Endoscopist-directed propofol administration versus anesthesiologist assistance for colorectal cancer screening: a cost–effectiveness analysis

Background: Propofol for colonoscopy is largely administered by anesthesiologists or anesthesiology nurses in the United States (US) and Europe. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol (EDP) by nonanesthesiologists has recently been proposed, with potential savings of anesthetist reimbursement costs. We aimed to assess potential EDP-related benefit in a screening setting.

Methods: In a Markov model the total number of screening and follow-up colonoscopies in a cohort of 100 000 US subjects were estimated. Anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy was compared with an EDP strategy. Model outputs were projected onto the 50 – 80-year-old US population, assuming 27 % as the current uptake for colonoscopy screening. Anesthetist costs were estimated using the mean reimbursement for the corresponding Medicare code (≥ 65-year-olds) and from commercial insurance information (50 – 64-year-olds). The proportion of colonoscopies with anesthesiologist assistance was estimated from the Medicare database. Mean nurse salary was used to estimate the cost of a 2-week EDP training. The absolute number of US endoscopists was estimated by inflating by 33 % the number of board-certified gastroenterologists. No EDP mortality was assumed in the reference scenario, and 0.0008 % mortality in the sensitivity analysis. US census data were adopted. Analogous inputs were used for France to assess EDP-related benefit in a European country.

Results: EDP training for 17 166 nurses (one for each US endoscopist) showed a cost of $  47 million. Cost estimates for anesthesiologist assistance for colonoscopy were $ 95 (Medicare) and $ 450 (non-Medicare commercial insurance), with 34.8 % of colonoscopies requiring anesthesiologist assistance. US implementation of an EDP policy showed a 10-year saving of $ 3.2 billion (Monte Carlo analysis 5 – 95 % percentiles $ 2.7 – $ 11.9 billion). In the sensitivity analysis, assuming 50 % of colonoscopies were anesthetist-assisted showed an EDP benefit of $ 4.6 billion. Assuming a 0.0008 % mortality rate, the incremental cost – effectiveness of anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy versus an EDP policy was $ 1.5 million per life-year gained, supporting EDP as the optimal choice. A 31-fold increase of EDP-related mortality or a 17-fold cost reduction for anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy was required for EDP to become not cost-effective in this scenario. Implementation of an EDP policy in France, within a guaiac-fecal occult blood test (g-FOBT) screening program, was estimated to save € 0.8 billion in 10 years.

Conclusions: The absolute economic benefit of EDP implementation in a screening setting is probably substantial with 10-year savings of $3.2 billion in the US and €0.8 billion in France. The impact of an eventual EDP-related mortality on EDP cost – effectiveness seems marginal. The huge economic and medical resources entailed by anesthetist-assisted colonoscopy could be more efficiently invested in other clinical fields.

• References

• 1 Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 2010; 116: 544-573
• 2 Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF et al. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 1-8
• 3 Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 739-750
• 4 Cohen LB, Ladas SD, Vargo JJ et al. Sedation in digestive endoscopy: the Athens international position statement. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010; PMID: 20456310
• 5 Ulmer BJ, Hansen JJ, Overley CA et al. Propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003; 1: 425-432
• 6 Huang R, Eisen GM. Efficacy, safety, and limitations in current practice of sedation and analgesia. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2004; 14: 269-288
• 7 Rex DK. Review article: moderate sedation for endoscopy: sedation regimens for non-anaesthesiologists. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 24: 163-171
• 8 Aisenberg J, Brill JV, Ladabaum U et al. Sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: new practices, new economics. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 996-1000
• 9 Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Aparicio JR et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 960-974
• 10 Rex DK, Heuss LT, Walker JA et al. Trained registered nurses/endoscopy teams can administer propofol safely for endoscopy. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 1384-1391
• 11 Rex DK, Deenadayalu VP, Eid E et al. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience. Gastroenterology 2009; 137: 1229-1237
• 12 Nelson AL, Cohen JT, Greenberg D et al. Much cheaper, almost as good: decrementally cost-effective medical innovation. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 662-667
• 13 Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D et al. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the UNited States elderly population. Med Care 2002; 40 (Suppl. 08) IV-3–18
• 14 United States Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), U.S. city average, medical care. Available at: www. bls.gov/cpi/home.htm Accessed: 2010 Oct 14
• 15 United States Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes291111.htm#nat Accessed: 28.9.2010
• 16 American Board of Internal Medicine Available at: http://www.abim.org/pdf/data-candidates-certified/all-candidates.pdf Accessed: 2010 Sep 28
• 17 Vijan S, Inadomi J, Hayward RA et al. Projections of demand and capacity for colonoscopy related to increasing rates of colorectal cancer screening in the United States. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 20: 507-515
• 18 Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 50–75 years – United States, 2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2010; 59: 808-812
• 19 Seeff LC, Manninen DL, Dong FB et al. Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 1661-1669
• 20 Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Rex DK. A resect and discard strategy would improve cost–effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 865-869, e1-3 (Epub 2010 Jun 1)
• 21 Census Bureau Available at: http://www.census.gov Accessed: 2010 Sep 28
• 22 Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 2000; 38: 583-637
• 23 Hassan C, Benamouzig R, Spada C et al. Cost effectiveness and projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening in France. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 780-793 . Epub 2011 May 27
• 24 Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques Available at: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=NATTEF06114
• 25 Conseil National de l’Ordre des Médecins Available at: http://www.conseil-national.medecin.fr/system/files/Atlas2011.pdf?download=1
• 26 Rogge JD, Elmore MF, Mahoney SJ et al. Low-cost, office-based, screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1994; 89: 1775-1780
• 27 Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T et al. Cost–effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 96-104
• 28 Inadomi JM, Gunnarsson CL, Rizzo JA et al. 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 (Epub 2010 Jul 13)
• 29 The CMS Hospital Conditions of Participation and Interpretive Guidelines. Available at: http://www.hcmarketplace.com/supplemental/8987_browse.pdf Accessed: 2010 Sep 28
• 30 Hassan C, Hunink MG, Laghi A et al. Value-of-information analysis to guide future research in colorectal cancer screening. Radiology 2009; 253: 745-752
• 31 Loeve F, Boer R, Zauber AG et al. National Polyp Study data: evidence for regression of adenomas. Int J Cancer 2004; 111: 633-639
• 32 Hofstad B, Vatn M, Larsen S et al. Growth of colorectal polyps: redetection and evaluation of unresected polyps for a period of three years. Gut 1996; 39: 449-456
• 33 Hoff G, Foerster A, Vatn MH et al. Epidemiology of polyps in the rectum and colon. Recovery and evaluation of unresected polyps 2 years after detection. Scand J Gastroenterol 1986; 21: 853-862
• 34 Ries LA, Kosary CL, Hankey BF et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973–1994. Bethesda, Maryland: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; 1997. (NIH Publication; 97–2789)
• 35 Chen CD, Yen MF, Wang WM et al. A case–cohort study for the disease natural history of adenoma–carcinoma and de novo carcinoma and surveillance of colon and rectum after polypectomy: implication for efficacy of colonoscopy. Br J Cancer 2003; 88: 1866-1873
• 36 Ladabaum U, Chopra CL, Huang G et al. Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer. A cost–effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 769-781
• 37 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results. http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/. Available at: www.cdc.gov Accessed: 2009 15 Sep
• 38 Seeff LC, Manninen DL, Dong FB et al. Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 1661-1669
• 39 Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE et al. Prospective blinded trial of the colonoscopic miss-rate of large colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 125-127
• 40 Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 24-28
• 41 Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 880-886
• 42 Church JM. Clinical significance of small colorectal polyps. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47: 481-485
• 43 Odom SR, Duffy SD, Barone JE et al. The rate of adenocarcinoma in endoscopically removed colorectal polyps. Am Surg 2005; 71: 1024-1026
• 44 Butterly LF, Chase MP, Pohl H et al. Prevalence of clinically important histology in small adenomas. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4: 343-348
• 45 Gschwantler M, Kriwanek S, Langner E et al. High-grade dysplasia and invasive carcinoma in colorectal adenomas: a multivariate analysis of the impact of adenoma and patient characteristics. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002; 14: 183-188
• 46 Lieberman D, Moravec M, Holub J et al. Polyp size and advanced histology in patients undergoing colonoscopy screening: implications for CT colonography. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1100-1105
• 47 Brenner H, Arndt V, Sturmer T et al. Long-lasting reduction of risk of colorectal cancer following screening endoscopy. Br J Cancer 2001; 85: 972-976
• 48 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN. The National Polyp Study Workgroup et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
• 49 Muller AD, Sonnenberg A. Prevention of colorectal cancer by flexible endoscopy. A case–control study of 32,702 veterans. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123: 904-910
• 50 Sonnenberg A, Delco F, Inadomi JM. Cost–effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133: 573-584
• 51 Ladabaum U, Song K. Projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening on clinical and economic outcomes and health services demand. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 1151-1162
• 52 Vijan S, Hwang EW, Hofer TP et al. Which colon cancer screening test? A comparison of costs, effectiveness, and compliance. Am J Med 2001; 111: 593-601