Day case 'treat and transfer' ERCP service under general anaesthesia

Operational outcomes of community-to-academic emergency department patient transfers

BACKGROUND

Many patients require inter-hospital transfer (IHT) to tertiary Emergency Departments (EDs) to access specialty services. The purpose of this study is to determine operational outcomes for patients undergoing IHT to a tertiary academic ED, with an emphasis on timing and specialty consult utilization.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective observational cohort study at a tertiary academic hospital from 10/1/21-9/30/22. Key operational metrics, including specialty consultations, were queried from the ED Information System (EDIS). Data were analyzed for temporal variation in operational metrics and consulting patterns between transferred and non-transferred patients, stratified by time of day and week.

RESULTS

During the study period there were 50,589 ED patient encounters, of which 3196 (6.3 %) were identified as IHTs. Transferred patients made up a larger proportion of patient arrivals in off-hours compared to daytime hours (p < 0.001). Transferred patients were more likely to be admitted to the hospital (76 % vs 35 %, p < 0.001), go directly to a procedure (6 % vs 2 %, p < 0.001), or receive a specialty consult (90 % vs 42 %, p < 0.001), regardless of the day of week or time of day. Relative risk of consults amongst transferred patients varied by service, though was particularly increased amongst surgical sub-specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

Transferred patients represented a larger proportion of ED volume during evening and overnight hours, received more consults, and had higher likelihood of admission. Consults for transfers were disproportionately surgical subspecialties, though few patients went directly to a procedure. These findings may have operational implications in optimizing availability of specialty services across regionalized health systems.

Choice of sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: is monitored anesthesia care as safe as general anesthesia? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) are the 2 most common methods of sedation used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the overall safety between MAC vs. GA in ERCP.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases to identify studies reporting the use of MAC or GA as a choice of sedation for ERCP. The primary outcome was to compare the overall rate of sedation-related adverse events in MAC vs. GA groups. The secondary endpoint was to investigate the total duration of the procedure, recovery time, ERCP cannulation rates, and conversion rate of MAC to GA. The meta-analysis was performed using a Der Simonian and Laird random-effects model.

Results

A total of 21 studies reporting on 11,592 patients were included. The overall sedation-related side-effects were similar in the GA (12.76%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.80-21.73; I²=95%) and MAC (12.08%, 95%CI 5.38-20.89; I²=99%) groups (P=0.956). Hypoxia, arrhythmias, hypotension, aspiration and other sedation-related side-effects were similar between the 2 groups. The mean duration of the procedure was longer in the MAC group, but the mean recovery time was shorter. Significant heterogeneity was noted in our meta-analysis.

Conclusions

In our meta-analysis, the overall sedation-related side-effects were similar between the MAC and GA groups. MAC could be used as a safer alternative to GA when performing ERCP. However, large multicenter randomized control trials are needed to further validate our findings.