STUDY DESIGN: Prospective comparative study. PURPOSE: To compare the incidence and severity of adverse reactions associated with myelography performed in outpatients vs. in inpatients and report the safety and usefulness of outpatient myelography in Japanese patients. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Myelography is normally performed as an inpatient procedure in most hospitals in Japan. No studies have reported the usefulness and adverse effects of outpatient myelography in Japanese patients. METHODS: We performed 221 myelography procedures. Eighty-five of the 221 patients underwent outpatient myelography using our new protocol. The incidence and severity of adverse reactions were compared with the other 136 patients, who underwent conventional inpatient myelography. We further compared the cost of outpatient and inpatient myelography. RESULTS: The overall rate of adverse effects was 9.4% in outpatients, as compared with 7.4% in inpatients. Overall, 1.2% of outpatients and 0.74% inpatients experienced "severe" adverse effects (requiring hospitalization). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in either the overall rate of adverse effects or the rate of "severe" adverse effects. Moreover, the average outpatient procedure cost was only one-third to one-half that of the inpatient procedure. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study to address the safety and usefulness of outpatient myelography in Japanese patients. If selected according to proper inclusion criteria for outpatient procedure, no significant differences were observed in the adverse effects between inpatients and outpatients. The outpatient procedure is more economical and has the added benefit of being more convenient and time-efficient for the patient.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Health Care Costs ; Humans ; Incidence ; Inpatients* ; Japan* ; Myelography* ; Outpatients* ; Prospective Studies*

Background/Aims: Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Western countries, although it is selectively administered to high-risk patients in East Asia. A central venous catheter (CVC) is commonly placed in patients with IBD. Although CVC placement is considered a risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE), the degree of increased risk in patients with IBD is uncertain. This study aimed to identify the risk of VTE with CVC placement in hospitalized Japanese patients with IBD without thromboprophylaxis. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease who were admitted for disease flares at Keio University Hospital between January 2016 and December 2020. Patients who already had thrombosis or were administered any antithrombotic treatment on admission were excluded. VTE development during the hospitalization was surveyed, and VTE risk associated with CVC indwelling was estimated using propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses. Results: Altogether, 497 hospitalized patients with IBD (ulcerative colitis, 327; Crohn’s disease, 170) were enrolled. VTE developed in 9.30% (12/129) of catheterized patients and in 0.82% (3/368) of non-catheterized patients. The propensity score matching yielded 127 matched pairs of patients. The catheterized group demonstrated higher odds for VTE than the non-catheterized group (odds ratio, 13.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.68–102.70). A similar result was obtained in the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis (odds ratio, 11.02; 95% confidence interval, 2.64–46.10). Conclusions CVC placement is a major risk factor for VTE among hospitalized Japanese patients with IBD without thromboprophylaxis.