Abstract
ABSTRACT
Introduction
Non‐anesthesiologist‐administered propofol (NAAP) sedation for outpatient endoscopy has proven to be safe. However, implementing NAAP in Western countries faces challenges, and propofol‐based sedation is still largely administered by anesthetists. For low‐risk patients, anesthesiologist‐administered propofol (AAP) could represent an avoidable waste of healthcare resources.
Methods
This research consisted of two phases. The first is a retrospective study comparing NAAP and AAP for outpatient endoscopy at a tertiary center, with the primary outcome being the rate of adverse events (AEs). Propensity score matching was performed to balance baseline characteristics between the two groups. The second phase involved a budget impact model to assess the economic impact of using NAAP instead of AAP for low‐risk patients, both locally and nationally, between 2023 and 2025.
Results
Between May 2019 and November 2021, 2721 patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs; NAAP 2439 and AAP 282) and 2748 colonoscopies (NAAP 2491 and AAP 257) were enrolled. Overall, the AE rates were similar between the cohorts (esophagogastroduodenoscopies: NAAP 1.1% vs. AAP 0.8%,
p
= 0.81; colonoscopies: NAAP 1.8% vs. AAP 3.5%,
p
= 0.20). All NAAP‐related AEs were minor.
The budget impact model revealed that adopting NAAP instead of AAP would save €124,724,659 and 2223 working days for healthcare professionals for the Italian National Health System (NHS) between 2023 and 2025.
Conclusion
NAAP has a comparable AE rate to AAP for low‐risk outpatient endoscopy. Implementing NAAP instead of AAP could save over €100 million and 2000 working days for the Italian NHS between 2023 and 2025. Wider adoption could improve healthcare resource allocation.