Characterizing Regionalization of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Hospitalizations and Operations in Washington State.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are a major contributor of healthcare utilization. We assessed IBD hospitalizations and surgical operations in Washington State to characterize regionalization patterns. METHODS: We identified a cohort of hospitalizations for Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) from 2008 to 2019 using Washington State's Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System (CHARS). Hospitalizations were characterized by emergent or elective acuity and whether an operation or endoscopic procedure was performed. Facility volume and distance travelled by patients were used to determine regionalization. RESULTS: There were 20,494 IBD-related hospitalizations at 95 hospitals: 13,585 (66.3%) with CD and 6,909 (33.7%) with UC. Emergencies accounted for 78.2% of all IBD-related hospitalizations and did not differ between CD (78.3%) and UC (77.9%) (p = 0.54). Surgery was performed during 10.3% and endoscopy during 30.6% of emergent hospitalizations. 72.0% of emergent hospitalizations occurred at 22 facilities, while 71.1% of elective hospitalizations were concentrated at 9 facilities. Operations were performed during 78.5% of elective hospitalizations, and five hospitals performed 69% of all elective surgery. Laparoscopic surgery increased in both emergent (17% to 52%, p < 0.001) and elective operations (18% to 42%, p < 0.001) from 2008 to 2019. CONCLUSIONS: In Washington State, most IBD hospitalizations were emergent, which were decentralized and typically non-operative. By contrast, most elective admissions involved surgery and were centralized at a few high-volume centers. Further understanding the drivers behind IBD hospitalizations may help optimize emergent medical and elective surgical care at a state level.

Suturing a 20-mm lumen-apposing metal stent allows for safe same-session EUS-directed transgastric intervention in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass anatomy: a multicenter study (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-directed transgastric intervention (EDGI) is an established technique for the management of pancreaticobiliary pathology in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) patients. There is an inherent risk of intraprocedural stent dislodgement, leading to perforation. The procedure is therefore often performed in 2 stages, 2 to 4 weeks apart, to allow for fistula maturation to mitigate the risk of lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) dislodgment. However, some clinical indications such as cholangitis require more urgent intervention, rendering this approach impractical. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of same-session (SS)-EDGI with fixation of a 20-mm LAMS using endoscopic suturing. METHODS: This was a 2-center, retrospective study of consecutive RYGB patients who underwent SS-EDGI using a sutured 20-mm LAMS between February 2018 and May 2020. Patient demographics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (mean age, 58.1 years; 86.5% women) underwent SS-EDGI with a median follow-up of 31.8 months. The procedural intervention was ERCP in 33 patients (89.2%) and ERCP with EUS in 4 patients (10.8%). Technical success was 100%. Access was achieved through the gastrogastric fistula in 26 patients (70.3%) and the jejunogastric fistula in 11 (29.7%). The LAMS was anchored with 2 endoscopic sutures in 33 patients (89.2%) and 1 suture in 4 (10.8%). Adverse events occurred in 4 patients (10.8%; 3 postprocedural bleeding, 1 cholangitis). There were no episodes of stent dislodgement or delayed stent migration. A persistent fistula was diagnosed in 7 patients (18.9%) who underwent objective testing (n = 28, 75.7%), of which 6 were successfully closed endoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: Single-stage EDGI using a sutured 20-mm LAMS was associated with a high rate of technical success, low rates of adverse events, and no episodes of stent migration. Persistent fistulas, although common, were amenable to endoscopic management.

Safety and clinical outcomes of early dual modality drainage (< 28 days) compared to later drainage of pancreatic necrotic fluid collections: a propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Necrotizing pancreatitis can be complicated by Necrotic Fluid Collections (NFC). Guidelines recommend waiting for 4 weeks from the onset of acute pancreatitis (AP) before considering endoscopic drainage. We aimed to compare outcomes and safety in patients undergoing early versus late drainage of NFC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent Dual Modality Drainage (DMD) [combined endoscopic and percutaneous drainage] for NFC from January 2007 to December 2020. Patients were stratified into the "early" group (DMD < 28 days from AP onset) and were matched to "late" (DMD ≥ 28 days) drainage group using propensity- core-matching. Primary outcomes of interest were technical success and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included clinical success, late complication rates, and mortality. RESULTS: We identified 278 patients who underwent DMD for NFC. Thirty-nine belonged to the early group and were matched to 174 patients from the late group. Technical success was similar in both early and late groups (97.4% vs 99.4%: P = 0.244) as were the procedural and early post-procedural (< 14 days) adverse events rates (23.1% vs 27.6%: P = 0.565). Clinical success (92.3% vs 93.1%; P = 0.861) and late complication rates (23.1% vs 31.6%; P = 0.294) were similar. There were 2 deaths (5.7%) in the early vs. 9 (5.2%) in the late group, P = 0.991. CONCLUSIONS: When performed in a tertiary care center with expertise in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound, early drainage of NFC appears to be feasible and safe. Further studies are needed to validate our results.

Tagging incidental finding of fatty liver on ultrasound: A novel intervention to improve early detection of liver fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: It is not uncommon to see that a large proportion of patients with cirrhosis due to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis never had any prior evaluation or diagnosis of liver disease, and most of the times their first clinical presentation is decompensated cirrhosis. Acknowledging incidental finding of fatty liver on abdominal imaging and identifying patients at risk of having advanced liver fibrosis may help in preventing its progression to cirrhosis. AIM: We aimed to increase acknowledgement and improve evaluation of steatosis through radiology recommendation to consider hepatology referral, and to identify the predictors of hepatology referral and significant fibrosis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 812 patients with hepatic steatosis tagged on ultrasound (US), over 18 months, at a single center. Patients with secondary causes of fatty liver were excluded from the study. We evaluated the yield of this intervention and factors correlated with hepatology referral and presence of significant fibrosis. RESULTS: Diagnosis of fatty liver was acknowledged for 69% of patients with tagged US, although only 29% were ultimately seen by hepatology. Patients who had US ordered by a primary care provider (PCP) were more likely to have hepatology evaluation (64.8% vs. 56.9%, P = 0.0183). Sixty-six percent of patients seen by hepatology had elevated alanine transaminase (ALT) compared to 52% not seen by hepatology (P < 0.0005). Among patients further evaluated, 53% underwent staging, and 18% had ≥stage 2 (F2) fibrosis. Type II diabetes correlated with significant to advanced fibrosis (43.5% vs. 21.4%, P = 0.0357), while ALT and Body Mass Index did not. CONCLUSIONS: Tagging US reports led to clinical acknowledgement of fatty liver in 7 of 10 patients, although fewer than 1 in 3 had further hepatology evaluation. Of those who underwent staging for incidentally noted steatosis, 18% had significant fibrosis, suggesting that we are failing to evaluate patients with potentially advanced liver disease. RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS: Identifying incidental finding of fatty liver on US provides a unique opportunity in diagnosing liver fibrosis at an early stage and can help prevent its progression to cirrhosis. PCP should consider using noninvasive scoring systems on a regular basis to assess the risk of fibrosis in patients with fatty liver, and timely referral to hepatology should be provided in patients at high risk of having advanced fibrosis.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation: A New Paradigm for Gastrointestinal Procedural Sedation.

INTRODUCTION: Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation (NAPCIS) is a new nonanesthesia propofol delivery method for gastrointestinal endoscopy. NAPCIS is adopted from the computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) protocol. We evaluated the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of NAPCIS in low-risk subjects. METHODS: Between December 2016 and July 2017, patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at our center were compared against 2 historical control groups of similar patients who had undergone procedures with CAPS or midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation. RESULTS: The mean age of the NAPCIS cohort (N = 3,331) was 55.2 years (45.8% male) for 945 esophagogastroduodenoscopies and 57.8 years (48.7% male) for 2,386 colonoscopies. The procedural success rates with NAPCIS were high (99.1%-99.2%) and similar to those seen in 3,603 CAPS (98.8%-99.0%) and 3,809 MF (99.0%-99.3%) controls. NAPCIS recovery times were shorter than both CAPS and MF (24.8 vs 31.7 and 52.4 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). On arrival at the recovery unit, 86.6% of NAPCIS subjects were recorded as "Awake" compared with 82.8% of CAPS and 40.8% of MF controls (P < 0.001). Validated clinician and patient satisfaction scores were generally higher for NAPCIS compared with CAPS and MF subjects. For NAPCIS, there were only 4 cases of oxygen desaturation requiring transient mask ventilation and no serious sedation-related complications. These low complication rates were similar to those seen with CAPS (8 cases of mask ventilation) and MF (3 cases). DISCUSSION: NAPCIS seems to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy in low-risk patients.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients Who Are Difficult to Sedate.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients who chronically use alcohol, marijuana, or opioids, or suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), can be difficult to sedate with midazolam and fentanyl, and often are referred for monitored anesthesia care during endoscopy. Nurse-administered propofol continuous infusion sedation (NAPCIS), which confers the benefit of propofol-based sedation without the added expense of anesthesia, is effective and safe for sedation of healthy patients. We investigated whether NAPCIS also is effective for patients who are difficult to sedate. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent upper endoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at a single center from January 2018 through April 2018. We reviewed records from patients who were heavy users of alcohol (n = 105), daily users of marijuana (n = 267) or opioids (n = 178), had a diagnosis of PTSD (n = 91), or were none of these (controls, n = 786). We compared mean fentanyl and propofol doses (adjusted for body weight), procedure and recovery times, procedure success rates, and adverse events. RESULTS: Compared with the controls, the marijuana group required higher mean adjusted sedative doses for colonoscopies (0.6 vs 0.4 mcg/kg fentanyl and 5.0 vs 4.7 mg/kg propofol; P ≤ .025 for both) and upper endoscopies (0.8 vs 0.3 mcg/kg fentanyl and 3.7 vs 3.2 mg/kg propofol; P ≤ .021 for both), the PTSD group required a higher dose of fentanyl for colonoscopies (0.6 vs 0.4 mcg/kg; P = .009), and the alcohol group required a higher dose of fentanyl for upper endoscopies (0.7 vs 0.3 mcg/kg; P < .001). Procedure success rates were high (95.1%-100%) and did not differ significantly between the difficult-to-sedate groups and controls; mean procedure times (7.0-9.0 minutes for upper endoscopies, 21.1-22.9 minutes for colonoscopies) and recovery times (22.5-29.6 minutes) also were similar among groups. Upper endoscopies were associated with lower sedative doses and shorter procedure and recovery times than colonoscopies. Sedation-related adverse events were rare in all groups (only 26 cases total), and there were no serious complications or deaths. CONCLUSIONS: NAPCIS seems to be a safe and effective means of providing sedation for endoscopy to patients who may be difficult to sedate owing to alcohol, marijuana, or opioid use, or PTSD.

Primary and metastatic melanoma of the GI tract: clinical presentation, endoscopic findings, and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Melanoma incidence has increased worldwide with a concurrent rise in both primary and metastatic melanomas of the gastrointestinal tract. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective single-center case series includes patients with histopathology-confirmed primary or metastatic melanoma of the GI tract between 1998 and 2018. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were identified for inclusion, of whom 7 were primary and 27 were metastatic cases of gastrointestinal melanoma. For both primary and metastatic cases, the majority of patients presented with frank or occult GI bleeding (57.1% and 70.4%). Primary and metastatic lesions were predominantly diagnosed endoscopically (100% and 63.0%), with 71.4% of primary lesions found at the anorectal junction and 51.9% of metastatic lesions in the small bowel. Endoscopically diagnosed lesions were either polypoid (50%) or a luminal mass (37.5%) in the majority of cases. Common features included: amelanotic (83%), ulcerated (50%), and friable (33.3%). All primary patients were treated with surgical excision or resection. Of the metastatic patients, 56% were resected. The median interval between initial primary and gastrointestinal metastases was 65 months (ranging from 1 month to 24 years). At the time of data analysis, 85.7% of primary and 29.6% of metastatic patients remained alive. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients in this series were diagnosed endoscopically while investigating a source of gastrointestinal blood loss. Heightened clinical suspicion and recognition of the endoscopic features of gastrointestinal melanoma during evaluation of GI symptoms in a patient with a personal history of primary melanoma are advised.

Postoperative Ileus: Old and New Observations on Prevention and Treatment in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The reported incidence of postoperative ileus (POI) after spine surgery depends on the surgical approach and definition used. It is therefore possible that the overall incidence is substantially higher than previously thought. POI has consequences for both the patient and hospital resources, and can significantly increase health care costs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients aged 18 years or older who underwent elective complex spine surgery at our tertiary referral institution from 2011 through 2017. Preoperative comorbidities, operating time and approach, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, and length of stay (LOS) were analyzed for patients meeting the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Of 174 patients included in the study, 32 patients (18.4%) developed POI, leading to a significant increase in their median LOS (9 vs. 7 days; P = 0.020). Total estimated blood loss (1649.5 ± 1266.2 vs. 1124.6 ± 936.3 mL; P = 0.009) and total surgical time (501.6 ± 170.5 vs. 388.4 ± 159.8 minutes; P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the POI cohort. The use of nonselective µ-opioid receptor antagonists in 66% of patients with POI did not significantly impact the median LOS (9 vs. 8 days; P = 0.477) compared with patients with POI who did not receive this intervention. The incidence of postoperative adverse events other than ileus was similar between the 2 patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite use of early interventions, the median LOS remains significantly longer in patients who develop POI after complex spine surgery. Knowledge of the associated predictive risk factors could potentially assist with the development of rigorous, evidence-based preventative strategies.

Computer-Assisted Propofol Sedation for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Is Effective, Efficient, and Safe.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) allows non-anesthesiologists to administer propofol for gastrointestinal procedures in relatively healthy patients. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use, we report our 1-year experience with CAPS for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). METHODS: Between September 2014 and August 2015, 926 outpatients underwent elective EGDs with CAPS at our center. All EGDs were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of CAPS. Procedural success rates, procedure times, and recovery times were compared against corresponding historical controls done with midazolam and fentanyl sedation from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in CAPS patients were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 56.7 years (45% male); 16.2% of the EGDs were for variceal screening or Barrett's surveillance and 83.8% for symptoms. The procedural success rates were similar to that of historical controls (99.0% vs. 99.3%; p = 0.532); procedure times were also similar (6.6 vs. 7.4 min; p = 0.280), but recovery time was markedly shorter (31.7 vs. 52.4 min; p < 0.001). There were 11 (1.2%) cases of mild transient oxygen desaturation (< 90%), 15 (1.6%) cases of marked agitation due to undersedation, and 1 case of asymptomatic hypotension. In addition, there were six (0.6%) patients with more pronounced desaturation episodes that required brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: CAPS appears to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing sedation for EGD in healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical controls.

EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent versus endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for the treatment of acute cholecystitis (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is an evolving role for EUS-guided transmural gallbladder (GB) drainage. Endoscopic transpapillary GB drainage is a well-established, nonoperative treatment for acute cholecystitis. We compared the outcomes of 78 cases of EUS-guided versus transpapillary GB drainage at a single, U.S.-based, high-volume endoscopy center. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis performed from May 2013 to January 2018, identified from a database of nonoperative patients with acute cholecystitis. Both electrocautery-enhanced and nonelectrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents were used. For transpapillary drainage, guidewire access was obtained and then a transpapillary 7F × 15-cm double-pigtail plastic stent was placed. RESULTS: In patients who had successful transpapillary or transmural drainage, demographics data were similar. Technical success was observed in 39 of 40 patients (97.5%) who underwent first attempt at EUS-guided drainage versus 32 of 38 patients (84.2%) for first-attempt transpapillary drainage (adjusted odds ratio, 9.83; 95% confidence interval, .93-103.86). Clinical success was significantly higher with EUS drainage in 38 of 40 patients (95.0%) versus transpapillary drainage in 29 of 38 patients (76.3%) (adjusted odds ratio, 7.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-38.52). Recurrent cholecystitis was lower in the EUS-guided drainage group (2.6% vs 18.8%, respectively; P = .023) on univariate analysis but only trended to significance in a multiple regression model. Duration of follow-up, reintervention rates, hospital length of stay, and overall adverse event rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided GB drainage results in a higher clinical success rate compared with transpapillary drainage and may be associated with a lower recurrence rate of cholecystitis. However, transpapillary drainage should be considered as the first-line treatment for patients who are surgical candidates but require temporizing measures or require an ERCP for alternative reasons.

The ASGE grading system for ERCP can predict success and complication rates in a tertiary referral hospital.

BACKGROUND: The utility of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) grading scale assessing complexity of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has not been evaluated in clinical practice. METHODS: Patients that underwent ERCP between January 2015 and December 2015 were included. Procedural difficulty was graded according to the grading system proposed by the ASGE workshop. Technical success rates and complications were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 1355 ERCPs were performed on 934 patients. Patients were equally divided with respect to gender and had a mean age of 58 years (range 29-86). 391 cases were grade 1, 2 (29%), 695 were grade 3 (51%), and 269 were grade 4 (20%). Altered anatomy was observed in 88% of grade 4 patients. Cannulation was achieved in 98% of cases graded 1-3 and in 88% of cases graded 4 (p < 0.05). Complications were recorded in 10% of all cases with post-ERCP pancreatitis (5.4%) and procedure-related bleeding (1.5%) being the more common ones. No statistically significant difference was noted between the groups with regard to complications. Three perforations were seen in grade 1-3 cases (0.3%) compared to 4 cases in grade 4 cases (1.5%), (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The grading system proposed by the ASGE workshop can aid in predicting cannulation success and perforation rates in ERCP. Based on this retrospective study, the most complex ERCP procedures can be achieved with encouraging rates of success. There is a need to validate our study with prospective ones performed in other high-volume centers.

Young patients with sporadic colorectal adenomas: current endoscopic surveillance practices and outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: For young individuals (age <40 years) without strong family histories that would put them at risk for genetic colorectal cancer syndromes, it is unclear if national Multi-Society Task Force surveillance recommendations apply or if endoscopists follow these guideline recommendations when such patients are incidentally found to have adenoma(s) on colonoscopy. METHODS: We reviewed records on young (age <40 years) patients, with either no family history or only a moderate family history (1 first-degree family member with colorectal cancer at age ≥50), who were found to have neoplastic polyp(s) on their index colonoscopy. We assessed the pattern of endoscopist surveillance recommendations, whether endoscopist recommendations complied with national guidelines, and compliance with surveillance recommendations. RESULTS: One hundred forty-one subjects were included, of whom 19 (13.5%) had a moderate family history of colorectal cancer. For patients with non-high-risk findings, 27.7% were asked to repeat their colonoscopy in ≤3 years and 99.0% within 5 years. Endoscopist surveillance recommendation compliance rates with national guidelines were >65.0% for low-risk neoplasia but lower for high-risk (40.0%), nonpolypoid (44.2%), and serrated neoplasia (54.2%, P < .001 for all). Subjects whose endoscopist recommendations were noncompliant with guidelines were usually recalled too early (96%). Only 24.7% of subjects were actually compliant with endoscopist surveillance recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: For young patients with neoplastic polyp(s) but no strong family history, most endoscopists complied with national guidelines and recommended repeat colonoscopy in 3 to 5 years. However, relatively few patients were compliant with repeat colonoscopy recommendations. For most cases that were noncompliant with guidelines, patients were recalled too early as opposed to too late.

One year experience with computer-assisted propofol sedation for colonoscopy.

AIM: To report our one-year experience with computer assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) for colonoscopy as the first United States Medical Center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use. METHODS: Between September 2014 and August 2015, 2677 patients underwent elective outpatient colonoscopy with CAPS at our center. All colonoscopies were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of the CAPS system, with the assistance of a specially trained nurse. Procedural success rates, polyp detection rates, procedure times and recovery times were recorded and compared against corresponding historical measures from 2286 colonoscopies done with midazolam and fentanyl from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in the CAPS group were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 59.9 years (48.7% male); 31.3% were ASA I, 67.3% ASA II and 1.4% ASA III. 45.1% of the colonoscopies were for screening, 31.5% for surveillance, and 23.4% for symptoms. The mean propofol dose administered was 250.7 mg (range 16-1470 mg), with a mean fentanyl dose of 34.1 mcg (0-100 mcg). The colonoscopy completion and polyp detection rates were similar to that of historical measures. Recovery times were markedly shorter (31 min vs 45.6 min, P < 0.001). In CAPS patients, there were 20 (0.7%) cases of mild desaturation (< 90%) treated with a chin lift and reduction or temporary discontinuation of the propofol infusion, 21 (0.8%) cases of asymptomatic hypotension (< 90 systolic blood pressure) treated with a reduction in the propofol rate, 4 (0.1%) cases of marked agitation or discomfort due to undersedation, and 2 cases of pronounced transient desaturation requiring brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no sedation-related serious adverse events such as emergent intubation, unanticipated hospitalization or permanent injury. CONCLUSION: CAPS appears to be a safe, effective and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for colonoscopy in relatively healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical measures. There were few adverse events, and no serious adverse events, related to CAPS.

The First US Clinical Experience With Computer-Assisted Propofol Sedation: A Retrospective Observational Comparative Study on Efficacy, Safety, Efficiency, and Endoscopist and Patient Satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) is now approved for moderate sedation of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I and II patients undergoing routine endoscopy. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS for routine clinical use, we compared patient and endoscopist satisfaction with CAPS versus midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective outpatient upper endoscopy and colonoscopy with CAPS were compared with concurrent patients sedated with MF. The primary end points were patient satisfaction (measured by the validated Patient Sedation Satisfaction Index [PSSI]), and endoscopist satisfaction (Clinician Sedation Satisfaction Index [CSSI]). Secondary end points included procedural success rates, polyp detection rates, adverse events, and procedure/recovery times. Multivariable regression was used for comparative analysis. RESULTS: CAPS was utilized to sedate 244 patients, of whom 55 underwent upper endoscopy, 173 colonoscopy, and 16 double procedures. During the same period, 75 upper endoscopies, 223 colonoscopies, and 30 doubles were performed with MF on similar patients. For upper endoscopy, the procedural success rate was 98.2% for CAPS versus 98.7% for MF (P = .96), whereas for colonoscopy, the success rate was 98.9% vs 98.8% (P = .59). Colonoscopic polyp detection rate was 54.5% for CAPS and 59.3% for MF (P = .67). Procedure times were similar between CAPS and MF. For CAPS, the mean recovery time was 26.4 vs 39.1 minutes for MF (P < .001). One CAPS patient required mask ventilation, 4 experienced asymptomatic hypotension or desaturation, and 5 experienced marked agitation resulting from undersedation. For MF, 5 patients had hypotension or desaturation, and 8 experienced undersedation. For colonoscopy, the CAPS group had higher PSSI scores for sedation adequacy, the recovery process and global satisfaction, and higher CSSI scores for ease of sedation administration, the recovery process and global satisfaction. For upper endoscopy and doubles, the CAPS CSSI score was higher for the recovery process only. All P values were adjusted for confounding by using regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In low-risk patients, CAPS appears to be effective and efficient. CAPS is associated with higher satisfaction than MF for colonoscopies and, to a lesser extent, upper endoscopies.

Risks and Benefits of Colonoscopy in Patients 90 Years or Older, Compared With Younger Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although the numbers of medical procedures performed on extremely elderly patients (90 years or older, nonagenarians) are increasing, there are no data on the performance, diagnostic yield, or safety of colonoscopy for these patients. We compared the performance and safety of diagnostic colonoscopy, as well as lesions detected, in nonagenarians with patients who were 75 to 79 years old. METHODS: In a retrospective study, we compared data from 76 extremely elderly patients (90 years or older) with data from 140 very elderly patients (75 to 79 years old, controls), all of whom underwent diagnostic colonoscopy from January 2010 through March 2013 at Virginia Mason Medical Center. All colonoscopies were performed by 15 endoscopists. We compared rates of colonoscopy completion, bowel preparation quality, diagnostic yield, and adverse events. RESULTS: In extremely elderly patients, more colonoscopies were performed under general anesthesia, compared with controls (P < .001). When extremely elderly patients underwent colonoscopies with moderate sedation, lower doses of midazolam and fentanyl were given, compared with controls (P < .001). Colonoscopies were completed in a lower proportion of extremely elderly patients (88.2% vs. 99.3% for controls, P < .001), and these patients had a higher incidence of inadequate bowel preparation (29.7% vs. 15.0% for controls, P = .011). Colonoscopies were also associated with cardiopulmonary events in a higher proportion of extremely elderly patients (P = .006) as well as overall adverse events, compared with controls (P = .002). A higher proportion of extremely elderly patients were found to have advanced neoplasia (28.4% vs. 6.4% of controls, P < .001) as well as any neoplasia (P < .001 vs. controls). A greater percentage of extremely elderly patients also had large lesions (P = .002) and malignancies detected by histology (P < .001 vs. controls). Eleven extremely elderly patients (14.9%) were found to have cancer or high-grade dysplasia by colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients 90 years or older, diagnostic colonoscopy is associated with increased risk for incomplete procedure, inadequate bowel preparation, and adverse events. However, a large proportion of patients are found to have advanced neoplasia and cancer, compared with patients 75 to 79 years old.

Validation of colonoscopic findings from a structured endoscopic documentation database against manually collected medical records data.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic documentation software can generate research data on large numbers of subjects automatically. There are increasing numbers of published studies based on endoscopic databases such as the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative. However, no study has yet validated such data. We compared colonoscopic findings reported by an endoscopic documentation software (Provation) against manually collected medical records data from two similar patient cohorts in the same endoscopy unit. METHODS: In November 2011, our unit switched from dictation-based text documentation to the Provation system. As a quality control initiative, we collected data on 9614 patients who had undergone colonoscopies from January 2010 to November 2011, using manual electronic chart review. We compared these data against those generated by Provation on 7091 similar patients who underwent colonoscopy from November 2011 to March 2013. RESULTS: Age, sex and procedural indication distribution were similar between the Manual and Provation cohorts, as were the large (≥1 cm) polyp (7.6 vs. 8.1%; p = 0.25) and advanced neoplasia (8.3 vs. 8.2%; p = 0.80) prevalences. However, there were significant differences in the polyp (46.9 vs. 49.8%) and adenoma prevalences (31.3 vs. 26.8%; p < 0.001). Furthermore, the Manual cohort had a higher prevalence of diverticulosis and hemorrhoids, and a lower colonoscopy completion rate. Stratification by indication resulted in additional discrepancies between the two cohorts for screening and surveillance patients. There were also differences in the anatomic (right vs. left colon) distribution of large polyps. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant discrepancies between data from Provation and manually collected medical records data. Although the two cohorts were enrolled during slightly different time periods, they came from the same endoscopy unit, had the same endoscopists and indications, and demonstrated similar demographics, making it unlikely for there to be true differences between the cohorts independent of documentation method. Thus, caution is advised when using endoscopic data for research.

Small Bowel Obstruction Is a Surgical Disease: Patients with Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction Requiring Operation Have More Cost-Effective Care When Admitted to a Surgical Service.

BACKGROUND: Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO), although a potential surgical emergency, is increasingly being managed by medical hospitalists due to the likelihood these patients will not require operation. However, the value of care delivered by medical hospitalists to patients with ASBO has not been reported. STUDY DESIGN: We hypothesized that patients admitted to the medical hospitalist service (MHS) for presumed ASBO have increased length of stay (LOS) and charges compared with patients admitted to the surgical service (SS). There were 555 consecutive admissions with presumed ASBO from 2008 to 2012; these were reviewed and grouped according to admitting service and whether an operation was performed. Group medians were compared and multivariate analysis was performed to identify variables independently associated with increased LOS, time to operation (TTO), and charges. RESULTS: Median LOS among patients whose ASBO resolved nonoperatively was similar for those on SS and MHS (2.85 days vs 2.98 days; p = 0.49). In patients without nonoperative resolution of ASBO, those admitted to MHS had longer median LOS when compared with those admitted to SS (9.57 days vs 6.99 days; p = 0.002) and higher median charges ($38,800 vs $30,100; p = 0.025). Patients admitted to MHS who had an operation, had a greater median TTO than operative patients on SS (51.72 hours vs 8.4 hours; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis did not identify factors independently predictive of increased LOS, TTO, or charges. CONCLUSIONS: Adhesive small bowel obstruction patients are treated in a heterogeneous fashion in our hospital, causing disparate outcomes depending on admitting service when patients undergo operation. Admitting all suspected ASBO patients to SS has the potential to dramatically decrease LOS and reduce waste in those requiring operation, thereby reducing health care expenditures.

Disparities in prevalence, location, and shape characteristics of colorectal neoplasia between South Korean and U.S. patients.

BACKGROUND: Colon cancer screening is being introduced in many countries, but standard Western screening approaches may not be appropriate for Asian societies if differences in colon cancer epidemiology exist. Comparative analysis of colorectal neoplasia patterns in South Korean and Western subjects has implications for appropriate screening approaches in non-Western societies. METHODS: The results of concurrent screening colonoscopies performed in average-risk patients 50 to 69 years old in 2 teaching hospitals, Kyung Hee University Hospital (Seoul, South Korea) and Virginia Mason Medical Center (Seattle, Wash), were compared with respect to prevalence, histologic features, anatomic distribution, and shape characteristics of colorectal neoplasia. RESULTS: The U.S. (n = 3460) and South Korean (n = 2193) cohorts were similar with regard to the prevalence of adenomas (28.5% vs 29.8%, respectively, P = .312) and advanced neoplasia (6.4% vs 5.4%, respectively, P = .102), but the proportion of proximal adenomas was greater in the U.S. cohort (62.8% vs 45.9%, P < .001). The prevalence of adenomas and advanced neoplasia was similar in male patients, but there was a greater prevalence of neoplasia (23.5% vs 18.8%, P = .006) and advanced neoplasia (5.1% vs 2.7%, P < .001) in U.S. women than South Korean women. When large (≥10 mm) adenomas were considered, proximal location and nonpolypoid (flat) shape were more common in the U.S. cohort (79.4% vs 37.1%, P = .003 and 43.5% vs 12.3%, P < .001, respectively). The overall prevalence of large flat adenomas in the U.S. cohort was 5 times that of the South Korean cohort (2.6% vs 0.5%, P < .001). Adjustment for sex ratio discrepancies (48.3% men in the U.S. cohort vs 60.8% in the South Korean cohort, P < .001) did not result in any significant changes in the conclusions. CONCLUSION: Compared with Westerners, South Koreans have a more distal distribution of adenomas and advanced neoplasia and lower prevalence of large flat adenomas. South Korean women have a lower prevalence of colorectal neoplasia than Western women. Such disparities suggest that Western screening strategies cannot be directly adopted by other countries, but need to be customized by society.

Findings of diagnostic colonoscopy in young adults versus findings of screening colonoscopy in patients aged 50 to 54 years: a comparative study stratified by symptom category.

BACKGROUND: The threshold for diagnostic colonoscopy in symptomatic patients aged <50 years remains controversial. Previous studies on the prevalence of neoplasia or other serious pathology in young patients mostly have been uncontrolled, providing only limited data on the risk associated with specific symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To compare colonoscopy findings in patients aged <50 years who have various symptoms (diagnostic cohort) against those of concurrent patients aged 50 to 54 years who are asymptomatic (screening cohort). DESIGN: Retrospective controlled cohort study. SETTING: Teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Symptomatic patients aged between 18 and 49 years and asymptomatic patients aged between 50 and 54 years. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Prevalence of advanced neoplasia. RESULTS: During the study period, 1638 patients underwent colonoscopy in the screening cohort (mean [± standard deviation{SD}] age 51.7 ± 1.4 years) and 1266 underwent colonoscopy in the diagnostic cohort (40.4 ± 8.0 years). Despite the age difference, the prevalence of advanced neoplasia in patients with rectal bleeding was comparable with that in the screening controls: 28 of 472 (5.9%) versus 113 of 1638 patients (6.9%) (P = .459). Furthermore, 10 patients (2.1%) with rectal bleeding were newly diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease. In contrast, other symptoms that commonly lead to colonoscopy, such as abdominal pain, changes in bowel habits, and weight loss, were associated with much lower risks for neoplasia. As a result, the overall prevalences of neoplasia and advanced neoplasia were significantly higher in the screening cohort than in the diagnostic cohort: 467 of 1638 patients (28.5%) versus 179 of 1266 patients (14.1%), and 113 patients (6.9%) versus 48 patients (3.8%), respectively (both P < .001). LIMITATIONS: No data on duration of symptoms; discrepant sex ratios between cohorts. CONCLUSION: The threshold for diagnostic colonoscopy in symptomatic young adults should be individualized for each symptom category. Rectal bleeding warrants colonoscopy to detect advanced neoplasia or inflammatory bowel disease in most young patients, especially those aged 40 to 49 years, whereas non-bleeding symptoms, including some traditionally regarded as "alarm" symptoms, were associated with a much lower risk for neoplasia compared with the risk in screening patients aged 50 to 54 years.