A randomised study of comfort during bronchoscopy comparing conscious sedation and anaesthetist-controlled general anaesthesia, including the utility of bispectral index monitoring.

BACKGROUND: The difference in patient comfort with conscious sedation versus general anaesthesia for bronchoscopy has not been adequately assessed in a randomised trial. This study aimed to assess if patient comfort during bronchoscopy with conscious sedation is noninferior to general anaesthesia. METHODS: 96 subjects were randomised to receive conscious sedation or general anaesthesia for bronchoscopy. The primary outcome was subject comfort. Secondary outcomes included willingness to undergo a repeat procedure if necessary and level of sedation assessed clinically and by bispectral index (BIS) monitoring. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between subject comfort scores (difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.63-0.61 on a 10-point scale; p=0.97) or willingness to undergo a repeat procedure (97.7% versus 91.8%, 95% CI -4.8-15.5%; p=0.37). Deeper levels of sedation in the general anaesthesia cohort was confirmed with both clinical and BIS monitoring. There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy (conscious sedation 93.9%, 95% CI 80.4-98.3% versus general anaesthesia 86.5%, 95% CI 72.0-94.1%; p=0.43). There were more complications (29.6%, 95% CI 18.2-44.2% versus 6.1%, 95% CI 2.1-16.5%; p<0.01) in the general anaesthesia group. There was no relationship between high BIS scores and subject discomfort. BIS levels <40 during a procedure were associated with increased complications. CONCLUSION: Conscious sedation is not inferior to general anaesthesia in providing patient comfort during bronchoscopy, despite lighter sedation, and is associated with fewer complications and comparable diagnostic accuracy. BIS monitoring may have a role in preventing complications associated with deeper sedation.

Diagnostic errors in older patients: a systematic review of incidence and potential causes in seven prevalent diseases.

BACKGROUND: Misdiagnosis, either over- or underdiagnosis, exposes older patients to increased risk of inappropriate or omitted investigations and treatments, psychological distress, and financial burden. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency and nature of diagnostic errors in 16 conditions prevalent in older patients by undertaking a systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, or systematic reviews of such studies published in Medline between September 1993 and May 2014 were searched using key search terms of "diagnostic error", "misdiagnosis", "accuracy", "validity", or "diagnosis" and terms relating to each disease. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 938 articles were retrieved. Diagnostic error rates of >10% for both over- and underdiagnosis were seen in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, Parkinson's disease, heart failure, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and acute myocardial infarction. Diabetes was overdiagnosed in <5% of cases. CONCLUSION: Over- and underdiagnosis are common in older patients. Explanations for over-diagnosis include subjective diagnostic criteria and the use of criteria not validated in older patients. Underdiagnosis was associated with long preclinical phases of disease or lack of sensitive diagnostic criteria. Factors that predispose to misdiagnosis in older patients must be emphasized in education and clinical guidelines.