Maximizing the general success of cecal intubation during propofol sedation in a multi-endoscopist academic centre

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Achieving the target of 95% colonoscopy completion rate at centres conducting colorectal screening programs is an important issue. Large centres and teaching hospitals employing endoscopists with different levels of training and expertise risk achieving worse results. Deep sedation with propofol in routine colonoscopy could maximize the results of cecal intubation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The present study on the experience of a single centre focused on estimating the overall completion rate of colonoscopies performed under routine propofol sedation at a large teaching hospital with many operators involved, and on assessing the factors that influence the success rate of the procedure and how to improve this performance, analyzing the aspects relating to using of deep sedation. Twenty-one endoscopists, classified by their level of specialization in colonoscopic practice, performed 1381 colonoscopies under deep sedation. All actions needed for the anaesthesiologist to restore adequate oxygenation or hemodynamics, even for transient changes, were recorded.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The "crude" overall completion rate was 93.3%. This finding shows that with routine deep sedation, the colonoscopy completion rate nears, but still does not reach, the target performance for colonoscopic screening programs, at centers where colonoscopists of difference experience are employed in such programs.</p> <p>Factors interfering with cecal intubation were: inadequate colon cleansing, endoscopists' expertise in colonoscopic practice, patients' body weight under 60 kg or age over 71 years, and the need for active intervention by the anaesthesiologist. The most favourable situation - a patient less than 71 years old with a body weight over 60 kg, an adequate bowel preparation, a "highly experienced specialist" performing the test, and no need for active anaesthesiological intervention during the procedure - coincided with a 98.8% probability of the colonoscopy being completed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>With routine deep sedation, the colonoscopy completion rate nears the target performance for colonoscopic screening programs, at centers where colonoscopists of difference experience are employed in such programs. Organizing the daily workload to prevent negative factors affecting the success rate from occurring in combination may enable up to 85% of incomplete procedures to be converted into successful colonoscopies.</p

Difficult colonoscopies in the propofol era

Background:To study the relationship between endoscopic practice and adverse events during colonoscopy under standard deep sedation induced and monitored by an anesthetist. Methods:We investigated the routine activity of an endoscopy center at the Padova University teaching hospital. We considered not only endoscopic and cardiorespiratory complications, but also the need to use high-dose propofol to complete the procedure, and the inability to complete the procedure. Variables relating to the patient?s clinical conditions, bowel preparation, the endoscopist?s and the anesthetist?s experience, and the duration of the procedure were input in the model.Results:617 procedures under deep sedation were performed with a 5% rate of adverse events. The average dose of propofol used was 2.6?1.2 mg/kg. In all, 14 endoscopists and 42 anesthetists were involved in the procedures. The logistic regression analysis identified female gender (OR=2.3), having the colonoscopy performed by a less experienced endoscopist (OR=1.9), inadequate bowel preparation (OR=3.2) and a procedure lasting longer than 17.5 minutes (OR=1.6) as the main risk factors for complications. An ASA score of 2 carried a 50% risk reduction (OR=0.5). Discussion and Conclusions: Our model showed that none of the variables relating to anesthesiological issues influenced which procedures would prove difficult

Pattern of frequent but nontargeted pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized patients with cancer at academic medical centers: A prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter study

Purpose: Hospitalized patients with cancer are considered to be at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite strong recommendations in numerous clinical practice guidelines, retrospective studies have shown that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is underutilized in hospitalized patients with cancer. Patients and Methods: We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study of hospitalized patients with cancer at five academic hospitals to determine prescription rates of thromboprophylaxis and factors influencing its use during hospitalization. Results: A total of 775 patients with cancer were enrolled across five academic medical centers. Two hundred forty-seven patients (31.9%) had relative contraindications to pharmacologic prophylaxis. Accounting for contraindications to anticoagulation, the overall rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis was 74.2% (95% CI, 70.4% to 78.0%; 392 of 528 patients). Among the patients with cancer without contraindications for anticoagulation, individuals hospitalized with nonhematologic malignancies were significantly more likely to receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis than those with hematologic malignancies (odds ratio [OR], 2.34; 95% CI, 1.43 to 3.82; P = .007). Patients with cancer admitted for cancer therapy were significantly less likely to receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis than those admitted for other reasons (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.61; P \u3c .001). Sixty-three percent of patients with cancer classified as low risk, as determined by the Padua Scoring System, received anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. Among the 136 patients who did not receive anticoagulation, 58.8% were considered to be high risk by the Padua Scoring System. Conclusion: We conclude that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is frequently administered to hospitalized patients with cancer but that nearly one third of patients are considered to have relative contraindications for prophylactic anticoagulation. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer is commonly prescribed without regard to the presence or absence of concomitant risk factors for VTE. © 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Pattern of frequent but nontargeted pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized patients with cancer at academic medical centers: A prospective cross-sectional multicenter study

PURPOSE: Hospitalized patients with cancer are considered to be at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite strong recommendations in numerous clinical practice guidelines, retrospective studies have shown that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is underutilized in hospitalized patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study of hospitalized patients with cancer at five academic hospitals to determine prescription rates of thromboprophylaxis and factors influencing its use during hospitalization. RESULTS: A total of 775 patients with cancer were enrolled across five academic medical centers. Two hundred forty-seven patients (31.9%) had relative contraindications to pharmacologic prophylaxis. Accounting for contraindications to anticoagulation, the overall rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis was 74.2% (95% CI, 70.4% to 78.0%; 392 of 528 patients). Among the patients with cancer without contraindications for anticoagulation, individuals hospitalized with nonhematologic malignancies were significantly more likely to receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis than those with hematologic malignancies (odds ratio [OR], 2.34; 95% CI, 1.43 to 3.82; P = .007). Patients with cancer admitted for cancer therapy were significantly less likely to receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis than those admitted for other reasons (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.61; P < .001). Sixty-three percent of patients with cancer classified as low risk, as determined by the Padua Scoring System, received anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. Among the 136 patients who did not receive anticoagulation, 58.8% were considered to be high risk by the Padua Scoring System. CONCLUSION: We conclude that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is frequently administered to hospitalized patients with cancer but that nearly one third of patients are considered to have relative contraindications for prophylactic anticoagulation. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer is commonly prescribed without regard to the presence or absence of concomitant risk factors for VTE