Sedation and the technical performance of colonoscopy

Colonoscopy practice in Italy: a prospective survey on behalf of the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists

BACKGROUND

Examining the current practice is important for the benchmarking of quality of colonoscopy and the comparison with the standards and recommendations expected by professional societies.

AIM

To describe colonoscopy practice in Italy, on the basis of prospective analysis of a large number of examinations performed by operators with different levels of expertise in a wide range of unselected centres.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional, prospective and multicentre study.

METHODS

The main features of each endoscopy centre (structure indicators) were collected through the use of a standardised questionnaire. A second questionnaire was used to prospectively record details of all the consecutive colonoscopies performed in a 2-week study period.

RESULTS

Data from 278 centres and 12,835 consecutive colonoscopies were evaluated. Centres were uniformly distributed throughout Italy - north, centre and south - as was their organizational complexity and workload. Overall, adequate facilities (i.e. cleaning area for disinfection/reprocessing, equipped recovery room), and safety equipment (i.e. pulse oximetry, equipment for emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation) were lacking in a considerable amount of centres, especially in those with a lower degree of organizational complexity. Written informed consent was routinely required in 87% of the centres, but a specific consent for colonoscopy, including detailed information on adverse events, was adopted by 66%. Regular programs for recording some quality indicators (i.e. cecal intubation, quality of bowel cleansing, patients' satisfaction and complications) were implemented in a minority of centres. About 93% of the colonoscopies were performed for diagnostic purpose; screening and surveillance accounted for 13.7% and 25.3% of the indications, respectively. Sedation and/or analgesia was administered in about half of the patients. Overall, colonoscopies were completed to the cecum in 80.7% of cases, and only 22.1% of the centres reported a cecal intubation rate >or=90%; this figure was reported in 33.1% of centres with high-organizational complexity and in 14.4% of outpatient units. The overall incidence of immediate complications was low (2 perforations, 26 bleedings and 32 serious cardiorespiratory complications).

CONCLUSIONS

This study documented a wide variation in colonoscopy practice between centres and highlighted problem areas where interventions are needed to improve performance and safety of the examinations.

An assessment of computer-assisted personalized sedation: a sedation delivery system to administer propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Demand for colonoscopy and EGD procedures is increasing. Impediments to performing these examinations persist. Patients perceive these procedures as unpleasant and painful. The use of suboptimal sedatives results in inefficiency in endoscopy practices. Improving sedation methods utilizing precise control of preferred sedatives may increase patient satisfaction and practice efficiency.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to demonstrate the feasibility of computer-assisted personalized sedation (CAPS) for facilitating the precise administration of propofol by endoscopist/nurse teams, achieving minimal to moderate sedation in subjects undergoing routine endoscopies.

DESIGN

Open label, single-center studies.

SETTING

Endoscopy clinics in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Gent, Belgium.

SUBJECTS

Twenty-four adults per center; 12 colonoscopies, 12 EGDs.

INTERVENTIONS

Propofol sedation with CAPS by endoscopist/registered nurse care teams.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sedation level measured by modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (MOAA/S), recovery time measured from endoscope removal until Aldrete >/= 12, dosage of propofol, oxygen saturation, and safety assessments.

RESULTS

Subjects responded to mild tactile and verbal stimuli MOAA/S = 5, 4, 3, or 2) 99% of the time. Mean propofol doses in the United States and Belgium were 65.4 and 72.1 mg, respectively. Mean recovery times were 29 and 10 seconds, respectively. Oxygen desaturation occurred in only 6% of subjects. No device-related adverse events occurred.

LIMITATION

Open-label design.

CONCLUSIONS

Using CAPS, the endoscopist/nurse teams precisely controlled the administration of propofol achieving minimal to moderate sedation in subjects undergoing colonoscopy and EGD procedures. Mean propofol dosage was low and post-procedure recovery times were rapid. The device performed well when operated by the endoscopist/nurse team, with no device-related adverse events.

A motor-driven single-use colonoscope controlled with a hand-held device: a feasibility study in volunteers

BACKGROUND

Several new instruments have been developed in the effort to improve the acceptance of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. A new colonoscope, the Invendoscope, is presented here. It consists of an endoscopic sheath with an inverted sleeve, instrument channel, and an electrohydraulic deflecting tip. The instrument is steered by a hand-held device and propelled by a motorized drive unit.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to evaluate the feasibility of the new Invendoscope SC40.

DESIGN

Prospective single-arm pilot study over 2 time periods using 2 different instrument prototypes (170 and 180/200 cm).

PATIENTS

Thirty-four healthy volunteers (19 men, mean age 49.7 years). Technical instrument defects led to premature termination in 5 additional volunteers during the 2 study periods (4 in phase 1, 1 in phase 2), who were excluded from further analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

Total colonoscopy was attempted, with all procedures being performed without sedation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Cecal intubation rate.

RESULTS

The cecum was reached in 82% of the 34 cases (95% CI, 66%-92%), with better results in period 2 than in period 1 (90% vs 79%); of the 6 incomplete examinations, 4 reached the mid transverse colon or beyond and 2 were stopped in the sigmoid colon because of pain. The volunteer rating showed a mean score of 1.96 (range 1-6; 1 = no discomfort). No complications were encountered.

LIMITATIONS

No data regarding diagnostic accuracy and no data comparing the instrument with conventional colonoscopy are available as yet.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot proof-of-principle study of a new motor-driven colonoscope showed promising cecal intubation rates and an absence of pain in 92% of cases. Further clinical and comparative studies are warranted.

Methods of reducing discomfort during colonoscopy

In the United States sedation for colonoscopy is usual practice. Unsedated colonoscopy is limited to a small proportion of unescorted patients and those with a personal preference for no sedation. Over 80% of patients who accept the option of as-needed sedation can complete colonoscopy without sedation. Colonoscopy in these unsedated patients is performed with techniques similar to those used in the sedated patients. Uncontrolled observations indicate willingness to repeat colonoscopy amongst these patients was correlated significantly with low discomfort score during the examination. Methods reported to minimize patient discomfort or enhance cecal intubation during sedated or unsedated colonoscopy included use of pediatric colonoscope, variable stiffness colonoscope, gastroscope, and inhalation of nitrous oxide or insufflation of carbon dioxide, hypnosis, music, audio distraction, or simply allowing the patients to participate in administration of the medication. Research focusing on confirming the efficacy of a simple inexpensive nonmedication dependent method for minimizing discomfort will likely improve the outcome of care and more importantly will ensure compliance with future surveillance in patients accepting the unsedated option.

Technical performance of colonoscopy: the key role of sedation/analgesia and other quality indicators

BACKGROUND

It is essential to identify the factors in clinical practice that influence the technical performance of colonoscopy as a basis for quality improvement programs.

AIMS

To assess the factors linked to two key indicators of colonoscopy performance, i.e., cecal intubation and polyp diagnosis.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Consecutives colonoscopies performed over a 2-wk period in 278 unselected practice sites throughout Italy were prospectively evaluated. A multivariate model was developed to identify determinants of the performance indicators of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

In total, 12,835 patients (mean age 60.5 yr, standard deviation [SD] 15.1, 53% men) were studied. Sedation and/or analgesia was administered in 55.3% of procedures: 28.8% of patients received intravenous (IV) benzodiazepines, 15.4% received benzodiazepines in combination with narcotics, 3.1% received propofol, and 7.5% received other sedation regimens. Overall, cecal intubation was achieved in 80.7% of procedures, and the polyp detection rate was 27.3%. Multivariate analysis showed that the strongest predictors of cecal intubation were the quality of bowel preparation (inadequate vs excellent: odds ratio [OR] 0.013, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.009-0.018; fair vs excellent: OR 0.246, 95% CI 0.209-0.290; and good vs excellent: OR 0.586, 95% CI 0.514-0.667) and the use of sedation (IV benzodiazepines vs no sedation: OR 1.460, 95% CI 1.282-1.663; IV benzodiazepines and narcotics vs no sedation: OR 2.128, 95% CI 1.776-2.565; and propofol vs no sedation: OR 2.355, 95% CI 1.590-3.488). The colonoscopy setting (workload and organizational complexity of the center) and the endoscopist colonoscopy volume were other factors independently correlated with completion of the procedure. Detection of polyps partially depended on the quality of bowel cleansing (inadequate vs excellent: OR 0.511, 95% CI 0.404-0.647) and use of sedation (OR 1.172, 95% CI 1.074-1.286).

CONCLUSION

In usual clinical practice, the use of sedation/analgesia, the colon-cleansing quality, the endoscopist experience, and some features related to the colonscopy setting decisively influence the quality of colonoscopy. These factors indicate the targets of future corrective measures to boost the quality of this examination.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Numerous agents are available for moderate sedation in endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to compare efficacy, safety, and efficiency of agents used for moderate sedation in EGD or colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Systematic review of computerized bibliographic databases for randomized trials of moderate sedation that compared 2 active regimens or 1 active regimen with placebo or no sedation.

PATIENTS

Unselected adults undergoing EGD or colonoscopy with a goal of moderate sedation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sedation-related complications, patient assessments (satisfaction, pain, memory, willingness to repeat examination), physician assessments (satisfaction, level of sedation, patient cooperation, examination quality), and procedure-related efficiency outcomes (sedation, procedure, or recovery time).

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies (N = 3918 patients) were included. Sedation improved patient satisfaction (relative risk [RR] = 2.29, range 1.16-4.53) and willingness to repeat EGD (RR = 1.25, range 1.13-1.38) versus no sedation. Midazolam provided superior patient satisfaction to diazepam (RR = 1.18, range 1.07-1.29) and less frequent memory of EGD (RR = 0.57, range 0.50-0.60) versus diazepam. Adverse events and patient/physician assessments were not significantly different for midazolam (with or without narcotics) versus propofol except for slightly less patient satisfaction (RR = 0.90, range 0.83-0.97) and more frequent memory (RR = 3.00, range 1.25-7.21) with midazolam plus narcotics. Procedure times were similar, but sedation and recovery times were shorter with propofol than midazolam-based regimens.

LIMITATIONS

Marked variability in design, regimens tested, and outcomes assessed; relatively poor methodologic quality (Jadad score </=3 in 23/36 trials).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation provides a high level of physician and patient satisfaction and a low risk of serious adverse events with all currently available agents. Midazolam-based regimens have longer sedation and recovery times than does propofol.

Involvement of trainees in routine unsedated colonoscopy: review of a pilot experience

BACKGROUND

Unsedated colonoscopy is not required by the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education in the curriculum of GI trainees.

OBJECTIVE

We describe our pilot experience with trainee participation in unsedated colonoscopy.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of a performance improvement program to provide access to colonoscopy.

SETTING

A Veteran's Affair ambulatory care facility that discontinued sedated colonoscopy because of a nursing shortage.

PATIENTS

A total of 145 of 483 patients who chose unsedated colonoscopy after both sedated and unsedated options were discussed.

INTERVENTIONS

GI fellows performed unsedated colonoscopy under the supervision of the attending physician.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Cecal intubation rate, patient assessment of the reasons for the choice, the unsedated experience, willingness to have another colonoscopy, and the rate of return for unsedated colonoscopy among eligible patients.

RESULTS

Cecal intubation was achieved in 112 of 145 patients. The adjusted success rate (excluding inadequate bowel preparation and an obstructing lesion) was 81%. The most frequently acknowledged reason for the choice was the ability to communicate with the colonoscopist. Eighty-six patients reported a good experience and were likely to accept another unsedated colonoscopy. To date, all 8 patients eligible for 3-year follow-up successfully completed another unsedated examination.

LIMITATION

An uncontrolled, nonrandomized review in predominantly male older veterans.

CONCLUSIONS

An unsedated colonoscopy might be acceptable to some populations, particularly when communication with clinicians and procedural convenience are highly valued. Involvement of trainees is feasible. Randomized controlled comparisons of sedated and unsedated options in terms of safety (eg, sedation and procedure-related complications) and cost in settings with and without a nursing shortage deserve to be considered.

Options for screening colonoscopy without sedation: sequel to a pilot study in U.S. veterans

BACKGROUND

Sedation on demand combined with a novel water infusion technique enabled 23 of 44 veterans to complete screening colonoscopy without sedation.

OBJECTIVE

With use of the usual air insufflation technique, we determined the proportion of patients who could complete colonoscopy without sedation.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data in a performance improvement project to minimize the burden of sedation.

SETTING

A Veterans Affairs open access screening colonoscopy program.

SUBJECTS

Ninety-three consecutive veterans who accepted on-demand sedation or scheduled no sedation.

METHOD

Usual air insufflation during colonoscope insertion. Medications were administered at the veteran's request.

RESULTS

Twenty-three veterans chose scheduled unsedated colonoscopy; 22 were completed without sedation. Sedation on demand enabled 54 to complete the procedure without medications; 16 requested medications to complete colonoscopy. Nurses' expectations indicated that the choices were credible options.

CONCLUSIONS

Options for screening colonoscopy without sedation combined with usual air insufflation are feasible among U.S. veterans. Confirmation by randomized controlled trial and evaluation of the impact on institutional costs and patient adherence to screening and surveillance colonoscopy deserve to be considered.

Small caliber overtube-assisted colonoscopy

AIM: To combine the benefits of a new thin flexible scope with elimination of excessive looping through the use of an overtube.

METHODS: Three separate retrospective series. Series 1: 25 consecutive male patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopy using the new device at a Veteran’s hospital in the United States. Series 2: 75 male patients undergoing routine colonoscopy using an adult colonoscope, pediatric colonoscope, or the new device. Series 3: 35 patients who had incomplete colonoscopies using standard instruments.

RESULTS: Complete colonoscopy was achieved in all 25 patients in the unsedated series with a median cecal intubation time of 6 min and a median maximal pain score of 3 on a 0-10 scale. In the 75 routine cases, there was significantly less pain with the thin scope compared to standard adult and pediatric colonoscopes. Of the 35 patients in the previously incomplete colonoscopy series, 33 were completed with the new system.

CONCLUSION: Small caliber overtube-assisted colonoscopy is less painful than colonoscopy with standard adult and pediatric colonoscopes. Male patients could undergo unsedated colonoscopy with the new system with relatively little pain. The new device is also useful for most patients in whom colonoscopy cannot be completed with standard instruments.

Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: a population-based study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer sets a target of cecal intubation in at least 90% of colonoscopies. We conducted a population-based study to determine the colonoscopy completion rate and to identify factors associated with incomplete procedures.

METHODS

Men and women 50 to 74 years of age who underwent a colonoscopy in Ontario between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2003, were identified. The first (index) colonoscopy was classified as complete or incomplete. A generalized estimating equations model was used to evaluate the association between patient, endoscopist (specialty, colonoscopy volume), and setting (academic hospital, community hospital, private office) factors and incomplete colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 331,608 individuals had an index colonoscopy, of which 43,483 (13.1%) were incomplete. Patients with an incomplete colonoscopy were older (odds ratio [OR] 1.20 per 10-year increment; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.18-1.22), more likely to be female (OR 1.35; 95% CI: 1.30-1.39), have a history of prior abdominal surgery (OR 1.07; 95% CI: 1.05-1.09) or prior pelvic surgery (OR 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01-1.06). For colonoscopies done in a private office, the odds of an incomplete procedure were more than 3-fold greater than for procedures done in an academic hospital (OR 3.57; 95% CI: 2.55-4.98).

CONCLUSIONS

In usual clinical practice in Ontario, 13.1% of colonoscopies are incomplete. The factors most strongly associated with incomplete colonoscopy were increased patient age, female sex, and having the procedure in a private office. Quality improvement programs are needed to improve colonoscopy completion rates.

Computer-assisted colonoscopy (the NeoGuide Endoscopy System): results of the first human clinical trial ("PACE study")

OBJECTIVES

Unsedated colonoscopy is an uncomfortable procedure for most patients. Discomfort during colonoscopy is largely related to looping of the colonoscope, which displaces the colon from its native configuration and stretches attachments to the mesentery. A novel computer-assisted colonoscope utilizes a fully articulated, computer-controlled insertion tube. On manual insertion of the colonoscope, the position and angle of the scope's tip are encoded into a computer algorithm. As the colonoscope is advanced, the computer directs each successive segment to take the same shape that the tip had at a given insertion depth. The insertion tube thus changes its shape at different insertion depths in a "follow-the-leader" manner.

METHODS

This initial clinical trial with this novel colonoscopy system was designed as a prospective, nonrandomized, unblinded, feasibility study. Three physicians of varying levels of experience participated in the study.

RESULTS

Eleven consecutive patients (seven men, four women, age range 19-80) meeting inclusion criteria for screening or diagnostic colonoscopy were enrolled in the study. The cecum was reached in 10 consecutive patients (100%). Findings included diverticular disease in two cases and multiple colonic polyps in two cases. Postprocedure assessment at discharge, 48 h, and 30 days revealed no complications or adverse effects. Physician satisfaction and patient acceptance of this new technique were high.

CONCLUSIONS

In this limited, first of its kind feasibility study, the computer-assisted colonoscope was shown to perform colonoscopy safely and effectively. The colonoscope's unique design limited loop formation during colonoscopy. Large-scale clinical trials are indicated.

Sedation in endoscopic practice

Sedation impacts every aspect of endoscopy practice--the quality fo the examination, the satisfaction of endoscopist and of patient, the efficiency and cost of delivering services, and the compliance of patients with surveillance guidelines. New sedation agents and improved patient-monitoring and drug-delivery technologies are challenging traditional practices. Increasing demand for endoscopic services, shrinking reimbursements, and competing diagnostic technologies are prompting recognition that new approaches to sedation can improve practice efficiency and patient outcome. This article discusses new developments in endoscopic sedation and their implications for practice management.

Sedation for endoscopic procedures: not as simple as it seems

The Bispectral Index (BIS) is a processed electroencephalogram, which has been evaluated as an automated monitoring technique for patients receiving sedation for endoscopic procedures. BIS monitoring has not been shown to be of significant clinical benefit, but the need for an objective quantitative measure of the depth of sedation in patients undergoing endoscopy remains.