Abstract:Background: Routine outpatient endoscopy is performed across a variety of outpatient settings. A known risk of performing endoscopy under moderate sedation is the potential for over-sedation, requiring the use of reversal agents. More needs to be reported on rates of reversal across different outpatient settings. Our academic tertiary care center utilizes a triage tool that directs higher-risk patients to the in-hospital ambulatory procedure center (APC) for their procedure. Here, we report data on outpatient sedation reversal rates for endoscopy performed at an in-hospital APC vs at a free-standing ambulatory endoscopy digestive health center (AEC-DHC) following risk stratification with a triage tool. Aim: To observe the effect of risk stratification using a triage tool on patient outcomes, primarily sedation reversal events. Methods: We observed all outpatient endoscopy procedures performed at AEC-DHC and APC from April 2013 to September 2019. Procedures were stratified to their respective sites using a triage tool. We evaluated each procedure for which sedation reversal with flumazenil and naloxone was recorded. Demographics and characteristics recorded include patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, procedure type, and reason for sedation reversal. Results: There were 97366 endoscopic procedures performed at AEC-DHC and 22494 at the APC during the study period. Of these, 17 patients at AEC-DHC and 9 at the APC underwent sedation reversals (0.017% vs 0.04%; P = 0.06). Demographics recorded for those requiring reversal at AEC-DHC vs APC included mean age (53.5 ± 21 vs 60.4 ± 17.42 years; P = 0.23), ASA class (1.66 ± 0.48 vs 2.22 ± 0.83; P = 0.20), BMI (27.7 ± 6.7 kg/m2 vs 23.7 ± 4.03 kg/m2; P = 0.06), and female gender (64.7% vs 22%; P = 0.04). The mean doses of sedative agents and reversal drugs used at AEC-DHC vs APC were midazolam (5.9 ± 1.7 mg vs 8.9 ± 3.5 mg; P = 0.01), fentanyl (147.1 ± 49.9 μg vs 188.9 ± 74.1 μg; P = 0.10), flumazenil (0.3 ± 0.18 μg vs 0.17 ± 0.17 μg; P = 0.13) and naloxone (0.32 ± 0.10 mg vs 0.28 ± 0.12 mg; P = 0.35). Procedures at AEC-DHC requiring sedation reversal included colonoscopies (n = 6), esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (n = 9) and EGD/colonoscopies (n = 2), whereas APC procedures included EGDs (n = 2), EGD with gastrostomy tube placement (n = 1), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n = 2) and endoscopic ultrasound's (n = 4). The indications for sedation reversal at AEC-DHC included hypoxia (n = 13; 76%), excessive somnolence (n = 3; 18%), and hypotension (n = 1; 6%), whereas, at APC, these included hypoxia (n = 7; 78%) and hypotension (n = 2; 22%). No sedation-related deaths or long-term post-sedation reversal adverse outcomes occurred at either site. Conclusion: Our study highlights the effectiveness of a triage tool used at our tertiary care hospital for risk stratification in minimizing sedation reversal events during outpatient endoscopy procedures. Using a triage tool for risk stratification, low rates of sedation reversal can be achieved in the ambulatory settings for EGD and colonoscopy.

Sedation and Afternoon Placement of the 48-Hour Wireless Ambulatory pH Capsule Results in More Reflux on the First Day

Using Clinical-based Discharge Criteria to Discharge Patients after Endoscopy Procedures under Drug-induced Intravenous Sedation in the Outpatient Care Unit: an Observational Study.

The Clinical Characteristic and Risk of Capsule Incomplete and Retention in Crohn's Disease.

Prolonged acid reflux monitoring using acid exposure time and DeMeester score: two days are not enough

Comparing 3-Hour Ph Monitoring in Esophagus with 24-Hour Ph Monitoring to Diagnose GERD.

Clinical evaluation of the wireless JSPH-2 esophageal pH capsule: a single-center retrospective experience

Ambulatory Reflux Monitoring Guides Proton Pump Inhibitor Discontinuation in Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Symptoms: A Clinical Trial

Implementation of Objective Activity Monitoring to Supplement the Interpretation of Ambulatory Esophageal Ph Investigations

[Clinical Value of 24-Hour Ph Monitoring in Patients with Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease].

Post Sleeve Reflux: indicators and impact on outcomes

0573 Morning Questionnaire Post-PAP Titration as a Prediction Tool of Early PAP Adherence

Comparison between 8-hour pH monitoring test in gastroesophageal reflux disease and 24-hour pH monitoring.

Changes in Clinical Management Following 14-Day Ambulatory ECG Monitoring Following Emergency Department Evaluation for Unexplained Syncope

Reflux Characteristics of 113 GERD Patients with Abnormal 24-H Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance-Ph Tests.

Sedation reversal trends at outpatient ambulatory endoscopic center vs in-hospital ambulatory procedure center using a triage protocol

Utility of mean nocturnal baseline impedance and post‐reflux swallow‐induced peristaltic wave index in clinical pH‐impedance reflux study

Analysis of 36 Cases of Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease with Impedance-pH Monitoring

Mean Nocturnal Baseline Impedance (MNBI) Provides Evidence for Standardized Management Algorithms of Nonacid Gastroesophageal Reflux-Induced Chronic Cough

Role of the Twenty-Four-hour Esophageal Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance-Ph Monitoring in Preterm Infants

The value of 24-hour multichannel intraluminal esophageal impedance-pH monitoring in differentiating NERD and functional heartburn patients

LPR: How Different Diagnostic Tools Shape the Outcomes of Treatment