Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Mangas-Sanjuan, Carolina
• Santana, Enrique
• Cubiella, Joaquín
• Rodríguez-Camacho, Elena
• Seoane, Agustin
• Alvarez-Gonzalez, Marco Antonio
• Suárez, Adolfo
• Álvarez-García, Verónica
• González, Natalia
• Luè, Alberto
• Cid-Gomez, Lucía
• Ponce, Marta
• Bujanda, Luis
• Portillo, Isabel
• Pellisé, María
• Díez-Redondo, Pilar
• Herráiz, Maite
• Ono, Akiko
• Pizarro, Ángeles
• Zapater, Pedro
• Jover, Rodrigo

Titel

Variation in Colonoscopy Performance Measures According to Procedure Indication

Ist Teil von

• Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology, 2020-05, Vol.18 (5), p.1216-1223.e2

Ort / Verlag

United States: Elsevier Inc

Erscheinungsjahr

2020

Quelle

Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• AbstractBackground & AimsMost fulfillment and benchmarking information for colonoscopy quality indicators has been obtained from studies of primary screening colonoscopies. We analyzed differences in the fulfillment of colonoscopy quality indicators based on indication for endoscopy. MethodsWe performed an observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study of 14,867 patients who underwent endoscopy procedures for gastrointestinal symptoms (40.3%), a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (36.0%), post-polypectomy surveillance (15.3%), or primary screening (8.4%), from February 2016 through December 2017 at 14 centers in Spain. We evaluated rates of adequate colon cleansing, cecal intubation, adenoma detection, and colorectal cancer detection, among others. We used findings from primary screening colonoscopies as the reference standard. ResultsFewer than 90% of patients had adequate bowel preparation; 83.1% of patients with gastrointestinal symptoms had adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR] compared to patients with primary screening colonoscopies, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49–0.78) and 85.3% of patients receiving post-polypectomy surveillance had adequate bowel preparation (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55–0.91). The cecal intubation rate was also lower in patients with gastrointestinal symptoms (93.1%) (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22–0.52). The adenoma detection rate was higher in patients with a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (46.4%) (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.71–2.35) and in patients undergoing post-polypectomy surveillance (48.2%) (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20–1.67). The highest proportion of patients with colorectal cancer was in the gastrointestinal symptom group (5.1%) (OR, 5.24; 95% CI, 2.30–11.93) and the lowest was in patients undergoing surveillance (0.8%) (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.32–2.14). ConclusionsFulfillment of colonoscopy performance measures varies substantially by indication. Policies addressing performance measures beyond colonoscopy screening procedures should be developed. Benchmarking recommendations could be adjusted according to colonoscopy indication.