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

Anesthesiologist-directed care for elective gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of an Italian multicentric prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Sedation, ranging from minimal, moderate and deep sedation to general anesthesia, improves patient comfort and procedure quality in gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE). There are currently no comprehensive recommendations on sedation practice in diagnostic and therapeutic GIE. We aimed to investigate real-life sedation practice in elective GIE.

METHODS

We performed a multicentric observational study across 14 Endoscopy Units in Italy. We recorded consecutive data on all diagnostic procedures performed with Anesthesiologist-directed care (ADC) and all therapeutic procedures performed with ADC or non-Anesthesiologist sedation (NAS) over a three-month period.

RESULTS

Dedicated ADC is available five days/week in 28.6% (4/14), four days/week in 21.5% (3/14), three days/week in 35.7% (5/14), two days/week in 7.1% (1/14) and one day/week in 7.1% (1/14) of participating Centers. ADC use for elective diagnostic GIE varied from 15.4% to 75.1% of the total number of procedures performed with ADC among different Centers. ADC use for elective therapeutic GIE varied from 10.8% to 98.9% of the total number of elective therapeutic procedures performed among different Centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the lack of standardization and consequent great variability in sedation practice for elective GIE, with ADC being potentially overused for diagnostic procedures and underused for complex therapeutic procedures. A collaborative effort involving Endoscopists, Anesthesiologist and Institutions is needed to optimize sedation practice in GIE.

Painless colonoscopy: fact or fiction?

Although colonoscopy is a routinely performed procedure, it is not devoid of challenges, such as the potential for perforation and considerable patient discomfort, leading to patients postponing the procedure with several healthcare risks. This review delves into preprocedural and procedural solutions, and emerging technologies aimed at addressing the drawbacks of colonoscopies. Insufflation and sedation techniques, together with various other methods, have been explored to increase patient satisfaction, and thereby, the quality of endoscopy. Recent advances in this field include the prevention of loop formation, encompassing the use of variable-stiffness endoscopes, computer-guided scopes, magnetic endoscopic imaging, robotics, and capsule endoscopy. An autonomous endoscope that relies on self-propulsion to completely avoid looping is a potentially groundbreaking technology for the next generation of endoscopes. Nevertheless, critical techniques need to be refined to ensure the development of effective and efficient endoscopes.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Ketamine and Moderate Sedation for Outpatient Endoscopy in Adults

INTRODUCTION

Ketamine is an effective sedative agent in a variety of settings due to its desirable properties including preservation of laryngeal reflexes and lack of cardiovascular depression. We hypothesized that ketamine is an effective alternative to standard moderate sedation (SMS) regimens for patients undergoing endoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing ketamine to SMS for outpatient colonoscopy or esophagogastroduodenoscopy at Brooke Army Medical Center. The ketamine group received a 1-mg dose of midazolam along with ketamine, whereas the SMS group received midazolam/fentanyl. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction measured using the Patient Satisfaction in Sedation Instrument, and secondary outcomes included changes in hemodynamics, time to sedation onset and recovery, and total medication doses.

RESULTS

Thirty-three subjects were enrolled in each group. Baseline characteristics were similar. Endoscopies were performed for both diagnostic and screening purposes. Ketamine was superior in the overall sedation experience and in all analyzed categories compared to the SMS group (P = .0096). Sedation onset times and procedure times were similar among groups. The median ketamine dose was 75 mg. The median fentanyl and midazolam doses were 150 mcg and 5 mg, respectively, in SMS. Vital signs remained significantly closer to the physiological baseline in the ketamine group (P = .004). Recovery times were no different between the groups, and no adverse reactions were encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine is preferred by patients, preserves hemodynamics better than SMS, and can be safely administered by endoscopists. Data suggest that ketamine is a safe and effective sedation option for patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03461718).

Post-Operative Cognitive Dysfunction in Elderly Patients Receiving Propofol Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopies: An Observational Study Utilizing Processed Electroencephalography

BACKGROUND

Propofol sedation is commonly administered during gastrointestinal (GI) procedures. The Patient State Index (PSI) is a processed electroencephalography (EEG) parameter obtained with the SedLine® Sedation Monitoring system (Masimo Corporation, Irvine, CA). When used to objectively assess the patient's level of consciousness, PSI may provide a more effective, safer titration of sedation during GI procedures. We hypothesize that having more or longer episodes of deep sedation as assessed by PSI (i.e., PSI<26) would correlate with developing new-onset or worsening post-operative cognitive dysfunction (POCD).

METHODS

This was a pragmatic, double-blinded observational study of 400 patients aged ≥65 years undergoing upper GI endoscopy, lower GI endoscopy, or a combined procedure utilizing propofol sedation at a tertiary-care [A1] academic medical center. The patients were monitored with the SedLine® Brain Function Monitor, software version 2 (Masimo Corporation, Irvine, CA), throughout the case, starting at baseline (i.e., before administration of propofol) and stopping at case end. We assessed the subjects' cognitive function via an in-person interview at baseline (pre-procedure) and telephone interviews at 1, 7 (±1), and 90 days after study enrollment. Cognitive function was assessed by administering the short blessed test (SBT), which is a validated brief cognitive screening appropriate for in-person and telephone administration.

RESULTS

The correlations between the change in SBT score and the pre-defined parameters of PSI were not significant (all p-values >5%). There was a significant drop in SBT scores on day seven. Higher age was also significantly associated with a drop in SBT from baseline. Deep sedation, as evidenced by the number of times PSI was lower than 26, was not predictive of the change in SBT, nor was gender, total propofol dose, or vasoactive drug use during the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The observed incidence of POCD after GI procedures with propofol sedation was low (1.3% at seven days and 2.95% at 90 days) and lower than at the baseline. Age was associated with a greater average decline in SBT score, although the absolute change was small (-0.067 per year of age increase). Deeper sedation, as documented by the PSI score, was not associated with a change in POCD measured with the SBT.

Prospective randomized comparison of endoscopist-facilitated endotracheal intubation and standard intubation for ERCP

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Complex endoscopic procedures are increasingly performed with anesthesia support, which substantially affects endoscopy unit efficiency. ERCP performed with the patient under general anesthesia presents unique challenges, as patients are typically first intubated, then transferred to the fluoroscopy table and positioned semi-prone. This requires additional time and staff while increasing the potential for patient/staff injury. We have developed the technique of endoscopist-facilitated intubation using an endotracheal tube backloaded onto an ultra-slim gastroscope as a potential solution to these issues and evaluated its utility prospectively.

METHODS

Sequential patients undergoing ERCP were randomized to undergo endoscopist-facilitated intubation or to standard intubation. Demographic data, patient/procedure characteristics, endoscopy efficiency parameters, and adverse events were analyzed.

RESULTS

During the study period, 45 ERCP patients were randomized to undergo either endoscopist-facilitated intubation (n = 23) or standard intubation (n = 22). Endoscopist-facilitated intubation was successful in all patients, with no hypoxic events. Median time from patient arrival in room to procedural start was shorter in patients undergoing endoscopist-facilitated intubation versus standard intubation (8.2 vs 29 minutes, P < .0001). Endoscopist-facilitated intubations were brisker than standard intubations (.63 vs 2.85 minutes, P < .0001). Patients undergoing endoscopist-facilitated intubation reported less postprocedure throat discomfort (13% vs 50%, P < .01) and fewer myalgia incidences (22% vs 73%, P < .01) than patients undergoing standard intubation.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopist-facilitated intubation was technically successful in every patient. Median endoscopist-facilitated intubation time from patient arrival in room to procedural start was 3.5-fold lower, and median endoscopist-facilitated intubation time was >4-fold lower, than for standard intubation. Endoscopist-facilitated intubation significantly enhanced endoscopy unit efficiency and minimized staff and patient injury. General adoption of this novel approach may represent a paradigm shift in the approach to safe and efficient intubation of all patients requiring general anesthesia. Although the results of this controlled trial are promising, larger studies in a broad population are needed to validate these findings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03879720.).

Feasibility and safety of deep sedation with propofol and remifentanil in spontaneous breathing during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: an observational prospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an interventional procedure that requires deep sedation or general anaesthesia. The purpose of this prospective observational study was to assess the feasibility and safety of deep sedation in ERCP to maintain spontaneous breathing.

METHODS

This is a single-centre observational prospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary referral university hospital. All consecutive patients who needed sedation or general anaesthesia for ERCP were included from January 2021 to June 2021. Deep sedation was achieved and maintained by continuous infusion of an association of propofol and remifentanil. The primary endpoint was to assess the prevalence of major anaesthesia-related complications, such as arrhythmias, hypotension, gas exchange dysfunction, and vomiting (safety endpoint). Secondary endpoints were: (a) to assess the prevalence of signs of an insufficient level of sedation, such as movement, cough, and hiccups (feasibility endpoint): (b) time needed to achieve the target level of sedation and for recovery from anaesthesia. In order to do so we collect the following parameters: peripheral oxygen saturation, fraction of inspired oxygen, noninvasive systemic blood pressure, heart rate, number of breaths per minute, neurological functions with the use of the bispectral index to determine depth of anaesthesia, and partially exhaustive CO2 end pressure to continuously assess the ventilatory status. The collected data were analysed by several tests: Shapiro-Wilk, Student's t, Tuckey post-hoc, Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskall-Wallis ran. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata/BE 17.0 (StataCorp LLC).

RESULTS

114 patients were enroled. Eight patients were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. We found that all patients were hemodynamically stable: intraoperative mean systolic blood pressure was 139,23 mmHg, mean arterial pressure was on average 106,66 mmHg, mean heart rate was 74,471 bpm. The mean time to achieve the target level of sedation was 63 s, while the mean time for the awakening after having stopped drug infusion was 92 s.

CONCLUSIONS

During ERCP, deep sedation and analgesia using the association of propofol and remifentanil and maintaining spontaneous breathing are safe and feasible, allowing for a safe and quick recovery from anaesthesia.

Organizational Factors Driving Selection of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Sedation in Veterans Health Administration and Community Settings

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies suggest that unmeasured organizational factors drive variability in anesthesia-assisted sedation (AA) use.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study of 11 Veterans Health Administration and community gastrointestinal endoscopy sites; qualitative interviews of key sedation decision-makers.

RESULTS

Three key interview themes were identified: (i) Increased AA demand and changes in endoscopist sedation training in fellowship drove site-level AA capacity expansion; (ii) this expansion further influenced sedation decisions in favor of AA use; and (iii) additional organizational factors influencing AA use included site-level decision-making processes and differences between Veterans Health Administration and community practice economics/mission.

DISCUSSION

Key organizational factors drive variability in AA use across settings.

Automated electronic health record-based application for sedation triage in routine colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nearly all routine endoscopy procedures are performed using moderate sedation (MS) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). In this article, we describe how we improved decision-making and decreased practitioners' cognitive burden for choosing between MAC and MS by using patient data in an automated application within the electronic health record (EHR).

METHODS

In our practice, we choose between MS or MAC for routine GI procedures according to written anesthesia-use guidelines and practitioner preferences. To expedite our decision-making for MS versus MAC, we developed an Excel (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Wash, USA)-based tool from patient demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, and medication use extracted from the EHR. The data points from Excel were then implemented in the automated application in the EHR to predict the type of sedation for GI procedures.

RESULTS

Before use of the new application, nurses spent an average of 4 minutes and gastroenterology practitioners spent 5 minutes reviewing the EHR to determine the appropriate sedation (MS or MAC). After the application was implemented, the use of MS substantially increased. Time spent reviewing the EHR was reduced to 2 minutes. The rate of adverse events for MS (.5%) versus MAC (.6%) was comparable and low overall.

CONCLUSIONS

The EHR-based application, which automates and standardizes determination of sedation type, is a highly beneficial tool that eliminates subjectivity in decision-making, thus allowing for appropriate use of MAC. Adverse event rates and sedation failure did not increase with use of the application. With the increased use of MS over MAC, healthcare costs for the more-expensive MAC sedation should also decrease.

Consensus guidelines for the perioperative management of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Deep sedation without tracheal intubation (monitored anaesthesia care) and general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation are commonly used anaesthesia techniques for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There are distinct pathophysiological differences between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia that need to be considered depending on the nature and severity of the patient's underlying disease, comorbidities, and procedural risks. An international group of expert anaesthesiologists and gastroenterologists created clinically relevant questions regarding the merits and risks of monitored anaesthesia care vs general anaesthesia in specific clinical scenarios for planning optimal anaesthetic approaches for ERCP. Using a modified Delphi approach, the group created practical recommendations for anaesthesiologists, with the aim of reducing the incidence of perioperative adverse outcomes while maximising healthcare resource utilisation. In the majority of clinical scenarios analysed, our expert recommendations favour monitored anaesthesia care over general anaesthesia. Patients with increased risk of pulmonary aspiration and those undergoing prolonged procedures of high complexity were thought to benefit from general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation. Patient age and ASA physical status were not considered to be factors for choosing between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia. Monitored anaesthesia care is the favoured anaesthesia plan for ERCP. An individual risk-benefit analysis that takes into account provider and institutional experience, patient comorbidities, and procedural risks is also needed.

The Quality and Safety of Sedation and Monitoring in Adults Undergoing Nonoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography

Sedation is an essential component of the transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) procedure for patient comfort. The use and the clinical implications of cardiologist-supervised (CARD-Sed) versus anesthesiologist-supervised sedation (ANES-Sed) are unknown. We reviewed nonoperative TEE records from a single academic center over a 5-year period and identified CARD-Sed and ANES-Sed cases. We evaluated the impact of patient co-morbidities, cardiac abnormalities on transthoracic echocardiogram, and the indication for TEE on sedation practice. We analyzed the use of CARD-Sed versus ANES-Sed in light of institutional guidelines; the consistency in the documentation of preprocedural risk stratification; and the incidence of cardiopulmonary events, including hypotension, hypoxia, and hypercarbia. A total of 914 patients underwent TEE, with 475 patients (52%) receiving CARD-Sed and 439 patients (48%) receiving ANES-Sed. The presence of obstructive sleep apnea (p = 0.008), a body mass index of >45 kg/m2 (p <0.001), an ejection fraction of <30% (p <0.001), and pulmonary artery systolic pressure of more than 40 mm Hg (p = 0.015) were all associated with the use of ANES-Sed. Of the 178 patients (19.5%) with at least 1 caution to nonanesthesiologist-supervised sedation by the institutional screening guideline, 65 patients (36.5%) underwent CARD-Sed. In the ANES-Sed group, where intraprocedural vital signs and medications were documented in all cases, hypotension (n = 91, 20.7%), vasoactive medication use (n = 121, 27.6%), hypoxia (n = 35, 8.0%), and hypercarbia (n = 50, 11.4%) were noted. This single-center study revealed that 48% of the nonoperative TEE used ANES-Sed over 5 years. Sedation-related hemodynamic changes and respiratory events were not infrequently encountered during ANES-Sed.

Discharge readiness after remimazolam versus propofol for colonoscopy: A randomised, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is an ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine that is potentially a practical option for procedural sedation in colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that remimazolam could provide a noninferior discharge time to propofol for ambulatory colonoscopy.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomised, double-blind, noninferiority clinical trial.

SETTING

Ambulatory endoscopy centre.

PATIENTS

A total of 132 adult participants undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy were enrolled.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive propofol or remimazolam for sedation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was discharge time after a colonoscopy, assessed using the Modified Postanaesthetic Discharge Scoring System scale. Secondary outcomes included induction time, emergence time, the extent of recovery upon arrival in the postanaethesia care unit, fatigue, endoscopist and patient satisfaction and adverse events.

RESULTS

The median discharge time was 24 min in the remimazolam group versus 21 min in the propofol group, with a difference of 2 min [95% confidence interval (CI), 0 to 4 min], meeting the criteria for noninferiority. Injection pain occurred in 11 of 66 (17%) participants receiving remimazolam versus 32 of 66 (49%) participants receiving propofol ( P  < 0.001); hypotension occurrence was 20% versus 47%, ( P  < 0.001), respectively, and bradycardia 6% versus 20%, ( P  = 0.019), respectively. Compared with propofol, the patient satisfaction score was higher in the remimazolam group ( P  < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For sedation in ambulatory colonoscopy, compared with propofol, remimazolam provides a noninferior discharge time. Furthermore, remimazolam is associated with less injection pain, lower risks of hypotension and bradycardia, and improved patient satisfaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2100048678.

AGA White Paper: Challenges and Gaps in Innovation for the Performance of Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer

In 2018, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference, entitled "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer, considered recent improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.

Comparison of effectiveness, cost and safety between moderate sedation and deep sedation under esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Chinese population: a quasi-experimental study

OBJECTIVE

Most endoscopists routinely perform moderate or deep sedation for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Considering that there is no consensus on the optimal sedation depth and it varies from country to country, our study aims to compare the effectiveness, cost and safety of these two sedation methods in the Chinese population.

METHODS

This quasi-experimental study included a total of 556 eligible patients from July 2020 to June 2021, and they entered the moderate sedation group or deep sedation group based on their choices. Baseline information, scores of Patient Satisfaction with Sedation Instrument (PSSI) and Clinician Satisfaction with Sedation Instrument (CSSI), examination time, sedation time, recovery time, expenses before medicare reimbursement, hypoxaemia and hypotension were compared between the two groups. Propensity Score Matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the confounding factors.

RESULTS

After PSM, 470 patients were involved in the analysis, with 235 for each group. The moderate sedation was clearly superior to the deep sedation group in terms of PSSI score (98.00 ± 0.94 vs. 97.29 ± 1.26), CSSI score (98.00 ± 0.78 vs. 97.67 ± 1.30), sedation time (11.90 ± 2.04 min vs. 13.21 ± 2.75 min), recovery time (25.40 ± 3.77 min vs. 28.0 ± 4.85 min), expenses (433.04 ± 0.00 Yuan vs. 789.85 ± 0.21 Yuan), with all p < .001. Examination time was not significantly different between the two groups (p = .124). In addition, the moderate sedation group had a lower occurrence rate of hypoxaemia (0.36% vs. 3.27%, p = .010) and hypotension (17.44% vs. 44.00%, p < .001) compared to the deep sedation group.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation presented better effectiveness and safety and lower cost, and thereby it should be recommended as a widely used sedation method in clinical practice in China. Trial registration: This trial was registered on http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx (ChiCTR2000038050).

Anesthesia for digestive tract endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonoperating room anesthesia for digestive tract endoscopy has its own specificities and requires practical training. Monitoring devices, anesthetic drugs, understanding of procedures and management of complications are critical aspects.

RECENT FINDINGS

New data are available regarding risk factors for intra- and postoperative complications (based on anesthesia registries), airway management, new anesthetic drugs, techniques of administration and management of advances in interventional endoscopy procedures.

SUMMARY

Digestive tract endoscopy is a common procedure that takes place outside the operating room most of the time and has become more and more complex due to advanced invasive procedures. Prior evaluation of the patient's comorbidities and a good understanding of the objectives and constraints of the endoscopic procedures are required. Assessing the risk of gastric content aspiration is critical for determining appropriate anesthetic protocols. The availability of adequate monitoring (capnographs adapted to spontaneous ventilation, bispectral index), devices for administration of anesthetic/sedative agents (target-controlled infusion) and oxygenation (high flow nasal oxygenation) guarantees the quality of sedation and patient' safety during endoscopic procedures. Knowledge of the specificities of each interventional endoscopic procedure (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, submucosal dissection) allows preventing complications during anesthesia.

VOLUMETRIC CAPNOGRAPHY FOR RESPIRATORY MONITORING OF PATIENTS DURING ROUTINE COLONOSCOPY WITH ROOM-AIR AND CARBON DIOXIDE INSUFFLATION

BACKGROUND

Capnography and carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation during gastrointestinal endoscopy under sedation are associated with safety and comfort improvements, respectively. Capnography can provide early detection of apnea and hypoxemia, whereas CO2 insufflation causes lower periprocedural discomfort. This is the first study to report the application of volumetric capnography in colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the use of volumetric capnography with room air (RA) and CO2 insufflation during routine colonoscopy.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, 101 patients who underwent routine colonoscopy under sedation with volumetric capnography monitoring were included. Insufflation with RA was used to distend the intestinal lumen in group 1 (n=51), while group 2 (n=50) used CO2 insufflation. The primary endpoints were episodes of hypoxia, alveolar hypoventilation, and end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2). The secondary endpoints were tidal volume per minute, consumption of sedation medications, and post-procedure pain using the Gloucester modified pain scale.

RESULTS

The number of episodes of hypoxia (SpO2<90%) was similar between the groups: four episodes in Group 1 and two episodes in Group 2. The duration of hypoxia was significantly longer in group 2 (P=0.02). Hypoalveolar ventilation (EtCO2) occurred more frequently in Group 2 than in Group 1 (27 vs 18 episodes, P=0.05). Regarding EtCO2, Group 2 showed higher values in cecal evaluation (28.94±4.68 mmHg vs 26.65±6.12 mmHg, P=0.04). Regarding tidal volume per minute, Group 2 had significantly lower values at the cecal interval compared to Group 1 (2027.53±2818.89 vs 970.88±1840.25 L/min, P=0.009). No episodes of hypercapnia (EtCO2 > 60 mmHg) occurred during the study. There was no difference in the consumption of sedation medications between the groups. Immediately after colonoscopy, Group 2 reported significantly less pain than Group 1 (P=0.05).

CONCLUSION

In our study, volumetric capnography during colonoscopy was feasible and effective for monitoring ventilatory parameters and detecting respiratory complications. CO2 insufflation was safe and associated with less pain immediately after colonoscopy.

Differences in patient outcomes after outpatient GI endoscopy across settings: a statewide matched cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Outpatient GI endoscopy has been shifting from hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) in recent years. However, evidence on whether patient outcomes after endoscopic procedures are comparable across settings is limited. This study compares the incidence of unplanned hospital visits after GI endoscopy performed in ASCs versus HOPDs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study examining unplanned hospital visits after outpatient GI endoscopy performed in Massachusetts during 2014 to 2017 using Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database and Medicare fee-for-service claims. We identified screening colonoscopy, nonscreening colonoscopy, and esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) performed in ASCs or HOPDs and estimated unplanned hospital visit rates within 7 and 30 days after these procedures. To compare rates between ASCs and HOPDs, we constructed procedure-specific, propensity score-matched samples and used multilevel logistic regressions adjusting for patient, procedure, and facility characteristics.

RESULTS

Seven-day unplanned hospital visit rates were 10.6, 18.3, and 38.9 per 1000 procedures for screening colonoscopy, nonscreening colonoscopy, and EGD, respectively, with significant variation across facilities. ASC patients consistently had fewer postprocedure hospital encounters. The relative risk of having 7-day hospital visits after screening colonoscopy performed in ASCs was .88 (95% confidence interval [CI], .79-.98) compared with HOPDs. The estimates were .84 (95% CI, .75-.94) for nonscreening colonoscopy and .57 (95% CI, .50-.65) for EGD. Thirty-day visits showed similar patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Unplanned hospital visits after outpatient GI endoscopy were not uncommon. However, ASC patients consistently had less frequent hospital-based acute care encounters, indicating that GI endoscopy could be performed safely in ASCs for select patients.

Low-Dose Esketamine as an Adjuvant to Propofol Sedation for Same-Visit Bidirectional Endoscopy: Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Same-visit bidirectional endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy) is widely performed under sedation. At present, the optimal sedation regimen remains unclear. This study aims to test the hypothesis that a low-dose esketamine added to propofol sedation reduces hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events in these procedures.

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 660 adult patients scheduled for same-visit bidirectional endoscopy under sedation from 3 teaching hospitals in China will be recruited. Patients will be randomly allocated, in a 1:1 ratio, to an esketamine group or a normal saline group (n = 330 in each group), stratified by study center. All patients will receive intravenous propofol 0.5 mg/kg and sufentanil 0.1 μg/mL for induction of sedation, followed by intravenous esketamine 0.15 mg/kg or the same volume of normal saline. Propofol will be titrated to the target sedation levels during the procedures. The primary endpoint is a composite of desaturation (peripheral oxygen saturation < 90%) and hypotension (systolic blood pressure <80 mmHg or decrease >30% of baseline). Secondary endpoints include desaturation, hypotension, total dose of propofol, pain scores and fatigue scores on the 0-10 numerical rating scale, dizziness or headache, hallucination or nightmare, nausea or vomiting, endoscopist satisfaction, and patient satisfaction. All analyses will be intention-to-treat.

Discussion

We expect that a low-dose esketamine adjunct to propofol-based sedation will improve cardiorespiratory stability in patients undergoing same-visit bidirectional endoscopy, providing reference for clinical sedation practice during these procedures.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Identifier: ChiCTR-ChiCTR2200055938).

Safety Profile of Endoscopist-directed Balanced Propofol Sedation for Procedural Sedation: An Experience at a Hospital-based Endoscopy Unit

BACKGROUND

Nurse-administered propofol sedation was restricted to anesthesiologists in 2009, a practice that has contributed to spiraling health care costs in the United States.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of endoscopist-directed balanced propofol sedation (EDBPS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients undergoing endoscopy with EDBPS from January 1, 2017, to June 20, 2017, and abstracted their medical records. Adverse events (AEs) included: hypoxia (oxygen saturation < 90%); hypotension [(a) systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg, (b) systolic blood pressure decline of >50 mm Hg, (c) decline in mean arterial pressure of >30%]; bradycardia (heart rate of < 40 beats/min). Logistic regression identified factors independently associated with AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 1897 patients received EDBPS during the study period [mean age: 55 y (SD=11.4 y); 56.4% women]. Patients received median doses of 50 µg fentanyl, 2 mg of midazolam, and a mean propofol dose of 160±99 mg. There were no major complications (upper 95% confidence interval, 0.19%). Overall, 334 patients (17.6%) experienced a clinically insignificant AE: 65 (3.4%) experienced transient hypoxia, 277 patients (14.6%) experienced hypotension, 2 had transient bradycardia. In bivariate analysis, older age was associated with risk for hypotension, propofol dose was associated with transient hypoxemia, and procedure duration was associated with both hypotension and transient hypoxia. In multivariate analysis, only procedure length was associated with AEs (odds ratio scale 10; odds ratio=1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.09, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EDBPS is safe for endoscopic sedation. Given the higher cost of anesthesia-administered propofol, endoscopists should reinstate EDBPS by revising institutional sedation policies.

Women require routine opioids to prevent painful colonoscopies: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Women are at high risk for painful colonoscopy. Pain, but also sedation, are barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In a randomised controlled trial, we compared on-demand with pre-colonoscopy opioid administration to control pain in women at CRC screening age.

METHODS

Women, aged 55-79 years, attending colonoscopy at two Norwegian endoscopy units were randomised 1:1:1 to (1) fentanyl on-demand, (2) fentanyl prior to colonoscopy, or (3) alfentanil on-demand. The primary endpoint was procedural pain reported by the patients on a validated four-point Likert scale and further dichotomized for the study into painful (moderate or severe pain) and non-painful (slight or no pain) colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints were: willingness to repeat colonoscopy, adverse events, cecal intubation time and rate, and post-procedure recovery time.

RESULTS

Between June 2017 and May 2020, 183 patients were included in intention-to-treat analyses in the fentanyl on-demand group, 177 in the fentanyl prior to colonoscopy group, and 179 in the alfentanil on-demand group. Fewer women receiving fentanyl prior to colonoscopy reported a painful colonoscopy compared to those who were given fentanyl on-demand (25.2% vs. 44.1%, p < .001). There was no difference in the proportion of painful colonoscopies between fentanyl on-demand and alfentanil on-demand (44.1% vs. 39.5%, p = .40). No differences were observed for adverse events or any of the other secondary endpoints between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Fentanyl prior to colonoscopy provided better pain control than fentanyl or alfentanil on-demand. Fentanyl before colonoscopy should be recommended to all women at screening age. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550). Norwegian Medicines Agency (16/16266-13). EU Clinical Trials Register (EUDRACTNR. 2016-005090-13).

The Role of Clinical Characteristics in Stratifying Sedation Risk: A Cohort Study

Background

Determination of sedation type during gastrointestinal procedures is generally based on risk assessment via the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification system, but the reliance of anesthesia risk on clinical factors remains largely uninvestigated. We aim to determine the association between various clinical factors and choice of sedation type during gastrointestinal procedures.

Methods

This single-center, retrospective cohort study used electronic medical records to identify patients receiving colonoscopy or endoscopy at Rhode Island Hospital. The electronic medical record was queried for history of alcohol abuse, opioid abuse, polysubstance abuse, prescriptions for psychotropic or opioid medications and ASA classification. Logistic regression was used to measure how patient characteristics correlated with sedation type.

Results

Totally, 2,033 patients were included in the study; 1,080 patients received moderate sedation and 853 received monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Three hundred fifty-four (60.2%) MAC patients had a history of alcohol abuse compared to 234 (39.8%) moderate sedation patients (P < 0.2334); 178 (62.9%) MAC and 105 (37.1%) moderate sedation patients had a history of opioid abuse (P < 0.001); 203 (73.6%) MAC and 73 (26.4%) moderate sedation patients had a history of polysubstance abuse (P < 0.001); and 815 (75.1%) MAC patients had psychiatric comorbidities versus 270 (24.9%) in the moderate sedation group (P < 0.001). In the MAC cohort, alcohol, opioid, polysubstance abuse and psychiatric history were associated with previous failure of moderate sedation (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

For a subset of patients, clinical factors including alcohol, opioid, polysubstance abuse and psychiatric history, in addition to ASA classification, play an important role in sedation management.

Prospective Comparison of Moderate Conscious Sedation and Anesthesia Assistance for the Performance of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)

OBJECTIVES

Recent trends have favored the use of anesthesia personnel more frequently for advanced endoscopic procedures. We hypothesize a selective sedation approach based on patient and procedural factors using either moderate conscious sedation (MCS) or general anesthesia (GA) will result in similar outcomes and safety with significant cost savings.

METHODS

A 12-month prospective study of all adult endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCPs) performed at a tertiary medical center was enrolled. Technical success, cannulation rates, procedural related complications, procedure time, and cost were compared between MCS and GA.

RESULTS

A total of 876 ERCPs were included in the study with 74% performed with MCS versus 26% with GA. The intended intervention was completed successfully in 95% of cases with MCS versus 96% cases with GA (p = 0.59). Cannulation success rates with MCS were 97.5 versus 97.8% with GA (p = 0.81). Overall, adverse event rates were similar in both groups (MCS: 6.6% vs. GA: 9.2%, p = 0.21). Mean procedure time was less for MCS versus GA, 18.3 and 26 minutes, respectively (p < 0.0001). Selective use of MCS vs. universal sedation with GA resulted in estimated savings of $8,190 per case and $4,735,202 per annum.

CONCLUSIONS

Preselection of ERCP sedation of moderate conscious sedation versus general anesthesia based upon patient risk factors and planned therapeutic intervention allows for the majority of ERCPs to be completed with MCS with similar rates of technical success and improvement in resource utilization and cost savings compared to performing ERCPs universally with anesthesia assistance.

An algorithm for the sedation of patients with obstructive sleep apnea by non-anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are at risk for adverse events when moderate sedation is administered by nurse protocols (NAMS) under the guidance of non-anesthesiologists. An algorithm was applied for the appropriate section of patients to receive NAMS and the application of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP).

METHODS

An algorithm was developed for patients with OSA who were scheduled for gastroenterology, radiology, and cardiology procedures using NAMS. Those with normal airways and without contraindications for NAMS were classified as CPAP-independent (CPAP-I; not routinely used) or CPAP-dependent (CPAP-D; always used). CPAP machines were brought in by CPAP-D patients or supplied by the hospital and set at a patient's routine setting or 10 cm H₂O if not known. CPAP-D patients for procedures for which CPAP could not be applied were done under anesthesia care. We retrospectively examined this program for the 2008-2018 period.

RESULTS

Since the inception of this protocol in 2008, 803 patients with OSA safely underwent procedures using either personal CPAP or CPAP provided by the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with OSA can safely have NAMS for procedures when CPAP is applied based on a protocol that considers airway evaluation, the procedure, and whether there is dependence upon CPAP.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation: A New Paradigm for Gastrointestinal Procedural Sedation

INTRODUCTION

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation (NAPCIS) is a new nonanesthesia propofol delivery method for gastrointestinal endoscopy. NAPCIS is adopted from the computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) protocol. We evaluated the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of NAPCIS in low-risk subjects.

METHODS

Between December 2016 and July 2017, patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at our center were compared against 2 historical control groups of similar patients who had undergone procedures with CAPS or midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation.

RESULTS

The mean age of the NAPCIS cohort (N = 3,331) was 55.2 years (45.8% male) for 945 esophagogastroduodenoscopies and 57.8 years (48.7% male) for 2,386 colonoscopies. The procedural success rates with NAPCIS were high (99.1%-99.2%) and similar to those seen in 3,603 CAPS (98.8%-99.0%) and 3,809 MF (99.0%-99.3%) controls. NAPCIS recovery times were shorter than both CAPS and MF (24.8 vs 31.7 and 52.4 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). On arrival at the recovery unit, 86.6% of NAPCIS subjects were recorded as "Awake" compared with 82.8% of CAPS and 40.8% of MF controls (P < 0.001). Validated clinician and patient satisfaction scores were generally higher for NAPCIS compared with CAPS and MF subjects. For NAPCIS, there were only 4 cases of oxygen desaturation requiring transient mask ventilation and no serious sedation-related complications. These low complication rates were similar to those seen with CAPS (8 cases of mask ventilation) and MF (3 cases).

DISCUSSION

NAPCIS seems to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy in low-risk patients.

[The Guideline "Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy"]

The guideline "Sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy" (AWMF-register-no. 021/014) was published initially in 2008. Because of new and developing evidence, the guideline was updated in 2015. The aim of the guideline is to define the necessary structural, equipment and personnel requirements that contribute to minimizing the risk of sedation for endoscopy. In view of the high and increasing significance of gastrointestinal endoscopy, the guideline will remain highly relevant in the future. Essential aspects are the selection of sedatives/hypnotics, structural requirements, personnel requirements with regard to number, availability and training, management of complications and quality assurance. In this article, the development and evaluation of the evidence and its influence on the practical implementation, in particular for anaesthesia, are highlighted.

Sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review of recommendations

BACKGROUND

Sedation is commonly used in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, considerable variability in sedation practices has been reported. The objective of this review was to identify and synthesize existing recommendations on sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed guidelines and position statements identified through a search of PubMed, guidelines databases, and websites of relevant professional associations from January 1, 2005 to May 10, 2019. We included English-language guidelines/position statements with recommendations relating to sedation for adults undergoing routine gastrointestinal endoscopy. Documents with guidance only for complex endoscopic procedures were excluded. We extracted and synthesized recommendations relating to: 1) choice of sedatives, 2) sedation administration, 3) personnel responsible for monitoring sedated patients, 4) skills and training of individuals involved in sedation, and 5) equipment required for monitoring sedated patients. We assessed the quality of included documents using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.

RESULTS

We identified 19 guidelines and 7 position statements meeting inclusion criteria. Documents generally agreed that a single, trained registered nurse can administer moderate sedation, monitor the patient, and assist with brief, interruptible tasks. Documents also agreed on the routine use of pulse oximetry and blood pressure monitoring during endoscopy. However, recommendations relating to the drugs to be used for sedation, the healthcare personnel capable of administering propofol and monitoring patients sedated with propofol, and the need for capnography when monitoring sedated patients varied. Only 9 documents provided a grade or level of evidence in support of their recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations for sedation practices in routine gastrointestinal endoscopy differ across guidelines/position statements and often lack supporting evidence with potential implications for patient safety and procedural efficiency.

Outcomes after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with general anaesthesia versus sedation

BACKGROUND

We tested the primary hypothesis that use of general anaesthesia vs sedation increases vulnerability to adverse discharge (in-hospital mortality or new discharge to a nursing facility) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, adult patients undergoing ERCP with general anaesthesia or sedation at a tertiary care hospital were included. We calculated adjusted absolute risk differences between patients receiving general anaesthesia vs sedation using provider preference-based instrumental variable analysis. We also used mediation analysis to determine whether intraoperative hypotension during general anaesthesia mediated its effect on adverse discharge.

RESULTS

Among 17 538 patients undergoing ERCP from 2007 through 2018, 16 238 received sedation and 1300 received GA. Rates of adverse discharge were 5.8% (n=938) after sedation and 16.2% (n=210) after general anaesthesia. Providers' adjusted mean predicted probabilities of using general anaesthesia for ERCP ranged from 0.2% to 63.2% of individual caseloads. Utilising provider-related variability in the use of general anaesthesia for instrumental variable analysis resulted in an 8.6% risk increase (95% confidence interval, 4.5-12.6%; P<0.001) in adverse discharge among patients receiving general anaesthesia vs sedation. Intraoperative hypotensive events occurred more often during general anaesthesia and mediated 23.8% (95% confidence interval, 3.9-43.7%: P=0.019) of the primary association.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that use of sedation during ERCP facilitates reduced adverse discharge for patients for whom general anaesthesia is not clearly indicated. Intraoperative hypotension during general anaesthesia for ERCP partly mediates the increased vulnerability to adverse discharge.

Complications of Anesthesia Services in Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Despite the increased use of anesthesia services for endoscopic procedures in the United States, the risks of anesthesia-directed sedation (ADS) are unclear. We analyzed national data from multiple centers to determine patterns of use of anesthesia services and risk factors for serious complications.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study using the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry, a national quality improvement database. Univariable and bivariate analyses investigated frequencies and relationships between predefined variables and serious complications of anesthesia (cardiovascular, respiratory, neurologic, drug-related, patient injury, death, or unexpected admission). A multivariable mixed-effects model determined the odds ratios between these variables and serious complications, adjusting for confounders and varying reporting practices.

RESULTS

In total, 428,947 endoscopic procedures of adults were performed using ADS from 2010 to 2015. The population was 54.9% female with a mean age of 59.1 years, and predominantly American Society of Anesthesiologists classes 2 and 3 (74.4%). More than half of the procedures were colonoscopies (51.4%); 37.4% were esophagogastroduodenoscopies and 6.5% were endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies. A total of 4441 complications (1.09%) were reported; 1349 were serious complications (0.34%). In multivariable analysis, older age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classes 4 and 5, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, general anesthesia, cases performed on an overnight shift, and longer cases were associated independently and significantly with serious complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of data from the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry, we found ADS during endoscopy to be safe, with few serious complications (<1% of procedures). Risk of ADS complications increased with older age, more severe disease, procedure type, and case complexity.

Endoscopic sedation practices of Greek gastroenterologists: a nationwide survey

BACKGROUND

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy is rapidly evolving worldwide. However, this has led to significant disagreements, especially regarding the use of propofol by non-anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to document the practices of Greek gastroenterologists regarding sedation and compare them to previous surveys.

METHODS

The study was conducted in 2 periods, December 2015 and June 2018. In each period, the same online questionnaire regarding endoscopic sedation practices was sent to all registered Greek gastroenterologists (509 and 547 gastroenterologists, respectively).

RESULTS

The response rates were 38.3% and 47.1%, respectively. In each period, 25.1% and 16.7% of physicians did not use sedation. Most gastroenterologists (approx. 70% in both instances) answered that they "almost never" collaborate with an anesthesiologist during endoscopy. Midazolam was by far the most popular sedation agent, used by almost 90% of physicians in both periods. Propofol was used by 30.8% and 27% of physicians, respectively. Physicians using propofol were significantly more satisfied with the sedation than other physicians, while propofol was the agent selected by most physicians if they were to undergo endoscopy themselves. Most physicians cited medicolegal reasons and inadequate training as chief reasons for not using propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation use is widespread among Greek gastroenterologists. Although midazolam is the most commonly used agent, propofol is preferred (theoretically) by most physicians and achieves the best satisfaction. The introduction of a strict training curriculum for endoscopic sedation can effectively eliminate the barriers preventing gastroenterologists from administering propofol, while at the same time ensuring optimal patient safety during endoscopy.

Propofol versus midazolam with or without short-acting opioids for sedation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in colonoscopy; however, its benefits over midazolam (± short-acting opioids) are not well quantified. The objective of this study was to compare safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes of propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids) in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library (to July 30, 2018) for randomized controlled trials of colonoscopies performed with propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids). We pooled odds ratios for cardiorespiratory outcomes using mixed-effects conditional logistic models. We pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) for patient and endoscopist satisfaction and efficiency outcomes using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Nine studies of 1427 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in cardiorespiratory outcomes (hypotension, hypoxia, bradycardia) between sedative groups. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups, with most patients reporting willingness to undergo a future colonoscopy with the same sedative regimen. In the meta-analysis, patients sedated with propofol had greater satisfaction than those sedated with midazolam (± short-acting opioids) (SMD, .54; 95% confidence interval [CI], .30-.79); however, there was considerable heterogeneity. Procedure time was similar between groups (SMD, .15; 95% CI, .04-.27), but recovery time was shorter in the propofol group (SMD, .41; 95% CI, .08-.74). The median difference in recovery time was 3 minutes, 6 seconds shorter in patients sedated with propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

Both propofol and midazolam (± short-acting opioids) result in high patient satisfaction and appear to be safe for use in colonoscopy. The marginal benefits to propofol are small improvements in satisfaction and recovery time.

Effect of sevoflurane anaesthesia on nasal mask in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: is it a preferred alternative?

Background/aim

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) often requires deep sedation. Propofol provides adequate sedation and amnesia at subhypnotic doses, but safe guarding the patient’s airway is important for preventing respiratory depression or u28ba events. This study compared sedation levels, operator satisfaction, intraoperative and recovery characteristics using sevoflurane with nasal mask and propofol in ERCP.

Material and methods

Sixty-one patients underwent ERCP (Group I: propofol, n = 31; Group II, sevoflurane, n = 30), with sedation controlled by the Ramsay sedation scale (RSS). The patients’ demographic data, procedure length, overall drug dose, hemodynamic changes, duration of recovery and Aldrete scores during recovery were evaluated. In addition, satisfaction of the gastroenterologist was evaluated.

Results

The mean sphincterotomy satisfaction scores were statistically significant (P= 0.043). The Aldrete scores and RSS of the groups were similar; there was a significant difference between groups at the beginning of the procedure regarding peripheric oxygen saturations and Group II’s saturation levels increased during sedation.

Conclusion

In ERCP, propofol infusion provides shorter recovery duration and adequate sedation levels. Sevoflurane and oxygen with a nasal mask can be chosen to generate specific anaesthesia in patients, especially for strong airway support and safety treating hypoxemic patients.

Sedation During Endoscopy in Patients with Cirrhosis: Safety and Predictors of Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

Sedation during endoscopy in cirrhotic patients is typically via moderate sedation, most commonly using a combination of a benzodiazepine (i.e., midazolam) and narcotic (i.e., fentanyl) or with propofol using monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Here, we examined the safety of moderate sedation and MAC in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy from a large academic medical center between 2010 and 2014 examined extensive clinical data including the following: past history, physical findings, laboratory results, and procedural adverse events. Adverse events were defined a priori and included hypoxia, hypotension, bleeding, and death.

RESULTS

We identified 2618 patients with cirrhosis who underwent endoscopic procedures; the mean age was 56 years, 36% were female, the mean Child-Pugh score was 9.3 (IQR: 8, 11), and Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 3.2 (IQR: 1, 4); 1157 had MAC; and 1461 had moderate sedation. There was no difference in the frequency of adverse events in MAC and moderate sedation groups, with a total of 15 adverse events (7/1157 MAC and 8/1461 moderate sedation). The most common procedure performed was esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD, n = 1667) and was associated with 10 adverse events. Overall, adverse events included bradycardia (1), hypoxia (7), bleeding (5), laryngospasm (1), and perforation (1). The frequency was similar for EGD, ERCP, and colonoscopy-each at a rate of 0.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy appeared to be similar with moderate sedation or MAC, and the frequency was the same for different types of procedures.

Anesthesia Assistance in Screening Colonoscopy and Adenoma Detection Rate Among Trainees

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of anesthesia assistance (AA) for screening colonoscopy has been increasing substantially over the past decade, raising concerns about procedure safety and cost without demonstrating a proven improvement in overall quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate (ADR). The effect of AA on ADR has not been extensively studied among trainees learning colonoscopy. We aimed to determine whether type of sedation used during screening colonoscopy affects trainee ADR.

METHODS

Using the electronic endoscopy databases of two hospitals in our medical center, we identified colonoscopies performed by 15 trainees from 2014 through 2018, including all screening examinations in which the cecum was reached. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with adenoma detection.

RESULTS

We identified 1420 unique patients who underwent screening colonoscopy by a trainee meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these, 459 (32.3%) were performed with AA. Overall trainee ADR was 39.6%, with ADR increasing from 35.0% in year one of training to 42.8% in year three (p = 0.047). ADR for cases with AA was 37.9%, while ADR for conscious sedation cases was 32.0% (p = 0.374). Despite this 5.9% absolute difference, the use of AA was not associated with finding an adenoma on multivariable analysis when controlling for patient age, sex, smoking status, body mass index, trainee year of training, mean withdrawal time, supervising attending ADR, and bowel preparation quality (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.67-1.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite providing the ability to more consistently sedate patients, the use of AA did not affect trainee ADR. These results on trainee ADR and sedation type suggest that the overall lack of association between AA use and ADR is applicable to the trainee setting.

Practice recommendations for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy

Objective

Although sedation improves patient experience during colonoscopy, there is great jurisdictional variability in sedative practices. The objective of this study was to develop practice recommendations for the use of moderate and deep sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy to facilitate standardisation of practice.

Design

We recruited 32 multidisciplinary panellists to participate in a modified Delphi process to establish consensus-based recommendations for the use of sedation in colonoscopy. Panel members participated in a values assessment survey followed by two rounds of anonymous online voting on preliminary practice recommendations. An inperson meeting was held between voting rounds to facilitate consensus-building. Consensus was defined as >60% agreement/disagreement with recommendation statements; >80% agreement/disagreement was considered indicative of strong consensus.

Results

Twenty-nine panellists participated in the values assessment survey. Panellists ranked all factors presented as important to the development of practice recommendations. The factor considered most important was patient safety. Patient satisfaction, procedural efficiency, and cost were considered less important. Strong consensus was achieved for all nine practice recommendations presented to the panel. These recommendations included that all endoscopists be able to perform colonoscopy with moderate sedation, that an endoscopist and a single trained nurse are sufficient for performing colonoscopy with moderate sedation, and that anaesthesia-provided deep sedation be used for select patients.

Conclusion

The recommendations presented in this study were agreed on by a multidisciplinary group and provide guidance for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy. Standardised sedation practices will promote safe, effective, and efficient colonoscopy for all patients.

Comparing blind spots of unsedated ultrafine, sedated, and unsedated conventional gastroscopy with and without artificial intelligence: a prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EGD is the most vital procedure for the diagnosis of upper GI lesions. We aimed to compare the performance of unsedated ultrathin transoral endoscopy (U-TOE), unsedated conventional EGD (C-EGD), and sedated C-EGD with or without the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) system.

METHODS

In this prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial, 437 patients scheduled to undergo outpatient EGD were randomized to unsedated U-TOE, unsedated C-EGD, or sedated C-EGD, and each group was then divided into 2 subgroups: with or without the assistance of an AI system to monitor blind spots during EGD. The primary outcome was the blind spot rate of these 3 groups with the assistance of AI. The secondary outcomes were to compare blind spot rates of unsedated U-TOE, unsedated, and sedated C-EGD with or without the assistance of AI, respectively, and the concordance between AI and the endoscopists' review.

RESULTS

The blind spot rate with AI-assisted sedated C-EGD was significantly lower than that of unsedated U-TOE and unsedated C-EGD (3.42% vs 21.77% vs 31.23%, respectively; P < .05). The blind spot rate of the AI subgroup was lower than that of the control subgroup in all 3 groups (sedated C-EGD: 3.42% vs 22.46%, P < .001; unsedated U-TOE: 21.77% vs 29.92%, P < .001; unsedated C-EGD: 31.23% vs 42.46%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The blind spot rate of sedated C-EGD was the lowest among the 3 types of EGD, and the addition of AI had a maximal effect on sedated C-EGD. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR1900020920.).

Computer-Assisted Propofol Sedation for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Is Effective, Efficient, and Safe

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) allows non-anesthesiologists to administer propofol for gastrointestinal procedures in relatively healthy patients. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use, we report our 1-year experience with CAPS for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

METHODS

Between September 2014 and August 2015, 926 outpatients underwent elective EGDs with CAPS at our center. All EGDs were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of CAPS. Procedural success rates, procedure times, and recovery times were compared against corresponding historical controls done with midazolam and fentanyl sedation from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in CAPS patients were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 56.7 years (45% male); 16.2% of the EGDs were for variceal screening or Barrett's surveillance and 83.8% for symptoms. The procedural success rates were similar to that of historical controls (99.0% vs. 99.3%; p = 0.532); procedure times were also similar (6.6 vs. 7.4 min; p = 0.280), but recovery time was markedly shorter (31.7 vs. 52.4 min; p < 0.001). There were 11 (1.2%) cases of mild transient oxygen desaturation (< 90%), 15 (1.6%) cases of marked agitation due to undersedation, and 1 case of asymptomatic hypotension. In addition, there were six (0.6%) patients with more pronounced desaturation episodes that required brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no other serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

CAPS appears to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing sedation for EGD in healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical controls.

Substantial Increase in Anesthesia Assistance for Outpatient Colonoscopy and Associated Cost Nationwide

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of anesthesia assistance (AA) for outpatient colonoscopy has been increasing over the past decade, raising concern over its effects on procedure safety, quality, and cost. We performed a nationwide claims-based study to determine regional, patient-related, and facility-related patterns of anesthesia use as well as cost implications of AA for payers.

METHODS

We analyzed the Premier Perspective database to identify patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy at over 600 acute-care hospitals throughout the United States from 2006 through 2015, with or without AA. We used multivariable analysis to identify factors associated with AA and cost.

RESULTS

We identified 4,623,218 patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy. Of these, 1,671,755 (36.2%) had AA; the proportion increased from 16.7% in 2006 to 58.1% in 2015 (P < .001). Factors associated with AA included younger age (odds ratios [ORs], compared to patients 18-39 years old: 0.94, 0.82, 0.77, 0.72, and 0.77 for age groups 40-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years, 70-79 years, and ≥80 years, respectively); and female sex (OR, 0.96 for male patients compared to female patients; 95% CI, 0.95-0.96). Black patients were less likely to receive AA than white patients (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.81-0.82), although this difference decreased with time. The median cost of outpatient colonoscopy with AA was higher among all payers, ranging from $182.43 (95% CI, $180.80-$184.06) higher for patients with commercial insurance to $232.62 (95% CI, $222.58-$242.67) higher for uninsured patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of a database of patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy throughout the United States, we found that the use of AA during outpatient colonoscopy increased significantly from 2006 through 2015, associated with increased cost for all payers. The increase in anesthesia use mandates evaluation of its safety and effectiveness in colorectal cancer screening programs.

Serious Cardiovascular Adverse Events Reported with Intravenous Sedatives: A Retrospective Analysis of the MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting System

BACKGROUND

Serious cardiovascular adverse events (SCAEs) associated with intravenous sedatives remain poorly characterized.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare SCAE incidence, types, and mortality between intravenous benzodiazepines (i.e., diazepam, lorazepam, and midazolam), dexmedetomidine, and propofol in the USA over 8 years regardless of the clinical setting where it was administered.

METHODS

The Food and Drug Administration's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting System was searched between 2004 and 2011 using the Evidex^® platform from Advera Health Analytics, Inc. to identify all reports that included one or more of ten different SCAEs (package insert incidence ≥ 1%) and where an intravenous benzodiazepine, dexmedetomidine, or propofol was the primary suspected drug.

RESULTS

Among the 2326 Food and Drug Administration's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting System cases reported, 394 (16.9%) were related to a SCAE. The presence of a SCAE (vs. a non-SCAE) is associated with higher mortality (34 vs. 8%, p < 0.001). The percentage of cases with one or more SCAE, the case mortality rate (%), and the incidence of each SCAE (per 10⁶ days of sedative exposure), respectively, were benzodiazepines (14, 26, 13) [diazepam (13, 23, 31); lorazepam (15, 43, 14); midazolam (14, 20, 11)]; dexmedetomidine (40, 15, 13); and propofol (17, 39, 7). Propofol (vs. either a benzodiazepine or dexmedetomidine) was associated with more total SCAEs (268 vs. 126, p < 0.001) but a lower incidence (per 10⁶ days of sedative exposure) of SCAE (7 vs. 13, p = 0.0001) and cardiac arrest [6.3 (benzodiazepine) vs. 6.7 (dexmedetomidine) vs. 1.4 (propofol), p < 0.0001].

CONCLUSIONS

Serious cardiac adverse events account for nearly one-fifth of intravenous sedative Food and Drug Administration's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting System reports. These SCAEs appear to be associated with greater mortality than non-cardiac serious adverse events. Serious cardiac events may be more prevalent with either benzodiazepines or dexmedetomidine than propofol.

Less barium enema, more colonoscopy: A 12-year nationwide population-based study in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common and third most fatal cancer in Taiwan. To reduce incidence and mortality rates from cancer, including CRC, the Health Promotion Administration in Taiwan initiated the National Program on Cancer Prevention in 2005. For patients who have a positive fecal occult blood test, colonoscopy is recommended, and double-contrast barium enema (BE) is reserved as an alternative for those who cannot receive colonoscopy. In addition, single-contrast BE is sometimes used in pediatrics to evaluate colonic condition. This study evaluated the usage trends of BE and colonoscopy in Taiwan.

METHODS

Data from the National Health Insurance Research Database from 2001 to 2013 were used in this study. Patients who received BE and colonoscopy were identified using the procedure codes of the National Health Insurance program. Age-standardized, yearly rates of BE and colonoscopy procedures were calculated.

RESULTS

According to the data, the total number of colonoscopies increased 3.7-fold from 2001 to 2013. The compound annual growth rates for BE and colonoscopy were -5.36% and 10.47%, respectively, during the same period. The compound annual growth rates for BE and colonoscopy were -3.89% and 11.64% from 2005 to 2009, and -11.36% and 9.82% from 2010 to 2013, respectively. BE was conducted significantly more frequently than colonoscopy in patients who were aged <12 years and in female patients.

CONCLUSION

Professional association guidelines, national cancer prevention programs, patient and physician preferences, and increasing awareness and knowledge of CRC may all contribute to the increasing use of colonoscopy and the dramatic decline in the use of BE in Taiwan.

Basic Bronchoscopy: Technology, Techniques, and Professional Fees

Flexible bronchoscopy has evolved over the last few decades, allowing chest physicians to use advanced high-definition scopes to inspect the airways and perform various sampling techniques. Although the techniques of basic bronchoscopic sampling have not changed dramatically, documentation requirements, coding, and billing have become more complex and require a better understanding on the part of the proceduralists and practice administrators. Areas in need of attention include learning about the multiple endoscopy rule, appropriate use of modifiers, and recent changes to the Current Procedural Terminology codes, associated work relative value units for moderate sedation, and therapeutic aspiration of secretions. This article describes basic bronchoscopic procedures and the principles needed for their coding and billing.