Retrospective comparison of sedated and non-sedated colonoscopy in an outpatient practice

Optimal sequences of same-visit bidirectional endoscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Same-visit colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) have become common. Recent studies showed conflicting results regarding the performance, safety, and efficacy of different sequences. We conducted this meta-analysis to determine the most favorable performance and discomfort between an EGD followed by colonoscopy (E-C) and colonoscopy followed by EGD (C-E).

METHODS

The authors searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Outcomes of interest were performance (including cecal intubation time, adenoma detection rate, and polyp detection rate), discomfort score (patients and endoscopists; Likert scale), and sedation uses. Pooled mean differences (MD) or odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The authors found that there was significantly lower sedative use including fentanyl (14.70; 95% Cl: 8.20-21.20) and propofol (15.58; 95% Cl: 3.27-27.89) in the E-C group compared with the C-E group. There was a significantly better discomfort score in patients and endoscopists after both procedures in the E-C group than in the C-E group with pooled MD of 0.64 points (95% Cl: 0.09-1.20) and 0.47 (95% Cl: 0.05-0.90), respectively. There were no differences in cecal intubation time, adenoma detection rate, or polyp detection rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study found that the discomfort score was better in the E-C group. However, there was no difference in polyp and adenoma detection. Therefore, the E-C group is the optimal sequence.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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