Carbon dioxide insufflation in colonoscopy is safe: a prospective trial of 347 patients

Available evidence suggests that the use of CO(2) insufflation in endoscopy is more comfortable for the patient. The safety of CO(2) use in colonoscopy remains contentious, particularly in sedated patients. The objective of the present prospective trial was to assess the safety of CO(2) colonoscopies. Methods. 109 patients from our previous randomized CO(2) colonoscopy study and an additional 238 subsequent consecutive unselected patients who had a routine colonoscopy performed in a private practice were enrolled from April 2008 through September 2008. All but 2 patients were sedated. All patients were routinely monitored with transcutaneous CO(2) measurement. Volumes of CO(2) administered were correlated with capnographic measurements from transcutaneous monitoring. Results. Of the 347 patients examined, 57% were women; mean (SD) age of participants was of 60.2 years (12.8). Mean propofol dosage was 136 mg (64 mg). Mean CO(2) values were 34.7 mm Hg (5.3) at baseline, 38.9 mm Hg (5.5) upon reaching the ileum, and 36.9 mm Hg (5.0) at examination's end. Mean maximum increase of CO(2) was 4.5 mm Hg (3.6). No correlation was observed between volume of CO(2) administered and increase in level of CO(2) (correlation coefficient: 0.01; P value: 0.84). No complications were observed. Conclusions. The present prospective study, which was based on one of the largest sedated patient sample reported to date in this setting, provides compelling evidence that CO(2) insufflation in colonoscopy is safe and unassociated with relevant increases in transcutaneously measured levels of CO(2).

Trade-offs between voice and silence: a qualitative exploration of oncology staff's decisions to speak up about safety concerns

BACKGROUND Research suggests that "silence", i.e., not voicing safety concerns, is common among health care professionals (HCPs). Speaking up about patient safety is vital to avoid errors reaching the patient and thus to prevent harm and also to improve a culture of teamwork and safety. The aim of our study was to explore factors that affect oncology staff's decision to voice safety concerns or to remain silent and to describe the trade-offs they make. METHODS In a qualitative interview study with 32 doctors and nurses from 7 oncology units we investigated motivations and barriers to speaking up towards co-workers and supervisors. An inductive thematic content analysis framework was applied to the transcripts. Based on the individual experiences of participants, we conceptualize the choice to voice concerns and the trade-offs involved. RESULTS Preventing patients from serious harm constitutes a strong motivation to speaking up but competes with anticipated negative outcomes. Decisions whether and how to voice concerns involved complex considerations and trade-offs. Many respondents reflected on whether the level of risk for a patient "justifies" the costs of speaking up. Various barriers for voicing concerns were reported, e.g., damaging relationships. Contextual factors, such as the presence of patients and co-workers in the alarming situation, affect the likelihood of anticipated negative outcomes. Speaking up to well-known co-workers was described as considerably easier whereas "not knowing the actor well" increases risks and potential costs of speaking up. CONCLUSIONS While doctors and nurses felt strong obligation to prevent errors reaching individual patients, they were not engaged in voicing concerns beyond this immediacy. Our results offer in-depth insight into fears and conditions conducive of silence and voicing and can be used for educational interventions and leader reinforcement.

Efficacy and safety of a novel bioabsorbable polymer-coated, everolimus-eluting coronary stent: the EVOLVE II Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND Drug eluting stents with durable polymers may be associated with hypersensitivity, delayed healing, and incomplete endothelialization, which may contribute to late/very late stent thrombosis and the need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy. Bioabsorbable polymers may facilitate stent healing, thus enhancing clinical safety. The SYNERGY stent is a thin-strut, platinum chromium metal alloy platform with an ultrathin bioabsorbable Poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) abluminal everolimus-eluting polymer. We performed a multicenter, randomized controlled trial for regulatory approval to determine noninferiority of the SYNERGY stent to the durable polymer PROMUS Element Plus everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS AND RESULTS Patients (n=1684) scheduled to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention for non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome or stable coronary artery disease were randomized to receive either the SYNERGY stent or the PROMUS Element Plus stent. The primary end point of 12-month target lesion failure was observed in 6.7% of SYNERGY and 6.5% PROMUS Element Plus treated subjects by intention-to-treat (P=0.83 for difference; P=0.0005 for noninferiority), and 6.4% in both the groups by per-protocol analysis (P=0.0003 for noninferiority). Clinically indicated revascularization of the target lesion or definite/probable stent thrombosis were observed in 2.6% versus 1.7% (P=0.21) and 0.4% versus 0.6% (P=0.50) of SYNERGY versus PROMUS Element Plus-treated subjects, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial, the SYNERGY bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was noninferior to the PROMUS Element Plus everolimus-eluting stent with respect to 1-year target lesion failure. These data support the relative safety and efficacy of SYNERGY in a broad range of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01665053.