Appropriateness of upper-GI endoscopy: an Italian survey on behalf of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy

TEMPORARY REMOVAL: Quality indicators common to all GI endoscopic procedures

The publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.

Open-Access Oesophagogastroduodenoscopy as an Effective and Safe Strategy for Patients With Non-alarming Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Open-access oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OAO) is defined as the performance of oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) requested by referring physicians without a prior specialist consultation. With the increasing demand for specialist appointments, the use of OAO has helped to reduce healthcare utilization by decreasing prior clinic visits. This also allows endoscopies to be scheduled and performed earlier. This study aims to evaluate our experience in providing OAO services to patients with non-alarming dyspepsia symptoms under the age of 60.

METHODS

The records of patients scheduled for OAO from January 2019 to December 2022 at Singapore General Hospital (SGH) Department of Gastroenterology were analyzed.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-nine patients were scheduled for OAO, and 436 patients underwent the procedure. The mean age of patients was 45.7 (SD=10.9) years old. Thirty-six percent were males, and there were 80.8% Chinese, 5.3% Malay, 8.6% Indian, and 5.3% others. The median waiting time for endoscopy was 23 days (IQR 16-36), and no major adverse events were reported. Over half of the endoscopies were unremarkable (n=231, 53%). There were 25 (5.7%) patients with major findings; three had upper gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma (one oesophageal and two gastric), one had oesophageal varices, and 21 had peptic ulcer disease (10 gastric and 11 duodenal ulcers). A rapid urease test was conducted on 409 patients, and 55 (13.4%) were positive.

CONCLUSION

OAO is a safe and effective strategy for providing timely diagnostic OGD to normal-risk patients at our center. Primary care physicians are encouraged to refer non-alarming dyspepsia symptoms patients under 60 years for OAO over the conventional route.

The carbon cost of inappropriate endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Digestive endoscopy is a resource-intensive activity with a conspicuous carbon footprint and an estimated rate of inappropriateness. However, the carbon costs of inappropriate endoscopic procedures still remain obscure. Here we evaluated the environmental impact of inappropriate endoscopic examinations.

METHODS

We calculated the carbon cost of a standard endoscopic procedure (EGD and colonoscopy [CLS]), taking into account the items (eg, disposable materials, personal protective equipment) and energy required for the endoscopy procedure itself and the cleaning process. The rates of inappropriateness and the mortality cost of carbon (MCC) of endoscopic examinations in different scenarios were calculated.

RESULTS

EGD and CLS presented a carbon cost of 5.43 kg and 6.71 kg of CO2, respectively. Different scenarios were evaluated, according to the number of endoscopic procedures performed in Italy per 1000 inhabitants and the reported data on their inappropriateness. The carbon cost of inappropriate EGD and CLS in Italy was 4133 CO2 metric tons per year (MCC, .93), ranging from 3527 to 4749, and equivalent to 1,760,446 L of gasoline consumed. Applying the same data to the European population, the estimated carbon footprint of inappropriate digestive endoscopy in Europe was 30,804 metric tons.

CONCLUSIONS

The environmental impact of inappropriate endoscopic procedures in Europe is remarkable. These results highlight the need to adopt novel strategies aimed at reducing both the carbon footprint of digestive endoscopy and the rate of inappropriate procedures.

Development and validation of a scoring system to predict esophagogastroduodenoscopy necessity

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop and validate a scoring system for predicting the need for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in clinical practice to enhance accuracy and reduce misapplications.

METHODS

From February 2021 to April 2022, outpatients scheduled for EGD at the Department of Gastroenterology in our hospital were recruited. Patients completed the system evaluation by providing clinical symptoms, relevant medical history, and endoscopic findings. Patients were randomly divided into the training and validation cohorts (at 2:1 ratio). The optimal algorithm was selected from five alternatives including a parallel test. Six physicians participated in a human-computer comparative validation. Sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio (-LR) were used as the primary indicators.

RESULTS

Altogether 865 patients were enrolled, with 578 in the training cohort and 287 in the validation cohort. The scoring system comprised 21 variables, including age, 13 typical clinical symptoms, and seven medical history variables. The parallel test was selected as the final algorithm. Positive EGD findings were reported in 54.5% of the training cohort and 62.7% of the validation cohort. The scoring system demonstrated a sensitivity of 79.0% in the training cohort and 83.9% in the validation cohort, with -LR being 0.627 and 0.615, respectively. Compared to physicians, the scoring system exhibited higher sensitivity (84.0% vs 68.7%, P = 0.02) and a lower -LR (1.11 vs 2.41, P = 0.439).

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a scoring system to predict the necessity of EGD using a parallel test algorithm, which was user-friendly and effective, as evidenced by single-center validation.

The Gastropack Access System as a Model to Access Gastroenterology Services for Gastroscopy Appropriateness in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Symptoms: A Comparison with the Open Access System

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) appropriateness in Open-Access System (OAS) is a relevant issue. The Gastropack Access System (GAS) is a new system to access gastroenterological services, based on the partnership between Gastroenterologists and GPs. This study aims to evaluate if GAS is superior to OAS in terms of EGDS appropriateness. Secondarily, we evaluated the diagnostic yield of EGDS according to ASGE guidelines. The GAS was developed in an area of Bologna where General Practitioners (GPs) could decide to directly prescribe EGDS through OAS or referring to GAS, where EGDS can be scheduled after contact between GPs and specialists sharing a patient's clinical information. Between 2016 and 2019, 2179 cases (M:F = 861:1318, median age 61, IQR 47.72) were referred to GAS and 1467 patients (65%) had a prescription for EGDS; conversely, 874 EGDS were prescribed through OAS (M:F = 383:491; median age 58 yrs, IQR 45.68). Indication was appropriate in 92% in GAS (1312/1424) versus 71% in OAS (618/874), p < 0.001. The rate of clinically significant endoscopic findings (CSEF) was significantly higher in GAS (49% vs. 34.8%, p < 0.001). Adherence to ASGE guidelines was not related to CSEF; however, surveillance for pre-malignant conditions was independently related to CSEF. All neoplasm were observed in appropriate EGD. GAS is an innovative method showing extremely high rates of appropriateness. ASGE guidelines confirmed their validity for cancer detection, but their performance for the detection of other conditions needs to be refined.

A DSC Test for the Early Detection of Neoplastic Gastric Lesions in a Medium-Risk Gastric Cancer Area

In this study, we aimed to assess the accuracy of the proposed novel, noninvasive serum DSC test in predicting the risk of gastric cancer before the use of upper endoscopy. To validate the DSC test, we enrolled two series of individuals living in Veneto and Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Italy (n = 53 and n = 113, respectively), who were referred for an endoscopy. The classification used for the DSC test to predict gastric cancer risk combines the coefficient of the patient's age and sex and serum pepsinogen I and II, gastrin 17, and anti-Helicobacter pylori immunoglobulin G concentrations in two equations: Y1 and Y2. The coefficient of variables and the Y1 and Y2 cutoff points (>0.385 and >0.294, respectively) were extrapolated using regression analysis and an ROC curve analysis of two retrospective datasets (300 cases for the Y1 equation and 200 cases for the Y2 equation). The first dataset included individuals with autoimmune atrophic gastritis and first-degree relatives with gastric cancer; the second dataset included blood donors. Demographic data were collected; serum pepsinogen, gastrin G17, and anti-Helicobacter pylori IgG concentrations were assayed using an automatic Maglumi system. Gastroscopies were performed by gastroenterologists using an Olympus video endoscope with detailed photographic documentation during examinations. Biopsies were taken at five standardized mucosa sites and were assessed by a pathologist for diagnosis. The accuracy of the DSC test in predicting neoplastic gastric lesions was estimated to be 74.657% (65%CI; 67.333% to 81.079%). The DSC test was found to be a useful, noninvasive, and simple approach to predicting gastric cancer risk in a population with a medium risk of developing gastric cancer.

Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

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.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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).

RESULTS

Regarding EGD: 215 patients enrolled (43.7% were males) with a mean age of 61.0 ± 15.1 years; 54.0% (n = 116) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 34.9% (n = 75). Appropriate indications were made for 62.3% (n = 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; p < 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; p < 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% (n = 138) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 20.6% (n = 59). Appropriate indications were made for 70.0% (n = 201): 53.0% in private vs. 88.4% in public endoscopy units (OR 6.75; 95% CI 3.66-12.47; p < 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 (p < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

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.

The yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients below 60 years and without alarm symptoms presenting with dyspepsia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is frequently performed in patients with upper abdominal symptoms. Although guidelines recommend withholding an endoscopy in the absence of alarm symptoms, dyspeptic symptoms remain a predominant indication for endoscopy. We aimed to investigate the yield of upper GI endoscopy in patients with low-risk dyspeptic symptoms.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis in a prospectively maintained endoscopy reporting database. We collected the results of all upper GI endoscopy procedures between 2015 and 2019 that was performed in adult patients aged <60 years with dyspeptic symptoms. Patients with documented alarm symptoms were excluded. We categorized endoscopic findings into major and minor endoscopic findings.

RESULTS

We identified 26,440 patients with dyspeptic symptoms who underwent upper GI endoscopy. A total of 13,978 patients were considered low-risk and included for analysis (median age 46 years, interquartile range (IQR) [36-53], 62% female). In 11,353 patients (81.2%), no endoscopic abnormalities were detected. Major endoscopic findings were seen in 513 patients (3.7%) and minor endoscopic findings in 2178 patients (15.6%). Endoscopic findings indicative of upper GI cancer were reported in 47 patients (0.3%), including 16 (0.1%) oesophageal, 28 (0.2%) gastric and 5 (0.04%) duodenal lesions. Despite an initial unremarkable endoscopy result, 1015 of 11,353 patients (8.9%) underwent a follow-up endoscopy after a median of 428 days [IQR 158-819]. This did not lead to the additional identification of malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

The yield of upper GI endoscopy in low-risk (<60 years, no alarm symptoms) patients with dyspepsia is very limited. This study further supports a restrictive use of upper GI endoscopy in these patients.

Improvement in appropriateness and diagnostic yield of fast-track endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic in Northern Italy

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy, only fast-track endoscopic procedures have been performed; nevertheless, a significant drop in their number has been reported. We evaluated whether the pandemic has impacted the appropriateness and diagnostic yield of fast-track endoscopic procedures compared with those performed in 2019.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved endoscopy services in Northern Italy. We compared data regarding endoscopic procedures performed in March and April 2020 with those performed during the same period in 2019.

RESULTS

In 2020, there was a 53.6 % reduction in the number of fast-track endoscopic procedures compared with 2019. Patients undergoing endoscopy in 2020 were younger than in 2019. Both appropriate referral and diagnostic yield increased in 2020 for both upper and lower endoscopy. A higher rate of cancer was diagnosed in 2020 by upper endoscopy (3.6 % vs. 6.6 %; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The high level of inappropriate endoscopy referrals registered in 2019 significantly improved during the COVID-19 outbreak of 2020, with an increase in the diagnostic yield.

Reorganization of the endoscopic activity of Cancer Institutes during phase II of the Covid-19 emergency

After the lockdown during the emergency phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, we have to deal with phase 2, a period of uncertain duration, with a controlled and progressive return to normalization, in which we need to reconcile our work and our movements with the presence of the virus on our territory. Digestive endoscopic activity is a high-risk transmission procedure for Covid-19. The measures put in place to protect healthcare personnel and patients are stressful and "time-consuming" and lead to a reduction in the number of endoscopic procedures that can be performed. In this scenario, the Oncological Institutes are forced to make a rigorous selection of patients to undergo endoscopic examinations and treatments, according to lists of exceptional priorities, in order to guarantee cancer patients and subjects at high risk of developing digestive tumors, a preferential diagnostic and therapeutic process, protected from contagion risks. For this purpose, cuts and postponing times of endoscopic performances are here proposed, which go beyond the guidelines of scientific societies and have little evidences in the literature. These changes should be applied limited to this exceptional period and in proportion to the capacity of each operating unit in order to meet the demands of the patients.

How to get away with COVID-19: endoscopy during post-peak pandemic. A perspective review

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has changed the way we work, and health care services have to adapt. The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the delay of non-urgent procedures were the immediate measures adopted by Gastrointestinal (GI) Endoscopy Units at the time of crisis. As the peak has now passed in most countries, GI facilities are facing the next challenge of this pandemic: service providers must adapt their routine work to a 'new normal'. Routine casework must resume, and waiting lists must be addressed: all in the awareness of the ongoing potential risks of COVID-19, and the threat of a second wave. In this review, we discuss strategies to manage the workload by improving procedure appropriateness and prioritization, whilst maintaining a 'COVID-free' environment. This includes monitoring of an adequate stock of PPE and the implications for the staff's workload, and the GI trainees' need of training.

The impact of covid-19 pandemic on urgent endoscopy in Italy: a nation-wide multicenter study

Objective: COVID-19 pandemic has seriously affected Italy. Radical changes occurred in the Italian NHS and thus in GI departments, as only urgent endoscopies were guaranteed. The study aimed to report how the demand for urgent endoscopy changed during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy and to evaluate the appropriateness of urgent referrals in the Endoscopy Unit.Material and methods: Nation-wide, cross-sectional survey study in 54 Italian GI Units. Data were collected regarding urgent endoscopies (EGD, CS, ERCP) in two different time periods: March 2019 and March 2020.Results: Thirty-five (64.8%) GI endoscopy Units responded to the survey. The entity of reduction of overall urgent EGDs and CSs performed in March 2020 versus March 2019 was statistically significant: 541 versus 974 (-80%), p < .001 for EGD and 171 versus 265 (-55%), p < .008, for CS, respectively. No statistically significant reduction of urgent ERCP performed in March 2020 versus March 2019 was found. The increase in overall diagnostic yield for urgent EGD in March 2020 versus March 2019 was 7.3% (CI [0.028-0.117], p = .001). No statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield for CS between 2019 and 2020 was found.Conclusion: The study showed a statistically significant reduction of urgent EGD and CS performed during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, in March 2020, compared to March 2019. The diagnostic yield of urgent EGD performed in March 2020 was significantly higher than that of March 2019. No statistically significant difference was found in terms of diagnostic yield of urgent CS between March 2020 and March 2019.

Priority and appropriateness of upper endoscopy out-patient referrals: Two-period comparison in an open-access unit

BACKGROUND

In the early 2000s we introduced a prioritization model for referrals based on involvement of primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists.

AIMS

Assess the application of that model of prioritisation, comparing gastroscopies performed 8 years apart, with respect to priority level, appropriateness and relevant endoscopic findings (REFs).

METHODS

The studies included 247 and 354 out-patients, who had undergone gastroscopy in 2006 and in 2014, respectively. To reduce interspecialists variability, both studies were performed by the same specialist as investigator.

RESULTS

In both years, most patients were assigned low-priority referral by PCPs (78.6% and 75.1% respectively). The agreement PCPs versus specialist on referral priority was moderate in 2006 (0.60, Landis-Koch scale 0.41-0.60) and high in 2014 (0.81, Landis-Koch scale 0.81-1.00). In both years we observed a similar rate of inappropriateness: 27.5% and 27.1%, respectively. Due to multiple logistic regression, the odds ratio (OR) for REF increased when: (i) very high-priority referral versus nopriority referral was indicated (8.813 OR, p = 0.0012), (ii) referral followed the guidelines (9.29 OR, p<0.0001), and (iii) agreement of priority occurred (1.911 OR, p = 0.0308).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlighted that the issues of low-priority referrals should be addressed in order to discontinue gastroscopy overusing and reduce related operational costs.

Diagnostic yield of upper endoscopy according to appropriateness: A systematic review

BACKGROUND/AIM

Despite some official guidelines are available, a substantial rate of inappropriateness for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopies has been reported. This study aimed to estimate the inappropriate rate of UGI in different countries, also including the diagnostic yield.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies on UGI endoscopy appropriateness was performed by adopting official guidelines as reference standard. Diagnostic yield of relevant endoscopic findings and cancers was compared between appropriate and inappropriate procedures. The Odd Ratio (OR) values and the Number-Needed-to-Scope (NNS) were calculated.

RESULTS

Data of 23 studies with a total of 53,392 patients were included. UGI indications were overall inappropriate in 21.7% (95% CI = 21.4-22.1) of the patients. The inappropriateness rate significantly (P < 0.0001) decreased from 35.1% in the earlier studies to 22.1%-23% in the more recent ones. A relevant finding was found in 43.3% of appropriate and in 35.1% of inappropriate endoscopies (P < 0.0001; OR: 1.42, 95% CI = 1.36-1.49; NNS = 12). Prevalence of cancers was also higher in appropriate than in inappropriate UGIs (2.98% vs. 0.09%, P < 0.0001; OR = 3.33; NNS = 48). The prevalence of detected cancers significantly (P < 0.004) increased from 1.38% in the earlier studies to 2.11% in the more recent ones, whilst prevalence of other relevant findings remained similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Rate of inappropriate UGI endoscopies is still high. Diagnostic yield of appropriate endoscopies is higher than that of inappropriate procedures, including upper GI cancers. Therefore, implementation of guidelines in clinical practice is urged.

Appropriateness of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Guidelines for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Prospective Analytical Study

Introduction

Extensive use of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) with the advent of open access centers has resulted in inappropriate endoscopies. Our study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines for UGE and to assess the diagnostic yield of endoscopy in a tertiary care center in South India.

Methods

The study was conducted as a prospective analytical study. Indications for endoscopy were classified as “ASGE appropriate” and “ASGE inappropriate”. The significance of association of ASGE guidelines and other categorical variables with endoscopic findings were assessed.

Results

ASGE appropriate indications and inappropriate indications accounted for 85.9% and 14.1% of endoscopies, respectively. The most common appropriate indication was persistent dyspepsia despite adequate proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (28.1%) and the only inappropriate indication for endoscopy was isolated dyspepsia without adequate PPI therapy (14.1%). The diagnostic yield of endoscopy for appropriate indications was 69.5% and for inappropriate indications was 55.1%, the difference was statistically significant (P= 0.003; OR-1.857). The sensitivity and specificity of ASGE guidelines was 88.5% and 19.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

According to our study, ASGE guidelines may be considered as appropriate guidelines for UGE in our population and these guidelines were followed 85.9% of the times in referring patients for the same. However, the high diagnostic yield even in inappropriate endoscopies indicates the necessity of further studies that might identify other relevant indications for endoscopy, thus avoiding misutilization of resources without missing out on relevant cases.

Prevention of overuse: A view on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Many upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopies worldwide are performed for inappropriate indications. This overuse of healthcare negatively affects healthcare quality and puts pressure on endoscopy services. Dyspepsia is one of the most common inappropriate indications for upper GI endoscopy as diagnostic yield is low. Reasons for untimely referral are: unfamiliarity with dyspepsia guidelines, uncertainty about etiology of symptoms, and therapy failure. Unfiltered open-access referrals feed upper GI endoscopy overuse. This review highlights strategies applied to diminish use of upper GI endoscopies for dyspepsia. First, we describe the impact of active guideline implementation. We found improved guideline adherence, but resistance was encountered in the process. Secondly, we show several forms of clinical assessment. While algorithm use reduced upper GI endoscopy volume, effects of referral assessment of individual patients were minor. A third strategy proposed Helicobacter pylori test and treat for all dyspeptic patients. Many upper GI endoscopies can be avoided using this strategy, but outcomes may be prevalence dependent. Lastly, empirical treatment with Proton pump inhibitors achieved symptom relief for dyspepsia and avoided upper GI endoscopies in about two thirds of patients. Changing referral behavior is complex as contributing factors are manifold. A collaboration of multiple strategies is most likely to succeed.

A non-invasive method for the diagnosis of upper GI diseases

Upper-GI diseases are one of the most relevant issue in primary care. Nowadays they are still responsible for about 100 million ambulatory care visits only in the US. The diagnosis of almost every upper-GI condition is still deputed to invasive tests such as upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, gastroesophageal manometry or radiography. The possibility of analysing serum markers like Pepsinogens I and II, produced by gastric mucosa, in order to assess the functional characteristics of the upper GI tract has spread itself since the 80’s especially in the diagnosis of peptic ulcer. The discovery of Helicobacter pylori by Marshall and Warren in 1983 and the scientific consecration of its role in the pathogenesis of gastric cancer and peptic ulcer (crystallized in Peleo Correa’s Cascade, 1992), led to an increase importance of non-invasive tests, raising the attention towards the assessment of both immunoglobulins anti-H.p. and Gastrin hormone produced by antral G cells, as an implementation of the panel of gastric markers. This narrative review aims to analyze the huge landscape of non-invasive tests for diagnosis of GI diseases, studying the literature of the recent years. (www.actabiomedica.it)

The effect of Helicobacter pylori eradication on functional dyspepsia in Turkish children

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication on dyspepsia symptom scores in children with functional dyspepsia (FD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and fifty functional dyspeptic children (ages 8-18 years, mean: 13.3 ± 2.84 years; 30% male) were enrolled to this prospective study. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed on all patients, and the samples from the gastric antrum and corpus were obtained for the existence of H. pylori. ¹³ Carbon-urea breath test was performed to evaluate the eradication therapy's efficacy. The symptoms were assessed at first visit and at the 8th week and 16th week.

RESULTS

Forty-nine (33%) children were in the H. pylori-positive group, and 101 (67%) children were in the H. pylori-negative group. Dyspepsia symptom scores improved at 8th week in both groups (P < .05). Helicobacter pylori was eradicated in 30 patients (61%), while in the H. pylori-eradicated group, all dyspepsia symptoms' scores decreased, and in the H. pylori-uneradicated group, only three symptoms' scores decreased. Symptom scores were lower in H. pylori-eradicated group than H. pylori-uneradicated group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the tests used for the diagnosis of H. pylori in functional dyspeptic patients increased the cost of health care, the dyspepsia symptom scores decreased with the eradication therapy in a high prevalence community. The findings may differ in low prevalence communities where the diagnostic tests for H. pylori infection are not recommended in children in the absence of alarm signs or symptoms.

Less Is More: A Minimalist Approach to Endoscopy

A substantial literature documents inappropriate usage of gastrointestinal endoscopy in a variety of clinical settings. Overusage of endoscopy appears to be common, and 30% or more of procedures performed in some clinical settings have questionable indications. The potential reasons for overuse of endoscopy are multiple, and include cancer phobia, fear of medical malpractice litigation, profit motive, the investigation of "incidentalomas" found on other imaging, and underappreciation of the delayed harms of endoscopy, among other reasons. Clinical guidelines, which should limit overuse of endoscopy, may instead serve to promote it, if authors opt to be "conservative," recommending endoscopy in situations of unclear utility. Several strategies may decrease overuse of endoscopy, including careful attention to risk stratification when choosing patients to screen, adherence to guidelines for surveillance intervals for colonoscopy, the use of quality indicators to identify outliers in endoscopy utilization, and education on appropriate indications and the risks of overuse at the medical student, residency, and fellowship levels.

The diagnostic yield of open-access endoscopy of the upper gastrointestinal tract in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Since the introduction of open-access esophago-gastroduodenoscopy (OAE) there is an increase in the total number of performed OAEs whilst the frequency of clinical relevant findings has decreased. The aim of this study was to assess the appropriate use and the diagnostic yield of OAE in the Netherlands and to determine which patient variables are able to predict a malignant finding.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all referrals for diagnostic OAE between October 2012 and October 2016 at the Northwest Clinics was performed. The indications were recorded from the referral letter and were classified as "appropriate" or "inappropriate" according to the NHG guideline. Logistic regression was used to detect significant predictive variables for a malignancy.

RESULTS

A total of 2006 patients were included, of whom 59.6 % had an 'appropriate' referral indication. The diagnostic yield of finding a clinical relevant finding was significantly higher for OAEs with an "appropriate" referral indication. Independent risk factors for malignancy were alarm symptoms, age and male gender with a combined AUC of 0.868.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 3.8 % of the malignancies would be missed by strict adherence to the guideline. This indicates that the open-access system in the Netherlands works well. Further improvement of the system can be achieved by only accepting appropriate indications for OAE and by treating patients under the age of 40 without OAE. We showed that a risk-prediction model based on the variables age, alarm symptoms and male gender is a good predictor of malignant finding.

Overtesting and undertesting in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Health systems are currently subject to unprecedented financial strains. Inappropriate test use wastes finite health resources (overuse) and delays diagnoses and treatment (underuse). As most patient care is provided in primary care, it represents an ideal setting to mitigate waste.

OBJECTIVE

To identify overuse and underuse of diagnostic tests in primary care.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We searched MEDLINE and Embase from January 1999 to October 2017 for studies that measured the inappropriateness of any diagnostic test (measured against a national or international guideline) ordered for adult patients in primary care.

RESULTS

We included 357 171 patients from 63 studies in 15 countries. We extracted 103 measures of inappropriateness (41 underuse and 62 overuse) from included studies for 47 different diagnostic tests.The overall rate of inappropriate diagnostic test ordering varied substantially (0.2%-100%)%).17 tests were underused >50% of the time. Of these, echocardiography (n=4 measures) was consistently underused (between 54% and 89%, n=4). There was large variation in the rate of inappropriate underuse of pulmonary function tests (38%-78%, n=8).Eleven tests were inappropriately overused >50% of the time. Echocardiography was consistently overused (77%-92%), whereas inappropriate overuse of urinary cultures, upper endoscopy and colonoscopy varied widely, from 36% to 77% (n=3), 10%-54% (n=10) and 8%-52% (n=2), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There is marked variation in the appropriate use of diagnostic tests in primary care. Specifically, the use of echocardiography (both underuse and overuse) is consistently poor. There is substantial variation in the rate of inappropriate underuse of pulmonary function tests and the overuse of upper endoscopy, urinary cultures and colonoscopy.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016048832.

Appropriateness of Indications of Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and its Association With Positive Finding

INTRODUCTION

Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy is a frequently advised investigation for upper abdominal symptoms. Studies have questioned the appropriateness of indications for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and have shown that inappropriate indications range from 5% to 49%. The unnecessary upper gastrointestinal endoscopy expose patients to the risk. The number of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is rising in our region and we assume so is the number of unnecessary upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. With an aim to find out the appropriateness of the indications of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and compare its association with positive findings, we conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study.

METHODS

All patients undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy during study period were included in the study. Appropriateness of indications for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was defined as per American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria as "appropriate" and "inappropriate". Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy findings were classified as "significant" and "insignificant" based on endoscopy findings. The extent of this association between appropriateness of indications and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy findings was expressed as the odds ratio of finding a relevant diagnosis in patients with an ''appropriate'' indication compared with those with an 'inappropriate'' indication.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients were included in the study. Fifty- two (65.8%) of the indications were considered appropriate as per American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines. Thirty-three (63.5%) of the appropriate indications has clinically significant finding as compared to seven (25.9%) of inappropriate indication with an odds ratio of 4.962 (95% CI:1.773 - 13.890, P=0.002) which is statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate indications have significantly higher rates of clinically significant findings. Use of guidelines may decrease the number of unnecessary procedures.

Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world

Overuse, which is defined as the provision of medical services that are more likely to cause harm than good, is a pervasive problem. Direct measurement of overuse through documentation of delivery of inappropriate services is challenging given the difficulty of defining appropriate care for patients with individual preferences and needs; overuse can also be measured indirectly through examination of unwarranted geographical variations in prevalence of procedures and care intensity. Despite the challenges, the high prevalence of overuse is well documented in high-income countries across a wide range of services and is increasingly recognised in low-income countries. Overuse of unneeded services can harm patients physically and psychologically, and can harm health systems by wasting resources and deflecting investments in both public health and social spending, which is known to contribute to health. Although harms from overuse have not been well quantified and trends have not been well described, overuse is likely to be increasing worldwide.

Open-access endoscopy

OAE is commonly used. The majority of patients referred for OAE are considered appropriate for endoscopy according to ASGE guidelines. Most patients undergoing OAE procedures are knowledgeable about the study and are satisfied with the experience. Several potential problems have been identified, including inappropriate referrals, communication errors, and inadequately prepared or informed patients. OAE can be safely used if preprocedure assessment, informed consent, information transfer, patient safety, and satisfaction are addressed in all cases.

Upper GI endoscopy in elderly patients: predictive factors of relevant endoscopic findings

Elderly patients are at increased risk for peptic ulcer and cancer. Predictive factors of relevant endoscopic findings at upper endoscopy in the elderly are unknown. This was a post hoc analysis of a nationwide, endoscopic study. A total of 3,147 elderly patients were selected. Demographic, clinical, and endoscopic data were systematically collected. Relevant findings and new diagnoses of peptic ulcer and malignancy were computed. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. A total of 1,559 (49.5%), 213 (6.8%), 93 (3%) relevant findings, peptic ulcers, and malignancies were detected. Peptic ulcers and malignancies were more frequent in >85-year-old patients (OR 3.1, 95% CI = 2.0-4.7, p = 0.001). The presence of dysphagia (OR = 5.15), weight loss (OR = 4.77), persistent vomiting (OR = 3.68), anaemia (OR = 1.83), and male gender (OR = 1.9) were significantly associated with a malignancy, whilst overt bleeding (OR = 6.66), NSAIDs use (OR = 2.23), and epigastric pain (OR = 1.90) were associated with the presence of peptic ulcer. Peptic ulcer or malignancies were detected in 10% of elderly patients, supporting the use of endoscopy in this age group. Very elderly patients appear to be at higher risk of such lesions.

Appropriateness and diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in an open-access endoscopy system

BACKGROUND/AIM

Open access endoscopy (OAE) decreases the waiting time for patients and clinical burden to gastroenterologist; however, the appropriateness of referrals for endoscopy and thus the diagnostic yield of these endoscopies has become an important issue. The aim of this study was to determine the appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy requests in an OAE system.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients who underwent an upper gastroscopy in the year 2008 was performed and was defined as appropriate or inappropriate according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines. Endoscopic findings were recorded and classified as positive or negative. Referrals were categorized as being from a gastroenterologist, internist, surgeon, primary care physicians or others, and on an inpatient or out-patient basis.

RESULTS

A total of 505 consecutive patients were included. The mean age was 45.3 (standard deviation 18.1), 259 (51%) of them were males. 31% of the referrals were thought to be inappropriate. Referrals from primary care physicians were inappropriate in 47% of patients while only 19.5% of gastroenterologists referrals were considered inappropriate. Nearly, 37.8% of the out-patient referrals were inappropriate compared to only 7.8% for inpatients. Abnormal findings were found in 78.5% and 78% of patients referred by gastroenterologists and surgeons respectively while in those referred by primary care physicians it was (49.7%). Inpatients referred for endoscopy had abnormal findings in (81.7%) while in out-patients it was (66.6%). The most common appropriate indications in order of frequency were "upper abdominal distress that persisted despite an appropriate trial of therapy "(78.9%),''persistent vomiting of unknown cause "(19.2%), upper GI bleeding or unexplained iron deficiency anemia (7.6%). The sensitivity and specificity of the ASGE guidelines in our study population was 70.3% and 35% respectively.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of patients referred for endoscopy through our open-access endoscopy unit are considered inappropriate, with significant differences among specialties. These results suggest that if proper education of practitioners was implemented, a better utilization would be expected.

Appropriate use and diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a tertiary referral hospital

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

This is a prospective, descriptive, hospital-based study to evaluate the appropriateness and diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract endoscopy referrals to Soba University Hospital endoscopy unit using the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients referred to Soba University Hospital for upper GI endoscopy during the study period were enrolled in the study after giving an informed consent. Statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program to calculate frequencies and the X(2) test; P value was taken as significant at a level of less than 0.05.

RESULTS

Overall, 220 patients were prospectively enrolled in the study, of which 126 (57%) were males, with a mean age of 46.5 ± 17.9 years. A total of 190 patients (86%) were appropriately referred and the overall diagnostic yield was 46.8%. Those with appropriate referral had a higher diagnostic yield (50%) when compared to those with inappropriate referral (23%).

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy was higher when patients were referred appropriately indicating that detection of relevant finding is greatly enhanced by the utilisation of standard guidelines.

Appropriateness of outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy in a non-academic hospital

AIM: To assess the appropriate use and the diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy in this subgroup of patients.

METHODS: In total, 789 consecutive outpatients referred for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy [381 for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and 408 for colonoscopy] were prospectively enrolled in the study. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines were used to assess the relationship between appropriateness and the presence of relevant endoscopic findings.

RESULTS: The overall inappropriate rate was 13.3%. The indications for EGD and colonoscopy were, respectively, appropriate in 82.7% and 82.6% of the exams, uncertain in 5.8% and 2.4% and inappropriate in 11.5% and 15%. The diagnostic yield was significant higher for EGDs and colonoscopies judged appropriate and uncertain when compared with those considered inappropriate (EGD: 36.6% vs 36.4% vs 11.4%, P = 0.004; Colonoscopy: 24.3% vs 20.0% vs 3.3%, P = 0.001). Of the 25 malignant lesions detected, all but one was detected in exams judged appropriate or uncertain.

CONCLUSION: This study shows a good adherence to ASGE guidelines by the referring physicians and a significant increase of the diagnostic yield in appropriate examinations, namely in detecting neoplastic lesions. It underscores the importance that the appropriateness of the indication assumes in assuring high-quality GI endoscopic procedures.

A nine-year audit of open-access upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: results and experience of a single centre

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.

The management of patients with new onset of upper gastro-intestinal symptoms in primary care

BACKGROUND

Data dealing with dyspepsia management in general practice are lacking, and most of the studies investigated a subset of patients with suspected peptic ulcer disease either with or without previous complaints.

AIMS

To evaluate the one-year management of patients presenting new onset upper abdominal symptoms without alarming features.

METHODS

275 patients were enrolled by 63 Italian general practitioners.

RESULTS

Referral to upper gastro-intestinal tract endoscopy resulted significantly higher in patients with predominant epigastric pain compared to subjects with non-painful symptoms or non-dominant symptoms. Amongst drug therapies, only prokinetics and antacids and anti-secretory therapies were prescribed differently amongst clinical subgroups. The rate and type of management and referrals resulted were not influenced by the age of patients or the use of anti-inflammatory drugs. The most frequent diagnosis at one-year follow-up was reflux oesophagitis. The absence of organic disease was less frequent in patients with dominant epigastric pain than non-painful or non-dominant symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The management of these patients in primary care in Italy is mainly determined by clinical presentation, independent of age. Any judgement about appropriateness of the treatment should consider not only conventional features such as age, but the more complex individual frameworks as well.

How to predict a high rate of inappropriateness for upper endoscopy in an endoscopic centre?

BACKGROUND

Inappropriateness of upper endoscopy (EGD) indication causes decreased diagnostic yield. Our aim of was to identify predictors of appropriateness rate for EGD among endoscopic centres.

METHODS

A post-hoc analysis of two multicentre cross-sectional studies, including 6270 and 8252 patients consecutively referred to EGD in 44 (group A) and 55 (group B) endoscopic Italian centres in 2003 and 2007, respectively, was performed. A multiple forward stepwise regression was applied to group A, and independently validated in group B. A <70% threshold was adopted to define inadequate appropriateness rate clustered by centre.

RESULTS

discrete variability of clustered appropriateness rates among the 44 group A centres was observed (median: 77%; range: 41-97%), and a <70% appropriateness rate was detected in 11 (25%). Independent predictors of centre appropriateness rate were: percentage of patients referred by general practitioners (GP), rate of urgent examinations, prevalence of relevant diseases, and academic status. For group B, sensitivity, specificity and area under receiver operating characteristic curve of the model in detecting centres with a <70% appropriateness rate were 54%, 93% and 0.72, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple predictive rule, based on rate of patients referred by GPs, rate of urgent examinations, prevalence of relevant diseases and academic status, identified a small subset of centres characterised by a high rate of inappropriateness. These centres may be presumed to obtain the largest benefit from targeted educational programs.

Impact of the Rome II paediatric criteria on the appropriateness of the upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy in children

BACKGROUND

The demand for paediatric gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has increased, resulting in a significant rise of overall costs.

AIM

To assess the clinical impact of the Rome II criteria for functional gastrointestinal disorders when selecting paediatric patients who underwent GI endoscopy.

METHODS

The indications and findings of GI endoscopic procedures performed before and after the publication of the Rome II criteria were evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

Upper GI endoscopy was performed in 1124 children, whereas colonoscopy was performed in 500 subjects. A total of 607 (54%) oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopies (OGDs) were positive and 517 (46%) were negative, whereas 306 (61.1%) colonoscopies were positive and 194 (38.9%) were negative. Of the 1624 procedures, 26% were considered inappropriate according to the Rome II criteria. Inappropriate procedures decreased significantly after publication of the Rome II criteria (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.8-7.5). Of 1202 appropriate GI endoscopies, 502 OGD (62.7%) were significantly contributive, compared with only 105 (32.5%) of the 323 inappropriate procedures (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.6-4.6), whereas 265 (65.8%) colonoscopies were significantly contributive, compared with only 41 (42.3%) of the 97 inappropriate procedures (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.1).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the criteria for functional gastrointestinal disorders makes a significant positive impact, they should reduce unnecessary paediatric GI endoscopy.

Appropriateness guidelines and predictive rules to select patients for upper endoscopy: a nationwide multicenter study

OBJECTIVES

Selecting patients appropriately for upper endoscopy (EGD) is crucial for efficient use of endoscopy. The objective of this study was to compare different clinical strategies and statistical methods to select patients for EGD, namely appropriateness guidelines, age and/or alarm features, and multivariate and artificial neural network (ANN) models.

METHODS

A nationwide, multicenter, prospective study was undertaken in which consecutive patients referred for EGD during a 1-month period were enrolled. Before EGD, the endoscopist assessed referral appropriateness according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines, also collecting clinical and demographic variables. Outcomes of the study were detection of relevant findings and new diagnosis of malignancy at EGD. The accuracy of the following clinical strategies and predictive rules was compared: (i) ASGE appropriateness guidelines (indicated vs. not indicated), (ii) simplified rule (>or=45 years or alarm features vs. <45 years without alarm features), (iii) logistic regression model, and (iv) ANN models.

RESULTS

A total of 8,252 patients were enrolled in 57 centers. Overall, 3,803 (46%) relevant findings and 132 (1.6%) new malignancies were detected. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the simplified rule were similar to that of the ASGE guidelines for both relevant findings (82%/26%/0.55 vs. 88%/27%/0.52) and cancer (97%/22%/0.58 vs. 98%/20%/0.58). Both logistic regression and ANN models seemed to be substantially more accurate in predicting new cases of malignancy, with an AUC of 0.82 and 0.87, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple predictive rule based on age and alarm features is similarly effective to the more complex ASGE guidelines in selecting patients for EGD. Regression and ANN models may be useful in identifying a relatively small subgroup of patients at higher risk of cancer.

Indications to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in children with dyspepsia

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to ascertain the appropriateness of indications for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy in children with dyspepsia.

METHODS

We used the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles method to investigate the appropriateness of the opinions of a panel of experts. The panel judged 2304 theoretical patient scenarios defined by a combination of demographic and clinical variables. Descriptive and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The panel rated UGI endoscopy as appropriate in 27.2% of cases, inappropriate in 14.3%, and dubious in 58.5%. Disagreement emerged for 21% of cases. UGI endoscopy was considered increasingly appropriate in cases with a positive family history of peptic ulcer and/or Helicobacter pylori infection (odds ratio [OR] 8.518, P < 0.0001), when dyspepsia interfered with activities of daily living ("sleep" OR 7.540, P < 0.0001; "normal activities" OR 5.725, P < 0.0001), and when patients were older than 10 years ("<or=10 years" OR 0.310, P < 0.0001) the longer the duration ("0-2 months" OR 0.002, P < 0.0001; "3-5 months" OR 0.059, P < 0.0001; "6-11 months" OR 0.516, P = 0.0005) and the greater the severity ("mild" OR 0.002, P < 0.0001; "moderate" OR 0.013, P < 0.0001) of their dyspeptic symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

UGI endoscopy is not appropriate for all children with dyspeptic symptoms, but only for cases with a family history of peptic ulcer and/or Helicobacter pylori infection, older than 10 years of age, with symptoms persisting for more than 6 months and severe enough to affect activities of daily living.

Appropriateness of the indication for upper endoscopy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Application of appropriate indications for upper endoscopy (EGD) should conserve limited endoscopic resources. To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines in selecting patients referred for an upper endoscopy relative to the detection of gastro-oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

Studies comparing the appropriateness of EGD indication according to American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy or European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines and the detection of relevant endoscopic findings and cancer were identified by searching the Medline (1982 to September 2008). Pre-defined outputs of the meta-analysis were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR-).

RESULTS

We included eight cohort studies comprising 13,856 patients; 10,643 EGD indications were categorized as appropriate, and 3010 (22%) as inappropriate. For relevant findings, the adjusted sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- were 85% (95% CI, 84-86%), 28% (95% CI, 27-29%), 1.18 (95% CI, 1.1-1.3) and 0.6 (95% CI, 0.5-0.7), respectively. For cancer detection, the adjusted sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- were 97% (95% CI, 94-98%), 22% (95% CI, 22-23%), 1.2 (95% CI, 1.1-1.4), and 0.2 (95% CI, 0.05-0.9), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For inappropriate EGD, the very low likelihood of cancer argues against endoscopic referral, whereas the low specificity substantially reduces the predictive value of an appropriate indication for both cancer and relevant endoscopic findings.

Cost-effectiveness of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy according to the appropriateness of the indication

OBJECTIVE

Application of appropriate indications for upper endoscopy (EGD) should conserve limited endoscopic resources. The cost-effectiveness of current guidelines for the detection of gastro-oesophageal cancer is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and economic impact of ASGE and EPAGE guidelines in selecting patients referred for upper endoscopy relative to the detection of gastro-oesophageal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A decision analysis model was constructed to compare a strategy of not referring patients for EGD (with either an appropriate or inappropriate indication) with a policy of carrying out the requested EGD. Cancer prevalence in appropriate and inappropriate EGDs was estimated using a systematic review of the literature. Costs of EGD and cancer care were estimated from Medicare reimbursement data.

RESULTS

The number of appropriate and inappropriate EGDs required to detect one case of cancer was 41 and 753, respectively, and to prevent one gastro-oesophageal cancer-related death the numbers were 571 and 11,111, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of appropriate and inappropriate EGDs as compared to a policy of not referring patients for endoscopy were $16,577 and $301,203, respectively, per life-year gained.

CONCLUSIONS

For inappropriate EGD, the very low likelihood of cancer and the relatively high costs associated with this procedure argue against endoscopic referral.

Is diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy currently appropriate?: suggestions for improvement

Endoscopy is the driving force in gastroenterology today, and recent exciting advances in technology have extended its frontiers at an unprecedented rate. We have a wider range of diagnostic and therapeutic possibilities at our disposal with more detailed methods available to analyse what we see on our video screens. We can access the small bowel lumen with consistency and intra-abdominal operations have been performed through the mouth and anus so where are the current limitations of the procedure? In spite of these remarkable advances many challenges remain for both the endoscopist and for industry, they are mainly ones associated with human weakness. Endoscopy is an art, performed by individuals who require training and continued education and it is done to patients who are vulnerable, afraid and often seriously unwell. It is human aspects of endoscopy that require improvement. This chapter addresses the areas where endoscopy is falling short and suggests what can be done to improve practice. Changes are needed in management, information technology, education, team working, quality, patient comfort and safety. There also remain a number of areas where improved technology may be able to reduce human error.

Improving the appropriateness of referrals and waiting times for endoscopic procedures

OBJECTIVE

There is a lack of standard methods for determining the clinical priority of patients referred by general practitioners (GPs) for specialist outpatient consultations. We introduced a system of progressive involvement by general practitioners and specialists with 80 diagnostic procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate this new method of prioritization of patients suffering from significant gastroenterological disorders needing rapid access to diagnostic procedures.

METHODS

The study included 438 outpatients who were referred for and underwent a gastroscopy or colonoscopy. GPs used a ranking of waiting times for different levels of clinical priority, called 'homogeneous waiting groups'. Specialists also assigned a priority level for each patient as well as evaluating the appropriateness of the referral and the presence of significant endoscopic disorders. Agreement between GPs' and specialists' priority assessments was evaluated by the kappa statistic.

RESULTS

Most referrals (74.4%) were deemed low priority by GPs, with no maximum waiting time assigned. The level of agreement between GPs and specialists as regards patients' priorities was poor or moderate: for gastroscopy the kappa was 0.31 (weighted kappa 0.47) and for colonoscopy 0.44 (weighted kappa 0.46). There was an association between the proportion of significant disorders identified with endoscopy and the priority assigned to the referral (chi2 = 18.9, 1 df, p < 0.001). The overall proportion of referrals deemed inappropriate by specialists was 22.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

There is value in liaison between GPs and specialists for achieving timely referrals and avoiding delayed diagnosis though higher levels of agreement need to be achieved.