Efficacy and cost analysis of intravenous conscious sedation for long oral surgery procedures.

The aim of this study was to determine what is considered a long oral surgery and conduct a cost-effective analysis of sedative agents used for intravenous sedation (IVS) and sedation protocols for such procedures. Pubmed and Google Scholar databases were used to identify human studies employing IVS for extractions and implant-related surgeries, between 2003 and July/2023. Sedation protocols and procedure lengths were documented. Sedative satisfaction, operator satisfaction, and sedation assessment were also recorded. Cost estimation was based on The British National Formulary (BNF). To assess bias, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were employed. This review identified 29 randomised control trials (RCT), six cohorts, 14 case-series, and one case-control study. The study defined long procedures with an average duration of 31.33 minutes for extractions and 79.37 minutes for implant-related surgeries. Sedative agents identified were midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam. Cost analysis revealed midazolam as the most cost-effective option (<10 pence per procedure per patient) and propofol the most expensive option (approximately £46.39). Bias analysis indicated varying degrees of bias in the included studies. Due to diverse outcome reporting, a comparative network approach was employed and revealed benefits of using dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam over midazolam. Midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam demonstrated safety and efficacy as sedative agents for conscious IVS in extended procedures like extractions or implant-related surgeries. While midazolam is the most cost-effective option, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam offer subjective and clinical benefits. The relatively higher cost of propofol may impede its widespread use. Dexmedetomidine and remimazolam stand out as closely priced options, necessitating further clinical investigations for comparative efficacy assessment.

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.

The rise, fall, and future direction of computer-assisted personalized sedation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The first computer-assisted personalized sedation (CAPS) device was developed to address the growing demand for routine endoscopy procedures in the United States in the early 2000s. This review will describe the environment that gave rise to CAPS and summarize the design of that first device. It will then discuss the market forces that led to the fall of CAPS, with sales of the device ending 2 years after commercialization. RECENT FINDINGS: CAPS was initially conceived as a means to enable proceduralists to administer conscious sedation with propofol safely. In the nearly 20 years since its conception, the expectations of patients and proceduralists for endoscopy sedation, have evolved from conscious sedation to deep. Due to the increased risk inherent in deep sedation, future CAPS devices should be tools for anesthesiologists, not proceduralists. SUMMARY: Over $2 billion are spent annually for anesthesia services in routine endoscopic procedures for low-risk patients; a spending rate that is not sustainable. CAPS, in an 'anesthesia oversight' model similar to medical supervision, has a future as a cost-efficient means for anesthesia services to provide sedation in endoscopy and other nonoperating room venues. Anesthesiologists should work with medical device companies and payers to develop a CAPS 'anesthesia oversight' model.

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.

Efficacy and cost savings with the use of a minimal sedation / anxiolysis protocol for intra-articular corticosteroid injections in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

BACKGROUND: Intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACI) are frequently used in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. There is a paucity of evidence-based research describing methods of pain and anxiety control for this procedure. IACI were mostly performed under general anesthesia for children younger than 13 years old in our institution as of 2014. We started to integrate sedation services more commonly in our institution with the minimal sedation/anxiolysis (MSA) protocol outlined as an alternative to general anesthesia for IACI in 2015. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost savings of a minimal sedation protocol for intra-articular corticosteroid injections in juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients after instituting this protocol at our institution. METHODS: The MSA protocol included nitrous oxide, intranasal fentanyl, a topical numbing agent, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, ondansetron and child life intervention. A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed on a total of 80 consecutive patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis who underwent joint injections using the protocol. RESULTS: The procedure was successfully completed in greater than 95% of the patients. The median pain score (measured on a verbal numeric scale of 0-10) reported by the patient was 1 (IQR 0-2.5), by the parent 1 (IQR 0-2), by the rheumatologist 1 (IQR 0-1), and by the sedationist 1 (IQR 0-1). Degree of motion during the procedure was reported by the rheumatologist and the sedationist as none in 68% of the patients, mild in 36% and moderate in 6%. Patient, parent, rheumatologist and sedationist rated satisfaction as very high in the vast majority (94%). Emesis was reported in only 2 (2.5%) patients, no significant adverse events were reported, and no patients progressed to a deeper level of sedation than intended. Financial analysis revealed a 33% cost reduction compared with the use of general anesthesia in the operating room. CONCLUSIONS: A minimal sedation/anxiolysis protocol (including nitrous oxide, intranasal fentanyl, a topical numbing agent, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, ondansetron and child life intervention), provides safe and effective analgesia for intra-articular corticosteroid injection in a subset of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and offers a lower cost alternative to general anesthesia.

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.

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.

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.

Cost comparison and safety of emergency department conscious sedation for the removal of ear foreign bodies.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to investigate the relative cost and safety of ear foreign body (FB) removal via conscious sedation in the emergency department. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients presenting from 2000 to 2015 to the emergency department at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota was performed. 63 patients requiring sedation for ear foreign body removal were identified. Descriptive data, safety data, and costs were obtained for the study. RESULTS: There were no appreciable differences in patient safety outcomes and otologic outcomes in patients who received sedation in the emergency department or anesthesia in the operating room for FB removal. Cost analysis demonstrated increased cost associated with operating room utilization verses conscious sedation in the emergency department, with the greatest cost increase being in patients evaluated first in the emergency department and then sent to the operating room. CONCLUSIONS: Ear foreign body removal in the emergency department is shows a similar safety profile to removal in the operating room, but at a markedly lower cost. Emergency department conscious sedation should be considered a viable option in appropriately selected patients with this common problem given these results.

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.

Using continuous quantitative capnography for emergency department procedural sedation: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

End-tidal CO2 has been advocated to improve safety of emergency department (ED) procedural sedation by decreasing hypoxia and catastrophic outcomes. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of routine use of continuous waveform quantitative end-tidal CO2 monitoring for ED procedural sedation in prevention of catastrophic events. Markov modeling was used to perform cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate societal costs per prevented catastrophic event (death or hypoxic brain injury) during routine ED procedural sedation. Estimates for efficacy of capnography and safety of sedation were derived from the literature. This model was then applied to all procedural sedations performed in US EDs with assumptions selected to maximize efficacy and minimize cost of implementation. Assuming that capnography decreases the catastrophic adverse event rate by 40.7% (proportional to efficacy in preventing hypoxia), routine use of capnography would decrease the 5-year estimated catastrophic event rate in all US EDs from 15.5 events to 9.2 events (difference 6.3 prevented events per 5 years). Over a 5-year period, implementing routine end-tidal CO2 monitoring would cost an estimated $2,830,326 per prevented catastrophic event, which translates into $114,007 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analyses suggest that reasonable assumptions continue to estimate high costs of prevented catastrophic events. Continuous waveform quantitative end-tidal CO2 monitoring is a very costly strategy to prevent catastrophic complications of procedural sedation when applied routinely in ED procedural sedations.