|
1
|
Popovic DD, Filipovic B. Constipation and colonoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2024; 16:244-249. [PMID: 38813573 PMCID: PMC11130551 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v16.i5.244] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2024] [Revised: 04/15/2024] [Accepted: 04/24/2024] [Indexed: 05/14/2024] Open
Abstract
Constipation is a significant sociomedical problem, which can be caused by various reasons. In the diagnostic approach to patients with constipation, the following data are usually sufficient: History, complete physical examination (including rectal examination), and additional diagnostic tests. A colonoscopy is not a necessary diagnostic method for all patients with constipation. However, if patients have alarm symptoms/signs, that suggest an organic reason for constipation, a colonoscopy is necessary. The most important alarm symptoms/signs are age > 50 years, gastrointestinal bleeding, new-onset constipation, a palpable mass in the abdomen and rectum, weight loss, anemia, inflammatory bowel disease, and family history positive for colorectal cancer. Most endoscopists do not like to deal with patients with constipation. There are two reasons for this, namely the difficulty of endoscopy and the adequacy of preparation. Both are adversely affected by constipation. To improve the quality of colonoscopy in these patients, good examination techniques and often more extensive preparation are necessary. Good colonoscopy technique implies adequate psychological preparation of the patient, careful insertion of the endoscope with minimal insufflation, and early detection and resolution of loops. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy often requires prolonged preparation and sometimes the addition of other laxatives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dusan Dj Popovic
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade 11000, Serbia
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Clinic for Internal Medicine, University Clinical Hospital Center “Dr. Dragisa Misovic-Dedinje”, Belgrade 11000, Serbia
| | - Branka Filipovic
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade 11000, Serbia
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Clinic for Internal Medicine, University Clinical Hospital Center “Dr. Dragisa Misovic-Dedinje”, Belgrade 11000, Serbia
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Sidhu R, Turnbull D, Haboubi H, Leeds JS, Healey C, Hebbar S, Collins P, Jones W, Peerally MF, Brogden S, Neilson LJ, Nayar M, Gath J, Foulkes G, Trudgill NJ, Penman I. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gut 2024; 73:219-245. [PMID: 37816587 PMCID: PMC10850688 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2023-330396] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2023] [Accepted: 09/06/2023] [Indexed: 10/12/2023]
Abstract
Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reena Sidhu
- Academic Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
- Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - David Turnbull
- Department of Anaesthetics, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
| | - Hasan Haboubi
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Llandough, Llandough, South Glamorgan, UK
- Institute of Life Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
| | - John S Leeds
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Unit, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Newcastle University Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Chris Healey
- Airedale NHS Foundation Trust, Keighley, West Yorkshire, UK
| | - Srisha Hebbar
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Midlands, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Paul Collins
- Department of Gastroenterology, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Wendy Jones
- Specialist Pharmacist Breastfeeding and Medication, Portsmouth, UK
| | - Mohammad Farhad Peerally
- Digestive Diseases Unit, Kettering General Hospital; Kettering, Kettering, Northamptonshire, UK
- Department of Population Health Sciences, College of Life Science, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Sara Brogden
- Department of Gastroenterology, University College London, UK, London, London, UK
| | - Laura J Neilson
- Department of Gastroenterology, South Tyneside District Hospital, South Shields, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Manu Nayar
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Unit, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Newcastle University Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Jacqui Gath
- Patient Representative on Guideline Development Group and member of Independent Cancer Patients' Voice, Sheffield, UK
| | - Graham Foulkes
- Patient Representative on Guideline Development Group, Manchester, UK
| | - Nigel J Trudgill
- Department of Gastroenterology, Sandwell General Hospital, West Bromwich, UK
| | - Ian Penman
- Centre for Liver and Digestive Disorders, Royal Infirmary Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Midlothian, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Alexandersson BT, Andreasson A, Hedin C, Broms G, Schmidt PT, Forsberg A. Inflammatory Bowel Disease Is not Linked to a Higher Rate of Adverse Events in Colonoscopy-a Nationwide Population-based Study in Sweden. J Crohns Colitis 2023; 17:1962-1967. [PMID: 37402690 PMCID: PMC10798860 DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad114] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Indexed: 07/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Inflammatory bowel disease may cause long-standing inflammation and fibrosis and may increase the risk of adverse events in colonoscopy. We evaluated whether inflammatory bowel disease and other potential risk factors are associated with bleeding or perforation in a nationwide, population-based, Swedish study. METHODS Data from 969 532 colonoscopies, including 164 012 [17%] on inflammatory bowel disease patients, between 2003 and 2019, were retrieved from the National Patient Registers. ICD-10 codes for bleeding [T810] and perforation [T812] within 30 days of the colonoscopy were recorded. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test if inflammatory bowel disease status, inpatient setting, time period, general anaesthesia, age, sex, endoscopic procedures, and antithrombotic treatment were associated with higher odds for bleeding and perforation. RESULTS Bleeding and perforation were reported in 0.19% and 0.11% of all colonoscopies, respectively. Bleeding [odds ratio 0.66, p <0.001] and perforation [odds ratio 0.79, p <0.033] were less likely in colonoscopies in individuals with inflammatory bowel disease status. Bleeding and perforation were more common in inpatient than in outpatient inflammatory bowel disease colonoscopies. The odds for bleeding but not perforation increased between 2003 to 2019. General anaesthesia was associated with double the odds for perforation. CONCLUSIONS Individuals with inflammatory bowel disease did not have more adverse events compared with individuals without inflammatory bowel disease status. However, the inpatient setting was associated with more adverse events, particularly in inflammatory bowel disease status. General anaesthesia was associated with a greater risk of perforation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Anna Andreasson
- Karolinska Institutet, Department of Medicine Solna, Stockholm, Sweden
- Stress Research Institute, Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
- School of Psychological Sciences Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia
| | - Charlotte Hedin
- Karolinska Institutet, Department of Medicine Solna, Stockholm, Sweden
- Karolinska University Hospital, Department of Gastroenterology, Dermatovenerology and Rheumatology, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Gabriella Broms
- Gastroenterology, Danderyd hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Peter T Schmidt
- Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Anna Forsberg
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Plys E, Bulliard JL, Chaouch A, Durand MA, van Duuren LA, Brändle K, Auer R, Froehlich F, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Corley DA, Selby K. Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Based on Predicted Risk: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Res Protoc 2023; 12:e46865. [PMID: 37676720 PMCID: PMC10514773 DOI: 10.2196/46865] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2023] [Revised: 06/20/2023] [Accepted: 07/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/08/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) can be effectively reduced by screening with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy. Individual risk to develop CRC within 15 years varies from <1% to >15% among people aged 50 to 75 years. Communicating personalized CRC risk and appropriate screening recommendations could improve the risk-benefit balance of screening test allocations and optimize the use of limited colonoscopy resources. However, significant uncertainty exists regarding the feasibility and efficacy of risk-based screening. OBJECTIVE We aim to study the effect of communicating individual CRC risk and a risk-based recommendation of the FIT or colonoscopy on participants' choice of screening test. We will also assess the feasibility of a larger clinical trial designed to evaluate the impact of personalized screening on clinical outcomes. METHODS We will perform a pilot randomized controlled trial among 880 residents aged 50 to 69 years eligible to participate in the organized screening program of the Vaud canton, Switzerland. Participants will be recruited by mail by the Vaud CRC screening program. Primary and secondary outcomes will be self-assessed through questionnaires. The risk score will be calculated using the open-source QCancer calculator that was validated in the United Kingdom. Participants will be stratified into 3 groups-low (<3%), moderate (3% to <6%), and high (≥6%) risk-according to their 15-year CRC risk and randomized within each risk stratum. The intervention group participants will receive a newly designed brochure with their personalized risk and screening recommendations. The control group will receive the usual brochure of the Vaud CRC screening program. Our primary outcome, measured using a self-administered questionnaire, is appropriate screening uptake 6 months after the intervention. Screening will be defined as appropriate if participants at high risk undertake colonoscopy and participants at low risk undertake the FIT. We will also measure the acceptability of the risk score and screening recommendations and the psychological factors influencing screening behavior. We will also assess the feasibility of a full-scale randomized controlled trial. RESULTS We expect that a total sample of 880 individuals will allow us to detect a difference of 10% (α=5%) between groups. The main outcome will be analyzed using a 2-tailed chi-squared test. We expect that appropriate screening uptake will be higher in the intervention group. No difference in overall screening uptake is expected. CONCLUSIONS We will test the impact of personalized risk information and screening recommendations on participants' choice of screening test in an organized screening program. This study should advance our understanding of the feasibility of large-scale risk-based CRC screening. Our results may provide insights into the optimization of CRC screening by offering screening options with a better risk-benefit balance and optimizing the use of resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05357508; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05357508. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/46865.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ekaterina Plys
- Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Jean-Luc Bulliard
- Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Aziz Chaouch
- Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Marie-Anne Durand
- Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
- Center for Epidemiology and Research in Population Health, UMR1295 Inserm, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France
| | - Luuk A van Duuren
- Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
- Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Karen Brändle
- Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Reto Auer
- Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Florian Froehlich
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | | | - Douglas A Corley
- Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, United States
| | - Kevin Selby
- Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Lightdale JR, Walsh CM, Oliva S, Jacobson K, Huynh HQ, Homan M, Hojsak I, Gillett PM, Furlano RI, Fishman DS, Croft NM, Brill H, Bontems P, Amil-Dias J, Utterson EC, Tavares M, Rosh JR, Riley MR, Narula P, Mamula P, Mack DR, Liu QY, Lerner DG, Leibowitz IH, Otley AR, Kramer RE, Ambartsumyan L, Connan V, McCreath GA, Thomson MA. Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopic Procedures: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2022; 74:S30-S43. [PMID: 34402486 DOI: 10.1097/mpg.0000000000003264] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION High-quality pediatric gastrointestinal procedures are performed when clinically indicated and defined by their successful performance by skilled providers in a safe, comfortable, child-oriented, and expeditious manner. The process of pediatric endoscopy begins when a plan to perform the procedure is first made and ends when all appropriate patient follow-up has occurred. Procedure-related standards and indicators developed to date for endoscopy in adults emphasize cancer screening and are thus unsuitable for pediatric medicine. METHODS With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of endoscopic procedures. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process and finalized at an in-person conference. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 14 standards for pediatric endoscopic procedures, as well as 30 indicators that can be used to identify high-quality procedures. These were subcategorized into three subdomains: Preprocedural (3 standards, 7 indicators), Intraprocedural (8 standards, 18 indicators), and Postprocedural (3 standards, 5 indicators). A minimum target for the key indicator, "rate of adequate bowel preparation," was set at ≥80%. DISCUSSION It is recommended that all facilities and individual providers performing pediatric endoscopy worldwide initiate and engage with the procedure-related standards and indicators developed by PEnQuIN to identify gaps in quality and drive improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenifer R Lightdale
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Gastroenterology and Nutrition, UMass Memorial Children's Medical Center, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States
| | - Catharine M Walsh
- Department of Paediatrics and the Wilson Centre, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition and the Research and Learning Institutes, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Salvatore Oliva
- Pediatric Gastroenterology and Liver Unit, Maternal and Child Health Department, Umberto I - University Hospital, Sapienza - University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Kevan Jacobson
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, British Columbia's Children's Hospital and British Columbia Children's Hospital Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Hien Q Huynh
- Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, Stollery Children's Hospital, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Matjaž Homan
- Department of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine, Hepatology and Nutrition, University Children's Hospital, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Iva Hojsak
- Referral Center for Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Children's Hospital Zagreb, University of Zagreb Medical School, Zagreb, University J.J. Strossmayer Medical School, Osijek, Croatia
| | - Peter M Gillett
- Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Department, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
| | - Raoul I Furlano
- Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, University Children's Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Douglas S Fishman
- Section of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Nicholas M Croft
- Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Herbert Brill
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Gastroenterology & Nutrition, McMaster Children's Hospital, McMaster University, William Osler Health System, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Patrick Bontems
- Division of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Queen Fabiola Children's University Hospital, ICBAS - Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Jorge Amil-Dias
- Pediatric Gastroenterology, Department of Pediatrics, Centro Hospitalar Universitário S. João, Porto, Portugal
| | - Elizabeth C Utterson
- Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine/St. Louis Children's Hospital, St. Louis, MO, United States
| | - Marta Tavares
- Division of Pediatrics, Pediatric Gastroenterology Department, Centro Materno Infantil do Norte, Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto, ICBAS - Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, Porto, Portugal
| | - Joel R Rosh
- Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Department of Pediatrics, Goryeb Children's Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Morristown, NJ, United States
| | - Matthew R Riley
- Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Providence St. Vincent's Medical Center, Portland, OR, United States
| | - Priya Narula
- Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, United Kingdom
| | - Petar Mamula
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - David R Mack
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Quin Y Liu
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medicine and Pediatrics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Diana G Lerner
- Division of Pediatrics, Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Children's of Wisconsin, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States
| | - Ian H Leibowitz
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Children's National Medical Center, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Anthony R Otley
- Gastroenterology & Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, IWK Health, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Robert E Kramer
- Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Colorado, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States
| | - Lusine Ambartsumyan
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Veronik Connan
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, SickKids Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Graham A McCreath
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, SickKids Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mike A Thomson
- Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Alburquerque M, Smarrelli A, Montesinos JC, Carreño SO, Fernandez AZ, García AV, Frontado CL, Vidal L, Francesch MF, Lladó FGH. Outcomes of colonoscopy with non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP): an equivalence trial. Endosc Int Open 2021; 9:E1070-E1076. [PMID: 34222632 PMCID: PMC8211490 DOI: 10.1055/a-1452-9242] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2020] [Accepted: 02/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and study aims Efficacy and safety of NAAP for gastrointestinal endoscopy have been widely documented, although there is no information about the outcomes of colonoscopy when the endoscopist supervises the sedation. In this context, the aim of this trial was to determine the equivalence of adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening colonoscopies performed with non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) and performed with monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Patients and methods This was a single-blind, non-randomized controlled equivalence trial that enrolled adults from a national CRC screening program (CRCSP). Patients were blindly assigned to undergo either colonoscopy with NAAP or MAC. The main outcome measure was the ADR in CRCSP colonoscopies performed with NAAP. Results We included 315 patients per group. The median age was 59.76 ± 5.81 years; 40.5 % of patients were women. The cecal intubation rate was 97 %, 81.8 % of patients had adequate bowel preparation, withdrawal time was > 6 minutes in 98.7 %, and the median global exploration time was 24.25 ± 8.86 minutes (range, 8-70 minutes). The ADR was 62.9 % and the complication rate (CR) was 0.6 %. Analysis by intention-to-treat showed an ADR in the NAAP group of 64.13 % compared with 61.59 % in the MAC group, a difference (δADR) of 2.54 %, 95 %CI: -0.10 to 0.05. Analysis by per-protocol showed an ADR in the NAAP group of 62.98 %, compared with 61.94 % in the MAC group, δADR: 1.04 %, 95 %CI: -0.09 to 0.07. There was no difference in CR (NAAP: 0,63 vs. MAC: 0.63); P = 1.0. Conclusions ADR in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies performed with NAAP was equivalent to that in those performed with MAC. Similarly, there was no difference in complication rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Alburquerque
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital de Palamós, Girona, Spain,Department of Gastroenterology, Clínica Girona, Girona, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | - Alba Vargas García
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital de Palamós, Girona, Spain,Department of Gastroenterology, Clínica Girona, Girona, Spain
| | | | - Lluís Vidal
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital de Palamós, Girona, Spain
| | | | - Ferrán González-Huix Lladó
- Department of Gastroenterology, Clínica Girona, Girona, Spain,Department of Gastroenterology, Arnau de Vilanova University Hospital, Lleida, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Lin JS, Perdue LA, Henrikson NB, Bean SI, Blasi PR. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2021; 325:1978-1998. [PMID: 34003220 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.4417] [Citation(s) in RCA: 336] [Impact Index Per Article: 84.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US. OBJECTIVE To systematically review the effectiveness, test accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2015, to December 4, 2019; surveillance through March 26, 2021. STUDY SELECTION English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting cancers or adenomas, and serious adverse events. RESULTS The review included 33 studies (n = 10 776 276) on the effectiveness of screening, 59 (n = 3 491 045) on the test performance of screening tests, and 131 (n = 26 987 366) on the harms of screening. In randomized clinical trials (4 trials, n = 458 002), intention to screen with 1- or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy vs no screening was associated with a decrease in CRC-specific mortality (incidence rate ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.80]). Annual or biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) vs no screening (5 trials, n = 419 966) was associated with a reduction of CRC-specific mortality after 2 to 9 rounds of screening (relative risk at 19.5 years, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84-0.98]; relative risk at 30 years, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]). In observational studies, receipt of screening colonoscopy (2 studies, n = 436 927) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (1 study, n = 5.4 million) vs no screening was associated with lower risk of CRC incidence or mortality. Nine studies (n = 6497) evaluated the test accuracy of screening computed tomography (CT) colonography, 4 of which also reported the test accuracy of colonoscopy; pooled sensitivity to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger was similar between CT colonography with bowel prep (0.86) and colonoscopy (0.89). In pooled values, commonly evaluated FITs (14 studies, n = 45 403) (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.94) and stool DNA with FIT (4 studies, n = 12 424) (sensitivity, 0.93; specificity, 0.85) performed better than high-sensitivity gFOBT (2 studies, n = 3503) (sensitivity, 0.50-0.75; specificity, 0.96-0.98) to detect cancers. Serious harms of screening colonoscopy included perforations (3.1/10 000 procedures) and major bleeding (14.6/10 000 procedures). CT colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation. It is unclear if detection of extracolonic findings on CT colonography is a net benefit or harm. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE There are several options to screen for colorectal cancer, each with a different level of evidence demonstrating its ability to reduce cancer mortality, its ability to detect cancer or precursor lesions, and its risk of harms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer S Lin
- Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon
| | - Leslie A Perdue
- Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon
| | - Nora B Henrikson
- Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon
| | - Sarah I Bean
- Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon
| | - Paula R Blasi
- Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon
| |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Shan K, Lu H, Zhang Z, Xie J, Xu L, Wang W, Hu C, Xu L. Impact of second forward-view examination on adenoma detection rate during unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Gastroenterol 2021; 21:213. [PMID: 33971824 PMCID: PMC8111781 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-021-01783-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2021] [Accepted: 04/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives Colorectal cancer on the right side of the colon has been suggested to be harder to detect by colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a second forward-view examination of the right side of the colon could increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and/or polyp detection rate (PDR). Methods This was a single-centre randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing colonoscopy were recruited and randomly assigned to the second forward-view examination (SFE) group, in which the right side of the colon was examined twice or the traditional colonoscopy (TC) group in which the colonoscopy was performed in a standard manner. The primary outcome was the ADR of right colon. The overall PDR and ADR, PDR of the right colon, per-adenoma miss rate of the right colon, and advanced lesion detection rate were also recorded and compared. Results A total of 392 patients were included in the study (SFE group 197 vs. TC group 195). The ADR and PDR of the right colon in the SFE group were significantly higher than those in the TC group (ADR 10.7% vs. 5.1%; P = 0.042); PDR 17.8% vs. 9.7%, P = 0.021). No significant difference was found in overall PDR/ADR, or advanced lesion detection rate between the two groups. Conclusions This prospective controlled study revealed that a second forward-view examination could modestly increase the ADR and PDR of the right colon during unsedated colonoscopies. This simple, safe and time-effective technique might be recommended for routine unsedated colonoscopy. Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov, NCT03619122. Registered on 7/8/2018. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-021-01783-9.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Keshu Shan
- China Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, 59 Liuting St, Ningbo, 315010, Zhejiang, China
| | - Hongpeng Lu
- China Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, 59 Liuting St, Ningbo, 315010, Zhejiang, China
| | - Zhixin Zhang
- College of Medicine, Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315010, Zhejiang, China
| | - Jiarong Xie
- College of Medicine, Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315010, Zhejiang, China
| | - Lu Xu
- College of Medicine, Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315010, Zhejiang, China
| | - Weihong Wang
- China Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, 59 Liuting St, Ningbo, 315010, Zhejiang, China
| | - Chunjiu Hu
- China Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, 59 Liuting St, Ningbo, 315010, Zhejiang, China
| | - Lei Xu
- China Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, 59 Liuting St, Ningbo, 315010, Zhejiang, China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Abstract
Propofol is a widely used sedative for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Drug-induced pancreatitis is a relatively rare disease possibly because of poor recognition. Propofol-induced pancreatitis is an extremely rare phenomenon. We present a 22-year-old healthy man who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with propofol as a sedative. Soon after, he developed acute upper gastrointestinal symptoms and was diagnosed with pancreatitis. His prolonged hospital course was complicated with necrotizing pancreatitis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock, and other end-organ damages. We hope to increase awareness of a life-threatening adverse event of a commonly used anesthetic such as propofol.
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Jha JM, Babu S. Perception and Practices of Colonoscopy Procedure: A Nationwide Survey of Indian Gastroenterologists. JOURNAL OF DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY 2020. [DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721223] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction There is a lack of data and consensus about the practices and policies regarding performing colonoscopy in India. We surveyed gastroenterologists to assess their practices and policies of performing colonoscopy.
Methodology A questionnaire was presented to gastroenterologists all over India regarding their preference of bowel preparation and method of sedation, completeness of cecal and ileal intubation rates, preferences for inflation, use of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, and complications faced.
Results Of the 350 surveys, 307 had completely responded (88%). Only 18% of the centers were conducting more than 100 colonoscopies a month and 46% denied following a colon cancer screening policy. Two bottles of liquid polyethylene glycol were the most preferred preparation. A total of 21% did not prefer any sedation at all. Nitrous oxide was used by only 5.6% of doctors. Ileal intubation rate was >96% in 34% of centers and cecal intubation rate >96% in 58% of centers. Air was used for inflation by 58%, while 39% used CO2. A total of 40% of the respondents believe CO2 inflation would improve cecal intubation rate, while 9.4% believed otherwise. While one third found CO2 inflation unnecessary and 14% not cost-effective, three fourths were still interested in setting up a CO2 facility. Reasons for not using nitrous oxide were practical/administrative difficulty (46.6%), side effects (20%), and cost (16%). Still more than half surveyed would consider using Entonox in future. Perforation was the most noted complication faced by respondents.
Conclusions This survey of real-world clinical practices will help to formulate practice guideline regarding colonoscopy in India.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jitendra Mohan Jha
- Department of Medical Gastroenterology, KIMS, Secunderabad, Telangana, India
| | - Sethu Babu
- Department of Medical Gastroenterology, KIMS, Secunderabad, Telangana, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Lieber SR, Heller BJ, Howard CW, Sandler RS, Crockett S, Barritt AS. Complications Associated With Anesthesia Services in Endoscopic Procedures Among Patients With Cirrhosis. Hepatology 2020; 72:2109-2118. [PMID: 32153048 PMCID: PMC7483314 DOI: 10.1002/hep.31224] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2019] [Revised: 02/10/2020] [Accepted: 03/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Anesthesia services for endoscopic procedures have proliferated with the promise of increased comfort and safety. Cirrhosis patients are higher risk for sedation, yet limited data are available describing anesthesia complications in this population. APPROACH AND RESULTS This cross-sectional study utilized the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry, a multicenter quality-improvement database from 2010 to 2015. Patients with cirrhosis undergoing an endoscopy were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)/Current Procedures Terminology (CPT) codes. The outcome of interest was serious anesthesia-related complication defined as cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, drug related, patient injury, death, or unexpected admission. A mixed-effects multivariate logistic regression model determined odds ratios (ORs) between variables and serious complications, adjusting for potential confounders. In total, 9,007 endoscopic procedures were performed among patients with cirrhosis; 92% were esophagogastroduodenoscopies. The majority (81%) were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥3, and 72% had a history of hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, varices, hepatorenal syndrome, or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis identified by ICD-9/CPT codes. In total, 87 complications were reported, 33 of which were serious. Frequency of serious complications was 0.4% or 378.6 per 100,000 procedures (95% confidence interval [CI], 260.8, 531.3). The majority of serious complications were cardiovascular (21 of 33), including 15 cardiac arrests. Serious complications were significantly associated with ASA 4/5 (OR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.09, 13.57) and general anesthesia (OR, 4.71; 95% CI, 1.20, 18.50), adjusting for age, sex, ASA class, anesthesia type, inpatient status, portal hypertension history, and variable complication reporting practices. CONCLUSIONS Anesthesia complications among endoscopic procedures in cirrhosis are rare overall. Serious complications were predominantly cardiac and associated with sicker patients undergoing general anesthesia. The complexity of end-stage liver disease may warrant more intensive care during endoscopic procedures, including anesthesia monitoring.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah R. Lieber
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina (UNC) Health Care, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Benjamin J. Heller
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of North Carolina (UNC) Health Care, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Christopher W. Howard
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of North Carolina (UNC) Health Care, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Robert S. Sandler
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina (UNC) Health Care, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | | | - A. Sidney Barritt
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina (UNC) Health Care, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Lieber SR, Heller BJ, Martin CF, Howard CW, Crockett S. Complications of Anesthesia Services in Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18:2118-2127.e4. [PMID: 31622738 PMCID: PMC10692495 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2019] [Revised: 09/27/2019] [Accepted: 10/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah R Lieber
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
| | - Benjamin J Heller
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of North Carolina Health Care, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Christopher F Martin
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Christopher W Howard
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of North Carolina Health Care, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Seth Crockett
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Thompson EV, Snyder JR. Recognition and Management of Colonic Perforation following Endoscopy. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2019; 32:183-189. [PMID: 31061648 DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1677024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Although rare, perforation can be a devastating complication of colonoscopy. Incidence ranges from 0.012 to 0.65% during diagnostic procedures and is higher in therapeutic procedures. Early diagnosis and management are of paramount importance to decrease morbidity. Diagnostic imaging after colonoscopy can reveal extraintestinal air, but overall clinical status including leukocytosis, fever, pain, and peritonitis is equally important to determine management. With the expanding availability of complex endoscopic interventions, an increasing number of perforations are recognized during colonoscopy or immediately afterward based on high degree of suspicion. Colonoscopic management of these early perforations may be feasible and avoid the morbidity of surgery. Patients who require surgery may be managed with laparoscopic or open surgical techniques. Surgical management may consist of primary repair of the injury, resection with anastomosis, or resection with ostomy. Mechanical bowel preparation before endoscopy decreases fecal contamination after perforation, often obviating the need for ostomy creation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Earl V Thompson
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Jonathan R Snyder
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
| |
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Yang YL, Li SS, Wang XB, Li JN. Painless Colonoscopy: A Pilot Study of a 5.9-mm Endoscope for Routine Colonoscopy. Chin Med J (Engl) 2018; 131:857-858. [PMID: 29578131 PMCID: PMC5887746 DOI: 10.4103/0366-6999.228250] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- You-Lin Yang
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150001, China
| | - Shan-Shan Li
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150001, China
| | - Xiao-Bing Wang
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150001, China
| | - Ji-Neng Li
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150001, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Do we really need an anesthesiologist for routine colonoscopy in American Society of Anesthesiologist 1 and 2 patients? Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2018; 31:463-468. [PMID: 29870424 DOI: 10.1097/aco.0000000000000608] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Xue M, Tian J, Zhang J, Zhu H, Bai J, Zhang S, Wang Q, Wang S, Song X, Ma D, Li J, Zhang Y, Li W, Wang D. No increased risk of perforation during colonoscopy in patients undergoing propofol versus traditional sedation: A meta-analysis. Indian J Gastroenterol 2018. [PMID: 29520582 DOI: 10.1007/s12664-017-0814-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS The safety of propofol sedation during colonoscopy remains unclear, and we performed a meta-analysis to assess the risk of perforation in patients undergoing propofol vs. traditional sedation. METHODS MEDLINE, CBM, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched up to December 2016. Two reviewers independently assessed abstract of those searched articles. Data about perforation condition in propofol and traditional sedation groups were extracted and combined using the random effects model. RESULTS A total of 19 studies were included in the current meta-analysis. Compared to traditional sedation, propofol sedation did not increase the risk of perforation (RD = - 0.00, 95% CI - 0.00~0.00, p = 0.98; subgroup analysis: OR = 1.30, 95% CI 0.83~2.05, p = 0.25). CONCLUSION This meta-analysis suggested that propofol sedation did not increase the risk of perforation compared to traditional sedation during colonoscopy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Minmin Xue
- Department of Gastroenterology, Chinese People's Liberation Army 254 Hospital, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China
| | - Jian Tian
- Department of Gastroenterology, Chinese People's Liberation Army 254 Hospital, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China
| | - Jing Zhang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Chinese People's Liberation Army 254 Hospital, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China
| | - Hongbin Zhu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Chinese People's Liberation Army 254 Hospital, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China
| | - Jun Bai
- Department of Gastroenterology, Chinese People's Liberation Army 254 Hospital, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China
| | - Sujuan Zhang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Chinese People's Liberation Army 254 Hospital, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China
| | - Qili Wang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Chinese People's Liberation Army 254 Hospital, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China
| | - Shuge Wang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Chinese People's Liberation Army 254 Hospital, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China
| | - Xuzheng Song
- Department of Gastroenterology, Chinese People's Liberation Army 254 Hospital, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China
| | - Donghong Ma
- Department of Gastroenterology, Chinese People's Liberation Army 254 Hospital, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China
| | - Jia Li
- Department of Gastroenterology, Chinese People's Liberation Army 254 Hospital, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China
| | - Yongmin Zhang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Chinese People's Liberation Army 254 Hospital, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China
| | - Wei Li
- Department of Gastroenterology, Chinese People's Liberation Army 254 Hospital, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China
| | - Dongxu Wang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Chinese People's Liberation Army 254 Hospital, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
17
|
Impact of anxiety on sedative medication dosage in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2018; 13:192-198. [PMID: 30002751 PMCID: PMC6041589 DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2018.73594] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2017] [Accepted: 01/28/2018] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a diagnostic method used in the investigation of upper gastrointestinal system diseases. A high level of anxiety of patients who undergo EGD increases the duration of the procedure and the sedation and analgesic requirements. Sedation is used to increase patient comfort and tolerance by reducing the anxiety and pain associated with endoscopic procedures. Aim In this study, the effect of anxiety scores on medication doses was investigated in patients who underwent EGD under sedation. Material and methods A psychiatrist, an endoscopist and an anesthesiologist conducted a prospective observational study blindly to investigate the effect of pre-procedural (before EGD) anxiety level on medication doses for sedation. Patients were divided into two groups, with and without additional medication doses. Results The study included 210 consecutive patients who underwent EGD under sedation. The average STAI-S score was 40.28 and the average STAI-T score was 40.18. There was no relationship between anxiety scores and gender (p = 0.058, p = 0.869). Statistically significant results were obtained for anxiety scores with additional sedation dosing (p < 0.05). It was observed that an additional dose of medication was affected by age, body mass index and anxiety scores (p < 0.005). Patients who were young, had a low body mass index and had high anxiety scores had significantly higher additional dose requirements. Conclusions The medications used for sedation during EGD may be inadequate or an additional dose of medication may be needed for patients who have higher anxiety scores, younger age, and lower body mass index.
Collapse
|
|
18
|
Wang L, Mannalithara A, Singh G, Ladabaum U. Low Rates of Gastrointestinal and Non-Gastrointestinal Complications for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopies in a Population-Based Study. Gastroenterology 2018; 154:540-555.e8. [PMID: 29031502 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.10.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2016] [Revised: 09/14/2017] [Accepted: 10/05/2017] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The full spectrum of serious non-gastrointestinal post-colonoscopy complications has not been well characterized. We analyzed rates of and factors associated with adverse post-colonoscopy gastrointestinal (GI) and non-gastrointestinal events (cardiovascular, pulmonary, or infectious) attributable to screening or surveillance colonoscopy (S-colo) and non-screening or non-surveillance colonoscopy (NS-colo). METHODS We performed a population-based study of colonoscopy complications using databases from California hospital-owned and nonhospital-owned ambulatory facilities, emergency departments, and hospitals from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2011. We identified patients who underwent S-colo (1.58 million), NS-colo (1.22 million), or low-risk comparator procedures (joint injection, aspiration, lithotripsy; arthroscopy, carpal tunnel; or cataract; 2.02 million) in California's Ambulatory Services Databases. We identified patients who developed adverse events within 30 days, and factors associated with these events, through patient-level linkage to California's Emergency Department and Inpatient Databases. RESULTS After S-colo, the numbers of lower GI bleeding, perforation, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke per 10,000-persons were 5.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8-5.9), 2.9 (95% CI, 2.5-3.3), 2.5 (95% CI, 2.1-2.9), and 4.7 (95% CI, 4.1-5.2) without biopsy or intervention; with biopsy or intervention, numbers per 10,000-persons were 36.4 (95% CI, 35.1-37.6), 6.3 (95% CI, 5.8-6.8), 4.2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.7), and 9.1 (95% CI, 8.5-9.7). Rates of dysrhythmia were higher. After NS-colo, event rates were substantially higher. Most serious complications led to hospitalization, and most GI complications occurred within 14 days of colonoscopy. Ranges of adjusted odds ratios for serious GI complications, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and serious pulmonary events after S-colo vs comparator procedures were 2.18 (95% CI, 2.02-2.36) to 5.13 (95% CI, 4.81-5.47), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.56-0.81) to 0.99 (95% CI, 0.83-1.19), 0.66 (95% CI, 0.59-0.75) to 1.13 (95% CI, 0.99-1.29), and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.61-0.68) to 1.05 (95% CI, 0.98-1.11). Biopsy or intervention, comorbidity, black race, low income, public insurance, and NS-colo were associated with post-colonoscopy adverse events. CONCLUSIONS In a population-based study in California, we found that following S-colo, rates of serious GI adverse events were low but clinically relevant, and that rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, and serious pulmonary events were no higher than after low-risk comparator procedures. Rates of myocardial infarction are similar to, but rates of stroke are higher than, those reported for the general population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise Wang
- Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Ajitha Mannalithara
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Gurkirpal Singh
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Institute of Clinical Outcomes Research and Education, Woodside, California
| | - Uri Ladabaum
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
| |
Collapse
|
|
19
|
Bielawska B, Hookey LC, Sutradhar R, Whitehead M, Xu J, Paszat LF, Rabeneck L, Tinmouth J. Anesthesia Assistance in Outpatient Colonoscopy and Risk of Aspiration Pneumonia, Bowel Perforation, and Splenic Injury. Gastroenterology 2018; 154:77-85.e3. [PMID: 28865733 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.08.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2017] [Revised: 08/21/2017] [Accepted: 08/23/2017] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS The increase in use of anesthesia assistance (AA) to achieve deep sedation with propofol during colonoscopy has significantly increased colonoscopy costs without evidence for increased quality and with possible harm. We investigated the effects of AA on colonoscopy complications, specifically bowel perforation, aspiration pneumonia, and splenic injury. METHODS In a population-based cohort study using administrative databases, we studied adults in Ontario, Canada undergoing outpatient colonoscopy from 2005 through 2012. Patient, endoscopist, institution, and procedure factors were derived. The primary outcome was bowel perforation, defined using a validated algorithm. Secondary outcomes were splenic injury and aspiration pneumonia. Using a matched propensity score approach, we matched persons who had colonoscopy with AA (1:1) with those who did not. We used logistic regression models under a generalized estimating equations approach to explore the relationship between AA and outcomes. RESULTS Data from 3,059,045 outpatient colonoscopies were analyzed; 862,817 of these included AA. After propensity matching, a cohort of 793,073 patients who had AA and 793,073 without AA was retained for analysis (51% female; 78% were age 50 years or older). Use of AA did not significantly increase risk of perforation (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.16) or splenic injury (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.62-1.90]. Use of AA was associated with an increased risk of aspiration pneumonia (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.11-2.37). CONCLUSIONS In a population-based cohort study, AA for outpatient colonoscopy was associated with a significantly increased risk of aspiration pneumonia, but not bowel perforation or splenic injury. Endoscopists should warn patients, especially those with respiratory compromise, of this risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barbara Bielawska
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lawrence C Hookey
- Gastrointestinal Diseases Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Rinku Sutradhar
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Marlo Whitehead
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jianfeng Xu
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Linda Rabeneck
- Prevention & Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario; University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jill Tinmouth
- Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Prevention & Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario; Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
|
20
|
Anesthesia for Colonoscopy. Anesthesiology 2018. [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-74766-8_20] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
|
|
21
|
Abstract
Colonoscopy is the gold standard for colon cancer screening. It has led to a decrease in the incidence of colorectal cancer mortality. Colon perforation is a feared complication of this procedure with high morbidity and substantial mortality. Due to the high volume of colonoscopies performed, the absolute number of colonoscopic perforations is relatively high. It leads to a substantial cost to the patient and the health system. Understanding the mechanisms and the risk factors may help in preventing perforation. Traditionally, a laparotomy with creation of a stoma was used to address this complication. However, minimally invasive techniques such as laparoscopy and endoluminal repairs are being used more commonly now. More surgeons are favoring primary anastomosis (with or without a diverting loop ileostomy) than a Hartmann procedure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vinay Rai
- Department of Surgery, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
| | - Nitin Mishra
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Phoenix, Arizona
| |
Collapse
|
|
22
|
Lin OS. Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction. Intest Res 2017; 15:456-466. [PMID: 29142513 PMCID: PMC5683976 DOI: 10.5217/ir.2017.15.4.456] [Citation(s) in RCA: 87] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2017] [Revised: 08/03/2017] [Accepted: 08/03/2017] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used, but propofol sedation is becoming more popular because its unique pharmacokinetic properties make endoscopy almost painless, with a very predictable and rapid recovery process. There is controversy as to whether propofol should be administered only by anesthesia professionals (monitored anesthesia care) or whether properly trained non-anesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation. The deployment of non-anesthesia administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall health care costs without sacrificing sedation quality. This review will discuss efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction issues with various modes of sedation for non-advanced, non-emergent endoscopic procedures, mainly esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Otto S Lin
- Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
23
|
Forsberg A, Hammar U, Ekbom A, Hultcrantz R. A register-based study: adverse events in colonoscopies performed in Sweden 2001-2013. Scand J Gastroenterol 2017; 52:1042-1047. [PMID: 28562115 DOI: 10.1080/00365521.2017.1334812] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The rates for colonoscopy-associated adverse events vary considerably worldwide. In Sweden, the figures are known to a limited extent. We assessed the frequency of severe colonoscopy-related adverse events and the impacts of different risk factors, including the use of general anaesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS This is a retrospective population-based cohort study of the colonoscopies performed during the years 2001-2013 on adults identified in the Swedish health registers. The rates for bleeding, perforation, splenic injury and 30-day mortality were calculated. Covariates for risks were assessed in a multivariate Poisson regression model. RESULTS There were 593,315 colonoscopies performed on the 426,560 individuals included in the study. The rates for colonoscopy-related bleeding and perforation were 0.17% and 0.11%, respectively. When polypectomy was performed, the rates were 0.53% for bleeding and 0.25% for perforation. There were 31 splenic injuries (1:20,000 colonoscopies) reported. The crude 30-day death rate for colonoscopy was 0.68%. Of those diagnosed with bleeding or perforation, 5.6% and 6.1% were dead within 30 days, respectively. The multivariate RR for perforation when general anaesthesia was employed was 2.65 (p < .001; 95%CI 1.71-4.12). CONCLUSIONS The perforation rate seemed to be relatively high in an international perspective. General anaesthesia was associated with a significantly higher risk for perforation. Splenic injuries were more frequent than expected.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Forsberg
- a Department of Medicine Solna , Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm , Sweden
| | - Ulf Hammar
- b Department of Biostatistics , Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm , Sweden
| | - Anders Ekbom
- a Department of Medicine Solna , Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm , Sweden
| | - Rolf Hultcrantz
- c Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology , Huddinge Hospital, Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm , Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
|
24
|
Lee MJ, Connelly TM. Head and neck subcutaneous emphysema, a rare complication of iatrogenic perforation during colonoscopy: management review of reported cases from 2000-2016. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 11:849-856. [PMID: 28678570 DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2017.1351294] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Subcutaneous face and neck emphysema secondary to colonic perforation is a rare complication of colonoscopy. Presentation may be complicated by pneumothorax and/or respiratory distress. Evidence limited to case studies. Therefore, no management consensus of these rarely reported cases exists. METHODS All cases published on PubMed between 1 January 2000-1 November 2016 reporting subcutaneous face and/or neck emphysema after colonoscopy are included. Management is discussed with trends identified. We report a case of a patient undergoing routine polypectomy who developed subcutaneous emphysema of the face, neck and thorax with a pneumothorax and pneumoretroperitoneum. RESULTS 37 cases were found (mean age = 64.1 ± 15.09 years). The majority (n = 24) were managed non-operatively. Conservative and operative management had mean inpatient stays of 7.6 ± 4.65 and 19.5 +/- 21.62 days respectively. Sixteen cases had a concomitant pneumothorax with nine (56.3%) requiring decompression. No mortalities occurred. CONCLUSION An understanding of anatomy heightens awareness of the rare complication of face and/or neck surgical emphysema, secondary to pneumoretroperitoneum and pneumothorax, after perforation of the colon during endoscopy. Management remains controversial with expectant conservative bowel rest with antibiotics and operative intervention described. Conservative management had a shorter inpatient stay and was more common in younger patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mathew John Lee
- a General Surgery , Royal College of Surgeons , Dublin , Ireland
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
25
|
Cabadas R, Álvarez-Escudero J. In response to the editorial: "Will societies of anesthesiologists partake in the take-off of non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol?". REVISTA ESPANOLA DE ENFERMEDADES DIGESTIVAS 2017; 109:602-603. [PMID: 28689423 DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.4909/2017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
The editorial of Dr. Dumonceau comments on the discrepancies with the declarations done in regard to the article sent by titled Alvarez J. et al "Safety of the patient in deep sedation for endoscopico digestive procedures". We do not agree in the analysis of the mortality, with comparative studies between anesthesiologists and not anesthesiologists and with the conclusion of the editorial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rafael Cabadas
- Anestesiología y Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital Povisa, España
| | - Julián Álvarez-Escudero
- Anestesiología y Reanimación, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago de Compostela. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, España
| |
Collapse
|
|
26
|
Zhang K, Yuan Q, Zhu S, Xu D, An Z. Is Unsedated Colonoscopy Gaining Ground Over Sedated Colonoscopy? J Natl Med Assoc 2017; 110:143-148. [PMID: 29580447 DOI: 10.1016/j.jnma.2016.12.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2016] [Revised: 12/10/2016] [Accepted: 12/19/2016] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a prevalent cancer with high global incidence and a leading cause of cancer death worldwide. CRC screening is important for early cancer detection and prevention. Most premalignant adenomas can be identified and removed before they become malignant. Colonoscopy plays a vital role in reducing the risk for developing CRC. Although screening programs with colonoscopy have been implemented in many countries and considered beneficial for a number of people, this technique is generally associated with anxiety, embarrassment, pain, and discomfort, resulting in lack of adherence to the recommended screening guidelines. In the US, colonoscopy is mostly performed under sedation, thereby causing amnesia and analgesia. In contrast to sedated colonoscopy, which has been associated with some disadvantages, unsedated colonoscopy exhibits advantages and has been preferred over sedated colonoscopy in numerous cancer centers worldwide. This review enumerates the features of sedated and unsedated colonoscopy with the use of the current relevant evidence-based literature. Unsedated colonoscopy can be a reasonable option for routine and unscheduled CRC screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kaixian Zhang
- Department of Oncology, Tengzhou Central People's Hospital, Tengzhou 277599, China
| | - Qianqian Yuan
- Department of Oncology, Tengzhou Central People's Hospital, Tengzhou 277599, China
| | - Shuguang Zhu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Tengzhou Central People's Hospital, Tengzhou 277599, China
| | - Daheng Xu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Tengzhou Central People's Hospital, Tengzhou 277599, China
| | - Zhe An
- Department of Cardiology, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun 130033, China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
27
|
Cologne KG, Bastawrous A. How to achieve cecal intubation in patients with angulated and redundant colons? SEMINARS IN COLON AND RECTAL SURGERY 2017. [DOI: 10.1053/j.scrs.2016.11.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
|
28
|
Vargo JJ, Niklewski PJ, Williams JL, Martin JF, Faigel DO. Patient safety during sedation by anesthesia professionals during routine upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: an analysis of 1.38 million procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85:101-108. [PMID: 26905938 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.02.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 85] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2015] [Accepted: 02/02/2016] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Sedation for GI endoscopy directed by anesthesia professionals (ADS) is used with the intention of improving throughput and patient satisfaction. However, data on its safety are sparse because of the lack of adequately powered, randomized controlled trials comparing it with endoscopist-directed sedation (EDS). This study was intended to determine whether ADS provides a safety advantage when compared with EDS for EGD and colonoscopy. METHODS This retrospective, nonrandomized, observational cohort study used the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative National Endoscopic Database, a network of 84 sites in the United States composed of academic, community, health maintenance organization, military, and Veterans Affairs practices. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were defined as any event requiring administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, hospital or emergency department admission, administration of rescue/reversal medication, emergency surgery, procedure termination because of an adverse event, intraprocedural adverse events requiring intervention, or blood transfusion. RESULTS There were 1,388,235 patients in this study that included 880,182 colonoscopy procedures (21% ADS) and 508,053 EGD procedures (23% ADS) between 2002 and 2013. When compared with EDS, the propensity-adjusted SAE risk for patients receiving ADS was similar for colonoscopy (OR, .93; 95% CI, .82-1.06) but higher for EGD (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.18-1.50). Additionally, with further stratification by American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, the use of ADS was associated with a higher SAE risk for ASA I/II and ASA III subjects undergoing EGD and showed no difference for either group undergoing colonoscopy. The sample size was not sufficient to make a conclusion regarding ASA IV/V patients. CONCLUSIONS Within the confines of the SAE definitions used, use of anesthesia professionals does not appear to bring a safety benefit to patients receiving colonoscopy and is associated with an increased SAE risk for ASA I, II, and III patients undergoing EGD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John J Vargo
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Digestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Paul J Niklewski
- Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; Department of Pharmacology and Cell Biophysics, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | - J Lucas Williams
- Division of Gastroenterology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | | | - Douglas O Faigel
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
29
|
Álvarez J, Cabadas R, de la Matta M. Patient safety under deep sedation for digestive endoscopic procedures. REVISTA ESPANOLA DE ENFERMEDADES DIGESTIVAS 2016; 109:137-143. [PMID: 28004964 DOI: 10.17235/reed.2016.4572/2016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
Deep sedation with Propofol has become popular in recent years. The safety of this technique when administered by non-anaesthesiologists has created much controversy which at times is masked in a contentious debate on the economic sustainability of the health system. In 2011, the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy, along with 20 other organisations from European countries, revoked the recommendations of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy on the administration of Propofol by non-anaesthesiologists, citing that it is "extremely dangerous for the safety and quality of endoscopic procedures". The FDA in 2005 had already rejected the use of Propofol by non-anaesthesiologists in the United States, a prohibition which was reiterated in 2010 and is still in force, basing its evidence, among others, on the recommendations and guidelines of the Joint Commission and the Declaration of Helsinki. In Spain, the data sheet of Propofol restricts the use of the drug to anaesthesiologists and intensivists in intensive care units. In our opinion, the key elements to discuss (which we develop in our paper) are those related to: a) the morbidity and mortality of sedation (which is the same as speaking about the factors that influence its safety); b) the appropriate professionals to use this technique; and c) economic aspects related to the use of said technique. Our conclusion is that a technique cannot be declared safe when a high percentage of patients present with varying respiratory depression (and therefore hypoxaemia) and hypotension. We are confident that the collaboration of the Spanish Society of Digestive Pathology and the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy with the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy is the first step towards finding a satisfactory solution for everyone, and especially for our patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julián Álvarez
- Anestesiología y Reanimación, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago de Compostela. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, España
| | - Rafael Cabadas
- Anestesiología y Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital Povisa (Vigo), España
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
30
|
Abstract
Hemoperitoneum without evidence of organ damage is a rare complication of colonoscopy. It is most frequently seen in association with splenic rupture due to traction on the splenocolic ligament. In our case, we present a 48-year-old cirrhotic man who developed peritoneal bleeding during a diagnostic colonoscopy for iron deficiency anemia. However, he was without signs of splenic damage or colon perforation. We suggest that the most likely source of bleeding is a ruptured portal-caval collateral vessel based on a computed tomography performed following the procedure.
Collapse
|
|
31
|
González-Huix Lladó F. Sedation for endoscopy in 2016 - Is endoscopist-guided sedation safe in complex situations? REVISTA ESPANOLA DE ENFERMEDADES DIGESTIVAS 2016; 108:237-239. [PMID: 27128637 DOI: 10.17235/reed.2016.4383/2016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Abstract
The higher number of adverse events reported with anesthetist-delivered sedation are likely due to the fact that anethesia professionals induce deeper sedation as compared to sedation delivered by endoscopists. The former are trained to induce general anesthesia in their daily practice, where protective reflexes are more commonly depressed and the risk for undesired cardiopulmonary events is higher.
Collapse
|
|
32
|
Goudra B, Nuzat A, Singh PM, Borle A, Carlin A, Gouda G. Association between Type of Sedation and the Adverse Events Associated with Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: An Analysis of 5 Years' Data from a Tertiary Center in the USA. Clin Endosc 2016; 50:161-169. [PMID: 27126387 PMCID: PMC5398365 DOI: 10.5946/ce.2016.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2016] [Revised: 03/14/2016] [Accepted: 03/14/2016] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background/Aims The landscape of sedation for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures and the nature of the procedures themselves have changed over the last decade. In this study, an attempt is made to analyze the frequency and etiology of all major adverse events associated with GI endoscopy.
Methods All adverse events extracted from the electronic database and local registry were analyzed. Although the data analysis was retrospective, the adverse events themselves were documented prospectively. These events were evaluated after subdivision into propofol-based anesthesia and intravenous conscious sedation groups.
Results Cardiorespiratory events, including cardiac arrest, were the most common adverse events during esophagogastroduodenoscopy, while bleeding was more frequent in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Pancreatitis was the most frequent adverse event in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The frequencies of most adverse events were significantly higher in patients anesthetized with propofol. Automatic regression modeling showed that the type of sedation, the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, and the procedure type were some of the predictors of immediate life-threatening complications.
Conclusions Clearly, our regression modeling suggests a strong association between the type of sedation as well as various patient factors and the frequency of adverse events. The possible reasons for our results are the changing demographics, the worsening comorbidities of the patient population, and the increasing technical complexity of these procedures. Although extensive use of propofol has increased patient satisfaction and procedure acceptability, its use is also associated with more frequent adverse events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Basavana Goudra
- Department of Clinical Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Ahmad Nuzat
- Department of Endoscopy, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Preet Mohinder Singh
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Anuradha Borle
- Department of Anesthesia, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Augustus Carlin
- Department of Clinical Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Gowri Gouda
- Department of Clinical Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
33
|
Thornley P, Al Beshir M, Gregor J, Antoniou A, Khanna N. Efficiency and patient experience with propofol vs conventional sedation: A prospective study. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 8:232-238. [PMID: 26962405 PMCID: PMC4766256 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i4.232] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2015] [Revised: 12/07/2015] [Accepted: 12/23/2015] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM: To determine whether anaesthesiologist-administered sedation with propofol (AAP) or endoscopist-administered conscious sedation (EAC) with fentanyl/midazolam shortens colonoscopy duration/total room time.
METHODS: This is a prospective, non-randomized, comparative study that enrolled patients greater than 18 years of age undergoing colonoscopy in a single Canadian academic outpatient endoscopy unit over a three-month consecutive period. Colonoscopies in this unit are performed both with AAP and EAC. Patient demographics, procedure-related data and adverse events were documented. Additionally, the level of procedure difficulty, and whether a staff endoscopist, trainee with assistance, or independent trainee, performed the procedure were documented. A validated modified 4-question, 5-point Likert scale telephone survey was used to assess patient satisfaction with colonoscopy. The telephone patient satisfaction survey was conducted 24-72 h following the procedure.
RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty patients were enrolled during the study period with 126 patients in the AAP group and 104 patients in the EAC group. Mean procedure time was 18.3 ± 10.1 min in the AAP group and 14.7 ± 7.1 min in the EAC group (P = 0.002). Mean total room time was 36.8 ± 13.7 with AAP and 30.1 ± 11 min with EAC (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed the use of AAP (P = 0.002), resident participation (P < 0.001), diagnostic interventions (P = 0.033), therapeutic interventions (P < 0.001), lower body mass index (P = 0.008) and American Society of Anaesthesiologist class (P = 0.016), to be predictors of longer total room time. Patient age and gender were not significant predictors. After excluding cases in which trainees were involved, there was no significant difference in procedure time between the two groups (P = 0.941), however total room time was still prolonged in the AAP group (P = 0.019). The amount of pain experienced was lower with AAP (P = 0.02), with a trend toward overall higher patient satisfaction (P = 0.074). There were 2 sedation-related adverse events, both in the AAP group involving a patient with aspiration requiring hospitalization and a patient with hypoxia managed with bronchodilators.
CONCLUSION: EAC results in reduced total room time compared to AAP. Resident participation doubles procedure time regardless of sedation type.
Collapse
|
|
34
|
Tanaka Y, Arai T, Uegaki S, Sasaki M, Kanazawa N, Inamatsu T. Characteristics of colonoscopic findings in the very elderly. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2015; 16:1319-1323. [DOI: 10.1111/ggi.12648] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/31/2015] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Yasuo Tanaka
- Department of Internal Medicine; Abiko Seijinkai Hospital; Abiko Japan
- Department of Gastroenterology; Tokyo Metropolitan Geriatric Hospital; Tokyo Japan
| | - Tomio Arai
- Department of Pathology; Tokyo Metropolitan Geriatric Hospital; Tokyo Japan
| | - Satoko Uegaki
- Department of Gastroenterology; Tokyo Metropolitan Geriatric Hospital; Tokyo Japan
| | - Mina Sasaki
- Department of Gastroenterology; Tokyo Metropolitan Geriatric Hospital; Tokyo Japan
| | - Nobuo Kanazawa
- Department of Surgery; Tokyo Metropolitan Geriatric Hospital; Tokyo Japan
| | - Takashi Inamatsu
- Department of Laboratory Medicine; Tokyo Metropolitan Geriatric Hospital; Tokyo Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
35
|
Goudra B, Singh PM, Gouda G, Borle A, Carlin A, Yadwad A. Propofol and non-propofol based sedation for outpatient colonoscopy-prospective comparison of depth of sedation using an EEG based SEDLine monitor. J Clin Monit Comput 2015; 30:551-7. [PMID: 26364193 DOI: 10.1007/s10877-015-9769-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2015] [Accepted: 09/09/2015] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Propofol is a popular anesthetic sedative employed in colonoscopy. It is known to increase the patient satisfaction and improve throughput. However, there are concerns among the clinicians with regard to the depth of sedation, as a deeper degree of sedation is known to increase the incidence of aspiration and other adverse events. So we planned to compare the depth of sedation between propofol and non-propofol based sedation in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy, as measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG) based monitor SEDLine monitor (SedlineInc., San Diego, CA). The non-randomized prospective observational study was performed in the outpatient gastroenterology suite of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Patients included ASA class I-III aged more than 18 years scheduled for colonoscopy under Propofol or non-propofol based sedation. After an institutional review board approval, a written consent was obtained from prospective patients. Sedation (propofol or non-propofol based) was administered by either a certified nurse anesthetist under the supervision of an anesthesiologist (propofol) or a registered endoscopy nurse under the guidance of the endoscopist performing the procedure (non-propofol sedation). Depth of sedation was measured with an EEG based SEDLine monitor. The sedation providers were blinded to the patient state index-the indicator of depth of sedation. PSI (patient state index-SEDLine reading) was documented at colonoscope insertion, removal and at the return of verbal responsiveness after colonoscope withdrawal. Sedation spectrum was retrieved from the data stored on the SEDLine monitor. Patients sedated with propofol experience significantly deeper degrees of sedation at all times during the procedure. Additionally, during significant part of the procedure, they are at PSI levels associated with deep general anesthesia. The group that received propofol was more deeply sedated and had lower PSI values. Lighter propofol titration protocols may lead to improved patient care such as lowering risk of aspiration and hypotension. The role of processed EEG monitors such as the SEDLine monitor to improve sedation protocols remains to be determined. Trial registration We obtained an ethical clearance from the Institute. No trial registration was mandated, as no interventional drug or investigational device were used during the study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Basavana Goudra
- Department of Clinical Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, 680 Dulles Building, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
| | - Preet Mohinder Singh
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, All India Institutes of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar East, New Delhi, 110029, India
| | - Gowri Gouda
- Pennoni Honors College, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - Anuradha Borle
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, All India Institutes of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar East, New Delhi, 110029, India
| | - Augustus Carlin
- Department of Clinical Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, 680 Dulles Building, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - Avantika Yadwad
- Department of Clinical Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, 680 Dulles Building, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
36
|
Wanders LK, van Doorn SC, Fockens P, Dekker E. Quality of colonoscopy and advances in detection of colorectal lesions: a current overview. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 9:417-30. [PMID: 25467213 DOI: 10.1586/17474124.2015.972940] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the detection of colorectal cancer and its precursors. Nevertheless multiple studies have demonstrated a significant miss-rate for polyps and, more importantly, demonstrated the occurrence of interval cancers in the years after colonoscopy. This imperfect protection against colorectal cancer can be explained by multiple factors related to both the endoscopist and the equipment. To ensure the quality of colonoscopy, several quality indicators have been described. These include bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate and complication rate. Measurement of these quality indicators, followed by awareness, benchmarking and additional training will hopefully optimize daily practice. If these basic quality parameters are well taken care of, advanced colonoscopic techniques will aim at further increasing the detection and differentiation of colonic lesions. In this review, the authors discuss the literature on quality indicators for colonoscopy and give a comprehensive overview of the advanced colonoscopic techniques currently available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linda K Wanders
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
37
|
Morales AL, Magulick JP, Womeldorph C, Young PE. Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Current Challenges and Future Directions. CURRENT COLORECTAL CANCER REPORTS 2015. [DOI: 10.1007/s11888-014-0257-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|