Computer-Assisted Propofol Sedation for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Is Effective, Efficient, and Safe.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) allows non-anesthesiologists to administer propofol for gastrointestinal procedures in relatively healthy patients. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use, we report our 1-year experience with CAPS for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). METHODS: Between September 2014 and August 2015, 926 outpatients underwent elective EGDs with CAPS at our center. All EGDs were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of CAPS. Procedural success rates, procedure times, and recovery times were compared against corresponding historical controls done with midazolam and fentanyl sedation from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in CAPS patients were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 56.7 years (45% male); 16.2% of the EGDs were for variceal screening or Barrett's surveillance and 83.8% for symptoms. The procedural success rates were similar to that of historical controls (99.0% vs. 99.3%; p = 0.532); procedure times were also similar (6.6 vs. 7.4 min; p = 0.280), but recovery time was markedly shorter (31.7 vs. 52.4 min; p < 0.001). There were 11 (1.2%) cases of mild transient oxygen desaturation (< 90%), 15 (1.6%) cases of marked agitation due to undersedation, and 1 case of asymptomatic hypotension. In addition, there were six (0.6%) patients with more pronounced desaturation episodes that required brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: CAPS appears to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing sedation for EGD in healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical controls.

One year experience with computer-assisted propofol sedation for colonoscopy.

AIM: To report our one-year experience with computer assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) for colonoscopy as the first United States Medical Center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use. METHODS: Between September 2014 and August 2015, 2677 patients underwent elective outpatient colonoscopy with CAPS at our center. All colonoscopies were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of the CAPS system, with the assistance of a specially trained nurse. Procedural success rates, polyp detection rates, procedure times and recovery times were recorded and compared against corresponding historical measures from 2286 colonoscopies done with midazolam and fentanyl from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in the CAPS group were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 59.9 years (48.7% male); 31.3% were ASA I, 67.3% ASA II and 1.4% ASA III. 45.1% of the colonoscopies were for screening, 31.5% for surveillance, and 23.4% for symptoms. The mean propofol dose administered was 250.7 mg (range 16-1470 mg), with a mean fentanyl dose of 34.1 mcg (0-100 mcg). The colonoscopy completion and polyp detection rates were similar to that of historical measures. Recovery times were markedly shorter (31 min vs 45.6 min, P < 0.001). In CAPS patients, there were 20 (0.7%) cases of mild desaturation (< 90%) treated with a chin lift and reduction or temporary discontinuation of the propofol infusion, 21 (0.8%) cases of asymptomatic hypotension (< 90 systolic blood pressure) treated with a reduction in the propofol rate, 4 (0.1%) cases of marked agitation or discomfort due to undersedation, and 2 cases of pronounced transient desaturation requiring brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no sedation-related serious adverse events such as emergent intubation, unanticipated hospitalization or permanent injury. CONCLUSION: CAPS appears to be a safe, effective and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for colonoscopy in relatively healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical measures. There were few adverse events, and no serious adverse events, related to CAPS.

Blinded comparison of esophageal capsule endoscopy versus conventional endoscopy for a diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) is an alternative to EGD for Barrett's esophagus screening. A multicenter study found ECE to be safe, well tolerated, and accurate; however, a post hoc adjudication process was used that may have biased results. OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of ECE for the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus. DESIGN: Prospective and blinded, with no adjudication. PATIENTS: Screening patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux and surveillance patients with known Barrett's esophagus. INTERVENTIONS: ECE followed by EGD in each subject. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of ECE for Barrett's esophagus by using EGD results, with histologic confirmation as the criterion standard. RESULTS: Ninety-six subjects were enrolled, of whom 90 (94%) completed the study, including 66 screening and 24 surveillance patients. ECE was 67% sensitive and 84% specific for identifying Barrett's esophagus, diagnosing 14 of 21 cases of biopsy-confirmed Barrett's esophagus. Positive and negative predictive values were 22% and 98%, respectively (calculated for screening patients only). Sensitivity for short- and long-segment Barrett's esophagus was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our blinded, unadjudicated study shows that ECE had only moderate sensitivity and specificity for identifying Barrett's esophagus. ECE in its present form is not suitable as a primary screening tool for Barrett's esophagus but may be used in patients unwilling to undergo EGD. Inadequate visualization of the gastroesophageal junction may be the cause of suboptimal ECE accuracy; this may be improved by advances in ingestion protocol and capsule calibration.

Screening colonoscopy in very elderly patients: prevalence of neoplasia and estimated impact on life expectancy.

CONTEXT: Current guidelines do not include an upper age cutoff for colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy. Although the prevalence of colonic neoplasia increases with age, life expectancy decreases. Thus, the benefit of screening colonoscopy in very elderly patients may be limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare estimated life-years saved with screening colonoscopy in very elderly vs younger persons. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study conducted among 1244 asymptomatic individuals in 3 age groups (50-54 years [n = 1034], 75-79 years [n = 147], and > or =80 years [n = 63]) who underwent screening colonoscopy at a US teaching hospital and clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of various types of colon neoplasia; estimated gain in life expectancy, calculated as life expectancy--(life expectancy during polyp lag time + life expectancy after colorectal cancer diagnosis); and comparison of mean gain in life expectancy across the 3 groups. Life expectancy and mortality data were derived from life tables, previous studies, and national databases. RESULTS: The prevalence of neoplasia was 13.8% in the 50- to 54-year-old group, 26.5% in the 75- to 79-year-old group, and 28.6% in the group aged 80 years or older. Despite higher prevalence of neoplasia in elderly patients, mean extension in life expectancy was much lower in the group aged 80 years or older than in the 50- to 54-year-old group (0.13 vs 0.85 years). In sensitivity analysis, with longer polyp lag times the mean extension in life expectancy decreased more in the elderly than in the younger patients; alternatively, if it was assumed that a smaller proportion of adenomas progress to colorectal cancer, the mean extension in life expectancy decreased less in the elderly than in the younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Even though prevalence of neoplasia increases with age, screening colonoscopy in very elderly persons (aged > or =80 years) results in only 15% of the expected gain in life expectancy in younger patients. Screening colonoscopy in very elderly patients should be performed only after careful consideration of potential benefits, risks, and patient preferences.