Trends and Variations in Colonoscopy Sedation: Insights based on the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit.

IF 2.9 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Endoscopy International Open Pub Date : 2026-09-28 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2942-3921
Querijn N E van Bokhorst, Paula F B Vernooij, Karlijn J Nass, Jos W Borkent, Jurriën G P Reijnders, Peter J van der Schaar, Marc A M T Verhagen, Paul Fockens, Manon van der Vlugt, Evelien Dekker
{"title":"Trends and Variations in Colonoscopy Sedation: Insights based on the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit.","authors":"Querijn N E van Bokhorst, Paula F B Vernooij, Karlijn J Nass, Jos W Borkent, Jurriën G P Reijnders, Peter J van der Schaar, Marc A M T Verhagen, Paul Fockens, Manon van der Vlugt, Evelien Dekker","doi":"10.1055/a-2942-3921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b> Sedative medication is routinely used during colonoscopy. Sedation practices may vary in terms of the type and dose of administered medication, possibly impacting clinical outcomes, associated risks, and financial and environmental burdens. We aimed to assess trends and variations in colonoscopy sedation in the Netherlands. <b>Methods</b> Data prospectively recorded in the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit registry between January 2020 and January 2025 were analyzed. Annual trends in the application of different types of sedation were assessed. Variations across endoscopy units were evaluated by comparing midazolam dosing regimens and the proportional application of propofol-based sedation. Regression analyses assessing the association between sedation and cecal intubation and polyp detection were performed. <b>Results</b> Data from 285,241 colonoscopies were included. Application of propofol-based sedation increased from 5.8% (2020) to 10.0% (2024). The largest increases were observed for IBD-related (11.6-23.2%) and therapeutic indications (28.2-51.7%). For midazolam-based sedation, the mean dose administered varied considerably across units (2.1-5.6mg), as did the proportional application of propofol-based sedation (median 5.0% [IQR 2.3-15.7]; range 0-38%). Compared to midazolam-based sedation using doses equal to or lower than 2.5 mg, propofol-based sedation was not associated with improved cecal intubation (-0.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.0 to -0.3%), although it was associated with polyp detection (+5.5%; 95% CI +2.8 to +8.3%). <b>Conclusion</b> Colonoscopy sedation practices vary across Dutch endoscopy units in terms of midazolam dosing regimens and the proportional application of propofol-based sedation. In general, propofol-based colonoscopy sedation is increasing. This study's findings may inform guidelines for more standardized, evidence-based, and resource-conscious sedation practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"14 ","pages":"a29423921"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13643738/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2942-3921","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Sedative medication is routinely used during colonoscopy. Sedation practices may vary in terms of the type and dose of administered medication, possibly impacting clinical outcomes, associated risks, and financial and environmental burdens. We aimed to assess trends and variations in colonoscopy sedation in the Netherlands. Methods Data prospectively recorded in the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit registry between January 2020 and January 2025 were analyzed. Annual trends in the application of different types of sedation were assessed. Variations across endoscopy units were evaluated by comparing midazolam dosing regimens and the proportional application of propofol-based sedation. Regression analyses assessing the association between sedation and cecal intubation and polyp detection were performed. Results Data from 285,241 colonoscopies were included. Application of propofol-based sedation increased from 5.8% (2020) to 10.0% (2024). The largest increases were observed for IBD-related (11.6-23.2%) and therapeutic indications (28.2-51.7%). For midazolam-based sedation, the mean dose administered varied considerably across units (2.1-5.6mg), as did the proportional application of propofol-based sedation (median 5.0% [IQR 2.3-15.7]; range 0-38%). Compared to midazolam-based sedation using doses equal to or lower than 2.5 mg, propofol-based sedation was not associated with improved cecal intubation (-0.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.0 to -0.3%), although it was associated with polyp detection (+5.5%; 95% CI +2.8 to +8.3%). Conclusion Colonoscopy sedation practices vary across Dutch endoscopy units in terms of midazolam dosing regimens and the proportional application of propofol-based sedation. In general, propofol-based colonoscopy sedation is increasing. This study's findings may inform guidelines for more standardized, evidence-based, and resource-conscious sedation practices.

结肠镜镇静的趋势和变化:基于荷兰胃肠道内窥镜审计的见解。
背景:结肠镜检查时通常使用镇静药物。镇静的做法可能因给药的类型和剂量而异,可能影响临床结果、相关风险以及经济和环境负担。我们的目的是评估荷兰结肠镜镇静的趋势和变化。方法对2020年1月至2025年1月期间荷兰胃肠内窥镜审计登记处前瞻性记录的数据进行分析。评估了不同类型镇静应用的年度趋势。通过比较咪达唑仑给药方案和以异丙酚为基础的镇静的比例应用,评估内窥镜单位的差异。进行回归分析,评估镇静与盲肠插管和息肉检测之间的关系。结果纳入285241例结肠镜检查数据。异丙酚类镇静剂的使用率从2020年的5.8%上升到2024年的10.0%。ibd相关(11.6-23.2%)和治疗指征(28.2-51.7%)的增幅最大。对于以咪达唑仑为基础的镇静,各单位的平均剂量差异很大(2.1-5.6mg),以异丙酚为基础的镇静的比例应用也是如此(中位数5.0% [IQR 2.3-15.7];范围0-38%)。与剂量等于或低于2.5 mg的咪达唑仑为基础的镇静相比,异丙酚为基础的镇静与盲肠插管改善无关(-0.7%;95%可信区间[CI] -1.0至-0.3%),尽管它与息肉检测相关(+5.5%;95% CI +2.8至+8.3%)。结论荷兰内镜单位结肠镜镇静实践在咪达唑仑给药方案和异丙酚镇静的比例应用方面存在差异。一般来说,以异丙酚为基础的结肠镜镇静正在增加。这项研究的发现可能会为更标准化、基于证据和资源意识的镇静实践提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Endoscopy International Open
Endoscopy International Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
3.80%
发文量
270
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书