BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025
Clinician management of patients with Crohn's-related perianal fistulas: results of a multispecialty case-based survey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Salinas Gregory David, Belcher Emily, Stacy Sylvie, Nazarey Pradeep P, Cazzetta Susan E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: A case-based survey was conducted to identify practice patterns and knowledge gaps in the management of Crohn's perianal fistulas (CPF) and to further understand approaches to CPF management within the USA by healthcare professionals (HCPs) from different specialties.
METHODS: The web-based survey, comprising two hypothetical patient case vignettes (case 1: initial CPF presentation and progression to partial response; case 2: recurrent CPF), was distributed September-October 2020 to US gastroenterologists (GEs) and colorectal surgeons (CRSs), and nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) from these specialties, who managed ≥1 patient with CPF/month. The survey included questions on clinician evaluation and treatment approach.
RESULTS: Across surveyed HCPs (127 GEs, 63 GE NP/PAs, 78 CRSs and 14 CRS NP/PAs), 39% stated that they did not use any standard system for classifying/scoring CPF. On initial CPF presentation, ≥98% of HCPs reported a requirement for additional diagnostic/imaging evaluation before proceeding with medical management; GEs preferred pelvic MRI (70%) and CRSs preferred examination under anaesthesia (62%). Preferred management after partial response to initial treatment varied by HCP type (23% GEs vs 71% CRSs preferred continuation of current medical therapy; 60% vs 38% preferred seton continuation; 24% vs 41% preferred seton removal, respectively). For recurrent CPF, most HCPs chose to switch from infliximab to another antitumour necrosis factor agent, while most GEs opted to switch to a different monoclonal antibody. In contrast, 44% of GEs and 27% of CRSs opted to proceed with surgery.
CONCLUSION: Lack of consensus in CPF management requires improved coordination in treatment approaches among specialists.
METHODS: The web-based survey, comprising two hypothetical patient case vignettes (case 1: initial CPF presentation and progression to partial response; case 2: recurrent CPF), was distributed September-October 2020 to US gastroenterologists (GEs) and colorectal surgeons (CRSs), and nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) from these specialties, who managed ≥1 patient with CPF/month. The survey included questions on clinician evaluation and treatment approach.
RESULTS: Across surveyed HCPs (127 GEs, 63 GE NP/PAs, 78 CRSs and 14 CRS NP/PAs), 39% stated that they did not use any standard system for classifying/scoring CPF. On initial CPF presentation, ≥98% of HCPs reported a requirement for additional diagnostic/imaging evaluation before proceeding with medical management; GEs preferred pelvic MRI (70%) and CRSs preferred examination under anaesthesia (62%). Preferred management after partial response to initial treatment varied by HCP type (23% GEs vs 71% CRSs preferred continuation of current medical therapy; 60% vs 38% preferred seton continuation; 24% vs 41% preferred seton removal, respectively). For recurrent CPF, most HCPs chose to switch from infliximab to another antitumour necrosis factor agent, while most GEs opted to switch to a different monoclonal antibody. In contrast, 44% of GEs and 27% of CRSs opted to proceed with surgery.
CONCLUSION: Lack of consensus in CPF management requires improved coordination in treatment approaches among specialists.