scholarly journals Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter Study

Author(s):  
Carina Leal ◽  
Nuno Almeida ◽  
Maria Silva ◽  
Antonieta Santos ◽  
Helena Vasconcelos ◽  
...  

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Advances in endoscopy and open-access systems led to an increase in endoscopic procedures. However, overuse of endoscopy has been consistently reported. This study aims to assess the appropriateness of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy referral in the private and public setting. <b><i>Patients and Methods:</i></b> We conducted a prospective, multicenter study at 2 public and 5 private endoscopy units. Patients scheduled for elective EGD or colonoscopy were enrolled. Clinical data and endoscopy findings were recorded. Appropriateness of endoscopy was defined according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines (for EGD) and the European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II (for colonoscopy). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Regarding EGD: 215 patients enrolled (43.7% were males) with a mean age of 61.0 ± 15.1 years; 54.0% (<i>n</i> = 116) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 34.9% (<i>n</i> = 75). Appropriate indications were made for 62.3% (<i>n</i> = 134): 42.4% in private versus 79.3% in public endoscopy units (odds ratio [OR] 5.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.85–9.49; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01). Rate of appropriate EGD was 74.7% for gastroenterologist referral and 56.1% for other specialties (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.24–4.28; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01). Diagnostic yield for relevant findings was 47.9%. No association between indication appropriateness, gastroenterologist referral, and relevant endoscopic findings was found. Regarding colonoscopy: 287 patients enrolled (49.1% were males) with a mean age of 60.4 ± 14.4 years; 48.1% (<i>n</i> = 138) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 20.6% (<i>n</i> = 59). Appropriate indications were made for 70.0% (<i>n</i> = 201): 53.0% in private vs. 88.4% in public endoscopy units (OR 6.75; 95% CI 3.66–12.47; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01). Diagnostic yield was 57.1%. Relevant endoscopic diagnosis was associated with indication: 63.2% in the appropriate vs. 43.0% in the nonappropriate indication group (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.05). <b><i>Discussion:</i></b> A significant percentage of endoscopies, mainly in the private setting, were performed without an appropriate indication. This influenced the diagnostic yield. The use of adequate criteria is fundamental for the rational use of an open-access system.

2013 ◽  
Vol 154 (21) ◽  
pp. 825-833
Author(s):  
Zoltán Döbrönte ◽  
Mária Szenes ◽  
Beáta Gasztonyi ◽  
Lajos Csermely ◽  
Márta Kovács ◽  
...  

Introduction: Recent guidelines recommend routine pulse oximetric monitoring during endoscopy, however, this has not been the common practice yet in the majority of the local endoscopic units. Aims: To draw attention to the importance of the routine use of pulse oximetric recording during endoscopy. Method: A prospective multicenter study was performed with the participation of 11 gastrointestinal endoscopic units. Data of pulse oximetric monitoring of 1249 endoscopic investigations were evaluated, of which 1183 were carried out with and 66 without sedation. Results: Oxygen saturation less than 90% was observed in 239 cases corresponding to 19.1% of all cases. It occurred most often during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (31.2%) and proximal enteroscopy (20%). Procedure-related risk factors proved to be the long duration of the investigation, premedication with pethidine (31.3%), and combined sedoanalgesia with pethidine and midazolam (34.38%). The age over 60 years, obesity, consumption of hypnotics or sedatives, severe cardiopulmonary state, and risk factor scores III and IV of the American Society of Anestwere found as patient-related risk factors. Conclusion: To increase the safety of patients undergoing endoscopic investigation, pulse oximeter and oxygen supplementation should be the standard requirement in all of the endoscopic investigation rooms. Pulse oximetric monitoring is advised routinely during endoscopy with special regard to the risk factors of hypoxemia. Orv. Hetil., 2013, 154, 825–833.


2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean Keren ◽  
Tova Rainis ◽  
Edy Stermer ◽  
Alexandra Lavy

BACKGROUND: The appropriateness and safety of open-access endoscopy are very important issues as its use continues to increase.OBJECTIVE: To present a review of a nine-year experience with open-access upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with respect to indications, diagnostic efficacy, safety and diseases diagnosed.METHODS: A retrospective, observational case series of all patients who underwent open-access endoscopy between January 2000 and December 2008 was conducted. Indications were classified as appropriate or not appropriate according to American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines. Endoscopic diagnoses were based on widely accepted criteria. Major complication rates were assessed.RESULTS: A total of 20,620 patients with a mean age of 58 years were assessed, of whom 11,589 (56.2%) were women and 9031 (43.8%) were men. Adherence to ASGE indications led to statistically significant, clinically relevant findings. The most common indications in patients older than age 45 years of age were dyspepsia (28.5%) and anemia (19.7%) in the ASGE-appropriate group, and dyspepsia in patients younger than 45 years of age without therapy trial (6.6%) in the nonappropriate group. Of the examinations, 38.57% were normal. Hiatal hernia and nonerosive gastritis were the most common findings. Important diagnoses such as malignancies and duodenal ulcers would have been missed if endoscopies were performed only according to appropriateness. There were only two major complications and no mortalities.CONCLUSIONS: Open-access upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is a safe and effective system. More relevant findings were found when adhering to the ASGE guidelines. However, using these guidelines as the sole determining factor in whether to perform an endoscopy is not advisable because many clinically relevant diagnoses may be overlooked.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document