适度镇静与监控麻醉护理对支气管超声经支气管针吸的结果和成本的影响。

IF 2 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Pulmonary Medicine Pub Date : 2019-05-09 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2019/4347852
Ziad Boujaoude, Rohan Arya, Aseem Shrivastava, Melvin Pratter, Wissam Abouzgheib
{"title":"适度镇静与监控麻醉护理对支气管超声经支气管针吸的结果和成本的影响。","authors":"Ziad Boujaoude,&nbsp;Rohan Arya,&nbsp;Aseem Shrivastava,&nbsp;Melvin Pratter,&nbsp;Wissam Abouzgheib","doi":"10.1155/2019/4347852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The ideal type of sedation for endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is not known. Two previous studies comparing the diagnostic yield between moderate sedation (MS) and deep sedation/general anesthesia (DS/GA) had provided conflicting results with one study clearly favoring the latter. No study had addressed cost. This is concerning for pulmonologists without routine access to anesthesia services. Our objective was to assess the impact of MS and Monitored Anesthesia Care (sedation administered and monitored by an anesthesiologist) on the outcomes and cost of EBUS-TBNA.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on consecutive EBUS-TBNA performed under two different types of sedation in a single academic center. A diagnostic TBNA was defined as an aspirate yielding any specific diagnosis or if subsequent surgery or follow-up of nondiagnostic/normal aspirates showed no pathology. Current Medicare time-based allowances were used for professional charges calculation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no difference observed between MS and MAC in regards of the diagnostic yield (92.9% versus 91.9%), procedure duration, number, location, and size of lymph node (LN) sampled, but there were more passes per LN with MAC. The average charges were 74.30 USD for MS and 319.91 for MAC. There were more hypotensive and desaturations episodes with MAC but none required escalation of care.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When performed under MS, EBUS-TBNA has similar diagnostic yield as under MAC but may be associated with less side effects. The difference in sedation cost is modest; however, an additional 245$ for each EBUS done under MAC would have significant cost implications on the health system. These findings are of critical importance for bronchoscopists without routine access to anesthesia services and for optimization of healthcare cost and resource utilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":46434,"journal":{"name":"Pulmonary Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2019/4347852","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Moderate Sedation versus Monitored Anesthesia Care on Outcomes and Cost of Endobronchial Ultrasound Transbronchial Needle Aspiration.\",\"authors\":\"Ziad Boujaoude,&nbsp;Rohan Arya,&nbsp;Aseem Shrivastava,&nbsp;Melvin Pratter,&nbsp;Wissam Abouzgheib\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2019/4347852\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The ideal type of sedation for endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is not known. Two previous studies comparing the diagnostic yield between moderate sedation (MS) and deep sedation/general anesthesia (DS/GA) had provided conflicting results with one study clearly favoring the latter. No study had addressed cost. This is concerning for pulmonologists without routine access to anesthesia services. Our objective was to assess the impact of MS and Monitored Anesthesia Care (sedation administered and monitored by an anesthesiologist) on the outcomes and cost of EBUS-TBNA.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on consecutive EBUS-TBNA performed under two different types of sedation in a single academic center. A diagnostic TBNA was defined as an aspirate yielding any specific diagnosis or if subsequent surgery or follow-up of nondiagnostic/normal aspirates showed no pathology. Current Medicare time-based allowances were used for professional charges calculation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no difference observed between MS and MAC in regards of the diagnostic yield (92.9% versus 91.9%), procedure duration, number, location, and size of lymph node (LN) sampled, but there were more passes per LN with MAC. The average charges were 74.30 USD for MS and 319.91 for MAC. There were more hypotensive and desaturations episodes with MAC but none required escalation of care.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When performed under MS, EBUS-TBNA has similar diagnostic yield as under MAC but may be associated with less side effects. The difference in sedation cost is modest; however, an additional 245$ for each EBUS done under MAC would have significant cost implications on the health system. These findings are of critical importance for bronchoscopists without routine access to anesthesia services and for optimization of healthcare cost and resource utilization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pulmonary Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2019/4347852\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pulmonary Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4347852\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pulmonary Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4347852","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

背景和目的:支气管内超声经支气管针吸(EBUS-TBNA)理想镇静类型尚不清楚。先前的两项研究比较了中度镇静(MS)和深度镇静/全身麻醉(DS/GA)的诊断率,结果相互矛盾,其中一项研究明显倾向于后者。没有研究涉及成本问题。对于没有常规麻醉服务的肺科医生来说,这是令人担忧的。我们的目的是评估MS和麻醉监护(由麻醉师使用和监测镇静)对EBUS-TBNA的结果和成本的影响。材料和方法:我们对一个学术中心在两种不同类型镇静下连续进行EBUS-TBNA的前瞻性数据进行了回顾性分析。诊断性TBNA定义为产生任何特定诊断的吸入物,或者后续手术或随访的非诊断性/正常吸入物未显示病理。目前的医疗保险时间津贴被用于专业收费的计算。结果:MS和MAC在诊断率(92.9% vs 91.9%)、手术时间、数量、位置和淋巴结(LN)取样大小方面没有差异,但MAC组每个淋巴结的通过次数更多。MS和MAC组的平均费用为74.30美元,MAC组的平均费用为319.91美元。MAC组有更多的低血压和去饱和发作,但不需要升级护理。结论:MS下EBUS-TBNA的诊断率与MAC下相似,但副作用可能更小。镇静费用的差异不大;然而,根据医疗保险制度进行的每项EBUS额外245美元将对卫生系统产生重大成本影响。这些发现对于没有常规麻醉服务的支气管镜医师以及优化医疗成本和资源利用至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Impact of Moderate Sedation versus Monitored Anesthesia Care on Outcomes and Cost of Endobronchial Ultrasound Transbronchial Needle Aspiration.

Background and objectives: The ideal type of sedation for endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is not known. Two previous studies comparing the diagnostic yield between moderate sedation (MS) and deep sedation/general anesthesia (DS/GA) had provided conflicting results with one study clearly favoring the latter. No study had addressed cost. This is concerning for pulmonologists without routine access to anesthesia services. Our objective was to assess the impact of MS and Monitored Anesthesia Care (sedation administered and monitored by an anesthesiologist) on the outcomes and cost of EBUS-TBNA.

Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on consecutive EBUS-TBNA performed under two different types of sedation in a single academic center. A diagnostic TBNA was defined as an aspirate yielding any specific diagnosis or if subsequent surgery or follow-up of nondiagnostic/normal aspirates showed no pathology. Current Medicare time-based allowances were used for professional charges calculation.

Results: There was no difference observed between MS and MAC in regards of the diagnostic yield (92.9% versus 91.9%), procedure duration, number, location, and size of lymph node (LN) sampled, but there were more passes per LN with MAC. The average charges were 74.30 USD for MS and 319.91 for MAC. There were more hypotensive and desaturations episodes with MAC but none required escalation of care.

Conclusions: When performed under MS, EBUS-TBNA has similar diagnostic yield as under MAC but may be associated with less side effects. The difference in sedation cost is modest; however, an additional 245$ for each EBUS done under MAC would have significant cost implications on the health system. These findings are of critical importance for bronchoscopists without routine access to anesthesia services and for optimization of healthcare cost and resource utilization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pulmonary Medicine
Pulmonary Medicine RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
10.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Practice Variations in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism. The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection in Children. Dual-Task Performance in Individuals With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis. Establishing the Safety and Efficacy of Bedaquiline-Containing Regimen for the Treatment of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Adherence to the ISHLT Protocol for the Referral of Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis to the Transplantation Center among of Czech Centers for Interstitial Lung Diseases.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1