Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anesthesia Assistance in Screening Colonoscopy and Adenoma Detection Rate Among Trainees

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Aims

The use of anesthesia assistance (AA) for screening colonoscopy has been increasing substantially over the past decade, raising concerns about procedure safety and cost without demonstrating a proven improvement in overall quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate (ADR). The effect of AA on ADR has not been extensively studied among trainees learning colonoscopy. We aimed to determine whether type of sedation used during screening colonoscopy affects trainee ADR.

Methods

Using the electronic endoscopy databases of two hospitals in our medical center, we identified colonoscopies performed by 15 trainees from 2014 through 2018, including all screening examinations in which the cecum was reached. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with adenoma detection.

Results

We identified 1420 unique patients who underwent screening colonoscopy by a trainee meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these, 459 (32.3%) were performed with AA. Overall trainee ADR was 39.6%, with ADR increasing from 35.0% in year one of training to 42.8% in year three (p = 0.047). ADR for cases with AA was 37.9%, while ADR for conscious sedation cases was 32.0% (p = 0.374). Despite this 5.9% absolute difference, the use of AA was not associated with finding an adenoma on multivariable analysis when controlling for patient age, sex, smoking status, body mass index, trainee year of training, mean withdrawal time, supervising attending ADR, and bowel preparation quality (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.67–1.09).

Conclusions

Despite providing the ability to more consistently sedate patients, the use of AA did not affect trainee ADR. These results on trainee ADR and sedation type suggest that the overall lack of association between AA use and ADR is applicable to the trainee setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rex DK, Khalfan HK. Sedation and the technical performance of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2005;15:661–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Khiani VS, Soulos P, Gancayco J, Gross CP. Anesthesiologist involvement in screening colonoscopy: temporal trends and costs implications in the Medicare population. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:58–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Inadomi JM, Gunnarsson CL, Rizzo JA, Fang H. Projected increased growth rate of anesthesia professional-delivered sedation for colonoscopy and EGD in the United States: 2009 to 2015. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:580–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wernil KJ, Brenner AT, Rutter CM, Inadomi JM. Risks associated with anesthesia services during colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2016;150:888–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu H, Waxman DA, Main R, Mattke S. Utilization of anesthesia services during outpatient endoscopies and colonoscopies and associated spending 2003–2009. JAMA. 2012;307:1178–1184.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cooper GS, Kou TD, Rex DK. Complications following colonoscopy with anesthesia assistance: a population-based analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:551–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bielawska B, Hookey LC, Sutradhar R, et al. Anesthesia assistance in outpatient colonoscopy and risk of aspiration pneumonia, bowel perforation, and splenic injury. Gastroenterology. 2018;154:77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dominitz JA, Baldwin LM, Green P, Kreuter WI, Ko CW. Regional variation in anesthesia assistance during outpatient colonoscopy is not associated with differences in polyp detection or complication rates. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:298–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nakshabendi R, Berry AC, Munoz JC, John BK. Choice of sedation and its impact on adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopies. Ann Gastroenterol. 2016;29:50–55.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Thirumurthi S, Raju GS, Pande M, et al. Does deep sedation with propofol affect adenoma detection rates in average risk screening colonoscopy exams? World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;9:177–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hsieh YH, Tseng CW, Hu CT, Koo M, Leung FW. Prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy using water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86:192–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Paspatis GA, Tribonias G, Manolaraki MM, et al. Deep sedation compared with moderate sedation in polyp detection during colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13:e137–e144.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Singh H, Poluha W, Cheung M, Choptain N, Baron KI, Taback SP. Propofol for sedation during colonoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;8:CD006268.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Qayed E, Shea L, Goebel S, Bostick RM. Association of trainee participation with adenoma and polyp detection rates. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;9:204–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gianotti RJ, Oza SS, Tapper EB, Kothari D, Sheth SG. A longitudinal study of adenoma detection rate in gastroenterology fellowship training. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61:2831–2837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bitar H, Zia H, Bashir M, et al. Impact of fellowship training level on colonoscopy quality and efficiency metrics. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88:378–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, Dufrayne F, Bergman G. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52:346–352.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1298–1306.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang A, Hoda KM, Holub JL, Eisen GM. Does level of sedation impact detection of advanced neoplasia? Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55:2337–2343.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M, et al. Increated rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:98–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:72–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Buchner AM, Shahid MW, Heckman MG, et al. Trainee participation is associated with increased small adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:1223–1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mahadev S, Jin Z, Lebwohl B, et al. Trainee colonoscopy quality is influenced by the independent and unobserved performance characteristics of supervising physicians. Endosc Int Open. 2019;7:E74–E82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RL. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2533–2541.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032, USA

    Anna Krigel, Anish Patel, Jeremy Kaplan, Xiao-Fei Kong, Reuben Garcia-Carrasquillo, Benjamin Lebwohl & Suneeta Krishnareddy

  2. Celiac Disease Center, Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Benjamin Lebwohl & Suneeta Krishnareddy

  3. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Benjamin Lebwohl

Authors
  1. Anna Krigel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anish Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeremy Kaplan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiao-Fei Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Reuben Garcia-Carrasquillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Benjamin Lebwohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Suneeta Krishnareddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AK, AP, JK, XFK, RGC, BL, and SK were involved in study concept and design. AK, AP, JK, and BL contributed to acquisition of data. AK and BL were involved in analysis and interpretation of data. AK, BL, and SK drafted the manuscript. AK, AP, JK, XFK, RGC, BL, and SK were involved in critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. AK and BL were involved in statistical analysis. SK and BL contributed to study supervision. All authors approve the final manuscript submitted and they approve the authorship list.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Krigel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and nothing to declare.

Ethical approval

This analysis was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Columbia University.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krigel, A., Patel, A., Kaplan, J. et al. Anesthesia Assistance in Screening Colonoscopy and Adenoma Detection Rate Among Trainees. Dig Dis Sci 65, 961–968 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-019-05820-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-019-05820-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation