Endoscopy international open · 2026
Patient-reported experience in device-assisted enteroscopy: Conscious sedation vs. general anesthesia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
O'Hara Fintan John, Leung Edric, Costigan Conor, McNamara Deirdre
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) plays a critical role in evaluation and treatment of small bowel disorders, with double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) being the most widely used technique. Sedation strategies for enteroscopy remain a topic of debate, with conscious sedation (CS) and general anesthesia (GA) both being utilized. Our aim was to assess patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) for DAE, comparing CS and GA to determine their impact on patient satisfaction, procedure success, and pain perception.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: PREMs were prospectively collected from 118 unselected patients referred to a single center for DAE between July 2022 and March 2025. PREMs, procedure details, and sedation techniques were analyzed.
RESULTS: Overall patient satisfaction was good with 100% being satisfied or very satisfied. A significantly higher proportion in the GA group reporting being "very satisfied, (92.3% GA vs 71.0% CS, P = 0.004). Despite experiencing greater discomfort, albeit within acceptable parameters (median 0, average 1.9) the CS group still reported high overall satisfaction. Technical success was achieved in 98.3% of cases and there was no statistical difference in technical outcomes between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Although GA provides optimal conditions for enteroscopy, in our experience, CS remains an effective and acceptable option for patients, maintaining accessibility to the procedure. Our study supports use of PREMs in enteroscopy as a quality assurance measure and underscores the need for individualized sedation strategies to optimize patient care.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: PREMs were prospectively collected from 118 unselected patients referred to a single center for DAE between July 2022 and March 2025. PREMs, procedure details, and sedation techniques were analyzed.
RESULTS: Overall patient satisfaction was good with 100% being satisfied or very satisfied. A significantly higher proportion in the GA group reporting being "very satisfied, (92.3% GA vs 71.0% CS, P = 0.004). Despite experiencing greater discomfort, albeit within acceptable parameters (median 0, average 1.9) the CS group still reported high overall satisfaction. Technical success was achieved in 98.3% of cases and there was no statistical difference in technical outcomes between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Although GA provides optimal conditions for enteroscopy, in our experience, CS remains an effective and acceptable option for patients, maintaining accessibility to the procedure. Our study supports use of PREMs in enteroscopy as a quality assurance measure and underscores the need for individualized sedation strategies to optimize patient care.