Sedation for endoscopy: the safe use of propofol by general practitioners

To the Editor: We read with interest the article by Clarke et al1 and the accompanying editorial by Knoblanche,2 and are concerned that they may be interpreted as endorsing the use of the anaesthetic agent propofol in sedation techniques by personnel inadequately trained in anaesthetic techniques.

Cases reported to the Victorian Consultative Council on Anaesthetic Mortality and Morbidity confirm the risk of serious morbidity and mortality associated with these procedures. Our report for the triennium 1997–1999 will include two deaths at endoscopy where a non-specialist administered the sedation or anaesthetic. In both of these cases, propofol was used.

The circumstances described by Clarke et al are exceptional. They combine a scrupulous adherence to the professional guidelines3 and a significant involvement by the administration of the endoscopy centre in the selection, education and on-going training of the general practitioner sedationists. They include incident reporting of adverse events and non-standard treatments as part of a quality assurance program. Although not specified, there is also, presumably, access to high-quality back-up. This level of attention to detail is by no means universal.

We would like to endorse several observations made in the articles:

• For a procedure to be considered sedation, it is imperative that the drugs used are not intended to, and do not, cause loss of consciousness or the loss of protective reflexes or spontaneous ventilation; by definition, this would be anaesthesia.

• Proper selection and careful medical assessment of patients is very important, and training must enable the identification of patients at higher risk.

• People administering sedation must have knowledge of the pharmacology of the agents being administered and modifications necessary because of concurrent therapeutic regimens or disease states. They must also ensure adequate intraprocedure monitoring is provided, that they have experience in interpretation of abnormal indices, and that they can manage any complications arising from the procedure, with particular emphasis on airway management and cardiovascular resuscitation.

There may be benefits with the use of propofol, but the guidelines, designed for patient safety, clearly state: "Intravenous anaesthetic agents such as propofol must only be used by an anaesthetist."3

Technological advances in non-invasive and minimally invasive procedures have led to an explosion in demand for sedation of increasing complexity in areas removed from the traditional operating room environment. Consequently, demand for sedation by non-anaesthetists is likely to grow. It is important that the standard of care and patient safety be maintained in all these circumstances.

The concern is not whether the practitioner administering the sedation is a general practitioner or a specialist, but whether he or she has the training and skills necessary to function as an anaesthetist. The terms "general practitioner sedationist" and "non-anaesthetist" might give an impression of diminished risk, which is not supported by the experience of this committee.