Portocarrero Donald J, Che Kendrick, Olafsson Snorri, Walter Michael H, Jackson Christian S, Leung Felix W, Malamud Ariel
Gastroenterology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, United States.
J Interv Gastroenterol. 2012 Jan;2(1):20-22. doi: 10.4161/jig.20130. Epub 2012 Jan 1.
The water method decreases patient discomfort and sedation requirement. Applicability in non-veteran community settings in the United States (U.S.) has not been reported. AIMS: Our aim is to perform a pilot study to establish feasibility of use the water method at 2 community sites. We tested the hypothesis that compared with air insufflation patients examined with the water method would require less sedation without adverse impact on outcomes. METHODS: Two performance improvement projects were carried out. Consecutive patients who consented to respond to a questionnaire after colonoscopy were enrolled. Project 1: The design was single-blinded (patient only); quasi-randomized - odd days (water), even days (air). Colonoscopy was performed by a staff attending. Project 2: A supervised trainee performed the reported procedures. In both, patient demographics (age, gender and body mass index), amount of sedation required during colonoscopy and procedure-related variables were recorded. The patients completed a questionnaire that enquired about discomfort during colonoscopy and willingness to repeat the procedure within 24 hours after the procedure. RESULTS: Project 1: Significantly lower doses of fentanyl and midazolam were used and a higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) was demonstrated in the water group. Project 2: 100% cecal intubation rate was achieved by the supervised trainee. CONCLUSION: This is the first pilot report in the U.S. documenting feasibility of the water method as the principal modality to aid colonoscope insertion in both male and female community patients. In a head-to-head comparison, significant reduction of sedation requirement is confirmed as hypothesized. No adverse impact on outcomes was noted.
注水法可减轻患者不适并降低镇静需求。在美国非退伍军人社区环境中的适用性尚未见报道。目的:我们的目的是进行一项试点研究,以确定在两个社区地点使用注水法的可行性。我们检验了这样一个假设,即与空气注入相比,采用注水法检查的患者所需镇静剂更少,且对检查结果无不利影响。方法:开展了两个质量改进项目。纳入结肠镜检查后同意回答问卷的连续患者。项目1:设计为单盲(仅患者);准随机分组——奇数日(注水),偶数日(注气)。结肠镜检查由一名在职人员进行。项目2:由一名带教实习生进行所述操作。在这两个项目中,均记录患者的人口统计学特征(年龄、性别和体重指数)、结肠镜检查期间所需镇静剂的用量以及与操作相关的变量。患者在操作后24小时内完成一份问卷,询问结肠镜检查期间的不适情况以及是否愿意再次接受该操作。结果:项目1:注水组使用的芬太尼和咪达唑仑剂量显著更低,且腺瘤检出率(ADR)更高。项目2:带教实习生实现了100%的盲肠插管率。结论:这是美国首份记录注水法作为辅助男女社区患者插入结肠镜主要方式可行性的试点报告。在直接比较中,如假设的那样,证实镇静需求显著降低。未发现对检查结果有不利影响。