[Application value of sedation in colonoscopy]

Objective: To investigate the value of sedation in colonoscopy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of colonoscopy procedures was performed in our institution. Inclusion criteria: (1) colonoscopy procedures were performed by well-trained gastrointestinal surgeons our institution; (2) medical records were complete and colonoscopy was documented properly by notes, videos, photographs, and traceable pathological reports. Those with incomplete records or performed in other institution were excluded. According to above criteria, clinical data of 49 057 cases of clinic and hospitalization receiving diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopyat Department of Gastric and Colorectal Surgery, Daping Hospital from July 2007 to February 2017 were collected. Among them, there were 24 638 (50.2%) males and 24 419 females, with mean age of (50.6±14.1) (4 to 98) years. Based on the application of sedation during colonoscopy, patients were divided into the sedation group (39 412 cases, 80.3%) and the non-sedation group (9 645 cases, 19.7%). Clinical characteristics of two groups were compared. Results: The sedation rate increased from 45.6% (369/810) to 94.8% (917/967) from 2007 to 2017. As compared to non-sedation group, a higher proportion of females [51.0% (20 095/39 412) vs. 44.8% (4 324/9 645), χ(2)=117.422, P<0.001] and younger median age (50.0 years vs. 51.0 years, Z=-4.774, P<0.001) were found in the sedation group, whose differences were statistically significant. In all the 9645 cases in the non-sedation group, about 5.5% (534) of them terminated the examination because of unbearable discomfort, including 244 (4.6%) males and 290 (6.7%) females (χ(2)=20.522, P<0.001). Among all the screening population who were ≥50 years old, there was no significant difference in the polyp detection rate (PDR) between the sedation group and the non-sedation group [26.7% (4 737/17 753) vs. 27.4% (1 093/3 984), χ(2)=0.937, P=0.330]. The cecal intubation rate (CIR) in the sedation group was significantly higher than that in the non-sedation group [(85.2% (14 422/16 933) vs. 76.1% (2 803/3 682), χ(2)=180.032, P<0.001]. Five cases in the sedation group developed iatrogenic colonic perforation (ICP), with none in the non-sedation group. Conclusions: The application of sedation in colonoscopy is increasingly popular. Sedation can significantly improve CIR in colonoscopy, while it has no positive influence on PDR. Meanwhile, sedation increases the medical expense and may result in higher ICP rate.