Capnographic Monitoring of Moderate Sedation During Low-Risk Screening Colonoscopy Does Not Improve Safety or Patient Satisfaction: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Appropriate monitoring during sedation has been recognized as vital to patient safety in procedures outside of the operating room. Capnography can identify hypoventilation prior to hypoxemia; however, it is not clear whether the addition of capnography improves safety or is cost effective during routine colonoscopy, a high volume, low-risk procedure. Our aim was to evaluate the value of EtCO2 monitoring during colonoscopy with moderate sedation. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of sedation safety and patient satisfaction before and after the introduction of EtCO2 monitoring during outpatient colonoscopy with midazolam and fentanyl using the validated PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS). Complications of sedation and PROSAS scores were compared among colonoscopies with and without capnography. RESULTS: A total of 966 patients participated in our study, 465 in the pre-EtCO2 group and 501 in the EtCO2 group. On multivariate analysis, patients and nurses reported higher levels of procedural discomfort after adoption of capnography (1.71 vs. 1.00, P<0.001). No serious adverse events were seen, and minor sedation-related adverse events occurred with similar frequency in both groups (8.2% pre-EtCO2 vs. 11.2% EtCO2, P=0.115). The cost of implementing EtCO2 in our unit was $40,169.95 and added $11.68 per case. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy with moderate sedation is a low-risk procedure, and the addition of EtCO2 did not improve safety or patient satisfaction but did increase cost. These data suggest that routine capnography in this setting may not be cost effective and that EtCO2 might be reserved for patients at higher risk of adverse events.

Fellowship Colonoscopy Training and Preparedness for Independent Gastroenterology Practice.

GOALS: To objectively assess when gastroenterology (GI) fellows achieve technical competency to perform colonoscopy independently. BACKGROUND: New guidelines to assess the procedural competency of GI fellows in training have been developed. Although comprehensive, they do not account for the quality metrics to which independently practicing gastroenterologists are held. STUDY: We performed a prospective study examining consecutive colonoscopies performed by GI fellows from November 2013 through March 2014 at an academic medical center. Using a brief postprocedure questionnaire and the online medical record, we measured rates of independent fellow cecal intubation rate (CIR), insertion time to the cecum (cecal IT), and independent polypectomy rate. Our secondary outcomes were adenoma detection rate and polyp detection rate. RESULTS: A total of 898 colonoscopies performed by 10 GI fellows were analyzed. In the multivariate analysis, CIR [odds ratio (OR)=1.29, P=0.012], cecal IT (ß-coefficient=0.19, P=0.006), and rates of unassisted independent snare polypectomy (OR=1.36, P<0.001) all improved significantly with increased number of procedures performed (OR and ß-coefficient per 100 colonoscopies performed). After performing 500 colonoscopies, fellows achieved a mean CIR>90%, cecal IT between 7 and 10 minutes, and independent polypectomy rate of 90% with further improvement in cecal IT to <7 minutes, and independent snare polypectomy of >95% after 700 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Current procedural recommendations for fellowship training may underestimate the technical skill necessary for independent GI practice upon completion of fellowship. Technical proficiency in snare polypectomy may lag behind proficiency in cecal intubation.