Endoscopist-directed sedation rarely fails: implications for the value of anesthesia assistance for routine GI endoscopy
Use of anesthesia-assisted (AA) sedation for routine gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has increased markedly. Clinical uncertainty about which patients are most likely to benefit from AA sedation contributes to this increased use. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of failed endoscopist-directed sed...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of managed care 2021-12, Vol.27 (12), p.e413-e419 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e419 |
---|---|
container_issue | 12 |
container_start_page | e413 |
container_title | The American journal of managed care |
container_volume | 27 |
creator | Adams, Megan A Saini, Sameer D Gao, Yuqing Wiitala, Wyndy L Rubenstein, Joel H |
description | Use of anesthesia-assisted (AA) sedation for routine gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has increased markedly. Clinical uncertainty about which patients are most likely to benefit from AA sedation contributes to this increased use. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of failed endoscopist-directed sedation and to identify patients at elevated risk of failing standard sedation.
Retrospective longitudinal study of national Veterans Health Administration (VA) data of all patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy in 2009-2013.
Using multivariable logistic regression, we sought to identify patient and procedural risk factors for failed sedation. Failed sedation cases were identified electronically and validated by chart review.
Of 302,247 standard sedation procedures performed at VA facilities offering AA sedation, we identified 313 cases of failed sedation (prevalence, 0.10%). None of the factors found to be associated with increased risk of failed sedation (eg, high-dose opioid use, younger age) had an odds ratio greater than 3. Even among the highest-risk patients (top decile), the prevalence of failed sedation was only 0.29%.
Failed sedation among patients undergoing routine outpatient GI endoscopy with standard sedation is very rare, even among patients at highest risk. This suggests that concerns regarding failed sedation due to commonly cited factors such as chronic opioid use and obesity do not justify forgoing standard sedation in favor of AA sedation in most patients. It also suggests that use of AA sedation is generally unnecessary. Reinstatement of endoscopist-directed sedation, rather than AA sedation, as the default sedation standard is warranted to reduce low-value care and prevent undue financial burdens on patients. |
doi_str_mv | 10.37765/ajmc.2021.88796 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2608540276</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2608540276</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c327t-67f8653fa8d463aa3057261fde053d93aacc3eb8d4e6f2231d10078110a0136a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkUFr3DAQhUVoSdIk95yCoJdcvB1Jtiz3VsImXVjopTkLRRoRLba1lezS_ffROtseOhcNM2-eHnyE3DJYibaVzRezG-yKA2crpdpOnpFL1glZcdnxD6UHpSrgvL4gn3LeAQipanlOLkStVNcocUn-rEcXs437kKfKhYR2QkczOjOFONJkEvYH6k3o81cahn0f7LLJ1MdEp1ekv00_I42emhFzGeRgqMm5-JnR4iJLcZ7CiPRpQ_H03eGafPSmz3hzeq_I8-P658P3avvjafPwbVtZwdupkq1XshHeKFdLYYyApuWSeYfQCNeVibUCX8oWpedcMMcAWsUYGGBCGnFF7t999yn-mktCPYRsse9L3DhnzSWopgbeyiL9_J90F-c0lnRaQFcfa1HBu8qmmHNCr_cpDCYdNAO9UNFHKvpIRS9UysndyXh-GdD9O_iLQbwBoOCJ9w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3094444476</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Endoscopist-directed sedation rarely fails: implications for the value of anesthesia assistance for routine GI endoscopy</title><source>Research Library</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</source><source>Research Library Prep</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>ProQuest Central</source><creator>Adams, Megan A ; Saini, Sameer D ; Gao, Yuqing ; Wiitala, Wyndy L ; Rubenstein, Joel H</creator><creatorcontrib>Adams, Megan A ; Saini, Sameer D ; Gao, Yuqing ; Wiitala, Wyndy L ; Rubenstein, Joel H</creatorcontrib><description>Use of anesthesia-assisted (AA) sedation for routine gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has increased markedly. Clinical uncertainty about which patients are most likely to benefit from AA sedation contributes to this increased use. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of failed endoscopist-directed sedation and to identify patients at elevated risk of failing standard sedation.
Retrospective longitudinal study of national Veterans Health Administration (VA) data of all patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy in 2009-2013.
Using multivariable logistic regression, we sought to identify patient and procedural risk factors for failed sedation. Failed sedation cases were identified electronically and validated by chart review.
Of 302,247 standard sedation procedures performed at VA facilities offering AA sedation, we identified 313 cases of failed sedation (prevalence, 0.10%). None of the factors found to be associated with increased risk of failed sedation (eg, high-dose opioid use, younger age) had an odds ratio greater than 3. Even among the highest-risk patients (top decile), the prevalence of failed sedation was only 0.29%.
Failed sedation among patients undergoing routine outpatient GI endoscopy with standard sedation is very rare, even among patients at highest risk. This suggests that concerns regarding failed sedation due to commonly cited factors such as chronic opioid use and obesity do not justify forgoing standard sedation in favor of AA sedation in most patients. It also suggests that use of AA sedation is generally unnecessary. Reinstatement of endoscopist-directed sedation, rather than AA sedation, as the default sedation standard is warranted to reduce low-value care and prevent undue financial burdens on patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1088-0224</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1936-2692</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.37765/ajmc.2021.88796</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34889583</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: MultiMedia Healthcare Inc</publisher><subject>Anesthesia ; Biopsy ; Clinical Decision-Making ; Codes ; Colonoscopy ; Colorectal cancer ; Comorbidity ; Conscious Sedation ; Endoscopy ; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal ; Health care policy ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; Longitudinal Studies ; Medical screening ; Narcotics ; Obesity ; Patient satisfaction ; Regression analysis ; Retrospective Studies ; Uncertainty</subject><ispartof>The American journal of managed care, 2021-12, Vol.27 (12), p.e413-e419</ispartof><rights>Copyright MultiMedia Healthcare Inc. 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c327t-67f8653fa8d463aa3057261fde053d93aacc3eb8d4e6f2231d10078110a0136a3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/3094444476?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,12726,12755,21369,21373,27903,27904,33431,33432,33723,33724,34313,34314,36244,36245,43595,43784,44052,44383</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34889583$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Adams, Megan A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saini, Sameer D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gao, Yuqing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiitala, Wyndy L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rubenstein, Joel H</creatorcontrib><title>Endoscopist-directed sedation rarely fails: implications for the value of anesthesia assistance for routine GI endoscopy</title><title>The American journal of managed care</title><addtitle>Am J Manag Care</addtitle><description>Use of anesthesia-assisted (AA) sedation for routine gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has increased markedly. Clinical uncertainty about which patients are most likely to benefit from AA sedation contributes to this increased use. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of failed endoscopist-directed sedation and to identify patients at elevated risk of failing standard sedation.
Retrospective longitudinal study of national Veterans Health Administration (VA) data of all patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy in 2009-2013.
Using multivariable logistic regression, we sought to identify patient and procedural risk factors for failed sedation. Failed sedation cases were identified electronically and validated by chart review.
Of 302,247 standard sedation procedures performed at VA facilities offering AA sedation, we identified 313 cases of failed sedation (prevalence, 0.10%). None of the factors found to be associated with increased risk of failed sedation (eg, high-dose opioid use, younger age) had an odds ratio greater than 3. Even among the highest-risk patients (top decile), the prevalence of failed sedation was only 0.29%.
Failed sedation among patients undergoing routine outpatient GI endoscopy with standard sedation is very rare, even among patients at highest risk. This suggests that concerns regarding failed sedation due to commonly cited factors such as chronic opioid use and obesity do not justify forgoing standard sedation in favor of AA sedation in most patients. It also suggests that use of AA sedation is generally unnecessary. Reinstatement of endoscopist-directed sedation, rather than AA sedation, as the default sedation standard is warranted to reduce low-value care and prevent undue financial burdens on patients.</description><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Clinical Decision-Making</subject><subject>Codes</subject><subject>Colonoscopy</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Comorbidity</subject><subject>Conscious Sedation</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal</subject><subject>Health care policy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypnotics and Sedatives</subject><subject>Longitudinal Studies</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Narcotics</subject><subject>Obesity</subject><subject>Patient satisfaction</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><issn>1088-0224</issn><issn>1936-2692</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkUFr3DAQhUVoSdIk95yCoJdcvB1Jtiz3VsImXVjopTkLRRoRLba1lezS_ffROtseOhcNM2-eHnyE3DJYibaVzRezG-yKA2crpdpOnpFL1glZcdnxD6UHpSrgvL4gn3LeAQipanlOLkStVNcocUn-rEcXs437kKfKhYR2QkczOjOFONJkEvYH6k3o81cahn0f7LLJ1MdEp1ekv00_I42emhFzGeRgqMm5-JnR4iJLcZ7CiPRpQ_H03eGafPSmz3hzeq_I8-P658P3avvjafPwbVtZwdupkq1XshHeKFdLYYyApuWSeYfQCNeVibUCX8oWpedcMMcAWsUYGGBCGnFF7t999yn-mktCPYRsse9L3DhnzSWopgbeyiL9_J90F-c0lnRaQFcfa1HBu8qmmHNCr_cpDCYdNAO9UNFHKvpIRS9UysndyXh-GdD9O_iLQbwBoOCJ9w</recordid><startdate>20211201</startdate><enddate>20211201</enddate><creator>Adams, Megan A</creator><creator>Saini, Sameer D</creator><creator>Gao, Yuqing</creator><creator>Wiitala, Wyndy L</creator><creator>Rubenstein, Joel H</creator><general>MultiMedia Healthcare Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88M</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20211201</creationdate><title>Endoscopist-directed sedation rarely fails: implications for the value of anesthesia assistance for routine GI endoscopy</title><author>Adams, Megan A ; Saini, Sameer D ; Gao, Yuqing ; Wiitala, Wyndy L ; Rubenstein, Joel H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c327t-67f8653fa8d463aa3057261fde053d93aacc3eb8d4e6f2231d10078110a0136a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Clinical Decision-Making</topic><topic>Codes</topic><topic>Colonoscopy</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Comorbidity</topic><topic>Conscious Sedation</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal</topic><topic>Health care policy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypnotics and Sedatives</topic><topic>Longitudinal Studies</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Narcotics</topic><topic>Obesity</topic><topic>Patient satisfaction</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Adams, Megan A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saini, Sameer D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gao, Yuqing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiitala, Wyndy L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rubenstein, Joel H</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Complete - Professional Edition</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American journal of managed care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Adams, Megan A</au><au>Saini, Sameer D</au><au>Gao, Yuqing</au><au>Wiitala, Wyndy L</au><au>Rubenstein, Joel H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Endoscopist-directed sedation rarely fails: implications for the value of anesthesia assistance for routine GI endoscopy</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of managed care</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Manag Care</addtitle><date>2021-12-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>e413</spage><epage>e419</epage><pages>e413-e419</pages><issn>1088-0224</issn><eissn>1936-2692</eissn><abstract>Use of anesthesia-assisted (AA) sedation for routine gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has increased markedly. Clinical uncertainty about which patients are most likely to benefit from AA sedation contributes to this increased use. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of failed endoscopist-directed sedation and to identify patients at elevated risk of failing standard sedation.
Retrospective longitudinal study of national Veterans Health Administration (VA) data of all patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy in 2009-2013.
Using multivariable logistic regression, we sought to identify patient and procedural risk factors for failed sedation. Failed sedation cases were identified electronically and validated by chart review.
Of 302,247 standard sedation procedures performed at VA facilities offering AA sedation, we identified 313 cases of failed sedation (prevalence, 0.10%). None of the factors found to be associated with increased risk of failed sedation (eg, high-dose opioid use, younger age) had an odds ratio greater than 3. Even among the highest-risk patients (top decile), the prevalence of failed sedation was only 0.29%.
Failed sedation among patients undergoing routine outpatient GI endoscopy with standard sedation is very rare, even among patients at highest risk. This suggests that concerns regarding failed sedation due to commonly cited factors such as chronic opioid use and obesity do not justify forgoing standard sedation in favor of AA sedation in most patients. It also suggests that use of AA sedation is generally unnecessary. Reinstatement of endoscopist-directed sedation, rather than AA sedation, as the default sedation standard is warranted to reduce low-value care and prevent undue financial burdens on patients.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>MultiMedia Healthcare Inc</pub><pmid>34889583</pmid><doi>10.37765/ajmc.2021.88796</doi></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1088-0224 |
ispartof | The American journal of managed care, 2021-12, Vol.27 (12), p.e413-e419 |
issn | 1088-0224 1936-2692 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2608540276 |
source | Research Library; MEDLINE; Research Library (Alumni Edition); Research Library Prep; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; ProQuest Central |
subjects | Anesthesia Biopsy Clinical Decision-Making Codes Colonoscopy Colorectal cancer Comorbidity Conscious Sedation Endoscopy Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal Health care policy Humans Hypnotics and Sedatives Longitudinal Studies Medical screening Narcotics Obesity Patient satisfaction Regression analysis Retrospective Studies Uncertainty |
title | Endoscopist-directed sedation rarely fails: implications for the value of anesthesia assistance for routine GI endoscopy |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T17%3A52%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Endoscopist-directed%20sedation%20rarely%20fails:%20implications%20for%20the%20value%20of%20anesthesia%20assistance%20for%20routine%20GI%20endoscopy&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20managed%20care&rft.au=Adams,%20Megan%20A&rft.date=2021-12-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=e413&rft.epage=e419&rft.pages=e413-e419&rft.issn=1088-0224&rft.eissn=1936-2692&rft_id=info:doi/10.37765/ajmc.2021.88796&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2608540276%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3094444476&rft_id=info:pmid/34889583&rfr_iscdi=true |