Clinical and functional assessment in patients admitted with pluripathological dysphagia according to the mode of feeding: Through a gastrostomy tube or oral.

INTRODUCTION: Multipathological patients are a vulnerable population with high comorbidity, functional impairment, and nutritional risk. Almost 50% of these hospitalized patients have dysphagia. There is no consensus on whether placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube provides greater clinical benefit. The purpose of this study was to know and compare 2 groups of multipathological patients with dysphagia according to the mode of feeding: PEG vs. oral. METHOD: Retrospective descriptive study with hospitalized patients (2016-19), pluripathological, with dysphagia, nutritional risk, over 50 years with diagnoses of: dementia, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), neurological disease, or oropharyngeal neoplasia. Terminally ill patients with jejunostomy tube or parenteral nutrition were excluded. Sociodemographic variables, clinical situation, and comorbidities were evaluated. Bivariate analysis was performed to compare both groups according to their diet, establishing a significance level of p < .05. RESULTS: 1928 multipathological patients. The PEG group consisted of 84 patients (n122). A total of 84 were randomly selected to form the non-PEG group (n434). This group had less history of bronchoaspiration/pneumonia (p = .008), its main diagnosis was stroke versus dementia in the PEG group (p < .001). Both groups had more than a 45% risk of comorbidity (p = .77). CONCLUSIONS: multipathological patients with dysphagia with PEG usually have dementia as their main diagnosis, however, stroke is the most relevant pathology in those fed orally. Both groups have associated risk factors, high comorbidity, and dependence. This causes their vital prognosis to be limited regardless of the mode of feeding.

Quality of sedation with propofol administered by non-anesthetists in a digestive endoscopy unit: the results of a one year experience.

INTRODUCTION: research has shown that an endoscopist-nurse clinical team can perform sedation with propofol effectively, safely and efficiently. To do so, it is essential to provide specific and appropriate training in the necessary skills. The main aim of the present study was to evaluate the quality of the sedation procedure administered by non-anesthetists in a digestive endoscopy unit, one year after its introduction. METHODS: a prospective cohort study was performed in patients given propofol sedation by non-anesthetists. Subsequently, a random sample of clinical records was selected in order to evaluate the adherence of professionals to the quality criteria and to assess the rate of adverse events related to sedation. RESULTS: a total of 595 procedures were performed under propofol sedation during the study period. The rate of adverse events was 2.4% (n = 507), mainly involving hypotension and hypoxemia. Adherence to the sedation procedure was above 80% for most of the applicable criteria, although it was lower for the completion of ASA risk evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: the results of the study suggest that propofol can be administered safely and effectively by a qualified endoscopist-nurse team, in patients with an ASA I-II risk. Audits of adherence by medical staff to the recommended procedure facilitate the identification of areas for improvement; further work is needed on the aspects that have not yet been consolidated.