Do Low-Risk Patients With Dyspepsia Need a Gastroscopy? Use of Gastroscopy for Otherwise Healthy Patients With Dyspepsia

Diagnostic yield from symptomatic lower gastrointestinal endoscopy in the UK: A British Society of Gastroenterology analysis using data from the National Endoscopy Database

BACKGROUND

The value of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGIE; colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy) relates to its ability to detect clinically relevant findings, predominantly cancers, preneoplastic polyps or inflammatory bowel disease. There are concerns that many LGIEs are performed on low-risk patients with limited benefit.

AIMS

To determine the diagnostic outcomes of LGIE for common symptoms.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of diagnostic LGIE between March 2019 and February 2020 using the UK National Endoscopy Database. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models, incorporating random (endoscopist) and fixed (symptoms, patient age, and sex) effects upon two dependent variables (large polyp [≥10 mm] and cancer diagnosis). Adjusted positive predictive values (aPPVs) were calculated.

RESULTS

We analysed 384,510 LGIEs; 33.2% were performed on patients aged under 50 and 53.6% on women. Regarding colonoscopies, the unadjusted PPV for cancer was 1.5% (95% CI: 1.4-1.5); higher for men than women (1.9% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.01). The PPV for large polyps was 3.2% (95% CI: 3.1-3.2). The highest colonoscopy cancer aPPVs were in the over 50s (1.9%) and in those with rectal bleeding (2.5%) or anaemia (2.1%). Cancer aPPVs for other symptoms were <1% despite representing 54.3% of activity. In patients under 50, aPPVs were 0.4% for cancer and 1.6% for large polyps. Results were similar for sigmoidoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Most colonoscopies were performed on patients with low-risk symptoms, where cancer risk was similar to the general population. Cancer and large polyp yield was highest in elderly patients with rectal bleeding or anaemia, although still fell short of FIT-based screening yields.

Mistakes in the diagnosis and treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in daily clinical practice

BACKGROUND

An adequate diagnostic and therapeutic approach to Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is the cornerstone to avoid overdiagnosis, overuse of health resources, and increase in antibiotic resistances. The aim of the study was to evaluate the most common errors in clinical practice and the associated risk factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study including patients with H. pylori infection and no previous treatment belonging to two defined areas of the National Health System in Spain; some of them were enrolled in the European Registry on H. pylori management (Hp-EuReg). Patients were attended by gastroenterologists between 2010 and 2019. According to current guidelines, we evaluated indications for H. pylori investigation, appropriateness of diagnostic test used in dyspeptic patients and discontinuation of surveillance after treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 1730 patients were included, receiving 2260 eradication regimens. H. pylori infection was investigated in 1.7% cases in absence of a formal indication. Oral endoscopy was incorrectly used in 56% of patients with dyspepsia under 55 years without alarm signs, and urea breath test (UBT) was incorrectly used in 22.4% of patients with dyspepsia ≥55 years or red flags. Levofloxacin containing regimens were used as first-line therapy in 7.5% of non-allergic to penicillin patients. After first-line failure, clarithromycin was repeated in 2.6% of the patients who received second-line therapy. Confirmatory test of H. pylori status was absent in 2.5% cases. Men, patients under 55 years, and patients diagnosed by UBT had a higher risk of not undergoing a confirmatory test.

CONCLUSIONS

Investigation of H. pylori infection by gastroenterologists is rare in absence of a formal indication; however, endoscopy is commonly used for dyspeptic patients <55 years without red flags and non-invasive tests are still used for dyspeptic patients ≥55 years or presenting alarm signs. Men, patients under 55 years, and patients diagnosed by UBT have an increased risk of being lost to follow-up after eradication treatment.

Diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients attending a UK centre with symptoms compatible with Rome IV functional dyspepsia

Background

Dyspeptic symptoms are common and mainly due to functional dyspepsia (FD). The Rome IV criteria mandate a normal upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy before diagnosing FD. However, endoscopies are costly, resource-intensive procedures that generate substantial waste. Hence, simpler means of diagnosing FD are desirable.

Objectives

To determine what proportion of UGI endoscopies are represented by patients with symptoms compatible with Rome IV FD, and the diagnostic yield in this cohort stratified according to alarm features.

Methods

Adult patients attending a UK centre for outpatient UGI endoscopy completed a preprocedure questionnaire on demographics, medical history, alarm features, mood, somatisation and GI symptoms. Alarm features were defined as age ≥55 years, dysphagia, anaemia, unintentional weight loss, UGI bleed or a family history of UGI cancer. Clinically significant endoscopic findings were cancers, Barrett's oesophagus, erosive oesophagitis, peptic ulcers or strictures.

Results

Of 387 patients attending for an outpatient non-surveillance diagnostic UGI endoscopy, 221 had symptoms compatible with FD whereas 166 did not. Approximately 80% in both groups had alarm features, with a similar prevalence of clinically significant endoscopic findings at ~10%. UGI endoscopy was normal in a cohort of 9% (n=35) with symptoms compatible with FD and no alarm features, while benign peptic ulcer was noted in two of 29 cases without FD symptoms and no alarm features.

Conclusion

1-in-10 UGI endoscopies are performed in patients with symptoms compatible with FD and no alarm features, in whom there is no diagnostic yield. We recommend such patients receive a positive diagnosis of FD without endoscopy.