PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Anand V Sahai

Publications and source records attributed to Anand V Sahai.

11 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Endoscopist administered propofol for upper-GI EUS is safe and effective: a prospective study in 500 patients.

BACKGROUND: The administration of propofol for endoscopic sedation by a qualified person, other than the endoscopist, is safe and effective. The aim of this study was to determine if propofol can be administered safely and effectively by the endoscopist performing the procedure. METHODS: All patients referred for upper-GI EUS were eligible for inclusion in the study. Exclusion criteria included the following: age less than 18 years, American Society of Anesthesiology physical status class greater than 2, a potential for difficulty in airway maintenance, and allergy to propofol constituents. The endoscopist administered propofol as an intravenous bolus followed by a constant infusion. Adverse events, drug dosage, complications, and patient/endoscopist satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 500 patients (285 women, 215 men; mean age 53.4 [14.8 years]) were enrolled. Mean propofol dose was 301 mg (range 100-1000 mg). Mean procedure time was 19 minutes (range 3-70 minutes). The required examination was completed in all cases. There was no major adverse event. Oxygen desaturation (oxygen saturation < 95%) occurred in 16 (3%) patients. There were 4 (1%) cases of mild hypoxemia (saturation < 90%) but no case of severe hypoxemia (saturation <85%). The endoscopist rated the 92% of the procedures as "very smooth" or "smooth" and regarded administration of propofol as "easy" for 92%. All patients said they would prefer the same method of sedation if the procedure were repeated. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopist-administered propofol is safe and effective in selected patients.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

A prospective comparison of the yield of EUS in primary vs. recurrent idiopathic acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether EUS should be performed after a single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis vs. recurrent episodes or if clinical factors can predict positive EUS findings. METHODS: Consecutive patients with a single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis or with recurrent episodes underwent EUS (with analysis of bile for bilirubinate and cholesterol crystals, when possible). The diagnostic yield was compared for patients with a single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis and recurrent episodes (stratified by cholecystectomy status). Predictors of positive EUS findings were sought. EUS was considered "positive" if it identified any possible cause of pancreatitis other than chronic pancreatitis. RESULTS: A total of 370 patients were studied (246 no-cholecystectomy group [134 single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis, 112 recurrent episodes] and 124 post-cholecystectomy group [67 single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis, 57 recurrent episodes]). Overall, EUS yielded a positive finding in 29.2%. For patients in the no-cholecystectomy group, positive EUS findings were not significantly more frequent in those with a single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis vs. those with recurrent episodes (31.3% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.89). In the post-cholecystectomy group, the yield was not significantly different for single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis (29.9%) vs. recurrent episodes (17.5%) ( p = 0.15). Chronic pancreatitis was the only abnormality identified in 30.9% of patients in the no-cholecystectomy group vs. 26.6% of those in the post-cholecystectomy group ( p = 0.24). It was the most common abnormality found in all 4 subgroups (range 16.4%-42.0%) and was approximately twice as frequent in patients with recurrent episodes vs. a single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis (no-cholecystectomy: 42.0% vs. 21.6%, p = 0.0008; post-cholecystectomy: 38.6% vs. 16.4%, p = 0.008). Analysis of bile revealed crystals in 38/80 (47.5%) patients in whom it could be performed. Patients with positive EUS findings tended to be older. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with idiopathic pancreatitis, the yield of EUS is not significantly different after an initial attack or after recurrent attacks. Therefore, it is reasonable to perform EUS after an initial attack of idiopathic acute pancreatitis, especially in older patients.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2004

A prospective, quantitative assessment of the effect of ethanol and other variables on the endosonographic appearance of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Studies comparing endosonography with endoscopic pancreatography, histological examination, and functional assays show that the number of endosonographic abnormalities (or "criteria") increases with the severity of chronic pancreatitis. However, it is unclear to what extent such variables as demographics, body habitus, and routine exposure to such pancreatic toxins as ethanol and cigarette smoke can affect pancreatic endosonography. The aim of the study is to quantify the effects of these variables precisely. METHODS: Pancreatic endosonography was performed by a single operator in consecutive patients referred for any indication. The relationship between 8 possible endosonographic criteria and these variables was studied. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred fifty-seven patients were studied (93% of eligible patients). Number of criteria correlated most strongly with ethanol ingestion (r = 0.273; P = 0.0001) and smoking history (r = 0.201; P = 0.0001). It did not correlate with age or body mass index. The strongest independent predictors of severe pancreatic abnormalities (>/=5 criteria) were heavy ethanol ingestion (odds ratio [OR], 5.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1-8.5), male sex (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.55), clinical suspicion of pancreatic disease (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.3), and heavy smoking (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4). Severe endosonographic abnormalities were found in only 2 of 51 patients (3.9%) with no risk factors or symptoms of pancreatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: Several variables can affect the endosonographic appearance of the pancreas independently. Severe abnormalities may be asymptomatic. The clinical, functional, and histological significance of endosonographic abnormalities requires clarification.

Endosonography↗
PubMed2003

Endoscopic ultrasonography for upper gastrointestinal submucosal lesions: a cost minimization analysis with an international perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Our prospective clinical study of prospectively compared physicians' management of submucosal tumors (SMTs) with and without endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). It showed that EUS reduced further tests by more than 50%, but it is unclear whether it reduced the overall costs. The aim of this study was to determine whether EUS would reduce costs. METHODS: Based on the data from the clinical study, a decision analysis was created to compare the direct hospital costs for diagnosing SMTs with and without EUS. Cost data from Germany, Canada, Japan, France, and the United States were used. Costs were expressed as a ratio of the cost of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Average cost ratios for each procedure were as follows (sensitivity analysis ranges are 95% CIs): EGD = 1; large particle biopsy (LPB) 0.75 (0.22-1.24); endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) 2.0 (1.22-2.79); abdominal ultrasound (US) 0.77 (0.31-1.24); computed tomography (CT) 1.79 (0.64-2.95); magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 3.54 (1.28-5.79); and ERCP 3.45 (0.82-6.07). RESULTS: Initial inputs show the "no EUS" strategy is less costly when cost data for all countries are averaged (expected cost 2.13 vs 2.71, expressed as a ratio of the cost of EGD]) and for all countries individually except Germany. In descending order, overall management costs were most sensitive to the relative costs of CT and EUS, the cost of LPB, and to the probability of no further testing when the "no EUS" strategy is used. However, threshold analysis showed that changes in only one variable, the ratio of the cost of EUS compared to CT (the "EUS/CT ratio"), were able to shift the optimal strategy from "no EUS" to "EUS." "EUS" becomes less costly only if the EUS/CT cost ratio is <0.85 (i.e., if the cost of EUS is <85% that of CT). If the potential for EUS to reduce severe complications caused by LPB of high risk lesions is incorporated, "EUS" is less costly if this risk is >2% (range 1-5%). CONCLUSIONS: When used to diagnose SMTs, EUS may reduce the need for further tests but not necessarily costs. For this indication, the relative cost of EUS compared with CT is what most limits its potential value as a cost-minimizing test. The costs, economic impact, and hence the relative appropriateness of EUS and other procedures may vary in different health care systems.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Staging esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma has increased dramatically in Western societies over the last 20 years. Most patients present with advanced disease. Stage-dependent treatment protocols require the most complete and accurate staging possible. With all esophageal cancers (ie, adenocarcinomas and squamous carcinomas), it is perhaps most important to identify patients who are unlikely to benefit from aggressive treatment. The performance characteristics and clinical utility of CT scanning, endoscopic ultrasound, FDG-PET, and minimally invasive surgery in staging esophageal cancer are reviewed, including issues relating specifically to staging of adenocarcinomas. These investigations are not mutually exclusive and each has its own strengths and shortcomings. Accurate staging often requires the use of multiple modalities. The optimal staging algorithm for a given practice setting (if it exists) will be determined largely by local variables that include patient population, available technology, and local expertise in applying such technology. A lack of consensus on the effectiveness of therapeutic alternatives (particularly surgical v nonsurgical methods) may also affect the perceived value of the various staging modalities and how they are used.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2002

Endoscopy in Barrett's esophagus. Surveillance during reflux management and new advances in the diagnosis and early detection of dysplasia.

Given the alarming rise in the incidence of esophageal cancer and the fact that Barrett's esophagus is clearly a precursor to this disease, effective surveillance is desirable. Endoscopic surveillance is recommended by major endoscopic and gastrointestinal societies based on the available data and hypothetic models suggest that the costs of endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's esophagus may be reasonable when compared with other commonly applied cancer screening strategies. Although, however, most implicated physicians agree that surveillance is warranted, recommended guidelines often are not followed. This occurrence may reflect the importance of some of the practical limitations inherent to carrying out intensive endoscopic biopsy protocols in large numbers of eligible patients. In an effort to improve the surveillance process, several new techniques have been tested and are in development. These techniques are aimed at facilitating the histologic sampling of larger areas of metaplastic epithelium, at better targeting sites more likely to harbor dysplasia and cancer, and at replacing endoscopic biopsies with nonhistologic tissue analysis. Although many of these newer techniques are promising, however, none are currently close to widespread clinical application. The current standard for surveillance remains the use of systematic endoscopic biopsies, with the frequency of surveillance endoscopies determined by the severity of any dysplastic changes that are found. Given the large number of patients that are likely to be eligible for screening and the current constraints in terms of physician availability and health-care resources, endoscopic biopsy will remain the cornerstone of Barrett's esophagus surveillance strategies unless newer alternatives are clearly advantageous in terms of accuracy, cost, availability, and ease of application. In the future, however, advances in techniques for minimally invasive ablation of Barrett's epithelium may make endoscopic surveillance obsolete altogether.

Barrett Esophagus↗
PubMed2002

A resource utilization projection study of EUS.

BACKGROUND: EUS has emerged as standard practice with respect to the diagnosis and staging of GI malignancies. Whether currently available resources are sufficient to meet the potential need for EUS is uncertain. This study examines the hypothetical demand for EUS in the United States. METHODS: EUS cases performed at 3 centers with well-established expertise in EUS in 1997 were retrospectively reviewed and trends were extrapolated to national cancer statistics. Indications for EUS fell into 3 categories: (1) diagnosis/staging of esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, or rectal cancers (established indications); (2) suspected GI malignancy (obligate "rule out"); and (3) "other" (emerging indications). Hypothetical total numbers of cases in which EUS could be performed in the United States were calculated taking into consideration the expected number of GI malignancies for which EUS would be appropriate (based on cancer statistics for 2000), the fraction unresectable by CT, the fraction of elderly nonsurgical candidates, proportionate "rule out" cases, as well as "other" emerging indications. RESULTS: The calculated hypothetical number of cases (United States) in which EUS would be indicated is 79,568 per year (10,287 esophagus, 10,666 stomach, 23,069 pancreas, and 35,546 rectal). If "other" indications remained constant at 12%, there would potentially be 89,116 EUS procedures performed per year, with a conservative estimate of 79,572 per year. CONCLUSIONS: This model suggests that currently available EUS resources are not sufficient to meet hypothetical demand. Future considerations include the number of endoscopy units in which EUS is performed, the capacity of individual units, and the implications for training programs in the United States.

Digestive System Neoplasms↗