Variation in Colonoscopy Performance Measures According to Procedure Indication

Prediction of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia by KRAS mutation in polyps

BACKGROUND

The potential of molecular markers in the removed polys as reliable predictors of metachronous lesions is still uncertain.

AIM

Our aim was to evaluate the role of somatic mutations in KRAS in polyps of patients with high-risk adenomas to predict the risk of advanced polyps or colorectal cancer (CRC) within 3 years.

METHODS

A total of 518 patients were prospectively enrolled. The included patients had adenomas ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, villous component or ≥3 more adenomas at baseline and were scheduled to undergo surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years ± 6 months. Somatic KRAS mutation was performed on 1189 polyps collected from these patients. At surveillance, advanced lesions were defined as adenomas with a size of ≥10 mm. High-grade dysplasia or villous component, serrated polyps ≥10 mm or with dysplasia or CRC.

RESULTS

At baseline, 81 patients (15.6%) had KRAS mutations in at least one polyp. Patients with KRAS mutated polyps had more frequent villous histological lesions and size ≥20 mm. In the multivariate analysis, adjusted for age and sex, only age (odds ratios [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.09; p < 0.001), ≥5 adenomas (OR, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.96-7.82), and KRAS mutation (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.48-4.34; p < 0.01) were independently associated with the development of advanced lesions at surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that, in patients with high-risk adenomas, the presence of somatic mutations in KRAS is an independent risk factor for the development of advanced metachronous polyps.

Adenoma detection rate by colonoscopy in real-world population-based studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator set at a minimum of 25% in unselected populations by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Nevertheless, a lack of pooled observational data resembling real-world practice limits support for this threshold. We aimed to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the pooled rates for conventional adenoma detection, polyp detection (PDR), cecal intubation, bowel preparation, and complications in population-based studies.

METHODS

The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched until May 2023 for populational-based studies reporting overall ADR in unselected individuals. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

31 studies were included, comprising 3 644 561 subjects. A high quality of procedures was noticeable, with a high cecal intubation rate and low complication rate. The overall pooled ADR, PDR, and rate of cancer detection were 26.5% (95%CI 23.3% to 29.7%), 38.3% (95%CI 32.5% to 44.1%), and 2.7% (95%CI 1.5% to 3.9%), respectively. ADR varied according to indication: screening 33.3% (95%CI 24.5% to 42.2%), surveillance 42.9% (95%CI 36.9% to 49.0%), and diagnostic 24.7% (95%CI 19.5% to 29.9%), with subgroup analysis revealing rates of 34.4% (95%CI 22.0% to 40.5%) for post-fecal occult blood test and 26.6% (95%CI 22.6% to 30.5%) for primary colonoscopy screening. Diminutive conventional adenomas yielded a pooled rate of 59.9% (95%CI 43.4% to 76.3%). The pooled rate for overall serrated lesion detection was 12.4% (95%CI 8.8% to 16.0%). Male sex and higher age were significantly associated with an ADR above the benchmark.

CONCLUSION

This first meta-analysis relying on real-world observational studies supports the ESGE benchmark for ADR, while suggesting that different benchmarks might be used according to indication, sex, and age.

Appropriateness of colonoscopies in a Tunisian endoscopy center: factors and EPAGE-I/II criteria comparison

BACKGROUND

There is a growing demand for colonoscopy, worldwide, resulting in increased rate of inappropriate referrals. This "overuse" of colonoscopies has become a major burden for health care.

OBJECTIVES

to assess the appropriateness of colonoscopies performed at the endoscopy unit of the university hospital of Sousse and to compare these results of appropriateness according to the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) I and EPAGE II criteria.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

this cross-sectional study included all consecutive patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy, between January 2017 and December 2018. Patients referred for exclusively therapeutic indications, those with incomplete colonoscopies were not included. Patients with poor bowel preparation or missing data were also excluded. Indications were assessed using the EPAGE I and EPAGE II criteria.

RESULTS

From 1972 consecutive patients, 1307 were included. Overall, 986 (75.4%) of all referrals were for out-patients. The majority of patients were referred by gastroenterologists (n = 1026 patients; 78.5%), followed by general surgeons (n = 85; 6.5%). The commonest indications were lower abdominal symptoms (275; 21%) followed by uncomplicated diarrhea (152; 11.6%). Relevant findings were present in 363 patients (27.7%). Neoplastic lesions were the dominant finding in 221 patients (16.9%). EPAGE I and EPAGE II criteria were applicable for 1237 (88.8%) and 1276 (97.7%) patients respectively. Hematochezia and abdominal pain recorded the highest inappropriate rates with both sets of criteria. Appropriate colonoscopies increased to 76.4% when EPAGE II criteria were applied; whereas uncertain and inappropriate procedures decreased to 10.3% and 10.9% respectively Appropriateness of indication was significantly higher in hospitalized patients. For the EPAGE II criteria, the specialty of the referring physician was also significantly associated to the appropriate use. The agreement between EPAGE I and EPAGE II criteria was slight using the weighted version of k (k = 0.153).

CONCLUSIONS

The updated and improved EPAGE II guidelines are a simple and valid tool for assessing the appropriateness of colonoscopies. They decreased the inappropriate rate and the possibility of missing potentially severe diagnoses.

Endoscopist adenomas-per-colonoscopy detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) may be a better measure of colonoscopy quality than adenoma detection rate (ADR) because it credits endoscopists for each detected adenoma. There are few data examining the association between APC and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) incidence. We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to examine APC and PCCRC risk.

METHODS

We included New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry patients with an index examination and at least 1 follow-up event, either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. Our outcome was PCCRC defined as any CRC diagnosed ≥6 months after an index examination. The exposure variable was endoscopist-specific APC quintiles of .25, .40, .50, and .70. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on APC, controlled for age, sex, year of index examination, index findings, bowel preparation, and having more than 1 surveillance examination.

RESULTS

In 32,535 patients, a lower hazard for PCCRC (n = 178) was observed for higher APCs as compared to APCs of <.25 (reference): .25 to <.40: hazard ratio (HR), .35; 95% confidence interval (CI), .22-.56; .40 to <.50: HR, .31; 95% CI, .20-.49; .50 to <.70: HR, .20; 95% CI, .11-.36; and ≥.70: HR, .19; 95% CI, .09-.37. When examining endoscopists with an ADR of at least 25%, an APC of <.50 was associated with a significantly higher hazard than an APC of ≥.50 (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-2.56). A large proportion of endoscopists-one-fifth (32 of 152; 21.1%)-had an ADR of ≥25% but an APC of <.50.

CONCLUSIONS

Our novel data demonstrating lower PCCRC risk in examinations performed by endoscopists with higher APCs suggest that APC could be a useful quality measure. Quality improvement programs may identify important deficiencies in endoscopist detection performance by measuring APC for endoscopists with an ADR of ≥25%.

Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on patient experience (CSSQP): A valuable quality tool for all colonoscopies

INTRODUCTION

The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on Patient experience (CSSQP) was recently developed and validated within a Bowel Cancer Screening Program. We aimed to identify factor related to patient experience through the CSSQP, including all indications for colonoscopy. Indicators of satisfaction and perceived safety with colonoscopy were also assessed to compare the different centers.

METHODS

Multicenter study in nine Spanish hospitals. Consecutive patients who had undergone a colonoscopy completed the CSSQP adding a novel item on bowel preparation. Factors related to patient experiences and data from non-respondents were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 2200 patients, 1753 filled out the questionnaire (response rate 79.7%, sample error 2%). Patients whose colonoscopy indication was a primary colorectal cancer screening (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.15-2.44, p=0.007) or due to a +FIT (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.18-2.53) reported higher satisfaction than patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. In addition, college-educated patients (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.25-3.56) were more likely to report better overall satisfaction than patients with lower education level. Significant differences were observed in the majority of the CSSQP items between centers. Safety incidents were reported by 35 (2%) patients, and 176 (10%) patients reported that they received insufficient information.

CONCLUSION

The CSSQP identifies several significant factors on satisfaction and perceived safety in patients referred for colonoscopy for any reason. The CSSQP also allows comparison of patient-identified colonoscopy quality indicators between centers.

Risk Factors for Metachronous Colorectal Cancer or Advanced Adenomas After Endoscopic Resection of High-risk Adenomas

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Among the characteristics of high-risk adenomas (HRAs), some may predict a higher risk of metachronous advanced lesions. Our aim was to assess which HRA characteristics are associated with high risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced adenomas (AAs).

METHODS

We systematically searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for cohort studies and clinical trials of CRC or AA incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline lesion size, histology, and multiplicity. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic.

RESULTS

Fifty-five studies were included, with 936,540 patients with mean follow-up 5.4 ± 2.9 years. CRC incidence per 1000 person-years was 2.6 (2.1-3.0) for adenomas ≥20 mm, 2.7 (2.2-3.2) for high-grade dysplasia (HGD), 2.0 (1.8-2.3) for villous component, 0.8 (0.1-1.4) for ≥5 adenomas, 1.0 (0.7-1.2) for ≥3 adenomas. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in adenomas ≥20 mm vs 10 to 19 mm (RR, 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-3.61), HGD vs low-grade dysplasia (RR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.88-4.44), villous vs tubular (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.33-2.31). No significant differences in CRC risk were found in ≥3 adenomas vs 1 to 2 (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.83), nor in ≥5 adenomas vs 3 to 4 (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.30-2.11). Compared with normal colonoscopy, RR for CRC risk was 2.61 (95% CI, 2.06-3.32) for ≥10mm, 6.62 (95% CI, 4.60-9.52) for HGD, 3.58 (95% CI, 2.24-5.73) for villous component, and 2.03 (95% CI, 1.40-2.94) for ≥3 adenomas. Similar trends were seen for metachronous AAs.

CONCLUSION

Metachronous CRC risk is highest in patients with baseline adenomas with ≥20 mm or HGD. Multiplicity does not seem to be associated with substantially higher CRC risk in the near term.

Second-generation distal attachment cuff for adenoma detection in screening colonoscopy: a randomized multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Randomized studies have demonstrated that a distal attachment cap with rubber side arms, the Endocuff Vision (ECV; Olympus America, Center Valley, Pa, USA), increased colonoscopic adenoma detection rate (ADR) in various mixed patient collectives. This is the first study to evaluate its use in a primary colonoscopic screening program.

METHODS

Patients over age 55 years undergoing screening colonoscopy in 9 German private offices in Berlin and Hamburg were randomized to either the study group using ECV or the control group using high-definition colonoscopies (standard of care). The main outcome parameter was ADR, whereas secondary outcomes were detection rates of all adenomas per colonoscopy (APCs), of adenoma subgroups, and of hyperplastic polyps.

RESULTS

Of 1416 patients (mean age, 61.1 years; 51.8% women), with a median of 41 examinations per examiner (n = 23; interquartile range, 12-81), 700 were examined with ECV and 716 without. Adjusting for the effects of the colonoscopies, ADR was 39.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.6%-46.3%) in the ECV group versus 32.2% (95% CI, 25.9%-38.6%) in the control group, which resulted in an increase of 7.2% (95% CI, 2.3%-12.2%; P = .004). The increase in ADR was mainly because of small polyps, with adjusted ADRs for adenomas <10 mm of 33.3% (95% CI, 26.5%-40.2%) for study patients versus 24.0% (95% CI, 18.2%-29.8%) for control patients (P < .001). APC was also significantly increased (.57 ECV vs .51 control subjects, P = .045).

CONCLUSIONS

A distal attachment cap with side arms significantly increased the ADR in patients undergoing primary colonoscopic screening. Because of the correlation of ADR and interval cancer, its use should be encouraged, especially in this setting. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03442738.).

Efficacy of a computer-aided detection system in a fecal immunochemical test-based organized colorectal cancer screening program: a randomized controlled trial (AIFIT study)

BACKGROUND

Computer-aided detection (CADe) increases adenoma detection in primary screening colonoscopy. The potential benefit of CADe in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program is unknown. This study assessed whether use of CADe increases the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in a FIT-based CRC screening program.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized trial, FIT-positive individuals aged 50-74 years undergoing colonoscopy, were randomized (1:1) to receive high definition white-light (HDWL) colonoscopy, with or without a real-time deep-learning CADe by endoscopists with baseline ADR > 25 %. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and advanced adenoma detection rate (advanced-ADR). Subgroup analysis according to baseline endoscopists' ADR (≤ 40 %, 41 %-45 %, ≥ 46 %) was also performed.

RESULTS

800 individuals (median age 61.0 years [interquartile range 55-67]; 409 men) were included: 405 underwent CADe-assisted colonoscopy and 395 underwent HDWL colonoscopy alone. ADR and APC were significantly higher in the CADe group than in the HDWL arm: ADR 53.6 % (95 %CI 48.6 %-58.5 %) vs. 45.3 % (95 %CI 40.3 %-50.45 %; RR 1.18; 95 %CI 1.03-1.36); APC 1.13 (SD 1.54) vs. 0.90 (SD 1.32; P  = 0.03). No significant difference in advanced-ADR was found (18.5 % [95 %CI 14.8 %-22.6 %] vs. 15.9 % [95 %CI 12.5 %-19.9 %], respectively). An increase in ADR was observed in all endoscopist groups regardless of baseline ADR.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating CADe significantly increased ADR and APC in the framework of a FIT-based CRC screening program. The impact of CADe appeared to be consistent regardless of endoscopist baseline ADR.

Factors associated with lesion detection in colonoscopy among different indications

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Different factors may influence colonoscopy performance measures. We aimed to analyze procedure- and endoscopist-related factors associated with detection of colorectal lesions and whether these factors have a similar influence in the context of different colonoscopy indications: positive fecal immunochemical test (+FIT) and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopies.

METHODS

This multicenter cross-sectional study included adults aged 40-80 years. Endoscopists (N = 96) who had performed ≥50 examinations were assessed for physician-related factors. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per colonoscopy rate (APCR), advanced ADR, serrated polyp detection (SDR), and serrated polyps per colonoscopy rate (SPPCR) were calculated.

RESULTS

We included 12,932 procedures, with 4810 carried out after a positive FIT and 1967 for surveillance. Of the 96 endoscopists evaluated, 43.8% were women, and the mean age was 41.9 years. The ADR, advanced ADR, and SDR were 39.7%, 17.7%, and 12.8%, respectively. Adenoma detection rate was higher in colonoscopies after a +FIT (50.3%) with a more than doubled advanced ADR compared to non-FIT procedures (27.6% vs. 13.0%) and similar results in serrated lesions (14.7% vs. 13.5%). Among all the detection indicators analyzed, withdrawal time was the only factor independently related to improvement (p < 0.001). Regarding FIT-positive and surveillance procedures, for both indications, withdrawal time was also the only factor associated with a higher detection of adenomas and serrated polyps (p < 0.001). Endoscopist-related factors (i.e., weekly hours dedicated to endoscopy, annual colonoscopy volume and lifetime number of colonoscopies performed) had also impact on lesion detection (APCR, advanced ADR and SPPCR).

CONCLUSIONS

Withdrawal time was the factor most commonly associated with improved detection of colonic lesions globally and in endoscopies for + FIT and post-polypectomy surveillance. Physician-related factors may help to address strategies to support training and service provision. Our results can be used for establishing future benchmarking and quality improvement in different colonoscopy indications.

Key factors for improving adenoma detection rate

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is a fundamental tool in colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Nevertheless, one-fourth of colorectal neoplasms are still missed during colonoscopy, potentially being the main reason for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is currently known as the best quality indicator correlating with PCCRC incidence.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a literature review in order to summarize evidences investigating key factors affecting ADR: endoscopists education and training, patient management, endoscopic techniques, improved navigation (exposition defect), and enhanced lesions recognition (vision defect) were considered.

EXPERT OPINION

'Traditional' factors, such as split dose bowel preparation, adequate withdrawal time, and right colon second view, held a significant impact on ADR. Several devices and technologies have been developed to promote high-quality colonoscopy, however artificial intelligence may be considered the most promising tool for ADR improvement, provided that endoscopists education and recording are guaranteed.

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 aimed to assess the feasibility of linking two national registries (one for colonoscopy and one 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 at 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 colonoscopy-related adverse events occurred (0.58 % of all colonoscopies). Bleeding and perforation and rates were highest for therapeutic (1.56 % and 0.51 %, respectively) and FIT-positive screening (0.72 % and 0.06 %, respectively) colonoscopies. The colonoscopy-related mortality was 0.006 %.

CONCLUSION

This study describes the first results of the Dutch national colonoscopy registry, which was successfully linked to data from the national registry for adverse events of gastrointestinal endoscopies. In this large dataset, performance varied between indications. Our results emphasize the importance of defining benchmarks per indication in future guidelines.

Detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia and relative colonoscopy workloads using quantitative faecal immunochemical tests: an observational study exploring the effects of simultaneous adjustment of both sample number and test positivity threshold

OBJECTIVE

When screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) using quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT), test parameters requiring consideration are the faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) positivity cut-off and the number of stools sampled. This observational study explored variation in f-Hb between samples and the relationship between sensitivity for advanced neoplasia (AN, cancer or advanced adenoma) and colonoscopy workload across a range of independently-adjusted parameter combinations.

DESIGN

Quantitative FIT data (OC-Sensor) were accessed from individuals undergoing personalised colonoscopic screening with an offer of 2-sample FIT in the intervening years. We estimated variation in f-Hb between samples in 12 710 completing 2-sample FIT, plus test positivity rates (colonoscopy workload) and sensitivity for AN according to parameter combinations in 4037 instances where FIT was done in the year preceding colonoscopy.

RESULTS

There was large within-subject variability between samples, with the ratio for the second to the first sample f-Hb ranging up to 18-fold for all cases, and up to 56-fold for AN cases. Sensitivity for AN was greatest at lower f-Hb cut-offs and/or using 2-sample FIT. Colonoscopy workload varied according to how parameters were combined. Using different cut-offs for 1-sample FIT and 2-sample FIT to return similar sensitivity, workload was less with 2-sample FIT when the sensitivity goal exceeded 35%.

CONCLUSION

Variation in f-Hb between samples is such that both parameters are crucial determinants of sensitivity and workload; independent adjustment of each should be considered. The 2-sample FIT approach is best for detecting advanced adenomas as well as CRC provided that the colonoscopy workload is feasible.

GAPS-EUS: a new and reliable tool for the assessment of basic skills and performance in EUS among endosonography trainees

Objective

Endosonography (EUS) is a useful but complex diagnostic modality which requires advanced endoscopy training and guidance by a supervisor. Since learning curves vary among individuals, assessment of the actual competence among EUS trainees is important.

Design/methods

We designed a novel assessment tool entitled Global Assessment of Performance and Skills in EUS (GAPS-EUS) for assessing skills among EUS trainees. Five quality indicators were marked on a five-grade scale by the supervisor (Observer Score) and by the trainee (Trainee Score). Trainees were included in two high-volume centres (Gothenburg, Sweden, and Bologna, Italy). Outcomes were feasibility, patient safety, reliability, and validity of GAPS-EUS in trainee-performed EUS procedures.

Results

Twenty-two EUS-trainees were assessed in a total of 157 EUS procedures with a completion rate of 157/157 (100 %) and a patient adverse event rate of 2/157 (1.3 %; gastroenteritis n=1, fever n=1). GAPS-EUS showed a high measurement reliability (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient=0.87) and a high inter-rater reliability comparing the supervisor and the trainee (r=0.83, r²=0.69, p<0.001). The construct of GAPS-EUS was verified by comparing low-level and high-level performance procedures and the content validity by recording that the EUS-FNA manoeuvre resulted in a lower score than other aspects of EUS 3.07 (95% CI 2.91 to 3.23) vs 3.51 (95% CI 3.37 to 3.65) (p<0.001). External validity was confirmed via similar findings in both centres.

Conclusion

GAPS-EUS is an easy-to-use and reliable tool with a recorded high validity for the assessment of competence among trainees in EUS. It can be recommended to centres involved in the education of future endosonographers.

Trial registration number

NCT02455570.

Trainee participation during screening colonoscopy does not affect ADR at subsequent surveillance, but may result in early follow-up

Background and study aims  Training future endoscopists is essential to meet rising demands for screening and surveillance colonoscopies. Studies have shown conflicting results regarding the influence of trainees on adenoma detection rates (ADR). It is unclear whether trainee participation during screening adversely affects ADR at subsequent surveillance and whether it alters surveillance recommendations. Patients and methods  A retrospective analysis of average-risk screening colonoscopies and surveillance exams over a subsequent 10-year period was performed. The initial inclusion criteria were met by 5208 screening and 2285 surveillance exams. Patients with poor preparation were excluded. The final analysis included 7106 procedures, including 4922 screening colonoscopies and 2184 surveillance exams. Data were collected from pathology and endoscopy electronic databases. The primary outcome was the ADR with and without trainee participation. Surveillance recommendations were analyzed as a secondary outcome. Results  Trainees participated in 1131 (23 %) screening and in 232 (11 %) surveillance exams. ADR did not significantly differ ( P  = 0.19) for screening exams with trainee participation (19.5 %) or those without (21.4 %). ADRs were higher at surveillance exams with (22.4 %) and without (27.5 %) trainee participation. ADR at surveillance was not adversely affected by trainee participation during the previous colonoscopy. Shorter surveillance intervals were given more frequently if trainees participated during the initial screening procedure ( P  = 0.0001). Conclusions  ADR did not significantly differ in screening or surveillance colonoscopies with or without trainee participation. ADR at surveillance was not adversely affected by trainee participation during the previous screening exam. However, trainee participation may result in shorter surveillance recommendations.

Educational nurse-led telephone intervention shortly before colonoscopy as a salvage strategy after previous bowel preparation failure: a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The most important predictor of unsuccessful bowel preparation is previous failure. For those patients with previous failure, we hypothesized that a nurse-led educational intervention by telephone shortly before the colonoscopy appointment could improve cleansing efficacy.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive outpatients with previous inadequate bowel preparation were enrolled. Both groups received the same standard bowel preparation protocol. The intervention group also received reinforced education by telephone within 48 hours before the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was effective bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included all randomized patients. Per-protocol analysis included patients who could be contacted by telephone and the control cases.

RESULTS

657 participants were recruited by 11 Spanish hospitals. In the ITT analysis, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the rate of successful bowel preparation (77.3 % vs. 72 %; P = 0.12). In the intervention group, 267 patients (82.9 %) were contacted by telephone. Per-protocol analysis revealed significantly improved bowel preparation in the intervention group (83.5 % vs. 72.0 %; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among all patients with previous inadequate bowel preparation, nurse-led telephone education did not result in a significant improvement in bowel cleansing. However, in the 83 % of patients who could be contacted, bowel preparation was substantially improved. Phone education may therefore be a useful tool for improving the quality of bowel preparation in those cases.

Evaluation of endoscopy requests in the resumption of activity during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: denial of nonindicated requests and prioritization of accepted requests

INTRODUCTION

the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic forced the closure of endoscopy units. Before resuming endoscopic activity, we designed a protocol to evaluate gastroscopies and colonoscopies cancelled during the pandemic, denying inappropriate requests and prioritizing appropriate ones.

METHODS

two types of inappropriate request were established: a) COVID-19 context, people aged ≤ 50 years without alarm symptoms and a low probability of relevant endoscopic findings; and b) inappropriate context, requests not in line with clinical guidelines or protocols. Denials were filed in the medical record. Appropriate requests were classified into priority, conventional and follow-up. Requests denied by specialty were compared and the findings of priority requests were evaluated.

RESULTS

between March 16th and June 30th 2020, 1,658 requests (44 % gastroscopies and 56 % colonoscopies) were evaluated, of which 1,164 (70 %) were considered as appropriate (priority 8.5 %, conventional 48 %, follow-up 43 % and non-evaluable 0.5 %) and 494 (30 %) as inappropriate (20 % COVID-19 context, 80 % inappropriate context). The reasons for denial of gastroscopy were follow-up of lesions (33 %), insufficiently studied symptoms (20 %) and relapsing symptoms after a previous gastroscopy (18 %). The reasons for denial of colonoscopies were post-polypectomy surveillance (25 %), colorectal cancer after surgery (21 %) and a family history of cancer (13 %). There were significant differences in denied requests according to specialty: General Surgery (52 %), Hematology (37 %) and Primary Care (29 %); 31 % of priority cases showed relevant findings.

CONCLUSIONS

according to our study, 24 % of endoscopies were discordant with scientific recommendations. Therefore, their denial and the prioritization of appropriate ones optimize the use of resources.

AEG-SEED position paper for the resumption of endoscopic activity after the peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the suspension of programmed activity in most of the Endoscopy Units in our environment. The aim of this document is to facilitate the resumption of elective endoscopic activity in an efficient and safe manner.

Material and methods

A series of questions considered to be of clinical and logistical relevance were formulated. In order to elaborate the answers, a structured bibliographic search was carried out in the main databases and the recommendations of the main Public Health and Digestive Endoscopy institutions were reviewed. The final recommendations were agreed upon through telematic means.

Results

A total of 33 recommendations were made. The main aspects discussed are: 1) Reassessment and prioritization of the indication, 2) Restructuring of spaces, schedules and health personnel, 3) Screening for infection, 4) Hygiene measures and personal protective equipment.

Conclusion

The AEG and SEED recommend restarting endoscopic activity in a phased, safe manner, adapted to local resources and the epidemiological situation of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

AEG-SEED position paper for the resumption of endoscopic activity after the peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic

Introducción

La pandemia por COVID-19 ha conllevado la suspensión de la actividad programada en la mayoría de las Unidades de Endoscopia de nuestro medio. El objetivo del presente documento es facilitar el reinicio de la actividad endoscópica electiva de forma eficiente y segura.

Material y métodos

Se formuló una serie de preguntas consideradas de relevancia clínica y logística. Para la elaboración de las respuestas, se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica estructurada en las principales bases de datos y se revisaron las recomendaciones de las principales instituciones de Salud Pública y de endoscopia digestiva. Las recomendaciones finales se consensuaron por vía telemática.

Resultados

Se han elaborado un total de 33 recomendaciones. Los principales aspectos que se discuten son: 1) la reevaluación y priorización de la indicación; 2) la restructuración de espacios, agendas y del personal sanitario; 3) el cribado de la infección, y 4) las medidas de higiene y los equipos de protección individual.

Conclusión

La AEG y la SEED recomiendan reiniciar la actividad endoscópica de forma escalonada, segura, adaptada a los recursos locales y a la situación epidemiológica de la infección por SARS-CoV-2.