Sment or a formal sedation protocol, use of pulse oximetry or supplemental oxygen, and completion of dedicated sedation training. Factors with a p-value <0.2 in the univariate analysis were included in the stepwise regression analysis. A p-value <0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. All data were analyzed using SPSS version 18.0K for windows (SPSS Korea Inc., Seoul, Korea).RESULTS1. Characteristics of the study respondents The demographic characteristics of the study respondents are summarized in Table 1. In total, 1,332 of the 5,860 KSGE members invited completed the survey, an overall response rate of 22.7 . The mean age of the respondents was 43.4 years; 80.2 were men, and 82.4 were gastroenterologists. Of the respondents, 46 currently practiced at a primary clinic, 26.2 at a nonacademic hospital, and 27.9 at an academic teaching hospital. Of the respondents, 46.4 had 10 years of endoscopic practice, 88 currently performed both EGD and colonoscopy, and 79.4 performed 20 endoscopies per week. 2. Dominant sedation method and endoscopists' satisfaction The vast majority of respondents (98.9 , 1,318/1,332) currently offer procedural sedation for diagnostic EGD (99.1 ) and colonoscopy (91.4 ). The detailed proportions of sedation use in EGD and colonoscopy are summarized in Table 2. Propofolbased sedation (propofol alone or in combination with midazolam and/or an opioid) was the most preferred sedation method for both EGD and colonoscopy (55.6 and 52.6 , respectively). Regarding endoscopists' satisfaction with their primary sedation method, the mean (standard deviation) satisfaction score forTable 2. The Use of Sedation in Elective Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and Colonoscopy Variable Current use of sedation, if any Proportion of sedated endoscopy <25 of cases 26 ?0 of cases 51 ?5 journal.pone.0169185 of cases >76 of cases Endoscopists’ choice Midazolam pioid Propofol pioid Propofol+midazolam pioid Others Overall endoscopists’ satisfaction with sedation 9?0 7? 5? 4 Staffing in endoscopic sedation* One nurse Two nursesEGD 1,305 (99.0) 124 (9.5) 298 (22.8) 474 (36.3) 409 (31.3) 483 (37.0)/54 (4.1) 378 (29.0)/2 (0.2) 330 (25.3)/15 (1.1) 43 (3.3) 339 (26.0) 688 (52.7) 191 (14.6) 87 (6.7) 417 (31.6) 813 (61.7) 88 (6.7)Colonoscopy 1,205 (91.4) 19 (1.6) 57 jir.2014.0227 (4.7) 188 (15.6) 941 (78.1) 185 (15.4)/360 (29.9) 72 (6.0)/13 (1.1) 407 (33.8)/143 (11.9) 25 (2.1) 457 (37.9) 577 (47.9) 129 (10.7) 42 (3.5)One PF-299804 web assisting GDC-0917 cost physician and 1 nurse Data are presented as number ( ). EGD, esophagogastroduodenoscopy. *Except for endoscopist; Trained registered or licensed practical nurse.Gut and Liver, Vol. 10, No. 1, Januarypropofol-based sedation was significantly higher than that for standard sedation (7.99 [1.29] vs 6.60 [1.78] for EGD; 8.24 [1.23] vs 7.45 [1.64] for colonoscopy, respectively; all p<0.001). More than half (61.7 ) worked with two trained nurses (registered or licensed practical nurses) for sedated endoscopy. 3. Propofol sedation Of the respondents, 63 (830/1,318) of respondents currently used propofol with good satisfaction ratings: 91.1 rated 7 points or more on a VAS. Use of propofol was almost alwaysdirected by endoscopists (98.6 ), but delivery of the drug was performed mostly by trained nurses (88.5 ) (Table 3). Endoscopists practicing in nonacademic settings, gastroenterologists, or endoscopists with <10 years of practice were more likely to use propofol than were endoscopists work in an academic hospital, nongastroenterologists,.Sment or a formal sedation protocol, use of pulse oximetry or supplemental oxygen, and completion of dedicated sedation training. Factors with a p-value <0.2 in the univariate analysis were included in the stepwise regression analysis. A p-value <0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. All data were analyzed using SPSS version 18.0K for windows (SPSS Korea Inc., Seoul, Korea).RESULTS1. Characteristics of the study respondents The demographic characteristics of the study respondents are summarized in Table 1. In total, 1,332 of the 5,860 KSGE members invited completed the survey, an overall response rate of 22.7 . The mean age of the respondents was 43.4 years; 80.2 were men, and 82.4 were gastroenterologists. Of the respondents, 46 currently practiced at a primary clinic, 26.2 at a nonacademic hospital, and 27.9 at an academic teaching hospital. Of the respondents, 46.4 had 10 years of endoscopic practice, 88 currently performed both EGD and colonoscopy, and 79.4 performed 20 endoscopies per week. 2. Dominant sedation method and endoscopists' satisfaction The vast majority of respondents (98.9 , 1,318/1,332) currently offer procedural sedation for diagnostic EGD (99.1 ) and colonoscopy (91.4 ). The detailed proportions of sedation use in EGD and colonoscopy are summarized in Table 2. Propofolbased sedation (propofol alone or in combination with midazolam and/or an opioid) was the most preferred sedation method for both EGD and colonoscopy (55.6 and 52.6 , respectively). Regarding endoscopists' satisfaction with their primary sedation method, the mean (standard deviation) satisfaction score forTable 2. The Use of Sedation in Elective Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and Colonoscopy Variable Current use of sedation, if any Proportion of sedated endoscopy <25 of cases 26 ?0 of cases 51 ?5 journal.pone.0169185 of cases >76 of cases Endoscopists’ choice Midazolam pioid Propofol pioid Propofol+midazolam pioid Others Overall endoscopists’ satisfaction with sedation 9?0 7? 5? 4 Staffing in endoscopic sedation* One nurse Two nursesEGD 1,305 (99.0) 124 (9.5) 298 (22.8) 474 (36.3) 409 (31.3) 483 (37.0)/54 (4.1) 378 (29.0)/2 (0.2) 330 (25.3)/15 (1.1) 43 (3.3) 339 (26.0) 688 (52.7) 191 (14.6) 87 (6.7) 417 (31.6) 813 (61.7) 88 (6.7)Colonoscopy 1,205 (91.4) 19 (1.6) 57 jir.2014.0227 (4.7) 188 (15.6) 941 (78.1) 185 (15.4)/360 (29.9) 72 (6.0)/13 (1.1) 407 (33.8)/143 (11.9) 25 (2.1) 457 (37.9) 577 (47.9) 129 (10.7) 42 (3.5)One assisting physician and 1 nurse Data are presented as number ( ). EGD, esophagogastroduodenoscopy. *Except for endoscopist; Trained registered or licensed practical nurse.Gut and Liver, Vol. 10, No. 1, Januarypropofol-based sedation was significantly higher than that for standard sedation (7.99 [1.29] vs 6.60 [1.78] for EGD; 8.24 [1.23] vs 7.45 [1.64] for colonoscopy, respectively; all p<0.001). More than half (61.7 ) worked with two trained nurses (registered or licensed practical nurses) for sedated endoscopy. 3. Propofol sedation Of the respondents, 63 (830/1,318) of respondents currently used propofol with good satisfaction ratings: 91.1 rated 7 points or more on a VAS. Use of propofol was almost alwaysdirected by endoscopists (98.6 ), but delivery of the drug was performed mostly by trained nurses (88.5 ) (Table 3). Endoscopists practicing in nonacademic settings, gastroenterologists, or endoscopists with <10 years of practice were more likely to use propofol than were endoscopists work in an academic hospital, nongastroenterologists,.
