Overuse of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a country with open-access endoscopy: a prospective study in primary care

Environmentally sustainable gastroenterology practice: Review of current state and future goals

OBJECTIVES

The health-care sector contributes 4.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with gastroenterology playing a significant role due to the widespread use of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. In this review, we aim to understand the carbon footprint in gastroenterology practice associated with GI endoscopy, conferences and recruitment, identify barriers to change, and recommend mitigating strategies.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to explore the carbon footprint in gastroenterology practice, focusing on endoscopy, inpatient and outpatient settings, and recruitment practices. Recommendations for mitigating the carbon footprint were derived.

RESULTS

This narrative review analyzed 34 articles on the carbon footprint in gastroenterology practice. Carbon footprint of endoscopy in the United States is approximately 85,768 metric tons of CO2 emission annually, equivalent to 9 million gallons of gasoline consumed, or 94 million pounds of coal burned. Each endoscopy generates 2.1 kg of disposable waste (46 L volume), of which 64% of waste goes to the landfill, 28% represents biohazard waste, and 9% is recycled. The per-case manufacturing carbon footprint for single-use devices and reusable devices is 1.37 kg CO2 and 0.0017 kg CO2, respectively. Inpatient and outpatient services contributed through unnecessary procedures, prolonged hospital stays, and excessive use of single-use items. Fellowship recruitment and gastrointestinal conferences added to the footprint, mainly due to air travel and hotel stays.

CONCLUSION

Gastrointestinal endoscopy and practice contribute to the carbon footprint through the use of disposables such as single-use endoscopes and waste generation. To achieve environmental sustainability, measures such as promoting reusable endoscopy equipment over single-use endoscopes, calculating institutional carbon footprints, establishing benchmarking standards, and embracing virtual platforms such as telemedicine and research meetings should be implemented.

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.

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.

Pitfalls in the reporting of upper endoscopy features in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Upper endoscopy is the main tool for the accurate assessment of the risk of bleeding in cirrhotic patients.

AIM

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of upper endoscopy, in cirrhotic subjects, during common clinical practice.

METHODS

120 endoscopic reports produced in different hospitals in our region were retrospectively and randomly selected. After a general evaluation, aimed at assessing the description of various endoscopic features, reports were evaluated by four expert endoscopists and four expert hepatologists. Experts were asked to fill in a questionnaire for each single endoscopic procedure, regarding the diagnostic accuracy of the report.

RESULTS

Endoscopic reports lacked descriptions of the size of esophageal varices and red signs in 14% and 29% of cases respectively. Presence (or absence) of gastric varices or portal hypertensive gastropathy were not reported in 62% and 34% of cases respectively. According to expert endoscopists 41% of the reports were incomplete, while, according to hepatologists, reports were incomplete and inadequate for clinical purposes in 36% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Our study clearly evidenced a significant lack of information in reports on upper endoscopy in cirrhotic patients, and supports the prompt adoption of corrective strategies.

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.

Direct access cancer testing in primary care: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Direct access (DA) testing allows GPs to refer patients for investigation without consulting a specialist. The aim is to reduce waiting time for investigations and unnecessary appointments, enabling treatment to begin without delay.

AIM

To establish the proportion of patients diagnosed with cancer and other diseases through DA testing, time to diagnosis, and suitability of DA investigations.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review assessing the effectiveness of GP DA testing in adults.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Where possible, study data were pooled and analysed quantitatively. Where this was not possible, the data are presented narratively.

RESULTS

The authors identified 60 papers that met pre-specified inclusion criteria. Most studies were carried out in the UK and were judged to be of poor quality. The authors found no significant difference in the pooled cancer conversion rate between GP DA referrals and patients who first consulted a specialist for any test, except gastroscopy. There were also no significant differences in the proportions of patients receiving any non-cancer diagnosis. Referrals for testing were deemed appropriate in 66.4% of those coming from GPs, and in 80.9% of those from consultants; this difference was not significant. The time from referral to testing was significantly shorter for patients referred for DA tests. Patient and GP satisfaction with DA testing was consistently high.

CONCLUSION

GP DA testing performs as well as, and on some measures better than, consultant triaged testing on measures of disease detection, appropriateness of referrals, interval from referral to testing, and patient and GP satisfaction.

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.

Quality assurance in gastrointestinal endoscopy: An Egyptian experience

Over the last four decades, gastrointestinal endoscopy has become of paramount importance to diagnose, treat and prevent diseases of the digestive tract. Practice variation, however, is likely to have an important effect on the effectiveness of endoscopy and can impair the delivery of high-quality endoscopic procedures. There have been increasing demands to assess the quality of service and track and improve patient outcomes. Quality assurance has paved its way into professional guidelines for physicians. Developing a modern endoscopy unit demands the institution of a quality assurance programme, continuous training and monitoring of service delivery. This article describes our experience in implementing a quality assurance programme in endoscopy in a secondary care government hospital in Egypt. The implementation of quality assurance and improvement programme can lead to dramatic improvements in the quality of endoscopic care and patient outcomes. Quality assurance and continual improvement can be applied in developing countries.

Appropriateness of Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Will the Diagnostic Yield Improve by the use of American Society of Gastroenterology Guidelines?

Aim

Open access endoscopy allows physicians and general practitioners (GIs) to refer patients for endoscopy without prior outpatient consultation. This system was introduced to reduce waiting time to the procedure and subsequent diagnosis. Concerns have been raised regarding misuse of this system with increasing number of inappropriate referrals and hence more normal examinations, which has implications on a public-funded health system. The aim of this study was to assess the appropriate use of the open access system at a rural New Zealand hospital and to see if the diagnostic yield improves by following the American Society of Gastroenterology (ASGE) guidelines for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy [esophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD)].

Materials and methods

This was a prospective study including all the patients who had OGD at Taranaki Base Hospital between December 2013 and 2014. A total of 1,019 patients had OGD during this time period. The ASGE guidelines were used to see the relationship between appropriateness of OGD and finding of a relevant endoscopic diagnosis.

Results

Fifty-eight percent of the OGDs were judged to be appropriate and 42% inappropriate by the explicit criteria. No cancer was found in OGDs judged to be inappropriate. Upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopies judged appropriate yielded significantly more relevant lesions than those judged to be inappropriate [65% vs 32%; odds ratio 3.94, 99% confidence interval (CI) 2.78, 5.57; p < 0.01].

Conclusion

The use of ASGE guidelines increases diagnostic yield of OGDs done, which is crucial to cost-effectiveness of an open access system and makes the system more efficient in selecting and treating patients who need it the most, in an acceptable time span.

How to cite this article

Tahir M. Appropriateness of Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Will the Diagnostic Yield Improve by the use of American Society of Gastroenterology Guidelines? Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2016;6(2):143-148.

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.

Evaluating the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of direct access endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Direct access endoscopy (DAE) allows primary care physicians (PCPs) to refer patients with concerning symptoms for endoscopy in a timely manner. Guidelines are available to assist PCPs in appropriately selecting patients for DAE. The objective of this study was to evaluate both the clinical benefit and cost effectiveness of an upper gastrointestinal (UGI) DAE program.

METHODS

The diagnostic yield of DAE patients attending for UGI studies was evaluated using a prospectively maintained database from 2004 to 2011. The diagnosis of UGI neoplasia, Barretts oesophagus, peptic ulcer disease or other conditions were recorded. In addition the age of the patient and the indication for the UGI endoscopy as per the PCP was compared with National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for UGI endoscopy.

RESULTS

PCPs referred 4262 patients for UGI endoscopy. Oesophageal cancer was diagnosed in 7 and gastric cancer was identified in 27 patients. This represents a diagnostic yield overall of 0.8% for UGI cancers. Barretts oesophagus was identified in 148 (3.5%) and 185 patients (4.34%) were diagnosed with peptic ulcer disease. Interestingly, 3734 patients (87.6%) had a normal UGI endoscopy through our DAE program representing a cost of 2,296,410 Euro. In patients under 40 years of age the diagnostic yield for UGI cancer was 0.14%. More importantly, 92.2% of UGI endoscopies in patients less 40 years of age were normal.

CONCLUSION

It is essential that PCPs adhere to published guidelines prior to referring patients to the DAE program. Furthermore, patients under 40 years of age may represent a subset of patients that may not benefit from immediate UGI endoscopy through a direct access program.

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.

[Management of open access gastrointestinal endoscopy and quality of care: collaboration between an improvement team and primary care]

OBJECTIVE

To create an improvement team within a healthcare quality improvement project of the Government of Aragon (Spain), aimed at increasing the quality of care and suitability of the indications of gastrointestinal endoscopy in the open access endoscopy system of a secondary hospital in Aragon.

DESIGN

The team developed a consensus document indicating how to use oral endoscopy and colonoscopy correctly, and held information and training sessions with all the primary care physicians involved in this area.

LOCATION

Sector I health centers and Royo Villanova Hospital, in Zaragoza.

PARTICIPANTS

The team consisted of a gastroenterologist and three primary care physicians and, from the outset received the support of the primary care administration and management in the health area.

RESULTS

Inappropriate use of endoscopy, particularly colonoscopy, was reduced from 20% to 11.6%. Significant savings were achieved in health costs. The endoscopy waiting list was reduced. The quality of care and the safety of patients undergoing these examinations improved. Training of primary care physicians in these procedures was enhanced, and coordination between primary and specialized was implemented.

CONCLUSIONS

To ensure efficient running of an open access gastrointestinal endoscopy system, an interdisciplinary improvement team and the full involvement of the primary care staff managing this resource are required.

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.

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.

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.

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.

WITHDRAWN: Initial management strategies for dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

This review considers management strategies (combinations of initial investigation and empirical treatments) for dyspeptic patients. Dyspepsia was defined to include both epigastric pain and heartburn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability, and cost effectiveness of the following initial management strategies for patients presenting with dyspepsia (a) Initial pharmacological therapy (including endoscopy for treatment failures). (b) Early endoscopy. (c) Testing for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori )and endoscope only those positive. (d) H. pylori eradication therapy with or without prior testing.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were located through electronic searches and extensive contact with trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of dyspeptic patients presenting in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and use of resources. An individual patient data meta-analysis of health economic data was conducted

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five papers reporting 27 comparisons were found. Trials comparing proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with antacids (three trials) and histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) (three trials), early endoscopy with initial acid suppression (five trials), H. pylori test and endoscope versus usual management (three trials), H. pylori test and treat versus endoscopy (six trials), and test and treat versus acid suppression alone in H. pylori positive patients (four trials), were pooled. PPIs were significantly more effective than both H2RAs and antacids. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were; for PPI compared with antacid 0.72 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.80), PPI compared with H2RA 0.63 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.85). Results for other drug comparisons were either absent or inconclusive. Initial endoscopy was associated with a small reduction in the risk of recurrent dyspeptic symptoms compared with H. pylori test and treat (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96), but was not cost effective (mean additional cost of endoscopy US$401 (95% CI $328 to 474). Test and treat may be more effective than acid suppression alone (RR 0.59 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitor drugs (PPIs) are effective in the treatment of dyspepsia in these trials which may not adequately exclude patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The relative efficacy of histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and PPIs is uncertain. Early investigation by endoscopy or H. pylori testing may benefit some patients with dyspepsia but is not cost effective as part of an overall management strategy.

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.

Education improves colonoscopy appropriateness

BACKGROUND

Appropriateness in GI endoscopy is critical to face the rising amount of demands. Education of physicians has been advocated to reduce the level of inappropriateness.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to assess the effectiveness of an educational program in determining a reduction of inappropriate colonoscopies in an open access system.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

A single endoscopy unit in Italy.

PATIENTS

A total of 495 consecutive outpatients referred to our endoscopy unit by family physicians for diagnostic colonoscopy before the educational course and 522 after its completion, for a total of 1017 patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Inappropriate colonoscopy reduction rates, cost savings, and reduction of waiting lists were evaluated.

RESULTS

With regard to inappropriate colonoscopies, the post-course group rate of inappropriateness was significantly lower than that of the pre-course group (P < or = .001). The economic savings for 1 year was estimated to be euro19,000. The reduction of the waiting list was about 15% of the original value.

CONCLUSIONS

Education has a high incidence in reducing inappropriate colonoscopies in an open-access system determining reduction of costs and waiting lists.

[Guidelines for the rational use of endoscopy to improve the detection of relevant lesions in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Almost 50% of gastrointestinal endoscopies performed in our Unit correspond to patients coming from primary care. Since resources are finite, adherence to appropriate indications for these procedures is essential. We prospectively assessed the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopies referred from Primary Care according to the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) criteria.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

From May to June 2005, all consecutive patients referred from Primary care to our unit for open-access endoscopy were included (478 colonoscopies and 264 gastroscopies). Appropriateness of each exploration was established according to the EPAGE criteria. In order to evaluate whether appropriateness of use correlated with the diagnostic yield of endoscopies, relevant endoscopic findings were recorded.

RESULTS

In 146 patients (20%), an endoscopy indication was not listed in the EPAGE guidelines or data were incomplete and they were not evaluated. In the remaining 596 patients, the indication of the procedure was considered appropriate in 401 (67%) patients (253 [69%], colonoscopies and 148 [65%], gastroscopies). The diagnostic yield was significantly higher for appropriate endoscopies (30% vs 7%, p < 0.001). Endoscopies were more appropriate in older patients and in non-foreigners.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic yield of gastrointestinal endoscopies in patients coming from primary Care increases with the appropriateness of indications according to the EPAGE criteria. Since a noteworthy proportion of these patients' endoscopies are considered inappropriate, the implementation of validated guidelines for its appropriate use could improve this situation.

Limited options: a report on GP access to services

BACKGROUND

The Structure of Irish General Practice over 23 years was the third in a series of national studies that examined the development of general practice in 1982, 1992, and 2005.

AIMS

This study analysed specific data from the 2005 survey to determine the types of services offered by GPs, and to examine the changes in access to diagnostic/treatment services from 1982 to 2005.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to a stratified random sample of Irish GPs seeking information on their practice.

RESULTS

476 (87%) valid questionnaires were returned. The range of services offered by GPs had increased. Access to diagnostic/treatment services was limited, and varied considerably depending on the type of practice. Access to chest X-rays and skeletal X-rays had decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to existing services must be increased, and significant resources must be put into the development of dedicated primary care services.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Open-access endoscopy allows physicians to directly schedule endoscopic procedures for their patients without prior consultation. An evaluation of both appropriateness and diagnostic yield of endoscopic procedures is critical when assessing the costs and benefits of endoscopy in an open-access setting. The aim of this Italian multicenter study was to assess the appropriate use of upper endoscopy (EGD) in an open-access system and to establish the yield of diagnostic information relevant to patient care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional, prospective, multicenter study.

PATIENTS

A total of 6270 patients referred to 44 Italian centers for open-access EGD during 1 month were prospectively enrolled.

INTERVENTIONS

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines were used to assess the relation between the appropriate use of EGD and the presence of relevant endoscopic findings.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

The rate for "generally not indicated" EGDs was 22.9%: 29.4% for primary care physicians and 12.9% for specialists (P < .01). A relevant endoscopic finding was detected in 2929 examinations (46.7%). The diagnostic yield was significantly higher for "generally indicated" EGDs compared with "generally not indicated" procedures (52% vs 29%; odds ratio [OR] 2.65, 99% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-3.20; P < .01). Of the 133 malignant lesions diagnosed, all but 1 were diagnosed in patients with an appropriate indication (OR >20, 99% CI 3 to >100; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Open-access EGD is an useful procedure for clinical practice. Because most of the relevant findings were detected during examinations performed for appropriate indications, the use of ASGE guidelines emerges as crucial to the cost-effectiveness of an open-access system.

Initial management strategies for dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

This review considers management strategies (combinations of initial investigation and empirical treatments) for dyspeptic patients. Dyspepsia was defined to include both epigastric pain and heartburn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability, and cost effectiveness of the following initial management strategies for patients presenting with dyspepsia: (a) Initial pharmacological therapy (including endoscopy for treatment failures). (b) Early endoscopy. (c) Testing for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori )and endoscope only those positive. (d) H. pylori eradication therapy with or without prior testing.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were located through electronic searches and extensive contact with trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of dyspeptic patients presenting in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected on dyspeptic symptoms, quality of life and use of resources. An individual patient data meta-analysis of health economic data was conducted

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five papers reporting 27 comparisons were found. Trials comparing proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with antacids (three trials) and histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) (three trials), early endoscopy with initial acid suppression (five trials), H. pylori test and endoscope versus usual management (three trials), H. pylori test and treat versus endoscopy (six trials), and test and treat versus acid suppression alone in H. pylori positive patients (four trials), were pooled. PPIs were significantly more effective than both H2RAs and antacids. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were; for PPI compared with antacid 0.72 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.80), PPI compared with H2RA 0.63 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.85). Results for other drug comparisons were either absent or inconclusive. Initial endoscopy was associated with a small reduction in the risk of recurrent dyspeptic symptoms compared with H. pylori test and treat (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96), but was not cost effective (mean additional cost of endoscopy US$401 (95% CI $328 to 474). Test and treat may be more effective than acid suppression alone (RR 0.59 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Proton pump inhibitor drugs (PPIs) are effective in the treatment of dyspepsia in these trials which may not adequately exclude patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The relative efficacy of histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and PPIs is uncertain. Early investigation by endoscopy or H. pylori testing may benefit some patients with dyspepsia but is not cost effective as part of an overall management strategy.

Digestive endoscopy in neonates

Since the introduction of flexible fiberoptic endoscopy in the early 1970s, esophagogastro-duodenoscopy and colonoscopy have become established procedures for the diagnosis, evaluation and treatment of gastrointestinal tract disease in the pediatric population. The development of safe fiberoptic endoscopes specially designed for neonates has allowed visualization of lesions occurring in the first days of life. Despite an increased understanding of neonatal digestive disorders deriving from this new diagnostic modality, there is little consensus on the appropriate use of endoscopic procedures in routine care of neonates. It is the feeling of the authors that widening the indications of endoscopy in the neonatal period might lead to diagnosis of discrete clinical abnormalities, which might improve the care of neonates. The techniques for performing neonatal endoscopies, the appropriate indications, the common normal and pathologic findings and the complications of these procedures are reviewed.

Comparison between the two systems to evaluate the appropriateness of endoscopy of the upper digestive tract

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the two systems for the evaluation of the appropriateness of upper digestive endoscopy suggested by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE).

METHODS

Patients referred for the upper digestive endoscopy (EGD) to a University Outpatients Clinic of Northeastern Italy were consecutively included in this prospective observational study. Before the EGD, the endoscopist assigned the patients to one of the ASGE appropriateness classes; another endoscopist then identified the detailed clinical scenario for the patients, which corresponds to scenarios examined by EPAGE by using a nine-point scale: 1-3 inappropriate; 4-6 uncertain; and 7-9 appropriate. The relationship between the appropriateness of use and the presence of relevant endoscopic lesions (neoplasms, ulcers, esophagitis, erosive gastritis/duodenitis, stenosis, and varices) was assessed, calculating the sensitivity and the specificity for each of the ASGE criteria, and each of the EPAGE scores, and plotting them to form a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) provides a summary measure of test performance, and can vary from a minimum of 0.5 to a maximum of 1.0. We compared the AUC of the ROC curve derived from the ASGE criteria against that derived from the EPAGE criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 2,300 consecutive patients were included in the study (42% men; mean age: 57.3; range: 12-99); comparison of appropriateness criteria according to the ASGE and EPAGE could be made for 2,000 patients. The AUC of the ROC curve derived from the ASGE criteria was 0.553 (95% CI: 0.527-0.579), significantly higher than the AUC of the ROC curve derived from the EPAGE score: 0.523 (95% CI: 0.497-0.549; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that the diagnostic yield for relevant endoscopic findings obtained by both the systems (ASGE and EPAGE) is low; slightly better results could be accomplished by the ASGE criteria.

Appropriateness and diagnostic yield of EGD: a prospective study in a large Asian hospital

BACKGROUND

The appropriateness has become an important issue as the use of EGD becomes more widespread. No study of the appropriateness of EGD has been performed in the Asia-Pacific region. This study examined the appropriateness of EGD in a large Asian hospital by using the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2000 guidelines. A secondary aim was to correlate appropriateness with the presence of positive findings at EGD.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted of consecutive diagnostic EGDs performed at a university-affiliated, teaching hospital, which has an open-access endoscopy system for doctors who work in the hospital. The main indication(s) for EGD was recorded and assessed as appropriate or inappropriate by using American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria. EGD findings were recorded and classified as positive or negative. Referrals were categorized as being from endoscopists, primary care physicians, and others.

RESULTS

Of 1076 referrals for EGD, 88.3% were deemed appropriate. The group with the highest rate of appropriate referral was endoscopists (90.2%), followed by primary care physicians (89.6%) and "others" (81.9%). The rate of appropriate referrals was significantly higher for endoscopists and primary care physicians compared with "others" (respectively, p=0.001 and p=0.022). The most common appropriate indication was "upper abdominal distress that persists despite an appropriate trial of therapy" (35.4%). The most common inappropriate indication was "dyspepsia in patients aged 45 years or below without adequate empirical medical treatment" (48.4%); 42.2% with an appropriate indication had positive findings compared with only 25.6% of those with inappropriate indications (p=0.006). On multivariate analysis, the following were identified as independent predictive factors for positive findings at EGD: male gender (p=0.005), age over 45 years (p=0.011), smoking (p=0.005), none/primary education (p<0.001), and secondary education (p=0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of patients referred for open-access EGD with an appropriate indication(s) was high for all doctor groups in a large university-affiliated medical center in Asia. EGDs performed for appropriate indications had a higher yield of positive findings. Independent predictive factors of positive findings were male gender, age over 45 years, lower education level, and referral by an endoscopist.

Évaluer la spécificité d’un centre hospitalo-universitaire

OBJECTIVE

The specificity of a University Hospital Centre is usually assessed from its teaching and research capacity. The EPAGE survey, an instrument used to help decision making available on the Internet, permitted us to compare the prescription of a routine exploration, gastrointestinal endoscopy, between the University Hospital Center in Clermont-Ferrand and the Hospital Centre in Moulins. The aim was to demonstrate the differences in daily practice between these two geographically close hospital centres and hence to underline the specificity of a University Hospital Centre that is not taken into account in the financing systems of such hospitals. Method The data collected were taken from the EPAGE trial, a prospective mutlicentre study that included 21 European and Canadian centres. Data was collected from the University Hospital centre in Clermont-Ferrand over two periods: from December 2000 to March 2001, then from December 2001 to February 2002, and from the Hospital Centre in Moulins, from December 2000 to the end of November 2001. For this Article, only the patients' characteristics, indications for gastrointestinal endoscopy and opportunity rate were analysed. Comparison of patients' categories from the 2 centres was conducted according to their DRG (diagnostic related group) (homogeneous patient group) classification, thus allowing calculation of the mean of the SIA (synthetic index of activity) points in the two centres.

RESULTS

221 cases of gastrointestinal endoscopy performed in the University Hospital centre and 292 in the Hospital Centre were included in the survey. No statistically significant difference was found in the reasons motivating a gastrointestinal endoscopy, with regard to the indications listed on the EPAGE website. There were 18% of unlisted indications in the University Hospital Centre versus 4.8% in the Hospital Centre (p<1.10-6). Using the DRG nomenclature, calculation of the mean SIA points at the University Hospital Centre per patient was of 1161 versus 1147: non significant deviation of 1.2% in favour of the University Hospital Centre.

DISCUSSION

- Conclusion The difference in reasons motivating a gastrointestinal endoscopy found between the two centres concerned rare, complex or innovating situations. This illustrates the role of a Regional Reference University Hospital Centre, an aspect clearly underestimated when measuring mixed cases according to the HPG. Study of the financing and/or information systems is warranted and might resolve the apparent underestimation of the current financing system.

Assessment of indications in interventional cardiology: appropriateness and necessity of coronary angiography and revascularization

In this study we present appropriateness and necessity assessments of coronary angiographies and revascularizations to determine adherence to Swiss guidelines by using the computerized second-opinion system (SOS) as a reference. We prospectively compared SOS ratings with ratings of treating cardiologists and surgeons for 203 coronary angiographies and 100 percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasties. We also retrospectively assessed indications of 103 coronary artery bypass grafts. SOS ratings of appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate indications for coronary angiography were 85.5%, 10%, and 4.5%, respectively, and 99.5%, 0.5%, and 0%, respectively, for revascularization. Corresponding clinicians' ratings were 95%, 4%, and 1% and 100%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. SOS ratings of necessary, uncertain, and unnecessary indications for angiography were 82.4%, 17.6%, and 0%, respectively, and 97%, 3%, and 0%, respectively, for revascularization. Corresponding clinicians' values were 88.2%, 10.6%, and 1.2% and 98%, 2%, and 0%, respectively. Significant statistical differences for coronary angiography were found for patients with acute myocardial infarction and for patients within 12 weeks of myocardial infarction. A high accordance between estimated SOS and clinically estimated appropriateness of procedures was found, which might suggest that the guidelines are valid. Regular validation and updating of the guidelines is highlighted. Possible overuse of angiography in patients within 12 weeks of myocardial infarction may need further investigation.

Open access endoscopy in rural and remote Western Australia: does it work?

BACKGROUND

Access to diagnostic endoscopy is limited in rural and remote Western Australia. Published reports suggest open access referrals may result in over-servicing, this is reduced by adherence to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines. The aim was to assess whether an outreach surgical service offering open access endoscopy to rural areas was being over utilized.

METHODS

Prospective data collection from all patients undergoing upper and lower endoscopy procedures between January 1996 and June 2000 were included in the present study. Indications for referral between the general practitioners and the visiting surgeons were reviewed in patient records and assessed for compliance with the ASGE guidelines. The groups were analysed for appropriateness of referrals and frequency of positive pathology investigations. Records for all patients undergoing colonoscopy were reviewed to determine the reason and number of cancelled procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 772 endoscopies were performed and 75% were booked as open access services. The referral rate for procedures was greater for general practitioners (583) compared to the visiting surgeons (189), the overall compliance rate for approved indications using the ASGE guidelines for both groups was 92%. There was no significant difference in pathology found between groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that an outreach rural surgical service programme in Western Australia offering open access endoscopy conforms to international guidelines and does not induce unnecessary procedures. Rural patients benefit from a personal cost savings and convenience. There is an associated reduction in government-assisted travel costs to larger centres as well as decreased waiting lists.

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy: a safe and less costly alternative

Upper endoscopy is an integral component in the management of upper gastrointestinal disorders, but it is underutilized because of its high cost and potential complications. Unsedated transnasal endoscopy (T-EGD) is a relatively new technique using an ultrathin endoscope. Because it is better tolerated than standard upper endoscopy, it is performed with the patient unsedated, thus avoiding the associated costs and complications of conscious sedation. In this review, the technique of T-EGD and its current experience are discussed. In addition, potential future applications, special considerations, and potential pitfalls are reviewed.

Prospective audit of gastroscopy under the 'three-day rule': a regional initiative in Italy to reduce waiting time for suspected malignancy

BACKGROUND

A regional initiative, called the 'three-day rule', has recently been introduced in Italy to facilitate the earlier diagnosis of malignancy. It requires patients with suspected severe diseases to have a diagnostic procedure performed within three working days of referral by a general practitioner.

AIM

To assess prospectively the effectiveness and compliance with the three-day rule for upper digestive malignancies.

METHODS

We compared patients referred for gastroscopy under the three-day rule initiative with contemporaneous open access referrals over a 12-month period at a single large teaching hospital in west Milan. We compared the prevalence of malignancies and other serious non-neoplastic diseases as well as the waiting times in the two groups. The appropriateness of the indications for each referral was also reviewed by a gastroenterologist blind to the outcome of the test.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-two patients referred for gastroscopy under the three-day rule scheme and 767 routine referrals were studied. Significantly more oesophageal/gastric cancers (6% vs. 1%) and serious benign gastrointestinal lesions (grade II-III oesophagitis or peptic ulcer) were diagnosed in three-day rule patients in comparison with routine referrals (P < 0.05). The rate of inappropriate referral was significantly lower in the three-day rule group than in the open access group (39% vs. 22%) (P < 0.01). The estimated cost of the three-day rule scheme (in extra list examinations alone) was 10 780 euros, with about 1198 euros per diagnosis of cancer, but only 229.5 euros per 'useful' diagnosis (including peptic ulcer disease and oesophagitis).

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly more upper gastrointestinal cancers and serious benign diseases can be found within a short period to comply with the three-day rule scheme. However, some general practitioners appear to over-interpret alarm symptoms, leading to some inappropriate referrals. Better awareness of appropriate urgent referral criteria is needed in order to ensure that the best use is made of the resources available.

Appropriateness and diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in an open-access endoscopy system: a prospective observational study based on the Maastricht guidelines

AIM

To test the appropriateness of referrals for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in Campania, Italy, using the criteria of the Maastricht Consensus.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing endoscopy during a 1-week period in 21 Endoscopy Services were considered prospectively. The reasons for endoscopy were dyspeptic symptoms, history of peptic ulcer and assessment after treatment. The age, sex, symptoms, history of peptic ulcer (previous endoscopic or radiographic examinations and treatment), endoscopic diagnosis and H. pylori status were recorded. The indications for endoscopy were evaluated according to the Maastricht guidelines.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixteen of 706 patients presented with reflux symptoms, 430 with dyspeptic symptoms, 38 with alarm symptoms and 22 with atypical symptoms. Endoscopy was normal in 376 cases (53.2%); duodenal ulcer was found in 219, gastric ulcer in 45, oesophagitis in 82 and gastric cancer in six. All patients with cancer were older than 45 years, and four presented with alarm symptoms. In 398 cases (56%), endoscopy was considered not to be indicated: 250 patients with a previous diagnosis of ulcer without a change in symptoms, 38 patients in order to confirm eradication and 110 patients younger than 45 years with dyspepsia without alarm symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

A large number of endoscopic examinations could be avoided by following the guidelines of the Maastricht Consensus. In order to reduce endoscopic workload, strategies for educating physicians should be pursued.

Diagnostic yield of open access colonoscopy according to appropriateness

BACKGROUND

Open-access endoscopy allows physicians to directly schedule endoscopic procedures for their patients without prior consultation. Evaluation of both appropriateness and diagnostic yield of endoscopic procedures is critical when assessing the costs and benefits of endoscopy in an open-access setting. The aim of this study was to assess the appropriate use of colonoscopy in an open-access system and to establish the yield of diagnostic information relevant to patient care.

METHODS

Overall, 1123 consecutive patients referred for open-access colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled in the study. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines were used to assess the relationship between the appropriate use of colonoscopy and the presence of relevant endoscopic findings.

RESULTS

The rate of colonoscopies "generally not indicated" according to ASGE guidelines was 29% (39% for primary care physicians and 23% for specialists; p < 0.0001). A relevant endoscopic finding was detected in 338 examinations (35%). The diagnostic yield was significantly higher for "generally indicated" colonoscopies (43%) compared with "generally not indicated" procedures (16%) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the rate of inappropriate use of colonoscopy was high, open-access colonoscopy was effective in detecting neoplastic lesions. Because most of these were detected during examinations performed for appropriate indications, the appropriateness of the indication emerges as crucial to the cost-effectiveness of an open-access system.

Overuse and underuse of colonoscopy in a European primary care setting

BACKGROUND

Efforts to decrease overuse of health care may result in underuse. Overuse and underuse of colonoscopy have never been simultaneously evaluated in the same patient population.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, the appropriateness and necessity of referral for colonoscopy were evaluated by using explicit criteria developed by a standardized expert panel method. Inappropriate referrals constituted overuse. Patients with necessary colonoscopy indications who were not referred constituted underuse. Consecutive ambulatory patients with lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms from 22 general practices in Switzerland, a country with ready access to colonoscopy, were enrolled during a 4-week period. Follow-up data were obtained at 3 months for patients who did not undergo a necessary colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Eight thousand seven hundred sixty patient visits were screened for inclusion; 651 patients (7.4%) had lower GI symptoms (mean age 56.4 years, 68% women). Of these, 78 (12%) were referred for colonoscopy. Indications for colonoscopy in 11 patients (14% of colonoscopy referrals or 1.7% of all patients with lower GI symptoms) were judged inappropriate. Among 573 patients not referred for the procedure, underuse ranged between 11% and 28% of all patients with lower GI symptoms, depending on the criteria used.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying criteria from an expert panel of nationally recognized experts indicates that underuse of referral for colonoscopy exceeds overuse in primary care in Switzerland. To improve quality of care, both overuse and underuse of important procedures must be addressed.

Is the diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy improved by the use of explicit panel-based appropriateness criteria?

BACKGROUND

Increasing the appropriateness of use of upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is important to improve quality of care while at the same time containing costs. This study explored whether detailed explicit appropriateness criteria significantly improve the diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for upper GI endoscopy at 6 centers (1 university hospital, 2 district hospitals, 3 gastroenterology practices) were prospectively included over a 6-month period. After controlling for disease presentation and patient characteristics, the relationship between the appropriateness of upper GI endoscopy, as assessed by explicit Swiss criteria developed by the RAND/UCLA panel method, and the presence of relevant endoscopic lesions was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 2088 patients (60% outpatients, 57% men) were included. Analysis was restricted to the 1681 patients referred for diagnostic upper GI endoscopy. Forty-six percent of upper GI endoscopies were judged to be appropriate, 15% uncertain, and 39% inappropriate by the explicit criteria. No cancer was found in upper GI endoscopies judged to be inappropriate. Upper GI endoscopies judged appropriate or uncertain yielded significantly more relevant lesions (60%) than did those judged to be inappropriate (37%; odds ratio 2.6: 95% CI [2.2, 3.2]). In multivariate analyses, the diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy was significantly influenced by appropriateness, patient gender and age, treatment setting, and symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Upper GI endoscopies performed for appropriate indications resulted in detecting significantly more clinically relevant lesions than did those performed for inappropriate indications. In addition, no upper GI endoscopy that resulted in a diagnosis of cancer was judged to be inappropriate. The use of such criteria improves patient selection for upper GI endoscopy and can thus contribute to efforts aimed at enhancing the quality and efficiency of care. (Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:333-41).

The ASGE guidelines for the appropriate use of colonoscopy in an open access system

BACKGROUND

Appropriateness of indications is essential to the rational utilization of resources. The aim of this study was to evaluate the appropriate use of colonoscopy in an open access system and to assess whether the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines are useful in clinical practice.

METHODS

The indication for colonoscopy was assessed on 3000 consecutive examinations performed at 7 institutions.

RESULTS

The rate of colonoscopies "generally not indicated" according to the ASGE guidelines was 24.5% for outpatients and 15.5% for inpatients; the rates of examinations performed for an indication not listed in the ASGE guidelines were 12% and 20.1%, respectively. Generally not indicated colonoscopies were significantly less frequent for procedures requested by gastroenterologists or family physicians than those requested by other specialists, but were similar. Most generally not indicated examinations requested by gastroenterologists were for routine follow-up of patients with inflammatory bowel disease; when these patients were excluded, the rate of generally not indicated endoscopies requested by gastroenterologists was also lower than the corresponding rate for examinations requested by family physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

In Italy, the rate of colonoscopies performed for generally not indicated reasons is high, particularly among examinations not requested by a gastroenterologist. Many colonoscopies are performed for indications not listed in the ASGE guidelines.

Patterns of endoscopy use in the United States

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The aim of this study was to use a large national endoscopic database to determine why routine endoscopy is performed in diverse practice settings.

METHODS

A computerized endoscopic report generator was developed and disseminated to gastrointestinal (GI) specialists in diverse practice settings. After reports were generated, a data file was transmitted electronically to a central databank, where data were merged from multiple sites for analysis.

RESULTS

From April 1, 1997, to October 28, 1998, 276 physicians in 31 practice sites in 21 states provided 18,444 esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) reports, 20,748 colonoscopy reports, and 9767 flexible sigmoidoscopy reports to the central databank. EGD was most commonly performed to evaluate dyspepsia and/or abdominal pain (23.7%), dysphagia (20%), symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux without dysphagia (17%), and suspected upper GI bleeding (16.3%). Colonoscopy was most often performed for surveillance of prior neoplasia (24%) and evaluation of hematochezia (19%) or positive fecal occult blood test (15%). Flexible sigmoidoscopy was most commonly performed for routine screening (40%) and evaluation of hematochezia (22%). There were significant differences between academic and nonacademic sites.

CONCLUSIONS

The endoscopic database can be an important resource for future research in endoscopy by documenting current practice patterns and changes in practice over time.

Diagnostic yield of gastroscopy in a general surgical unit

Gastroscopy is the gold standard for investigating upper gastrointestinal complaints. Open access gastroscopy has advantages, but may not always be feasible in a small unit. Our 2-consultant general surgical unit provides gastroscopy on demand for medical and surgical patients. We audited the 499 gastroscopies carried out in our unit in 1997 to assess yield and diagnostic trends. The overall diagnostic yield of 69 per cent was comparable with published data from centres in Ireland and overseas. Diagnostic yield in our series was significantly lower for medical patients (59 per cent) than for surgical patients (72 per cent) (p < 0.05). Yield also varied considerably according to indication for referral. Patients referred with anaemia had a low yield (41 per cent). The indications associated with high yields were haematemesis (95 per cent), dysphagia (91 per cent), and persistent vomiting (85 per cent).

Use of open access in GI endoscopy at an academic medical center

BACKGROUND

Open access endoscopy systems (those in which endoscopy is performed without prior gastroenterology consultation) are becoming more common in the current cost-conscious environment. The aim of this study was to compare appropriateness and yield of endoscopy for patients referred for open access endoscopy with those for patients who had prior contact with a gastroenterologist. We also evaluated patients' preference for undergoing open access endoscopy as opposed to having prior consultation with a gastroenterologist and compared preparedness for endoscopic procedures between the two groups.

METHODS

The cases of all outpatients referred for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy were assessed prospectively over a 5-month period. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines for indications for gastrointestinal endoscopy were used to determine appropriateness of referrals. Significant pathologic findings were rated independently by two investigators using defined criteria. Patients' opinions regarding preparedness for endoscopy and referral preference were measured by means of questionnaires administered before endoscopy.

RESULTS

Eighty-six percent of endoscopies after consultation with gastroenterologists were performed for accepted indications compared with 65% of open access procedures (p < 0.01). Significant pathologic findings were present in 40% of the former group compared with 28% of those undergoing open access endoscopy (p < 0.01). Significant pathologic findings were found in 37% of endoscopies performed for indications listed in the ASGE guidelines compared with 20% for unlisted indications (p < 0.01). Forty percent of patients referred for open access endoscopy would have preferred prior consultation with a gastroenterologist.

CONCLUSION

Patients initially seen by a gastroenterologist are more likely to undergo endoscopy for accepted indications, and the yield of endoscopy is higher than among patients referred through an open access system. The system of open access endoscopy as currently practiced may have to be reassessed.

The effectiveness of endoscopy in the management of dyspepsia: a qualitative systematic review

PURPOSE

Dyspepsia is a common primary care condition, yet its optimal management is poorly defined. We reviewed the literature to answer the following questions about patients with dyspepsia: 1) Does endoscopy result in improved patient outcomes? 2) Does endoscopy result in a reduction in the use of subsequent medical resources? 3) Does endoscopy result in improved medical decision making? 4) Is endoscopy cost effective?

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of English-language articles in the MEDLINE, HEALTHSTAR, and EMBASE computerized bibliographic databases from January 1985 to July 1998. We included all studies, including decision analyses, with information about the effectiveness of endoscopy, as measured by its impact on patient outcomes, resource utilization, clinical decision making, or cost effectiveness. Two independent reviewers abstracted data from each study, and assessed its methodologic quality.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. For 3 of the 4 clinical questions, the weight of evidence does not support the effectiveness of endoscopy. The largest randomized clinical trial comparing endoscopy with empiric therapy demonstrates equivalent symptoms and quality of life at 1 year, with increased patient satisfaction and lower costs for initial endoscopy. Suboptimal study design, including lack of appropriate comparison groups, limit studies measuring the impact of endoscopy on resource utilization and decision-making. Decision analyses indicate that noninvasive H pylori testing followed by anti-H pylori therapy or empiric antisecretory therapy is more cost effective than initial endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of one randomized clinical trial, the preponderance of available data does not support the effectiveness of endoscopy in the management of dyspepsia. Prospective clinical trials that evaluate patient outcomes and resource utilization, and take H pylori status into account, are needed to determine the effectiveness of endoscopy in the management of dyspepsia.

Performance of panel-based criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of colonoscopy: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Prospective data describing the appropriateness of use of colonoscopy based on detailed panel-based clinical criteria are not available.

METHODS

In a cohort of 553 consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy to two university-based Swiss outpatient clinics, the percentage of patients who underwent colonoscopy for appropriate, equivocal, and inappropriate indications and the relationship between appropriateness of use and the presence of relevant endoscopic lesions was prospectively assessed. This assessment was based on criteria of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and explicit American and Swiss criteria developed in 1994 by a formal panel process using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

RESULTS

The procedures were rated appropriate or equivocal in 72.2% by criteria of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, in 68.5% by explicit American criteria, and in 74.4% by explicit Swiss criteria (not statistically significant, NS). Inappropriate use (overuse) of colonoscopy was found in 27.8%, 31.5%, and 25.6%, respectively (NS). The proportion of appropriate procedures was higher with increasing age. Almost all reasons for using colonoscopy could be assessed by the two explicit criteria sets, whereas 28.4% of reasons for using colonoscopy could not be evaluated by the criteria of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (p < 0.0001). The probability of finding a relevant endoscopic lesion was distinctly higher in the procedures rated appropriate or equivocal than in procedures judged inappropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of inappropriate use of colonoscopy is substantial in Switzerland. Explicit criteria allow assessment of almost all indications encountered in clinical practice. In this study, all sets of appropriateness criteria significantly enhanced the probability of finding a relevant endoscopic lesion during colonoscopy.

Reliability of panel-based guidelines for colonoscopy: an international comparison

BACKGROUND

This study examined the reliability of explicit guidelines developed using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method.

METHODS

The appropriateness of over 400 indications for colonoscopy was rated by two multispecialty expert panels (United States and Switzerland). A nine-point scale was used, which was consolidated into three categories of appropriateness: appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate. The distribution of appropriateness ratings between the two panels and the intrapanel and interpanel agreement for categories of appropriateness were calculated for all possible indications. Similar statistics were calculated for a series of 577 primary care patients referred for colonoscopy in Switzerland.

RESULTS

Over 80% of all indications (348) could be directly compared. The proportions of indications classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate were 28.4%, 24.7%, 46.6% and 33.0%, 23.0%, 44.0% for the U.S. and the Swiss panels, respectively. Interpanel agreement was excellent for all the possible indications (kappa value: 0.75) and lower for actual cases (kappa value: 0.51) because of lower agreement for the most frequently encountered indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Good agreement between the two sets of criteria was found, pointing to the reliability of the method. Partial disagreement occurred essentially for a few, albeit frequently encountered, indications for use of colonoscopy in cases of uncomplicated lower abdominal pain or constipation.