PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2021; 09(07): E1070-E1076
DOI: 10.1055/a-1452-9242
Original article

Outcomes of colonoscopy with non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP): an equivalence trial

Marco Alburquerque
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital de Palamós, Girona, Spain
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Clínica Girona, Girona, Spain
,
Antonella Smarrelli
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital de Palamós, Girona, Spain
,
Julio Chevarria Montesinos
3   Department of Nephrology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
,
Sergi Ortega Carreño
4   Department of Nursing, Hospital de Palamós, Girona, Spain
,
Ana Zaragoza Fernandez
4   Department of Nursing, Hospital de Palamós, Girona, Spain
,
Alba Vargas García
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital de Palamós, Girona, Spain
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Clínica Girona, Girona, Spain
,
Cesar Ledezma Frontado
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital de Palamós, Girona, Spain
,
Lluís Vidal
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital de Palamós, Girona, Spain
,
Montserrat Figa Francesch
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Clínica Girona, Girona, Spain
,
Ferrán González-Huix Lladó
2   Department of Gastroenterology, Clínica Girona, Girona, Spain
5   Department of Gastroenterology, Arnau de Vilanova University Hospital, Lleida, Spain
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Efficacy and safety of NAAP for gastrointestinal endoscopy have been widely documented, although there is no information about the outcomes of colonoscopy when the endoscopist supervises the sedation. In this context, the aim of this trial was to determine the equivalence of adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening colonoscopies performed with non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) and performed with monitored anesthesia care (MAC).

Patients and methods This was a single-blind, non-randomized controlled equivalence trial that enrolled adults from a national CRC screening program (CRCSP). Patients were blindly assigned to undergo either colonoscopy with NAAP or MAC. The main outcome measure was the ADR in CRCSP colonoscopies performed with NAAP.

Results We included 315 patients per group. The median age was 59.76 ± 5.81 years; 40.5 % of patients were women. The cecal intubation rate was 97 %, 81.8 % of patients had adequate bowel preparation, withdrawal time was > 6 minutes in 98.7 %, and the median global exploration time was 24.25 ± 8.86 minutes (range, 8–70 minutes). The ADR was 62.9 % and the complication rate (CR) was 0.6 %. Analysis by intention-to-treat showed an ADR in the NAAP group of 64.13 % compared with 61.59 % in the MAC group, a difference (δADR) of 2.54 %, 95 %CI: −0.10 to 0.05. Analysis by per-protocol showed an ADR in the NAAP group of 62.98 %, compared with 61.94 % in the MAC group, δADR: 1.04 %, 95 %CI: −0.09 to 0.07. There was no difference in CR (NAAP: 0,63 vs. MAC: 0.63); P = 1.0.

Conclusions ADR in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies performed with NAAP was equivalent to that in those performed with MAC. Similarly, there was no difference in complication rates.



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 01. November 2020

Angenommen: 19. Februar 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
17. Juni 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Vargo JJ, Cohen LB, Rex DK. et al. Position statement: Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 1053-1059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Chutkan R, Cohen J, Abedi M. et al. Training guideline for use of propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 167-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Waring JP, Baron TH, Hirota WK. et al. Guidelines for conscious sedation and monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 317-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Vargo JJ, Niklewski PJ, Williams JL. et al. Patient safety during sedation by anesthesia professionals during routine upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: an analysis of 1,38 million procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 101-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Adeyemo A, Bannazadeh M, Rigs Y. et al. Does sedation type affect colonoscopy perforation rates?. Dis Colon Rectum 2014; 57: 110-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cooper GS, Kou TD, Rex DK. Complications following colonoscopy with anesthesia assistance: a population-based analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173: 551-556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Agostini M, Fanti L, Gemma M. et al. Adverse events during monitored anesthesia care for GI endoscopy: an 8-year experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 266-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Wernli KJ, Brenner AT, Rutter CM. et al. Risk associated with anesthesia services during colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 888-894
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gonzalez-Huix F, Figa M, Alburquerque M. et al. Serious adverse events of nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol in relation with gastrointestinal endoscopic procedure. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kaminski MF, Hassan C, Bisschops R. et al. Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European society of GI endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 435-449
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Subramanian V, Mannath J, Hawkey CJ. et al. High definition colonoscopy vs. standard video endoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 499-505
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Coe SG, Crook JE, Diehl NN. et al. An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 219-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Von Karsa L, Patnick J. et al. European Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines WorkingGroup. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 51-59
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Chernik DA, Gillings D, Laine H. et al. Validity and reliability of the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale: study with intravenous midazolam. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1990; 10: 244-251
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lai E, Calderwood A, Doros G. et al. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale: A valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Paris workshop participants. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach and colon. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 3-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Williansom SB. Colorectal adenomas. N Engl J Med 2016; 374: 1065-1075
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Rex D, Boland R, Domiitz J. et al. Colorectal cancer screening: Recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 18-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Denis B, Sauleau EA, Gendre I. et al. The mean number of adenomas per procedure should become the gold standard to measure the neoplasia yield of colonoscopy: a population-based cohort study. Dig Liver Dis 2014; 46: 176-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wang HS, Pisegna J, Modi R. et al. Adenoma detection rate is necessary but insufficient for distinguishing high versus low endoscopist performance. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 71-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rex D, Schoenfeld P, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kaminski M, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F. et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline-Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 775-794
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Consell Assessor del Programa de detecció precoç de càncer de còlon i recte de Catalunya. Pla director d'oncologia. Departament de Salut. Generalitat de Catalunya. Criteris generals d'organització i funcionament del Programa de detecció precoç de càncer de còlon i recte de Catalunya. Versió 2.1-Novembre 2016. 2nd ed. Barcelona: 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Buchner A, Guarner-Argente C, Ginsberg G. Outcomes of EMR of defiant colorectal lesions directed to an endoscopy referral center. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 255-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ferlischt M, Moss A, Hassan C. et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 270-297
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Alburquerque M, Vargas A, Sanchez I. Risk factors for incomplete endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps Paris Is-II. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 484-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Bretthauer M. Detection rates during colonoscopy: What matters most?. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 15-16
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Klair JS, Munish A, Johnson D. et al. Serrated polyp detection rate and advanced adenoma detection rate from a US multicenter cohort. Endoscopy 2020; 51: 61-67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Anderson J. Detection of serrated polyps: How do endoscopists rate?. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 950-952
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Crockett S, Gourevitch R, Morris M. et al. endoscopist factor that influence serrated polyp detection: a multicenter study. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 984-992
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar