Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23478904›Full record

ArticleJAMA internal medicine2013

Complications following colonoscopy with anesthesia assistance: a population-based analysis.

Gregory S Cooper, Tzuyung D Kou, Douglas K Rex

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
15.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

102 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 269 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Safety of non-anesthesia provider administered propofol sedation in non-advanced gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A meta-analysis.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gregory S CooperDivision of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA. gregory.cooper@uhhospitals.org
Tzuyung D Kou
Douglas K Rex
Case Western Reserve University · USIndiana University · USUniversity Hospitals Case Medical Center · US

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of ClevelandUL1TR000439 · NCATS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI KONSTAN, MICHAEL W. · 2012 to 2016
$50.0M
Colonoscopy: Practice Patterns and LimitationsR01CA132862 · NCI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI COOPER, GREGORY S. · 2009 to 2011
$774k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000439NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR000439NCI NIH HHS R01 CA132862
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceDeep sedation for endoscopic procedures has become an increasingly used option but, because of impairment in patient response, this technique also has the potential for a greater likelihood of adverse events. The incidence of these complications has not been well studied at a population level.

designPopulation-based study. SETTING AND

participantsUsing a 5% random sample of cancer-free Medicare beneficiaries who resided in one of the regions served by a SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry, we identified all procedural claims for outpatient colonoscopy without polypectomy from January 1, 2000, through November 30, 2009.

interventionColonoscopy without polypectomy, with or without the use of deep sedation (identified by a concurrent claim for anesthesia services).

main outcome measuresThe occurrence of hospitalizations for splenic rupture or trauma, colonic perforation, and aspiration pneumonia within 30 days of the colonoscopy.

resultsWe identified a total of 165 527 procedures in 100 359 patients, including 35 128 procedures with anesthesia services (21.2%). Selected postprocedure complications were documented after 284 procedures (0.17%) and included aspiration (n = 173), perforation (n = 101), and splenic injury (n = 12). (Some patients had >1 complication.) Overall complications were more common in cases with anesthesia assistance (0.22% [95% CI, 0.18%-0.27%]) than in others (0.16% [0.14%-0.18%]) (P < .001), as was aspiration (0.14% [0.11%-0.18%] vs 0.10% [0.08%-0.12%], respectively; P = .02). Frequencies of perforation and splenic injury were statistically similar. Other predictors of complications included age greater than 70 years, increasing comorbidity, and performance of the procedure in a hospital setting. In multivariate analysis, use of anesthesia services was associated with an increased complication risk (odds ratio, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.09-1.94]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although the absolute risk of complications is low, the use of anesthesia services for colonoscopy is associated with a somewhat higher frequency of complications, specifically, aspiration pneumonia. The differences may result in part from uncontrolled confounding, but they may also reflect the impairment of normal patient responses with the use of deep sedation.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyAgedColonDeep SedationFemaleHumansIntestinal PerforationMalePneumonia, AspirationPostoperative ComplicationsSEER ProgramSplenic Rupture

Identifiers

PMID23478904
PMCPMC3987111
OpenAlexW2038400317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.