Does level of sedation impact detection of advanced neoplasia?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Two of the foremost issues in screening colonoscopy involve delivering quality and maximizing adenoma detection rates (ADR). Little is known about the impact of deep sedation on ADR. This study aims to compare the detection of advanced lesions during screening colonoscopy performed with moderate conscious sedation (MCS) versus deep sedation (DS). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative database. Average risk screening colonoscopies performed January 2000 to December 2005 were examined for practice setting, patient demographics, and findings, including detection of a polyp >9 mm and suspected malignant lesions. RESULTS: A total of 104,868 colonoscopies were examined, 97% of which were performed with MCS. Univariate analysis demonstrated that more polyps of any size were detected with MCS (38 vs. 34%, p < 0.0001) and more advanced lesions were found with DS compared with MCS (7 vs. 6%, p = 0.01). When exclusively examining sites that performed DS > 10% for all procedures, a more significant increase in advanced lesion detection when using DS was observed (7.5 vs. 5.7%, p = 0.003). When adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, site, prep quality, and ASA group, DS was 25% more likely to detect an advanced lesion. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that use of DS may be associated with a higher rate of advanced lesion detection. However, this retrospective design has limitations that necessitate follow-up with prospective studies. These follow-up studies would be essential to support any change in the standard practices of sedation.

Risk factors for cardiopulmonary events during propofol-mediated upper endoscopy and colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Propofol-mediated sedation for endoscopy is popular because of its rapid onset and recovery profile. AIM: To examine procedure-specific occurrence and risk factors for cardiopulmonary events during propofol-mediated upper endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. DESIGN: A cohort study using the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative database was used to determine the frequency of cardiopulmonary events. Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative consisted of 69 practice sites comprising 593 US endoscopists. Multivariate logistic regression analysis used variables, such as age, ASA classification and propofol administration by monitored anaesthesia care or gastroenterologist-administered propofol to determine the risk of cardiopulmonary events. RESULTS: The overall cardiopulmonary event rate for 5928 EGDs and 11 683 colonoscopies was 11.7/1000 cases. For colonoscopy, ascending ASA classification was associated with an increased risk. Monitored anaesthesia care was associated with a decreased adjusted relative risk (0.5, 95% CI: 0.36-0.72). ASA I and II patients receiving monitored anaesthesia care for EGD exhibited a significantly lower relative risk (ARR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.14-0.64). For subjects with ASA class III or greater, there was no difference in the risk between monitored anaesthesia care and gastroenterologist-administered propofol. CONCLUSIONS: There are procedure-specific risk factors for cardiopulmonary events during propofol-mediated EGD and colonoscopy. These should be taken into account during future prospective comparative trials.

Variation in practice of ileal intubation among diverse endoscopy settings: results from a national endoscopic database.

BACKGROUND: Terminal ileum intubation rates at colonoscopy are variable. One of the major indications for terminal ileum intubation is to identify Crohn's disease. Signs and symptoms which raise a suspicion of Crohn's include abdominal pain/bloating, anaemia and diarrhoea. AIM: To determine the proportion of terminal ileal intubation in patients undergoing evaluation of abdominal pain/bloating, anaemia or diarrhoea with normal endoscopic findings at colonoscopy. METHODS: The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative national endoscopic database was analysed to determine the proportion of terminal ileum intubation in patients undergoing evaluation of either abdominal pain/bloating, anaemia or diarrhoea with normal endoscopic findings at colonoscopy and to characterize this population of patients. Patients with known or suspected inflammatory bowel disease were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: Between January 2000 and December 2003, 21 638 patients underwent complete colonoscopy for evaluation of either abdominal pain/bloating, anaemia or diarrhoea with normal colon findings. Overall, 3858 patients (18%) underwent terminal ileum evaluation. Intubation rates differed according to procedure indication: abdominal pain (13%), anaemia (13%), diarrhoea (28%). Terminal ileum assessment declined with advancing patient age and was least frequent in Black patients (12% vs. 18% in non-Blacks, P < 0.0001). Ileal intubation rates also varied among endoscopy site types: community (17%), academic (21%), Veterans Affairs Medical Centres (17%), P < 0.0001. Multiple logistic regression identified patients with the indication of diarrhoea (OR: 2.58) as more likely to undergo terminal ileum intubation when compared with those with abdominal pain/bloating. Patients in Veterans Affairs (OR: 1.26) and academic (OR: 1.29) sites were more likely to undergo terminal ileum intubation compared with community sites. CONCLUSION: Less than one-fifth of patients with either abdominal pain/bloating, anaemia or diarrhoea underwent ileal intubation in the setting of a normal colonoscopy. Significant practice variation was observed in rates of terminal ileum evaluation. Further study is required to determine whether terminal ileum examination impacts patient management or outcome.