Utilization of anesthesia services during outpatient endoscopies and colonoscopies and associated spending in 2003-2009

Safety of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in a group of university-affiliated hospitals: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Service models for gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation must be safe, as endoscopy is the most common procedure performed under sedation in many countries. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to determine the patient risk profile, and incidence of and risk factors for significant unplanned events, in adult patients presenting for gastrointestinal endoscopy in a group of university-affiliated hospitals where most sedation is managed by anaesthetists.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 yr presenting for elective and emergency gastrointestinal endoscopy under anaesthetist-managed sedation at nine hospitals affiliated with the University of Melbourne, Australia, were included. Outcomes included significant airway obstruction, hypoxia, hypotension and bradycardia; unplanned tracheal intubation; abandoned procedure; advanced life support; prolonged post-procedure stay; unplanned over-night admission and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

2,132 patients were included. Fifty percent of patients were aged >60 yr, 50% had a BMI >27 kg m ^-2, 42% were ASA physical status III-V and 17% were emergency patients. The incidence of significant unplanned events was 23.0% (including significant hypotension 11.8%). Significant unplanned intraoperative events were associated with increasing age, BMI <18.5 kg m ^-2, ASA physical status III-V, colonoscopy and planned tracheal intubation. Thirty-day mortality was 1.2% (0.2% in electives and 6.0% in emergencies) and was associated with ASA physical status IV-V and emergency status.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting for gastrointestinal endoscopy at a group of public university-affiliated hospitals where most sedation is managed by anaesthetists, had a high risk profile and a substantial incidence of significant unplanned intraoperative events and 30-day mortality.

Staffing at Ambulatory Endoscopy Centers in the United States: Practice, Trends, and Rationale

Background

Endoscopy nurse (RN) has a pivotal role in administration and monitoring of moderate sedation during endoscopic procedures. When sedation for the procedure is administered and monitored by an anesthesia specialist, the role of an RN is less clear. The guidelines on this issue by nursing and gastroenterology societies are contradictory.

Methods

Survey study of endoscopy lab managers and directors at outpatient endoscopy units in Texas. The questions related to staffing patterns for outpatient endoscopies and responsibilities of different personnel assisting with endoscopies.

Results

Responses were received from 65 endoscopy units (response rate 38%). 63/65 (97%) performed at least a few cases with an anesthesia specialist. Of these, 49/63 (78%) involved only an endoscopy technician, without an additional RN in the room. At 12/49 (25%) units, the RN performed tasks of an endoscopy technician. At 14/63 (22%), an additional RN was present during endoscopic procedures and performed tasks not directly related to patient care.

Conclusions

Many ambulatory endoscopy units do not have an RN present at all times when sedation is administered by an anesthesia specialist. An RN, when present, did not perform tasks commensurate with the education and training. This has implications about optimal utilization of nurses and cost of performing endoscopies.

Use and Associated Spending for Anesthesiologist-Administered Services in Minor Hand Surgery

BACKGROUND

Evidence is lacking to support the use of specialized anesthesia providers in minor surgical operations for patients without medical necessity. The authors sought to estimate the extent of potentially discretionary service use (anesthesiologist-administered anesthesia services among low-risk patients).

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective claims analysis using the Truven MarketScan Database to estimate the prevalence and cost of anesthesiologist-administered anesthesia services provided to patients undergoing minor hand surgery (i.e., carpal tunnel release, trigger finger release, or de Quervain release) from 2010 to 2015. A predictive probability model was created to estimate patient risk status. The authors examined the relationship between patient risk status and anesthesia use using multivariable regression models.

RESULTS

Of 441,579 eligible procedures, 352,779 (80 percent) involved anesthesiologist-administered anesthesia services. The total proportion of estimated anesthesiologist-administered anesthesia use in low-risk patients who did not need anesthesiologist support declined over the study period (from 69.7 percent in 2010 to 65.8 percent in 2015). Although total payments for these services remained steady between 2010 and 2014, the average payment per procedure increased regardless of procedure type (from $376.8 in 2010 to $427.9 in 2015 for a carpal tunnel release operation). Approximately 83.7 percent of payments ($133 million) to anesthesia providers is credited to services in low-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesiologist-administered anesthesia services are commonly rendered to low-risk surgical patients. Existing health care reform efforts do not adequately address discretionary services that can be a targeted area for cost saving. It is important to consider the implications of potentially discretionary use of specialized anesthesia providers, particularly with the advancement of bundled payment models.

Do we really need an anesthesiologist for routine colonoscopy in American Society of Anesthesiologist 1 and 2 patients?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In an era where healthcare costs are being heavily scrutinized, every expenditure is reviewed for medical necessity. Multiple national gastroenterology societies have issued statements regarding whether an anesthesiologist is necessary for routine colonoscopies in American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) 1 and 2 patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

A large percentage of patients are undergoing screening colonoscopy without any sedation at all, which would not require an independent practitioner to administer medications. Advances in technique and technology are making colonoscopies less stimulating. Advantages to administering sedation, including propofol, have been seen even when not administered under the direction of an anesthesiologist and complications seem to be rare. The additional cost of having monitored anesthesia care appears to be a driving factor in whether a patient receives it or not.

SUMMARY

A large multiinstitutional randomized control trial would be necessary to rule out potential confounders and to determine whether there is a safety benefit or detriment to having anesthesiologist-directed care in the setting of routine colonoscopies in ASA 1 and 2 patients. Further discussion would be necessary regarding what the monetary value of that effect is if a small difference were to be detected.

Assessing coding practices for gastrointestinal surgery over time in the United States

BACKGROUND

Variations in hospital billing practices may reflect differences in patient risk or may represent the "upcoding" of patients in response to payer incentives/policies. The current study sought to assess whether coding practices for gastrointestinal surgery have changed over time and to evaluate the association between upcoding and in-hospital costs.

METHODS

A total of 1,344,152 patients aged >18 years undergoing a gastrointestinal operation between 2001 and 2011 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Coding practices were compared by hospital and patient characteristics. Multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate the association between coding practices and in-hospital costs.

RESULTS

The mean and median number of codes per admission were 8.8 (standard deviation = 4.58) and 9 (interquartile range: 5-11), respectively. Over time, the proportion of admissions being upcoded (>9 codes/admission) increased from 14.1% to 32.9% (∆ = +133.3%, P < .001). This trend was observed for each gastrointestinal operation and was greatest for hepatectomy (∆ = +73.3%). Although admissions that were upcoded were more likely to be for patients with greater comorbidity and Medicare enrollees, an increase in the proportion of patients upcoded was also observed regardless of the primary payer, among patients presenting without comorbidity, and among patients undergoing an elective operation (all P < .001). On adjusted analysis, admissions that were upcoded were independently associated with a $13,754 (95% confidence interval: $13,638-$13,870) greater in-hospital cost.

CONCLUSION

The number of "upcoded" patients was observed to increase with time. Greater education, regulation, and scrutiny are required of coding practices.

Nonoperating room anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To assess the trends in nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) for gastrointestinal endoscopy over the past few years, and to describe alternative methods of delivering propofol sedation in selected low-risk patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of NORA for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has been rising steadily over the past decade in the United States, considerably increasing healthcare costs. Because of this, there have been attempts to develop nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation methods in low-risk patients. There is controversy as to whether properly trained nonanesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation SUMMARY: The deployment of nonanesthesia-administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall healthcare costs without sacrificing sedation quality. We also address the realm of anesthesia provider care for advanced endoscopic procedures including setup for administration of anesthesia, decision-making regarding placement of an endotracheal tube, and the potential need to move a challenging case to the operating room.

Effect of left lateral tilt-down position on cecal intubation time: a 2-center, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy insertion is technically challenging, time-consuming, and painful, especially for the sigmoid. Several pilot studies indicated that the (left) tilt-down position could facilitate the insertion procedure, but no formal trials have been published to demonstrate its efficacy. We performed this study to verify the benefits of the left lateral tilt-down position (LTDP) on the insertion process.

METHODS

This 2-center prospective trial randomized unsedated patients to the LTDP or left lateral horizontal position (LHP) to aid insertion. The primary outcome measure was cecal intubation time (CIT). Secondary outcome measures included decending colon intubation time (DIT), pain score of insertion, acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy for future examinations, difficulty score for insertion, and the adverse event rate of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-eight patients were randomized to the LTDP (128) or LHP (130) in 2 centers. The median CIT and DIT were shorter with patients positioned in LTDP than in LHP (CIT, 280.0 vs 339.5 s, P < .001; DIT, 53.0 vs 69.0 s, P < .001, respectively) and patients with high and low body mass index (BMI) benefited more from LTDP than from LHP, as opposed to patients with normal BMI. In addition, colonoscopy insertion in LTDP was less painful (3.4 ± 1.6 vs 4.0 ± 1.7, P = .02) and less difficult (3.1 ± 1.9 vs 3.7 ± 1.4, P < .001), showing a higher tendency to acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy (82.9% vs 73.8%, P = .08). The rates of adverse events were extremely low and did not differ significantly in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LTDP for colonoscopy insertion can reduce insertion time and pain, and potentially improves patients' acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02842489.).

Inadequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores predict the risk of missed neoplasia on the next colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The risks of missed findings after inadequate bowel preparation are not fully characterized in a diverse cohort. We aimed to evaluate the likelihood of missed polyps after an inadequate preparation as assessed by using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

METHODS

In this observational study of prospectively collected data within a large, national, endoscopic consortium, we identified patients aged 50 to 75 years who underwent average-risk screening colonoscopy (C1) followed by a second colonoscopy for any indication within 3 years (C2). We determined the polyp detection rates (PDRs) and advanced PDRs during C2 stratified by C1 BBPS scores.

RESULTS

Among segment pairs without polyps at C1 (N = 601), those with inadequate C1 BBPS segment scores had a higher PDR at C2 (10%) compared with those with adequate bowel preparation at C1 (5%; P = .04). Among segment pairs with polyps at C1 (N = 154), segments with inadequate bowel preparation scores at C1 had higher advanced PDRs at C2 (20%) compared with those with adequate bowel preparation scores at C1 (4%; P = .03). In multivariable analysis, the presence of advanced polyps at C1 (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.5; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 1.1-10.8) but not inadequate BBPS scores at C1 (adjusted OR 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.1) was associated with a significantly increased risk of advanced polyps at C2.

CONCLUSIONS

Inadequate BBPS segment scores generally are associated with higher rates of polyps and advanced polyps at subsequent colonoscopy within a short timeframe. The presence of advanced polyps as well as inadequate BBPS segment scores can inform the risk of missed polyps and help triage which patients warrant a timely repeat colonoscopy.

Anesthesia Assistance in Outpatient Colonoscopy and Risk of Aspiration Pneumonia, Bowel Perforation, and Splenic Injury

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The increase in use of anesthesia assistance (AA) to achieve deep sedation with propofol during colonoscopy has significantly increased colonoscopy costs without evidence for increased quality and with possible harm. We investigated the effects of AA on colonoscopy complications, specifically bowel perforation, aspiration pneumonia, and splenic injury.

METHODS

In a population-based cohort study using administrative databases, we studied adults in Ontario, Canada undergoing outpatient colonoscopy from 2005 through 2012. Patient, endoscopist, institution, and procedure factors were derived. The primary outcome was bowel perforation, defined using a validated algorithm. Secondary outcomes were splenic injury and aspiration pneumonia. Using a matched propensity score approach, we matched persons who had colonoscopy with AA (1:1) with those who did not. We used logistic regression models under a generalized estimating equations approach to explore the relationship between AA and outcomes.

RESULTS

Data from 3,059,045 outpatient colonoscopies were analyzed; 862,817 of these included AA. After propensity matching, a cohort of 793,073 patients who had AA and 793,073 without AA was retained for analysis (51% female; 78% were age 50 years or older). Use of AA did not significantly increase risk of perforation (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.16) or splenic injury (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.62-1.90]. Use of AA was associated with an increased risk of aspiration pneumonia (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.11-2.37).

CONCLUSIONS

In a population-based cohort study, AA for outpatient colonoscopy was associated with a significantly increased risk of aspiration pneumonia, but not bowel perforation or splenic injury. Endoscopists should warn patients, especially those with respiratory compromise, of this risk.

Predictors of Use of Monitored Anesthesia Care for Outpatient Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in a Capitated Payment System

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Use of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) for gastrointestinal endoscopy has increased in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as in fee-for-service environments, despite the absence of financial incentives. We investigated factors associated with use of MAC in an integrated health care delivery system with a capitated payment model.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using multilevel logistic regression, with MAC use modeled as a function of procedure year, patient- and provider-level factors, and facility effects. We collected data from 2,091,590 veterans who underwent outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy during fiscal years 2000-2013 at 133 facilities.

RESULTS

The adjusted rate of MAC use in the VHA increased 17% per year (odds ratio for increase, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.27) from fiscal year 2000 through 2013. The most rapid increase occurred starting in 2011. VHA use of MAC was associated with patient-level factors that included obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, higher comorbidity, and use of prescription opioids and/or benzodiazepines, although the magnitude of these effects was small. Provider-level and facility factors were also associated with use of MAC, although again the magnitude of these associations was small. Unmeasured facility-level effects had the greatest effect on the trend of MAC use.

CONCLUSIONS

In a retrospective study of veterans who underwent outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy from fiscal year 2000 through 2013, we found that even in a capitated system, patient factors are only weakly associated with use of MAC. Facility-level effects are the most prominent factor influencing increasing use of MAC. Future studies should focus on better defining the role of MAC and facility and organizational factors that affect choice of endoscopic sedation. It will also be important to align resources and incentives to promote appropriate allocation of MAC based on clinically meaningful patient factors.

Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction

Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used, but propofol sedation is becoming more popular because its unique pharmacokinetic properties make endoscopy almost painless, with a very predictable and rapid recovery process. There is controversy as to whether propofol should be administered only by anesthesia professionals (monitored anesthesia care) or whether properly trained non-anesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation. The deployment of non-anesthesia administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall health care costs without sacrificing sedation quality. This review will discuss efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction issues with various modes of sedation for non-advanced, non-emergent endoscopic procedures, mainly esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy.

The First US Clinical Experience With Computer-Assisted Propofol Sedation: A Retrospective Observational Comparative Study on Efficacy, Safety, Efficiency, and Endoscopist and Patient Satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) is now approved for moderate sedation of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I and II patients undergoing routine endoscopy. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS for routine clinical use, we compared patient and endoscopist satisfaction with CAPS versus midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective outpatient upper endoscopy and colonoscopy with CAPS were compared with concurrent patients sedated with MF. The primary end points were patient satisfaction (measured by the validated Patient Sedation Satisfaction Index [PSSI]), and endoscopist satisfaction (Clinician Sedation Satisfaction Index [CSSI]). Secondary end points included procedural success rates, polyp detection rates, adverse events, and procedure/recovery times. Multivariable regression was used for comparative analysis.

RESULTS

CAPS was utilized to sedate 244 patients, of whom 55 underwent upper endoscopy, 173 colonoscopy, and 16 double procedures. During the same period, 75 upper endoscopies, 223 colonoscopies, and 30 doubles were performed with MF on similar patients. For upper endoscopy, the procedural success rate was 98.2% for CAPS versus 98.7% for MF (P = .96), whereas for colonoscopy, the success rate was 98.9% vs 98.8% (P = .59). Colonoscopic polyp detection rate was 54.5% for CAPS and 59.3% for MF (P = .67). Procedure times were similar between CAPS and MF. For CAPS, the mean recovery time was 26.4 vs 39.1 minutes for MF (P < .001). One CAPS patient required mask ventilation, 4 experienced asymptomatic hypotension or desaturation, and 5 experienced marked agitation resulting from undersedation. For MF, 5 patients had hypotension or desaturation, and 8 experienced undersedation. For colonoscopy, the CAPS group had higher PSSI scores for sedation adequacy, the recovery process and global satisfaction, and higher CSSI scores for ease of sedation administration, the recovery process and global satisfaction. For upper endoscopy and doubles, the CAPS CSSI score was higher for the recovery process only. All P values were adjusted for confounding by using regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk patients, CAPS appears to be effective and efficient. CAPS is associated with higher satisfaction than MF for colonoscopies and, to a lesser extent, upper endoscopies.

Bolus Administration of Fentanyl and Midazolam for Colonoscopy Increases Endoscopy Unit Efficiency and Safety Compared With Titrated Sedation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Guidelines recommend slow titration of sedatives for moderate sedation. Bolus sedation, in which a larger weight-based dose of medication is given upfront, has been shown in a single trial to be beneficial. We evaluated the effects of bolus sedation on procedural safety, efficiency, and patient experience.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of colonoscopies performed between April 2010 and April 2011 at Duke Medical Center. Colonoscopies before October 2010 were performed with nurse-directed titration of sedative (n = 966); colonoscopies performed after October 2010 were performed with physician-directed administration of bolus sedative (n = 699). We compared sedation and recovery times, medication doses, and adverse events between groups. We also compared patient satisfaction in a subset of patients from each group. Data were compared using the chi-square test for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous and ordinal categorical variables.

RESULTS

Patients in the bolus group had a shorter sedation time (6.0 min) than patients in the titration group (13.0 min; P < .01) and a slightly longer colonoscopy time (25.0 min vs 24.0 min in the titration group; P < .01). Recovery time did not differ significantly between groups (53.0 min in the bolus group vs 52.1 min in the titration group; P = .07). Patients in the bolus group received lower weight-adjusted doses of fentanyl (1.71 μg/kg vs 1.89 μg/kg in the titration group) and midazolam (0.065 mg/kg vs 0.075 mg/kg in the titration group). A smaller proportion of patients in the bolus sedative group developed hypotension (12.7% vs 17.9% in the titration group; P < .01). These findings persisted even after adjustment for baseline patient age, race, sex, smoking status, alcohol use, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists' classification.

CONCLUSIONS

In a retrospective study of patients undergoing colonoscopy, we found that compared with titrated administration of sedative, bolus dosing improves endoscopy unit efficiency and safety and decreases the amount of sedative required. This benefit does not come at the expense of the patient experience.

A register-based study: adverse events in colonoscopies performed in Sweden 2001-2013

OBJECTIVES

The rates for colonoscopy-associated adverse events vary considerably worldwide. In Sweden, the figures are known to a limited extent. We assessed the frequency of severe colonoscopy-related adverse events and the impacts of different risk factors, including the use of general anaesthesia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective population-based cohort study of the colonoscopies performed during the years 2001-2013 on adults identified in the Swedish health registers. The rates for bleeding, perforation, splenic injury and 30-day mortality were calculated. Covariates for risks were assessed in a multivariate Poisson regression model.

RESULTS

There were 593,315 colonoscopies performed on the 426,560 individuals included in the study. The rates for colonoscopy-related bleeding and perforation were 0.17% and 0.11%, respectively. When polypectomy was performed, the rates were 0.53% for bleeding and 0.25% for perforation. There were 31 splenic injuries (1:20,000 colonoscopies) reported. The crude 30-day death rate for colonoscopy was 0.68%. Of those diagnosed with bleeding or perforation, 5.6% and 6.1% were dead within 30 days, respectively. The multivariate RR for perforation when general anaesthesia was employed was 2.65 (p < .001; 95%CI 1.71-4.12).

CONCLUSIONS

The perforation rate seemed to be relatively high in an international perspective. General anaesthesia was associated with a significantly higher risk for perforation. Splenic injuries were more frequent than expected.

Safety of Large-Volume, Same-Day Oral Bowel Preparations During Deep Sedation: A Prospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy quality is directly related to the bowel preparation. It is well established that bowel preparations are improved when at least part of the laxative is ingested on the day of the procedure. However, there is concern that this can result in higher gastric residual volumes (GRV) and increase the risk of pulmonary aspiration. The aim of this study is to evaluate GRV and gastric pH in patients who received day-before bowel preparation versus those ingesting their laxative on the day of colonoscopy under anesthesiologist-directed propofol deep sedation.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational study for patients undergoing same-day upper endoscopy and colonoscopy. All included patients had large-volume polyethylene glycol lavage preparation and received propofol sedation. Gastric fluid was collected during the upper endoscopy for volume and pH measurement.

RESULTS

The study included 428 patients with 56% receiving same-day laxative preparation and the remainder evening-before preparation. Mean ± SD GRV was 18.1 ± 10.2 mL, 16.3 ± 16.5 mL in each of these preparation groups, respectively (P = .69). GRV ≥ 25 mL or higher than expected GRV adjusted by weight (0.4 mL/kg) were also not different among the study groups (P = .90 and P = .87, respectively). Evaluating GRV based on time since last ingestion of preparation (3-5, 5-7, >7 hours) did not result in any differences (P = .56). Gastric pH was also similar between the bowel preparation groups (P = .23), with mean ± SD of 2.5 ± 1.4 for evening-before and 2.5 ± 1.3 for the same-day preparation. There were more inadequate bowel preparations in day before bowel preparations (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A large-volume bowel preparation regimen finished on the day of colonoscopy as close as 3 hours before the procedure results in no increase in GRV or decrease in gastric pH.

Anesthesia Service Use and the Uptake of Screening Colonoscopies

BACKGROUND

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently defined "screening colonoscopy" to include separately furnished anesthesia services.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between anesthesia service use and the uptake of screening colonoscopies.

STUDY DESIGN

We correlated metropolitan statistical area (MSA) level anesthesia service use rates, derived from the 2008, 2010, and 2012 Medicare and MarketScan claims data, with the presence of individual level guideline concordant screening colonoscopy using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data for the same years.

MEASURES

Proportion of colonoscopies with anesthesia service was calculated at the MSA level. A guideline concordant screening colonoscopy was defined as a colonoscopy received within the past 10 years.

RESULTS

The average MSA level anesthesia service use rate in colonoscopy significantly increased from 25.34% in 2008 to 44.25% in 2012; but only a moderate increase in the rate of guideline concordant colonoscopies was observed, from 57.36% in 2008 to 65.32% in 2012. After adjusting for patient characteristics, we found a nonsignificant negative association between anesthesia service use rate and colonoscopy screening rate, with an odds ratio of 0.90 for receiving a guideline concordant colonoscopy for each percentage point increase in anesthesia service use rate (P=0.27). The relationship between anesthesia service use and the overall colorectal cancer screening rate followed the same pattern and was also not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant association between anesthesia service use and colonoscopy screening or colorectal cancer screening rates was found, suggesting that more evidence is needed to support the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule change.

Anesthesia Practice and Perioperative Outcomes at Two Tertiary Care Hospitals in Freetown, Sierra Leone

BACKGROUND

Anesthesia in West Africa is associated with high mortality rates. Critical shortages of adequately trained personnel, unreliable electrical supply, and lack of basic monitoring equipment are a few of the unique challenges to surgical care in this region. This study aims to describe the anesthesia practice at 2 tertiary care hospitals in Sierra Leone.

METHODS

We conducted an observational study of anesthesia care at Connaught Hospital and Princess Christian Maternity Hospital in Freetown, Sierra Leone. Twenty-five percent of the anesthesia workforce in Sierra Leone, resident at both hospitals, was observed from June 2012 to February 2013. Perioperative assessments, anesthetic techniques, and intraoperative clinical and environmental irregularities were noted and analyzed. The postoperative status of observed cases was ascertained for morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Between the 2 hospitals, 754 anesthesia cases and 373 general anesthetics were observed. Ketamine was the predominant IV anesthetic used. Both hospitals experienced infrastructural and environmental constraints to the delivery of anesthesia care during the observation period. Vital sign monitoring was irregular and dependent on age and availability of monitors. Perioperative mortality during the course of the study was 11.9 deaths/1000 anesthetics.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified gaps in the application of internationally recommended anesthesia practices at both hospitals, likely caused by lack of available resources. Mortality rates were similar to those in other resource-limited countries.

One year experience with computer-assisted propofol sedation for colonoscopy

AIM

To report our one-year experience with computer assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) for colonoscopy as the first United States Medical Center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use.

METHODS

Between September 2014 and August 2015, 2677 patients underwent elective outpatient colonoscopy with CAPS at our center. All colonoscopies were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of the CAPS system, with the assistance of a specially trained nurse. Procedural success rates, polyp detection rates, procedure times and recovery times were recorded and compared against corresponding historical measures from 2286 colonoscopies done with midazolam and fentanyl from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in the CAPS group were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 59.9 years (48.7% male); 31.3% were ASA I, 67.3% ASA II and 1.4% ASA III. 45.1% of the colonoscopies were for screening, 31.5% for surveillance, and 23.4% for symptoms. The mean propofol dose administered was 250.7 mg (range 16-1470 mg), with a mean fentanyl dose of 34.1 mcg (0-100 mcg). The colonoscopy completion and polyp detection rates were similar to that of historical measures. Recovery times were markedly shorter (31 min vs 45.6 min, P < 0.001). In CAPS patients, there were 20 (0.7%) cases of mild desaturation (< 90%) treated with a chin lift and reduction or temporary discontinuation of the propofol infusion, 21 (0.8%) cases of asymptomatic hypotension (< 90 systolic blood pressure) treated with a reduction in the propofol rate, 4 (0.1%) cases of marked agitation or discomfort due to undersedation, and 2 cases of pronounced transient desaturation requiring brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no sedation-related serious adverse events such as emergent intubation, unanticipated hospitalization or permanent injury.

CONCLUSION

CAPS appears to be a safe, effective and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for colonoscopy in relatively healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical measures. There were few adverse events, and no serious adverse events, related to CAPS.

Does deep sedation with propofol affect adenoma detection rates in average risk screening colonoscopy exams?

AIM

To determine the effect of sedation with propofol on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rates (CIR) in average risk screening colonoscopies compared to moderate sedation.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 2604 first-time average risk screening colonoscopies performed at MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2010-2013. ADR and CIR were calculated in each sedation group. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders of age and body mass index (BMI).

RESULTS

One-third of the exams were done with propofol (n = 874). Overall ADR in the propofol group was significantly higher than moderate sedation (46.3% vs 41.2%, P = 0.01). After adjustment for age and BMI differences, ADR was similar between the groups. CIR was 99% for all exams. The mean cecal insertion time was shorter among propofol patients (6.9 min vs 8.2 min; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Deep sedation with propofol for screening colonoscopy did not significantly improve ADR or CIR in our population of average risk patients. While propofol may allow for safer sedation in certain patients (e.g., with sleep apnea), the overall effect on colonoscopy quality metrics is not significant. Given its increased cost, propofol should be used judiciously and without the implicit expectation of a higher quality screening exam.

The early adoption of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and stereotactic body radiation treatment among older Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Several new prostate cancer treatments have emerged since 2000, including 2 radiotherapies with similar efficacy at the time of their introduction: intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The objectives of this study were to compare their early adoption patterns and identify factors associated with their use.

METHODS

By using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, patients who received radiation therapy during the 5 years after IMRT introduction (2001-2005) and the 5 years after SBRT introduction (2007-2011) were identified. The outcome of interest was the receipt of new radiation therapy (ie, IMRT or SBRT) compared with the existing standard radiation therapies at that time. The authors fit a series of multivariable, hierarchical logistic regression models accounting for patients nested within health service areas to examine the factors associated with the receipt of new radiation therapy.

RESULTS

During 2001 to 2005, 5680 men (21%) received IMRT compared with standard radiation (n = 21,555). Men who received IMRT were older, had higher grade tumors, and lived in more populated areas (P < .05). During 2007 through 2011, 595 men (2%) received SBRT compared with standard radiation (n = 28,255). Men who received ng SBRT were more likely to be white, had lower grade tumors, lived in more populated areas, and were more likely to live in the Northeast (P < .05). Adjusting for cohort demographic and clinical factors, the early adoption rate for IMRT was substantially higher than that for SBRT (44% vs 4%; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a stark contrast in the adoption rates of IMRT and SBRT at the time of their introduction. Further investigation of the nonclinical factors associated with this difference is warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2945-54. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Variations in Preoperative Use of Bone Scan Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Radical Cystectomy

OBJECTIVE

To examine factors associated with bone scan use in patients undergoing radical cystectomy and to assess trends in use over time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, we identified 5573 patients who underwent radical cystectomy from 2004 to 2011. The primary outcome was completion of a bone scan within 6 months prior to surgery. Demographic, regional, and clinicopathologic predictors of bone scan use were examined using a mixed logit model with health service area as a random effect.

RESULTS

Among radical cystectomy patients, 1754 (31%) completed a preoperative bone scan. Urologists ordered most of these studies (69%). The adjusted probability of a patient undergoing a bone scan decreased from 0.40 in 2004 to 0.29 in 2011 (P = .01). Compared with patients in the northeast region, those in the south, central, and west regions were less likely to have a bone scan (P <.001). Compared with those with stage ≤T1, patients with higher stage disease were more likely to have a bone scan (P <.001). Among the highest volume surgeons, there was significant variation in the proportion of patients who completed preoperative bone scans (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Despite a recent decline, bone scans are used frequently in the preoperative staging of bladder cancer. Although some clinical factors are associated with bone scan use, significant regional and provider variation suggest areas to improve standardization of practice.

Anesthesia Service Use During Outpatient Gastroenterology Procedures Continued to Increase From 2010 to 2013 and Potentially Discretionary Spending Remained High

OBJECTIVES

Previous studies have identified an increasing number of gastroenterology (GI) procedures using anesthesia services to provide sedation, with a majority of these services delivered to low-risk patients. The aim of this study was to update these trends with the most recent years of data.

METHODS

We used Medicare and commercial claims data from 2010 to 2013 to identify GI procedures and anesthesia services based on CPT codes, which were linked together using patient identifiers and dates of service. We defined low-risk patients as those who were classified as ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status class I or II. For those patients without an ASA class listed on the claim, we used a prediction algorithm to impute an ASA physical status.

RESULTS

Over 6.6 million patients in our sample had a GI procedure between 2010 and 2013. GI procedures involving anesthesia service accounted for 33.7% in 2010 and 47.6% in 2013 in Medicare patients, and 38.3% in 2010 and 53.0% in 2013 in commercially insured patients. Overall, as more patients used anesthesia services, total anesthesia service use in low-risk patients increased 14%, from 27,191 to 33,181 per million Medicare enrollees. Similarly, we observed a nearly identical uptick in commercially insured patients from 15,871 to 22,247 per million, an increase of almost 15%. During 2010-2013, spending associated with anesthesia services in low-risk patients increased from US$3.14 million to US$3.45 million per million Medicare enrollees and from US$7.69 million to US$10.66 million per million commercially insured patients.

CONCLUSIONS

During 2010 to 2013, anesthesia service use in GI procedures continued to increase and the proportion of these services rendered for low-risk patients remained high.

Editorial: Endoscopic Sedation: Who, Which, When?

The costs of medical care are rising and media has focused attention on the costs of colonoscopy as a potential cause. A major component of procedural costs is the sedation, which is a combination of the drugs used and who administers them. An analysis of advanced endoscopic procedures revealed that the rate of sedation failure was significantly lower among patients administered sedation by anesthesia compared with patients who received moderate sedation administered by endoscopy staff. The authors argue that all endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) should be performed with anesthesia-administered sedation. Balancing this argument, another paper reported a significant increase in the proportion of endoscopic procedures performed with anesthesia assistance with the majority being performed in low-risk patients. Propofol and who administers the drug will be a key issue in managing health-care costs.

Anesthetist-Directed Sedation Favors Success of Advanced Endoscopic Procedures

OBJECTIVES

Sedation is required to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) given the duration and complexity of these advanced procedures. Sedation options include anesthetist-directed sedation (ADS) vs. gastroenterologist-directed sedation (GDS). Although ADS has been shown to shorten induction and recovery times, it is not established whether it impacts likelihood of procedure completion. Our aim was to assess whether ADS impacts the success of advanced endoscopy procedures.

METHODS

We prospectively assessed the sedation strategy for patients undergoing ERCP and EUS between October 2010 and October 2013. Although assignment to ADS vs. GDS was not randomized, it was determined by day of the week. A sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching was used to model a randomized trial. The main outcome, procedure failure, was defined as an inability to satisfactorily complete the ERCP or EUS such that an additional endoscopic, radiographic, or surgical procedure was required. Failure was further categorized as failure due to inadequate sedation vs. technical problems.

RESULTS

During the 3-year study period, 60% of the 1,171 procedures were carried out with GDS and 40% were carried out with ADS. Failed procedures occurred in 13.0% of GDS cases compared with 8.9% of ADS procedures (multivariate odds ratio (OR): 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5-3.6)).This was driven by a higher rate of sedation failures in the GDS group, 7.0%, than in the ADS group, 1.3% (multivariate OR: 7.8 (95% CI: 3.3-18.8)). There was no difference in technical success between the GDS and ADS groups (multivariate OR: 1.2 (95% CI: 0.7-1.9)). We were able to match 417 GDS cases to 417 ADS cases based on procedure type, indication, and propensity score. Analysis of the propensity score-matched patients confirmed our findings of increased sedation failure (multivariate OR: 8.9 (95% CI: 2.5-32.1)) but not technical failure (multivariate OR: 1.2 (0.7-2.2)) in GDS compared with ADS procedures. Adverse events of sedation were rare in both groups. Failed ERCP in the GDS group resulted in a total of 93 additional days of hospitalization. We estimate that $67,891 would have been saved if ADS had been used for all ERCP procedures. No statistically significant difference in EUS success was identified, although this sub-analysis was limited by sample size.

CONCLUSION

ADS improves the success of advanced endoscopic procedures. Its routine use may increase the quality and efficiency of these services.

Patient safety during sedation by anesthesia professionals during routine upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: an analysis of 1.38 million procedures

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Sedation for GI endoscopy directed by anesthesia professionals (ADS) is used with the intention of improving throughput and patient satisfaction. However, data on its safety are sparse because of the lack of adequately powered, randomized controlled trials comparing it with endoscopist-directed sedation (EDS). This study was intended to determine whether ADS provides a safety advantage when compared with EDS for EGD and colonoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective, nonrandomized, observational cohort study used the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative National Endoscopic Database, a network of 84 sites in the United States composed of academic, community, health maintenance organization, military, and Veterans Affairs practices. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were defined as any event requiring administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, hospital or emergency department admission, administration of rescue/reversal medication, emergency surgery, procedure termination because of an adverse event, intraprocedural adverse events requiring intervention, or blood transfusion.

RESULTS

There were 1,388,235 patients in this study that included 880,182 colonoscopy procedures (21% ADS) and 508,053 EGD procedures (23% ADS) between 2002 and 2013. When compared with EDS, the propensity-adjusted SAE risk for patients receiving ADS was similar for colonoscopy (OR, .93; 95% CI, .82-1.06) but higher for EGD (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.18-1.50). Additionally, with further stratification by American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, the use of ADS was associated with a higher SAE risk for ASA I/II and ASA III subjects undergoing EGD and showed no difference for either group undergoing colonoscopy. The sample size was not sufficient to make a conclusion regarding ASA IV/V patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the confines of the SAE definitions used, use of anesthesia professionals does not appear to bring a safety benefit to patients receiving colonoscopy and is associated with an increased SAE risk for ASA I, II, and III patients undergoing EGD.

High-flow nasal oxygen availability for sedation decreases the use of general anesthesia during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound

AIM

To examine whether high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) availability influences the use of general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and associated outcomes.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, patients were stratified into 3 eras between October 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014 based on HFNO availability for deep sedation at the time of their endoscopy. During the first and last 3-mo eras (era 1 and 3), no HFNO was available, whereas it was an option during the second 3-mo era (era 2). The primary outcome was the percent utilization of GA vs deep sedation in each period. Secondary outcomes included oxygen saturation nadir during sedation between periods, as well as procedure duration, and anesthesia-only time between periods and for GA vs sedation cases respectively.

RESULTS

During the study period 238 ERCP or EUS cases were identified for analysis. Statistical testing was employed and a P < 0.050 was significant unless the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was used. General anesthesia use was significantly lower in era 2 compared to era 1 with the same trend between era 2 and 3 (P = 0.012 and 0.045 respectively). The oxygen saturation nadir during sedation was significantly higher in era 2 compared to era 3 (P < 0.001) but not between eras 1 and 2 (P = 0.028) or 1 and 3 (P = 0.069). The procedure time within each era was significantly longer under GA compared to deep sedation (P≤ 0.007) as was the anesthesia-only time (P≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSION

High-flow nasal oxygen availability was associated with decreased GA utilization and improved oxygenation for ERCP and EUS during sedation.

Room for Quality Improvement in Endoscopist-Directed Sedation: Results from the First Nationwide Survey in Korea

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study sought to characterize the current sedation practices of Korean endoscopists in real-world settings.

METHODS

All active members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy were invited to complete an anonymous 35-item questionnaire.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 22.7% (1,332/5,860). Propofol-based sedation was the dominant method used in both elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy (55.6%) and colonoscopy (52.6%). The mean satisfaction score for propofol-based sedation was significantly higher than that for standard sedation in both examinations (all p<0.001). The use of propofol was supervised exclusively by endoscopists (98.6%). Endoscopists practicing in nonacademic settings, gastroenterologists, or endoscopists with.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopist-directed propofol administration is the predominant sedation method used in Korea. This survey strongly suggests that there is much room for quality improvement regarding sedation training and patient vigilance in endoscopist-directed sedation.

Safety of Propofol Used as a Rescue Agent During Colonoscopy

GOAL

The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety of propofol when used by gastroenterologists in patients who have an inadequate response to standard sedation (narcotics and benzodiazepines).

BACKGROUND

Many patients fail to achieve adequate sedation from narcotics and benzodiazepines during colonoscopy. The administration of propofol for colonoscopy is increasing, although its use by gastroenterologists is controversial.

STUDY

We performed a retrospective review of our hospital's colonoscopy records from January 2006 to December 2009 to identify 403 subjects undergoing screening colonoscopies who required propofol (20 to 30 mg every 3 min as needed) because of inadequate response to standard sedation. We also randomly selected 403 controls undergoing screening colonoscopies from the same time period that only required standard sedation. The incidence of adverse effects was then compared.

RESULTS

There were no major adverse events in either group. The rates of minor adverse events in the propofol and control group were 0.02 and 0.01, respectively (P=0.56). Adverse effects in the propofol group included: transient hypotension (n=1), nausea/vomiting (n=3), agitation (n=2), and rash (n=1). Adverse effects seen with standard sedation included: transient hypotension (n=2), nausea/vomiting (n=1), and oversedation (n=2). Patients who received propofol were more likely to be younger, had a history of illicit drug use, and a longer procedure time (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive propofol administered by gastroenterologist for conscious sedation was not associated with increased incidence of adverse events. It may be of value in patients who do not respond to conventional sedation.

Sedation in the Ambulatory Endoscopy Center: Optimizing Safety, Expectations and Throughput

In the United States, sedation and analgesia are the standard of practice when endoscopic procedures are performed in the ambulatory endoscopy center. Over the last 30 years, there has been a dramatic shift of endoscopic procedures from the hospital outpatient department to ambulatory endoscopy centers. This article will discuss sedation and analgesia in the ambulatory endoscopy center as it relates to optimizing safety, patient expectations, and efficiency.

Preprocedural Assessment for Sedation in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The role of the anesthesia service in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) has been steadily increasing. The goals of preprocedural assessment are determined by the specific details of the procedure, the issues related to the illness that requires the endoscopy, comorbidities, the goals for sedation, and the risk of complications from the sedation and the endoscopic procedure. Rather than consider these issues as separate entities, they should be considered as part of a continuum of preparation for GIE. This is told from the perspective of an anesthesiologist who regularly participates in the full range of sedation for GIE.

Endoscopic Sedation: Medicolegal Considerations

Goals of endoscopic sedation are to provide patients with a successful procedure, and ensure that they remain safe and are relieved from anxiety and discomfort; agents should provide efficient, appropriate sedation and allow patients to recover rapidly. Sedation is usually safe and effective; however, complications may ensue. This paper outlines some medicolegal aspects of endoscopic sedation, including informed consent, possible withdrawal of consent during the procedure, standard of care for monitoring sedation, use of anesthesia personnel to deliver sedation, and new agents and devices.

Training and Competency in Sedation Practice in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The practice of endoscopic sedation requires a thorough understanding of preprocedural assessment, sedation pharmacology, intraprocedure monitoring, adverse event management, and postprocedural care. The training process has become increasingly standardized and entails knowledge and practice-based components. The use of propofol in particular requires a higher level of structured training owing to its narrow therapeutic window. Simulation has increased opportunities for practice-based training in a controlled environment. After completion of training, the endoscopist must demonstrate competence in theoretical understanding and technical ability to administer sedation. Although individual institutions have certification processes, there is a lack of validated, standardized methods to confirm competence.

Sedation in the Endoscopy Suite

OPINION STATEMENT

Sedation practices in the endoscopy suite have changed dramatically in the decades since the introduction of routine colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Patients initially received moderate sedation (or even no sedation), but now frequently receive monitored anesthesia care (MAC). This significant shift has introduced anesthesiologists to the endoscopy suite along with new sedative medications and safety concerns. Appreciating the ramifications of this change requires an understanding of sedation depth, patient selection, drug use, sedation delivery, patient monitoring, recovery from sedation, and patient outcomes. Furthermore, the changing landscape of healthcare quality and reimbursement challenges us to provide the best possible care for our patients in the most economical way possible. The endoscopy suite is a unique sedation environment, and it is the purpose of this article to review those elements that contribute to a uniquely demanding work environment.

Risks Associated With Anesthesia Services During Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We aimed to quantify the difference in complications from colonoscopy with vs without anesthesia services.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study and analyzed administrative claims data from Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Research Databases from 2008 through 2011. We identified 3,168,228 colonoscopy procedures in men and women, aged 40-64 years old. Colonoscopy complications were measured within 30 days, including colonic (ie, perforation, hemorrhage, abdominal pain), anesthesia-associated (ie, pneumonia, infection, complications secondary to anesthesia), and cardiopulmonary outcomes (ie, hypotension, myocardial infarction, stroke), adjusted for age, sex, polypectomy status, Charlson comorbidity score, region, and calendar year.

RESULTS

Nationwide, 34.4% of colonoscopies were conducted with anesthesia services. Rates of use varied significantly by region (53% in the Northeast vs 8% in the West; P < .0001). Use of anesthesia service was associated with a 13% increase in the risk of any complication within 30 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.14), and was associated specifically with an increased risk of perforation (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), hemorrhage (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.27-1.30), abdominal pain (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), complications secondary to anesthesia (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.28), and stroke (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.08). For most outcomes, there were no differences in risk with anesthesia services by polypectomy status. However, the risk of perforation associated with anesthesia services was increased only in patients with a polypectomy (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.09-1.52). In the Northeast, use of anesthesia services was associated with a 12% increase in risk of any complication; among colonoscopies performed in the West, use of anesthesia services was associated with a 60% increase in risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall risk of complications after colonoscopy increases when individuals receive anesthesia services. The widespread adoption of anesthesia services with colonoscopy should be considered within the context of all potential risks.

Modeling the costs and benefits of capnography monitoring during procedural sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The addition of capnography to procedural sedation/analgesia (PSA) guidelines has been controversial due to limited evidence of clinical utility in moderate PSA and cost concerns.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A comprehensive model of PSA during gastrointestinal endoscopy was developed to capture adverse events (AEs), guideline interventions, outcomes, and costs. Randomized, controlled trials and large-scale studies were used to inform the model. The model compared outcomes using pulse oximetry alone with pulse oximetry plus capnography. Pulse oximetry was assumed at no cost, whereas capnography cost USD 4,000 per monitor. AE costs were obtained from literature review and Premier database analysis. The model population (n = 8,000) had mean characteristics of age 55.5 years, body mass index 26.2 kg/m(2), and 45.3 % male.

RESULTS

The addition of capnography resulted in a 27.2 % and 18.0 % reduction in the proportion of patients experiencing an AE during deep and moderate PSA, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated significant reductions in apnea and desaturation with capnography. The median (95 % credible interval) number needed to treat to avoid any adverse event was 8 (2; 72) for deep and 6 (-59; 92) for moderate. Reduced AEs resulted in cost savings that accounted for the additional upfront purchase cost. Capnography was estimated to reduce the cost per procedure by USD 85 (deep) or USD 35 (moderate).

CONCLUSIONS

Capnography is estimated to be cost-effective if not cost saving during PSA for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Savings were driven by improved patient safety, suggesting that capnography may have an important role in the safe provision of PSA.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Reversal Agent Use in Moderate Sedation During Endoscopy and Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Moderate sedation has been standard for noninvasive gastrointestinal procedures for decades yet there are limited data on reversal agent use and outcomes associated with need for reversal of sedation.

AIM

To determine prevalence and clinical significance of reversal agent use during endoscopies and colonoscopies.

METHODS

Individuals with adverse events requiring naloxone and/or flumazenil during endoscopy or colonoscopy from 2008 to 2013 were identified. A control group was obtained by random selection of patients matched by procedure type and date. Prevalence of reversal agent use and statistical comparison of patient demographics and risk factors against controls were determined.

RESULTS

Prevalence of reversal agent use was 0.03% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.02-0.04]. Events triggering reversal use were oxygen desaturation (64.4%), respiration changes (24.4%), hypotension (8.9%), and bradycardia (6.7%). Two patients required escalation of care and the majority of patients were stabilized and discharged home. Compared with the control group, the reversal group was older (61±1.8 vs. 55±1.6, P=0.01), mostly female (82% vs. 50%, P<0.01), and had lower body mass index (24±0.8 vs. 27±0.7, P=0.03) but received similar dosages of sedation. When adjusted for age, race, sex, and body mass index, the odds of reversal agent patients having a higher ASA score than controls was 4.7 (95% CI, 1.7-13.1), and the odds of having a higher Mallampati score than controls was 5.0 (95% CI, 2.1-11.7) with P<0.01.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of reversal agent use during moderate sedation is low and outcomes are generally good. Several clinically relevant risk factors for reversal agent use were found suggesting that certain groups may benefit from closer monitoring.

Safety of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy With Conscious Sedation in Patients With and Without Obstructive Sleep Apnea

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) undergoing endoscopy with sedation are considered by practitioners to be at a higher risk for cardiopulmonary complications. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety of conscious sedation in patients with OSA undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is an IRB-approved prospective cohort study performed at the James A. Haley VA. A total of 248 patients with confirmed moderate or severe OSA by polysomnography and 252 patients without OSA were enrolled. Cardiopulmonary variables such as heart rate, blood pressure, and level of blood oxygen saturation were recorded at 3-minute intervals throughout the endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

In total, 302 colonoscopies, 119 esophagogastroduodenoscopies, 6 flexible sigmoidoscopies, and 60 esophagogastroduodenoscopy/colonoscopies were performed. None of the patients in the study required endotracheal intubation, pharmacologic reversal, or experienced an adverse outcome as a result of changes in blood pressure, heart rate, or blood oxygen saturation. There were no significant differences in the rate of tachycardia (P=0.749), bradycardia (P=0.438), hypotension (systolic/diastolic, P=0.460; mean arterial pressure, P=0.571), or hypoxia (P=0.787) between groups. The average length of time spent in each procedure and the average dose of sedation administered also did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the presumed increased risk of cardiopulmonary complications, patients with OSA who undergo endoscopy with conscious sedation have clinically insignificant variations in cardiopulmonary parameters that do not differ from those without OSA. Costly preventative measures in patients with OSA are not warranted.