4.4 Article

Adverse Events After Inpatient Colonoscopy in Octogenarians Results From the National Inpatient Sample (1998-2013)

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 9, Pages 813-818

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001288

Keywords

colonoscopy; octogenarians; perforation; bleeding; splenic rupture

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aim: Colonoscopy is commonly performed in the elderly who have a higher proportion of lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract disorders. However, few studies have evaluated the safety of colonoscopy specifically in the octogenarian population. The goal of this study is to examine the safety of colonoscopy among octogenarians over a 16-year period. We also examine risk factors associated with morbidity and mortality in octogenarians after inpatient colonoscopy. Materials and Methods: We queried the National Inpatient Sample to identify octogenarians who had a colonoscopy during hospitalization from 1998 to 2013. We examined inpatient GI-related adverse events including colonic perforation, postcolonoscopy bleeding, and splenic injury. We also examined all-cause mortality rates after colonoscopy. Results: About a quarter of inpatient colonoscopies performed annually were in octogenarians. Of 296,385 colonoscopies included in our study, colon perforation, postcolonoscopy bleeding, and splenic injury occurred in 11, 9, and 0.22 per 1000 colonoscopies, respectively. Overall mortality rate was 2.8%, most (2.5%) dying within 30 days of colonoscopy. After controlling for covariates, those who had colon perforation, postcolonoscopy bleeding, or splenic injury were at a much higher risk of inpatient mortality. Conclusions: There seems to be a higher risk of adverse GI-related events after colonoscopy in octogenarians as compared with the general population. Furthermore, occurrence of adverse GI-related events increased the risk of mortality among octogenarians regardless of comorbid status.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available