弗拉芒消化内科医生关于结直肠癌筛查中内镜镇静方法的调查。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.51821/86.4.12145
S Arnaert, V Vandebroek, D Persyn, M Cool, G Lambrecht, G Desmet, G Deboever
{"title":"弗拉芒消化内科医生关于结直肠癌筛查中内镜镇静方法的调查。","authors":"S Arnaert, V Vandebroek, D Persyn, M Cool, G Lambrecht, G Desmet, G Deboever","doi":"10.51821/86.4.12145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background & study aims: </strong>The sedation levels and methods used for colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening programs vary from country to country and from continent to continent. Little is known in the literature about how frequently the different sedation levels are used in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies. We made a survey among all Flemish gastroenterologists (GI) to determine how frequently they use the different sedation modalities in this target population and to determine the motives of the GI to opt for one or another sedation modality.</p><p><strong>Patient and methods: </strong>An online survey was sent to all 329 Flemish GI by e-mail. A reminder e-mail was sent one month later. Participants could indicate how frequently (by percentage) they used the different sedation methods (no sedation, minimal sedation, conscious sedation, deep sedation) and which sedative medication they administered. In addition, they were asked to indicate their main motives for choosing a specific sedation method. Descriptive statistics were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>112 out of 329 GI answered the questionnaire (response rate 34%). Anesthesia monitored care is the most frequently used sedation modality, followed by conscious sedation. Patient preference is the main motive for most GI to use each sedation modality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Anesthesia monitored care is currently the most frequently used sedation regimen to perform a colonoscopy in the FIT positive population or in the colorectal cancer screening program in Flanders. The motives given by the GI for choosing one or another sedation modality are not always congruent with current scientific evidence or guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":7322,"journal":{"name":"Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A survey among Flemish gastroenterologists about endoscopic sedation practices in colorectal cancer screening.\",\"authors\":\"S Arnaert, V Vandebroek, D Persyn, M Cool, G Lambrecht, G Desmet, G Deboever\",\"doi\":\"10.51821/86.4.12145\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background & study aims: </strong>The sedation levels and methods used for colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening programs vary from country to country and from continent to continent. Little is known in the literature about how frequently the different sedation levels are used in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies. We made a survey among all Flemish gastroenterologists (GI) to determine how frequently they use the different sedation modalities in this target population and to determine the motives of the GI to opt for one or another sedation modality.</p><p><strong>Patient and methods: </strong>An online survey was sent to all 329 Flemish GI by e-mail. A reminder e-mail was sent one month later. Participants could indicate how frequently (by percentage) they used the different sedation methods (no sedation, minimal sedation, conscious sedation, deep sedation) and which sedative medication they administered. In addition, they were asked to indicate their main motives for choosing a specific sedation method. Descriptive statistics were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>112 out of 329 GI answered the questionnaire (response rate 34%). Anesthesia monitored care is the most frequently used sedation modality, followed by conscious sedation. Patient preference is the main motive for most GI to use each sedation modality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Anesthesia monitored care is currently the most frequently used sedation regimen to perform a colonoscopy in the FIT positive population or in the colorectal cancer screening program in Flanders. The motives given by the GI for choosing one or another sedation modality are not always congruent with current scientific evidence or guidelines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.51821/86.4.12145\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51821/86.4.12145","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与研究目的:在结肠直肠癌筛查项目中,各国和各大洲在结肠镜检查中使用的镇静水平和方法各不相同。关于在结肠直肠癌筛查结肠镜检查中使用不同镇静水平的频率,文献中知之甚少。我们对佛兰德的所有胃肠病学家(GI)进行了一项调查,以确定他们在目标人群中使用不同镇静方式的频率,并确定胃肠病学家选择一种或另一种镇静方式的动机:通过电子邮件向所有 329 名佛兰德消化内科医生发送了一份在线调查问卷。一个月后又发送了一封提醒邮件。参与者可以指出他们使用不同镇静方法(无镇静、最小镇静、有意识镇静、深度镇静)的频率(百分比)以及他们使用的镇静药物。此外,还要求他们说明选择特定镇静方法的主要动机。调查采用了描述性统计方法:结果:329 名住院医生中有 112 人回答了问卷(回复率为 34%)。麻醉监测护理是最常用的镇静方式,其次是意识镇静。患者的偏好是大多数消化内科医生使用每种镇静方式的主要动机:结论:在佛兰德,麻醉监测护理是目前在 FIT 阳性人群或结肠直肠癌筛查项目中最常用的结肠镜检查镇静方案。消化内科医生选择这种或那种镇静方式的动机并不总是与当前的科学证据或指南相一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A survey among Flemish gastroenterologists about endoscopic sedation practices in colorectal cancer screening.

Background & study aims: The sedation levels and methods used for colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening programs vary from country to country and from continent to continent. Little is known in the literature about how frequently the different sedation levels are used in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies. We made a survey among all Flemish gastroenterologists (GI) to determine how frequently they use the different sedation modalities in this target population and to determine the motives of the GI to opt for one or another sedation modality.

Patient and methods: An online survey was sent to all 329 Flemish GI by e-mail. A reminder e-mail was sent one month later. Participants could indicate how frequently (by percentage) they used the different sedation methods (no sedation, minimal sedation, conscious sedation, deep sedation) and which sedative medication they administered. In addition, they were asked to indicate their main motives for choosing a specific sedation method. Descriptive statistics were used.

Results: 112 out of 329 GI answered the questionnaire (response rate 34%). Anesthesia monitored care is the most frequently used sedation modality, followed by conscious sedation. Patient preference is the main motive for most GI to use each sedation modality.

Conclusions: Anesthesia monitored care is currently the most frequently used sedation regimen to perform a colonoscopy in the FIT positive population or in the colorectal cancer screening program in Flanders. The motives given by the GI for choosing one or another sedation modality are not always congruent with current scientific evidence or guidelines.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica
Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica Medicine-Gastroenterology
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: The Journal Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica principally publishes peer-reviewed original manuscripts, reviews, letters to editors, book reviews and guidelines in the field of clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, including digestive oncology, digestive pathology, as well as nutrition. Pure animal or in vitro work will not be considered for publication in the Journal. Translational research papers (including sections of animal or in vitro work) are considered by the Journal if they have a clear relationship to or relevance for clinical hepato-gastroenterology (screening, disease mechanisms and/or new therapies). Case reports and clinical images will be accepted if they represent an important contribution to the description, the pathogenesis or the treatment of a specific gastroenterology or liver problem. The language of the Journal is English. Papers from any country will be considered for publication. Manuscripts submitted to the Journal should not have been published previously (in English or any other language), nor should they be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Unsolicited papers are peer-reviewed before it is decided whether they should be accepted, rejected, or returned for revision. Manuscripts that do not meet the presentation criteria (as indicated below) will be returned to the authors. Papers that go too far beyond the scope of the journal will be also returned to the authors by the editorial board generally within 2 weeks. The Journal reserves the right to edit the language of papers accepted for publication for clarity and correctness, and to make formal changes to ensure compliance with AGEB’s style. Authors have the opportunity to review such changes in the proofs.
期刊最新文献
A case of atypical rectal tumor in a 55-years-old man? A giant Brunner's gland hamartoma: a rare cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. An acute ileocolitis of unexpected origin. Belgian consensus guideline on the management of anal fissures. Bismuth-based quadruple therapy versus standard triple therapy for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori in Belgium: a multicentre, non-blinded randomized, prospective study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1