Publications

BACKGROUND

Veterans Affairs medical centers (VAMCs) provide better preventive and chronic disease care when compared with other health care organizations, although recent health care quality improvement initiatives outside the VAMC sector may have narrowed quality differences.

METHODS

Using the nationally representative 2000 and 2004 surveys of the Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System, which included 152,310 community-dwelling insured adults in 2000 and 251,570 in 2004, we compared self-reported use of 17 recommended ambulatory care services for cancer prevention, cardiovascular risk reduction, diabetes mellitus management, and infectious disease prevention among insured adults receiving and not receiving care at VAMCs.

RESULTS

A total of 2852 insured adults (1.9%) received care at VAMCs in 2000 and 7155 (2.4%) received care at VAMCs in 2004. Use of 9 of the 17 services was greater in 2004 when compared with 2000 (P < or = .05). In 2000, receiving VAMC care was associated with greater use of 6 of the 17 services; in 2004, receiving VAMC care was associated with greater use of 12 of the 17 services (P < or = .05). In 2004, greater use among these 12 services ranged from 10% greater use of cholesterol screening to 40% greater use of colorectal cancer screening. For 13 of the 17 services, the likelihood of service use among adults receiving VAMC care when compared with adults not receiving VAMC care was not significantly different in 2004 than in 2000. However, this likelihood was significantly greater (for VAMC vs non-VAMC use) in 2004 than in 2000 for breast cancer screening (relative risk [RR], 1.21 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.15-1.25] vs 0.80 [95% CI, 0.58-0.98]; P < .001), dilated eye examination among adults with diabetes (RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.07-1.15] vs 1.01 [95% CI, 0.88-1.09]; P = .04), and influenza (RR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.24-1.36] vs 1.06 [95% CI, 0.89-1.21]; P = .006) and pneumococcal (RR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.23-1.31] vs 1.04 [95% CI, 0.86-1.21]; P = .005) vaccinations.

CONCLUSION

Despite increasing emphasis on quality of care and improved performance throughout the US health care system, adults receiving VAMC care remain more likely to receive recommended ambulatory care.

The ideal treatment strategy for Crohn's disease (CD) remains uncertain, as does the optimal endpoint of therapy. Top-down versus step-up describes two different approaches: early use of immunomodulators and biological agents in the former versus initial treatment with steroids in the latter, with escalation to immunomodulators or biological drugs in patients proven to be steroid refractory or steroid dependent. Top-down therapy has been associated with higher rates of mucosal healing. If mucosal healing proves to be associated with better long-term outcomes, such as a decreased need for hospitalization and surgery, top-down therapy may be the better approach for many patients. The main concern with the top-down approach is the toxicity of the immunomodulators and biological agents, which have been linked with infectious complications as well as an increased risk of lymphoma. It is unlikely that one strategy will be best for all patients given the underlying heterogeneity of CD presentation and severity. Ultimately, we must weigh the safety and efficacy of the therapies with the risks of the disease itself. Unfortunately our ability to risk stratify patients at diagnosis remains rudimentary. The purpose of this paper is to review the data that supports or refutes the differing treatment paradigms in CD, and to provide a rationale for an approach, termed the "accelerated step-up" approach, which attempts to balance the risks and benefits of our currently available therapies with the risk of disease related complications as we understand them in 2008.

BACKGROUND

Numerous agents are available for moderate sedation in endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to compare efficacy, safety, and efficiency of agents used for moderate sedation in EGD or colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Systematic review of computerized bibliographic databases for randomized trials of moderate sedation that compared 2 active regimens or 1 active regimen with placebo or no sedation.

PATIENTS

Unselected adults undergoing EGD or colonoscopy with a goal of moderate sedation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sedation-related complications, patient assessments (satisfaction, pain, memory, willingness to repeat examination), physician assessments (satisfaction, level of sedation, patient cooperation, examination quality), and procedure-related efficiency outcomes (sedation, procedure, or recovery time).

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies (N = 3918 patients) were included. Sedation improved patient satisfaction (relative risk [RR] = 2.29, range 1.16-4.53) and willingness to repeat EGD (RR = 1.25, range 1.13-1.38) versus no sedation. Midazolam provided superior patient satisfaction to diazepam (RR = 1.18, range 1.07-1.29) and less frequent memory of EGD (RR = 0.57, range 0.50-0.60) versus diazepam. Adverse events and patient/physician assessments were not significantly different for midazolam (with or without narcotics) versus propofol except for slightly less patient satisfaction (RR = 0.90, range 0.83-0.97) and more frequent memory (RR = 3.00, range 1.25-7.21) with midazolam plus narcotics. Procedure times were similar, but sedation and recovery times were shorter with propofol than midazolam-based regimens.

LIMITATIONS

Marked variability in design, regimens tested, and outcomes assessed; relatively poor methodologic quality (Jadad score

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation provides a high level of physician and patient satisfaction and a low risk of serious adverse events with all currently available agents. Midazolam-based regimens have longer sedation and recovery times than does propofol.