Objectives. Recent trends have favored the use of anesthesia personnel more frequently for advanced endoscopic procedures. We hypothesize a selective sedation approach based on patient and procedural ...factors using either moderate conscious sedation (MCS) or general anesthesia (GA) will result in similar outcomes and safety with significant cost savings. Methods. A 12-month prospective study of all adult endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCPs) performed at a tertiary medical center was enrolled. Technical success, cannulation rates, procedural related complications, procedure time, and cost were compared between MCS and GA. Results. A total of 876 ERCPs were included in the study with 74% performed with MCS versus 26% with GA. The intended intervention was completed successfully in 95% of cases with MCS versus 96% cases with GA (p = 0.59). Cannulation success rates with MCS were 97.5 versus 97.8% with GA (p = 0.81). Overall, adverse event rates were similar in both groups (MCS: 6.6% vs. GA: 9.2%, p = 0.21). Mean procedure time was less for MCS versus GA, 18.3 and 26 minutes, respectively (p < 0.0001). Selective use of MCS vs. universal sedation with GA resulted in estimated savings of $8,190 per case and $4,735,202 per annum. Conclusions. Preselection of ERCP sedation of moderate conscious sedation versus general anesthesia based upon patient risk factors and planned therapeutic intervention allows for the majority of ERCPs to be completed with MCS with similar rates of technical success and improvement in resource utilization and cost savings compared to performing ERCPs universally with anesthesia assistance.
Duodenoscope use in healthcare facilities has been associated with transmission of multidrug resistant pathogens between patients. To assist healthcare facilities in monitoring the quality of their ...duodenoscope reprocessing procedures and limit patient risk of infection, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) deployed voluntary interim duodenoscope sampling and culturing surveillance protocols in 2015. Though the interim methods were widely adopted, alternative surveillance protocols were developed and implemented at individual institutions. Here, we compared two sampling methods—the 2015 CDC interim protocol and an alternative protocol developed by the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC). We hypothesized that the UWHC protocol would detect a higher incidence of bacterial contamination from reprocessed duodenoscopes. A total of 248 sampling events were performed at UWHC. The CDC protocol (n = 129 sampling events) required culturing samples collected from each duodenoscope after brushing its terminal end and flushing its lumen with sterile water. The UWHC protocol (n = 119 sampling events) required culturing samples collected from each duodenoscope after swabbing its elevator, immersing its terminal end into broth and flushing its lumen with saline. With the CDC method, 8.53% (n = 11) of the duodenoscopes sampled were positive for bacterial growth with 15 isolates recovered. Using the UWHC method, 15.13% (n = 18) of cultures were positive for bacterial growth with 20 isolates recovered. The relative risk of identifying a contaminated duodenoscope using the CDC interim method, however, was not different than when using the UWHC protocol. Mean processing time (27.35 and 5.11 minutes, p<0.001) and total cost per sample event ($17.87 and $15.04) were lower using the UWHC method. As the UWHC protocol provides similar detection rates as the CDC protocol, the UWHC method is useful, provided the shorter processing time and lower cost to perform.
To evaluate our experience in the 1st year of computed tomographic (CT) colonography screening since the initiation of local third-party payer coverage.
This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the ...institutional review board, and informed consent was waived. Over a 1-year period that ended on April 27, 2005, 1110 consecutive adults (585 women, 525 men; mean age, 58.1 years) underwent primary CT colonography screening. More than 99% were covered by managed care agreements. CT colonographic interpretation was performed with primary three-dimensional polyp detection, and the final results were issued within 2 hours. Patients with large (> or =10-mm) polyps were referred for same-day optical colonoscopy, and patients with medium-sized (6-9-mm) lesions had the option of immediate optical colonoscopy or short-term CT colonography surveillance.
Large colorectal polyps were identified at CT colonography in 43 (3.9%) of 1110 patients. Medium-sized lesions were identified in 77 (6.9%) patients, 31 (40%) of whom chose optical colonoscopy and 46 (60%) of whom chose CT colonography surveillance. Concordant lesions were identified in 65 of 71 patients who underwent subsequent optical colonoscopy (positive predictive value, 91.5%). Sixty-one (86%) of 71 optical colonoscopic procedures were performed on the same day as CT colonography, thereby avoiding the need for repeat bowel preparation. The actual endoscopic referral rate for positive findings at CT colonography was 6.4% (71 of 1110 patients). The demand for CT colonography screening from primary care physicians and their patients increased throughout the study period.
As a primary colorectal screening tool, CT colonography covered by third-party payers has an acceptably low endoscopic referral rate and a high concordance of positive findings at optical colonoscopy.
Purpose
Accurate staging of esophageal cancer (ECA) is critical in determining appropriate therapy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) ...scanning can be used, but limited data exists regarding the use of combined PET/CT fusion imaging and EUS in ECA staging. The objective of this study is to evaluate the role of integrated PET/CT imaging and EUS in the staging of ECA.
Procedures
Identification of patients diagnosed with ECA from 2004 to 2007 that underwent staging PET/CT and EUS. Data regarding tumor detection, lymph node identification, presence of metastatic disease, and affect on patient management were collected and compared between PET/CT and EUS.
Results
Eighty-one patients (65 male, 16 female) were identified with mean age of 63.5 years who underwent EUS and PET/CT to stage known ECA. PET/CT identified the primary tumor in 74/81 (91.4%) of cases, compared to 81/81 (100%) with EUS. Locoregional adenopathy was seen by PET/CT in 29/81 (35.8%) of cases, compared to 49/81 (60.5%) by EUS (
p
= 0.0001). PET/CT identified celiac axis adenopathy in 8/81 (9.9%) of cases, compared to 11/81 (13.6%) with EUS (
p
= 0.5050). PET/CT identified 17/81 (21.0%) of patients with distant metastases who subsequently did not undergo attempt at curative surgical resection.
Conclusions
In ECA, EUS is superior to PET/CT for T staging and in identifying locoregional nodes, while PET/CT provides M staging. EUS and integrated PET/CT appear to independently affect treatment decisions, indicating complimentary and necessary roles in the staging of ECA.
Background EUS, CT, and positron emission tomography (PET) have all been used in the preoperative staging of esophageal cancer separately or in various combinations. Objective Our purpose was to ...determine the value and role of EUS when used in conjunction with CT and PET imaging in staging cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Design Retrospective single-center clinical trial. Setting Academic tertiary care center. Patients Data were examined for 56 patients who concomitantly underwent examination with EUS, CT, and PET in a multimodality staging program. Main Outcome Measurements EUS, CT, and PET were examined for their ability to detect the primary tumor, local tumor stage, locoregional adenopathy, and distant metastases. With use of surgical resection as baseline therapy, the frequency at which EUS, CT, and PET affected and changed management was examined. Results EUS is the only imaging test that identified all primary tumors and provided tumor staging. EUS identified a significantly greater number of patients (58.9%) with locoregional nodes than did CT (26.8%), P = .0006, or PET (37.5%), P = .02. CT identified 14.3% and PET identified 26.8% of patients with distant metastases. With CT alone, 15.2% of patients were not taken to surgery, whereas PET affected management by preventing surgery because of metastatic disease in 28.3% of patients. EUS changed management by guiding the need for neoadjuvant therapy in 34.8% of patients. Limitations Retrospective study, nonblinded study, lack of pathologic reference standard. Conclusion The primary strength of EUS in a multimodality staging strategy is in identifying patients with locally advanced disease and guiding the need for preoperative neoadjuvant therapy. EUS is not suited to determine resectability of esophageal cancer alone and thus is most effective when used in conjunction with other imaging tests such as CT and PET.
PDF
