Sedation versus No Sedation in the Performance of Diagnostic Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Canadian Randomized Controlled Cost-Outcome Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sedation is not required to perform a technically adequate gastroscopy (EGDE), but does improve patient satisfaction, comfort, and willingness to repeat particularly in the elderly and those with decreased pharyngeal sensitivity. The comparative cost-efficacy of sedation versus no sedation remains poorly characterized. AIM: To compare the cost-efficacy of diagnostic EGDE with and without sedation in an adult ambulatory Canadian population. METHODS: A double-blind randomized controlled trial assigned patients to sedation versus placebo. "Successful endoscopy" was considered an EGDE rated 4/4 in technical adequacy (1 = inadequate to 4 = totally adequate), and 1-2/5 in patient self-reported comfort (1 = acceptable to 5 = unacceptable). Secondary outcomes included recovery room time, patient satisfaction alone, and willingness to repeat the procedure. Cost data were obtained using a published, institutional activity-based costing methodology. Analysis was intention to treat using standard univariate and multivariate methods. RESULTS: 419 patients (mean age 54.5, 48% male) were randomized (N = 210 active vs N = 209 placebo). Among patients randomized to active medication 76% of procedures were "successful" (placebo 46%), 79% were satisfied with their level of comfort (placebo 47%), and willingness to repeat was 81% (placebo 65%). We observed a 10% crossover rate from placebo to active medications. The use of sedation was the major determinant of successful endoscopy (OR = 3.8; 95% CI: 2.5-5.7), but contributed to an increased recovery room time (29 vs 15 min; p < 0.0001). The expected cost of an additional successful endoscopy using sedation was $90.06 (CDN). In a planned subgroup analysis, among the elderly (>75; N = 53) unsedated endoscopy became the dominant approach. Indeed, in this population, a trend was observed favoring the effectiveness of placebo (63%) versus active medication (57%) (OR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.25-2.3) and was less costly resulting in $450 savings/unsedated EGDE. CONCLUSIONS: In the average Canadian ambulatory adult population, sedated diagnostic EGDE is more costly but remains an efficacious strategy by increasing the rate of successful endoscopies, patient satisfaction, and willingness to repeat. However, among the elderly (>75 yr), an unsedated strategy may be more cost-efficacious.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".