{"title":"影响成人患者在内镜下处理尖锐食管异物后禁食时间的因素","authors":"Da-Quan Wu, Shu-Yang Chen, Ke-Guang Chen, Tan Wang, Guang-Yao Li, Xin-Sheng Huang","doi":"10.2147/tcrm.s451517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong>Background:</strong> Sharp esophageal foreign body (SEFB) impaction can cause varying degrees of damage to the esophagus. There are few studies analyzing the postoperative fasting time in SEFB patients.<br/><strong>Methods:</strong> We retrospectively collected 835 SEFB patients. According to the fasting time after the endoscopic removal (ER) of SEFBs, the patients were divided into two groups: short fasting time (SFT, fasted ≤ 24 h) and long fasting time (LFT, fasted > 24 h).<br/><strong>Results:</strong> There were 216 and 619 patients in the SFT and LFT group, respectively. The average age of the SFT group (52.97 years) was younger than that of the LFT group (55.96 years) (p = 0.025). The LFT group had lower proportion of duration of impaction (DOI) within 12 hours (14.2% vs 22.2%, p = 0.006) and erosion rates (89.0% vs 94.0%, p = 0.034) as well as higher proportion of esophageal perforation (19.5 vs 6.5%, p = 0.010) and patients who got intravenous anesthesia (63.78% vs 31.9%, p = 0.000) than the SFT group. The longest diameter of the foreign body (Lmax) in the LFT group (2.60 ± 1.01 cm) was greater than that in the SFT group (2.41 ± 0.83 cm; p = 0.01). Multivariate regression analysis found that age (OR = 1.726[1.208– 2.465], p = 0.003), DOI (OR = 1.793[1.175– 2.737], p = 0.007), Lmax (OR = 1.477[1.033– 2.111], p = 0.032), perforation (OR = 3.698[2.038– 6.710]; p < 0.01) and intravenous anesthesia (OR = 3.734[2.642– 5.278]; p < 0.01) were the independent factors that prolonged fasting time in patients with SEFBs, while esophageal mucosal erosion (OR = 0.433[0.229– 0.820]; p = 0.01) was the influencing factor leading to shortened fasting time.<br/><strong>Conclusion:</strong> For the first time, we analyzed factors influencing the fasting time after ER in SEFB patients. Age, DOI, Lmax, perforation and intravenous anesthesia were risk factors for a prolonged postoperative fasting time.<br/><br/>","PeriodicalId":22977,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors Influencing the Fasting Time in Adult Patients After the Endoscopic Management of Sharp Esophageal Foreign Bodies\",\"authors\":\"Da-Quan Wu, Shu-Yang Chen, Ke-Guang Chen, Tan Wang, Guang-Yao Li, Xin-Sheng Huang\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/tcrm.s451517\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<strong>Background:</strong> Sharp esophageal foreign body (SEFB) impaction can cause varying degrees of damage to the esophagus. There are few studies analyzing the postoperative fasting time in SEFB patients.<br/><strong>Methods:</strong> We retrospectively collected 835 SEFB patients. According to the fasting time after the endoscopic removal (ER) of SEFBs, the patients were divided into two groups: short fasting time (SFT, fasted ≤ 24 h) and long fasting time (LFT, fasted > 24 h).<br/><strong>Results:</strong> There were 216 and 619 patients in the SFT and LFT group, respectively. The average age of the SFT group (52.97 years) was younger than that of the LFT group (55.96 years) (p = 0.025). The LFT group had lower proportion of duration of impaction (DOI) within 12 hours (14.2% vs 22.2%, p = 0.006) and erosion rates (89.0% vs 94.0%, p = 0.034) as well as higher proportion of esophageal perforation (19.5 vs 6.5%, p = 0.010) and patients who got intravenous anesthesia (63.78% vs 31.9%, p = 0.000) than the SFT group. The longest diameter of the foreign body (Lmax) in the LFT group (2.60 ± 1.01 cm) was greater than that in the SFT group (2.41 ± 0.83 cm; p = 0.01). Multivariate regression analysis found that age (OR = 1.726[1.208– 2.465], p = 0.003), DOI (OR = 1.793[1.175– 2.737], p = 0.007), Lmax (OR = 1.477[1.033– 2.111], p = 0.032), perforation (OR = 3.698[2.038– 6.710]; p < 0.01) and intravenous anesthesia (OR = 3.734[2.642– 5.278]; p < 0.01) were the independent factors that prolonged fasting time in patients with SEFBs, while esophageal mucosal erosion (OR = 0.433[0.229– 0.820]; p = 0.01) was the influencing factor leading to shortened fasting time.<br/><strong>Conclusion:</strong> For the first time, we analyzed factors influencing the fasting time after ER in SEFB patients. Age, DOI, Lmax, perforation and intravenous anesthesia were risk factors for a prolonged postoperative fasting time.<br/><br/>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22977,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/tcrm.s451517\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/tcrm.s451517","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
Factors Influencing the Fasting Time in Adult Patients After the Endoscopic Management of Sharp Esophageal Foreign Bodies
Background: Sharp esophageal foreign body (SEFB) impaction can cause varying degrees of damage to the esophagus. There are few studies analyzing the postoperative fasting time in SEFB patients. Methods: We retrospectively collected 835 SEFB patients. According to the fasting time after the endoscopic removal (ER) of SEFBs, the patients were divided into two groups: short fasting time (SFT, fasted ≤ 24 h) and long fasting time (LFT, fasted > 24 h). Results: There were 216 and 619 patients in the SFT and LFT group, respectively. The average age of the SFT group (52.97 years) was younger than that of the LFT group (55.96 years) (p = 0.025). The LFT group had lower proportion of duration of impaction (DOI) within 12 hours (14.2% vs 22.2%, p = 0.006) and erosion rates (89.0% vs 94.0%, p = 0.034) as well as higher proportion of esophageal perforation (19.5 vs 6.5%, p = 0.010) and patients who got intravenous anesthesia (63.78% vs 31.9%, p = 0.000) than the SFT group. The longest diameter of the foreign body (Lmax) in the LFT group (2.60 ± 1.01 cm) was greater than that in the SFT group (2.41 ± 0.83 cm; p = 0.01). Multivariate regression analysis found that age (OR = 1.726[1.208– 2.465], p = 0.003), DOI (OR = 1.793[1.175– 2.737], p = 0.007), Lmax (OR = 1.477[1.033– 2.111], p = 0.032), perforation (OR = 3.698[2.038– 6.710]; p < 0.01) and intravenous anesthesia (OR = 3.734[2.642– 5.278]; p < 0.01) were the independent factors that prolonged fasting time in patients with SEFBs, while esophageal mucosal erosion (OR = 0.433[0.229– 0.820]; p = 0.01) was the influencing factor leading to shortened fasting time. Conclusion: For the first time, we analyzed factors influencing the fasting time after ER in SEFB patients. Age, DOI, Lmax, perforation and intravenous anesthesia were risk factors for a prolonged postoperative fasting time.
期刊介绍:
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management is an international, peer-reviewed journal of clinical therapeutics and risk management, focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies in all therapeutic areas, outcomes, safety, and programs for the effective, safe, and sustained use of medicines, therapeutic and surgical interventions in all clinical areas.
The journal welcomes submissions covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary. The journal will consider case reports but only if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature.
As of 18th March 2019, Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication.
The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.