Cochlear Implantation Under Local Anesthesia With Conscious Sedation in the Elderly: First 100 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To report the outcomes on a large series of elderly patients who underwent cochlear implantation (CI) surgery under local anesthesia with conscious sedation (LA-CS). METHODS: Retrospective chart review on 100 consecutive elderly patients (> 65 years) who underwent CI with LA-CS at a tertiary care center between August 2013 and January 2020. An age-matched control group of 50 patients who underwent CI with general anesthesia (GA) are used for comparison. Outcomes measured included time in the operating room, time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and rate of adverse events. RESULTS: Cochlear implant surgery under LA-CS was successfully performed in 99 (99%) patients. One patient requiring conversion to GA intraoperatively. No patients in the LA-CS group experienced cardiopulmonary adverse events; however, three patients (6%) in the GA group experienced minor events including atrial fibrillation and/or demand ischemia. Overnight observation in the hospital due to postoperative medical concerns or prolonged wake-up from anesthesia was required in one patient (1%) from the LA-CS cohort and 12 patients (24%) from the GA cohort. Perioperative adverse events exclusive to the LA-CS group included severe intraoperative vertigo (8%), temporary facial nerve paresis (3%), and wound infection (1%). The average amount of time spent in the operating room was 37 minutes less for procedures performed under LA-CS compared to GA (P < .05). The average amount of time in recovery was similar for both groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Cochlear implant surgery under LA-CS offers many benefits and is a safe, feasible, and cost-effective alternative to GA when performed by experienced CI surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:E946-E951, 2021.

Cost Analysis of Intravenous Propofol Monotherapy versus Intravenous Combination Sedation in Patients Undergoing Outpatient Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

In outpatient gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, for which postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stays are expected to be brief, sedative choices by anesthesia providers can affect costs. The purpose of this project was to evaluate the cost of propofol monotherapy compared with combination sedation consisting of propofol with any of the following: midazolam, fentanyl, dexmedetomidine, and/or ketamine. A total of 277 patients who underwent outpatient GI endoscopy were included in this retrospective medical record review. Patients were separated into 2 groups: propofol monotherapy (n = 233) or combination sedation (n = 44). Outcomes included PACU length of stay, episodes of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), PACU costs, and medication costs. The average PACU length of stay was 35.0 minutes for propofol monotherapy and 35.75 minutes for combination sedation (P = .918). The average PACU cost was $566.37 for propofol monotherapy and $578.44 for combination sedation (P = .918). The average cost for sedatives was $3.13 for propofol monotherapy and $3.34 for combination sedation (P = .964). There was 1 incident of nausea among all patients. There were no significant differences in PACU length of stay, PACU cost, medication costs, and episodes of PONV between propofol monotherapy and combination sedation for outpatient GI endoscopy.

Financial Effect of Unbundling Moderate Sedation from Procedural Codes in Radiology.

PURPOSE: To assess and quantify the financial effect of unbundling newly unbundled moderate sedation codes across major payors at an academic radiology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Billing and reimbursement data for 23 months of unbundled moderate sedation codes were analyzed for reimbursement rates and trends. This included 10,481 and 28,189 units billed and $443,257 and $226,444 total receipts for codes 99152 (initial 15 minutes of moderate sedation) and 99153 (each subsequent 15 minute increment of moderate sedation), respectively. Five index procedures-(i) central venous port placement, (ii) endovascular tumor embolization, (iii) tunneled central venous catheter placement, (iv) percutaneous gastrostomy placement, and (v) percutaneous nephrostomy placement-were identified, and moderate sedation reimbursements for Medicare and the dominant private payor were calculated and compared to pre-bundled reimbursements. Revenue variation models across different patient insurance mixes were then created using averages from 4 common practice settings among radiologists (independent practices, all hospitals, safety-net hospitals, and non-safety-net hospitals). RESULTS: Departmental reimbursement for unbundled moderate sedation in FY2018 and FY2019 totaled $669,701.34, with high per-unit variability across payors, especially for code 99153. Across the 5 index procedures, moderate sedation reimbursement decreased 1.3% after unbundling and accounted for 3.9% of procedural revenue from Medicare and increased 11.9% and accounted for 5.5% of procedural revenue from the dominant private payor. Between different patient insurance mix models, estimated reimbursement from moderate sedation varied by as much as 29.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Departmental reimbursement from billing the new unbundled moderate sedation codes was sizable and heterogeneous, highlighting the need for consistent and accurate reporting of moderate sedation. Total collections vary by case mix, patient insurance mix, and negotiated reimbursement rates.

Efficiency and scheduling in the nonoperating room anesthesia suite: implications from patient satisfaction to increased revenue operating room: a common (Dollars and Sense) approach.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although the NORA setting continues to outgrow the main operating room in cases, there are few studies addressing efficiency metrics, and even fewer studies addressing those of a single specialty outpatient gastroenterology facility. In order to capitalize on this growing trend, gastrointestinal endoscopies must be scheduled in a way that prevents lost potential revenue while maintaining patient convenience, comfort, safety, and satisfaction. By standardizing our scheduling for procedure block time among various endoscopists and converting our sedation practices from conscious sedation to solely Propofol sedation in a 4 : 1 CRNA to Anesthesiologist model, we increased revenue while maximizing physician efficiency and site utilization. RECENT FINDINGS: The commonly used main operating room efficiency benchmarks cannot effectively be applied in NORA as these two locations have widely different procedure times, turn-around-times, and recovery times. In fact, procedures in gastrointestinal endoscopy suites can be completed in less time than a typical operating room takes for turnover. SUMMARY: By adapting our sedation practices to solely Propofol sedation and by standardizing our procedural schedule times among all the endoscopists, we maximized the number of cases and revenue in our outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy suite while increasing patient satisfaction through reduction in overall patient facility time and procedure to discharge time.

Propensity Matched Analysis Comparing Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Conscious sedation (CS) has been increasingly utilized in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We aim to compare safety, efficacy, efficiency, and direct cost outcomes of patients who underwent TAVI with general anesthesia (GA) to those with CS. Records for all adult patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI at our institution between February 2012 and September 2018 were retrospectively screened. Patients were grouped by anesthesia treatment (GA or CS) and propensity matched. Safety (in-hospital and 30-day mortality, in-hospital and 30-day stroke, cardiac arrest, need for permanent pacemaker, and composite bleed/vascular adverse events), efficacy (follow-up echocardiographic findings), efficiency (procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital length-of-stay, and discharge to home), and direct cost outcomes were compared. A total of 589 patients met our inclusion criteria. Propensity matching yielded 154 GA patients and 154 CS patients. There were no differences in the safety outcomes of in-hospital or 30-day mortality, in-hospital or 30-day stroke, cardiac arrest, and need for permanent pacemaker between GA and CS groups. There was a significant reduction in composite bleeding/vascular events in the CS group (8.4% vs 19.5%, p < 0.01). There were no differences in the follow-up echocardiograms with respect to aortic valve area, left ventricular ejection fraction, and incidence of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation. The CS group had shorter procedural fluoroscopy times and radiation dose, shorter length-of-stay and ICU stay, with similar procedural duration. CS patients were more likely to be discharged to home (59.7% vs 74.7%, p < 0.01). Total direct costs for CS were decreased in almost every departmental category, with a mean 10.4% reduction in overall direct costs (p < 0.001). In conclusion, TAVI with CS is associated with less bleeding and vascular events, lower procedural radiation exposure, reduced length of hospitalization and ICU stay, and lower direct costs in comparison with TAVI with GA. These outcomes occur without sacrificing procedural efficacy or safety.

Substantial Increase in Anesthesia Assistance for Outpatient Colonoscopy and Associated Cost Nationwide.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The use of anesthesia assistance (AA) for outpatient colonoscopy has been increasing over the past decade, raising concern over its effects on procedure safety, quality, and cost. We performed a nationwide claims-based study to determine regional, patient-related, and facility-related patterns of anesthesia use as well as cost implications of AA for payers. METHODS: We analyzed the Premier Perspective database to identify patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy at over 600 acute-care hospitals throughout the United States from 2006 through 2015, with or without AA. We used multivariable analysis to identify factors associated with AA and cost. RESULTS: We identified 4,623,218 patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy. Of these, 1,671,755 (36.2%) had AA; the proportion increased from 16.7% in 2006 to 58.1% in 2015 (P < .001). Factors associated with AA included younger age (odds ratios [ORs], compared to patients 18-39 years old: 0.94, 0.82, 0.77, 0.72, and 0.77 for age groups 40-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years, 70-79 years, and ≥80 years, respectively); and female sex (OR, 0.96 for male patients compared to female patients; 95% CI, 0.95-0.96). Black patients were less likely to receive AA than white patients (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.81-0.82), although this difference decreased with time. The median cost of outpatient colonoscopy with AA was higher among all payers, ranging from $182.43 (95% CI, $180.80-$184.06) higher for patients with commercial insurance to $232.62 (95% CI, $222.58-$242.67) higher for uninsured patients. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of a database of patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy throughout the United States, we found that the use of AA during outpatient colonoscopy increased significantly from 2006 through 2015, associated with increased cost for all payers. The increase in anesthesia use mandates evaluation of its safety and effectiveness in colorectal cancer screening programs.

Conscious Sedation for Pediatric Peritonsillar Abscess: Comparison of Anesthetic Approaches.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost of incision and drainage (I&D) for pediatric patients with peritonsillar abscesses (PTAs) under conscious sedation (CS) versus unsedated (awake) and general anesthesia (GA). STUDY DESIGN: Case series with chart review. SETTING: Tertiary pediatric hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Records for all pediatric patients (<18 years) treated for PTAs in the emergency department from 2005 to 2015 were reviewed and stratified into awake, CS, and GA groups for comparison. The primary outcome measure was procedure tolerance, with secondary measures including return to the emergency department within 15 days, complications, and facility costs associated with treatment. RESULTS: A total of 188 patients were identified. The median age was 14 years (interquartile range, 9-16). Awake drainage with injected local anesthetic was used in 115 children; 62 underwent CS; and 11 underwent GA. Over 92% of the children tolerated I&D regardless of anesthesia, with no difference among groups ( P = .60). None of those who underwent I&D via CS returned to the emergency department within 15 days of the procedure, as compared with 5.2% for the awake group and 9.1% for the GA group ( P = .06). None in the GA or awake group had a complication associated with the procedure, as opposed to 9.6% in the CS group ( P = .02). Complications included apnea and dental trauma (2 children each) and transient hypotension and desaturation (1 each). Cost was highest in the GA group and lowest for the awake group ( P < .0001). CONCLUSION: CS for PTA I&D is a viable treatment option with tolerance and success similar to that of the awake and GA groups. Complications were observed for those who underwent CS, but they were manageable.

Anaesthesia for ear surgery in remote or resource-constrained environments.

BACKGROUND: The successful provision of middle-ear surgery requires appropriate anaesthesia. This may take the form of local or general anaesthesia; both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Local anaesthesia is simple to administer and does not require the additional personnel required for general anaesthesia. In the low-resource setting, it can provide a very safe and effective means of allowing middle-ear surgery to be successfully completed. However, some middle-ear surgery is too complex to consider performing under local anaesthesia and here general anaesthesia will be required. CONCLUSION: This article highlights considerations for performing middle-ear surgery in a safe manner when the available resources may be more limited than those expected in high-income settings. There are situations where local anaesthesia with sedation may prove a useful compromise of the two techniques.

Nonoperating room anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To assess the trends in nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) for gastrointestinal endoscopy over the past few years, and to describe alternative methods of delivering propofol sedation in selected low-risk patients. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of NORA for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has been rising steadily over the past decade in the United States, considerably increasing healthcare costs. Because of this, there have been attempts to develop nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation methods in low-risk patients. There is controversy as to whether properly trained nonanesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation SUMMARY: The deployment of nonanesthesia-administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall healthcare costs without sacrificing sedation quality. We also address the realm of anesthesia provider care for advanced endoscopic procedures including setup for administration of anesthesia, decision-making regarding placement of an endotracheal tube, and the potential need to move a challenging case to the operating room.

A Medicare cost analysis of MRI- versus CT-based high-dose-rate brachytherapy of the cervix: Can MRI-based planning be less costly?

PURPOSE: While some institutions deliver multiple fractions per implant for MRI-based planning, it is common for only one fraction to be delivered per implant with CT-based cervical brachytherapy. The purpose of this study was to compare physician costs, hospital costs, and overall costs for cervical cancer patients treated with either CT-based or MRI-based high-dose-rate (HDR) cervical brachytherapy to determine if MRI-based brachytherapy as described can be financially feasible. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 40 consecutive patients treated with curative intent cervical brachytherapy. Twenty patients underwent CT-based HDR brachytherapy with five fractions delivered in five implants on nonconsecutive days in an outpatient setting with the first implant placed with a Smit sleeve under general anesthesia. Twenty patients received MRI-based HDR brachytherapy with four fractions delivered in two implants, each with MRI-based planning, performed 1-2 weeks apart with an overnight hospital admission for each implant. We used Medicare reimbursements to assess physician costs, hospital costs, and overall cost. RESULTS: The median cost of MRI-based brachytherapy was $14,248.75 (interquartile range [IQR]: $13,421.32-$15,539.74), making it less costly than CT-based brachytherapy with conscious sedation (i.e., $18,278.85; IQR: $17,323.13-$19,863.03, p < 0.0001) and CT-based brachytherapy with deep sedation induced by an anesthesiologist (i.e., $27,673.44; IQR: $26,935.14-$29,511.16, p < 0.0001). CT-based brachytherapy with conscious sedation was more costly than CT-based brachytherapy with deep sedation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MRI-based brachytherapy using the described treatment course was less costly than both methods of CT-based brachytherapy. Cost does not need to be a barrier for MRI-based cervical brachytherapy, especially when delivering multiple fractions with the same application.

Costs associated with Barrett's esophagus screening in the community: an economic analysis of a prospective randomized controlled trial of sedated versus hospital unsedated versus mobile community unsedated endoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data on the economic impact associated with screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) are limited. As part of a comparative effectiveness randomized trial of unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) and sedated EGD (sEGD), we assessed costs associated with BE screening. METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to 3 techniques: sEGD or uTNE in a hospital setting (huTNE) versus uTNE in a mobile research van (muTNE). Patients were called 1 and 30 days after screening to assess loss of work (because of the screening procedure) and medical care sought after procedure. Direct medical costs were extracted from billing claims databases. Indirect costs (loss of work for subject and caregiver) were estimated using patient reported data. Statistical analyses including multivariable analysis accounting for comorbidities were conducted to compare costs. RESULTS: Two hundred nine patients were screened (61 sEGD, 72 huTNE, and 76 muTNE). Thirty-day direct medical costs and indirect costs were significantly higher in the sEGD than the huTNE and muTNE groups. Total costs (direct medical + indirect costs) were also significantly higher in the sEGD than in the uTNE group. The muTNE group had significantly lower costs than the huTNE group. Adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities on multivariable analysis did not change this conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term direct, indirect, and total costs of screening are significantly lower with uTNE compared with sEGD. Mobile uTNE costs were lower than huTNE costs, raising the possibility of mobile screening as a novel method of screening for BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration under conscious sedation with meperidine and midazolam.

Endobronchial Ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is usually performed under general anesthesia or deep sedation with drugs such as Propofol that, at least in Italy, can be administered only by an anesthesiologist. Aim of the study was to assess conscious sedation feasibility, safety and tolerability using Meperidine and Midazolam as administered by Pulmonologist and relevant impact on the efficiency of the sampling procedures.All patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA from February 2013 to July 2014 were examined retrospectively. Efficiency using Meperidine and Midazolam during EBUS-TBNA has been assessed: completion of lymph-nodal sampling, sampling adequacy, diagnostic yield, cough during endoscopic procedure complications and need for procedure repetition with Anesthesiology assistance. Patient satisfaction and cost/effectiveness were also evaluated. One hundred and thirty-four consecutive patients were considered; 97.7% completed the procedure. In 96.9% of cases the prefixed program of lymph-nodal sampling was accomplished. Sampling adequacy was 92,4%. Diagnostic yield was 55%. In 94.7% of cases cough was absent or did not interfere with EBUS-TBNA. The need to repeat the endoscopic procedure occurred in 6 cases but only in 2 the presence of an Anesthesiologist was required. Patient satisfaction was very high, with 95.9% of subjects reporting they would "definitely return". A 27% cost reduction was calculated. EBUS-TBNA under conscious sedation using Meperidine and Midazolam prescribed and administered by pulmonologist without the Anesthesiologist assistance, revealed to be a safe, well tolerated and cost saving procedure. The efficiency of sampling was good, apart from a relatively low diagnostic yield due to different expertise of operators.

Cochlear implantation under conscious sedation with local anesthesia; Safety, Efficacy, Costs, and Satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, efficiency, cost effectiveness, and satisfaction of patients undergoing cochlear implantation under conscious sedation versus general anesthesia. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review of 20 patients who underwent cochlear implantation under conscious sedation which was compared to 20 age-matched patients where surgery was performed under general anesthesia. METHODS: Perioperative times, length of stay, anesthesia drug costs, postoperative complications, and patient satisfaction were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Conscious sedation was associated with decreased drug costs, surgery time, and anesthesia time. Length of stay was significantly longer for patients undergoing general anesthesia. Patient satisfaction was superior with conscious sedation. Perioperative morbidity was not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Conscious sedation for cochlear implantation is a safe, efficient, and cost-effective alternative to general anesthesia. The efficacy of conscious sedation for cochlear implant surgery may expand the treatment of profound hearing loss to the elderly who are deemed too sick for general anesthesia or are fearful of the cognitive or medical consequences of general anesthesia.

Endoscopic ultrasound sedation in the United Kingdom: Is life without propofol tolerable?

There is compelling evidence to support the quality, cost effectiveness and safety profile of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). However in the United Kingdom, it is recommended that the administration and monitoring of propofol sedation for endoscopic procedures should be the responsibility of a dedicated and appropriately trained anaesthetist only. The majority of United Kingdom EUS procedures are performed with opiate and benzodiazepine sedation rather than anaesthetist led propofol lists due to anaesthetist resource availability. We sought to prospectively determine the tolerability and safety of EUS with benzodiazepine and opiate sedation in single United Kingdom centre. Two hundred consecutive patients undergoing either EUS or oesophago-gastroduodenoscopy (OGD) with conscious sedation were prospectively recruited with a 1:1 enrolment ratio. Patients completed questionnaires pre and post procedure detailing anticipated and actual pain experienced on a 1-10 visual analogue scale. Demographics, procedure duration, sedation doses and willingness to repeat the procedure were also recorded. EUS procedures lasted significantly longer than OGDs (15 min vs 6 min, P < 0.0001), however, there was no difference in anticipated pain scores between the groups (EUS 3.37/10 vs OGD 3.47/10, P = 0.46). Pain scores indicated EUS was better tolerated than OGD (1.16/10 vs 1.88/10, P = 0.03) although higher doses of sedation were used for EUS procedures. There were no complications identified in either group. We feel our study demonstrates that the tolerability of EUS with opiate and benzodiazepine sedation is acceptable.

Anesthesia Service Use During Outpatient Gastroenterology Procedures Continued to Increase From 2010 to 2013 and Potentially Discretionary Spending Remained High.

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies have identified an increasing number of gastroenterology (GI) procedures using anesthesia services to provide sedation, with a majority of these services delivered to low-risk patients. The aim of this study was to update these trends with the most recent years of data. METHODS: We used Medicare and commercial claims data from 2010 to 2013 to identify GI procedures and anesthesia services based on CPT codes, which were linked together using patient identifiers and dates of service. We defined low-risk patients as those who were classified as ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status class I or II. For those patients without an ASA class listed on the claim, we used a prediction algorithm to impute an ASA physical status. RESULTS: Over 6.6 million patients in our sample had a GI procedure between 2010 and 2013. GI procedures involving anesthesia service accounted for 33.7% in 2010 and 47.6% in 2013 in Medicare patients, and 38.3% in 2010 and 53.0% in 2013 in commercially insured patients. Overall, as more patients used anesthesia services, total anesthesia service use in low-risk patients increased 14%, from 27,191 to 33,181 per million Medicare enrollees. Similarly, we observed a nearly identical uptick in commercially insured patients from 15,871 to 22,247 per million, an increase of almost 15%. During 2010-2013, spending associated with anesthesia services in low-risk patients increased from US$3.14 million to US$3.45 million per million Medicare enrollees and from US$7.69 million to US$10.66 million per million commercially insured patients. CONCLUSIONS: During 2010 to 2013, anesthesia service use in GI procedures continued to increase and the proportion of these services rendered for low-risk patients remained high.

Anesthetist-Directed Sedation Favors Success of Advanced Endoscopic Procedures.

OBJECTIVES: Sedation is required to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) given the duration and complexity of these advanced procedures. Sedation options include anesthetist-directed sedation (ADS) vs. gastroenterologist-directed sedation (GDS). Although ADS has been shown to shorten induction and recovery times, it is not established whether it impacts likelihood of procedure completion. Our aim was to assess whether ADS impacts the success of advanced endoscopy procedures. METHODS: We prospectively assessed the sedation strategy for patients undergoing ERCP and EUS between October 2010 and October 2013. Although assignment to ADS vs. GDS was not randomized, it was determined by day of the week. A sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching was used to model a randomized trial. The main outcome, procedure failure, was defined as an inability to satisfactorily complete the ERCP or EUS such that an additional endoscopic, radiographic, or surgical procedure was required. Failure was further categorized as failure due to inadequate sedation vs. technical problems. RESULTS: During the 3-year study period, 60% of the 1,171 procedures were carried out with GDS and 40% were carried out with ADS. Failed procedures occurred in 13.0% of GDS cases compared with 8.9% of ADS procedures (multivariate odds ratio (OR): 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5-3.6)).This was driven by a higher rate of sedation failures in the GDS group, 7.0%, than in the ADS group, 1.3% (multivariate OR: 7.8 (95% CI: 3.3-18.8)). There was no difference in technical success between the GDS and ADS groups (multivariate OR: 1.2 (95% CI: 0.7-1.9)). We were able to match 417 GDS cases to 417 ADS cases based on procedure type, indication, and propensity score. Analysis of the propensity score-matched patients confirmed our findings of increased sedation failure (multivariate OR: 8.9 (95% CI: 2.5-32.1)) but not technical failure (multivariate OR: 1.2 (0.7-2.2)) in GDS compared with ADS procedures. Adverse events of sedation were rare in both groups. Failed ERCP in the GDS group resulted in a total of 93 additional days of hospitalization. We estimate that $67,891 would have been saved if ADS had been used for all ERCP procedures. No statistically significant difference in EUS success was identified, although this sub-analysis was limited by sample size. CONCLUSION: ADS improves the success of advanced endoscopic procedures. Its routine use may increase the quality and efficiency of these services.