Wang Hong-Ling, Ye Fen, Liao Wen-Fei, Xia Bing, Zheng Guo-Rong
Department of Gastroenterology, the Research Center for Clinical Study of Intestinal & Colorectal Diseases of Hubei Province, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430071, China.
Department of Gastroenterology, Wuhan General Hospital, Guangzhou Military Command of China PLA, Wuhan, 430064, China.
J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 2013 Dec;33(6):857-861. doi: 10.1007/s11596-013-1211-y. Epub 2013 Dec 13.
National data show that in China mainland unsedated gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has been applied in most hospitals for clinical examination, while sedated GI endoscopy is only performed in some hospitals. The purpose of this study was to compare sedated versus unsedated GI endoscopy regarding cost, safety, degree of comfort, tolerance level and overall satisfaction of patients over a 6-month period investigation. From March to September 2011, a questionnaire survey was performed on 1800 patients and 30 physicians at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University and Wuhan General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command. The patients fell into two groups according to their own decisions: the unsedated group (n=1000) and the sedated group (n=800). After examination, the patients and the physicians were required to fill in a questionnaire form. All the data were analyzed statistically. The results showed that the main factors the patients took for consideration between sedated and unsedated procedures included economy, comfort and safety. The income levels between the sedated and unsedated groups showed significant difference (P<0.01). Most patients in the unsedated group had lower income and were covered by less medical insurance. The tolerance rate was 92.4% vs. 65.5% between the sedated and unsedated group, respectively. 95.5% patients in the sedated group and 72.1% patients in the unsedated group chose the same endoscopy procedure for repeat examination. The survey data from endoscopists suggested the sedated procedure was more comfortable but less safe than the unsedated procedure (P<0.01). In China, unsedated GI endoscopy is now widely accepted by the majority of patients due to low cost and safety. Compared to unsedated GI endoscopy, sedated GI endoscopy is less painful, but more expensive and less safe. With the rapid improvement of people's living standard and the reliability of sedation technology, we expect sedated GI endoscopy will be gradually accepted by more patients.
全国数据显示,在中国大陆,非镇静胃肠镜检查已在大多数医院用于临床检查,而镇静胃肠镜检查仅在部分医院开展。本研究的目的是在为期6个月的调查中,比较镇静与非镇静胃肠镜检查在费用、安全性、舒适度、耐受程度及患者总体满意度方面的差异。2011年3月至9月,对武汉大学中南医院和广州军区武汉总医院的1800例患者及30名医生进行了问卷调查。患者根据自身决定分为两组:非镇静组(n = 1000)和镇静组(n = 800)。检查后,要求患者和医生填写问卷表。所有数据进行统计学分析。结果显示,患者在镇静与非镇静检查之间考虑的主要因素包括费用、舒适度和安全性。镇静组与非镇静组的收入水平存在显著差异(P<0.01)。非镇静组的大多数患者收入较低,医保覆盖范围较小。镇静组与非镇静组的耐受率分别为92.4%和65.5%。镇静组95.5%的患者和非镇静组72.1%的患者选择相同的内镜检查方法进行复查。内镜医师的调查数据表明,镇静检查比非镇静检查更舒适,但安全性更低(P<0.01)。在中国,非镇静胃肠镜检查因其低成本和安全性,目前已被大多数患者广泛接受。与非镇静胃肠镜检查相比,镇静胃肠镜检查疼痛较轻,但费用更高且安全性更低。随着人们生活水平的快速提高和镇静技术的可靠性增强,我们预计镇静胃肠镜检查将逐渐被更多患者接受。