Post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia after a negative index endoscopy: a systematic review and proposal for definitions and performance measures in endoscopy

AGA Clinical Practice Update on High-Quality Upper Endoscopy: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update (CPU) Expert Review is to provide clinicians with guidance on best practices for performing a high-quality upper endoscopic exam.

METHODS

The best practice advice statements presented herein were developed from a combination of available evidence from published literature, guidelines, and consensus-based expert opinion. No formal rating of the strength or quality of the evidence was carried out, which aligns with standard processes for American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPUs. These statements are meant to provide practical, timely advice to clinicians practicing in the United States. This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates (CPU) Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopists should ensure that upper endoscopy is being performed for an appropriate indication and that informed consent clearly explaining the risks, benefits, alternatives, sedation plan, and potential diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is obtained. These elements should be documented by the endoscopist before the procedure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Endoscopists should ensure that adequate visualization of the upper gastrointestinal mucosa, using mucosal cleansing and insufflation as necessary, is achieved and documented. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: A high-definition white-light endoscopy system should be used for upper endoscopy instead of a standard-definition white-light endoscopy system whenever possible. The endoscope used for the procedure should be documented in the procedure note. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Image enhancement technologies should be used during the upper endoscopic examination to improve the diagnostic yield for preneoplasia and neoplasia. Suspicious areas should be clearly described, photodocumented, and biopsied separately. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Endoscopists should spend sufficient time carefully inspecting the foregut mucosa in an anterograde and retroflexed view to improve the detection and characterization of abnormalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Endoscopists should document any abnormalities noted on upper endoscopy using established classifications and standard terminology whenever possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Endoscopists should perform biopsies for the evaluation and management of foregut conditions using standardized biopsy protocols. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should provide patients with management recommendations based on the specific endoscopic findings (eg, peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis), and this should be documented in the medical record. If recommendations are contingent upon histopathology results (eg, H pylori infection, Barrett's esophagus), then endoscopists should document that appropriate guidance will be provided after results are available. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopists should document whether subsequent surveillance endoscopy is indicated and, if so, provide appropriate surveillance intervals. If the determination of surveillance is contingent on histopathology results, then endoscopists should document that surveillance intervals will be suggested after results are available.

Quality indicators in Barrett's endoscopy: Best is yet to come

There is growing interest in establishing quality indicators (QIs) for endoscopic screening and surveillance in Barrett's esophagus (BE). QIs are objective, measurable, and evidence-based metrics that are applicable in a health-care setting to monitor a process and identify key performance indicators (KPIs) to achieve defined goals. In the Barrett's endoscopy setting, QIs can offer a standardized approach to monitor and maintain high-quality endoscopy for BE screening and surveillance that will allow measuring performance of an endoscopist as an individual, a group, or a facility. Since BE is an endoscopically identifiable premalignant condition with histological corroboration, adherence to QIs is paramount for the early and accurate detection of dysplasia and neoplasia. It is the holy grail for BE screening and surveillance. Although several suggested QIs for Barrett's endoscopy exist, issues remain in determining the most appropriate ones. These issues include inconsistent use of terminology, unclear definitions, and a scarcity of studies linking these QIs with relevant patient outcomes, making it difficult for clinicians to understand the concept and clinical importance. Hence, there is an urgent need to determine what should constitute appropriate QIs for Barrett's endoscopy, clearly define items used in the QIs, and identify ways to measure these KPIs. Ultimately, well-defined and validated QIs will contribute to clinically effective, safe, timely, and patient-focused care. In this review, we summarize recent literature and discuss four proposed QIs: (i) neoplasia detection rate; (ii) postendoscopy Barrett's neoplasia; (iii) Barrett's inspection time; and (iv) adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol.

The effect of procedural time on dysplasia detection rate during endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND : Endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) with Seattle protocol biopsies is time-consuming and inadequately performed in routine practice. There is no recommended procedural time for BE surveillance. We investigated the duration of surveillance procedures with adequate tissue sampling and effect on dysplasia detection rate (DDR). METHODS : We performed post hoc analysis from the standard arm of a crossover randomized controlled trial recruiting patients with BE (≥C2 and/or ≥M3) and no clearly visible dysplastic lesions. After inspection with white-light imaging, targeted biopsies of subtle lesions and Seattle protocol biopsies were performed. Procedure duration and biopsy number were stratified by BE length. The effect of endoscopy-related variables on DDR was assessed by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS : Of 142 patients recruited, 15 (10.6 %) had high grade dysplasia/intramucosal cancer and 15 (10.6 %) had low grade dysplasia. The median procedural time was 16.5 minutes (interquartile range 14.0-19.0). Endoscopy duration increased by 0.9 minutes for each additional 1 cm of BE length. Seattle protocol biopsies had higher sensitivity for dysplasia than targeted biopsies (86.7 % vs. 60.0 %; P = 0.045). Longer procedural time was associated with increased likelihood of dysplasia detection on quadrantic biopsies (odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95 %CI 1.00-1.20, P = 0.04), and for patients with BE > 6 cm also on targeted biopsies (OR 1.21, 95 %CI 1.04-1.40; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS : In BE patients with no clearly visible dysplastic lesions, longer procedural time was associated with increased likelihood of dysplasia detection. Adequate time slots are required to perform good-quality surveillance and maximize dysplasia detection.