Endoscopist-Administered Propofol: A Retrospective Safety Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Propofol is an anesthetic agent that is commonly used for conscious sedation. Propofol has advantages as a sedative agent for endoscopic procedures including rapid onset, short half-life and rapid recovery time. However, concerns exist regarding the potential for respiratory depression, hypotension, perforation due to deep sedation and the need for monitoring by an anesthetist. Propofol has been used under endoscopist supervision at the Stanton Territorial Hospital in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories since 1996 (approximately 7000 cases). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of endoscopic procedures conducted at the Stanton Territorial Hospital between January 1996 and May 2007 was performed. A random sample of 680 procedures was reviewed from a total of 6396 procedures. RESULTS: The mean (+/- SD) baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 122.8+/-17.0 mmHg. The mean lowest SBP was 101.7+/-14.5 mmHg. The mean absolute drop in SBP was 21.1+/-16.7 mmHg, with a mean per cent drop of 16.3%+/-11.7%. Eighty-eight patients (12.9%) developed transient hypotension (SBP lower than 90 mmHg). All patients regained normal blood pressure spontaneously on repeated measurement. No patients required intravenous fluid resuscitation. The mean O2 saturation was 96.4%+/-2.1%. One patient (0.1%) transiently desaturated (O2 saturation 89%), but recovered spontaneously on repeat measurement with no intervention. No procedures were aborted for patient safety. There were no major complications, including perforation or death. There was one mucosal tear during nontherapeutic colonoscopy (0.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol can be safely administered in a community hospital setting under endoscopist supervision, with no additional support or monitoring.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".