ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Same-day double upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is frequently performed due to overlapping indications. However, it is unclear whether an upper-lower (U-L) or lower-upper (L-U) sequence is optimal. We analyzed the effect of sequence on total procedure time and sedation use. METHODS: A total of 100 patients scheduled for same-day double endoscopy were randomized to the U-L or L-U sequence arm. Primary outcomes, mean total procedure time, and sedative dosages were compared using a t-test. We also explored associations of the primary outcomes with patient-related and procedure-related factors. RESULTS: Comparing U-L and L-U sequences, mean total procedure time was 41.9 (16.2) versus 43.0 (14.5) min (P = 0.73), diphenhydramine dose 5.5 (15.4) versus 4.5 (14.0) mg (P = 0.74), fentanyl dose 71.5 (119.3) versus 77.6 (164.02) µg (P = 0.83), midazolam dose 1.6 (2.5) versus 1.4 (2.7) mg (P = 0.69), and propofol dose 437.4 (351.4) versus 444.5 (256.0) mg (P = 0.91), respectively. Total procedure and upper endoscopy times were significantly longer with trainee presence (P = 0.0002) and shorter with conscious sedation (P = 0.003). Upper endoscopy time was longer with higher body mass index (P = 0.001), and lower endoscopy time was longer in patients with cirrhosis or chronic kidney disease (P = 0.002 and 0.009, respectively). Time between procedures was significantly longer in the L-U sequence (7.4 [2.9] vs 5.3 [1.1] min, [P < 0.001]). The study had 80% power to detect an 8 min difference in total procedure time. CONCLUSIONS: The sequence of same-day double gastrointestinal endoscopy does not affect total procedure time or medication use. Longer total procedure and upper endoscopy times were associated with trainee presence and use of conscious sedation.
ABSTRACT
Background: Although it is well established that patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of complicating diseases and vaccination-preventable infections, whether gastroenterologists (GIs) or primary care providers (PCPs) assume responsibility for these patients' health maintenance is not clear. Methods: We anonymously surveyed a convenience sample of 94 PCPs and 61 GIs at Saint Louis University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO, about their practice and perception of the health maintenance and vaccination of patients with IBD. Results: Response rates were 82% and 93% for GIs and PCPs, respectively. GIs were as likely as PCPs to screen for smoking (88% vs 89%) and were significantly less likely to screen for depression/anxiety (24% vs 54%) or to provide pertussis (14% vs 44%) or diphtheria (20% vs 48%) vaccines. GIs were significantly more likely than PCPs to assess for colonoscopy need (94% vs 80%); to screen for nonmelanoma skin cancer (62% vs 14%), melanoma (56% vs 7%), osteoporosis (72% vs 51%), or tuberculosis (94% vs 44%); to prescribe calcium/vitamin D (74% vs 53%); to perform nutritional assessment (78% vs 33%); or to provide hepatitis A (60% vs 39%) or hepatitis B (86% vs 56%) vaccines. GIs were as likely as PCPs (64% vs 75%) to perceive that PCPs should order vaccinations and significantly more likely to perceive that GIs should track vaccinations (58% vs 16%) and other health maintenance issues (90% vs 49%). We found positive associations between performing the various health maintenance and vaccination tasks and the perception of responsibility. Conclusion: Several health maintenance aspects are inadequately addressed by GIs and PCPs, in part because of conflicting perceptions of responsibility. Clear guidelines and better GI/PCP communication are required to ensure effective health maintenance for patients with IBD.
