Patient satisfaction with on-demand sedation for outpatient colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: To reduce the costs of colonoscopy the feasibility of unsedated procedures has been explored. The aims of our study were to assess patient satisfaction with on-demand sedation and identify factors related to painful colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Norwegian Gastronet quality assurance documentation tools consist of endoscopy reports (completed on site) and a patient satisfaction questionnaire (completed by the patient on the day after colonoscopy). Data were collected from January 1 2004 to December 31 2006. Colonoscopies reported to be moderately or severely painful were defined as "painful colonoscopy." RESULTS: Nine endoscopy centers representing 86 endoscopists reported 14 915 examinations and 12 354 patient reports were returned (83 % response rate). Patient satisfaction with service and information given was greater than 95 % for all centers. Mean rate of painful colonoscopy was 34 % and mean sedation rate 34 %. Odds ratio (OR) for painful colonoscopy was 2.2 ( P < 0.001) when sedation was given. The ORs for painful colonoscopy were similar for all but one center (no. 4) with OR 1.6 ( P = 0.04), while the OR for giving sedation was higher for all but one center (no. 1) compared with the reference center (ORs 2.2 to 7.5, all P-values < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A surprisingly high rate of painful colonoscopy was found. High sedation rates were not associated with low rates of painful colonoscopy. Recommending increased sedation rates as the only intervention to improve suboptimal performance might not lead to lower rates of painful colonoscopy.

Evaluation of a novel colonoscope designed for easier passage through flexures: a randomized study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: A new colonoscope (XCF-Q160AW prototype, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) has been developed, designed with an additional passive bending function to ease intubation through the left colonic flexure. In this study we investigated whether this function could be included in a standard colonoscope without jeopardizing general performance, particularly passage through the sigmoid colon. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 280 outpatients referred for routine colonoscopy at Telemark Hospital were randomly allocated to colonoscopy with a standard colonoscope (Olympus 140 series) or the XCF-Q160AW prototype. Sedation was given on demand. End points were cecal intubation and the patients' grading of pain in a questionnaire. RESULTS: Cecal intubation rates were 85% and 87% for standard and prototype endoscopes, respectively (P = 0.57). On-demand sedation was given to nine (7%) and 15 (11%) of the patients, respectively (P = 0.17). Of the patients, 256 (85%) returned their questionnaire, with 87 (63%) in the standard group and 109 (77%) in the prototype group reporting that they had experienced 'no pain/slight pain' (P < 0.001). In a multiple logistic regression analysis, this difference in experienced pain remained statistically significant after adjustment for interendoscopist variation and the use of the endoscope-stiffening function. Two patients in the study, in whom there had previously been several unsuccessful attempts at negotiating the splenic flexure, were successfully examined with the prototype colonoscope. CONCLUSION: Examination with the Olympus XCF-Q160AW prototype with a passive bending function caused less pain than use of a standard Olympus 140 series colonoscope, without compromising other endoscope functions for colonic intubation.