Routine hospital admission for patients undergoing upper aerodigestive tract endoscopy is unwarranted

Day-care unit for rigid panendoscopy of the upper aerodigestive tract: A study of 436 procedures

OBJECTIVES

To assess the role of day-care management of upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) panendoscopy and to study criteria for conventional hospital admission and reasons for conversion.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective study, from January 2011 to May 2013. Inclusion criteria UADT panendoscopy for carcinoma assessment. Study variables, age, gender, tumor location, reason for panendoscopy, TNM stage, previous external radiotherapy, home-to-hospital distance and Apfel, Detsky and ASA scores. A day-care and a conventional admission group were compared using Fisher's test for ASA score, student's test for age and Pearson's chi² test for the other variables.

RESULTS

Four hundred and thirty-six panendoscopies were performed: 252 in day-care, including 4 cases of conversion and 184 with conventional admission. There were no significant differences between groups for age, gender, tumor location, TNM stage, reason for panendoscopy, previous external radiotherapy, home-to-hospital distance or Apfel score. A significant difference was observed for ASA score (P<0.0001) and Detsky score (P=0.03). In 39% of cases, the reason for hospital admission without criteria defined by the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (SFAR) and French Health Authority (HAS) was the patient's refusal of day care. In 10% of conventional admissions, day-care was not implemented because of psychosocial factors.

CONCLUSION

Day-care management is appropriate for UADT panendoscopy in selected patients. The reasons for the high rate of patient refusal should be studied.

Association between hospital case volume and the use of bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy during head and neck cancer diagnostic evaluation

BACKGROUND

There are no clinical guidelines on best practices for the use of bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy in diagnosing head and neck cancer. This retrospective cohort study examined variation in the use of bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy across hospitals in Michigan.

METHODS

A total of 17,828 patients were identified with head and neck cancer in the 2006 to 2010 Michigan State Ambulatory Surgery Databases. A hierarchical, mixed-effect logistic regression was used to examine whether a hospital's risk-adjusted rate of concurrent bronchoscopy or esophagoscopy was associated with its case volume (< 100, 100-999, or ≥ 1000 cases per hospital) for those undergoing diagnostic laryngoscopy.

RESULTS

Of 9218 patients undergoing diagnostic laryngoscopy, 1191 (12.9%) received concurrent bronchoscopy and 1675 (18.2%) underwent concurrent esophagoscopy. The median hospital rate of bronchoscopy was 2.7% (range, 0%-61.1%), and low-volume (odds ratio [OR] = 27.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.9, 390.7) and medium-volume (OR = 28.1; 95% CI = 2.0, 399.0) hospitals were more likely to perform concurrent bronchoscopy compared to high-volume hospitals. The median hospital rate of esophagoscopy was 5.1% (range, 0%-47.1%), and low-volume (OR = 9.8; 95% CI = 1.5, 63.7) and medium-volume (OR = 8.5; 95% CI = 1.3, 55.0) hospitals were significantly more likely to perform concurrent esophagoscopy relative to high-volume hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with head and neck cancer who are undergoing diagnostic laryngoscopy are much more likely to undergo concurrent bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy at low- and medium-volume hospitals than at high-volume hospitals. Whether this represents overuse of concurrent procedures or appropriate care that leads to earlier diagnosis and better outcomes merits further investigation.

Is Same-Day Discharge Suitable following Rigid Esophagoscopy? Findings in a Series of 655 Cases

It has been suggested that more otolaryngologic procedures should be performed on an outpatient basis, and that rigid upper aerodigestive tract endoscopy might be a particularly suitable procedure in this regard. To determine if this is indeed the case, we retrospectively reviewed the records of 563 patients who had undergone 655 rigid esophagoscopies in our unit between Jan 1, 1991, and July 31, 1998. We ascertained the rate of complications (primarily esophageal perforation) following such procedures and, when they did occur, we determined the length of time between surgery and the onset of the complications’ signs and symptoms. Our aims were to establish the minimum duration of postoperative observation that is required following esophagoscopy and to propose criteria for safe same-day discharge. We found that perforation rates were 4.5% following therapeutic procedures (dilation, biopsy, and foreign-body removal) and 1.2% following diagnostic procedures. In 40% of the patients who experienced perforations, no such signs or symptoms were noted within the first 8 hours following surgery. This finding has important implications for surgeons who wish to perform rigid esophagoscopy on an outpatient basis.