BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study sought to characterize the current sedation practices of Korean endoscopists in real-world settings. METHODS: All active members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy were invited to complete an anonymous 35-item questionnaire. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 22.7% (1,332/5,860). Propofol-based sedation was the dominant method used in both elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy (55.6%) and colonoscopy (52.6%). The mean satisfaction score for propofol-based sedation was significantly higher than that for standard sedation in both examinations (all p<0.001). The use of propofol was supervised exclusively by endoscopists (98.6%). Endoscopists practicing in nonacademic settings, gastroenterologists, or endoscopists with <10 years of endoscopic practice were more likely to use propofol than were their counterparts (all p<0.001). In total, 27.3% of all respondents performed sedation practices without having undergone sedation training, and 27.4% did so without any formal sedation protocols. The choice of propofol as the dominant sedation method was the only significant predictor of endoscopist experience with serious sedation-related adverse events (odds ratio, 1.854; 95% confidence interval, 1.414 to 2.432). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopist-directed propofol administration is the predominant sedation method used in Korea. This survey strongly suggests that there is much room for quality improvement regarding sedation training and patient vigilance in endoscopist-directed sedation.
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Colonoscopy/methods/psychology ; Conscious Sedation/*methods/psychology/standards ; Endoscopy, Digestive System/methods/psychology ; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/*methods/psychology ; Female ; Gastroenterology/methods ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Patient Satisfaction ; Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards/*statistics & numerical data ; Propofol ; Quality Improvement ; Republic of Korea ; Surveys and Questionnaires

Sedation is often necessary to optimize care for critically ill children requiring mechanical ventilation. If too light or too deep, however, sedation can cause significant adverse reactions, making it important to assess the degree of sedation and maintain its optimal level. We evaluated the efficacy of the COMFORT scale in assessing optimal sedation in critically ill children requiring mechanical ventilation. We compared 12 month data in 21 patients (intervention group), for whom we used the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) sedation protocol of Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea) and the COMFORT scale to maintain optimal sedation, with the data in 20 patients (control group) assessed before using the sedation protocol and the COMPORT scale. Compared with the control group, the intervention group showed significant decreases in the total usage of sedatives and analgesics, the duration of mechanical ventilation (11.0 days vs. 12.5 days) and PICU stay (15.0 days vs. 19.5 days), and the development of withdrawal symptoms (1 case vs. 7 cases). The total duration of sedation (8.0 days vs. 11.5 days) also tended to decrease. These findings suggest that application of protocol-based sedation with the COMPORT scale may benefit children requiring mechanical ventilation.
Anesthetics, Intravenous/administration & dosage/therapeutic use ; Child, Preschool ; Conscious Sedation/methods/standards ; Critical Care/*methods/standards ; *Critical Illness ; Female ; Fentanyl/administration & dosage/therapeutic use ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives/administration & dosage/*therapeutic use ; Infant ; Infusions, Intravenous ; Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data ; Length of Stay ; Male ; Midazolam/administration & dosage/therapeutic use ; *Respiration, Artificial ; Treatment Outcome