Elena C Pezzino, John E Pandolfino, Erin Toaz, Peter J Kahrilas, Dustin A Carlson
{"title":"与测压法相比,翻转平移术中的内窥镜镇静类型对翻转运动分类没有明显影响。","authors":"Elena C Pezzino, John E Pandolfino, Erin Toaz, Peter J Kahrilas, Dustin A Carlson","doi":"10.1016/j.cgh.2024.09.032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background & aims: </strong>Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) Panometry evaluates esophageal motility at the time of sedated endoscopy and often parallels high-resolution manometry (HRM) performed in awake patients. This study aimed to assess the impact of endoscopic sedation on FLIP evaluation of esophageal motility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients who completed FLIP Panometry during sedated endoscopy and had a conclusive Chicago Classification v4.0 diagnosis on HRM were included in this retrospective study. HRM diagnoses relative to FLIP Panometry motility classifications were compared by sedation type used during FLIP, i.e. conscious sedation (CS) with midazolam and fentanyl or monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with propofol.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>454 patients (mean (SD) age 53 (17) years, 62% female) completed FLIP Panometry under CS (n=174, 38%) or MAC (n=280, 62%; 177/280 MAC included fentanyl). On comparison of CS vs MAC, HRM diagnoses within FLIP Panometry motility classifications did not differ (P=0.306 across all 5 FLIP Panometry classifications; P values 0.202-0.856 within specific FLIP classifications). The proportion of HRM diagnoses within each FLIP Panometry classification also did not differ between FLIP completed with CS vs MAC with fentanyl (P=0.098) or MAC without fentanyl (P=0.0261) CONCLUSIONS: Whether CS or MAC was used as sedation during FLIP did not have a clinically significant impact on the relationship between diagnosis on FLIP Panometry and HRM. This supports the validity of diagnosing esophageal motility disorders using FLIP Panometry during sedated endoscopy.</p>","PeriodicalId":10347,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ENDOSCOPIC SEDATION TYPE DURING FLIP PANOMETRY DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT FLIP MOTILITY CLASSIFICATION RELATIVE TO MANOMETRY.\",\"authors\":\"Elena C Pezzino, John E Pandolfino, Erin Toaz, Peter J Kahrilas, Dustin A Carlson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cgh.2024.09.032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background & aims: </strong>Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) Panometry evaluates esophageal motility at the time of sedated endoscopy and often parallels high-resolution manometry (HRM) performed in awake patients. This study aimed to assess the impact of endoscopic sedation on FLIP evaluation of esophageal motility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients who completed FLIP Panometry during sedated endoscopy and had a conclusive Chicago Classification v4.0 diagnosis on HRM were included in this retrospective study. HRM diagnoses relative to FLIP Panometry motility classifications were compared by sedation type used during FLIP, i.e. conscious sedation (CS) with midazolam and fentanyl or monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with propofol.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>454 patients (mean (SD) age 53 (17) years, 62% female) completed FLIP Panometry under CS (n=174, 38%) or MAC (n=280, 62%; 177/280 MAC included fentanyl). On comparison of CS vs MAC, HRM diagnoses within FLIP Panometry motility classifications did not differ (P=0.306 across all 5 FLIP Panometry classifications; P values 0.202-0.856 within specific FLIP classifications). The proportion of HRM diagnoses within each FLIP Panometry classification also did not differ between FLIP completed with CS vs MAC with fentanyl (P=0.098) or MAC without fentanyl (P=0.0261) CONCLUSIONS: Whether CS or MAC was used as sedation during FLIP did not have a clinically significant impact on the relationship between diagnosis on FLIP Panometry and HRM. This supports the validity of diagnosing esophageal motility disorders using FLIP Panometry during sedated endoscopy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10347,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2024.09.032\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2024.09.032","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
ENDOSCOPIC SEDATION TYPE DURING FLIP PANOMETRY DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT FLIP MOTILITY CLASSIFICATION RELATIVE TO MANOMETRY.
Background & aims: Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) Panometry evaluates esophageal motility at the time of sedated endoscopy and often parallels high-resolution manometry (HRM) performed in awake patients. This study aimed to assess the impact of endoscopic sedation on FLIP evaluation of esophageal motility.
Methods: Adult patients who completed FLIP Panometry during sedated endoscopy and had a conclusive Chicago Classification v4.0 diagnosis on HRM were included in this retrospective study. HRM diagnoses relative to FLIP Panometry motility classifications were compared by sedation type used during FLIP, i.e. conscious sedation (CS) with midazolam and fentanyl or monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with propofol.
Results: 454 patients (mean (SD) age 53 (17) years, 62% female) completed FLIP Panometry under CS (n=174, 38%) or MAC (n=280, 62%; 177/280 MAC included fentanyl). On comparison of CS vs MAC, HRM diagnoses within FLIP Panometry motility classifications did not differ (P=0.306 across all 5 FLIP Panometry classifications; P values 0.202-0.856 within specific FLIP classifications). The proportion of HRM diagnoses within each FLIP Panometry classification also did not differ between FLIP completed with CS vs MAC with fentanyl (P=0.098) or MAC without fentanyl (P=0.0261) CONCLUSIONS: Whether CS or MAC was used as sedation during FLIP did not have a clinically significant impact on the relationship between diagnosis on FLIP Panometry and HRM. This supports the validity of diagnosing esophageal motility disorders using FLIP Panometry during sedated endoscopy.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH) is dedicated to offering readers a comprehensive exploration of themes in clinical gastroenterology and hepatology. Encompassing diagnostic, endoscopic, interventional, and therapeutic advances, the journal covers areas such as cancer, inflammatory diseases, functional gastrointestinal disorders, nutrition, absorption, and secretion.
As a peer-reviewed publication, CGH features original articles and scholarly reviews, ensuring immediate relevance to the practice of gastroenterology and hepatology. Beyond peer-reviewed content, the journal includes invited key reviews and articles on endoscopy/practice-based technology, health-care policy, and practice management. Multimedia elements, including images, video abstracts, and podcasts, enhance the reader's experience. CGH remains actively engaged with its audience through updates and commentary shared via platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.