Federal Practitioner

The requisites of government are that there be sufficiency of food, sufficiency of military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler.

Analects by Confucius¹

From ancient festivals to modern holidays, autumn has long been associated with the gathering of the harvest. Friends and families come together around tables laden with delicious food to enjoy the pleasures of peace and plenty. During these celebrations, we must never forget that without the strength of the nation’s military and the service of its veterans, this freedom and abundance would not be possible. Our debt of gratitude to the current and former members of the armed services makes the fact that a substantial minority experiences food insecurity not only a human tragedy, but a travesty of the nation’s promise to support those who wear or have worn the uniform.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 charged the Secretary of Defense to investigate food insecurity among active-duty service members and their dependents.² The RAND Corporation conducted the assessment and, based on the results of its analysis, made recommendations to reduce hunger among armed forces members and their families.³

The RAND study found that 10% of active-duty military met US Department of Agriculture (USDA) criteria for very low food security; another 15% were classified as having low food security. The USDA defines food insecurity with hunger as “reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.” USDA defines low food security as “reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.”⁴

As someone who grew up on an Army base with the commissary a short trip from military housing, I was unpleasantly surprised that food insecurity was more common among in-service members living on post. I was even more dismayed to read that a variety of factors constrained 14% of active-duty military experiencing food insecurity to seek public assistance to feed themselves and their families. As with so many health care and social services, (eg, mental health care), those wearing the uniform were concerned that participating in a food assistance program would damage their career or stigmatize them. Others did not seek help, perhaps because they believed they were not eligible, and in many cases were correct: they did not qualify for food banks or food stamps due to receiving other benefits. A variety of factors contribute to periods of food insecurity among military families, including remote or rural bases that lack access to grocery stores or jobs for partners or other family members, and low base military pay.⁵

Food insecurity is an even more serious concern among veterans who are frequently older and have more comorbidities, often leading to unemployment and homelessness. Feeding America, the nation’s largest organization of community food banks, estimates that 1 in 9 working-age veterans are food insecure.⁵ US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) statistics indicate that veterans are 7% more likely to experience food insecurity than other sectors of the population.⁶ The Veterans Health Administration has recognized that food insecurity is directly related to medical problems already common among veterans, including diabetes, obesity, and depression. Women and minority veterans are the most at risk of food insecurity.⁷

Recognizing that many veterans are at risk of food insecurity, the US Department of Defense and VA have taken steps to try and reduce hunger among those who serve. In response to the shocking statistic that food insecurity was found in 27% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the VA and Rockefeller Foundation are partnering on the Food as Medicine initiative to improve veteran nutrition as a means of improving nutrition-related health consequences of food insecurity.⁸

Like many federal practitioners, I was unaware of the food insecurity assistance available to active-duty service members or veterans, or how to help individuals access it. In addition to the resources outlined in the Table, there are many community-based options open to anyone, including veterans and service members. 

I have written columns on many difficult issues in my years as the Editor-in-Chief of Federal Practitioner, but personally this is one of the most distressing editorials I have ever published. That individuals dedicated to defending our rights and protecting our safety should be compelled to go hungry or not know if they have enough money at the end of the month to buy food is manifestly unjust. It is challenging when faced with such a large-scale injustice to think we cannot make a difference, but that resignation or abdication only magnifies this inequity. I have a friend who kept giving back even after they retired from federal service: they volunteered at a community garden and brought produce to the local food bank and helped distribute it. That may seem too much for those still working yet almost anyone can pick up a few items on their weekly shopping trip and donate them to a food drive. 

As we approach Veterans Day, let’s not just express our gratitude to our military and veterans in words but in deeds like feeding the hungry and urging elected representatives to fulfill their commitment to ensure that service members and veterans and their families do not experience food insecurity. Confucian wisdom written in a very distant time and vastly dissimilar context still rings true: there are direct and critical links between food and trust and between hunger and the military.¹

The requisites of government are that there be sufficiency of food, sufficiency of military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler.

Analects by Confucius¹

From ancient festivals to modern holidays, autumn has long been associated with the gathering of the harvest. Friends and families come together around tables laden with delicious food to enjoy the pleasures of peace and plenty. During these celebrations, we must never forget that without the strength of the nation’s military and the service of its veterans, this freedom and abundance would not be possible. Our debt of gratitude to the current and former members of the armed services makes the fact that a substantial minority experiences food insecurity not only a human tragedy, but a travesty of the nation’s promise to support those who wear or have worn the uniform.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 charged the Secretary of Defense to investigate food insecurity among active-duty service members and their dependents.² The RAND Corporation conducted the assessment and, based on the results of its analysis, made recommendations to reduce hunger among armed forces members and their families.³

The RAND study found that 10% of active-duty military met US Department of Agriculture (USDA) criteria for very low food security; another 15% were classified as having low food security. The USDA defines food insecurity with hunger as “reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.” USDA defines low food security as “reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.”⁴

As someone who grew up on an Army base with the commissary a short trip from military housing, I was unpleasantly surprised that food insecurity was more common among in-service members living on post. I was even more dismayed to read that a variety of factors constrained 14% of active-duty military experiencing food insecurity to seek public assistance to feed themselves and their families. As with so many health care and social services, (eg, mental health care), those wearing the uniform were concerned that participating in a food assistance program would damage their career or stigmatize them. Others did not seek help, perhaps because they believed they were not eligible, and in many cases were correct: they did not qualify for food banks or food stamps due to receiving other benefits. A variety of factors contribute to periods of food insecurity among military families, including remote or rural bases that lack access to grocery stores or jobs for partners or other family members, and low base military pay.⁵

Food insecurity is an even more serious concern among veterans who are frequently older and have more comorbidities, often leading to unemployment and homelessness. Feeding America, the nation’s largest organization of community food banks, estimates that 1 in 9 working-age veterans are food insecure.⁵ US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) statistics indicate that veterans are 7% more likely to experience food insecurity than other sectors of the population.⁶ The Veterans Health Administration has recognized that food insecurity is directly related to medical problems already common among veterans, including diabetes, obesity, and depression. Women and minority veterans are the most at risk of food insecurity.⁷

Recognizing that many veterans are at risk of food insecurity, the US Department of Defense and VA have taken steps to try and reduce hunger among those who serve. In response to the shocking statistic that food insecurity was found in 27% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the VA and Rockefeller Foundation are partnering on the Food as Medicine initiative to improve veteran nutrition as a means of improving nutrition-related health consequences of food insecurity.⁸

Like many federal practitioners, I was unaware of the food insecurity assistance available to active-duty service members or veterans, or how to help individuals access it. In addition to the resources outlined in the Table, there are many community-based options open to anyone, including veterans and service members. 

I have written columns on many difficult issues in my years as the Editor-in-Chief of Federal Practitioner, but personally this is one of the most distressing editorials I have ever published. That individuals dedicated to defending our rights and protecting our safety should be compelled to go hungry or not know if they have enough money at the end of the month to buy food is manifestly unjust. It is challenging when faced with such a large-scale injustice to think we cannot make a difference, but that resignation or abdication only magnifies this inequity. I have a friend who kept giving back even after they retired from federal service: they volunteered at a community garden and brought produce to the local food bank and helped distribute it. That may seem too much for those still working yet almost anyone can pick up a few items on their weekly shopping trip and donate them to a food drive. 

As we approach Veterans Day, let’s not just express our gratitude to our military and veterans in words but in deeds like feeding the hungry and urging elected representatives to fulfill their commitment to ensure that service members and veterans and their families do not experience food insecurity. Confucian wisdom written in a very distant time and vastly dissimilar context still rings true: there are direct and critical links between food and trust and between hunger and the military.¹

The requisites of government are that there be sufficiency of food, sufficiency of military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler.

Analects by Confucius¹

From ancient festivals to modern holidays, autumn has long been associated with the gathering of the harvest. Friends and families come together around tables laden with delicious food to enjoy the pleasures of peace and plenty. During these celebrations, we must never forget that without the strength of the nation’s military and the service of its veterans, this freedom and abundance would not be possible. Our debt of gratitude to the current and former members of the armed services makes the fact that a substantial minority experiences food insecurity not only a human tragedy, but a travesty of the nation’s promise to support those who wear or have worn the uniform.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 charged the Secretary of Defense to investigate food insecurity among active-duty service members and their dependents.² The RAND Corporation conducted the assessment and, based on the results of its analysis, made recommendations to reduce hunger among armed forces members and their families.³

The RAND study found that 10% of active-duty military met US Department of Agriculture (USDA) criteria for very low food security; another 15% were classified as having low food security. The USDA defines food insecurity with hunger as “reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.” USDA defines low food security as “reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.”⁴

As someone who grew up on an Army base with the commissary a short trip from military housing, I was unpleasantly surprised that food insecurity was more common among in-service members living on post. I was even more dismayed to read that a variety of factors constrained 14% of active-duty military experiencing food insecurity to seek public assistance to feed themselves and their families. As with so many health care and social services, (eg, mental health care), those wearing the uniform were concerned that participating in a food assistance program would damage their career or stigmatize them. Others did not seek help, perhaps because they believed they were not eligible, and in many cases were correct: they did not qualify for food banks or food stamps due to receiving other benefits. A variety of factors contribute to periods of food insecurity among military families, including remote or rural bases that lack access to grocery stores or jobs for partners or other family members, and low base military pay.⁵

Food insecurity is an even more serious concern among veterans who are frequently older and have more comorbidities, often leading to unemployment and homelessness. Feeding America, the nation’s largest organization of community food banks, estimates that 1 in 9 working-age veterans are food insecure.⁵ US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) statistics indicate that veterans are 7% more likely to experience food insecurity than other sectors of the population.⁶ The Veterans Health Administration has recognized that food insecurity is directly related to medical problems already common among veterans, including diabetes, obesity, and depression. Women and minority veterans are the most at risk of food insecurity.⁷

Recognizing that many veterans are at risk of food insecurity, the US Department of Defense and VA have taken steps to try and reduce hunger among those who serve. In response to the shocking statistic that food insecurity was found in 27% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the VA and Rockefeller Foundation are partnering on the Food as Medicine initiative to improve veteran nutrition as a means of improving nutrition-related health consequences of food insecurity.⁸

Like many federal practitioners, I was unaware of the food insecurity assistance available to active-duty service members or veterans, or how to help individuals access it. In addition to the resources outlined in the Table, there are many community-based options open to anyone, including veterans and service members. 

I have written columns on many difficult issues in my years as the Editor-in-Chief of Federal Practitioner, but personally this is one of the most distressing editorials I have ever published. That individuals dedicated to defending our rights and protecting our safety should be compelled to go hungry or not know if they have enough money at the end of the month to buy food is manifestly unjust. It is challenging when faced with such a large-scale injustice to think we cannot make a difference, but that resignation or abdication only magnifies this inequity. I have a friend who kept giving back even after they retired from federal service: they volunteered at a community garden and brought produce to the local food bank and helped distribute it. That may seem too much for those still working yet almost anyone can pick up a few items on their weekly shopping trip and donate them to a food drive. 

As we approach Veterans Day, let’s not just express our gratitude to our military and veterans in words but in deeds like feeding the hungry and urging elected representatives to fulfill their commitment to ensure that service members and veterans and their families do not experience food insecurity. Confucian wisdom written in a very distant time and vastly dissimilar context still rings true: there are direct and critical links between food and trust and between hunger and the military.¹

In 2020, the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) increased the recommended colon polyp surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas from 5 to 10 years to 7 to 10 years.¹ This change was prompted by emerging research indicating that rates of CRC and advanced neoplasia among patients with a history of only 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas are lower than initially estimated.^2,3 This extension provides an opportunity to increase endoscopy capacity and improve access to colonoscopies by retroactively applying the 2020 guidelines to surveillance interval recommendations made before their introduction. For example, based on the updated guidelines, patients previously recommended to undergo colon polyp surveillance colonoscopy 5 years after an index colonoscopy could extend their surveillance interval by 2 to 5 years. Increasing endoscopic capacity could address the growing demand for colonoscopies from new screening guidelines that reduced the age of initial CRC screening from 50 years to 45 years and the backlog of procedures due to COVID-19 restrictions.⁴

As part of a project to increase endoscopic capacity at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS), this study assessed the potential impact of retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity. These results may be informative for other VA and private-sector health care systems seeking to identify strategies to improve endoscopy capacity.

Methods

VAPHS is an integrated health care system in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) serving 85,000 patients across 8 health care institutions in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. VAPHS manages colorectal screening recommendations for patients receiving medical care in the health care system regardless of whether their prior colonoscopy was performed at VAPHS or external facilities. The VA maintains a national CRC screening and surveillance electronic medical record reminder that prompts health care practitioners to order colon polyp surveillance based on interval recommendations from the index colonoscopy. This study reviewed all patients from the VAPHS panel with a reminder to undergo colonoscopy for screening for CRC or surveillance of colon polyps within 12 months from September 1, 2022.

Among patients with a reminder, 3 investigators reviewed index colonoscopy and pathology reports to identify CRC risk category, colonoscopy indication, procedural quality, and recommended repeat colonoscopy interval. Per the USMSTF guidelines, patients with incomplete colonoscopy or pathology records, high-risk indications (ie, personal history of inflammatory bowel disease, personal history of CRC, or family history of CRC), or inadequate bowel preparation (Boston Bowel Preparation Score < 6) were excluded. Additionally, patients who had CRC screening or surveillance discontinued due to age or comorbidities, had completed a subsequent follow-up colonoscopy, or were deceased at the time of review were excluded.

Retroactive Interval Reclassification

Among eligible patients, this study compared the repeat colonoscopy interval recommended by the prior endoscopist with those from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines. In cases where the interval was documented as a range of years, the lower end was considered the recommendation. Similarly, the lower end of the range from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines was used for the reclassified surveillance interval. Years extended per patient were quantified relative to September 1, 2023 (ie, 1 year after the review date). For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2016, the initial surveillance recommendation was 5 years, and the reclassified recommendation was 7 years, the interval extension beyond September 1, 2023, was 0 years.

Furthermore, because index surveillance recommendations are not always guideline concordant, the years extended per patient were calculated by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s recommendations with the guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy.⁵ For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2018, and the endoscopist recommended a 5-year follow-up for a patient with average risk for CRC, adequate bowel preparation, and no colorectal polyps, that patient is eligible to extend their colonoscopy to September 1, 2028, based on guideline recommendations at the time of index endoscopy recommending that the next colonoscopy occur in 10 years. In this analysis the 2012 USMSTF guidelines were applied to all index colonoscopies completed in 2021 or earlier to allow time for adoption of the 2020 guidelines. 

This project fulfilled a facility mandate to increase capacity to conduct endoscopic procedures. Institutional review board approval was not required by VAPHS policy relating to clinical operations projects. Approval for publication of clinical operations activity was obtained from the VAPHS facility director.

Results

Within 1 year of the September 1, 2022, review date, 637 patients receiving care at VAPHS had clinical reminders for an upcoming colonoscopy. Of these, 54 (8.4%) were already up to date or were deceased at the time of review. Of the 583 eligible patients, 96% were male, the median age was 74 years, the median index colonoscopy year was 2016, and 178 (30.5%) had an average-risk CRC screening indication at the index colonoscopy (Table).

Of the 583 patients due for colonoscopy, 331 (56.7%) had both colonoscopy and pathology reports available. The majority of those with incomplete records had the index colonoscopy completed outside VAPHS. Among these patients, 222 (67.0%) had adequate bowel preparation. Of those with adequate bowel preparation, 43 were not eligible for interval extension because of high-risk conditions and 13 were not eligible because there was no index surveillance interval recommendation from the index endoscopist. Of the patients due for colonoscopy, 166 (28.4%) were potentially eligible for surveillance interval extension (Figure).  

Sixty-five (39.2%) of the 166 patients had 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas on their index colonoscopy. Sixty-two patients were eligible for interval extension to 7 years, but this only resulted in ≥ 1 year of extension beyond the review date for 36 (6% of all 583 patients due for colonoscopy). The 36 patients were extended 63 years. By harmonizing the index endoscopists’ surveillance interval recommendation with the guideline at the time of the index colonoscopy, 29 additional patients could have their colonoscopy extended by ≥ 1 year. Harmonization extended colonoscopy intervals by 93 years. Retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines and harmonizing recommendations to guidelines extended the time of index colonoscopy by 153 years.

Discussion

With retroactive application of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines, 6% of patients due for an upcoming colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year by extending the surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas to 7 years. An additional 5% of patients could extend their interval by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s interval recommendation with polyp surveillance guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy. These findings are consistent with the results of 2 studies that demonstrated that about 14% of patients due for colonoscopy could have their interval extended.^6,7 The current study enhances those insights by separating the contribution of 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines from the contribution of harmonizing surveillance intervals with guidelines for other polyp histologies. This study found that there is an opportunity to improve endoscopic capacity by harmonizing recommendations with guidelines. This complements a 2023 study showing that even when knowledgeable about guidelines, clinicians do not necessarily follow recommendations.⁸ While this and previous research have identified that 11% to 14% of patients are eligible for extension, these individuals would also have to be willing to have their polyp surveillance intervals extended for there to be a real-world impact on endoscopic capacity. A 2024 study found that only 19% to 37% of patients with 1 to 2 small tubular adenomas were willing to have polyps surveillance interval extension.⁹ This suggests the actual effect on capacity may be even lower than reported.

Limitations

The overall impact of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity was blunted by the high prevalence of incomplete index colonoscopy records among the study population. Without data on bowel preparation quality or procedure indications, this study could not assess whether 43% of patients were eligible for surveillance interval extension. Most index colonoscopies with incomplete documentation were completed at community-care gastroenterology facilities. This high rate of incomplete documentation is likely generalizable to other VA health care systems—especially in the era of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, which increased veteran access to non-VA community care.¹⁰ Veterans due for colon polyp surveillance colonoscopies are more likely to have had their prior colonoscopy in community care compared with prior eras.¹¹ Furthermore, because the VHA is among the most established integrated health care systems offering primary and subspecialty care in the US, private sector health care systems may have even greater rates of care fragmentation for longitudinal CRC screening and colon polyp surveillance, as these systems have only begun to regionally integrate recently.^12,13

Another limitation is that nearly one-third of the individuals with documentation had inadequate bowel preparation for surveillance recommendations. This results in shorter surveillance follow-up colonoscopies and increases downstream demand for future colonoscopies. The low yield of extending colon polyp surveillance interval in this study emphasizes that improved efforts to obtain colonoscopy and pathology reports from community care, right-sizing the colon polyp surveillance intervals recommended by endoscopists, and improving quality of bowel preparation could have downstream health care system benefits in the future. These efforts could increase colonoscopy capacity at VA health care systems, thereby shortening colonoscopy wait times, decreasing fragmentation of care, and increasing the number of veterans who receive high-quality colonoscopies at VA health care systems.¹⁴

Conclusions

Eleven percent of patients in this study due for a colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year. About half of these extensions were directly due to the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance interval extension for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas. The rest resulted from harmonizing recommendations with guidelines at the time of the procedure. To determine whether retroactively applying polyp surveillance guidelines to follow-up interval recommendations will result in improved endoscopic capacity, health care system administrators should consider the degree of CRC screening care fragmentation in their patient population. Greater long-term gains in endoscopic capacity may be achieved by proactively supporting endoscopists in making guideline-concordant screening recommendations at the time of colonoscopy.

In 2020, the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) increased the recommended colon polyp surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas from 5 to 10 years to 7 to 10 years.¹ This change was prompted by emerging research indicating that rates of CRC and advanced neoplasia among patients with a history of only 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas are lower than initially estimated.^2,3 This extension provides an opportunity to increase endoscopy capacity and improve access to colonoscopies by retroactively applying the 2020 guidelines to surveillance interval recommendations made before their introduction. For example, based on the updated guidelines, patients previously recommended to undergo colon polyp surveillance colonoscopy 5 years after an index colonoscopy could extend their surveillance interval by 2 to 5 years. Increasing endoscopic capacity could address the growing demand for colonoscopies from new screening guidelines that reduced the age of initial CRC screening from 50 years to 45 years and the backlog of procedures due to COVID-19 restrictions.⁴

As part of a project to increase endoscopic capacity at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS), this study assessed the potential impact of retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity. These results may be informative for other VA and private-sector health care systems seeking to identify strategies to improve endoscopy capacity.

Methods

VAPHS is an integrated health care system in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) serving 85,000 patients across 8 health care institutions in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. VAPHS manages colorectal screening recommendations for patients receiving medical care in the health care system regardless of whether their prior colonoscopy was performed at VAPHS or external facilities. The VA maintains a national CRC screening and surveillance electronic medical record reminder that prompts health care practitioners to order colon polyp surveillance based on interval recommendations from the index colonoscopy. This study reviewed all patients from the VAPHS panel with a reminder to undergo colonoscopy for screening for CRC or surveillance of colon polyps within 12 months from September 1, 2022.

Among patients with a reminder, 3 investigators reviewed index colonoscopy and pathology reports to identify CRC risk category, colonoscopy indication, procedural quality, and recommended repeat colonoscopy interval. Per the USMSTF guidelines, patients with incomplete colonoscopy or pathology records, high-risk indications (ie, personal history of inflammatory bowel disease, personal history of CRC, or family history of CRC), or inadequate bowel preparation (Boston Bowel Preparation Score < 6) were excluded. Additionally, patients who had CRC screening or surveillance discontinued due to age or comorbidities, had completed a subsequent follow-up colonoscopy, or were deceased at the time of review were excluded.

Retroactive Interval Reclassification

Among eligible patients, this study compared the repeat colonoscopy interval recommended by the prior endoscopist with those from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines. In cases where the interval was documented as a range of years, the lower end was considered the recommendation. Similarly, the lower end of the range from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines was used for the reclassified surveillance interval. Years extended per patient were quantified relative to September 1, 2023 (ie, 1 year after the review date). For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2016, the initial surveillance recommendation was 5 years, and the reclassified recommendation was 7 years, the interval extension beyond September 1, 2023, was 0 years.

Furthermore, because index surveillance recommendations are not always guideline concordant, the years extended per patient were calculated by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s recommendations with the guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy.⁵ For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2018, and the endoscopist recommended a 5-year follow-up for a patient with average risk for CRC, adequate bowel preparation, and no colorectal polyps, that patient is eligible to extend their colonoscopy to September 1, 2028, based on guideline recommendations at the time of index endoscopy recommending that the next colonoscopy occur in 10 years. In this analysis the 2012 USMSTF guidelines were applied to all index colonoscopies completed in 2021 or earlier to allow time for adoption of the 2020 guidelines. 

This project fulfilled a facility mandate to increase capacity to conduct endoscopic procedures. Institutional review board approval was not required by VAPHS policy relating to clinical operations projects. Approval for publication of clinical operations activity was obtained from the VAPHS facility director.

Results

Within 1 year of the September 1, 2022, review date, 637 patients receiving care at VAPHS had clinical reminders for an upcoming colonoscopy. Of these, 54 (8.4%) were already up to date or were deceased at the time of review. Of the 583 eligible patients, 96% were male, the median age was 74 years, the median index colonoscopy year was 2016, and 178 (30.5%) had an average-risk CRC screening indication at the index colonoscopy (Table).

Of the 583 patients due for colonoscopy, 331 (56.7%) had both colonoscopy and pathology reports available. The majority of those with incomplete records had the index colonoscopy completed outside VAPHS. Among these patients, 222 (67.0%) had adequate bowel preparation. Of those with adequate bowel preparation, 43 were not eligible for interval extension because of high-risk conditions and 13 were not eligible because there was no index surveillance interval recommendation from the index endoscopist. Of the patients due for colonoscopy, 166 (28.4%) were potentially eligible for surveillance interval extension (Figure).  

Sixty-five (39.2%) of the 166 patients had 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas on their index colonoscopy. Sixty-two patients were eligible for interval extension to 7 years, but this only resulted in ≥ 1 year of extension beyond the review date for 36 (6% of all 583 patients due for colonoscopy). The 36 patients were extended 63 years. By harmonizing the index endoscopists’ surveillance interval recommendation with the guideline at the time of the index colonoscopy, 29 additional patients could have their colonoscopy extended by ≥ 1 year. Harmonization extended colonoscopy intervals by 93 years. Retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines and harmonizing recommendations to guidelines extended the time of index colonoscopy by 153 years.

Discussion

With retroactive application of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines, 6% of patients due for an upcoming colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year by extending the surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas to 7 years. An additional 5% of patients could extend their interval by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s interval recommendation with polyp surveillance guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy. These findings are consistent with the results of 2 studies that demonstrated that about 14% of patients due for colonoscopy could have their interval extended.^6,7 The current study enhances those insights by separating the contribution of 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines from the contribution of harmonizing surveillance intervals with guidelines for other polyp histologies. This study found that there is an opportunity to improve endoscopic capacity by harmonizing recommendations with guidelines. This complements a 2023 study showing that even when knowledgeable about guidelines, clinicians do not necessarily follow recommendations.⁸ While this and previous research have identified that 11% to 14% of patients are eligible for extension, these individuals would also have to be willing to have their polyp surveillance intervals extended for there to be a real-world impact on endoscopic capacity. A 2024 study found that only 19% to 37% of patients with 1 to 2 small tubular adenomas were willing to have polyps surveillance interval extension.⁹ This suggests the actual effect on capacity may be even lower than reported.

Limitations

The overall impact of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity was blunted by the high prevalence of incomplete index colonoscopy records among the study population. Without data on bowel preparation quality or procedure indications, this study could not assess whether 43% of patients were eligible for surveillance interval extension. Most index colonoscopies with incomplete documentation were completed at community-care gastroenterology facilities. This high rate of incomplete documentation is likely generalizable to other VA health care systems—especially in the era of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, which increased veteran access to non-VA community care.¹⁰ Veterans due for colon polyp surveillance colonoscopies are more likely to have had their prior colonoscopy in community care compared with prior eras.¹¹ Furthermore, because the VHA is among the most established integrated health care systems offering primary and subspecialty care in the US, private sector health care systems may have even greater rates of care fragmentation for longitudinal CRC screening and colon polyp surveillance, as these systems have only begun to regionally integrate recently.^12,13

Another limitation is that nearly one-third of the individuals with documentation had inadequate bowel preparation for surveillance recommendations. This results in shorter surveillance follow-up colonoscopies and increases downstream demand for future colonoscopies. The low yield of extending colon polyp surveillance interval in this study emphasizes that improved efforts to obtain colonoscopy and pathology reports from community care, right-sizing the colon polyp surveillance intervals recommended by endoscopists, and improving quality of bowel preparation could have downstream health care system benefits in the future. These efforts could increase colonoscopy capacity at VA health care systems, thereby shortening colonoscopy wait times, decreasing fragmentation of care, and increasing the number of veterans who receive high-quality colonoscopies at VA health care systems.¹⁴

Conclusions

Eleven percent of patients in this study due for a colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year. About half of these extensions were directly due to the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance interval extension for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas. The rest resulted from harmonizing recommendations with guidelines at the time of the procedure. To determine whether retroactively applying polyp surveillance guidelines to follow-up interval recommendations will result in improved endoscopic capacity, health care system administrators should consider the degree of CRC screening care fragmentation in their patient population. Greater long-term gains in endoscopic capacity may be achieved by proactively supporting endoscopists in making guideline-concordant screening recommendations at the time of colonoscopy.

In 2020, the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) increased the recommended colon polyp surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas from 5 to 10 years to 7 to 10 years.¹ This change was prompted by emerging research indicating that rates of CRC and advanced neoplasia among patients with a history of only 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas are lower than initially estimated.^2,3 This extension provides an opportunity to increase endoscopy capacity and improve access to colonoscopies by retroactively applying the 2020 guidelines to surveillance interval recommendations made before their introduction. For example, based on the updated guidelines, patients previously recommended to undergo colon polyp surveillance colonoscopy 5 years after an index colonoscopy could extend their surveillance interval by 2 to 5 years. Increasing endoscopic capacity could address the growing demand for colonoscopies from new screening guidelines that reduced the age of initial CRC screening from 50 years to 45 years and the backlog of procedures due to COVID-19 restrictions.⁴

As part of a project to increase endoscopic capacity at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS), this study assessed the potential impact of retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity. These results may be informative for other VA and private-sector health care systems seeking to identify strategies to improve endoscopy capacity.

Methods

VAPHS is an integrated health care system in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) serving 85,000 patients across 8 health care institutions in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. VAPHS manages colorectal screening recommendations for patients receiving medical care in the health care system regardless of whether their prior colonoscopy was performed at VAPHS or external facilities. The VA maintains a national CRC screening and surveillance electronic medical record reminder that prompts health care practitioners to order colon polyp surveillance based on interval recommendations from the index colonoscopy. This study reviewed all patients from the VAPHS panel with a reminder to undergo colonoscopy for screening for CRC or surveillance of colon polyps within 12 months from September 1, 2022.

Among patients with a reminder, 3 investigators reviewed index colonoscopy and pathology reports to identify CRC risk category, colonoscopy indication, procedural quality, and recommended repeat colonoscopy interval. Per the USMSTF guidelines, patients with incomplete colonoscopy or pathology records, high-risk indications (ie, personal history of inflammatory bowel disease, personal history of CRC, or family history of CRC), or inadequate bowel preparation (Boston Bowel Preparation Score < 6) were excluded. Additionally, patients who had CRC screening or surveillance discontinued due to age or comorbidities, had completed a subsequent follow-up colonoscopy, or were deceased at the time of review were excluded.

Retroactive Interval Reclassification

Among eligible patients, this study compared the repeat colonoscopy interval recommended by the prior endoscopist with those from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines. In cases where the interval was documented as a range of years, the lower end was considered the recommendation. Similarly, the lower end of the range from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines was used for the reclassified surveillance interval. Years extended per patient were quantified relative to September 1, 2023 (ie, 1 year after the review date). For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2016, the initial surveillance recommendation was 5 years, and the reclassified recommendation was 7 years, the interval extension beyond September 1, 2023, was 0 years.

Furthermore, because index surveillance recommendations are not always guideline concordant, the years extended per patient were calculated by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s recommendations with the guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy.⁵ For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2018, and the endoscopist recommended a 5-year follow-up for a patient with average risk for CRC, adequate bowel preparation, and no colorectal polyps, that patient is eligible to extend their colonoscopy to September 1, 2028, based on guideline recommendations at the time of index endoscopy recommending that the next colonoscopy occur in 10 years. In this analysis the 2012 USMSTF guidelines were applied to all index colonoscopies completed in 2021 or earlier to allow time for adoption of the 2020 guidelines. 

This project fulfilled a facility mandate to increase capacity to conduct endoscopic procedures. Institutional review board approval was not required by VAPHS policy relating to clinical operations projects. Approval for publication of clinical operations activity was obtained from the VAPHS facility director.

Results

Within 1 year of the September 1, 2022, review date, 637 patients receiving care at VAPHS had clinical reminders for an upcoming colonoscopy. Of these, 54 (8.4%) were already up to date or were deceased at the time of review. Of the 583 eligible patients, 96% were male, the median age was 74 years, the median index colonoscopy year was 2016, and 178 (30.5%) had an average-risk CRC screening indication at the index colonoscopy (Table).

Of the 583 patients due for colonoscopy, 331 (56.7%) had both colonoscopy and pathology reports available. The majority of those with incomplete records had the index colonoscopy completed outside VAPHS. Among these patients, 222 (67.0%) had adequate bowel preparation. Of those with adequate bowel preparation, 43 were not eligible for interval extension because of high-risk conditions and 13 were not eligible because there was no index surveillance interval recommendation from the index endoscopist. Of the patients due for colonoscopy, 166 (28.4%) were potentially eligible for surveillance interval extension (Figure).  

Sixty-five (39.2%) of the 166 patients had 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas on their index colonoscopy. Sixty-two patients were eligible for interval extension to 7 years, but this only resulted in ≥ 1 year of extension beyond the review date for 36 (6% of all 583 patients due for colonoscopy). The 36 patients were extended 63 years. By harmonizing the index endoscopists’ surveillance interval recommendation with the guideline at the time of the index colonoscopy, 29 additional patients could have their colonoscopy extended by ≥ 1 year. Harmonization extended colonoscopy intervals by 93 years. Retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines and harmonizing recommendations to guidelines extended the time of index colonoscopy by 153 years.

Discussion

With retroactive application of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines, 6% of patients due for an upcoming colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year by extending the surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas to 7 years. An additional 5% of patients could extend their interval by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s interval recommendation with polyp surveillance guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy. These findings are consistent with the results of 2 studies that demonstrated that about 14% of patients due for colonoscopy could have their interval extended.^6,7 The current study enhances those insights by separating the contribution of 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines from the contribution of harmonizing surveillance intervals with guidelines for other polyp histologies. This study found that there is an opportunity to improve endoscopic capacity by harmonizing recommendations with guidelines. This complements a 2023 study showing that even when knowledgeable about guidelines, clinicians do not necessarily follow recommendations.⁸ While this and previous research have identified that 11% to 14% of patients are eligible for extension, these individuals would also have to be willing to have their polyp surveillance intervals extended for there to be a real-world impact on endoscopic capacity. A 2024 study found that only 19% to 37% of patients with 1 to 2 small tubular adenomas were willing to have polyps surveillance interval extension.⁹ This suggests the actual effect on capacity may be even lower than reported.

Limitations

The overall impact of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity was blunted by the high prevalence of incomplete index colonoscopy records among the study population. Without data on bowel preparation quality or procedure indications, this study could not assess whether 43% of patients were eligible for surveillance interval extension. Most index colonoscopies with incomplete documentation were completed at community-care gastroenterology facilities. This high rate of incomplete documentation is likely generalizable to other VA health care systems—especially in the era of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, which increased veteran access to non-VA community care.¹⁰ Veterans due for colon polyp surveillance colonoscopies are more likely to have had their prior colonoscopy in community care compared with prior eras.¹¹ Furthermore, because the VHA is among the most established integrated health care systems offering primary and subspecialty care in the US, private sector health care systems may have even greater rates of care fragmentation for longitudinal CRC screening and colon polyp surveillance, as these systems have only begun to regionally integrate recently.^12,13

Another limitation is that nearly one-third of the individuals with documentation had inadequate bowel preparation for surveillance recommendations. This results in shorter surveillance follow-up colonoscopies and increases downstream demand for future colonoscopies. The low yield of extending colon polyp surveillance interval in this study emphasizes that improved efforts to obtain colonoscopy and pathology reports from community care, right-sizing the colon polyp surveillance intervals recommended by endoscopists, and improving quality of bowel preparation could have downstream health care system benefits in the future. These efforts could increase colonoscopy capacity at VA health care systems, thereby shortening colonoscopy wait times, decreasing fragmentation of care, and increasing the number of veterans who receive high-quality colonoscopies at VA health care systems.¹⁴

Conclusions

Eleven percent of patients in this study due for a colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year. About half of these extensions were directly due to the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance interval extension for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas. The rest resulted from harmonizing recommendations with guidelines at the time of the procedure. To determine whether retroactively applying polyp surveillance guidelines to follow-up interval recommendations will result in improved endoscopic capacity, health care system administrators should consider the degree of CRC screening care fragmentation in their patient population. Greater long-term gains in endoscopic capacity may be achieved by proactively supporting endoscopists in making guideline-concordant screening recommendations at the time of colonoscopy.

Tracheal deviation mostly occurs from mechanical compression of the trachea, and can be caused by a variety of clinical conditions, including trauma,¹ pharyngeal abscess,² neck hematoma,³ thyroid enlargement,⁴ and kyphoscoliosis.⁵ These conditions often result in lateral tracheal deviation, which can be associated with tracheal compression and reduction in tracheal caliber.

Anterior-posterior (A-P) tracheal deviation has rarely been reported. Kyphoscoliosis, scarring after a tracheostomy, or innominate vein compression are probable causes of A-P tracheal deviation and can be associated with tracheal narrowing and vascular fistula formation. This report describes a case of difficult endotracheal tube (ETT) advancement secondary to unexpected acute posterior tracheal deviation encountered during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). A waiver of patient consent was obtained from the Human Research Protection Program at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System.

Case Presentation

A 50-year-old male with a history of chronic cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and taking enoxaparin, presented to the emergency department for recurrent headaches. He experienced sudden cardiac arrest, and CPR in the form of chest compression and bag mask ventilation was immediately initiated. With the patient's head in an extended position and using a video laryngoscope, a Cormack–Lehane grade 1 view of the glottic opening was obtained and the trachea was intubated with an 8 mm (internal diameter) polyvinyl chloride ETT. Tracheal intubation was confirmed by utilizing continuous EtCO₂ monitoring. The ETT was secured at 22 cm measured at the teeth.

After about 40 minutes of CPR, spontaneous circulation restarted and a portable A-P chest X-ray with the head in a neutral position indicated the ETT tip was at the level of the first rib (Figure 1). This finding, along with a persistent air leak, prompted blind advancement of the ETT to 26 cm at the teeth, but resistance to advancement was noted. A subsequent chest computed tomography (CT) with the head in a neutral position revealed the ETT remained inappropriately positioned with the tip measured 8.2 cm above the carina (Figure 2A). Concurrently, a sagittal CT view demonstrated significant posterior deviation of the mid and lower trachea. This deviation was determined to be the most likely cause of the difficulty encountered in advancing the ETT. No masses or lesions contributing to the acute tracheal angulation could be identified. Comparing CT imaging from 2 months prior, the trachea was of normal caliber and ordinarily aligned with the vertebral column (Figure 2B).

With the patient in Fowler position with the head midline, a flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy was performed. Acute, almost 90-degree tracheal angulation was encountered and navigated by retroflexion of the flexible bronchoscope. Once the posterior tracheal wall was encountered, retroflexion was relaxed and the carina was visualized. The bronchoscope tip was placed near the carina, and the ETT was advanced over the fiber-optic bronchoscope to terminate 3 cm above the carina. A subsequent chest X-ray confirmed appropriate ETT position (Figure 3).

Discussion

Tracheal deviation in the A-P dimension resulting in difficult tracheal intubation has rarely been reported. Previous reports have described anatomical lesions contributing to similar tracheal deviation, such as retro-tracheal thyroid tissue, pronounced cervical lordosis, and severe kyphoscoliosis with destructive cervical fusion.^5-8 In a study of the anatomical correlation of double lumen tube placement while using positron emission tomography CT, Cameron et al evaluated the size and angulation of the glottis and proximal trachea using calibrated CT measurements and an online digital protractor and note nearly perfect alignment of the pharynx and glottis.⁹ However, the trachea turned posteriorly relative to the glottis, resulting in an overall posterior angle of the proximal trachea compared to the glottis of 30.4 to 50.1 degrees, with no sex differences. The need to maneuver similar proximal tracheal angulation during endotracheal intubation has been reported as a cause of difficult intubation.¹⁰

In this case, the posterior angulation was not encountered in the proximal trachea but rather in the more distal trachea. The extreme A-P tracheal deviation was not associated with any identifiable masses or lesions. A CT performed 2 months prior demonstrated normal tracheal anatomy, and there was no interval history of neck trauma or tracheal obstruction suggestive of a likely cause for this deviation. This change in the patient’s tracheal anatomy was only discovered after CPR had been performed and as part of the workup for cardiac arrest. Iatrogenic injuries are known to occur during CPR. Common CPR-related airway injuries include tracheal mucosal injury from traumatic intubation and bony injuries to the chest wall from compressions.¹¹ Laryngeal cartilage damage from intubation may also occur, but tracheal displacement following CPR has not been previously reported.¹¹

This case of tracheal deviation is unlikely to be related to patient positioning, as the A-P deviation persisted in 3 separate head and neck alignments. First, during indirect laryngoscopy, performed in a standard sniffing position. Second, during the CT, performed in the supine position, with no head support. The acute A-P deviation seen in Figure 2 was clearly noted in this position. Lastly, flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy was performed in a semiupright position with the head supported on a pillow. A-P deviation was encountered and navigated in this position during flexible fiber-optic guided ETT repositioning. 

Using magnetic resonance imaging, alterations in the alignment of pharyngeal and tracheal axes have been described with changes in neck positioning; however, tracheal deviation has not been described with changes in head and neck alignment.¹² Although the clinical presentation in this case was consistent with prior reports, we were unable to identify any previously reported anatomic cause for the tracheal deviation.^5,6,8 Initial glottic visualization with a video laryngoscope was unremarkable, but resistance to sufficient ETT advancement past the vocal cords and a persistent air leak due to cuff herniation through the glottic opening was noticeable. The ETT was maneuvered to an appropriate position in the trachea using a flexible fiber-optic bronchoscope. The acute angulation of the trachea that was appreciated on bronchoscopy did not result in kinking of the ETT both initially and after in-situ thermosoftening of the polyvinyl chloride tube.¹³ Previously reported instances of A-P tracheal deviation have outlined the necessity of using alternative techniques to establish a patent airway, including the use of a laryngeal mask airway and a cuffless ETT with saline-soaked gauze packing.^5,8 In 1 reported case, awake fiber-optic intubation was performed when difficult tracheal intubation was anticipated due to known A-P tracheal deviation.⁶

Failure of ETT advancement can be due to obstruction from the arytenoids and at the level of the vocal cords.¹⁴ When the ETT has been visualized to have traversed the vocal cords, tracheal A-P deviation should be considered as a cause of difficult ETT advancement. If an adequate endotracheal airway cannot be established, prompt consideration should be given to placement of a supraglottic airway. Early fiber-optic bronchoscopy should be used to establish the diagnosis and assist with proper ETT positioning.

Conclusions

This case illustrates the rare occurrence of A-P tracheal deviation leading to difficult intubation during CPR. The findings underscore the importance of considering A-P deviation as a potential cause of airway complications in emergency settings, especially in patients with previously normal tracheal anatomy. The successful use of flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy in this case provides a valuable technique for addressing acute tracheal angulation. This report contributes to the limited literature on A-P tracheal deviation and serves as a reminder for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for unusual airway challenges during critical interventions.

Tracheal deviation mostly occurs from mechanical compression of the trachea, and can be caused by a variety of clinical conditions, including trauma,¹ pharyngeal abscess,² neck hematoma,³ thyroid enlargement,⁴ and kyphoscoliosis.⁵ These conditions often result in lateral tracheal deviation, which can be associated with tracheal compression and reduction in tracheal caliber.

Anterior-posterior (A-P) tracheal deviation has rarely been reported. Kyphoscoliosis, scarring after a tracheostomy, or innominate vein compression are probable causes of A-P tracheal deviation and can be associated with tracheal narrowing and vascular fistula formation. This report describes a case of difficult endotracheal tube (ETT) advancement secondary to unexpected acute posterior tracheal deviation encountered during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). A waiver of patient consent was obtained from the Human Research Protection Program at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System.

Case Presentation

A 50-year-old male with a history of chronic cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and taking enoxaparin, presented to the emergency department for recurrent headaches. He experienced sudden cardiac arrest, and CPR in the form of chest compression and bag mask ventilation was immediately initiated. With the patient's head in an extended position and using a video laryngoscope, a Cormack–Lehane grade 1 view of the glottic opening was obtained and the trachea was intubated with an 8 mm (internal diameter) polyvinyl chloride ETT. Tracheal intubation was confirmed by utilizing continuous EtCO₂ monitoring. The ETT was secured at 22 cm measured at the teeth.

After about 40 minutes of CPR, spontaneous circulation restarted and a portable A-P chest X-ray with the head in a neutral position indicated the ETT tip was at the level of the first rib (Figure 1). This finding, along with a persistent air leak, prompted blind advancement of the ETT to 26 cm at the teeth, but resistance to advancement was noted. A subsequent chest computed tomography (CT) with the head in a neutral position revealed the ETT remained inappropriately positioned with the tip measured 8.2 cm above the carina (Figure 2A). Concurrently, a sagittal CT view demonstrated significant posterior deviation of the mid and lower trachea. This deviation was determined to be the most likely cause of the difficulty encountered in advancing the ETT. No masses or lesions contributing to the acute tracheal angulation could be identified. Comparing CT imaging from 2 months prior, the trachea was of normal caliber and ordinarily aligned with the vertebral column (Figure 2B).

With the patient in Fowler position with the head midline, a flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy was performed. Acute, almost 90-degree tracheal angulation was encountered and navigated by retroflexion of the flexible bronchoscope. Once the posterior tracheal wall was encountered, retroflexion was relaxed and the carina was visualized. The bronchoscope tip was placed near the carina, and the ETT was advanced over the fiber-optic bronchoscope to terminate 3 cm above the carina. A subsequent chest X-ray confirmed appropriate ETT position (Figure 3).

Discussion

Tracheal deviation in the A-P dimension resulting in difficult tracheal intubation has rarely been reported. Previous reports have described anatomical lesions contributing to similar tracheal deviation, such as retro-tracheal thyroid tissue, pronounced cervical lordosis, and severe kyphoscoliosis with destructive cervical fusion.^5-8 In a study of the anatomical correlation of double lumen tube placement while using positron emission tomography CT, Cameron et al evaluated the size and angulation of the glottis and proximal trachea using calibrated CT measurements and an online digital protractor and note nearly perfect alignment of the pharynx and glottis.⁹ However, the trachea turned posteriorly relative to the glottis, resulting in an overall posterior angle of the proximal trachea compared to the glottis of 30.4 to 50.1 degrees, with no sex differences. The need to maneuver similar proximal tracheal angulation during endotracheal intubation has been reported as a cause of difficult intubation.¹⁰

In this case, the posterior angulation was not encountered in the proximal trachea but rather in the more distal trachea. The extreme A-P tracheal deviation was not associated with any identifiable masses or lesions. A CT performed 2 months prior demonstrated normal tracheal anatomy, and there was no interval history of neck trauma or tracheal obstruction suggestive of a likely cause for this deviation. This change in the patient’s tracheal anatomy was only discovered after CPR had been performed and as part of the workup for cardiac arrest. Iatrogenic injuries are known to occur during CPR. Common CPR-related airway injuries include tracheal mucosal injury from traumatic intubation and bony injuries to the chest wall from compressions.¹¹ Laryngeal cartilage damage from intubation may also occur, but tracheal displacement following CPR has not been previously reported.¹¹

This case of tracheal deviation is unlikely to be related to patient positioning, as the A-P deviation persisted in 3 separate head and neck alignments. First, during indirect laryngoscopy, performed in a standard sniffing position. Second, during the CT, performed in the supine position, with no head support. The acute A-P deviation seen in Figure 2 was clearly noted in this position. Lastly, flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy was performed in a semiupright position with the head supported on a pillow. A-P deviation was encountered and navigated in this position during flexible fiber-optic guided ETT repositioning. 

Using magnetic resonance imaging, alterations in the alignment of pharyngeal and tracheal axes have been described with changes in neck positioning; however, tracheal deviation has not been described with changes in head and neck alignment.¹² Although the clinical presentation in this case was consistent with prior reports, we were unable to identify any previously reported anatomic cause for the tracheal deviation.^5,6,8 Initial glottic visualization with a video laryngoscope was unremarkable, but resistance to sufficient ETT advancement past the vocal cords and a persistent air leak due to cuff herniation through the glottic opening was noticeable. The ETT was maneuvered to an appropriate position in the trachea using a flexible fiber-optic bronchoscope. The acute angulation of the trachea that was appreciated on bronchoscopy did not result in kinking of the ETT both initially and after in-situ thermosoftening of the polyvinyl chloride tube.¹³ Previously reported instances of A-P tracheal deviation have outlined the necessity of using alternative techniques to establish a patent airway, including the use of a laryngeal mask airway and a cuffless ETT with saline-soaked gauze packing.^5,8 In 1 reported case, awake fiber-optic intubation was performed when difficult tracheal intubation was anticipated due to known A-P tracheal deviation.⁶

Failure of ETT advancement can be due to obstruction from the arytenoids and at the level of the vocal cords.¹⁴ When the ETT has been visualized to have traversed the vocal cords, tracheal A-P deviation should be considered as a cause of difficult ETT advancement. If an adequate endotracheal airway cannot be established, prompt consideration should be given to placement of a supraglottic airway. Early fiber-optic bronchoscopy should be used to establish the diagnosis and assist with proper ETT positioning.

Conclusions

This case illustrates the rare occurrence of A-P tracheal deviation leading to difficult intubation during CPR. The findings underscore the importance of considering A-P deviation as a potential cause of airway complications in emergency settings, especially in patients with previously normal tracheal anatomy. The successful use of flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy in this case provides a valuable technique for addressing acute tracheal angulation. This report contributes to the limited literature on A-P tracheal deviation and serves as a reminder for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for unusual airway challenges during critical interventions.

Tracheal deviation mostly occurs from mechanical compression of the trachea, and can be caused by a variety of clinical conditions, including trauma,¹ pharyngeal abscess,² neck hematoma,³ thyroid enlargement,⁴ and kyphoscoliosis.⁵ These conditions often result in lateral tracheal deviation, which can be associated with tracheal compression and reduction in tracheal caliber.

Anterior-posterior (A-P) tracheal deviation has rarely been reported. Kyphoscoliosis, scarring after a tracheostomy, or innominate vein compression are probable causes of A-P tracheal deviation and can be associated with tracheal narrowing and vascular fistula formation. This report describes a case of difficult endotracheal tube (ETT) advancement secondary to unexpected acute posterior tracheal deviation encountered during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). A waiver of patient consent was obtained from the Human Research Protection Program at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System.

Case Presentation

A 50-year-old male with a history of chronic cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and taking enoxaparin, presented to the emergency department for recurrent headaches. He experienced sudden cardiac arrest, and CPR in the form of chest compression and bag mask ventilation was immediately initiated. With the patient's head in an extended position and using a video laryngoscope, a Cormack–Lehane grade 1 view of the glottic opening was obtained and the trachea was intubated with an 8 mm (internal diameter) polyvinyl chloride ETT. Tracheal intubation was confirmed by utilizing continuous EtCO₂ monitoring. The ETT was secured at 22 cm measured at the teeth.

After about 40 minutes of CPR, spontaneous circulation restarted and a portable A-P chest X-ray with the head in a neutral position indicated the ETT tip was at the level of the first rib (Figure 1). This finding, along with a persistent air leak, prompted blind advancement of the ETT to 26 cm at the teeth, but resistance to advancement was noted. A subsequent chest computed tomography (CT) with the head in a neutral position revealed the ETT remained inappropriately positioned with the tip measured 8.2 cm above the carina (Figure 2A). Concurrently, a sagittal CT view demonstrated significant posterior deviation of the mid and lower trachea. This deviation was determined to be the most likely cause of the difficulty encountered in advancing the ETT. No masses or lesions contributing to the acute tracheal angulation could be identified. Comparing CT imaging from 2 months prior, the trachea was of normal caliber and ordinarily aligned with the vertebral column (Figure 2B).

With the patient in Fowler position with the head midline, a flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy was performed. Acute, almost 90-degree tracheal angulation was encountered and navigated by retroflexion of the flexible bronchoscope. Once the posterior tracheal wall was encountered, retroflexion was relaxed and the carina was visualized. The bronchoscope tip was placed near the carina, and the ETT was advanced over the fiber-optic bronchoscope to terminate 3 cm above the carina. A subsequent chest X-ray confirmed appropriate ETT position (Figure 3).

Discussion

Tracheal deviation in the A-P dimension resulting in difficult tracheal intubation has rarely been reported. Previous reports have described anatomical lesions contributing to similar tracheal deviation, such as retro-tracheal thyroid tissue, pronounced cervical lordosis, and severe kyphoscoliosis with destructive cervical fusion.^5-8 In a study of the anatomical correlation of double lumen tube placement while using positron emission tomography CT, Cameron et al evaluated the size and angulation of the glottis and proximal trachea using calibrated CT measurements and an online digital protractor and note nearly perfect alignment of the pharynx and glottis.⁹ However, the trachea turned posteriorly relative to the glottis, resulting in an overall posterior angle of the proximal trachea compared to the glottis of 30.4 to 50.1 degrees, with no sex differences. The need to maneuver similar proximal tracheal angulation during endotracheal intubation has been reported as a cause of difficult intubation.¹⁰

In this case, the posterior angulation was not encountered in the proximal trachea but rather in the more distal trachea. The extreme A-P tracheal deviation was not associated with any identifiable masses or lesions. A CT performed 2 months prior demonstrated normal tracheal anatomy, and there was no interval history of neck trauma or tracheal obstruction suggestive of a likely cause for this deviation. This change in the patient’s tracheal anatomy was only discovered after CPR had been performed and as part of the workup for cardiac arrest. Iatrogenic injuries are known to occur during CPR. Common CPR-related airway injuries include tracheal mucosal injury from traumatic intubation and bony injuries to the chest wall from compressions.¹¹ Laryngeal cartilage damage from intubation may also occur, but tracheal displacement following CPR has not been previously reported.¹¹

This case of tracheal deviation is unlikely to be related to patient positioning, as the A-P deviation persisted in 3 separate head and neck alignments. First, during indirect laryngoscopy, performed in a standard sniffing position. Second, during the CT, performed in the supine position, with no head support. The acute A-P deviation seen in Figure 2 was clearly noted in this position. Lastly, flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy was performed in a semiupright position with the head supported on a pillow. A-P deviation was encountered and navigated in this position during flexible fiber-optic guided ETT repositioning. 

Using magnetic resonance imaging, alterations in the alignment of pharyngeal and tracheal axes have been described with changes in neck positioning; however, tracheal deviation has not been described with changes in head and neck alignment.¹² Although the clinical presentation in this case was consistent with prior reports, we were unable to identify any previously reported anatomic cause for the tracheal deviation.^5,6,8 Initial glottic visualization with a video laryngoscope was unremarkable, but resistance to sufficient ETT advancement past the vocal cords and a persistent air leak due to cuff herniation through the glottic opening was noticeable. The ETT was maneuvered to an appropriate position in the trachea using a flexible fiber-optic bronchoscope. The acute angulation of the trachea that was appreciated on bronchoscopy did not result in kinking of the ETT both initially and after in-situ thermosoftening of the polyvinyl chloride tube.¹³ Previously reported instances of A-P tracheal deviation have outlined the necessity of using alternative techniques to establish a patent airway, including the use of a laryngeal mask airway and a cuffless ETT with saline-soaked gauze packing.^5,8 In 1 reported case, awake fiber-optic intubation was performed when difficult tracheal intubation was anticipated due to known A-P tracheal deviation.⁶

Failure of ETT advancement can be due to obstruction from the arytenoids and at the level of the vocal cords.¹⁴ When the ETT has been visualized to have traversed the vocal cords, tracheal A-P deviation should be considered as a cause of difficult ETT advancement. If an adequate endotracheal airway cannot be established, prompt consideration should be given to placement of a supraglottic airway. Early fiber-optic bronchoscopy should be used to establish the diagnosis and assist with proper ETT positioning.

Conclusions

This case illustrates the rare occurrence of A-P tracheal deviation leading to difficult intubation during CPR. The findings underscore the importance of considering A-P deviation as a potential cause of airway complications in emergency settings, especially in patients with previously normal tracheal anatomy. The successful use of flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy in this case provides a valuable technique for addressing acute tracheal angulation. This report contributes to the limited literature on A-P tracheal deviation and serves as a reminder for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for unusual airway challenges during critical interventions.

The ongoing US government partial shutdown has unintended consequences for seniors and their doctors as most telehealth appointments are now no longer being covered by Medicare.

That's because without a budget deal, federal lawmakers did not renew some pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities allowing Medicare beneficiaries to have medical appointments with doctors over audio or video at home.

This policy was first put into place under the first Trump Administration in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previously, Medicare covered very limited telehealth services for rural patients.

For the past 5 years, lawmakers have always managed to renew the telehealth flexibilities in every government funding bill before the expiration date. This year, however, they expired for the first time on October 1.

Federal lawmakers remain at odds on the 2026 federal funding bill, meaning the shutdown could last into more days and even weeks.

But with Congress in a standoff, clinicians and patients outside Washington, DC, are already grappling with the consequences of the funding impasse.

Clinicians, Patients Already Feeling Effects

For the South Dakota-based Sanford Health System, which is the largest rural health system in the country, the past week without the Medicare telehealth waivers being in place has caused a lot of anxiety and uncertainty for both patients and clinicians.

Dave Newman, an endocrinologist and chief medical officer of virtual care at Sanford, said the health system decided to keep providing Medicare telehealth appointments to patients for now.

"We're maintaining telehealth access because we know that's the best thing for our patients. We've got full confidence that reimbursement will follow, but patients can't wait for Congress to act at this point," Newman told Medscape Medical News. "They still need access to their specialists. They still need access to their primary care providers, and this is one of the only ways that a lot of our patients get access. For them, it's either virtual care or no care at all."

Newman said as the shutdown continues, Sanford may reconsidered whether it can keep providing these appointments without reimbursement.

Some health systems have stopped providing an Medicare telehealth appointments, said Alexis Apple, director of federal affairs at the American Telemedicine Association. That means patients must appear in person for their doctor's appointment or cancel.

NYU Langone Health system's website currently has a banner that reads: "Due to the federal government shutdown, Medicare and Medicaid patients are unable to schedule new telehealth/video visits. If you already have a visit scheduled, it will continue as planned. If not, contact your doctor's office to schedule an in-person appointment.

"It's creating lots of confusion in the industry from patients, providers, hospital systems. You know, what do we do next? How do we grapple with this shutdown?" said Apple. "Patients have been able to receive care within their homes over the past 5 years, and now, all of a sudden, they've been stripped of that access."

Medicare patients who continue telehealth after October 1 may find out they're on the hook for the bill, if Congress doesn't act, said Apple.

Some physicians worry that commercial insurance payers may follow suit and no longer cover virtual appointments. Medicare, which is the largest health care payer in the country, is often seen as the standard for what services should be covered.

Patients and doctors have come to rely on telehealth as an integral part of health care, said Richard Chou, an anesthesiologist at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Sacramento, California.

"You're seeing that postpandemic, telehealth is kind of a new way of doing things. It's part of the day for us as doctors," said Chou. He said tha tmany of his VA patients do their preliminary surgery appointments via telehealth before coming into the facility.

"Telehealth is that bridge to making sure patients get the care they need, and when these patients don't get that preliminary care they need, this builds up and builds up," said Chou. "And next thing you know, you have people flooding the emergency rooms, and we can't have that."

Will Telehealth Reimbursement See a Permanent Fix?

With Congressional budget negotiations at an impasse, it remains unclear when the shutdown will end.

Health care spending disagreements weigh heavily in negotiations. Democrats are currently unwilling to give the votes to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate unless Republicans agree to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year. Democrats also want to reverse the Medicaid cuts that were part of the large Republican domestic tax and spending bill passed by Congress earlier this year.

When lawmakers do reach an agreement and reopen the government, it's likely telehealth flexibilities will be included in any package but for how long remains in question.

A newly introduced bipartisan bill would permanently allow Medicare patients to access telehealth appointments in their homes. But the legislation has been estimated to be very costly.

Federal data does show that telehealth appointments have been popular with Medicare recipients and increased over time since telehealth became more accessible.

"I used to say that virtual care was the future of medicine, and now it's just kind of the present of medicine. It used to be like a cool technology that we used to advertise, now it's just the standard of care," said Newman. "We think that permanent coverage would mean stability for both patients and providers."

Victoria Knight is a freelance reporter based in Washington, DC.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ongoing US government partial shutdown has unintended consequences for seniors and their doctors as most telehealth appointments are now no longer being covered by Medicare.

That's because without a budget deal, federal lawmakers did not renew some pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities allowing Medicare beneficiaries to have medical appointments with doctors over audio or video at home.

This policy was first put into place under the first Trump Administration in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previously, Medicare covered very limited telehealth services for rural patients.

For the past 5 years, lawmakers have always managed to renew the telehealth flexibilities in every government funding bill before the expiration date. This year, however, they expired for the first time on October 1.

Federal lawmakers remain at odds on the 2026 federal funding bill, meaning the shutdown could last into more days and even weeks.

But with Congress in a standoff, clinicians and patients outside Washington, DC, are already grappling with the consequences of the funding impasse.

Clinicians, Patients Already Feeling Effects

For the South Dakota-based Sanford Health System, which is the largest rural health system in the country, the past week without the Medicare telehealth waivers being in place has caused a lot of anxiety and uncertainty for both patients and clinicians.

Dave Newman, an endocrinologist and chief medical officer of virtual care at Sanford, said the health system decided to keep providing Medicare telehealth appointments to patients for now.

"We're maintaining telehealth access because we know that's the best thing for our patients. We've got full confidence that reimbursement will follow, but patients can't wait for Congress to act at this point," Newman told Medscape Medical News. "They still need access to their specialists. They still need access to their primary care providers, and this is one of the only ways that a lot of our patients get access. For them, it's either virtual care or no care at all."

Newman said as the shutdown continues, Sanford may reconsidered whether it can keep providing these appointments without reimbursement.

Some health systems have stopped providing an Medicare telehealth appointments, said Alexis Apple, director of federal affairs at the American Telemedicine Association. That means patients must appear in person for their doctor's appointment or cancel.

NYU Langone Health system's website currently has a banner that reads: "Due to the federal government shutdown, Medicare and Medicaid patients are unable to schedule new telehealth/video visits. If you already have a visit scheduled, it will continue as planned. If not, contact your doctor's office to schedule an in-person appointment.

"It's creating lots of confusion in the industry from patients, providers, hospital systems. You know, what do we do next? How do we grapple with this shutdown?" said Apple. "Patients have been able to receive care within their homes over the past 5 years, and now, all of a sudden, they've been stripped of that access."

Medicare patients who continue telehealth after October 1 may find out they're on the hook for the bill, if Congress doesn't act, said Apple.

Some physicians worry that commercial insurance payers may follow suit and no longer cover virtual appointments. Medicare, which is the largest health care payer in the country, is often seen as the standard for what services should be covered.

Patients and doctors have come to rely on telehealth as an integral part of health care, said Richard Chou, an anesthesiologist at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Sacramento, California.

"You're seeing that postpandemic, telehealth is kind of a new way of doing things. It's part of the day for us as doctors," said Chou. He said tha tmany of his VA patients do their preliminary surgery appointments via telehealth before coming into the facility.

"Telehealth is that bridge to making sure patients get the care they need, and when these patients don't get that preliminary care they need, this builds up and builds up," said Chou. "And next thing you know, you have people flooding the emergency rooms, and we can't have that."

Will Telehealth Reimbursement See a Permanent Fix?

With Congressional budget negotiations at an impasse, it remains unclear when the shutdown will end.

Health care spending disagreements weigh heavily in negotiations. Democrats are currently unwilling to give the votes to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate unless Republicans agree to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year. Democrats also want to reverse the Medicaid cuts that were part of the large Republican domestic tax and spending bill passed by Congress earlier this year.

When lawmakers do reach an agreement and reopen the government, it's likely telehealth flexibilities will be included in any package but for how long remains in question.

A newly introduced bipartisan bill would permanently allow Medicare patients to access telehealth appointments in their homes. But the legislation has been estimated to be very costly.

Federal data does show that telehealth appointments have been popular with Medicare recipients and increased over time since telehealth became more accessible.

"I used to say that virtual care was the future of medicine, and now it's just kind of the present of medicine. It used to be like a cool technology that we used to advertise, now it's just the standard of care," said Newman. "We think that permanent coverage would mean stability for both patients and providers."

Victoria Knight is a freelance reporter based in Washington, DC.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ongoing US government partial shutdown has unintended consequences for seniors and their doctors as most telehealth appointments are now no longer being covered by Medicare.

That's because without a budget deal, federal lawmakers did not renew some pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities allowing Medicare beneficiaries to have medical appointments with doctors over audio or video at home.

This policy was first put into place under the first Trump Administration in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previously, Medicare covered very limited telehealth services for rural patients.

For the past 5 years, lawmakers have always managed to renew the telehealth flexibilities in every government funding bill before the expiration date. This year, however, they expired for the first time on October 1.

Federal lawmakers remain at odds on the 2026 federal funding bill, meaning the shutdown could last into more days and even weeks.

But with Congress in a standoff, clinicians and patients outside Washington, DC, are already grappling with the consequences of the funding impasse.

Clinicians, Patients Already Feeling Effects

For the South Dakota-based Sanford Health System, which is the largest rural health system in the country, the past week without the Medicare telehealth waivers being in place has caused a lot of anxiety and uncertainty for both patients and clinicians.

Dave Newman, an endocrinologist and chief medical officer of virtual care at Sanford, said the health system decided to keep providing Medicare telehealth appointments to patients for now.

"We're maintaining telehealth access because we know that's the best thing for our patients. We've got full confidence that reimbursement will follow, but patients can't wait for Congress to act at this point," Newman told Medscape Medical News. "They still need access to their specialists. They still need access to their primary care providers, and this is one of the only ways that a lot of our patients get access. For them, it's either virtual care or no care at all."

Newman said as the shutdown continues, Sanford may reconsidered whether it can keep providing these appointments without reimbursement.

Some health systems have stopped providing an Medicare telehealth appointments, said Alexis Apple, director of federal affairs at the American Telemedicine Association. That means patients must appear in person for their doctor's appointment or cancel.

NYU Langone Health system's website currently has a banner that reads: "Due to the federal government shutdown, Medicare and Medicaid patients are unable to schedule new telehealth/video visits. If you already have a visit scheduled, it will continue as planned. If not, contact your doctor's office to schedule an in-person appointment.

"It's creating lots of confusion in the industry from patients, providers, hospital systems. You know, what do we do next? How do we grapple with this shutdown?" said Apple. "Patients have been able to receive care within their homes over the past 5 years, and now, all of a sudden, they've been stripped of that access."

Medicare patients who continue telehealth after October 1 may find out they're on the hook for the bill, if Congress doesn't act, said Apple.

Some physicians worry that commercial insurance payers may follow suit and no longer cover virtual appointments. Medicare, which is the largest health care payer in the country, is often seen as the standard for what services should be covered.

Patients and doctors have come to rely on telehealth as an integral part of health care, said Richard Chou, an anesthesiologist at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Sacramento, California.

"You're seeing that postpandemic, telehealth is kind of a new way of doing things. It's part of the day for us as doctors," said Chou. He said tha tmany of his VA patients do their preliminary surgery appointments via telehealth before coming into the facility.

"Telehealth is that bridge to making sure patients get the care they need, and when these patients don't get that preliminary care they need, this builds up and builds up," said Chou. "And next thing you know, you have people flooding the emergency rooms, and we can't have that."

Will Telehealth Reimbursement See a Permanent Fix?

With Congressional budget negotiations at an impasse, it remains unclear when the shutdown will end.

Health care spending disagreements weigh heavily in negotiations. Democrats are currently unwilling to give the votes to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate unless Republicans agree to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year. Democrats also want to reverse the Medicaid cuts that were part of the large Republican domestic tax and spending bill passed by Congress earlier this year.

When lawmakers do reach an agreement and reopen the government, it's likely telehealth flexibilities will be included in any package but for how long remains in question.

A newly introduced bipartisan bill would permanently allow Medicare patients to access telehealth appointments in their homes. But the legislation has been estimated to be very costly.

Federal data does show that telehealth appointments have been popular with Medicare recipients and increased over time since telehealth became more accessible.

"I used to say that virtual care was the future of medicine, and now it's just kind of the present of medicine. It used to be like a cool technology that we used to advertise, now it's just the standard of care," said Newman. "We think that permanent coverage would mean stability for both patients and providers."

Victoria Knight is a freelance reporter based in Washington, DC.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Tramadol, a commonly prescribed opioid often viewed as a safer option for chronic pain, provided limited pain relief while increasing the risk for serious adverse effects, results of a new analysis showed.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, investigators found that tramadol offered clinically insignificant pain relief, while doubling the likelihood of serious adverse events, most commonly cardiac complications.

"Given the limited analgesic benefits and increased risk of harm, tramadol use for chronic pain should be reconsidered," Jehad Ahmad Barakji, MD, of the Centre for Clinical Intervention Research at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark, told Medscape Medical News.

"Across different chronic pain conditions, tramadol's pain-relieving effect appears modest, and while some patients may experience relief, most will not gain substantial benefit," he added.

However, the researchers cautioned that the certainty of the evidence was low-to-moderate and that the quality of the underlying trials varied substantially.

The study was published on October 7 in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

Popularity Outpacing Proof

Tramadol, a dual-action opioid that modulates serotonin and norepinephrine pathways, has long been promoted as a middle-ground analgesic - less addictive than morphine but stronger than nonopioid medications. It is approved for moderate-to-severe pain, including postoperative and chronic conditions.

Prescriptions have risen sharply worldwide, fueled by perceptions of safety and a belief that tramadol carries a lower risk for dependence. A recent global analysis estimated that nearly 18% of adults have used tramadol in their lifetime, and > 80% of those users combined it with at least 1 other substance.

Despite its widespread use, evidence supporting tramadol's long-term effectiveness and safety in chronic pain has been limited and inconsistent. Previous research has largely focused on short-term or condition-specific outcomes, such as osteoarthritis or neuropathic pain, leaving uncertainty about the drug's overall risk-benefit profile.

Small Benefit, Big Risk

The current study is the first comprehensive systematic review to evaluate tramadol alone for chronic pain using both meta-analysis and trail sequential analysis, provided a broader view of efficacy and safety across pain types.

"We sought to fill this gap by evaluating the totality of evidence to guide clinical practice," Barakji said.

The analysis included 19 randomized, placebo-controlled trials with 6569 adults. The average participant age was 56 years, and study durations ranged from 4 to 16 weeks. Pain intensity was typically assessed with the 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS), while function and quality of life were measured with validated patient-reported tools.

Across the pooled analysis, participants receiving tramadol experienced an average pain reduction of 0.9 points on the NRS compared with placebo - a difference below the 1-point threshold considered clinically meaningful. About 7% more patients in the tramadol groups achieved noticeable pain relief, but investigators said the benefit was modest and uncertain.

Serious adverse events were twice as common among tramadol users, most often involving cardiac complications such as chest pain, coronary artery disease, or heart failure. Nonserious adverse effects, including nausea, dizziness, constipation, and drowsiness, were frequent and contributed to higher discontinuation rates among tramadol recipients.

The researchers acknowledged that most included trials were at a high risk for bias due to incomplete outcome reporting, small sample sizes, and inconsistent assessment methods, factors that may have exaggerated benefits and underestimated harms.

Reevaluating Tramadol's Role

Commenting on the research, Jessica Otte, MD, clinical associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, said the new review stands out for examining tramadol's use across a range of chronic pain conditions, an area where clinicians often struggle to help patients achieve meaningful and sustained relief.

Otte, who has studied the drug's safety and effectiveness through The University of British Columbia's Therapeutics Initiative, said the Danish team's analysis expands on earlier research that largely focused on single pain conditions. The findings, she said, add weight to growing evidence that challenges tramadol's perceived advantages over other analgesics.

"This review doesn't change the narrative but strengthens it: Tramdol's reputation as a safer or uniquely effective opioid is increasingly difficult to defend," she told Medscape Medical News.

While she believes the study makes an important contribution, Otte said the results should be interpreted with caution because of gaps in the underlying evidence. The Danish authors noted similar concerns, and Otte agreed that many of the included trials had methodological shortcomings.

"A lot of the studies had biases that made use less certain about what was reported," she said. "Many outcomes that matter to patients - like quality of life, functional improvement, or withdrawal - were either inconsistently measured or not reported at all."

She added that patients assigned to tramadol were more likely to discontinue early, both overall and because of adverse effects, raising concern about tolerability and attrition bias.

Also commenting, Houman Danesh, MD, professor and medical director of pain management at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said the review provides moderate-certainty evidence that tramadol increases the risk for serious adverse events; but its broad approach - evaluating efficacy and safety across multiple chronic pain conditions - could be a confounding factor.

"Tramadol may benefit some conditions more than others," he noted, which could alter the overall risk-benefit profile.

In his clinical experience, Danesh said severe complications such as cardiac events are uncommon. He explained that heart rhythm disturbances occasionally associated with tramadol generally arise when patients are taking other medications that affect cardiac conduction.

Danesh emphasized that clinicians should weigh the study alongside other research and their own experience when deciding whether to prescribe the drug.

"It's important to take this study into consideration," he said, "but there are multiple studies that support the use of tramadol, and we have to look at the totality of the evidence."

Written by Carla Cantor.

The authors declared no competing interests and received no specific grant from any funding agency. Otte and Danesh reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Tramadol, a commonly prescribed opioid often viewed as a safer option for chronic pain, provided limited pain relief while increasing the risk for serious adverse effects, results of a new analysis showed.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, investigators found that tramadol offered clinically insignificant pain relief, while doubling the likelihood of serious adverse events, most commonly cardiac complications.

"Given the limited analgesic benefits and increased risk of harm, tramadol use for chronic pain should be reconsidered," Jehad Ahmad Barakji, MD, of the Centre for Clinical Intervention Research at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark, told Medscape Medical News.

"Across different chronic pain conditions, tramadol's pain-relieving effect appears modest, and while some patients may experience relief, most will not gain substantial benefit," he added.

However, the researchers cautioned that the certainty of the evidence was low-to-moderate and that the quality of the underlying trials varied substantially.

The study was published on October 7 in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

Popularity Outpacing Proof

Tramadol, a dual-action opioid that modulates serotonin and norepinephrine pathways, has long been promoted as a middle-ground analgesic - less addictive than morphine but stronger than nonopioid medications. It is approved for moderate-to-severe pain, including postoperative and chronic conditions.

Prescriptions have risen sharply worldwide, fueled by perceptions of safety and a belief that tramadol carries a lower risk for dependence. A recent global analysis estimated that nearly 18% of adults have used tramadol in their lifetime, and > 80% of those users combined it with at least 1 other substance.

Despite its widespread use, evidence supporting tramadol's long-term effectiveness and safety in chronic pain has been limited and inconsistent. Previous research has largely focused on short-term or condition-specific outcomes, such as osteoarthritis or neuropathic pain, leaving uncertainty about the drug's overall risk-benefit profile.

Small Benefit, Big Risk

The current study is the first comprehensive systematic review to evaluate tramadol alone for chronic pain using both meta-analysis and trail sequential analysis, provided a broader view of efficacy and safety across pain types.

"We sought to fill this gap by evaluating the totality of evidence to guide clinical practice," Barakji said.

The analysis included 19 randomized, placebo-controlled trials with 6569 adults. The average participant age was 56 years, and study durations ranged from 4 to 16 weeks. Pain intensity was typically assessed with the 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS), while function and quality of life were measured with validated patient-reported tools.

Across the pooled analysis, participants receiving tramadol experienced an average pain reduction of 0.9 points on the NRS compared with placebo - a difference below the 1-point threshold considered clinically meaningful. About 7% more patients in the tramadol groups achieved noticeable pain relief, but investigators said the benefit was modest and uncertain.

Serious adverse events were twice as common among tramadol users, most often involving cardiac complications such as chest pain, coronary artery disease, or heart failure. Nonserious adverse effects, including nausea, dizziness, constipation, and drowsiness, were frequent and contributed to higher discontinuation rates among tramadol recipients.

The researchers acknowledged that most included trials were at a high risk for bias due to incomplete outcome reporting, small sample sizes, and inconsistent assessment methods, factors that may have exaggerated benefits and underestimated harms.

Reevaluating Tramadol's Role

Commenting on the research, Jessica Otte, MD, clinical associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, said the new review stands out for examining tramadol's use across a range of chronic pain conditions, an area where clinicians often struggle to help patients achieve meaningful and sustained relief.

Otte, who has studied the drug's safety and effectiveness through The University of British Columbia's Therapeutics Initiative, said the Danish team's analysis expands on earlier research that largely focused on single pain conditions. The findings, she said, add weight to growing evidence that challenges tramadol's perceived advantages over other analgesics.

"This review doesn't change the narrative but strengthens it: Tramdol's reputation as a safer or uniquely effective opioid is increasingly difficult to defend," she told Medscape Medical News.

While she believes the study makes an important contribution, Otte said the results should be interpreted with caution because of gaps in the underlying evidence. The Danish authors noted similar concerns, and Otte agreed that many of the included trials had methodological shortcomings.

"A lot of the studies had biases that made use less certain about what was reported," she said. "Many outcomes that matter to patients - like quality of life, functional improvement, or withdrawal - were either inconsistently measured or not reported at all."

She added that patients assigned to tramadol were more likely to discontinue early, both overall and because of adverse effects, raising concern about tolerability and attrition bias.

Also commenting, Houman Danesh, MD, professor and medical director of pain management at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said the review provides moderate-certainty evidence that tramadol increases the risk for serious adverse events; but its broad approach - evaluating efficacy and safety across multiple chronic pain conditions - could be a confounding factor.

"Tramadol may benefit some conditions more than others," he noted, which could alter the overall risk-benefit profile.

In his clinical experience, Danesh said severe complications such as cardiac events are uncommon. He explained that heart rhythm disturbances occasionally associated with tramadol generally arise when patients are taking other medications that affect cardiac conduction.

Danesh emphasized that clinicians should weigh the study alongside other research and their own experience when deciding whether to prescribe the drug.