Search

Background and Aim Same‐day double upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is frequently performed due to overlapping indications. However, it is unclear whether an upper–lower (U‐L) or lower–upper (L‐U) sequence is optimal. We analyzed the effect of sequence on total procedure time and sedation use. Methods A total of 100 patients scheduled for same‐day double endoscopy were randomized to the U‐L or L‐U sequence arm. Primary outcomes, mean total procedure time, and sedative dosages were compared using a t‐test. We also explored associations of the primary outcomes with patient‐related and procedure‐related factors. Results Comparing U‐L and L‐U sequences, mean total procedure time was 41.9 (16.2) versus 43.0 (14.5) min (P = 0.73), diphenhydramine dose 5.5 (15.4) versus 4.5 (14.0) mg (P = 0.74), fentanyl dose 71.5 (119.3) versus 77.6 (164.02) μg (P = 0.83), midazolam dose 1.6 (2.5) versus 1.4 (2.7) mg (P = 0.69), and propofol dose 437.4 (351.4) versus 444.5 (256.0) mg (P = 0.91), respectively. Total procedure and upper endoscopy times were significantly longer with trainee presence (P = 0.0002) and shorter with conscious sedation (P = 0.003). Upper endoscopy time was longer with higher body mass index (P = 0.001), and lower endoscopy time was longer in patients with cirrhosis or chronic kidney disease (P = 0.002 and 0.009, respectively). Time between procedures was significantly longer in the L‐U sequence (7.4 [2.9] vs 5.3 [1.1] min, [P < 0.001]). The study had 80% power to detect an 8 min difference in total procedure time. Conclusions The sequence of same‐day double gastrointestinal endoscopy does not affect total procedure time or medication use. Longer total procedure and upper endoscopy times were associated with trainee presence and use of conscious sedation., There are many benefits of same‐day bidirectional endoscopy; however, its optimal sequence (i.e. upper followed by lower or lower followed by upper) is controversial. This topic has been studied in other countries; however, this is the first study in the United States that investigated if procedure sequence affects total procedure time and sedative dose in patients undergoing same‐day upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. We found that same‐day double GI endoscopy does not affect total procedure time or medication use; however, the time between procedures was longer in the colonoscopy followed by upper endoscopy group. Our results suggest that it may be reasonable to consider performing upper endoscopy first in terms of procedure order.

Background: Although it is well established that patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of complicating diseases and vaccination-preventable infections, whether gastroenterologists (GIs) or primary care providers (PCPs) assume responsibility for these patients' health maintenance is not clear. Methods: We anonymously surveyed a convenience sample of 94 PCPs and 61 GIs at Saint Louis University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO, about their practice and perception of the health maintenance and vaccination of patients with IBD. Results: Response rates were 82% and 93% for GIs and PCPs, respectively. GIs were as likely as PCPs to screen for smoking (88% vs 89%) and were significantly less likely to screen for depression/anxiety (24% vs 54%) or to provide pertussis (14% vs 44%) or diphtheria (20% vs 48%) vaccines. GIs were significantly more likely than PCPs to assess for colonoscopy need (94% vs 80%); to screen for nonmelanoma skin cancer (62% vs 14%), melanoma (56% vs 7%), osteoporosis (72% vs 51%), or tuberculosis (94% vs 44%); to prescribe calcium/vitamin D (74% vs 53%); to perform nutritional assessment (78% vs 33%); or to provide hepatitis A (60% vs 39%) or hepatitis B (86% vs 56%) vaccines. GIs were as likely as PCPs (64% vs 75%) to perceive that PCPs should order vaccinations and significantly more likely to perceive that GIs should track vaccinations (58% vs 16%) and other health maintenance issues (90% vs 49%). We found positive associations between performing the various health maintenance and vaccination tasks and the perception of responsibility. Conclusion: Several health maintenance aspects are inadequately addressed by GIs and PCPs, in part because of conflicting perceptions of responsibility. Clear guidelines and better GI/PCP communication are required to ensure effective health maintenance for patients with IBD.