Linda Rabeneck1, Kimberly Wristers, Julianne Souchek, Eunice Ambriz. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) Center of Excellence and the Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia who undergo endoscopy, the presence of abnormal findings guides subsequent management. However, upper endoscopy is "negative" in the majority of these patients, and the value of endoscopy in these individuals has been questioned. This study evaluated the impact of endoscopy on patient satisfaction in patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia. METHODS: The study was a secondary analysis of data obtained from a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial, evaluating a 6-week course of omeprazole versus placebo in 140 patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia who were followed for up to 1 year. The setting was the primary care outpatient clinics at the Houston Veterans Affairs Hospital. Participants had to be 18 years of age or older with at least a 1-week history of dyspepsia (epigastric discomfort) without alarm features. Satisfaction was measured at each visit with the Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment, a validated, reliable dyspepsia-related health measure that has a satisfaction scale (scores 2-23; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction). Patients unresponsive to empiric therapy with placebo or omeprazole based on predefined criteria underwent endoscopy. Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment satisfaction scores were analyzed for 5 visits: 2 closest in time to, but before, the day of endoscopy (Times 1 and 2); immediately before endoscopy (Time 3); and the 2 visits closest in time after endoscopy (Times 4 and 5). After determining there was no difference in treatment failure rates between patients who received placebo or omeprazole, data from these groups were combined. The mean Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment satisfaction scores for Times 1 through 5 in all patients who underwent endoscopy were compared as well as for subgroups with positive and negative endoscopic findings with a repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Data on all 5 visits were available in 62 patients, 36 of whom had a negative endoscopy. For all patients the mean scores for Time 2 (8.5; 95% CI [7.4, 9.6]), and Time 3 (7.6; 95% CI [6.6, 8.6]) were significantly lower than those for Time 4 (13.7; 95% CI [12.2, 15.3]) and Time 5 (14.4; 95% CI [12.9, 15.9]). The mean score for Time 1 (11.1; 95% CI [9.5, 12.6]) was significantly lower than the mean score for Time 5. Similar significant improvements in satisfaction scores were observed in subgroups with negative and positive findings. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia, endoscopy leads to improved patient satisfaction regardless of the endoscopic findings.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia who undergo endoscopy, the presence of abnormal findings guides subsequent management. However, upper endoscopy is "negative" in the majority of these patients, and the value of endoscopy in these individuals has been questioned. This study evaluated the impact of endoscopy on patient satisfaction in patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia. METHODS: The study was a secondary analysis of data obtained from a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial, evaluating a 6-week course of omeprazole versus placebo in 140 patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia who were followed for up to 1 year. The setting was the primary care outpatient clinics at the Houston Veterans Affairs Hospital. Participants had to be 18 years of age or older with at least a 1-week history of dyspepsia (epigastric discomfort) without alarm features. Satisfaction was measured at each visit with the Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment, a validated, reliable dyspepsia-related health measure that has a satisfaction scale (scores 2-23; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction). Patients unresponsive to empiric therapy with placebo or omeprazole based on predefined criteria underwent endoscopy. Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment satisfaction scores were analyzed for 5 visits: 2 closest in time to, but before, the day of endoscopy (Times 1 and 2); immediately before endoscopy (Time 3); and the 2 visits closest in time after endoscopy (Times 4 and 5). After determining there was no difference in treatment failure rates between patients who received placebo or omeprazole, data from these groups were combined. The mean Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment satisfaction scores for Times 1 through 5 in all patients who underwent endoscopy were compared as well as for subgroups with positive and negative endoscopic findings with a repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Data on all 5 visits were available in 62 patients, 36 of whom had a negative endoscopy. For all patients the mean scores for Time 2 (8.5; 95% CI [7.4, 9.6]), and Time 3 (7.6; 95% CI [6.6, 8.6]) were significantly lower than those for Time 4 (13.7; 95% CI [12.2, 15.3]) and Time 5 (14.4; 95% CI [12.9, 15.9]). The mean score for Time 1 (11.1; 95% CI [9.5, 12.6]) was significantly lower than the mean score for Time 5. Similar significant improvements in satisfaction scores were observed in subgroups with negative and positive findings. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with previously uninvestigated dyspepsia, endoscopy leads to improved patient satisfaction regardless of the endoscopic findings.