BACKGROUND & AIMS: We investigated the rate and predictors of anesthesia assistance during outpatient colonoscopy and whether anesthesia assistance is associated with colonoscopy interventions and outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using a 20% sample of Medicare administrative claims submitted during the 2003 calendar year. We analyzed data from 328,177 adults, 66 years old or older, who underwent outpatient colonoscopy examinations. RESULTS: Overall, 8.7% of outpatient colonoscopies were performed with anesthesia assistance. In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of anesthesia assistance included black race, female sex, and a nonscreening indication; anesthesia assistance increased with median income and comorbidities. General and colorectal surgeons, fewer years in their practice, and nonhospital site of service were also significantly associated with anesthesia assistance. The strongest predictor of anesthesia assistance was the Medicare carrier, with odds ratios ranging from 0.22 (95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.43) for the Arkansas carrier (crude rate 0.9%) to 9.90 (95% confidence interval: 7.92-12.39) for the Empire carrier in New York area (crude rate 35.3%) compared with the Wisconsin carrier (crude rate 4.3%). There was also considerable variation among endoscopists; 75% of providers had no colonoscopies with anesthesia assistance recorded in their dataset, and 4.5% of providers had anesthesia assistance in at least three quarters of their examinations. Anesthesia assistance was not associated with the diagnosis of polyps, the performance of biopsy or polypectomy, or complications in multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant variations among regions and sites of service in anesthesia assistance during outpatient colonoscopies of Medicare beneficiaries. Although this variation has considerable economic implications, it was not associated with measures of patient risk or outcomes, such as polyp detection or procedure-related complications.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: We investigated the rate and predictors of anesthesia assistance during outpatient colonoscopy and whether anesthesia assistance is associated with colonoscopy interventions and outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using a 20% sample of Medicare administrative claims submitted during the 2003 calendar year. We analyzed data from 328,177 adults, 66 years old or older, who underwent outpatient colonoscopy examinations. RESULTS: Overall, 8.7% of outpatient colonoscopies were performed with anesthesia assistance. In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of anesthesia assistance included black race, female sex, and a nonscreening indication; anesthesia assistance increased with median income and comorbidities. General and colorectal surgeons, fewer years in their practice, and nonhospital site of service were also significantly associated with anesthesia assistance. The strongest predictor of anesthesia assistance was the Medicare carrier, with odds ratios ranging from 0.22 (95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.43) for the Arkansas carrier (crude rate 0.9%) to 9.90 (95% confidence interval: 7.92-12.39) for the Empire carrier in New York area (crude rate 35.3%) compared with the Wisconsin carrier (crude rate 4.3%). There was also considerable variation among endoscopists; 75% of providers had no colonoscopies with anesthesia assistance recorded in their dataset, and 4.5% of providers had anesthesia assistance in at least three quarters of their examinations. Anesthesia assistance was not associated with the diagnosis of polyps, the performance of biopsy or polypectomy, or complications in multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant variations among regions and sites of service in anesthesia assistance during outpatient colonoscopies of Medicare beneficiaries. Although this variation has considerable economic implications, it was not associated with measures of patient risk or outcomes, such as polyp detection or procedure-related complications.
Authors: Douglas O Faigel; Todd H Baron; Jay L Goldstein; William K Hirota; Brian C Jacobson; John F Johanson; Jonathon A Leighton; J Shawn Mallery; Kathryn A Peterson; J Patrick Waring; Robert D Fanelli; Jo Wheeler-Harbaugh Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Laura C Seeff; Thomas B Richards; Jean A Shapiro; Marion R Nadel; Diane L Manninen; Leslie S Given; Fred B Dong; Linda D Winges; Matthew T McKenna Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Lawrence B Cohen; Julie S Wecsler; John N Gaetano; Ariel A Benson; Kenneth M Miller; Valerie Durkalski; James Aisenberg Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Brian W Sipe; Douglas K Rex; Danielle Latinovich; Chris Overley; Karen Kinser; Lisa Bratcher; David Kareken Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Brian J Ulmer; Jonathan J Hansen; Christine A Overley; Michelle R Symms; Vidyasree Chadalawada; Suthat Liangpunsakul; Eloise Strahl; April M Mendel; Douglas K Rex Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Jessica L Mellinger; Caroline R Richardson; Amit K Mathur; Michael L Volk Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-09-28 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: James Buxbaum; Nitzan Roth; Nima Motamedi; Terrance Lee; Paul Leonor; Mark Salem; Dolores Gibbs; John Vargo Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Megan A Adams; Katherine M Prenovost; Jason A Dominitz; Robert G Holleman; Eve A Kerr; Sarah L Krein; Sameer D Saini; Joel H Rubenstein Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 22.682