Appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a hospital-based study

Diagnostic yield of esophagogastroduodenoscopy in France

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Large scale data on esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in Western countries are scarce. We conducted a prospective study on the diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in France.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An online questionnaire was sent to all French gastroenterologists practicing endoscopy. Data from EGDs performed during one week were collected. A statistical extrapolation of the results to a whole year was performed.

RESULTS

342 gastrointestinal endoscopists, representative of the population of French gastroenterologists, provided data on 2735 EGDs, corresponding to 1 006 316 (95%CI=937 080-1 075 552) procedures for the entire year. 1770 (64.7%) EGDs were performed under sedation or general anesthesia, and 930 (34%) were associated with a colonoscopy. 896 (32.8%) EGDs were normal. Hiatal hernia and esophagitis were the most frequent esophageal diagnoses, in 496 (18.1%) and 374 (13.7%) cases, respectively. Barrett's esophagus was diagnosed in 109 (4%) patients. Among gastric lesions, endoscopic gastritis was reported in 572 (20.9%) patients; ulcer, polyps, and suspected malignancy in 78 (2.9%), 62 (2.3%), and 19 (0.7%), respectively. 1597 (58.4%) EGDs included mucosal biopsies, and 141 (5.1%) were associated with a therapeutic procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

We report nationwide prospective data on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy practice in France. Our data suggest that about 300 000 normal EGDs each year in France could potentially be avoided by a diagnostic strategy relying on upper GI capsule endoscopy, providing significant relief on healthcare practitioners.

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.

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.

Outcomes of patients hospitalized with peptic ulcer disease diagnosed in acute upper endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

The incidence and complications of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) have declined, but mortality from bleeding ulcers has remained unchanged. The aims of the current study were to evaluate the significance of PUD among patients admitted for acute upper endoscopy and to evaluate the survival of PUD patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective, observational cohort study, data on 1580 acute upper endoscopy cases during 2012-2014 were collected. A total of 649 patients were included with written informed consent. Data on patients' characteristics, living habits, comorbidities, drug use, endoscopy and short-term and long-term survival were collected.

RESULTS

Of all patients admitted for endoscopy, 147/649 (23%) had PUD with the main symptom of melena. Of these PUD patients, 35% had major stigmata of bleeding (Forrest Ia-IIb) in endoscopy. Patients with major stigmata had significantly more often renal insufficiency, lower level of blood pressure with tachycardia and lower level of haemoglobin, platelets and ratio of thromboplastin time. No differences in drug use, Charlson comorbidity class, BMI, smoking or alcohol use were found. Of the PUD patients, 31% were Helicobacter pylori positive. The 30-day mortality was 0.7% (95% confidence interval: 0.01-4.7), 1-year mortality was 12.9% (8.4-19.5) and the 2-year mortality was 19.4% (13.8-26.8), with no difference according to major or minor stigmata of bleeding. Comorbidity (Charlson>1) was associated with decreased survival (P=0.029) and obesity (BMI≥30) was associated with better survival (P=0.023).

CONCLUSION

PUD is still the most common cause for acute upper endoscopy with very low short-term mortality. Comorbidity, but not the stigmata of bleeding, was associated with decreased long-term survival.

The Drivers of Discretionary Utilization: Clinical History Versus Physician Supply

PURPOSE

Because the effect of physician supply on utilization remains controversial, literature based on non-Medicare populations is sparse, and a physician supply expansion is under way, the potential for physician-induced demand across diverse populations is important to understand. A substantial proportion of gastrointestinal endoscopies may be inappropriate. The authors analyzed the impact of physician supply, practice patterns, and clinical history on esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD, defined as discretionary) among patients hospitalized with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB).

METHOD

Among 34,344 patients hospitalized for LGIB from 2004 to 2009, 43.1% and 21.3% had a colonoscopy or EGD, respectively, during the index hospitalization or within 6 months after. Linking to the Dartmouth Atlas via patients' hospital referral region, gastroenterologist density and hospital care intensity (HCI) index were ascertained. Adjusting for age, gender, comorbidities, and race/education indicators, the association of gastroenterologist density, HCI index, and history of upper gastrointestinal disease with EGD was estimated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

EGD was not associated with gastroenterologist density or HCI index, but was associated with a history of upper gastrointestinal disease (OR 2.30; 95% CI 2.17-2.43), peptic ulcer disease (OR 4.82; 95% CI 4.26-5.45), and liver disease (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.18-1.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients hospitalized with LGIB, large variation in gastroenterologist density did not predict EGD, but relevant clinical history did, with association strengths commensurate with risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. In the scenario studied, no evidence was found that specialty physician supply increases will result in more discretionary care within commercially insured populations.

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.

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.

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.

Implementation of a guideline versus use of individual prognostic factors to prioritize waiting lists for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Studying factors associated with positive gastroscopies in dyspeptic patients can help limit and rationalize waiting lists for endoscopies. Dyspepsia guidelines have a controversial role because their main purpose is to provide specifications on efficient global management of primary care patients.

AIM

To assess and weigh the risk of major endoscopic diagnoses against different age groups, gender, Helicobacter pylori infection, compliance with European Society of Primary Care Gastroenterology (ESPCG) guideline statements, and participation of prescribing general practitioners in a quality improvement programme for dyspepsia management, based on these guidelines.

METHODS

We consecutively studied the outcomes of 752 gastroscopies with respect to two sets of useful results: the first considered diagnoses of carcinoma, gastric and duodenal ulcer; the second excluded duodenal ulcer.

RESULTS

A diagnosis of cancer or gastric/duodenal ulcer was associated with male sex (odds ratio (OR)=1.81, P=0.016), age above 41 years (OR=3.24, P=0.009) and particularly with positivity to H. pylori (OR=4.49, P<0.001), while the risk increased by two and a half times in gastroscopies conforming with ESPCG guidelines (OR=2.47, P=0.003). In the second set of analysis, we noted a statistically significant correlation between cancer or gastric ulcer and compliance with ESPCG guidelines (OR=4.69, P=0.013), but not with H. pylori positivity (OR=1.83, P=0.11); a linear relationship was observed across age groups, with a 60% increase in the risk of disease with every 5-year increase in age (OR=1.59, P=0.002).

CONCLUSION

Participation of general practitioners in the Dyspepsia Management Programme (DMP) was not significantly associated with a positive gastroscopy.

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.

Appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in children: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) is appropriate in many situations in adults and children. Recommendations for UGIE use in children were published recently by the French-language Paediatric Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Nutrition Group (GFHGNP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the 293 UGIE procedures undertaken in 251 children between January 1, 2001 and June 30, 2003 by 2 senior endoscopists. The UGIE procedures were categorized as appropriate or inappropriate based on GFHGNP recommendations, and diagnostic efficiency was compared in the 2 groups with the chi2 test followed by multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 293 UGIE procedures, 52 (17.7%) were considered inappropriate. Diagnostic efficiency was 51% in the appropriate group versus 17.3% in the inappropriate group (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI, 2-8.7; P < 10(-3)). The proportion of appropriate UGIE procedures was higher among inpatients than outpatients (odds ratio, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.24-5.08; P = 0.01). Inappropriate reasons for performing UGIE included isolated failure to thrive and follow-up after neonatal esophagogastroduodenitis. Nine inappropriate UGIE procedures contributed useful information: ulcerative esophagitis in 1 patient, hemorrhagic esophagitis in 4 patients, duodenitis in 1 patient, and malabsorption in 3 patients caused in 1 case by cow's milk allergy and in 2 cases to fully documented celiac disease.

CONCLUSIONS

UGIE was usually performed appropriately in our pediatric hospital. Inappropriate UGIE procedures were more common in outpatients than in admitted patients. Awareness of the recommendations for appropriate UGIE use needs to be improved among office-based and hospital-based physicians.

Applicability and efficacy of qualifying criteria for an appropriate use of diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Appropriate indication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) may be facilitated by referring to qualifying criteria such as those devised by the European Panel (EPAGE) and French Experts (ANAES). This prospective study evaluates the applicability and efficacy of these criteria in clinical practice.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 522 patients was included (55% inpatients, 57% male, mean age 55 years). Appropriateness of referral was evaluated using EPAGE and ANAES criteria sets by a single independent expert.

RESULTS

EPAGE criteria were applicable in 71% of cases. Indications for UGE were appropriate, inappropriate and uncertain in 62%, 27% and 11% respectively; 74%, 16% and 10% of clinically significant lesions detected by UGE were disclosed in patients having appropriate, inappropriate and uncertain indications respectively. ANAES criteria were applicable in 81% of cases. Indications for UGE were appropriate in 74%, inappropriate in 26%; 76% and 24% of clinically significant lesions detected by UGE were disclosed in patients having appropriate and inappropriate indications respectively. Whatever the criteria set used, all cancers and most of the severe lesions were observed in patients with appropriate indications: those patients were more often in-patients and were significantly older than patients belonging to the inappropriate group.

CONCLUSION

Reference to EPAGE and ANAES qualifying criteria facilitates patient selection for UGE. Final decision must however rely upon practitioner advice. ANAES criteria are significantly more often applicable than EPAGE ones. However EPAGE referential when applicable is more predictive of the UGE findings.

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.

Appropriateness of diagnostic digestive endoscopy

The indications of diagnostic endoscopy--upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or colonoscopy--in the exploration of the digestive tract are classified as appropriate or inappropriate with regard to criteria established in guidelines supported by national scientific societies and by insurance companies. This applies to the exploration of symptomatic patients and to screening protocols for malignant lesions. Functional or nonstructural diseases being more frequent than structural diseases, negative findings in endoscopy are common. However this reassures the patient and should not be considered as overuse. On the other hand excess in the repetition of negative endoscopic procedures during surveillance raises ethical problems, increased costs, and may be considered as unethical.