I recently heard a lecture in Bogotá by an anesthesiologist who accepted, albeit with some reservations, that nurses and endoscopists may administer propofol sedation. The lecturer simultaneously criticized NAAP studies for the reasons already mentioned including the lack of capnography. However, I noticed that the bulk of his criticism generated an atmosphere and climate of fear of legal consequences. They were supported by three studies about which I will point out some fundamental issues that the anesthesiologist did not highlight in his speech. The first is the collection of studies already mentioned in this article which shows that only four deaths have occurred over the course of more than 600,000 acts of NAAP, and that none of these deaths were due to the administration of propofol. They were instead due to the intrinsic severity patients conditions.
Recientemente escuché una conferencia dictada en Bogotá por un anestesiólogo quien, aunque aceptaba con cierta reserva que enfermeras y endoscopistas administraran sedación con propofol, simultáneamente criticaba los estudios de NAAP, por las mismas razones ya comentadas, como la falta de utilización de capnografía, etc. Sin embargo, me llamó la atención que el grueso de sus críticas, que generaron en el ambiente un clima de miedo a consecuencias legales, se apoyaba en tres estudios, de los que puntualizaré algunos temas fundamentales que no resaltó el anestesiólogo en su conferencia: