Journal of clinical gastroenterology · 2025
Practice Trends among US Gastroenterologists following the 2020 American Gastroenterological Association Guidelines on Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia: Data from a Tertiary Care Center.
СтатьяПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Rouphael Carol, Elkin Baila, El Dahdah Joseph, Moufawad Michelle, Yang Qijun, Bena James, Shah Shailja, Kim Michelle K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Studies show variability in gastroenterologists' management of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) in the United States. In 2020, the American Gastroenterological Association published GIM guidelines, recommending physician-patient shared decision-making on GIM surveillance based on risk factors. We compared gastroenterologists' communication trends of a GIM finding and surveillance recommendations before and after 2020 and evaluated patient and provider factors associated with a surveillance recommendation.
METHODS: A sample of patients diagnosed with GIM on biopsies from upper endoscopies performed in 2018 (cohort A) and 2021 (cohort B) were included. Logistic regression analysis assessed the association between patient/provider characteristics and surveillance recommendations in the overall cohort and over time.
MATERIALS: In all, 347 patients were included: 175 in cohort A and 172 in B. Median age was 65.7 (56.0, 73.4), and 54.5% were females. Communication to patients about GIM findings and surveillance recommendations increased from 24.6% <2020 to 50% >2020 ( P <0.001) and 20% <2020 to 41.3% >2020 ( P <0.001), respectively. Overall, endoscopy >2020, family history of gastric cancer, autoimmune gastritis, female providers, and gastroenterologists with 10 to 20 years of experience were associated with a surveillance recommendation. The effect of family history of gastric cancer and the effect of the patient's female sex on surveillance was significantly different between both cohorts [Odds ratio (OR): 0.13, 95% (Confidence interval) CI: 0.02, 0.97 and OR 3.39, 95% CI: 1.12, 10.2, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a 2-fold increase in surveillance recommendations after 2020, there was no meaningful effect of any of the patients' factors on a recommendation for surveillance over time, which raises the question as to whether surveillance is being offered to both average and high-risk patients without thorough risk stratification.
METHODS: A sample of patients diagnosed with GIM on biopsies from upper endoscopies performed in 2018 (cohort A) and 2021 (cohort B) were included. Logistic regression analysis assessed the association between patient/provider characteristics and surveillance recommendations in the overall cohort and over time.
MATERIALS: In all, 347 patients were included: 175 in cohort A and 172 in B. Median age was 65.7 (56.0, 73.4), and 54.5% were females. Communication to patients about GIM findings and surveillance recommendations increased from 24.6% <2020 to 50% >2020 ( P <0.001) and 20% <2020 to 41.3% >2020 ( P <0.001), respectively. Overall, endoscopy >2020, family history of gastric cancer, autoimmune gastritis, female providers, and gastroenterologists with 10 to 20 years of experience were associated with a surveillance recommendation. The effect of family history of gastric cancer and the effect of the patient's female sex on surveillance was significantly different between both cohorts [Odds ratio (OR): 0.13, 95% (Confidence interval) CI: 0.02, 0.97 and OR 3.39, 95% CI: 1.12, 10.2, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a 2-fold increase in surveillance recommendations after 2020, there was no meaningful effect of any of the patients' factors on a recommendation for surveillance over time, which raises the question as to whether surveillance is being offered to both average and high-risk patients without thorough risk stratification.