Anna Krigel1, Anish Patel2, Jeremy Kaplan2, Xiao-Fei Kong2, Reuben Garcia-Carrasquillo2, Benjamin Lebwohl2,3,4, Suneeta Krishnareddy2,3. 1. Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032, USA. aek2155@cumc.columbia.edu. 2. Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032, USA. 3. Celiac Disease Center, Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The use of anesthesia assistance (AA) for screening colonoscopy has been increasing substantially over the past decade, raising concerns about procedure safety and cost without demonstrating a proven improvement in overall quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate (ADR). The effect of AA on ADR has not been extensively studied among trainees learning colonoscopy. We aimed to determine whether type of sedation used during screening colonoscopy affects trainee ADR. METHODS: Using the electronic endoscopy databases of two hospitals in our medical center, we identified colonoscopies performed by 15 trainees from 2014 through 2018, including all screening examinations in which the cecum was reached. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with adenoma detection. RESULTS: We identified 1420 unique patients who underwent screening colonoscopy by a trainee meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these, 459 (32.3%) were performed with AA. Overall trainee ADR was 39.6%, with ADR increasing from 35.0% in year one of training to 42.8% in year three (p = 0.047). ADR for cases with AA was 37.9%, while ADR for conscious sedation cases was 32.0% (p = 0.374). Despite this 5.9% absolute difference, the use of AA was not associated with finding an adenoma on multivariable analysis when controlling for patient age, sex, smoking status, body mass index, trainee year of training, mean withdrawal time, supervising attending ADR, and bowel preparation quality (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.67-1.09). CONCLUSIONS: Despite providing the ability to more consistently sedate patients, the use of AA did not affect trainee ADR. These results on trainee ADR and sedation type suggest that the overall lack of association between AA use and ADR is applicable to the trainee setting.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The use of anesthesia assistance (AA) for screening colonoscopy has been increasing substantially over the past decade, raising concerns about procedure safety and cost without demonstrating a proven improvement in overall quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate (ADR). The effect of AA on ADR has not been extensively studied among trainees learning colonoscopy. We aimed to determine whether type of sedation used during screening colonoscopy affects trainee ADR. METHODS: Using the electronic endoscopy databases of two hospitals in our medical center, we identified colonoscopies performed by 15 trainees from 2014 through 2018, including all screening examinations in which the cecum was reached. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with adenoma detection. RESULTS: We identified 1420 unique patients who underwent screening colonoscopy by a trainee meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these, 459 (32.3%) were performed with AA. Overall trainee ADR was 39.6%, with ADR increasing from 35.0% in year one of training to 42.8% in year three (p = 0.047). ADR for cases with AA was 37.9%, while ADR for conscious sedation cases was 32.0% (p = 0.374). Despite this 5.9% absolute difference, the use of AA was not associated with finding an adenoma on multivariable analysis when controlling for patient age, sex, smoking status, body mass index, trainee year of training, mean withdrawal time, supervising attending ADR, and bowel preparation quality (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.67-1.09). CONCLUSIONS: Despite providing the ability to more consistently sedate patients, the use of AA did not affect trainee ADR. These results on trainee ADR and sedation type suggest that the overall lack of association between AA use and ADR is applicable to the trainee setting.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adenoma density under the curve; Colonoscopy; Propofol; Sedation; Trainee
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Michal F Kaminski; Paulina Wieszczy; Maciej Rupinski; Urszula Wojciechowska; Joanna Didkowska; Ewa Kraszewska; Jaroslaw Kobiela; Robert Franczyk; Maria Rupinska; Bartlomiej Kocot; Anna Chaber-Ciopinska; Jacek Pachlewski; Marcin Polkowski; Jaroslaw Regula Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: G A Paspatis; G Tribonias; M M Manolaraki; K Konstantinidis; I Chainaki; A Theodoropoulou; E Vardas; G Chlouverakis Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Harminder Singh; William Poluha; Mary Cheung; Nicole Choptain; Ken I Baron; Shayne P Taback Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2008-10-08
Authors: Giuseppe Biscaglia; Francesco Cocomazzi; Marco Gentile; Ilaria Loconte; Alessia Mileti; Rosa Paolillo; Antonella Marra; Stefano Castellana; Tommaso Mazza; Alfredo Di Leo; Francesco Perri Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2022-05-13