Moderate Sedation and Analgesia via Intravenous Infusion

Purpose and Scope

This guideline establishes evidence-based standards and recommendations for the safe administration of moderate sedation and analgesia through intravenous infusion. It is intended for clinical professionals involved in procedural sedation across hospital, ambulatory, and specialty settings. The recommendations herein are derived from current peer-reviewed literature, position papers from major anesthesiology societies, and established clinical practice frameworks.

Section 1: Foundational Standards

1.1 Regulatory Compliance

The provision of intravenous moderate sedation and analgesia must conform to all applicable laws, rules, and regulations established by regulatory and accrediting bodies within each jurisdiction. Organizational policies should reflect these requirements and be reviewed periodically to ensure continued compliance.

1.2 Individualized Sedation Planning

The selection of target sedation level and optimal pharmacologic agents requires a thorough assessment of both patient-specific and procedure-specific factors. Patient characteristics to consider include age, baseline pain level, anxiety, previous sedation history, and current medical condition. Procedure characteristics include anticipated pain intensity, required patient positioning, and expected duration (Dobson et al., 2018; Apfelbaum et al., 2018).

1.3 Emergency Preparedness

An emergency cart containing resuscitative equipment and pharmacologic reversal agents must be immediately accessible whenever moderate sedation is administered. Additionally, clinicians with demonstrated competency in age-appropriate and size-appropriate airway management, emergency intubation, advanced cardiopulmonary life support, and complication management must be immediately available throughout the procedure and recovery period (Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Coté et al., 2019).

Section 2: Clinician Education and Competency

2.1 Comprehensive Training Requirements

Organizations must implement a structured educational and competency validation program for all clinicians involved in providing moderate sedation. This program should address age-specific clinical interventions, the continuum of sedation levels from minimal to deep sedation, and pharmacologic principles including onset of action, peak effect, duration, and synergistic interactions between agents. Training must also encompass effective utilization of physiologic monitoring equipment, airway assessment and management techniques, positioning requirements for various procedures, and principles of post-recovery care (Dobson et al., 2018; Norii et al., 2019; Teng et al., 2019; Tran et al., 2019; Tuck et al., 2018).

2.2 Scope of Practice Considerations

The administration of moderate sedation medications must fall within the clinician’s defined scope of practice. Registered nurse-administered moderate sedation is appropriate when performed under physician supervision and within established institutional protocols (Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Dossa et al., 2021; Coté et al., 2019). One retrospective study demonstrated that patients with obstructive sleep apnea successfully received nurse-administered moderate sedation using an algorithmic approach combined with continuous positive airway pressure during the procedure, with no adverse events reported (Pino et al., 2021).

Propofol administration by non-anesthesia clinicians has been shown to be safe when proper training and competency validation are ensured, propofol use falls within the regulatory scope of the clinician’s governing body, and patients are appropriately selected—generally those with American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification scores of I through III (Ang et al., 2022; Dossa et al., 2021; Lameijer et al., 2017; Schick et al., 2019; Lin, 2017).

Section 3: Pharmacologic Considerations

3.1 Medication Selection Principles

Sedation and analgesic agents should be selected based on the lowest effective dose and widest therapeutic index appropriate for individual patient and procedural characteristics. A multimodal approach combining agents from different pharmacologic classes may optimize sedation quality while minimizing adverse effects.

Agents commonly utilized for moderate sedation include sedative-hypnotics such as midazolam, diazepam, and dexmedetomidine; opioid analgesics including fentanyl; anesthetic agents such as propofol and ketamine; neuroleptic agents including droperidol; and combination formulations such as ketamine-fentanyl or ketamine-propofol mixtures (Dobson et al., 2018; Ang et al., 2022; Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Dossa et al., 2021; Chawla et al., 2017; Bhatt et al., 2017; Coté et al., 2019; Sahyoun et al., 2021; Homma et al., 2020; Tajoddini & Motaghi, 2022).

3.2 Timing of Preprocedural Opioids

When administering opioids prior to procedural sedation, timing considerations are clinically significant. A prospective observational evaluation in a pediatric population found that preprocedural opioids administered close to the time of sedation were significantly associated with increased risk of oxygen desaturation and vomiting (Bhatt et al., 2020).

3.3 Special Population Considerations

Elderly and Obese Patients: Slower titration rates and target-controlled infusion techniques are recommended in elderly and obese populations due to substantial variability in pharmacokinetic parameters affecting drug distribution, metabolism, and elimination (Dossa et al., 2021; Bautista et al., 2020).

Dosing Strategies: Initial dosing may be calculated as fixed dosing or weight-based dosing using actual, adjusted, or ideal body weight, depending on the specific medication, the patient’s weight and body mass index, and the targeted sedation goals. Regardless of initial dosing strategy, subsequent doses should be titrated to achieve and maintain the desired sedation endpoint (Coté et al., 2019; Bautista et al., 2020).

Section 4: Preprocedural Assessment

4.1 Comprehensive Patient Evaluation

A thorough preprocedural assessment forms the foundation for safe sedation practice. This evaluation must encompass medical history and current health status, formal airway assessment, body mass index calculation, review of current prescribed and over-the-counter medications that may influence sedation tolerance (including sedatives, long-acting opioids, and cannabis), allergy history, previous sedation experiences and any associated complications, opioid use history, current pain assessment, evaluation of respiratory depression risk, substance use including alcohol and tobacco, and fasting status with assessment of aspiration risk (Dobson et al., 2018; Ang et al., 2022; Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Dossa et al., 2021; Coté et al., 2019; Sahyoun et al., 2021; Hinkelbein et al., 2018; Bhatt et al., 2018; Ward et al., 2018; Jo & Kwak, 2019; Gallagher, 2018; Babu et al., 2019).

4.2 Sleep Apnea Risk Stratification

Preprocedural screening for obstructive sleep apnea using a validated assessment tool, such as the STOP-BANG questionnaire, should be considered for all patients undergoing moderate sedation (Dobson et al., 2018; Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Bautista et al., 2020; Bray & Knapp, 2021; Whyte & Gibson, 2020).

4.3 Anesthesia Consultation Criteria

Consultation with an anesthesia provider is indicated when preprocedural assessment identifies factors that may increase the risk of adverse events. These factors include complex procedures characterized by extended duration, challenging positioning requirements, or significant anticipated pain; anatomic airway abnormalities; ASA Physical Status Classification scores greater than III; infant patients; children with special healthcare needs; significant opioid tolerance or dependence; history of sedation intolerance or adverse events; known difficult airway; significant allergies to sedation agents; diagnosed or suspected sleep apnea; morbid obesity; gastric outlet obstruction; and gastroparesis (Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Dossa et al., 2021; Coté et al., 2019; Hinkelbein et al., 2018; Vargo et al., 2017; Myers et al., 2017).

4.4 Informed Consent

Informed consent must be obtained in accordance with organizational policies and procedures prior to the administration of moderate sedation (Ang et al., 2022; Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Chawla et al., 2017; Coté et al., 2019).

Section 5: Procedural Preparation and Timeout

5.1 Preprocedural Planning

Prior to the procedure, the discharge plan should be established, including arrangements for a family member, caregiver, or friend to transport the patient home and provide observation during the post-procedure period (Dobson et al., 2018; Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Coté et al., 2019).

5.2 Procedural Timeout

A standardized procedural timeout process should be implemented to systematically assess and address potential patient-related and procedure-related risks. Clinicians must recognize that moderate sedation may progress to deep sedation with loss of protective reflexes or consciousness due to multiple interacting factors, including the pharmacologic properties of agents used, the patient’s physiologic status, and individual drug sensitivities.

5.3 Equipment Verification

All monitoring and resuscitation equipment must be verified as appropriate for both the procedural environment (accounting for special considerations such as magnetic resonance imaging suite compatibility) and patient characteristics including age and body habitus. Equipment sizing should be confirmed, including appropriately sized blood pressure cuffs and monitoring devices.

5.4 Vascular Access

Vascular access must be established and maintained throughout the procedure and recovery period to facilitate medication administration and ensure immediate access for emergency resuscitative medications or reversal agents if needed (Dobson et al., 2018; Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Dossa et al., 2021; Chawla et al., 2017; Coté et al., 2019; Homma et al., 2020; Bautista et al., 2020; Schick et al., 2019; Hinkelbein et al., 2018).

Section 6: Intraprocedural Monitoring

6.1 Continuous Physiologic Monitoring

Patients receiving moderate sedation require continuous monitoring throughout the procedure. Parameters to be monitored include blood pressure, respiratory rate, ventilatory status, oxygen saturation via pulse oximetry, cardiac rate and rhythm, and level of consciousness (Dobson et al., 2018; Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Dossa et al., 2021; Coté et al., 2019; Homma et al., 2020; Hinkelbein et al., 2018).

6.2 Dedicated Monitoring Personnel

A trained assistant should be assigned specifically to sedation monitoring during the procedure. This individual should not have competing responsibilities that would compromise their ability to maintain continuous patient observation (Dobson et al., 2018; Ang et al., 2022; Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Dossa et al., 2021; Coté et al., 2019; Homma et al., 2020; Hinkelbein et al., 2018).

6.3 Supplemental Oxygen Considerations

Supplemental oxygen is frequently utilized during procedural sedation; however, clinicians must recognize that supplemental oxygen may delay recognition of respiratory depression by maintaining adequate oxygen saturation despite hypoventilation (Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Gallagher, 2018; Strohleit et al., 2021; Flores-González et al., 2021). A prospective observational study evaluating arterial blood gas changes during cardiac catheterization under sedation found significant hypercarbia and respiratory acidosis in patients receiving supplemental oxygen, demonstrating that pulse oximetry alone may lead to delayed recognition of ventilatory compromise (Fanari et al., 2019).

6.4 Sedation Level Assessment

A validated sedation assessment scale should be selected and used to evaluate the patient’s level of sedation at regular intervals throughout the procedure. Commonly used instruments include the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale and the American Society of Anesthesiologists Depth of Sedation Levels continuum. Current evidence does not establish superiority of any single scale, likely due to the diversity of clinical settings and sedation regimens employed (Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Chawla et al., 2017; Homma et al., 2020; Schick et al., 2019).

Assessment parameters should be documented at regular intervals, typically every five minutes, with frequency adjusted based on the medication regimen, patient status, and procedure type (Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Hinkelbein et al., 2018; Ward et al., 2018; Jo & Kwak, 2019).

6.5 Advanced Monitoring Modalities

Advanced monitoring techniques may provide earlier detection of changes in sedation depth, hypoxia, and respiratory depression. These technologies include acoustic respiratory monitoring, transtracheal auscultation, respiratory volume monitoring, and processed electroencephalography such as bispectral index monitoring (Chawla et al., 2017; Hinkelbein et al., 2018; Gallagher, 2018; Mathews et al., 2018; Ebert et al., 2017; Bosack, 2017; Mitchell-Hines et al., 2017).

Bispectral Index Monitoring: While bispectral index (BIS) monitoring is well-established for assessing sedation depth during general anesthesia, its role in moderate sedation requires further evaluation. Challenges specific to the moderate sedation setting include more frequent signal artifact, inconsistent signal response with certain medications, confounding influences from patient factors such as critical illness, and limited supporting evidence, particularly in pediatric populations (Dossa et al., 2021; Chawla et al., 2017; Coté et al., 2019; Shukla et al., 2020; Garbe et al., 2021).

6.6 Capnography

Capnography, which provides continuous measurement of end-tidal carbon dioxide as a measure of ventilatory adequacy, should be considered for use during moderate sedation unless contraindicated by patient characteristics, procedure requirements, or equipment limitations (Dobson et al., 2018; Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Jo & Kwak, 2019; Parker et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2018; Oba et al., 2019; Askar et al., 2020; Bisschops et al., 2021; Rose Bovino et al., 2018; Aslan et al., 2020).

Recommended Clinical Indications for Capnography: Capnography monitoring is particularly indicated in patients with ASA Physical Status Classification scores of III or greater, body mass index exceeding 30, elderly patients, patients with significant cardiopulmonary comorbidities, those undergoing high-risk gastrointestinal procedures such as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement, patients at elevated baseline risk for respiratory compromise, and when the sedation target is deep sedation (Coté et al., 2019; Wadhwa et al., 2019; Peveling-Oberhag et al., 2020; Pella et al., 2018).

A secondary analysis from a prospective observational study found that changes greater than ten percent from baseline capnography readings were associated with increased apnea risk during bolus administration of midazolam and fentanyl (Conway et al., 2020).

Limitations and Ongoing Research: Despite the physiologic rationale for capnography monitoring, several concerns have been raised regarding mandated universal use. These include insufficient high-quality evidence demonstrating improved outcomes or cost-effectiveness in healthy adults undergoing procedural sedation (Dossa et al., 2021; Chawla et al., 2017; Hinkelbein et al., 2018; Strohleit et al., 2021; Wadhwa et al., 2019; Pella et al., 2018; Wollner et al., 2020; Wall et al., 2017; Teng et al., 2018; Mohr et al., 2018). Additionally, capnography remains underutilized and unavailable in many rural settings and in low-to-moderate income countries, creating implementation barriers (Wall et al., 2017; Tervonen et al., 2021; Mohr et al., 2018; Ilko et al., 2019; Wood-Thompson et al., 2019).

Section 7: Post-Procedure Recovery

7.1 Recovery Monitoring Standards

Post-procedure recovery monitoring and care must be appropriate to both patient characteristics and procedure-specific factors. Discharge criteria and facility guidelines should be established using validated scoring systems such as the Modified Aldrete Score or the Post-Anesthesia Discharge Scoring System.

Monitoring should continue until the patient has returned to or approaches their preprocedural baseline status with no evidence of ongoing risk for hypoxia or cardiorespiratory compromise (Dobson et al., 2018; Ang et al., 2022; Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Chawla et al., 2017; Hinkelbein et al., 2018).

7.2 Recovery Period Risk

The recovery period may present increased risk compared to the procedure itself. One prospective cohort study of pediatric patients undergoing sedation for fracture reduction found that hypoxic events occurred more than fifty percent more frequently during the recovery period than during the procedure (Shirota et al., 2020).

Section 8: Patient and Caregiver Education

8.1 Educational Content Requirements

Comprehensive patient and caregiver education should be provided prior to the procedure and reinforced following completion. Educational topics must include explanation of the sedation and analgesia infusion process and procedure, including what the patient should expect; post-procedural activity restrictions; signs and symptoms warranting medical attention that may indicate adverse reactions to medications, the vascular access device, or the procedure itself; and emergency contact instructions including a 24-hour telephone number (Ang et al., 2022; Coté et al., 2019; Parker et al., 2018).

8.2 Behavioral Considerations in Pediatric Patients

A prospective cohort study of children who received ketamine procedural sedation in the emergency department for fracture reduction found that high levels of pre-sedation anxiety and patient ethnicity were associated with significant negative behavioral changes within one to two weeks following discharge. This finding underscores the importance of addressing preprocedural anxiety and providing appropriate anticipatory guidance to caregivers (Pearce et al., 2018).

Section 9: Quality Improvement and Outcome Monitoring

9.1 Performance Metrics

Organizations should systematically monitor moderate sedation patient outcomes and utilize quality data to drive process improvement and standardization of care. Key metrics to track include requirement for reversal agent administration, unplanned transfer to higher level of care, need for airway intervention, and other adverse events (Dobson et al., 2018; Apfelbaum et al., 2018; Chawla et al., 2017; Bhatt et al., 2017; Coté et al., 2019; Ward et al., 2018; Vargo et al., 2017; Tervonen et al., 2021; Schlegelmilch et al., 2021; Lapere et al., 2021).

References

Ang TL, Seet E, Goh YC, et al. Academy of Medicine, Singapore clinical guideline on the use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2022;51(1):24-39. doi:10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2021306

Apfelbaum JL, Gross JB, Connis RT, et al. Practice guidelines for moderate procedural sedation and analgesia 2018. Anesthesiology. 2018;128(3):437-479. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000002043

Askar H, Misch J, Chen Z, Chadha S, Wang HL. Capnography monitoring in procedural intravenous sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(11):3761-3770. doi:10.1007/s00784-020-03395-1

Aslan N, Yildizdas D, Horoz OO, Arslan D, Coban Y, Sertdemir Y. The effects of sedation and/or sedation/analgesic drugs administered during central venous catheterization on the level of end-tidal carbon dioxide measured by nasal cannula in our PICU. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2020;24(8):705-708. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23529

Babu KM, Brent J, Juurlink DN. Prevention of opioid overdose. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:2246-2255. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1807054

Bautista A, Hrushka L, Lenhardt R. Procedural sedation in the morbidly obese: implications, complications, and management. Int Anesthesiol Clin. 2020;58(3):41-46. doi:10.1097/AIA.0000000000000285

Bhatt M, Cheng W, Roback MG, Johnson DW, Taljaard M. Impact of timing of preprocedural opioids on adverse events in procedural sedation. Acad Emerg Med. 2020;27(3):217-227. doi:10.1111/acem.13913

Bhatt M, Johnson DW, Chan J, et al. Risk factors for adverse events in emergency department procedural sedation for children. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(10):957-964. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.2135

Bhatt M, Johnson DW, Taljaard M, et al. Association of preprocedural fasting with outcomes of emergency department sedation in children. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(7):678-685. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.0830

Bisschops R, Saunders R, Dooms C, et al. Implementing capnography to help improve patient safety during procedural sedation: quality improvement in a high-volume gastroenterology department. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;33(1S Suppl 1):e522-e528. doi:10.1097/MEG.0000000000002144

Bosack RC. Monitoring for the oral and maxillofacial surgeon. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am. 2017;29(2):159-168. doi:10.1016/j.coms.2016.12.008

Bray R, Knapp H. Identifying predictors of airway complications during conscious sedation procedures. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2021;44(5):310-319. doi:10.1097/SGA.0000000000000574

Chawla N, Boateng A, Deshpande R. Procedural sedation in the ICU and emergency department. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2017;30(4):507-512. doi:10.1097/ACO.0000000000000487

Conway A, Collins P, Chang K, et al. Pre-apneic capnography waveform abnormalities during procedural sedation and analgesia. J Clin Monit Comput. 2020;34(5):1061-1068. doi:10.1007/s10877-019-00391-z

Coté CJ, Wilson S, Riefe J, Koteras RJ, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients before, during, and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Pediatrics. 2019;143(6):e20191000. doi:10.1542/peds.2019-1000

Dobson G, Chong MA, Chow L, et al. Procedural sedation: a position paper of the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society. Can J Anesth. 2018;65(12):1372-1384. doi:10.1007/s12630-018-1230-z

Dossa F, Megetto O, Yakubu M, Zhang DDQ, Baxter NN. Sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review of recommendations. BMC Gastroenterol. 2021;21(1):22. doi:10.1186/s12876-020-01561-z

Ebert TJ, Middleton AH, Makhija N. Ventilation monitoring during moderate sedation in GI patients. J Clin Monit Comput. 2017;31(1):53-57. doi:10.1007/s10877-015-9809-1

Fanari Z, Mohammed AA, Bathina JD, et al. Inadequacy of pulse oximetry in the catheterization laboratory. An exploratory study monitoring respiratory status using arterial blood gases during cardiac catheterization with conscious sedation. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019;20(6):461-467. doi:10.1016/j.carrev.2018.07.027

Flores-González JC, Lechuga-Sancho AM, Saldaña Valderas M, et al. Respiratory adverse events during upper digestive endoscopies in children under ketamine sedation. Minerva Pediatr. 2021;73(1):15-21. doi:10.23736/S2724-5276.16.04758-7

Gallagher JJ. Capnography monitoring during procedural sedation and analgesia. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2018;29(4):405-414. doi:10.4037/aacnacc2018684

Garbe J, Eisenmann S, Kantelhardt JW, Duenninghaus F, Michl P, Rosendahl J. Capability of processed EEG parameters to monitor conscious sedation in endoscopy is similar to general anaesthesia. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2021;9(3):354-361. doi:10.1177/2050640620959153

Hinkelbein J, Lamperti M, Akeson J, et al. European Society of Anaesthesiology and European Board of Anaesthesiology guidelines for procedural sedation and analgesia in adults. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2018;35(1):6-24. doi:10.1097/EJA.0000000000000683

Homma Y, Norii T, Kanazawa T, et al. A mini-review of procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department. Acute Med Surg. 2020;7(1):e574. doi:10.1002/ams2.574

Ilko SA, Vakkalanka JP, Ahmed A, Evans DA, House HR, Mohr NM. End-tidal CO2 monitoring is available in most community hospitals in a rural state: a health system survey. West J Emerg Med. 2019;20(2):232-236. doi:10.5811/westjem.2018.12.40554

Jo YY, Kwak HJ. Sedation strategies for procedures outside the operating room. Yonsei Med J. 2019;60(6):491-499. doi:10.3349/ymj.2019.60.6.491

Kim SH, Park M, Lee J, Kim E, Choi YS. The addition of capnography to standard monitoring reduces hypoxemic events during gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2018;14:1605-1614. doi:10.2147/TCRM.S174698

Lameijer H, Sikkema YT, Pol A, et al. Propofol versus midazolam for procedural sedation in the emergency department: a study on efficacy and safety. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35(5):692-696. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2016.12.075

Lapere C, Gray R, Wilson G. Paediatric out-of-theatre procedural sedation at a tertiary children’s hospital: a prospective observational study. SAJCH S Afr J Child Health. 2021;15(1):33-37. doi:10.7196/SAJCH.2021.v15i1.01775

Lin OS. Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction. Intest Res. 2017;15(4):456-466. doi:10.5217/ir.2017.15.4.456

Mathews DM, Oberding MJ, Simmons EL, O’Donnell SE, Abnet KR, MacDonald K. Improving patient safety during procedural sedation via respiratory volume monitoring: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Anesth. 2018;46:118-123. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.08.004

Mitchell-Hines T, Ellison K, Willis S. Using bispectral index monitoring to gauge depth of sedation/analgesia. Nurs Crit Care. 2017;12(1):12-16. doi:10.1097/01.CCN.0000511003.39965.d2

Mohr NM, Stoltze A, Ahmed A, Kiscaden E, Shane D. Using continuous quantitative capnography for emergency department procedural sedation: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Intern Emerg Med. 2018;13(1):75-85. doi:10.1007/s11739-016-1587-3

Myers R, Lozenski J, Wyatt M, et al. Sedation and analgesia for dressing change: a survey of American Burn Association burn centers. J Burn Care Res. 2017;38(1):e48-e54. doi:10.1097/BCR.0000000000000423

Norii T, Kimura N, Homma Y, Funakoshi H, Crandall C. A collaborative educational intervention on procedural sedation and analgesia across the Pacific. Acute Med Surg. 2019;6(2):109-116. doi:10.1002/ams2.384

Oba S, Türk HA, Işıl CT, Sayın P, Kılınç L. Safety of microstream capnography monitoring in patients under sedation for colonoscopy. Haseki Tip Bulteni. 2019;57(3):232-239. doi:10.4274/haseki.galenos.2018.4769

Parker S, Zipursky J, Ma H, Baumblatt GL, Siegel CA. A web-based multimedia program before colonoscopy increased knowledge and decreased anxiety, sedation requirement, and procedure time. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52(6):519-523. doi:10.1097/MCG.0000000000000958

Parker W, Estrich CG, Abt E, et al. Benefits and harms of capnography during procedures involving moderate sedation: a rapid review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2018;149(1):38-50. doi:10.1016/j.adaj.2017.08.030

Pearce JI, Brousseau DC, Yan K, Hainsworth KR, Hoffmann RG, Drendel AL. Behavioral changes in children after emergency department procedural sedation. Acad Emerg Med. 2018;25(3):267-274. doi:10.1111/acem.13332

Pella L, Lambert C, McArthur B, et al. Systematic review to develop the clinical practice guideline for the use of capnography during procedural sedation in radiology and imaging settings: a report of the Association for Radiologic & Imaging Nursing Capnography Task Force. J Radiol Nurs. 2018;37(3):163-172. doi:10.1016/j.jradnu.2018.07.003

Peveling-Oberhag J, Michael F, Tal A, et al. Capnography monitoring of non-anesthesiologist provided sedation during percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement: a prospective, controlled, randomized trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;35(3):401-407. doi:10.1111/jgh.14760

Pino RM, Dunn PF, Kacmarek RM, Bryan RJ, Bigatello LM. An algorithm for the sedation of patients with obstructive sleep apnea by non-anesthesiologists. Curr Med Res Opin. 2021;37(4):531-534. doi:10.1080/03007995.2021.1888706

Rose Bovino L, Brainard C, Beaumier K, et al. Use of capnography to optimize procedural sedation in the emergency department pediatric population. J Emerg Nurs. 2018;44(2):110-116. doi:10.1016/j.jen.2017.10.016

Sahyoun C, Cantais A, Gervaix A, et al. Pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department: surveying the current European practice. Eur J Pediatr. 2021;180(6):1799-1813. doi:10.1007/s00431-021-03930-6

Schick A, Driver B, Moore JC, Fagerstrom E, Miner JR. Randomized clinical trial comparing procedural amnesia and respiratory depression between moderate and deep sedation with propofol in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2019;26(4):364-374. doi:10.1111/acem.13548

Schlegelmilch M, Roback MG, Bhatt M, et al. Impact of young age on outcomes of emergency department procedural sedation. Am J Emerg Med. 2021;46:116-120. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2021.03.014

Shirota Y, Hirase Y, Suda T, Miyazawa M, Hodo Y, Wakabayashi T. More than half of hypoxemia cases occurred during the recovery period after completion of esophagogastroduodenoscopy with planned moderate sedation. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):4312. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-61120-0

Shukla U, Karan M, Yadav JBS, Yadav U. Relationship between bispectral index and observer’s assessment of awareness/sedation score during onset of sedation: study with midazolam, propofol and dexmedetomidine. J Clin Diagn Res. 2020;14(4):UC10-UC14. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2020/44227.13658

Strohleit D, Galetin T, Kosse N, Lopez-Pastorini A, Stoelben E. Guidelines on analgosedation, monitoring, and recovery time for flexible bronchoscopy: a systematic review. BMC Pulm Med. 2021;21(1):198. doi:10.1186/s12890-021-01532-4

Tajoddini S, Motaghi M. Sedative and analgesic effects of propofol–ketamine versus propofol–fentanyl for emergency department procedures. Hong Kong J Emerg Med. 2022;29(4):212-219. doi:10.1177/1024907919893466

Teng WN, Su BC, Cheng HW. Innovation in sedation and analgesia training. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2019;32(4):472-479. doi:10.1097/ACO.0000000000000757

Teng WN, Ting CK, Wang YT, et al. Oral capnography is more effective than nasal capnography during sedative upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. J Clin Monit Comput. 2018;32(2):321-326. doi:10.1007/s10877-017-0029-8

Tervonen M, Kallio M, Peltoniemi O. National survey revealed variable practices in paediatric procedural sedation and patient monitoring. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2021;65(6):747-754. doi:10.1111/aas.13799

Tran TT, Beutler SS, Urman RD. Moderate and deep sedation training and pharmacology for nonanesthesiologists: recommendations for effective practice. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2019;32(4):457-463. doi:10.1097/ACO.0000000000000758

Tuck P, Riley E, Krenzischek D, MacDonald R. Evaluation of perceived importance, competence, confidence, and satisfaction in the implementation of moderate sedation by interventional radiology nurses. J Radiol Nurs. 2018;37(2):85-89. doi:10.1016/j.jradnu.2018.01.003

Vargo JJ, Niklewski PJ, Williams JL, Martin JF, Faigel DO. Patient safety during sedation by anesthesia professionals during routine upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: an analysis of 1.38 million procedures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(1):101-108. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2016.02.007

Wadhwa V, Gupta K, Vargo JJ. Monitoring standards in sedation and analgesia: the odyssey of capnography in sedation for gastroenterology procedures. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2019;32(4):453-456. doi:10.1097/ACO.0000000000000756

Wall BF, Magee K, Campbell SG, Zed PJ. Capnography versus standard monitoring for emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2017(3):CD010698. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010698.pub2

Ward DS, Williams MR, Berkenbosch JW, et al. Evaluating patient-centered outcomes in clinical trials of procedural sedation, Part 2 safety: sedation consortium on endpoints and procedures for treatment, education, and research recommendations. Anesth Analg. 2018;127(5):1146-1154. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000003409

Whyte A, Gibson D. Adult obstructive sleep apnoea: pathogenesis, importance, diagnosis and imaging. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2020;64(1):52-66. doi:10.1111/1754-9485.12978

Wollner E, Nourian MM, Booth W, et al. Impact of capnography on patient safety in high- and low-income settings: a scoping review. Br J Anaesth. 2020;125(1):e88-e103. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2020.04.057

Wood-Thompson DK, Enyuma COA, Laher AE. Procedural sedation and analgesia practices in the emergency centre. Afr J Emerg Med. 2019;9(1):8-13. doi:10.1016/j.afjem.2018.09.003