Impact of an Evidence-Based Prioritization System and Electronic Consultation in Early Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer.

(1) Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common causes of cancer. Timely diagnosis is critical, with even minor delays impacting prognosis. Primary care providers face obstacles in accessing specialist care. This study investigates the impact of implementing an electronic consultation (eConsult) system combined with a specific prioritization system on CRC diagnosis delay and tumor staging. (2) Methods: The study analyzes 245 CRC patients from November 2019 to February 2022, comparing those referred before and after the eConsult system's implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on referral reasons, pathways, diagnosis delays, and staging were collected. Multivariate analysis aimed to identify independent risk factors for advanced staging at diagnosis. (3) Results: The eConsult system significantly reduced CRC diagnosis delay from 68 to 26 days. The majority of patients referred via eConsult presented with symptoms. Despite expedited diagnoses, no discernible difference in CRC staging emerged between eConsult and traditional referrals. Notably, patients from screening programs or with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) experienced earlier-stage diagnoses. A positive FIT without symptoms and being a never-smoker emerged as protective factors against advanced-stage CRC. (4) Conclusions: This study highlights eConsult's role in reducing CRC diagnosis delay, improving diagnostic efficiency and prioritizing urgent cases, emphasizing FIT effectiveness.

Co-infección por linfogranuloma venéreo y Haemophilus parainfluenzae durante un episodio de proctitis / Co-infection by lymphogranuloma venereum and Haemophilus parainfluenzae during an episode of proctitis

No disponible

Gastroenterologist-guided sedation with propofol for endoscopic ultrasonography in average-risk and high-risk patients: a prospective series.

OBJECTIVE: Only a few reports have addressed non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), but none specifically in high-risk patients. Our aim was to study the application of a propofol sedation protocol for EUS in average-risk and high-risk patients. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study including 446 patients referred for EUS. We analyzed the induction time, procedure duration, recovery times, and patients' comfort and safety. Sedation was administered by a trained nurse, under the guidance of the endoscopist. We continuously monitored vital signs as well as patient cooperation and tolerance. Complications, patient, and endoscopist satisfaction were analyzed. RESULTS: No major complications occurred. The rate of minor complications was 9%, the most frequent being hypoxemia (8%). One hundred and thirty-eight high-risk patients were included [American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) III-IV]. Average-risk patients received higher propofol doses (202.9 ± 84.8 vs. 164.8 ± 84.3; P=0.003). No differences were found in the rate of complications or procedure-related variables. Overall patient and endoscopist satisfaction was excellent. The logistic regression model identified propofol doses (P=0.02) as a risk factor and ASA-I classification (P=0.03) as a protective factor for the appearance of complications. CONCLUSION: Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for upper EUS in high-risk and average-risk patients is safe and could be routinely offered to high-risk and elderly patients.