Endoscopist-Driven Sedation Practices in South Korea: Re-evaluation Considering the Nationwide Survey in 2019

7Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background/Aims: This study aimed to determine changes in endoscopist-driven sedation practices 5 years after the first nationwide survey in 2014 by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE). Methods: A 59-item survey covering current practices was electronically mailed to all members of the KSGE in 2019. Results: In total, 955 (12.8%) out of 7,486 questionnaires were returned. A total of 738 (77.7%) out of 955 respondents attended dedicated sedation education programs. The American Society of Anesthesiologists class was recorded by 464 (51.2%) out of 907 respondents. The recording rate was higher in respondents who completed sedation education (p=0.014) and worked in general or tertiary hospitals (p<0.001). Compared to that reported in the previous survey, the reported use of propofol was higher in 2019. The respondents had higher satisfaction scores for propofol-based sedation compared with midazolam monotherapy (p<0.001). The rates of oxygen supplementation (p<0.001) and oxygen saturation level monitoring (p<0.001) during sedative endoscopy were higher in 2019 than in the previous survey. A total of 876 (98.4%) out of 890 respondents reported a separate recovery bay, and 615 (70.5%) out of 872 respondents reported that personnel were assigned solely to the recovery bay. Conclusions: Endoscopist-driven sedation and monitoring practices in 2019 were significantly different than those in 2014. The respondents favored propofol-based sedation and utilized oxygen supplementation and monitoring of O2 saturation more frequently in 2019 than in 2014.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Park, S. Y., Lee, J. K., Park, C. H., Kim, B. W., Lee, C. K., Park, H. J., … Paik, W. H. (2022). Endoscopist-Driven Sedation Practices in South Korea: Re-evaluation Considering the Nationwide Survey in 2019. Gut and Liver, 16(6), 899–906. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl210466

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free