» Articles » PMID: 34222632

Outcomes of Colonoscopy with Non-anesthesiologist-administered Propofol (NAAP): an Equivalence Trial

Abstract

 Efficacy and safety of NAAP for gastrointestinal endoscopy have been widely documented, although there is no information about the outcomes of colonoscopy when the endoscopist supervises the sedation. In this context, the aim of this trial was to determine the equivalence of adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening colonoscopies performed with non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) and performed with monitored anesthesia care (MAC). This was a single-blind, non-randomized controlled equivalence trial that enrolled adults from a national CRC screening program (CRCSP). Patients were blindly assigned to undergo either colonoscopy with NAAP or MAC. The main outcome measure was the ADR in CRCSP colonoscopies performed with NAAP. We included 315 patients per group. The median age was 59.76 ± 5.81 years; 40.5 % of patients were women. The cecal intubation rate was 97 %, 81.8 % of patients had adequate bowel preparation, withdrawal time was > 6 minutes in 98.7 %, and the median global exploration time was 24.25 ± 8.86 minutes (range, 8-70 minutes). The ADR was 62.9 % and the complication rate (CR) was 0.6 %. Analysis by intention-to-treat showed an ADR in the NAAP group of 64.13 % compared with 61.59 % in the MAC group, a difference (δADR) of 2.54 %, 95 %CI: -0.10 to 0.05. Analysis by per-protocol showed an ADR in the NAAP group of 62.98 %, compared with 61.94 % in the MAC group, δADR: 1.04 %, 95 %CI: -0.09 to 0.07. There was no difference in CR (NAAP: 0,63 vs. MAC: 0.63);  = 1.0.  ADR in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies performed with NAAP was equivalent to that in those performed with MAC. Similarly, there was no difference in complication rates.

Citing Articles

Advancing Colorectal Cancer Prevention in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD): Challenges and Innovations in Endoscopic Surveillance.

Fasulo E, DAmico F, Zilli A, Furfaro F, Cicerone C, Parigi T Cancers (Basel). 2025; 17(1.

PMID: 39796690 PMC: 11718813. DOI: 10.3390/cancers17010060.


The state of anesthesia in South Korea: a national survey of the status of anesthetic service activity in 2014-2016.

Choi E, Jung H, Kim W, Kim J, Lee Y Korean J Anesthesiol. 2022; 75(5):427-436.

PMID: 35945690 PMC: 9539418. DOI: 10.4097/kja.22286.

References
1.
Vargo J, Niklewski P, Williams J, Martin J, Faigel D . Patient safety during sedation by anesthesia professionals during routine upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: an analysis of 1.38 million procedures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016; 85(1):101-108. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.02.007. View

2.
Crockett S, Gourevitch R, Morris M, Carrell D, Rose S, Shi Z . Endoscopist factors that influence serrated polyp detection: a multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2018; 50(10):984-992. PMC: 6160341. DOI: 10.1055/a-0597-1740. View

3.
. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 58(6 Suppl):S3-43. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02159-x. View

4.
Rex D, Boland C, Dominitz J, Giardiello F, Johnson D, Kaltenbach T . Colorectal cancer screening: Recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 86(1):18-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.04.003. View

5.
Vargo J, Cohen L, Rex D, Kwo P . Position statement: nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009; 70(6):1053-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.07.020. View