Anesthesia Assistance in Screening Colonoscopy and Adenoma Detection Rate Among Trainees

  • Anna KrigelEmail author
  • Anish Patel
  • Jeremy Kaplan
  • Xiao-Fei Kong
  • Reuben Garcia-Carrasquillo
  • Benjamin Lebwohl
  • Suneeta Krishnareddy
Original Article


Background and Aims

The use of anesthesia assistance (AA) for screening colonoscopy has been increasing substantially over the past decade, raising concerns about procedure safety and cost without demonstrating a proven improvement in overall quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate (ADR). The effect of AA on ADR has not been extensively studied among trainees learning colonoscopy. We aimed to determine whether type of sedation used during screening colonoscopy affects trainee ADR.


Using the electronic endoscopy databases of two hospitals in our medical center, we identified colonoscopies performed by 15 trainees from 2014 through 2018, including all screening examinations in which the cecum was reached. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with adenoma detection.


We identified 1420 unique patients who underwent screening colonoscopy by a trainee meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these, 459 (32.3%) were performed with AA. Overall trainee ADR was 39.6%, with ADR increasing from 35.0% in year one of training to 42.8% in year three (p = 0.047). ADR for cases with AA was 37.9%, while ADR for conscious sedation cases was 32.0% (p = 0.374). Despite this 5.9% absolute difference, the use of AA was not associated with finding an adenoma on multivariable analysis when controlling for patient age, sex, smoking status, body mass index, trainee year of training, mean withdrawal time, supervising attending ADR, and bowel preparation quality (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.67–1.09).


Despite providing the ability to more consistently sedate patients, the use of AA did not affect trainee ADR. These results on trainee ADR and sedation type suggest that the overall lack of association between AA use and ADR is applicable to the trainee setting.


Colonoscopy Sedation Propofol Trainee Adenoma density under the curve 


Author’s contribution

AK, AP, JK, XFK, RGC, BL, and SK were involved in study concept and design. AK, AP, JK, and BL contributed to acquisition of data. AK and BL were involved in analysis and interpretation of data. AK, BL, and SK drafted the manuscript. AK, AP, JK, XFK, RGC, BL, and SK were involved in critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. AK and BL were involved in statistical analysis. SK and BL contributed to study supervision. All authors approve the final manuscript submitted and they approve the authorship list.



Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and nothing to declare.

Ethical approval

This analysis was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Columbia University.


  1. 1.
    Rex DK, Khalfan HK. Sedation and the technical performance of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2005;15:661–672.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khiani VS, Soulos P, Gancayco J, Gross CP. Anesthesiologist involvement in screening colonoscopy: temporal trends and costs implications in the Medicare population. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:58–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Inadomi JM, Gunnarsson CL, Rizzo JA, Fang H. Projected increased growth rate of anesthesia professional-delivered sedation for colonoscopy and EGD in the United States: 2009 to 2015. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:580–586.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wernil KJ, Brenner AT, Rutter CM, Inadomi JM. Risks associated with anesthesia services during colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2016;150:888–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu H, Waxman DA, Main R, Mattke S. Utilization of anesthesia services during outpatient endoscopies and colonoscopies and associated spending 2003–2009. JAMA. 2012;307:1178–1184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooper GS, Kou TD, Rex DK. Complications following colonoscopy with anesthesia assistance: a population-based analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:551–556.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bielawska B, Hookey LC, Sutradhar R, et al. Anesthesia assistance in outpatient colonoscopy and risk of aspiration pneumonia, bowel perforation, and splenic injury. Gastroenterology. 2018;154:77–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dominitz JA, Baldwin LM, Green P, Kreuter WI, Ko CW. Regional variation in anesthesia assistance during outpatient colonoscopy is not associated with differences in polyp detection or complication rates. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:298–306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nakshabendi R, Berry AC, Munoz JC, John BK. Choice of sedation and its impact on adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopies. Ann Gastroenterol. 2016;29:50–55.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thirumurthi S, Raju GS, Pande M, et al. Does deep sedation with propofol affect adenoma detection rates in average risk screening colonoscopy exams? World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;9:177–182.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hsieh YH, Tseng CW, Hu CT, Koo M, Leung FW. Prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy using water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86:192–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paspatis GA, Tribonias G, Manolaraki MM, et al. Deep sedation compared with moderate sedation in polyp detection during colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13:e137–e144.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Singh H, Poluha W, Cheung M, Choptain N, Baron KI, Taback SP. Propofol for sedation during colonoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;8:CD006268.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Qayed E, Shea L, Goebel S, Bostick RM. Association of trainee participation with adenoma and polyp detection rates. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;9:204–210.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gianotti RJ, Oza SS, Tapper EB, Kothari D, Sheth SG. A longitudinal study of adenoma detection rate in gastroenterology fellowship training. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61:2831–2837.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bitar H, Zia H, Bashir M, et al. Impact of fellowship training level on colonoscopy quality and efficiency metrics. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88:378–387.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, Dufrayne F, Bergman G. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52:346–352.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1298–1306.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang A, Hoda KM, Holub JL, Eisen GM. Does level of sedation impact detection of advanced neoplasia? Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55:2337–2343.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M, et al. Increated rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:72–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Buchner AM, Shahid MW, Heckman MG, et al. Trainee participation is associated with increased small adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:1223–1231.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mahadev S, Jin Z, Lebwohl B, et al. Trainee colonoscopy quality is influenced by the independent and unobserved performance characteristics of supervising physicians. Endosc Int Open. 2019;7:E74–E82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RL. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2533–2541.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and SurgeonsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Celiac Disease Center, Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and SurgeonsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public HealthColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations