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.

Calidad de la sedación con propofol administrada por personal no anestesiólogo en una unidad de endoscopia digestiva, resultados tras un año de implantación / Quality of sedation with propofol administered by non-anesthetists in a digestive endoscopy unit: the results of a one year experience

Introducción: existe evidencia de que un equipo formado por endoscopista y enfermera puede hacerse cargo de la sedación de un paciente con propofol de forma eficaz, segura y eficiente. Para ello, es fundamental una adecuada formación y entrenamiento específico que les otorgue las competencias necesarias. El objetivo principal de este estudio fue realizar, tras un año de implantación, una evaluación de la calidad del procedimiento de sedación administrada por personal no anestesiólogo en una unidad de endoscopia digestiva. Métodos: se realizó un estudio de cohortes prospectivo sobre los pacientes que recibieron sedación con propofol por personal no anestesiólogo. Posteriormente, se seleccionó una muestra aleatoria de registros clínicos para evaluar la adherencia de los profesionales a diferentes criterios de calidad, así como la aparición de eventos adversos relacionados con la sedación. Resultados: en el periodo de estudio se realizaron un total de 595 procedimientos bajo sedación con propofol. La tasa de eventos adversos fue del 2,4% (n = 507), principalmente episodios de hipotensión e hipoxemia. Los porcentajes de adherencia al procedimiento de sedación se situaron por encima del 80% en la mayoría de los criterios, aunque fue menor en la cumplimentación de la valoración del riesgo ASA. Conclusión: los resultados del estudio sugieren que el propofol puede ser administrado con seguridad y eficacia por un equipo cualificado de endoscopista y enfermera, en pacientes con un riesgo ASA I-II. Las auditorías sobre la adherencia de los profesionales al procedimiento permiten identificar necesidades de mejora para poder seguir trabajando sobre aspectos aún no consolidados

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

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.