Impact of Endotracheal Intubation on Interventional Endoscopy Unit Efficiency Metrics at a Tertiary Academic Medical Center.

OBJECTIVES: Measures for evaluating interventional endoscopy unit efficiency have not been adequately validated, especially in reference to the involvement of anesthesia services for endoscopy. Primary aim was to compare process measures/metrics of interventional endoscopy unit efficiency between intubated and non-intubated patients. Secondary aim was to assess variables associated with the need for endotracheal intubation. METHODS: The prospectively collected endoscopy unit metrics database at UF Health was reviewed for procedures performed in the interventional endoscopy unit for 6 months. Parameters included hospital-mandated metrics available from the database. RESULTS: A total of 1,421 patients underwent 1,635 interventional endoscopic procedures and 271/1,421 patients (19.1%) were intubated. There was no significant difference between intubated and non-intubated cohorts with respect to age, gender, BMI, ASA Score, Mallampati Score, or the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) were more frequently intubated than those undergoing non-ERCP procedures (41.3 vs. 12.4%, P<0.0001). Inpatients comprised 48.3% of all intubated patients, whereas only 29.2% of non-intubated patients were inpatients (P<0.0001). Most patients (159/271, 58.7%) were intubated per anesthesiologist preference. All process efficiency metrics were significantly prolonged in the intubated compared with the non-intubated patient cohort, except the time interval between successive procedures. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients with an anesthesiologist who had performed a greater number of total endoscopic sedations were less likely to be intubated than patients with an anesthesiologist who had performed fewer total procedures (P=0.0066). CONCLUSIONS: Endotracheal intubation negatively impacts efficiency metrics in an interventional endoscopy unit. Careful assessment for the need for intubation should be emphasized.

Significantly higher rates of gastrointestinal bleeding and thromboembolic events with left ventricular assist devices.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (GIB) and thromboembolic events may increase with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs). We aimed to characterize GIB and thromboembolic events that occurred in patients with CF-LVADs and compare them with patients receiving anticoagulation therapy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 159 patients who underwent CF-LVAD placement at 2 large academic medical centers (mean age, 55 ± 13 y). We identified and characterized episodes of GIB and thromboembolic events through chart review; data were collected from a time period of 292 ± 281 days. We compared the rates of GIB and thromboembolic events between patients who underwent CF-LVAD placement and a control group of 159 patients (mean age, 64 ± 15 y) who received a cardiac valve replacement and were discharged with anticoagulation therapy. RESULTS: Bleeding events occurred in 29 patients on CF-LVAD support (18%; 45 events total). Sixteen rebleeding events were identified among 10 patients (range, 1-3 rebleeding episodes/patient). There were 34 thrombotic events among 27 patients (17%). The most common source of bleeding was GI angiodysplastic lesions (n = 20; 44%). GIB and thromboembolic events were more common in patients on CF-LVAD support than controls; these included initial GIB (18% vs 4%, P < .001), rebleeding (6% vs none, P = .001), and thromboembolic events (17% vs 8%, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CF-LVADS receiving anticoagulants have a significantly higher risk of GIB and thromboembolic events than patients receiving anticoagulants after cardiac valve replacement surgery. GI angiodysplastic lesions are the most common source of bleeding.

Evaluation of interventional endoscopy unit efficiency metrics at a tertiary academic medical center.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: There is an increasing demand for interventional endoscopic services and the need to develop efficient endoscopic units. The aim of this study was to analyze performance data and define metrics to improve efficiency in a single academic interventional endoscopy center. ] PATIENTS AND METHODS: The prospective operations performance data (6-month period) of our interventional endoscopy unit (EU) was analyzed. First-case start time (FIRST) delay was defined as any time the first patient of the day entered the endoscopy room after the scheduled time. Non-endoscopy time (NET) and total time (TT) were defined as non-procedural and total time elapsed in the EU, respectively. Time-interval between successive patients (TISP) was defined as the time from one patient departure from the room until the time of arrival of the next patient in the room. RESULTS: A total of 1421 patients underwent 1635 endoscopic procedures. FIRST was delayed (54.2 % cases) by 13.6 min (range 1 - 53), but started within 15 min of the scheduled time in 85 % of the cases. NET accounted for 9.1 hours (67.2 %) of 13.5 hours TT/day. TISP (37.1 min, range 5 - 125) comprised 54.2 % of the NET, and was delayed (> 30 min) in 49.8 % of cases. "Patient flow" processes (registration, admission, transportation, scheduling) accounted for 50.1 % of TISP delays. CONCLUSIONS: Delays in NET, specifically TISP, rather than FIRST, were identified as a cause for decreased efficiency. "Patient flow" processes were the main reasons for delays in TISP. This study identifies potential process measures that can be used as benchmarks to improve efficiency in the EU.

Multimodality endoscopic treatment of pancreatic duct disruption with stenting and pseudocyst drainage: how efficacious is it?

BACKGROUND: Few studies have described the role of multimodality therapy and the complexity of endoscopic management of pancreatic duct disruption. Our study aim was to analyse and confirm factors associated with the resolution of pancreatic duct disruption. METHODS: Over 6 years, retrospective data on patients with pancreatic duct disruption managed endoscopically were retrieved. Success was defined as resolution of the pancreatic duct disruption at 12 months. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with resolution. RESULTS: 113 patients (78 male) with a mean age 51.3 year were included. Resolution of the pancreatic duct leak occurred in 80 cases (70.2%). 72 cases received transpapillary pancreatic duct stents, with 51 demonstrating resolution of pancreatic duct leak (71%) cystenterostomy was performed in 68 patients with 51 resolved (75%). In partial duct disruptions, pancreatic duct stenting combined with endoscopic drainage of fluid collections resulted in an increased rate of resolution (80%) compared to complete disruptions treated in a similar manner (57%). In complete pancreatic ductal disruptions, transpapillary pancreatic duct stenting had no additional benefit (9/17, 52.9%) compared to cystenterostomy or percutaneous drainage alone (24/34, 70.6%; P=0.61). CONCLUSION: Pancreatic duct disruptions require multimodality treatment, addressing not only the integrity of the pancreatic duct but also any fluid collections associated. Partial ductal disruption should be managed by a bridging stent.