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation in low-risk patients undergoing endoscopy and colonoscopy. Endosc. Int. Open 2017, 5, E110–E115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Han, S.J.; Lee, T.H.; Park, S.H.; Cho, Y.S.; Lee, Y.N.; Jung, Y.; Choi, H.J.; Chung, I.K.; Cha, S.W.; Moon, J.H.; et al. Efficacy of midazolam- versus propofol-based sedations by non-anesthesiologists during therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients aged over 80 years. Dig. Endosc. 2017, 29, 369–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kim, M.G.; Park, S.W.; Kim, J.H.; Lee, J.; Kae, S.H.; Jang, H.J.; Koh, D.H.; Choi, M.H. Etomidate versus propofol sedation for complex upper endoscopic procedures: A prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2017, 86, 452–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Behrens, A.; Kreuzmayr, A.; Manner, H.; Koop, H.; Lorenz, A.; Schaefer, C.; Plauth, M.; Jetschmann, J.U.; Von Tirpitz, C.; Ewald, M.; et al. Acute sedation-associated complications in GI endoscopy (ProSed 2 Study): Results from the prospective multicentre electronic registry of sedation-associated complications. Gut 2019, 68, 445–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. López Muñoz, C.; Sanchez Yague, A.; Canca Sanchez, J.C.; Reinaldo-Lapuerta, J.A.; Moya Suarez, A.B. Quality of sedation with propofol administered by non-anesthetists in a digestive endoscopy unit: The results of a one year experience. Rev. Esp. Enferm Dig. 2018, 110, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Patel, J.; Fang, J.; Taylor, L.J.; Adler, D.G.; Gawron, A.J. Safety and efficacy of non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the intensive care unit. Endosc. Int. Open 2019, 7, E625–E629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Maestro Antolín, S.; Moreira Da Silva, B.; Santos Santamarta, F.; Germade, A.; Pérez Citores, L.; Santamaria, A.; Bonoso Criado, R.; Madrigal, R.E.; Saracibar, E.; Barcenilla Laguna, J.; et al. Severe cardiorespiratory complications derived from propofol sedation monitored by an endoscopist. Rev. Esp. Enferm Dig. 2018, 110, 237–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Luzón Solanas, L.; Ollero Domenche, L.; Sierra Moros, E.M.; Val-Perez, J.; Soria-San Teodoro, M.T.; Gimenez-Julvez, T.; Uribarrena-Amezaga, R. The safety of deep sedation with propofol controlled by the endoscopist in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): A prospective study in a tertiary hospital. Rev. Esp. Enferm Dig. 2018, 110, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. López Rosés, L.; Alvarez, B.; González Ramírez, A.; López Baz, A.; Fernández López, A.; Alonso, S.; Dacal, A.; Marti, E.; Albines, G.; Fernandez-Molina, J.; et al. Viability of single balloon enteroscopy performed under endoscopist-directed sedation. Rev. Esp. Enferm Dig. 2018, 110, 240–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kim, J.H.; Kim, D.H.; Kim, J.H. Low-dose midazolam and propofol use for conscious sedation during diagnostic endoscopy. Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 2019, 35, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Takeuchi, Y.; Yamaguchi, D.; Yamaguchi, N.; Ikeda, K.; Yoshioka, W.; Fukuda, H.; Morisaki, T.; Ario, K.; Tsunada, S.; Katsuki, R.; et al. Propofol Sedation in the Endoscopy Room versus Operation Room during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastric Tumors: A Propensity Score-Matching Analysis. Digestion 2020, 101, 450–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lapidus, A.; Gralnek, I.M.; Suissa, A.; Yassin, K.; Khamaysi, I. Safety and efficacy of endoscopist-directed balanced propofol sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Ann. Gastroenterol. 2019, 32, 303–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lee, J.G.; Yoo, K.S.; Byun, Y.J. Continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus injection of propofol during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Korean J. Intern. Med. 2020, 35, 1338–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Facciorusso, A.; Turco, A.; Barnabà, C.; Longo, G.; Dipasquale, G.; Muscatiello, N. Efficacy and Safety of Non-Anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol Sedation in Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Propensity Score Analysis. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Riesco-López, J.M.; Rizo-Pascual, J.; Díaz-Sánchez, A.; Manzano-Fernández, R.; Martín-Saborido, C.; Varillas-Delgado, D.; Rivero-Fernández, M.; González-Alonso, R.; Moya-Valverde, E.; García-Fernández, P.; et al. Endoscopist-directed propofol is more efficient than anesthesiologist-administered propofol in patients at low-intermediate anesthetic risk. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 32, 1440–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tiankanon, K.; Mekaroonkamol, P.; Pittayanon, R.; Kongkam, P.; Gonlachanvit, S.; Rerknimitr, R. Nurse Administered Propofol Sedation (NAPS) versus On-call Anesthesiologist Administered Propofol Sedation (OAPS) in Elective Colonoscopy. J. Gastrointest. Liver Dis. 2020, 29, 579–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Del Val Oliver, B.; González Valverde, F.M.; Del Valle Ruiz, S.R. Safety of propofol sedation administered by an endoscopy team for outpatient colonoscopy. Rev. Esp. Enferm Dig. 2021, 113, 385–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Manno, M.; Deiana, S.; Gabbani, T.; Gazzi, M.; Pignatti, A.; Becchi, E.; Ottaviani, L.; Vavassori, S.; Sacchi, E.; Hassan, C.; et al. Implementation of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) sedation training course in a regular endoscopy unit. Endoscopy 2021, 53, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  77. Michael, F.A.; Peveling-Oberhag, J.; Herrmann, E.; Zeuzem, S.; Bojunga, J.; Friedrich-Rust, M. Evaluation of the Integrated Pulmonary Index® during non-anesthesiologist sedation for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 2021, 35, 1085–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Lee, H.S.; Nagra, N.; La Selva, D.; Kozarek, R.A.; Ross, A.; Weigel, W.; Beecher, R.; Chiorean, M.; Gluck, M.; Boden, E.; et al. Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients Who Are Difficult to Sedate. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 19, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gururatsakul, M.; Lee, R.; Ponnuswamy, S.K.; Gilhotra, R.; McGowan, C.; Whittaker, D.; Ombiga, J.; Boyd, P. Prospective audit of the safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation in an Australian referral hospital. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 36, 490–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Alam, L.; Khattak, M.A.; Alam, M. Safety of balanced propofol and midazolam in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for sedation in cirrhotic patients. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2021, 71, 64–68. [Google Scholar]
  81. Medina-Prado, L.; Sempere, J.M.; Bozhychko, M.; Mangas-Sanjuán, C.; Gómez, F.R.; Tormo, J.R.; Valde, J.A.; Lucía, M.P.; Juan, M.S.; Maryana, B.; et al. Safety of endoscopist-administered deep sedation with propofol in ASA III patients. Rev. Esp. Enferm Dig. 2022, 114, 468–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. McKenzie, P.; Fang, J.; Davis, J.; Qiu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Adler, D.G.; Gawron, A.J. Safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered balanced propofol sedation in patients with severe systemic disease (ASA class III). Gastrointest. Endosc. 2021, 94, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Steenholdt, C.; Jensen, J.T.; Brynskov, J.; Møller, A.M.; Limschou, A.C.; Konge, L.; Vilmann, P. Patient Satisfaction of Propofol Versus Midazolam and Fentanyl Sedation During Colonoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2022, 20, 559–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fuentes-Valenzuela, E.; Pérez-Arenas, E.; de Benito Sanz, M.; Chavarría, C.; Peña, A.M.; López, A.C.; Tejedor-Tejada, J.; Gómez, B.B.; Sánchez-Ocaña, R.; Albillos-Blanco, M.; et al. Prospective cohort study to evaluate premedication with simethicone and n-acetilcysteine for upper diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy. Rev. Esp. Enferm Dig. 2023, 115, 10–15. [Google Scholar]
  85. Behrens, A.; Ell, C.; Studiengruppe, A.P.; Frieling, T.; Labenz, J.; May, A.; Ell, C.; Offenbach, S.K.; Ellrichmann, M.; Schilling, D.; et al. Safety of endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk collective. Z. Für Gastroenterol. 2023, 61, 1593–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Fatima, H.; Imperiale, T. Safety Profile of Endoscopist-directed Balanced Propofol Sedation for Procedural Sedation: An Experience at a Hospital-based Endoscopy Unit. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2022, 56, e209–e215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Pozin, I.E.; Zabida, A.; Nadler, M.; Zahavi, G.; Orkin, D.; Berkenstadt, H. Respiratory complications during recovery from gastrointestinal endoscopies performed by gastroenterologists under moderate sedation. Clin. Endosc. 2023, 56, 188–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Bickler, P.E.; Feiner, J.R.; Lipnick, M.S.; Batchelder, P.; MacLeod, D.B.; Severinghaus, J.W. Effects of acute, profound hypoxia on healthy humans: Implications for safety of tests evaluating pulse oximetry or tissue oximetry performance. Anesth. Analg. 2017, 124, 146–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Triantafyllou, K.; Sidhu, R.; Tham, T.; Tziatzios, G.; Guy, C.; Messmann, H.; Arvanitakis, M.; Hassan, C.; Bisschops, R.; Gralnek, I.M. Sedation practices in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) survey. Endoscopy 2024, 56, 964–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Aguirre, J.A.; Etzensperger, F.; Brada, M.; Guzzella, S.; Saporito, A.; Blumenthal, S.; Bühler, P.; Borgeat, A. The beach chair position for shoulder surgery in intravenous general anesthesia and controlled hypotension: Impact on cerebral oxygenation, cerebral blood flow and neurobehavioral outcome. J. Clin. Anesth. 2019, 53, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. 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, 1004–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Cohen, L.B.; DeLegge, M.H.; Aisenberg, J.; Brill, J.V.; Inadomi, J.M.; Kochman, M.L.; Piorkowski, J.D. AGA Institute review of endoscopic sedation. Gastroenterology 2007, 133, 675–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Dumonceau, J.-M.; Riphaus, A.; Schreiber, F.; Vilmann, P.; Beilenhoff, U.; Aparicio, J.R.; Vargo, J.J.; Manolaraki, M.; Wientjes, C.; Rácz, I.; et al. Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates Guideline—Updated June 2015. Endoscopy 2015, 47, 1175–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kerker, A.; Hardt, C.; Schlief, H.-E.; Dumoulin, F.L. Combined sedation with midazolam/propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients. BMC Gastroenterol. 2010, 10, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Seifert, H.; Schmitt, T.H.; Gültekin, T.; Caspary, W.F.; Wehrmann, T. Sedation with propofol plus midazolam versus propofol alone for interventional endoscopic procedures: A prospective, randomized study. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2000, 14, 1207–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Sethi, S.; Wadhwa, V.; Thaker, A.; Chuttani, R.; Pleskow, D.K.; Barnett, S.R.; Leffler, D.A.; Berzin, T.M.; Sethi, N.; Sawhney, M.S. Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for advanced endoscopic procedures: A meta-analysis. Dig. Endosc. 2014, 26, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Bo, L.-L.; Bai, Y.; Bian, J.-J.; Wen, P.-S.; Li, J.-B.; Deng, X.-M. Propofol vs traditional sedative agents for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A meta-analysis. World J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 17, 3538–3543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gotoda, T.; Akamatsu, T.; Abe, S.; Shimatani, M.; Nakai, Y.; Hatta, W.; Hosoe, N.; Miura, Y.; Miyahara, R.; Yamaguchi, D.; et al. Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition). Dig. Endosc. 2021, 33, 21–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Dumonceau, J.-M.; Riphaus, A.; Beilenhoff, U.; Vilmann, P.; Hornslet, P.; Aparicio, J.; Dinis-Ribeiro, M.; Giostra, E.; Ortmann, M.; Knape, J.; et al. European curriculum for sedation training in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA). Endoscopy 2013, 45, 496–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Vargo, J.J.; DeLegge, M.H.; Feld, A.D.; Gerstenberger, P.D.; Kwo, P.Y.; et al.; American Association for Study of Liver Diseases; American College of Gastroenterology; American Gastroenterological Association Institute; American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; Society for Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates Multisociety sedation curriculum for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2012, 76, e1–e25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Schilling, D.; Leicht, K.; Beilenhoff, U.; Waechter, E.K.; Kallinowski, B.; Labenz, J.; Weiß, C.; Büttner, S.; Riphaus, A. Impact of S3 training courses “Sedation and Emergency Management in Endoscopy for Endoscopy Nurses and Assisting Personnel” on the process and structure quality in gastroenterological endoscopy in practices and clinics: Results of a nationwide survey. Z. Gastroenterol. 2013, 51, 619–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 15 01234 g001
Figure 1. Study selection process.
Figure 1. Study selection process.
Diagnostics 15 01234 g001
Diagnostics 15 01234 g002aDiagnostics 15 01234 g002bDiagnostics 15 01234 g002cDiagnostics 15 01234 g002d
Figure 2. Forest plot of incidence of hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, and major adverse events with respect to type of sedation and representation of weight of single study [8,9,10,11,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87].
Figure 2. Forest plot of incidence of hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, and major adverse events with respect to type of sedation and representation of weight of single study [8,9,10,11,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87].
Diagnostics 15 01234 g002aDiagnostics 15 01234 g002bDiagnostics 15 01234 g002cDiagnostics 15 01234 g002d
Diagnostics 15 01234 g003aDiagnostics 15 01234 g003bDiagnostics 15 01234 g003cDiagnostics 15 01234 g003d
Figure 3. Forest plot of incidence of hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, and major adverse events with respect to type of procedure and representation of weight of single study [8,9,10,11,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87].
Figure 3. Forest plot of incidence of hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, and major adverse events with respect to type of procedure and representation of weight of single study [8,9,10,11,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87].
Diagnostics 15 01234 g003aDiagnostics 15 01234 g003bDiagnostics 15 01234 g003cDiagnostics 15 01234 g003d
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
StudyYearDesignNo. PatientsProceduresMedication UsedAdministratorWay of AdministrationASA
Akyuz [19]2010Retro2918EGDS Colon ERCP DBEMida PropofolNuESBolusI–IV
García-Suárez [20]2010Prosp47PEGPropofolNuESBolusIII–IV
Poincloux [21]2011RCT45ColonAlfent PropofolEndoscopistBolusI/II
Repici [22]2011Prosp1593ColonMida PropofolEndoscopistBolusI/II
Lee [23]2011RCT102EGDS ERCPMida Pethid PropofolNurseBolusI–IV
Pagano [24]2011Prosp112EUSMida PropofolEndoscopistBolusI/II
Jensen [25]2011Prosp1764EGDS Colon EUS ERCP DBEPropofolNuESBolusI–IV
Heuss [26]2011RCT294EGDSPropofolNurseBolusI–IV
Martínez [27]2011Prosp1076EGDS Colon EUSPropofolEndoscopistTCII–IV
Slagelse [28]2011Prosp2527EGDS Colon EUS ERCP DBEPropofolNurseBolusI–IV
Lee [29]2012RCT206EUS ERCPMida Fent PropofolNuESBolusI–IV
Díez-Redondo [30]2012RCT270ColonMida PropofolEndoscopistBolusNA
Friedrich [31]2012Prosp10,000EGDS ColonPropofolNurse or EndoscopistBolusNA
Redondo-Cerezo [32]2012Prosp446EUSPropofolNuESBolusI–IV
Levitzky [33]2012RCT55EGDSMida Fent PropofolEndoscopistBolusI–IV
Lucendo [34]2012Prosp1000ColonPropofolNuESBolusI/II
Molina-Infante [35]2012RCT119ColonMida PropofolNuESBolusI–IV
Frieling [8]2012Prosp191,142EGDS ColonMida Pethid PropofolNurse or EndoscopistBolusNA
Bastaki [36]2013RCT50ColonPropofolNurseBolusI–II
González-Santiago [37]2013RCT192ColonPropofolNurseBolus/TCII–IV
Slagelse [38]2013RCT540EGDS ColonPropofolNurseBolusI–IV
Lucendo [39]2013Prosp1500EGDS ColonPropofolNuESBolusI–IV
Yu [40]2013RCT115ColonMida PropofolNuESBolusI–IV
Kim [41]2014Retro50ERCPMida PropofolNuESBolusI/II
Gotoda [42]2014Retro121EGDS (ESD)Pentaz PropofolEndoscopistTCII–IV
Sieg [43]2014Prosp24,441EGDS ColonMida PropofolNuESBolusNA
Khan [44]2014Prosp156ERCPPropofolEndoscopistBolusI–IV
Gurung [45]2014Prosp203EGDSPropofolNuESBolusNA
Andrade de Paulo [46]2014Prosp1000EGDS ColonFent PropofolNurseBolusI–II
Kawano [47]2015Prosp34EnteroPenthaz PropofolEndoscopistTCINA
Lee [48]2015RCT105ERCPMida PropofolNuESBolusI–IV
Ikeuchi [49]2015Prosp182ERCPPenthaz PropofolEndoscopistBolus/TCII–IV
Jensen [50]2015Retro6840EGDS ColonPropofolNuEsBolusI–IV
Ooi [11]2015Prosp27,989EGDS Colon PEGMida Fent PropofolNuESBolusNA
Nonaka [51]2015Prosp160ERCP EGDS (ESD)Pentaz PropofolEndoscopistBolusI–IV
Fanti [52]2015RCT70EGDS ColonFent PropofolEndoscopistTCII/II
Okeke [53]2015Retro403ColonMida Pethid PropofolEndoscopistBolusNA
Heo [54]2016RCT280ColonMida Pethid PropofolNurseBolusI–IV
Jensen [55]2016Prosp1899ERCP EUS DBEPropofolNurseBolusI–IV
Klare [56]2016RCT334ColonPropofolEndoscopistBolusI–IV
Oliveira Ferreira [57]2016RCT150ColonPropofolNuESBolusI/II
Seo [58]2016Retro431EGDS Colon (EMR/ESD)PropofolNuESBolus/TCII–IV
Sathananthan [59]2017Prosp981EGDS ColonMida PropofolNuESBolusI–IV
Han [60]2017RCT50ERCPFent PropofolNurseBolusI–IV
Kim [61]2017RCT64EUSPropofolNuESBolusI/II
Behrens [62]2018Prosp314,190EGDS Colon EUS ERCP EnteroMida PropofolNurse or EndoscopistNAI–IV
López-Muñoz [63]2018Prosp507EGDS Colon ERCP EUSDBEPropofolNuESNANA
Sato [10]2018Prosp150,211EGDS ColonPropofolNurseBolusI/II
Patel [64]2018Retro161EGDSFent PropofolNuESBolusI–IV
Ruiz-Curiel [9]2018Retro70,696EGDS Colon ERCP EUSPropofolNuESBolusNA
Maestro-Antolín [65]2018Retro29,524EGDS Colon ERCP EUSPropofolEndoscopistBolus/TCII–IV
Luzón-Solanas [66]2018Prosp661ERCPPropofolEndoscopistTCII–IV
López-Rosés [67]2018Prosp39EnteroMida Fent PropofolNuESTCII–IV
Kim [68]2019Retro1000EGDS ColonMida Pethid PropofolNurse or EndoscopistBolusI/II
Takeuchi [69]2019Retro82EGDS (ESD)Pentaz PropofolEndoscopistTCII–IV
Lapidus [70]2019Retro501ERCPMida Fent PropofolEndoscopistBolusI–IV
Lee [71]2020RCT232ERCPMida PropofolNuESBolus/TCINA
Facciorusso [72]2020Prosp305EUSPropofolNurse or EndoscopistBolusI–IV
Riesco-López [73]2020Prosp1026EGDS Colon EUSMida Fent PropofolNuESBolusI–IV
Tiankanon [74]2020Retro189ColonPropofolNurseTCII/II
Del Val Oliver [75]2020Retro277ColonPropofolNuESNAI/II
Manno [76]2020Prosp8471EGDS ColonMida Fent PropofolNuESBolusI–IV
Michael [77]2021RCT147PEGMida PropofolNuESBolusNA
Lee [78]2021Retro1427EGDS ColonFent PropofolNuESTCII–IV
Gururatsaku [79]2021Prosp24,958EGDS ColonMida PropofolNurseBolusI–IV
Alam [80]2021Prosp500EGDSMida PropofolNurse or EndoscopistBolusI–IV
Medina-Prado [81]2021Prosp562EGDS Colon EUSPropofolEndoscopistTCII–IV
McKenzie [82]2021Retro24,032EGDS ColonFent PropofolNuESBolusI–IV
Steenholdt [83]2022RCT63ColonPropofolNuESBolusI–II
Fuentes-Valenzuela [84]2022Prosp205EGDSPropofolEndoscopistNANA
Behrens [85]2022RCT28,673EGDS ColonMida PropofolNurse or EndoscopistBolusI/II
Fatima [86]2022Retro1897EGDS ColonMida Fent PropofolNuESBolusI–IV
Pozin [87]2023Retro657EGDS Colon EUS ERCP DBEMida Fent PropofolNuESBolus
Prosp (prospective observational study); Retro (retrospective); RCT (randomized controlled trial); EGDS (esophagogastroduodenoscopy); Colon (colonoscopy); EUS (endoscopic ultrasound); ERCP (endoscopic retrograde colangiopancreatography); PEG (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy); Entero (enteroscopy); DBE (double-balloon enteroscopy); ESD (endoscopic submucosal dissection); EMR (endoscopic mucosal resection); Mida (midazolam); Fent (fentanyl); Pethid (Pethidine); Penthaz (Penthazocine); NuES (nurse under endoscopist supervision); TCI (Target-Controlled Infusion); NA (not assessed).
Table 2. Incidence of adverse events per 1000 procedural sedations.
Table 2. Incidence of adverse events per 1000 procedural sedations.
Adverse EventEvents per PatientsEstimate per 100095%CII2 (%)
Hypoxia5101/939,8304034–4799
Hypotension5329/569,5063828–5099
Bradicardia1586/641,93496–1398
Major109/941,5620.120.04–0.1627
Results are presented as the number of events over the total of patients (only studies that reported the events), estimate based on 1000 patients, 95% confidence interval, and heterogeneity index (I2).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pigò, F.; Gottin, M.; Conigliaro, R. The Incidence of Adverse Events in Adults Undergoing Procedural Sedation with Propofol Administered by Non-Anesthetists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics 2025, 15, 1234. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15101234

AMA Style

Pigò F, Gottin M, Conigliaro R. The Incidence of Adverse Events in Adults Undergoing Procedural Sedation with Propofol Administered by Non-Anesthetists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics. 2025; 15(10):1234. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15101234

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pigò, Flavia, Matteo Gottin, and Rita Conigliaro. 2025. "The Incidence of Adverse Events in Adults Undergoing Procedural Sedation with Propofol Administered by Non-Anesthetists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Diagnostics 15, no. 10: 1234. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15101234

APA Style

Pigò, F., Gottin, M., & Conigliaro, R. (2025). The Incidence of Adverse Events in Adults Undergoing Procedural Sedation with Propofol Administered by Non-Anesthetists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics, 15(10), 1234. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15101234

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop