Polyp detection rates as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy

Background Adenoma and Polyp Detection Rates (ADR and PDR) are advocated as general performance measures for screening and clinical colonoscopy, but their evidence is largely derived from screening data. This study compares PDRs in colonoscopy for screening versus clinical indications.

Methods Consecutive patients at two Norwegian centers were examined by eight endoscopists either for colonoscopy screening in a randomized colonoscopy screening trial (Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer, NordICC) or for clinical indications during the same time period (January 2013 to December 2014). PDR-5 mm, defined as the proportion of colonoscopies with detection of at least one polyp with diameter ≥ 5 mm, was measured prospectively. We fitted multivariable logistic regression models and calculated the adjusted odds ratios (OR) to evaluate factors for differences in PDR-5 mm between screening and clinical colonoscopies.

Results The study included 2939 clinical and 771 screening colonoscopies. The PDR-5 mm was 26 % and 31 %, respectively (P = 0.005). Among sex, age, cecum intubation, bowel cleansing, and endoscopist, only the latter explained the higher PDR-5 mm in screening compared to routine colonoscopy. In the fully adjusted logistic regression model, the detection of polyps ≥ 5 mm was not associated with indication for colonoscopy. The OR for polyp detection in screening vs. routine colonoscopy was 1.04; 95 % confidence interval 0.85 – 1.27.

Conclusion In this study, the differences in PDR-5 mm between clinical and screening colonoscopies could be explained by the endoscopist. Accordingly, PDR-5 mm benchmarks may be similar for clinical and screening colonoscopy.

Incontinence after colonoscopy--an unrecognized and preventable problem. A cross-sectional study from the Gastronet quality assurance program

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy requires insufflation of gas for visualization of the bowel wall. Worldwide, this is usually done using air. The aim of the present study was to assess the risk of postcolonoscopy incontinence, and to investigate whether insufflation of CO₂ instead of air may reduce this risk, since it is easily absorbed through the bowel mucosa.

METHODS

This is a prospective multicenter study of colonoscopy patients undergoing bowel insufflation using air or CO₂. A successive series of colonoscopies were reported to a national quality assurance program in Norway between January and December 2009 from 21 endoscopy centers with varying insufflation practices. The study comprised 7812 patients aged 18 years or older who were referred for outpatient colonoscopy. Of these, 5015 underwent colonoscopy performed using air and 2797 colonoscopy using CO₂ insufflation.

RESULTS

Patient-reported incontinence up to 24 h after colonoscopy was compared using binary logistic regression analysis for the type of gas used for insufflation. The air and CO₂ patient groups were comparable with regard to age, sex, indication for colonoscopy, and sedation practice. Incontinence was reported by 336 out of 7812 patients (4.3%). Incontinence was significantly less frequent in the CO₂ group than in the air group [2.1% versus 5.5%; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.38; 95%CI 0.28-0.50; P < 0.001]. Female patients had a higher risk of incontinence than men (adjusted OR 1.77; 95% CI 1.39-2.24; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

About every 20th patient undergoing colonoscopy using standard air insufflation experiences postexamination incontinence. This proportion can be reduced by 60% by converting from air insufflation to insufflation with the absorbable CO₂.

Patient satisfaction with on-demand sedation for outpatient colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

To reduce the costs of colonoscopy the feasibility of unsedated procedures has been explored. The aims of our study were to assess patient satisfaction with on-demand sedation and identify factors related to painful colonoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Norwegian Gastronet quality assurance documentation tools consist of endoscopy reports (completed on site) and a patient satisfaction questionnaire (completed by the patient on the day after colonoscopy). Data were collected from January 1 2004 to December 31 2006. Colonoscopies reported to be moderately or severely painful were defined as "painful colonoscopy."

RESULTS

Nine endoscopy centers representing 86 endoscopists reported 14 915 examinations and 12 354 patient reports were returned (83 % response rate). Patient satisfaction with service and information given was greater than 95 % for all centers. Mean rate of painful colonoscopy was 34 % and mean sedation rate 34 %. Odds ratio (OR) for painful colonoscopy was 2.2 ( P < 0.001) when sedation was given. The ORs for painful colonoscopy were similar for all but one center (no. 4) with OR 1.6 ( P = 0.04), while the OR for giving sedation was higher for all but one center (no. 1) compared with the reference center (ORs 2.2 to 7.5, all P-values < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A surprisingly high rate of painful colonoscopy was found. High sedation rates were not associated with low rates of painful colonoscopy. Recommending increased sedation rates as the only intervention to improve suboptimal performance might not lead to lower rates of painful colonoscopy.

Comparison of three triple regimens with omeprazole or ranitidine bismuth citrate for Helicobacter pylori eradication

BACKGROUND

Regimens with ranitidine bismuth citrate (RBC) or omeprazole (O) are effective in eradicating Helicobacter pylori. This randomized, open, multicentre trial compares three different regimens with these drugs.

METHODS

Consecutive H. pylori +ve outpatients were included. The alternative regimens were: 1) O 20 mg, clarithromycin (C) 250 mg and metronidazole (M) 500 mg (O.C.M), 2) RBC 400 mg, C 250 mg and M 500 mg (RBC.C.M), 3) RBC 400 mg, tetracycline (T) 1000 mg and M 500 mg [RBC.T.M]. All drugs were given twice daily for 7 days. H. pylori infection was assessed with H. pylori urea breath tests.

RESULTS

426 H. pylori +ve patients were included (mean age 58 years [range 18-88], male/female: 244/182). The eradication rates (intention to treat) in the O.C.M, RBC.C.M and RBC.T.M groups were 117/137 (85%), 141/146 (97%) and 117/143 (82%), respectively (P < 0.001, overall assessment). There were no significant differences in side effects between the alternatives.

CONCLUSION

In this trial, RBC.C.M was the most effective one, it was well tolerated and compliance was satisfactory. RBC.T.M is an alternative to regimens with clarithromycin.

Highly effective twice-daily triple therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection and peptic ulcer disease: does in vitro metronidazole resistance have any clinical relevance?

OBJECTIVES

To compare cure rates of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection, ulcer healing, and side effects of three simplified regimens of triple therapy in patients with peptic ulcer disease.

METHODS

Two hundred thirty-one patients were prospectively randomized to receive either regimen OAM (omeprazole 20 mg b.i.d., amoxicillin 750 mg b.i.d., and metronidazole 400 g b.i.d.), OCM (omeprazole 20 mg b.i.d., clarithromycin 250 mg b.i.d., and metronidazole 400 mg b.i.d.), or BCM (bismuth subcitrate 240 mg b.i.d., clarithromycin 250 mg b.i.d., and metronidazole 400 mg b.i.d.), all for 10 days. Side effects were reported immediately afterward in a self-administered questionnaire. Upper endoscopy was carried out before treatment and 2 months after treatment. Three antral and three corpus biopsy specimens were analyzed microbiologically and with rapid urease test to determine the presence of H. pylori. Altogether 143 patients (62%) had an active ulcer at start of treatment. Metronidazole resistant (M-R) H. pylori strains were found in 30% of patients, while none had clarithromycin resistant (C-R) strains.

RESULTS

According to intention-to-treat analysis, H. pylori cure rates were 91, 95, and 95% with OAM, OCM, and BCM, respectively (p = 0.63). In patients with metronidazole-sensitive (M-S) strains versus M-R strains, the cure rates were 96 versus 77% with OAM (p = 0.025), 94 versus 94% with OCM, and 94 versus 96% with BCM. Ulcer healing rates were 95, 94, and 92%, respectively (p = 0.91). There were no significant differences in side effects between the regimens, and only five patients (2%) had to stop the treatment prematurely.

CONCLUSIONS

All treatment regimens were highly effective for cure of H. pylori infection and for ulcer healing. Metronidazole resistance reduced the efficacy of OAM, but was of no importance for the efficacy of OCM or BCM. Side effects were of minor importance.