Literature DB >> 22531982

Endoscopist-directed propofol administration versus anesthesiologist assistance for colorectal cancer screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

C Hassan1, D K Rex, G S Cooper, R Benamouzig.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Propofol for colonoscopy is largely administered by anesthesiologists or anesthesiology nurses in the United States (US) and Europe. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol (EDP) by nonanesthesiologists has recently been proposed, with potential savings of anesthetist reimbursement costs. We aimed to assess potential EDP-related benefit in a screening setting.
METHODS: In a Markov model the total number of screening and follow-up colonoscopies in a cohort of 100 000 US subjects were estimated. Anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy was compared with an EDP strategy. Model outputs were projected onto the 50 - 80-year-old US population, assuming 27 % as the current uptake for colonoscopy screening. Anesthetist costs were estimated using the mean reimbursement for the corresponding Medicare code (≥ 65-year-olds) and from commercial insurance information (50 - 64-year-olds). The proportion of colonoscopies with anesthesiologist assistance was estimated from the Medicare database. Mean nurse salary was used to estimate the cost of a 2-week EDP training. The absolute number of US endoscopists was estimated by inflating by 33 % the number of board-certified gastroenterologists. No EDP mortality was assumed in the reference scenario, and 0.0008 % mortality in the sensitivity analysis. US census data were adopted. Analogous inputs were used for France to assess EDP-related benefit in a European country.
RESULTS: EDP training for 17 166 nurses (one for each US endoscopist) showed a cost of $ 47 million. Cost estimates for anesthesiologist assistance for colonoscopy were $ 95 (Medicare) and $ 450 (non-Medicare commercial insurance), with 34.8 % of colonoscopies requiring anesthesiologist assistance. US implementation of an EDP policy showed a 10-year saving of $ 3.2 billion (Monte Carlo analysis 5 - 95 % percentiles $ 2.7 - $ 11.9 billion). In the sensitivity analysis, assuming 50 % of colonoscopies were anesthetist-assisted showed an EDP benefit of $ 4.6 billion. Assuming a 0.0008 % mortality rate, the incremental cost - effectiveness of anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy versus an EDP policy was $ 1.5 million per life-year gained, supporting EDP as the optimal choice. A 31-fold increase of EDP-related mortality or a 17-fold cost reduction for anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy was required for EDP to become not cost-effective in this scenario. Implementation of an EDP policy in France, within a guaiac-fecal occult blood test (g-FOBT) screening program, was estimated to save € 0.8 billion in 10 years.
CONCLUSIONS: The absolute economic benefit of EDP implementation in a screening setting is probably substantial with 10-year savings of $3.2 billion in the US and €0.8 billion in France. The impact of an eventual EDP-related mortality on EDP cost - effectiveness seems marginal. The huge economic and medical resources entailed by anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy could be more efficiently invested in other clinical fields. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22531982     DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1308936

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  21 in total

1.  A much sought-after drug--propofol sedation for GI endoscopy: always better but who cares?

Authors:  Lorella Fanti; Marco Gemma; Massimo Agostoni; Pier Alberto Testoni
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2012-06-29       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Non-anesthesiologist administered propofol with or without midazolam for moderate sedation-the problem is not "which regimen" but "who's regimen".

Authors:  Suck-Ho Lee
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2012-07-26       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 3.  Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Where are we at in 2014?

Authors:  Alexandre Oliveira Ferreira; Marília Cravo
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-02-16

4.  Deep sedation for colonoscopy is unnecessary and wasteful.

Authors:  David Pace; Mark Borgaonkar
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Sedation During Endoscopy in Patients with Cirrhosis: Safety and Predictors of Adverse Events.

Authors:  Jerome Edelson; Alejandro L Suarez; Jingwen Zhang; Don C Rockey
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-10-12       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 6.  Propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  Toshihiro Nishizawa; Hidekazu Suzuki
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2018-03-22       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 7.  Water-Assisted Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Sergio Cadoni; Felix W Leung
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-03

8.  Propofol and non-propofol based sedation for outpatient colonoscopy-prospective comparison of depth of sedation using an EEG based SEDLine monitor.

Authors:  Basavana Goudra; Preet Mohinder Singh; Gowri Gouda; Anuradha Borle; Augustus Carlin; Avantika Yadwad
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-09-12       Impact factor: 2.502

9.  Bringing top-end endoscopy to regional australia: hurdles and benefits.

Authors:  J Van Den Bogaerde; D Sorrentino
Journal:  Diagn Ther Endosc       Date:  2012-09-09

10.  Room for Quality Improvement in Endoscopist-Directed Sedation: Results from the First Nationwide Survey in Korea.

Authors:  Chang Kyun Lee; Seok Ho Dong; Eun Sun Kim; Sung-Hoon Moon; Hong Jun Park; Dong-Hoon Yang; Young Chul Yoo; Tae Hoon Lee; Sang Kil Lee; Jong Jin Hyun
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.519

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.