Predictors of Use of Monitored Anesthesia Care for Outpatient Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in a Capitated Payment System.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Use of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) for gastrointestinal endoscopy has increased in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as in fee-for-service environments, despite the absence of financial incentives. We investigated factors associated with use of MAC in an integrated health care delivery system with a capitated payment model. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using multilevel logistic regression, with MAC use modeled as a function of procedure year, patient- and provider-level factors, and facility effects. We collected data from 2,091,590 veterans who underwent outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy during fiscal years 2000-2013 at 133 facilities. RESULTS: The adjusted rate of MAC use in the VHA increased 17% per year (odds ratio for increase, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.27) from fiscal year 2000 through 2013. The most rapid increase occurred starting in 2011. VHA use of MAC was associated with patient-level factors that included obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, higher comorbidity, and use of prescription opioids and/or benzodiazepines, although the magnitude of these effects was small. Provider-level and facility factors were also associated with use of MAC, although again the magnitude of these associations was small. Unmeasured facility-level effects had the greatest effect on the trend of MAC use. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective study of veterans who underwent outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy from fiscal year 2000 through 2013, we found that even in a capitated system, patient factors are only weakly associated with use of MAC. Facility-level effects are the most prominent factor influencing increasing use of MAC. Future studies should focus on better defining the role of MAC and facility and organizational factors that affect choice of endoscopic sedation. It will also be important to align resources and incentives to promote appropriate allocation of MAC based on clinically meaningful patient factors.

Association of Provider Specialty and Multidisciplinary Care With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Mortality.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about provider and health system factors that affect receipt of active therapy and outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We investigated patient, provider, and health system factors associated with receipt of active HCC therapy and overall survival. METHODS: We performed a national, retrospective cohort study of all patients diagnosed with HCC from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010 (n = 3988) and followed through December 31 2014 who received care through the Veterans Administration (128 centers). Outcomes were receipt of active HCC therapy (liver transplantation, resection, local ablation, transarterial therapy, or sorafenib) and overall survival. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, receiving care at an academically affiliated Veterans Administration hospital (odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60-2.41) or a multi-specialist evaluation (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.15-2.21), but not review by a multidisciplinary tumor board (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.98-1.46), was associated with a higher likelihood of receiving active HCC therapy. In time-varying Cox proportional hazards models, liver transplantation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.16-0.31), liver resection (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.28-0.52), ablative therapy (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76), and transarterial therapy (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92) were associated with reduced mortality. Subspecialist care by hepatologists (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78), medical oncologists (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91), or surgeons (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89) within 30 days of HCC diagnosis, and review by a multidisciplinary tumor board (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.90), were associated with reduced mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective cohort study of almost 4000 patients with HCC cared for at VA centers, geographic, provider, and system differences in receipt of active HCC therapy are associated with patient survival. Multidisciplinary methods of care delivery for HCC should be prospectively evaluated and standardized to improve access to HCC therapy and optimize outcomes.

Factors Associated With Shorter Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals for Patients With Low-Risk Colorectal Adenomas and Effects on Outcome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopists do not routinely follow guidelines to survey individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs; 1-2 small tubular adenomas, < 1 cm) every 5-10 years for colorectal cancer; many recommend shorter surveillance intervals for these individuals. We aimed to identify the reasons that endoscopists recommend shorter surveillance intervals for some individuals with LRAs and determine whether timing affects outcomes at follow-up examinations. METHODS: We collected data from 1560 individuals (45-75 years old) who participated in a prospective chemoprevention trial (of vitamin D and calcium) from 2004 through 2008. Participants in the trial had at least 1 adenoma, detected at their index colonoscopy, and were recommended to receive follow-up colonoscopy examinations at 3 or 5 years after adenoma identification, as recommended by the endoscopist. For this analysis we collected data from only participants with LRAs. These data included characteristics of participants and endoscopists and findings from index and follow-up colonoscopies. Primary endpoints were frequency of recommending shorter (3-year) vs longer (5-year) surveillance intervals, factors associated with these recommendations, and effect on outcome, determined at the follow-up colonoscopy. RESULTS: A 3-year surveillance interval was recommended for 594 of the subjects (38.1%). Factors most significantly associated with recommendation of 3-year vs a 5-year surveillance interval included African American race (relative risk [RR] to white, 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.75), Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity (RR to white, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.22-2.43), detection of 2 adenomas at the index examination (RR vs 1 adenoma, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71), more than 3 serrated polyps at the index examination (RR=2.16, 95% CI, 1.59-2.93), or index examination with fair or poor quality bowel preparation (RR vs excellent quality, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.66-2.83). Other factors that had a significant association with recommendation for a 3-year surveillance interval included family history of colorectal cancer and detection of 1-2 serrated polyps at the index examination. In comparisons of outcomes, we found no significant differences between the 3-year vs 5-year recommendation groups in proportions of subjects found to have 1 or more adenomas (38.8% vs 41.7% respectively; P = .27), advanced adenomas (7.7% vs 8.2%; P = .73) or clinically significant serrated polyps (10.0% vs 10.3%; P = .82) at the follow-up colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Possibly influenced by patients' family history, race, quality of bowel preparation, or number or size of polyps, endoscopists frequently recommend 3-year surveillance intervals instead of guideline-recommended intervals of 5 years or longer for individuals with LRAs. However, at the follow-up colonoscopy, similar proportions of participants have 1 or more adenomas, advanced adenomas, or serrated polyps. These findings support the current guideline recommendations of performing follow-up examinations of individuals with LRAs at least 5 years after the index colonoscopy.

High variation in treatment strategies for gastrointestinal angiodysplasias.

OBJECTIVE: Angiodysplasias (ADs) are the second leading cause of gastrointestinal bleeding in the elderly. The impact extends from no symptoms to chronic anaemia. Treatment guidelines are lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the current practice of gastrointestinal ADs and explore possible new research areas. On the basis of existing evidence, we would like to propose a treatment algorithm. METHODS: We administered a 19-item web-based survey to gastroenterologists in the Netherlands between February and April of 2015. RESULTS: A total of 111 (response rate 28%) gastroenterologists completed the survey (mean age=47 years; 24% women). The respondents identified Von Willebrand disease (17%), chronic kidney disease (21%) and aortic stenosis (77%) as risk factors for the development of ADs. Colonoscopy (54%) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (43%) were the preferred first tools to screen for ADs. The favoured (77%) first treatment option is endoscopic argon plasma coagulation, whereas 20% start iron supplementation or blood transfusions. Treatment strategy is mostly (65%) based on the location of the ADs. Small bowel ADs are considered the most difficult to treat, because of the need for balloon enteroscopy. Of the gastroenterologists, 13% would treat ADs as a coincident finding during endoscopy. Medical therapy is mostly started in refractory ADs, and thalidomide (40%) is preferred over octreotide (19%). Thalidomide is more preferred by gastroenterologists working in a teaching hospital. CONCLUSION: Identification of risk factors and treatment of ADs vary widely between gastroenterologists in the Netherlands. Further research is needed to create an evidence-based guideline and thereby optimize the management of symptomatic ADs.