Expertise in colonoscopy intubation does not predict diagnostic accuracy: a simulation-based study

Background and study aims Studies have linked cecal intubation rate with adenoma detection rate; however, the direct association between technical performance during colonoscopy intubation and withdrawal has never been explored. Thus, it remains unclear whether gentle and efficient intubation predicts superior mucosal inspection. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between performance during intubation and withdrawal in a simulation-based setup. Methods Twenty-four physicians with various experience in colonoscopy performed twice on the Endoscopy Training System (ETS). Intubation skills were evaluated by assessing tasks on the ETS related to intubation (scope manipulation and loop management) and use of a computerized assessment tool called the 3D-Colonoscopy Progression Score (3D-CoPS). Diagnostic accuracy was defined by the number of polyps found during the ETS task of mucosal inspection. Pearson’s correlations were calculated to explore associations between intubation skill and diagnostic accuracy. Results The correlation analysis between 3D-CoPS and number of polyps found during mucosal inspection revealed a weak and insignificant correlation (0.157, P = 0.3). Likewise, an insignificant correlation was seen between ETS intubation and number of polyps found (0.149, P = 0.32). Conclusions We found no evidence to support that technical performance during intubation is correlated with mucosal inspection performance in a simulation-based setting.

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

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.

Effect of Using Personal Protective Equipment during the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Quality Indicators of Screening Colonoscopies

Background. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected many facets of the practice of medicine including screening colonoscopies. Aims. Our study looks to observe if there has been an effect on the quality of colonoscopies, as indicated by quality measures such as the cecal intubation rate (CIR), cecal intubation time (CIT), scope withdrawal time (SWT), and adenoma detection rate (ADR) with the adoption of standard COVID-19 precautions. Methods. We conducted a retrospective chart review to analyze the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on screening colonoscopies. The study utilized data on CIR, CIT, SWT, and ADR from outpatient, nonemergent procedures conducted at 3 endoscopy suites of St. Luke’s University Health Network. All inpatient and emergent procedures were excluded. Results. Our study demonstrated that the total number of screening colonoscopies was decreased between 2019 and 2020 (318 in 2019 vs. 157 in 2020, p = 0.005 ). CIT ( 320 ± 105 seconds in 2019 vs. 392 ± 107 seconds in 2020, p = 0.001 ) and SWT ( 706 ± 232 seconds in 2019 vs. 830 ± 241 seconds in 2020, p = 0.001 ) were increased while CIR (98.2% in 2019 vs. 96.6% in 2020, p = 0.04 ) was decreased between 2019 and 2020 likely due to PPE introduction. ADR was similar between the two groups (38.23 (12.50-66.66) in 2019 vs. 38.18 (16.66-66.00) in 2020, p = 0.8 ). Conclusion. Our study showed that quality indices for screening colonoscopies like CIR, CIT, and SWT were negatively impacted during the COVID-19 time period. ADR, however, was similar. Thus, the efficiency of the procedures was affected by the use of PPE but it did not affect the colonoscopy’s clinical benefit.

Continuous monitoring of colonoscopy performance in the Netherlands: first results of a nationwide registry

Background: To optimize colonoscopy quality, several performance measures have been developed. These are usually assessed without distinction between the indications for colonoscopy. This study aims to assess the feasibility of linkage between two registries: a national colonoscopy registry and a national registry for adverse events of gastrointestinal endoscopies in the Netherlands, and to describe the results of colonoscopy quality per indication. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted with prospectively collected data of the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit (DGEA) and the Dutch Registration of Complications in Endoscopy (DRCE). Data between 01-01-2016 and 01-01-2019 were analyzed. To calculate adverse event rates, data were linked to the level of endoscopy service. Results: During the 3-year study period, 266.981 colonoscopies were recorded in DGEA. Of all indications, cecal intubation rate was highest in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive screening colonoscopies (97.1%), followed by surveillance (93.2%), diagnostic (90.7%) and therapeutic colonoscopies (83.1%). The highest rate of adequate bowel preparation was observed in FIT-positive screening colonoscopies (97.1%). A total of 1540 (0.58%) adverse events occurred after colonoscopies. Perforation and bleeding rates were highest for therapeutic (0.51% and 1.56%, respectively) and FIT-positive screening colonoscopies (0.06% and 0.72%, respectively). The colonoscopy-related mortality was 0.006%. Conclusion: This study describes the first results of the Dutch national colonoscopy registry, which was successfully linked with data of the national registry for adverse events of gastrointestinal endoscopies. In this large dataset, performance measures varied per indication. Our results emphasize the importance of defining benchmarks per indication in future guidelines.

Outcomes of colonoscopy with non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP): an equivalence trial

Background and study aims Efficacy and safety of NAAP for gastrointestinal endoscopy have been widely documented, although there is no information about the outcomes of colonoscopy when the endoscopist supervises the sedation. In this context, the aim of this trial was to determine the equivalence of adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening colonoscopies performed with non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) and performed with monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Patients and methods This was a single-blind, non-randomized controlled equivalence trial that enrolled adults from a national CRC screening program (CRCSP). Patients were blindly assigned to undergo either colonoscopy with NAAP or MAC. The main outcome measure was the ADR in CRCSP colonoscopies performed with NAAP. Results We included 315 patients per group. The median age was 59.76 ± 5.81 years; 40.5 % of patients were women. The cecal intubation rate was 97 %, 81.8 % of patients had adequate bowel preparation, withdrawal time was > 6 minutes in 98.7 %, and the median global exploration time was 24.25 ± 8.86 minutes (range, 8–70 minutes). The ADR was 62.9 % and the complication rate (CR) was 0.6 %. Analysis by intention-to-treat showed an ADR in the NAAP group of 64.13 % compared with 61.59 % in the MAC group, a difference (δADR) of 2.54 %, 95 %CI: −0.10 to 0.05. Analysis by per-protocol showed an ADR in the NAAP group of 62.98 %, compared with 61.94 % in the MAC group, δADR: 1.04 %, 95 %CI: −0.09 to 0.07. There was no difference in CR (NAAP: 0,63 vs. MAC: 0.63); P = 1.0. Conclusions ADR in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies performed with NAAP was equivalent to that in those performed with MAC. Similarly, there was no difference in complication rates.

Efficacy of a small-caliber colonoscope for pain in female patients during unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized controlled study

Background and study aims Female sex has been identified as a factor increasing patients’ pain during colonoscopy. The aim of this randomized controlled study was to investigate the efficacy of a small-caliber colonoscope, PCF-PQ260 L, for limiting pain in women during unsedated colonoscopy. Patients and methods Women who underwent unsedated colonoscopy were randomly allocated to either the small-caliber or standard colonoscope group. The primary outcome was overall pain and secondary outcomes were maximum pain and procedural measures. In addition, the effects of colonoscope type were analysed using analysis of covariance and logistic regression with adjustment for stratification factors, age and prior abdomino-pelvic surgery. Results A total of 220 women were randomly assigned to the small-caliber (n = 110) or standard (n = 110) colonoscope groups. Overall and maximum pain scores were significantly lower in the small-caliber colonoscope group than the standard colonoscope group (overall pain, 20.0 vs. 32.4, P < 0.0001; maximum pain, 28.9 vs. 47.2, P < 0.0001). The small-caliber colonoscope group achieved a superior cecal intubation rate (99 % vs. 93 %, P = 0.035). The rate of patient acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy in the future was higher in the small-caliber colonoscope group than in the standard colonoscope group (98 % vs. 87 %, P = 0.003). In addition, the small-caliber colonoscope was superior with respect to reducing pain and improving the rate of patient acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy with adjustment. Conclusions This study demonstrates the efficacy of the small-caliber colonoscope for reducing pain in women and improving their rate of acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy.

Weekend and evening planned colonoscopy activity: a safe and effective way to meet demands

Background and study aims Colonoscopy is the “gold standard” investigation for assessment of the large bowel that detects and prevents colorectal cancer, as well as non-neoplastic conditions. The Joint Advisory Group (JAG) on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends monitoring key performance indicators such as cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). We aimed to investigate the quality of colonoscopies carried out during evening and Saturday lists in our unit and compare them against JAG standards of quality for colonoscopies. Patients and methods We retrospectively collected and analyzed demographical and procedure-related data for non-screening colonoscopies performed between January 2016 and November 2018. Evenings and Saturdays were defined as the out-of-hour (OOH) period. We compared the outcomes of the procedures done in these against the working hours of the weekdays. We also wanted to explore whether the outcomes were different among certain endoscopists. Other factors that could affect the KPIs, such as endoscopist experience and bowel preparation, were also analyzed. Results There were a total of 17634 colonoscopies carried out; 56.9 % of the patients (n = 10041) < 70 years old. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of weekday, evening, and Saturday colonoscopies regarding the CIR and ADR met the JAG standards as they were above 93 % and 24 %, respectively. Advanced colonoscopists had better KPIs when compared to the non-advanced colonoscopists, with CIR at 97.6 % vs. 93.2 % and ADR at 40.8 % vs. 26 %, respectively. Conclusions JAG standards were maintained during colonoscopies done on weekdays, evenings, and Saturdays. Advanced colonoscopists had higher CIR and ADRs.

Effect of using personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality indicators of screening colonoscopies.

Background and Aims: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected many facets of the practice of medicine including screening colonoscopies. Our study looks to observe if there has been an effect on the quality of colonoscopies, as indicated by quality measures such as cecal intubation rate (CIR), cecal intubation time (CIT), scope withdrawal time (SWT) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) with the adoption of standard COVID-19 precautions. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review to analyze the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on screening colonoscopies. The study utilized data on CIR, CIT, SWT and ADR from outpatient, non-emergent procedures conducted at 3 endoscopy suites of St Lukes University Health Network. All inpatient and emergent procedures were excluded. Data was obtained by performing chart review on EPIC electronic health record. Results: Our study demonstrated that the total number of screening colonoscopies was decreased between 2019 to 2020 (318 in 2019 vs 157 in 2020, p= 0.005). CIT (320+/-105 seconds in 2019 vs 392+/-107 seconds in 2020, p=0.001) and SWT (706+/-232 seconds in 2019 vs 830+/-241 seconds in 2020, p=0.001) were increased while CIR (98.2% in 2019 vs 96.6% in 2020, p=0.04) was decreased between 2019 and 2020 likely due to PPE introduction. ADR was similar between the two groups (38.23 (12.50-66.66) in 2019 vs 38.18(16.66-66.00) in 2020, p=0.8). Conclusion: Our study showed that quality indices for screening colonoscopies like cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time and scope withdrawal time were negatively impacted during the initial COVID time period compared to pre-COVID time. The study also displayed that though there was a significant decline in both screening and diagnostic colonoscopies during pandemic, adenoma detection rates were comparable. Thus, the efficiency of the procedures was affected by the use of PPE but it did not affect the colonoscopies clinical benefits.