scholarly journals A113 ANNUAL COLONOSCOPY VOLUME IS NOT PREDICTIVE OF COLONOSCOPY QUALITY - FINDINGS FROM THE SOUTHWEST ONTARIO COLONOSCOPY COHORT

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 92-93
Author(s):  
M Sey ◽  
O Siddiqi ◽  
C McDonald ◽  
S cocco ◽  
Z Hindi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Value ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Case Mix ◽  
Operating Characteristics ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Colonoscopy Quality

Abstract Background Performing a minimum number of colonoscopies annually has been proposed by some jurisdictions as a requirement for maintaining privileges. However, this practice is supported by limited evidence. Aims The objective of this study was to determine if annual colonoscopy volume was associated with colonoscopy quality metrics. Methods A population-based study was performed using the Southwest Ontario Colonoscopy cohort, which consists of all adult patients who underwent colonoscopy between April 2017 and Oct 2018 at 21 academic and community hospitals within the health region. Data were collected through a mandatory quality assurance form completed after each procedure and pathology reports were manually reviewed. Physician annualized colonoscopy volumes were compared by correlation analysis to each quality-related outcome, by means of the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), and logistic regression. The prognostic value of colonoscopy volume was also adjusted for case-mix and potential confounders in separate regression analyses for each outcome. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate (PDR), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR), and cecal intubation. Results A total of 47,195 colonoscopies were performed by 75 physicians (37.5% by gastroenterologists, 60% by general surgeons, 2.5% others). There were no clear relationships between annual colonoscopy volumes and study outcomes. Colonoscopy volume was not associated with ADR (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96–1.10, p=0.48) and corresponded to an AUROC not significantly different from the null (AUROC 0.52, 95% CI 0.43–0.61, p=0.65). Multi-variable regression adjusting for case-mix also demonstrated no predictive value of annual colonoscopy volume for the primary outcome (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94–1.12, p=0.55). Similarly, analyses of secondary outcomes failed to find an association between colonoscopy volume and PDR, SSPDR, or cecal intubation (Table 1). Conclusions Annual colonoscopy volumes do not predict ADR, PDR, SSPDR, or cecal intubation rate. Results of unconditional and conditional approaches for examining the predictive value of annual colonoscopy volume for quality related outcomes. Funding Agencies None

scholarly journals A117 PROPOFOL SEDATION DOES NOT IMPROVE MEASURES OF COLONOSCOPY QUALITY – FINDINGS FROM THE SOUTHWEST ONTARIO COLONOSCOPY COHORT

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 97-98
Author(s):  
M Sey ◽  
B Yan ◽  
Z Hindi ◽  
M Brahmania ◽  
J C Gregor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Conscious Sedation ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Propofol Sedation ◽  
Serrated Polyp ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Cecal Intubation Rate ◽  
Colonoscopy Quality

Abstract Background The use of propofol during colonoscopy has gained increased popularity due to deeper anesthesia compared to conscious sedation. Prior studies examining the use of propofol sedation during colonoscopy have primarily focused on anesthesia outcomes. Whether propofol sedation is associated with improvements in colonoscopy outcomes is uncertain. Aims The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes were the detection of any adenoma (conventional adenoma, sessile serrated polyp, and traditional serrated adenoma), sessile serrated polyp detection rate, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, and perforation rate. Methods The Southwest Ontario Colonoscopy cohort consists of all patients who underwent colonoscopy between April 2017 and Oct 2018 at 21 hospitals serving a large geographic area in Southwest Ontario. Procedures performed in patients less than 18 years of age or by endoscopist who perform <50 colonoscopies/year were excluded. Data were collected through a mandatory quality assurance form that was completed by the endoscopist after each procedure. Pathology reports were manually reviewed. Results A total of 46,634 colonoscopies were performed by 75 physicians (37.5% by gastroenterologists, 60% by general surgeons, 2.5% others) of which 16,408 (35.2%) received propofol and 30,226 (64.8%) received conscious sedation (e.g. combination of a benzodiazepine and a narcotic). Patients who received propofol were likely to have a screening indication (49.2% vs 45.5%, p<0.0001), not have a trainee endoscopist present and be performed at a non-academic centre (32.2% vs 44.6%, p<0.0001). Compared to conscious sedation, use of propofol was associated with a lower ADR (24.6% vs. 27.0%, p<0.0001) and detection of any adenoma (27.7% vs. 29.8%, p<0.0001); no difference was observed in the detection ofsessile serrated polyps (5.0% vs. 4.7%, p=0.26), polyp detection rate (41.2% vs 41.2%, p=0.978), cecal intubation rate (97.1% vs. 96.8%, p=0.15) or perforation rate (0.04% vs. 0.06%,p=0.45). On multi-variable analysis, the use of propofol was not significantly associated with any improvement in ADR (RR=0.90, 95% CI 0.74–1.10, p=0.30), detection of any adenoma (RR=0.93, 95% CI 0.75–1.14, p=0.47), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (RR=1.20, 95%CI 0.90–1.60, p=0.22), polyp detection rate (RR=1.00, 95% CI 0.90–1.11, p=0.99), or cecal intubation rate (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.80–1.26, p=0.99). Conclusions The use of propofol sedation does not improve colonoscopy quality metrics. Funding Agencies None

scholarly journals A120 NO EVIDENCE OF A FRIDAY EFFECT ON COLONOSCOPY QUALITY OUTCOMES

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 101-102
Author(s):  
Z Hindi ◽  
L Guizzetti ◽  
S cocco ◽  
M Brahmania ◽  
A Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Adjusted Risk ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Colonoscopy Quality

Abstract Background Colonoscopy quality may be influenced by operator fatigue. Prior studies have shown lower adenoma detection rates for procedures performed at the end of the day. However, it is unknown if colonoscopy quality is impaired at the end of the work week. Aims We investigated whether colonoscopy quality-related metrics differ at the end of the work week using the South West Ontario Colonoscopy Cohort. Methods Between April 2017 to February 2018, 45,510 consecutive colonoscopies from 20 academic and community hospitals in our health region were captured to form the cohort. In Canada, outpatient endoscopies are generally performed between Monday to Friday, taking Friday, or the last business day, as the last day of the work week compared to the rest of the work week. When a statutory holiday occurred on a Friday, Thursday was designated the last day of the work week. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), and secondary outcomes were sessile serrated polyp detection rate (ssPDR), polyp detection rate (PDR), and failed cecal intubation. Outcomes were presented as unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios derived from modified Poisson regression and adjusting for physician-level clustering, and characteristics of the patient (age, sex, severity), procedure (hospital setting, trainee presence, indication, sedation, bowel preparation quality) and physician (experience and specialty). Results During the observation period, 9,132 colonoscopies were performed on the last day of the work week compared to 36,378 procedures during the rest of the work week. No significant difference was observed for ADR (26.4% vs. 26.6%, p=0.75), ssPDR (4.5% vs. 5.0%, p=0.12), PDR (44.1% vs. 43.1%, p=0.081), or failed cecal intubation (2.8% vs. 2.9%, p=0.51) for colonoscopies performed on the last day of the work week compared to the rest of the week, respectively. After adjusting for potential confounders, there were no significant differences in the ADR (RR 1.01, 95% CI [0.88, 1.15], p=0.94), ssPDR (RR 0.90, 95% CI [0.70, 1.14], p=0.38), PDR (RR 1.00, 95% CI [0.92, 1.09], p=0.94), or failed cecal intubation (RR 0.92, 95% CI [0.72, 1.18], p=0.51) for colonoscopies performed on the last day of the work week compared to the rest of week, respectively. Conclusions Colonoscopy quality metrics, including ADR, ssPDR, PDR, and failed cecal intubation are not significantly different at the end of the week. Funding Agencies None

scholarly journals Colonoscopy quality across Europe: a report of the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group

2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (10) ◽  
pp. E1456-E1462
Author(s):  
Cristiano Spada ◽  
Anastasios Koulaouzidis ◽  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Pedro Amaro ◽  
Anurag Agrawal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Withdrawal Time ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation Rate ◽  
Colonoscopy Quality

Abstract Background and study aims The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group comprises expert colonoscopists and investigators with the aim of raising colonoscopy standards. We assessed the levels of monitoring and achievement of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures (PMs) across Europe using responses to the ECQI questionnaires. Methods The questionnaire comprises three forms: institution and practitioner questionnaires are completed once; a procedure questionnaire is completed on multiple occasions for individual total colonoscopies. ESGE PMs were approximated as closely as possible from the data collected via the procedure questionnaire. Procedure data could provide rate of adequate bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate (CIR), withdrawal time, polyp detection rate (PDR), and tattooing resection sites. Results We evaluated ECQI questionnaire data collected between June 2016 and April 2018, comprising 91 practitioner and 52 institution questionnaires. A total of 6445 completed procedure forms were received.Institution and practitioner responses indicate that routine recording of PMs is not widespread: adenoma detection rate (ADR) is routinely recorded in 29 % of institutions and by 34 % of practitioners; PDR by 42 % and 47 %, CIR by 62 % and 64 %, bowel preparation quality by 56 % and 76 %, respectively.Procedure data showed a rate of adequate bowel preparation of 84.2 %, CIR 73.4 %, PDR 40.5 %, mean withdrawal time 7.8 minutes and 12.2 % of procedures with possible removal of a non-pedunculated lesion ≥ 20 mm reporting tattooing. Conclusions Our findings clearly show areas in need of quality improvement and the importance of promoting quality monitoring throughout the colonoscopy procedure.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Macrogol 4000 Plus Electrolytes in Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Patients with Chronic Constipation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryoji Ichijima ◽  
Sho Suzuki ◽  
Mitsuru Esaki ◽  
Tomomi Sugita ◽  
Kanako Ogura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Chronic Constipation ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Observation Time ◽  
Insertion Time ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection

Abstract Background: Chronic constipation is a significant factor in poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Macrogol 4000 plus electrolytes (Movicol, EA Pharma, Tokyo, Japan), containing polyethylene glycol (PEG) and electrolytes, have been used recently to treat patients with constipation. However, prospective studies on the use of macrogol 4000 for bowel cleansing for colonoscopy are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of macrogol 4000 in addition to PEG administered in patients with chronic constipation.Methods: This single-center, single-arm prospective study enrolled patients with chronic constipation who were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of good bowel preparation assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (6 or more points). The secondary endpoints were the time from when pPEG (MoviPrep, EA Pharma, Tokyo, Japan) was taken until colonoscopy could be started, amount of PEG taken, number of defecations, whether additional PEG doses were taken, and adverse events. Endoscopy-related endpoints included cecal intubation rate, insertion time, observation time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and polyp detection rate (PDR). The tolerability of PEG and macrogol 4000 was assessed using a questionnaire.Results: Forty patients were included in the analysis. The median BBPS was 7 (range, (3–9)) and ³6 points in 37 cases (92.5%). The median time until colonoscopy can be started was 210 min (90–360 min), the median volume of PEG taken was 1500 mL (1000–2000 mL), and the median number of defecations was 7 (3-20). No adverse events were observed. Fourteen patients required an additional dose of PEG. Cecal intubation was achieved in all cases, the median insertion time was 6.0 min (range, 2.3–22 min), and the median observation time was 8.8 min (range, 4.0–16.0 min). The ADR and PDR were 60.0% and 75.0%, respectively. A greater proportion of patients rated the tolerability of macrogol 4000 as good compared with that of PEG (95.0% vs. 50.0%, p < 0.01).Conclusions: Intake of macrogol 4000 in addition to PEG is effective and safe for colonoscopy in patients with chronic constipation.

scholarly journals Colonoscopic polyp detection rate is stable throughout the workday including evening colonoscopy sessions

F1000Research ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 107 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Thurtle ◽  
Michael Pullinger ◽  
Jordan Tsigarides ◽  
Iris McIntosh ◽  
Carla Steytler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Reference Value ◽  
Occult Blood ◽  
Considerable Effect ◽  
Time Of Day ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Colonoscopy Quality

Objective: Polyp detection rate (PDR) is an accepted measure of colonoscopy quality. Several factors may influence PDR including time of procedure and order of colonoscopy within a session. Our unit provides evening colonoscopy lists (6-9 pm). We examined whether colonoscopy performance declines in the evening. Design: Data for all National Health Service (NHS) outpatient colonoscopies performed at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in 2011 were examined. Timing, demographics, indication and colonoscopy findings were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariate regression. Results: Data from 2576 colonoscopies were included: 1163 (45.1%) in the morning, 1123 (43.6%) in the afternoon and 290 (11.3%) in the evening.  Overall PDR was 40.80%. Males, increasing age and successful caecal intubation were all significantly associated with higher polyp detection. The indications ‘faecal occult blood screening’ (p<0.001) and ‘polyp surveillance’ (p<0.001) were strongly positively associated and ‘anaemia’ (p=0.01) was negatively associated with PDR. Following adjustment for  covariates, there was no significant difference in PDR between sessions. With the morning as the reference value, the odds ratio for polyp detection in the afternoon and evening were 0.93 (95% CI = 0.72-1.18) and 1.15 (95%CI = 0.82-1.61) respectively. PDR was not affected by rank of colonoscopy within a list, sedation dose or trainee-involvement. Conclusions: Time of day did not affect polyp detection rate in clinical practice. Evening colonoscopy had equivalent efficacy and is an effective tool in meeting increasing demands for endoscopy. Standardisation was shown to have a considerable effect as demographics, indication and endoscopist varied substantially between sessions. Evening sessions were popular with a younger population

scholarly journals Cap-assisted endoscopy: Do we have enough evidence?

2018 ◽  
Vol 06 (10) ◽  
pp. E1224-E1226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Frieling
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Clinical Benefits ◽  
Transparent Cap

AbstractSo, is there enough evidence to incorporate CC in clinical practice? If we interpret the literature and the meta-analysis by Nutalapati et al., the answer for the clinically-focused endoscopist, with regard to adenoma detection rate (ADR), at present, may be “no”. Significant differences do not necessarily imply clinical benefits and translation into clinical practice. The answer for the improvement of cecal intubation frequency and intubation time by the cap depends on the focus of training commitment, because these effects of the cap may be beneficial, especially for unexperienced endoscopists. It is obvious that further studies are needed. In this line, it is interesting to know, that in a recent meta-analysis of prospective studies, the length of the transparent cap had opposite effects on investigation time and polyp detection rate. Whereas, the anal to cecal time was significantly shortened by a cap length of > 7 mm and a polyp detection rate was significantly improved by a cap length of < 4 mm.

Individual polyp detection rate in routine daily endoscopy practice depends on case-mix

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 927-932
Author(s):  
R. J. L. F. Loffeld ◽  
B. Liberov ◽  
P. E. P. Dekkers
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Case Mix ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate

Routine ileal intubation in colonoscopy does not increase the polyp detection rate: a retrospective study

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (10) ◽  
pp. 955-959
Author(s):  
Weiyi Wang ◽  
Ke Chen ◽  
Ying Xu ◽  
Yufen Zhou ◽  
Ping Chen
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Abdominal Symptoms ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Clinical Benefits ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Time

AbstractColonoscopy is effective in the prevention and screening of colorectal cancer. Whether terminal ileal (TI) intubation is required during conventional colonoscopy and whether it offers clinical benefits with respect to polyp detection rate (PDR) remain unclear. This retrospective study included patients who underwent colonoscopy at our hospital between July 1, 2018 and April 20, 2019. The positive findings and time for TI intubation were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with PDR. There were 1675 patients with cecal intubation colonoscopy, including 994 (59 %) with TI intubation and 8 (1 %) with intestinal disease. The mean time for TI intubation was 40 seconds (3–338), and the mean time from cecal intubation to arrival at the deep part of TI mucosa was 24 seconds (2–118). The overall PDR was 27 %. On multivariable analysis, age > 50 years [95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.837–4.590], male sex (95 %CI, 0.406–0.649), presence of symptoms (abdominal symptoms vs. asymptomatic, 95 % CI, 1.146–2.468; stool changes vs. asymptomatic, 95 % CI, 1.070–1.834), and non-TI intubation (95 % CI, 1.040–1.648) were independent predictors of higher PDR. Trend analysis indicated decreasing trend of PDR among non-TI intubation group, 0–5 cm TI intubation group, and > 5 cm TI intubation group (30 % vs. 27 % vs. 24 %, respectively; p < 0.05). TI intubation is necessary to identify small bowel disease among a designated population, but it was not suggested to be routinely performed as part of colonoscopy, owing to limited positive intestinal findings, extra time requirement, and possible PDR worsening.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document