Search

Background and Aims: Chronic opioid use increases tolerance to sedatives. Diphenhydramine is recommended for difficult-to-sedate patients during endoscopic procedures. We hypothesized that the addition of diphenhydramine to midazolam and fentanyl would improve objective and subjective measures of procedural sedation., Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included patients on chronic opioids undergoing colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive 50 mg of diphenhydramine intravenously (n = 61) or placebo (n = 58), in addition to fentanyl and midazolam. Baseline characteristics, amount of fentanyl and midazolam, procedure times, and adverse events were recorded. Quality of sedation was assessed by the physician and nurse. Patients rated pain and amnesia on a 10-point scale., Results: There was no difference in amounts of fentanyl (125.4 ± 56.2 μg vs 126.9 ± 53.5 μg, P = .88) and midazolam (4.9 ± 2.1 mg vs 5 ± 1.9 mg, P = .79) used. The mean sedation scores from the physician (6.2 ± 1.1 vs 5.3 ± 1.2, P =.0002) and nurses (5.6 ± 1.5 vs 5.1 ± 1.4, P =.04) were statistically significant in favor of the diphenhydramine arm. Patient scores for pain (2.05 ± 2.17 vs 3.09 ± 3.95, P =.047) and amnesia (7.8 ± 3.4 vs 6.5 ± 3.8, P =.047) favored the group that received diphenhydramine. Qualitative assessment showed no significant difference between the groups. There was no difference in induction time (P = .86), procedure duration (P = .98), or recovery time (P = .16). Hypotensive episodes were more common in the placebo group (P = .027)., Conclusions: In patients on chronic opioid therapy, administration of diphenhydramine does not allow for lower doses of procedural sedatives but improves quality of sedation without increasing the number of adverse events. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT T01967433.)., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The need to define the cost of endoscopic procedures becomes increasingly important in an era of providing low-cost, high-quality care. We examined the impact of informing endoscopists of the cost of accessories and pathology specimens as a cost-minimization strategy., Methods: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of therapeutic outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. During the pre-intervention phase (phase 1), the endoscopists were not briefed on the cost of accessories or pathology specimens obtained during the procedure. During a 3-week intervention phase and the post-intervention phase (phase 2) endoscopists were informed of the dollar value of accessories and pathology specimens after the completion of all procedures. In all cases the institutional costs (not charges) were used. The endoscopists were blinded to their observation., Results: A total of 969 EGD, colonoscopy, and EGD+colonoscopy performed by 6 endoscopists were reviewed, 456 procedures in phase 1 and 513 procedures in phase 2. There was no significant difference between phases 1 and 2 in total device and pathology cost in dollars (188.8±151.4 vs. 188.9±151.8, P=0.99), total device cost (36.2±107.9 vs. 39.0±95.96, P=0.67) and total pathology cost (152.6±101.3 vs. 149.9±112.5, P=0.70). There was not a significant difference in total device and pathology cost when examined by specific procedures performed, or for any of the endoscopists between phases 1 and 2., Conclusions: Making endoscopists more cost conscious by informing them of the costs of each procedure during EGD and colonoscopy does not result in lower procedural costs. Analysis of cost-minimization strategies involving procedures in other health-care settings and procedures using high-cost accessories are warranted.

Colon cancer is the third leading cause of cancer among men and women in the United States. Colonoscopy is largely used as a screening tool to detect pre-cancerous polyps and to detect colorectal cancers early. Optimal bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy allows the endoscopist the ability to increase adenoma detection rates and perform the procedure more safely. This article reviews the various bowel preparations on the market today with evidence based findings on optimal use, safety profiles, timing and adjuncts.

Background: Endoscopic procedures are frequently performed on patients chronically on opioids, raising concerns about the safety and efficacy of conventional sedation., Aims: We hypothesized that chronic opioid use is associated with longer procedure times, higher dosages of sedation medications, and an increase in adverse effects., Methods: This is a retrospective review from June 2012 to June 2013. Patients on chronic opioids (opioids use ≥ 12 weeks) were compared to randomly selected patients matched for age, race, and sex. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors that were independently predictive of longer procedure times., Results: Patients on chronic opioids required higher doses of fentanyl (122.0 ± 45.3 vs. 105.8 ± 47.2 µg; P < 0.0001) and midazolam (5.3 ± 5.3 vs. 4.4 ± 2 mg; P = 0.0037) and were more likely to receive diphenhydramine (42.8 vs. 22.6 %; P < 0.001). The induction period (11.3 ± 8.8 vs. 7.5 ± 4.0 min), duration of procedure (39.1 ± 17.5 vs. 33.4 ± 14.1 min), and recovery times (38.7 ± 15.3 vs. 33.8 ± 12.1 min) were significantly longer for patients on chronic opioids. In the multivariate regression analysis, opioid use was an independent predictor of longer procedure duration (P < 0.05). Hypotensive episodes did not differ between groups (2.8 vs. 2.7 %; P = 0.8). However, patients on chronic opioids experienced more pain (13.4 vs. 5.9 %; P 0.001) and hypertensive episodes (8.1 vs. 2.8 %; P 0.002)., Conclusion: Patients on chronic opioids represent a high-risk population with longer procedural times and more discomfort, despite higher dosages of sedative agents. Prospective studies are required to define the risks and benefits of more costly alternative sedation strategies for patients on chronic opioids.

Background and Aim: Anti-spasmodic drugs may facilitate mucosal inspection during colonoscopy. The impact of hyoscine N-butylbromide (HBB) on polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) is unclear., Methods: We conducted a reproducible literature search of multiple databases. Two reviewers independently compared manuscripts for PDR, ADR, advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and rates of complications. Pooling was conducted by fixed-effects and random-effects models. Relative risk (RR) estimates were calculated (95% confidence interval). I(2) index assessed heterogeneity., Results: Patient demographics were comparable. The pooled analysis showed a trend toward improving PDR and ADR among the HBB group compared with the placebo group but failed to reach statistical significance, (46% vs 43%, RR = 1.08 [0.94, 1.25], P = 0.27), (31% vs 28%, RR = 1.12 [0.97, 1.29], P = 0.11) respectively., Conclusion: HBB during colonoscopy may provide marginal improvements in ADR and PDR. However, heterogeneity in the available data precludes firm conclusions at this time., (© 2014 The Authors. Digestive Endoscopy © 2014 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Background: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality benchmark for colonoscopy, influenced by several factors including bowel preparation, withdrawal time, and withdrawal technique., Objective: To assess the impact of video recording of all colonoscopies on the ADR., Design: Comparison of two cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy before and after implementation of video recording., Setting: Academic outpatient endoscopy facility., Patients: This study involved asymptomatic, average-risk adults undergoing screening colonoscopy., Intervention: Video recording of all colonoscopy procedures. Polyp findings and withdrawal times were recorded for 208 consecutive screening colonoscopies. A policy of video recording all colonoscopies was implemented and announced to the staff. Data on another 213 screening colonoscopies were subsequently collected., Main Outcome Measurements: Adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, advanced polyp detection rate, hyperplastic polyp detection rate., Results: At least one adenoma was found in 38.5% of patients after video recording versus 33.7% before video recording (P = .31). There was a significant increase in the hyperplastic polyp detection rate (44.1% vs 34.6%; P = .046). Most endoscopists had a numerical increase in their ADRs, but only one was significant (57.7% vs 22.6%; P < .01). There were trends toward higher detection of adenomas of <5 mm (59.1% vs 52%; P = .23) and right-sided adenomas (40.2% vs 30.4%; P = .11) in the video recorded group., Limitations: No randomization, confounding of intervention effects, and sample size limitations., Conclusion: Video recording of colonoscopies is associated with a nonsignificant increase in the ADR and a significant increase in the hyperplastic polyp detection rate. There may be a benefit of video recording for endoscopists with low ADRs., (Copyright © 2012 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of new or emerging endoscopic technologies that have the potential to have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent preclinical and clinical studies on the topic, and a MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience; U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized but, in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through January 2010 using the keywords "computer," "computerized," "computer-assisted," "sedation," "propofol." Reports on Emerging Technology are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. These reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Reports on Emerging Technology are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment., (Copyright © 2011. Published by Mosby, Inc.)