Operational outcomes of propofol sedation versus fentanyl, midazolam and diphenhydramine sedation for endoscopies and colonoscopies at an academic medical center.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
11
05
2023
accepted:
01
11
2023
medline:
29
11
2023
pubmed:
27
11
2023
entrez:
27
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
On July 1st, 2021, the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) implemented new sedation protocols in the luminal gastrointestinal (GI) suite. GI proceduralist supervised, Nurse Administered Sedation with fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine (NAS) sedation was transitioned to Monitored Anesthesia Care with propofol under physician anesthesiologist supervision (MAC). To determine if there are statistically significant reductions in Sedation-Start to Scope-In time (SSSI) when using Monitored Anesthesia Care with propofol (MAC) versus Nurse Administered Sedation with fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine (NAS). Secondary objectives were to determine if statistically significant improvements to other operational times, quality measures, and satisfaction metrics were present. This study was a retrospective analysis of a natural experiment resultant of a change from NAS to MAC sedation protocols. Outcomes for NAS protocols from 1/1/21-6/30/21 were compared to outcomes of MAC protocols from the dates 8/1/21-10/31/21. Results were analyzed using Quasi-Poisson regression analysis and stratified based on upper GI, lower GI, and combined procedures. Patient demographic data including age, biological sex, comorbidities, and BMI, were adjusted for in the analysis. ASA matching was not performed as nursing sedation does not use ASA classifications. Pre-anesthesia co-morbidities were assessed via evaluation of a strict set of comorbidities abstracted from the electronic medical record. Perioperative operational outcomes include Sedation Start to Scope-In (SSSI), In-Room to Scope-In Time (IRSI), Scope Out to Out of Room (SOOR), Total Case Length (TCL), and Post Anesthesia Care Unit Length of Stay (PACU LOS). Quality outcomes include PACU Administered Medications (PAM), and Clinician Satisfaction Scores (CSS). A total of 5,582 gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic cases (upper, lower, and combined endoscopies) were observed. Statistically significant decreases in SSSI of 2.5, 2.1, and 2.2 minutes for upper, lower, and dual GI procedures were observed when using MAC protocols. A statistically significant increase in satisfaction scores of 47.0 and 19.6 points were observed for nurses and proceduralists, respectively, when using MAC. MAC protocols for endoscopic GI procedures at UCH led to statistically significant decreases in the time required to complete procedures thus increasing operational efficiency.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
On July 1st, 2021, the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) implemented new sedation protocols in the luminal gastrointestinal (GI) suite. GI proceduralist supervised, Nurse Administered Sedation with fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine (NAS) sedation was transitioned to Monitored Anesthesia Care with propofol under physician anesthesiologist supervision (MAC).
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To determine if there are statistically significant reductions in Sedation-Start to Scope-In time (SSSI) when using Monitored Anesthesia Care with propofol (MAC) versus Nurse Administered Sedation with fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine (NAS). Secondary objectives were to determine if statistically significant improvements to other operational times, quality measures, and satisfaction metrics were present.
METHOD
METHODS
This study was a retrospective analysis of a natural experiment resultant of a change from NAS to MAC sedation protocols. Outcomes for NAS protocols from 1/1/21-6/30/21 were compared to outcomes of MAC protocols from the dates 8/1/21-10/31/21. Results were analyzed using Quasi-Poisson regression analysis and stratified based on upper GI, lower GI, and combined procedures. Patient demographic data including age, biological sex, comorbidities, and BMI, were adjusted for in the analysis. ASA matching was not performed as nursing sedation does not use ASA classifications. Pre-anesthesia co-morbidities were assessed via evaluation of a strict set of comorbidities abstracted from the electronic medical record. Perioperative operational outcomes include Sedation Start to Scope-In (SSSI), In-Room to Scope-In Time (IRSI), Scope Out to Out of Room (SOOR), Total Case Length (TCL), and Post Anesthesia Care Unit Length of Stay (PACU LOS). Quality outcomes include PACU Administered Medications (PAM), and Clinician Satisfaction Scores (CSS).
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 5,582 gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic cases (upper, lower, and combined endoscopies) were observed. Statistically significant decreases in SSSI of 2.5, 2.1, and 2.2 minutes for upper, lower, and dual GI procedures were observed when using MAC protocols. A statistically significant increase in satisfaction scores of 47.0 and 19.6 points were observed for nurses and proceduralists, respectively, when using MAC.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
MAC protocols for endoscopic GI procedures at UCH led to statistically significant decreases in the time required to complete procedures thus increasing operational efficiency.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38011117
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294418
pii: PONE-D-23-10837
pmc: PMC10681235
doi:
Substances chimiques
Midazolam
R60L0SM5BC
Propofol
YI7VU623SF
Fentanyl
UF599785JZ
Hypnotics and Sedatives
0
Diphenhydramine
8GTS82S83M
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0294418Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Mariotti et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Ambul Care Manage. 2018 Oct/Dec;41(4):308-313
pubmed: 30148771
Med Care. 1999 Nov;37(11):1140-54
pubmed: 10549616
Urol Pract. 2020 Sep;7(5):335-341
pubmed: 37296557
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 May 20;(5):CD009491
pubmed: 27198122
Circulation. 2016 May 31;133(22):2197-205
pubmed: 27245648
Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2014 Jan;27(1):12-5
pubmed: 24381393
J Perianesth Nurs. 2013 Jun;28(3):151-5
pubmed: 23711311
Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2020 May 15;13:1756284820916693
pubmed: 32477426
AANA J. 2013 Feb;81(1):31-6
pubmed: 23513321
Acta Cir Bras. 2014 Oct;29(10):675-80
pubmed: 25318000
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 24;10(3):e0120529
pubmed: 25803441
Endoscopy. 2011 Aug;43(8):716-22
pubmed: 21811940
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003 Nov;1(6):425-32
pubmed: 15017641
Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jan;7(1):16
pubmed: 30788363
Hepatology. 2009 Dec;50(6):1683-9
pubmed: 19937691
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Sep;15(9):1419-1426.e2
pubmed: 28365484
J Healthc Qual. 2006 Jul-Aug;28(4):10-21
pubmed: 16944648
Anesth Prog. 2006 Summer;53(2):31-3
pubmed: 16863388
Pain Physician. 2011 Mar-Apr;14(2):145-61
pubmed: 21412369
Intest Res. 2017 Oct;15(4):456-466
pubmed: 29142513
Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Oct;101(10):2209-17
pubmed: 17032185
Anesth Analg. 2009 Nov;109(5):1448-55
pubmed: 19617584
Indian J Anaesth. 2014 Jul;58(4):403-9
pubmed: 25197107
Gastroenterology. 2022 Feb;162(2):621-644
pubmed: 34678215
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jul 10;7(8):769-76
pubmed: 26191341
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Jan-Mar;31(1):27-9
pubmed: 25788769
United European Gastroenterol J. 2018 Jul;6(6):801-805
pubmed: 30023057
World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jan 28;19(4):463-81
pubmed: 23382625
JAMA. 2017 Apr 18;317(15):1578-1580
pubmed: 28418474
J Can Assoc Gastroenterol. 2019 May;2(2):86-90
pubmed: 31294370
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Mar;69(3 Pt 2):681-7
pubmed: 19251010
BMC Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan 7;21(1):22
pubmed: 33413147