BACKGROUND & Goals We targeted to quantify the difference in complications from colonoscopy with vs without anesthesia solutions. (ie pneumonia illness complications secondary to anesthesia) and cardiopulmonary results (ie hypotension Dp-1 myocardial infarction stroke) modified for age sex polypectomy status Charlson comorbidity score region and calendar year. RESULTS Nationwide 34.4% of colonoscopies were conducted with anesthesia services. Rates of use varied significantly by region (53% in the Northeast vs 8% Mangiferin in the Western; < .0001). Use of anesthesia services was associated with a Mangiferin 13% increase in the risk of any complication within 30 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12 and was associated specifically with an increased risk of perforation (odds percentage [OR] 1.07 95 CI 1 hemorrhage (OR 1.28 95 CI 1.27 abdominal pain (OR 1.07 95 CI 1.05 complications secondary to anesthesia (OR 1.15 95 CI 1.05 and stroke (OR 1.04 95 CI 1 For most outcomes there have been no differences in risk with anesthesia providers by polypectomy position. However the threat of perforation connected with anesthesia providers was elevated only in sufferers using a polypectomy (OR 1.26 95 CI 1.09 In the Northeast usage of anesthesia services was connected with a 12% upsurge in threat of any complication; among colonoscopies performed in the Western world usage of anesthesia providers was connected with a 60% upsurge in risk. CONCLUSIONS The entire risk of problems after colonoscopy boosts when individuals obtain anesthesia providers. The popular adoption of anesthesia providers with colonoscopy is highly recommended inside the context of most potential dangers. < .0001) and period. In all parts of america the prevalence of promises for anesthesia providers using a colonoscopy elevated from 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 (Amount 1). The usage of anesthesia providers was highest in Florida raising from 73.5% of colonoscopies in 2008-2009 to 79.3% of colonoscopies in 2010-2011. On the other hand the usage of anesthesia Mangiferin providers was minimum in Washington where just 3.7% of colonoscopies were performed with anesthesia companies in 2008-2009 to a nearly 5-fold increase to 15.4% of colonoscopies in 2010-2011. Amount 1 Prevalence of anesthesia providers in the 50 US state governments in (= .02). Our results did not confirm the results from Cooper et al 8 who examined complications using SEER-Medicare data an older population with more comorbid conditions than our own more youthful population. It is possible that we were unable to detect these complications because they are rare in a more youthful human population. We included cardiovascular results in our analysis and did not expect to find differences in risk of these rare conditions for Mangiferin individuals with and without anesthesia solutions. However we recognized a slightly higher risk of stroke and additional central nervous system events overall with receipt of anesthesia solutions adjusting for a number of confounders. Further studies are needed to evaluate the risk of stroke associated with use of propofol for colonoscopy. In particular it is important to rule out potential confounding caused by use of anesthesia solutions in select high-risk individuals before attributing the stroke risk to propofol. By region we showed that use of anesthesia solutions was associated with higher overall risks except for the Southeast region. The Southeast region has the second highest rate of use of anesthesia solutions with colonoscopy and these findings suggest that there may be residual confounding by comorbidity status. That is anesthesia solutions may be offered more widely to all individuals in the Southeast region compared with more selected use of anesthesia solutions in other areas. Our analyses modified for comorbidity using the Charlson score and when we describe comorbid status by region we did not find systematic variations in patient characteristics by anesthesia solutions across areas. In SEER-Medicare data Khiani et al4 identified that increasing comorbid associations was connected modestly (modified OR 1.15 with increased use of an anesthesiologist with screening colonoscopy. Our study used a large national claims-based analyses of colonoscopies in US covered adults aged 40-64 years. However our results are not without limitations. First our.