Krigel Anna, Patel Anish, Kaplan Jeremy, Kong Xiao-Fei, Garcia-Carrasquillo Reuben, Lebwohl Benjamin, Krishnareddy Suneeta
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.
Celiac Disease Center, Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Dig Dis Sci. 2020 Apr;65(4):961-968. doi: 10.1007/s10620-019-05820-2. Epub 2019 Sep 4.
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.
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.
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).
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.
在过去十年中,麻醉辅助(AA)用于筛查结肠镜检查的情况大幅增加,这引发了对操作安全性和成本的担忧,且未证明在诸如腺瘤检出率(ADR)等总体质量指标上有明显改善。在学习结肠镜检查的学员中,AA对ADR的影响尚未得到广泛研究。我们旨在确定筛查结肠镜检查期间使用的镇静类型是否会影响学员的ADR。
利用我们医疗中心两家医院的电子内镜数据库,我们确定了2014年至2018年15名学员进行的结肠镜检查,包括所有到达盲肠的筛查检查。多变量逻辑回归用于确定与腺瘤检测相关的因素。
我们确定了1420名符合纳入标准的学员进行筛查结肠镜检查的独特患者。其中,459例(32.3%)采用了AA。学员的总体ADR为39.6%,ADR从培训第一年的35.0%增加到第三年的42.8%(p = 0.047)。采用AA的病例ADR为37.9%,而清醒镇静病例的ADR为32.0%(p = 0.374)。尽管存在这5.9%的绝对差异,但在控制患者年龄、性别、吸烟状况、体重指数、学员培训年份、平均退镜时间、指导主治医生的ADR和肠道准备质量后,多变量分析显示使用AA与发现腺瘤无关(OR 0.85;95% CI 0.67 - 1.09)。
尽管AA能够更持续地使患者镇静,但使用AA并未影响学员的ADR。这些关于学员ADR和镇静类型的结果表明,AA使用与ADR之间总体缺乏关联适用于学员环境。