In response to the letter by Cabadas and Álvarez-Escudero about the editorial: "Will societies of anesthesiologists partake in the take-off of non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol?".

I thank R. Cabadas and J. Álvarez-Escudero (1). 1. Apologies accepted. 2. The statistical significance of the difference in proportions seems doubtful. 3. Although these small studies do not allow us to confirm the safety of endoscopist-directed propofol sedation, they deserve a short comment as they represent the best available level of evidence (RCTs) and are also informative. 4. Hypoxemia, hypotension and bradycardia are frequent and have no clinical consequences in most cases. 5. The authors started this chapter by stating "scientific opinions must be carefully based" (3); 6. As quotation marks were used, the correct reference should have been cited in that paragraph. 7. The point is that, under correct conditions as detailed in the ESGE Guidelines (4,5), propofol is as safe as midazolam/fentanyl.