Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of bowel preparation on the cost and efficiency of colonoscopy is uncertain. The aim of this study was to measure the impact of bowel preparation on total direct cost as well as procedure time and volume. METHODS: For 200 consecutive outpatient colonoscopies in persons with intact colons both at a private university hospital and at a public university hospital, we recorded the time spent suctioning fluid and feces from the colon and the time spent washing the colon to clean the mucosa. We prospectively asked colonoscopists to designate examinations that should be repeated at an interval sooner than would otherwise be recommended because of imperfect preparation. The data were used to perform a cost analysis of the economic effect of bowel preparation on direct costs of colonoscopy. RESULTS: Suctioning fluid and washing occupied 6% and 1.5% of total examination time (including insertion and withdrawal) at the public hospital and 9% and 1.3% at the private hospital. Patients at the public hospital were more likely to have an aborted examination (6.5% vs 1%, p = 0.004) and to be brought back earlier than suggested or required by current practice standards because of imperfect bowel preparation (20% vs 12.5%, p = 0.04). Cost analysis indicated that to complete the initial examinations and the first round of surveillance, imperfect bowel preparation resulted in a 12% increase in costs at the university hospital and a 22% increase at the public hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in colonoscopy costs associated with imperfect preparation is substantial, and seems likely to vary among practices. Aborted examinations and surveillance examinations performed earlier than recommended because of imperfect preparation are appropriate targets for continuous quality improvement programs. More reliable bowel preparations, or measures to improve patient compliance with bowel preparation, could significantly reduce the costs of colonoscopy in clinical practice.

Propofol versus midazolam/meperidine for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is under evaluation as a sedative for endoscopic procedures. METHODS: Eighty outpatients (ASA Class I or II) undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either propofol or midazolam plus meperidine, administered by a nurse and supervised by an endoscopist. Endpoints were patient satisfaction, procedure and recovery times, neuropsychological function, and complications. RESULTS: The mean dose of propofol administered was 218 mg; mean doses of midazolam and meperidine were, respectively, 4.7 mg and 89.7 mg. Mean time to sedation was faster in the propofol patients (2.1 min vs. 7.0 min; p < 0.0001), and depth of sedation was greater (p < 0.0001). On average, after the procedure, the propofol patients could stand at the bedside sooner (14.2 vs. 30.2 min), reached full recovery faster (14.4 vs. 33.0 min), and were discharged sooner (40.5 vs. 71.1 min) (all p < 0.0001). Patients who received propofol also expressed greater overall mean satisfaction on a 10-point visual analog scale (9.3 vs. 8.6; p < 0.05). At discharge, the propofol group had better scores on tests reflective of learning, memory, working memory span, and mental speed. Four patients in the midazolam/meperidine group developed minor complications (1 hypotension and bradycardia, 2 hypotension alone, and 1 tachycardia) and 1 patient in the propofol group had oxygen desaturation develop during an episode of epistaxis. CONCLUSION: For outpatient colonoscopy, propofol administered by nurses and supervised by endoscopists has several advantages over midazolam plus meperidine and deserves additional investigation.