Tziatzios Georgios, Samonakis Dimitrios N, Tsionis Theocharis, Goulas Spyridon, Christodoulou Dimitrios, Triantafyllou Konstantinos
Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Attikon" University General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University Hospital of Heraklion, Crete, Greece.
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2020 Oct 5;2020:8701791. doi: 10.1155/2020/8701791. eCollection 2020.
To examine the impact of endoscopy setting (hospital-based vs. office-based) on sedation/analgesia administration and to provide nationwide data on monitoring practices among Greek gastroenterologists in real-world settings. . A web-based survey regarding sedation/analgesia rates and monitoring practices during endoscopy either in a hospital-based or in an office-based setting was disseminated to the members of the Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology and Professional Association of Gastroenterologists. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire, which consisted of 35 items, stratified into 4 sections: demographics, preprocedure (informed consent, initial patient evaluation), intraprocedure (monitoring practices, sedative agents' administration rate), and postprocedure practices (recovery).
211 individuals responded (response rate: 40.3%). Propofol use was significantly higher in the private hospital compared to the public hospital and the office-based setting for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (85.8% vs. 19.5% vs. 10.5%, < 0.0001) and colonoscopy (88.2% vs. 20.1% vs. 9.4%, < 0.0001). This effect was not detected for midazolam, pethidine, and fentanyl use. Endoscopists themselves administered the medications in most cases. However, a significant contribution of anesthesiology sedation/analgesia provision was detected in private hospitals (14.7% vs. 2.8% vs. 2.4%, < 0.001) compared to the other settings. Only 35.2% of the private offices have a separate recovery room, compared to 80.4% and 58.7% of the private hospital- and public hospital-based facilities, respectively, while the nursing personnel monitored patients' recovery in most of the cases. Participants were familiar with airway management techniques (83.9% with bag valve mask and 23.2% with endotracheal intubation), while 49.7% and 21.8% had received Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS) training, respectively.
The private hospital-based setting is associated with higher propofol sedation administration both for EGD and for colonoscopy. Greek endoscopists are adequately trained in airway management techniques.
探讨内镜检查环境(医院环境与门诊环境)对镇静/镇痛给药的影响,并提供希腊胃肠病学家在实际临床环境中监测实践的全国性数据。针对医院环境或门诊环境下内镜检查期间的镇静/镇痛率及监测实践开展了一项基于网络的调查,调查对象为希腊胃肠病学会和胃肠病学家专业协会的成员。参与者被要求填写一份包含35个条目的问卷,问卷分为4个部分:人口统计学信息、检查前(知情同意、患者初始评估)、检查中(监测实践、镇静剂给药率)以及检查后实践(恢复情况)。
211人做出回应(回应率:40.3%)。在私立医院,用于食管胃十二指肠镜检查(EGD)和结肠镜检查的丙泊酚使用率显著高于公立医院和门诊环境(EGD:85.8% 对19.5% 对10.5%,<0.0001;结肠镜检查:88.2% 对20.1% 对9.4%,<0.0001)。对于咪达唑仑、哌替啶和芬太尼的使用,未发现这种差异。在大多数情况下,内镜医师亲自给药。然而,与其他环境相比,私立医院麻醉科提供镇静/镇痛的比例显著更高(14.7% 对2.8% 对2.4%,<0.001)。只有35.2%的私立门诊设有独立的恢复室,相比之下,私立医院和公立医院设施中这一比例分别为80.4%和58.7%,并且在大多数情况下由护理人员监测患者的恢复情况。参与者熟悉气道管理技术(83.9%熟悉袋阀面罩,23.2%熟悉气管插管),同时分别有49.7%和21.8%的人接受过基础生命支持(BLS)和高级生命支持(ALS)培训。
私立医院环境下EGD和结肠镜检查的丙泊酚镇静给药率更高。希腊内镜医师在气道管理技术方面接受了充分的培训。