Different screening definitions have little impact on polypectomy rate estimates

BACKGROUND:

Polypectomy rate is a surrogate quality indicator for screening colonoscopy. Various methods for identifying screening colonoscopies have been used and it is unclear how different definitions affect the estimated polypectomy rate.

OBJECTIVE:

To estimate polypectomy rates and how they vary according to the definition of a screening colonoscopy, using patient- and endoscopist-reported indications.

METHODS:

A cross-sectional analysis of endoscopists and their patients 50 to 75 years of age who underwent colonoscopy was conducted. Based on questionnaire responses, four patient indications were derived: perceived screening; perceived nonscreening; medical history indicating nonscreening; and combination of the three indications. Endoscopist indication was derived from a questionnaire completed immediately after colonoscopy. Polypectomy status was obtained from provincial physician billing records. Polypectomy rates were computed, while accounting for physician and hospital level clustering, using all four patient indications, endoscopist indication, and the agreement between patient and endoscopist indications. The effect of indications on polypectomy rate was estimated adjusting for age, sex and family history of colorectal cancer.

RESULTS:

A total of 2134 patients and 45 endoscopists were included. The proportion of colonoscopies classified as screening according to the nine indications ranged from 32.2% to 70.9%. Polypectomy rates ranged between 22.6% and 26.2% for screening colonoscopy, and between 27.1% and 30.8% for nonscreening colonoscopy. Adjusted ORs for indication ranged between 0.74 and 0.94.

DISCUSSION:

Although the proportion of colonoscopies identified as screening varied considerably among the indications, the estimated polypectomy rates were similar.

CONCLUSION:

The findings suggest that the way screening is defined does not greatly affect the estimates of polypectomy rate.     

Endoscopy Nurse Participation May Increase the Polyp Detection Rate by Second-Year Fellows during Screening Colonoscopies

Background/Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of endoscopy nurse participation on polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) of second-year fellows during screening colonoscopies.

Methods

This was a single-center, prospective, randomized study comparing a fellow alone and a fellow plus an endoscopy nurse as an additional observer during afternoon outpatient screening colonoscopies. The primary end points were PDR and ADR.

Results

One hundred ninety-one colonoscopies performed by a fellow alone and 192 colonoscopies performed by a fellow plus an endoscopy nurse were analyzed. The PDR was significantly higher when the nurse was involved (53.1% vs. 41.3%, p<0.05); however, there was no significant difference in the ADR between the two groups (38.5% vs. 29.8%, p=0.073). There was no difference in the percentage of patients with ≥2 polyps, advanced adenomas, polyp size, polyp location, and polyp shapes between the two groups. There was no difference in the PDR according to the level of experience of the endoscopy nurse.

Conclusions

Endoscopy nurse participation as an additional observer during screening colonoscopy performed by second-year fellow increases the PDR; however, the level of experience of the nurse was not an important factor.     

Effect of hysterectomy on colonoscopy completion rate

BACKGROUND:

Several studies show that colonoscopies are technically more difficult to perform in women than men, especially in women who have undergone abdominal and gynecological surgeries. A review of the literature indicates an increased rate of noncompletion of colonoscopies in most cases; however, no studies have investigated the procedural complication rate, sedation requirements and perception of pain in colonoscopies.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine whether women who have undergone a previous hysterectomy have a higher noncompletion rate when undergoing a colonoscopy, and to assess whether there is a higher percentage of complications. Furthermore, the present study also aimed to ascertain whether these women required more sedation and whether their perception of pain is greater than that of women who did not undergo previous abdominal surgeries.

METHODS:

The present study was a prospective cohort study of women, 45 to 80 years of age, who underwent colonoscopy (n=508). A total of 229 patients were eligible for the study; they completed a questionnaire, and were subsequently divided into control and hysterectomy groups. Gastroenterologists performed all procedures. After colonoscopy, the patient and endoscopist completed a pain perception questionnaire. Cecal intubation rates were also recorded.

RESULTS:

No significant difference for cecal intubation rates were detected between the two groups (95.7% and 98.7% in hysterectomy and control groups, respectively; P=0.176). The crude OR for the success rate was 0.29 (95% CI 0.05 to 1.90). There was no significant difference between groups regarding sedation or the type of colonoscope. No correlation between the gastroenterologists’ evaluation of pain and patients’ pain was observed.

CONCLUSION:

Hysterectomy did not significantly diminish the cecal intubation rate, and there was no detectable difference in pain perception or sedative dose. Colonoscopy remains an excellent screening and diagnostic tool for all women.     

Overuse of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance

BACKGROUND

Ongoing efforts to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have raised concerns that these exams may be overused, thereby subjecting patients to unnecessary risks and wasting healthcare resources.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to measure overuse of screening and surveillance colonoscopies among average-risk adults, and to identify correlates of overuse.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Our approach was a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data for patients 50–65 years old with no personal history of CRC or colorectal adenomas with an incident CRC screening colonoscopy from 2001 to 2010 within a multispecialty physician group practice.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We measured time to next screening or surveillance colonoscopy and predictors of overuse (exam performed more than one year earlier than guideline recommended intervals) of colonoscopies.

KEY RESULTS

We identified 1,429 adults who had an incident colonoscopy between 2001 and 2010, and they underwent an additional 871 screening or surveillance colonoscopies during a median follow-up of 6 years. Most follow-up screening colonoscopies (88 %) and many surveillance colonoscopies (49 %) repeated during the study represented overuse. Time to next colonoscopy after incident screening varied by exam findings (no polyp: median 6.9 years, interquartile range [IQR]: 5.1–10.0; hyperplastic polyp: 5.7 years, IQR: 4.9–9.7; low-risk adenoma: 5.1 years, IQR: 3.3–6.3; high-risk adenoma: 2.9 years, IQR: 2.0–3.4, p < 0.001). In logistic regression models of colonoscopy overuse, an endoscopist recommendation for early follow-up was strongly associated with overuse of screening colonoscopy (OR 6.27, 95 % CI: 3.15–12.50) and surveillance colonoscopy (OR 13.47, 95 % CI 6.61-27.46). In a multilevel logistic regression model, variation in the overuse of screening colonoscopy was significantly associated with the endoscopist performing the previous exam.

CONCLUSIONS

Overuse of screening and surveillance exams are common and should be monitored by healthcare systems. Variations in endoscopist recommendations represent targets for interventions to reduce overuse.KEY WORDS: colorectal cancer screening, colonoscopy, overuse, efficiency     

Adenoma detection rates decline with increasing procedural hours in an endoscopist’s workload

BACKGROUND:

Operator fatigue may negatively influence adenoma detection (AD) during screening colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE:

To better characterize factors affecting AD, including the number of hours worked, and the number and type of procedures performed before an index screening colonoscopy.

METHODS:

A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving individuals undergoing a screening colonoscopy at a major tertiary care hospital in Montreal, Quebec. Individuals were identified using an endoscopic reporting database; AD was identified by an electronic chart review. A hierarchical logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the association between patient- and endoscopist-related variables and AD.

RESULTS:

A total of 430 consecutive colonoscopies performed by 10 gastroenterologists and two surgeons were included. Patient mean (± SD) age was 63.4±10.9 years, 56.3% were males, 27.7% had undergone a previous colonoscopy and the cecal intubation rate was 95.7%. The overall AD rate was 25.7%. Age was associated with AD (OR 1.06 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.08]), while female sex (OR 0.44 [95% CI 0.25 to 0.75]), an indication for average-risk screening (OR 0.47 [95% CI 0.27 to 0.80]) and an increase in the number of hours during which endoscopies were performed before the index colonoscopy (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.76 to 0.99]) were associated with lower AD rates. On exploratory univariable analysis, a threshold of 3 h of endoscopy time performed before the index colonoscopy was associated with decreased AD.

CONCLUSION:

The number of hours devoted to endoscopies before the index colonoscopy was inversely associated with AD rate, with decreased performance possibly as early as within 3 h. This metric should be confirmed in future studies and considered when optimizing scheduling practices.     

Point-of-care, peer-comparator colonoscopy practice audit: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Quality Program--Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care practice audits allow documentation of procedural outcomes to support quality improvement in endoscopic practice.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a colonoscopists’ practice audit tool that provides point-of-care data collection and peer-comparator feedback.

METHODS

A prospective, observational colonoscopy practice audit was conducted in academic and community endoscopy units for unselected patients undergoing colonoscopy. Anonymized colonoscopist, patient and practice data were collected using touchscreen smart-phones with automated data upload for data analysis and review by participants. The main outcome measures were the following colonoscopy quality indicators: colonoscope insertion and withdrawal times, bowel preparation quality, sedation, immediate complications and polypectomy, and biopsy rates.

RESULTS

Over a span of 16 months, 62 endoscopists reported on 1279 colonoscopy procedures. The mean cecal intubation rate was 94.9% (10th centile 84.2%). The mean withdrawal time was 8.8 min and, for nonpolypectomy colonoscopies, 41.9% of colonoscopists reported a mean withdrawal time of less than 6 min. Polypectomy was performed in 37% of colonoscopies. Independent predictors of polypectomy included the following: endoscopy unit type, patient age, interval since previous colonoscopy, bowel preparation quality, stable inflammatory bowel disease, previous colon polyps and withdrawal time. Withdrawal times of less than 6 min were associated with lower polyp removal rates (mean difference −11.3% [95% CI −2.8% to −19.9%]; P=0.01).

DISCUSSION

Cecal intubation rates exceeded 90% and polypectomy rates exceeded 30%, but withdrawal times were frequently shorter than recommended. There are marked practice variations consistent with previous observations.

CONCLUSION

Real-time, point-of-care practice audits with prompt, confidential access to outcome data provide a basis for targeted educational programs to improve quality in colonoscopy practice.     

Increased prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in korean patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas: a case-control study

Background/Aims

Recent data from Western populations have suggested that patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas are at a higher risk for the development of colorectal neoplasia. In this study, we compared the frequency of colorectal neoplasia in patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas to healthy control subjects.

Methods

This retrospective case-control study used the databases of 3 teaching hospitals in Gyeonggi-do Province, South Korea. The colonoscopy findings of patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas were compared with those of age- and gender-matched healthy individuals who had undergone gastroduodenoscopies and colonoscopies during general screening examinations.

Results

Between 2001 and 2008, 45 patients were diagnosed endoscopically with sporadic duodenal adenomas; 26 (58%) of these patients received colonoscopies. Colorectal neoplasia (42% vs 21%; odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 7.4) and advanced colorectal adenoma (19% vs 3%; OR, 9.0; 95% CI, 1.6 to 50.0) were significantly more common in patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas than in healthy control subjects.

Conclusions

Compared with healthy individuals, patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas were at a significantly higher risk for developing colorectal neoplasia. Such at-risk patients should undergo routine screening colonoscopies.     

Polyethylene glycol versus sodium picosulfalte bowel preparation in the setting of a colorectal cancer screening program

BACKGROUND:

Adequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy is an important predictor of colonoscopy quality.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine the difference in terms of effectiveness between different existing colon cleansing products in the setting of a colorectal cancer screening program.

METHODS:

The records of consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy at the Montreal General Hospital (Montreal, Quebec) between April 2013 and April 2014 were retrospectively extracted from a dedicated electronic digestive endoscopic institutional database.

RESULTS:

Overall, 2867 charts of patients undergoing colonoscopy were assessed, of which 1130 colonoscopies were performed in a screening setting; patients had adequate bowel preparation in 90%. Quality of preparation was documented in only 61%. Bowel preparation was worse in patients receiving sodium picosulfate (PICO) alone compared with polyethylene glycol, in a screening setting (OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.2 to 0.6]). Regardless of the preparation type, the odds of achieving adequate quality cleansing was 6.6 for patients receiving a split-dose regimen (OR 6.6 [95% CI 2.1 to 21.1]). In multivariable analyses, clinical variables associated with inadequate bowel preparation in combined population were use of PICO, a nonsplit regimen and inpatient status. The polyp detection rate was very high (45.6%) and was correlated with withdrawal time.

CONCLUSION:

Preparation quality needs to be more consistently included in the colonoscopy report. Split-dose regimens increased the quality of colon cleansing across all types of preparations and should be the preferred method of administration. Polyethylene glycol alone provided better bowel cleansing efficacy than PICO in a screening setting but PICO remains an alternative in association with an adjuvant.     

Incomplete colonoscopy: Maximizing completion rates of gastroenterologists

BACKGROUND

Cecal intubation is one of the goals of a quality colonoscopy; however, many factors increasing the risk of incomplete colonoscopy have been implicated. The implications of missed pathology and the demand on health care resources for return colonoscopies pose a conundrum to many physicians. The optimal course of action after incomplete colonoscopy is unclear.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess endoscopic completion rates of previously incomplete colonoscopies, the methods used to complete them and the factors that led to the previous incomplete procedure.

METHODS:

All patients who previously underwent incomplete colonoscopy (2005 to 2010) and were referred to St Paul’s Hospital (Vancouver, British Columbia) were evaluated. Colonoscopies were re-attempted by a single endoscopist. Patient charts were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS:

A total of 90 patients (29 males) with a mean (± SD) age of 58±13.2 years were included in the analysis. Thirty patients (33%) had their initial colonoscopy performed by a gastroenterologist. Indications for initial colonoscopy included surveillance or screening (23%), abdominal pain (15%), gastrointestinal bleeding (29%), change in bowel habits or constitutional symptoms (18%), anemia (7%) and chronic diarrhea (8%). Reasons for incomplete colonoscopy included poor preparation (11%), pain or inadequate sedation (16%), tortuous colon (30%), diverticular disease (6%), obstructing mass (6%) and stricturing disease (10%). Reasons for incomplete procedures in the remaining 21% of patients were not reported by the referring physician. Eighty-seven (97%) colonoscopies were subsequently completed in a single attempt at the institution. Seventy-six (84%) colonoscopies were performed using routine manoeuvres, patient positioning and a variable-stiffness colonoscope (either standard or pediatric). A standard 160 or 180 series Olympus gastroscope (Olympus, Japan) was used in five patients (6%) to navigate through sigmoid diverticular disease; a pediatric colonoscope was used in six patients (7%) for similar reasons. Repeat colonoscopy on the remaining three patients (3%) failed: all three required surgery for strictures (two had obstructing malignant masses and one had a severe benign obstructing sigmoid diverticular stricture).

CONCLUSION:

Most patients with previous incomplete colonoscopy can undergo a successful repeat colonoscopy at a tertiary care centre with instruments that are readily available to most gastroenterologists. Other modalities for evaluation of the colon should be deferred until a second attempt is made at an expert centre.     

Do patients undergo prostate examination while having a colonoscopy?

OBJECTIVES:

To determine the rate at which physicians report performing a digital rectal examination and comment on the prostate gland before performing colonoscopy in men 50 to 70 years of age.

METHODS:

A retrospective chart review of all men 50 to 70 years of age who had a colonoscopy in Kingston, Ontario, in 2005 was completed. It was noted whether each physician described performing a digital rectal examination before the colonoscopy, and if so, whether he or she commented on the prostate.

RESULTS:

In 2005, 846 eligible colonoscopies were performed by 17 physicians in Kingston, Ontario. In 29.2% of cases, the physician made no comment about having performed a digital rectal examination; in 55.8% of cases, the physician commented on having completed a digital rectal examination but said nothing about the prostate; and in 15.0% of cases, the physician made a comment regarding the prostate. No physician consistently commented on the prostate for all patients, and in no circumstances was direct referral to another physician or follow-up suggested.

DISCUSSION:

A colonoscopy presents an ideal opportunity for physicians to use a digital rectal examination to assess for prostate cancer. Physicians performing colonoscopies in men 50 to 70 years of age should pay special attention to the prostate while performing a digital rectal examination before colonoscopy. This novel concept may help maximize resources for cancer screening and could potentially increase the detection rate of clinically palpable prostate cancer.     

Screening Colonoscopy among Uninsured and Underinsured Urban Minorities

Background/Aims

Uninsured individuals have lower rates of screening colonoscopy (SC), and little is known regarding the pathology results obtained when they undergo colonoscopies. Since 2004, we have participated in a program that offers SC to uninsured New Yorkers; herein, we report our findings.

Methods

Uninsured, average-risk patients who were at least 50 years of age underwent SC at our institution between April 2004 and June 2011. We analyzed polyp pathology, location, size, incidence of adenomas, and incidence of adenomas with advanced pathology (AAP) with respect to ethnicity, gender, and age.

Results

Out of 493 referrals, 222 patients completed the colonoscopies. Polyps were identified in 21.2% of all patients; 14% had adenomas, and 4.5% had AAP. The rates of adenomas among African-Americans, Hispanics, and Whites were 24.3%, 12.1%, and 11.6%, respectively, and the corresponding rates of AAP were 10.8%, 3.5%, and 2.3%. Differences in the polyp type, location, and AAP did not reach statistical significance with respect to ethnicity or gender. Patients aged 60 and older were found to have a higher rate of advanced adenomas compared with younger patients (8.6% vs 2.6%, p=0.047).

Conclusions

Further efforts to fund screening colonoscopies for uninsured individuals will likely result in the identification of advanced lesions of the colon before they progress to colorectal cancer.     

Computer-based virtual reality colonoscopy simulation improves patient-based colonoscopy performance

BACKGROUND:

Colonoscopy simulators that enable one to perform computer-based virtual colonoscopy now exist. However, data regarding the effectiveness of this virtual training are limited.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine whether virtual reality simulator training translates into improved patient-based colonoscopy performance.

METHODS:

The present study was a prospective controlled trial involving 18 residents between postgraduate years 2 and 4 with no previous colonoscopy experience. These residents were assigned to receive 16 h of virtual reality simulator training or no training. Both groups were evaluated on their first five patient-based colonoscopies. The primary outcome was the number of proctor ‘assists’ required per colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included insertion time, depth of insertion, cecal intubation rate, proctor- and nurse-rated competence, and patient-rated pain.

RESULTS:

The simulator group required significantly fewer proctor assists than the control group (1.94 versus 3.43; P≤0.001), inserted the colonoscope further unassisted (43 cm versus 24 cm; P=0.003) and there was a trend to intubate the cecum more often (26% versus 10%; P=0.06). The simulator group received higher ratings of competence from both the proctors (2.28 versus 1.88 of 5; P=0.02) and the endoscopy nurses (2.56 versus 2.05 of 5; P=0.001). There were no significant differences in proctor-, nurse- or patient-rated pain, or attention to discomfort.

CONCLUSIONS:

Computer-based colonoscopy simulation in the initial stages of training improved novice trainees’ patient-based colonoscopy performance.     

Screening Colonoscopy in the US: Attitudes and Practices of Primary Care Physicians

Background

Rising colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the last decade are attributable almost entirely to increased colonoscopy use. Little is known about factors driving the increase, but primary care physicians (PCPs) play a central role in CRC screening delivery.

Objective

Explore PCP attitudes toward screening colonoscopy and their associations with CRC screening practice patterns.

Design

Cross-sectional analysis of data from a nationally representative survey conducted in 2006–2007.

Participants

1,266 family physicians, general practitioners, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists.

Main Measures

Physician-reported changes in the volume of screening tests ordered, performed or supervised in the past 3 years, attitudes toward colonoscopy, the influence of evidence and perceived norms on their recommendations, challenges to screening, and practice characteristics.

Results

The cooperation rate (excludes physicians without valid contact information) was 75%; 28% reported their volume of FOBT ordering had increased substantially or somewhat, and the majority (53%) reported their sigmoidoscopy volume decreased either substantially or somewhat. A majority (73%) reported that colonoscopy volume increased somewhat or substantially. The majority (86%) strongly agreed that colonoscopy was the best of the available CRC screening tests; 69% thought it was readily available for their patients; 59% strongly or somewhat agreed that they might be sued if they did not offer colonoscopy to their patients. All three attitudes were significantly related to substantial increases in colonoscopy ordering.

Conclusions

PCPs report greatly increased colonoscopy recommendation relative to other screening tests, and highly favorable attitudes about colonoscopy. Greater emphasis is needed on informed decision-making with patients about preferences for test options.KEY WORDS: colorectal cancer screening, primary care physicians, colonoscopy screening practices     

The Miss Rate for Colorectal Adenoma Determined by Quality-Adjusted, Back-to-Back Colonoscopies

Background/Aims

Colonoscopy is considered to be the gold standard for detecting adenomatous polyps. Polyps are missed during colonoscopic examination at a rate that varies from 6% to 27%. The adenoma miss rate affects colonoscopic surveillance intervals and procedural quality. We aimed to assess the adenoma miss rate and the variables affecting the rate using same-day, quality-adjusted, back-to-back colonoscopies.

Methods

This prospective study was performed at a single institution and included 149 patients. Two consecutive same-day colonoscopies were performed by two experienced endoscopists. The adenoma miss rates and variables affecting the missed adenomas, including polyp characteristics and procedure times, were evaluated.

Results

The miss rates of polyps, adenomas, and advanced adenomas were 16.8%, 17%, and 5.4%, respectively. The smaller polyps and increased number of polyps detected during the first colonoscopy were more likely to be missed. A longer insertion time during the colonoscopy was correlated with an increased adenoma detection rate.

Conclusions

There was a significant miss rate in the detection of colonic adenomas even in quality-adjusted, back-to-back colonoscopies. The adenoma miss rate can be reduced with a sufficient observation time during colonoscopic insertion. The development of specific technological methods to reduce the adenoma miss rate is necessary.     

Yield of screening colonoscopy in renal transplant candidates

BACKGROUND:

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death among patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing maintenance dialysis. Renal transplantation offers a survival advantage to patients with end-stage renal disease; it is also associated with a three- to fivefold increase in the risk of developing a neoplasm.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine the yield of screening colonoscopy among patients with chronic kidney disease who were considered for renal transplantation.

METHODS:

Patients were included if they were ≥50 years of age, had chronic kidney disease and were being considered for renal transplantation. They underwent a screening colonoscopy that was performed as part of their pretransplant workup. Data from December 2008 to May 2014 were collected retrospectively for all eligible patients.

RESULTS:

During the study period, 433 patients were considered for renal transplantation. Of these, 170 underwent colonoscopies as part of their pretransplant workup. One was excluded because of previous history of colon cancer. Of the 169 procedures performed, ≥1 polyp(s) was diagnosed in 24%. The most common pathological diagnoses were hyperplastic polyp or normal colonic tissue. Fifteen (37%) patients had tubular adenomas and one patient had a sessile serrated adenoma. Advanced adenomas, defined as villous, tubulovillous or high-grade dysplasia, were found in four patients. Adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in one patient.

CONCLUSION:

In a population of asymptomatic potential kidney transplant recipients ≥50 years of age, the prevalence of colorectal adenomatous polyps was 24%. Colonoscopy appeared to be useful as a screening tool in potential transplant recipients.     

Comparing patient and endoscopist perceptions of the colonoscopy indication

BACKGROUND

Determining whether a colonoscopy is performed for screening or nonscreening purposes can facilitate clinical practice and research. However, there is no simple method to determine the colonoscopy indication using patient medical files or health administrative databases.

OBJECTIVE

To determine patient-endoscopist agreement on the colonoscopy indication.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among staff endoscopists and their patients at seven university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, Quebec. The study participants were 50 to 75 years of age, they were able to understand English or French, and were about to undergo colonoscopy. Self- (endoscopist) and interviewer-administered (patient) questionnaires ascertained information that permitted classification of the colonoscopy indication. Patient colonoscopy indication was defined as the following: perceived screening (routine screening, family history, age); perceived nonscreening (follow-up); medical history that implied nonscreening; and a combination of the three preceding indications. Agreement between patient and endoscopist indications was measured using concordance and Kappa statistic.

RESULTS

In total, 702 patients and 38 endoscopists participated. The three most common reasons for undergoing colonoscopy were routine screening/regular check-up (33.8%), follow-up to a previous problem (30.2%) and other problem (24.6%). Concordance (range 0.79 to 0.85) and Kappa (range 0.58 to 0.70) were highest for perceived nonscreening colonoscopy. Recent large bowel symptoms accounted for 120 occurrences of disagreement in which the patient perceived a nonscreening colonoscopy while the endoscopist perceived a screening colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient self-report may be an acceptable means for rapidly assessing whether a colonoscopy is performed for screening or nonscreening purposes. Delivery of patient-centred care may help patients and endoscopists reach a shared understanding of the reason for colonoscopy.     

A survey of sedation practices for colonoscopy in Canada

BACKGROUND:

There are limited data regarding the use of sedation for colonoscopy and concomitant monitoring practices in different countries.

METHODS:

A survey was mailed to 445 clinician members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and 80 members of the Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons in May and June 2009.

RESULTS:

Sixty-five per cent of Canadian Association of Gastroenterology members and 69% of Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons members responded with the full survey. Most endoscopists reported using sedation for more than 90% of colonoscopies. The most common sedation regimen was a combination of midazolam and fentanyl. Propofol, either alone or with another drug, was used in 12% of cases. A higher proportion (94%) of adult gastroenterologists who routinely used propofol were highly satisfied compared with those using other sedative agents (45%; P<0.001). Fifty per cent of adult gastroenterologists and 29% of surgeons who were not currently using propofol expressed interest in starting to use it for routine colonoscopies. Only a single nurse was present in the endoscopy room during colonoscopy performed by two-thirds of the endoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS:

Results of the present survey suggest that gastroenterologists in Canada use sedation for colonoscopy in more than 90% of their patients. There was higher satisfaction among gastroenterologists who used propofol routinely for all colonoscopies. Most endoscopy rooms were staffed by a single nurse, which may limit further increases in the use of propofol. Further studies are needed to determine optimal staffing of endoscopy units with and without the use of propofol. Sedation practices of general surgery endoscopists need to be evaluated.     

Practice and documentation of performance of colonoscopy in a central Canadian health region

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the reporting and performance of colonoscopy in a large urban centre.

METHODS:

Colonoscopies performed between January and April 2008 in community hospitals and academic centres in the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (Manitoba) were identified from hospital discharge databases and retrospective review of a random sample of identified charts. Information regarding reporting of colonoscopies (including bowel preparation, photodocumentation of cecum/ileum, size, site, characteristics and method of polyp removal), colonoscopy completion rates and follow-up recommendations was extracted. Colonoscopy completion rates were compared among different groups of physicians.

RESULTS:

A total of 797 colonoscopies were evaluated. Several deficiencies in reporting were identified. For example, bowel preparation quality was reported in only 20%, the agent used for bowel preparation was recorded in 50%, photodocumentation of colonoscopy completion in 6% and polyp appearance (ie, pedunculated or not) in 34%, and polyp size in 66%. Although the overall colonoscopy completion rate was 92%, there was a significant difference among physicians with varying medical specialty training and volume of procedures performed. Recommendations for follow-up procedures (barium enema, computed tomography colonography or repeat colonoscopy) were recorded for a minority of individuals with reported poor bowel preparation or incomplete colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS:

The present study found many deficiencies in reporting of colonoscopy in typical, city-wide clinical practices. Colonoscopy completion rates varied among different physician specialties. There is an urgent need to adopt standardized colonoscopy reporting systems in everyday practice and to provide feedback to physicians regarding deficiencies so they can be rectified.     

Long-term follow-up of patients with malignant pedunculated colon polyps after colonoscopic polypectomy

BACKGROUND:

Previously published studies have suggested that patients with resected colon cancer have an increased risk for early metachronous colon cancer. Current screening guidelines recommend intense surveillance by colonoscopy for the initial five years after the initial colon cancer has been resected. Information regarding endoscopically removed malignant polyps is limited.

METHODS:

In the present study, 25 consecutive patients (14 male, 11 female) with malignant pedunculated colon polyps treated with snare cautery polypectomy were followed for more than one decade up to 20 years. Five patients required an additional resection to ensure that removal of the original cancer was complete. Annual colonoscopies were planned for five years. If an adenoma was detected in the fifth year, colonoscopy was performed annually until no adenomas were detected. Otherwise, colonoscopy was planned every three years after five years.

RESULTS:

In the present study, there was no mortality from colon cancer and no patient developed either recurrent colon cancer or an early metachronous colon cancer during the initial five-year period of surveillance. Two patients (one male, one female) ultimately developed late cecal cancers almost one decade after the original colon cancers were resected. One had an early stage cancer that was resected, while the other had an infiltrating mucinous carcinoma complicating a small tubulovillous adenoma with extension to a single lymph node. After surgical removal and adjuvant chemotherapy, no further neoplastic disease has been detected.

CONCLUSIONS:

Overall, patients with malignant pedunculated polyps do extremely well if appropriately managed at the time of the initial polypectomy. Short-term outcomes after removal of a malignant polyp(s) appear to be similar to those with a nonmalignant polyp. However, late metachronous colon cancer may still occur. Long-term follow-up should be considered in each patient, assuming reasonable life expectancy, because risk of additional adenomas and metachronous colon cancer persists even after the initial five years of currently recommended surveillance. Patients with resected malignant polyps may represent a special patient subgroup that requires surveillance for more extended periods than current guidelines have recommended.     

Patient satisfaction with colonoscopy: A literature review and pilot study

BACKGROUND:

Current guidelines recommend that colonoscopic colorectal cancer screening be undertaken every 10 years after the age of 50 years. However, because the procedure does not meet criteria that promote screening uptake, patient satisfaction with colonoscopy may encourage repeat screening.

OBJECTIVE:

To systematically review the literature and conduct a pilot study of patient satisfaction with the colonoscopy experience.

METHODS:

All cohort studies from January 1997 to August 2008 in the MEDLINE database that measured either patient satisfaction with colonoscopy, patient willingness to return for colonoscopy under the same conditions or patient preference for colonoscopy compared with other large bowel procedures were identified. The search was supplemented by journal citation lists in the retrieved articles.

RESULTS:

Of the 29 studies identified, 15 met the inclusion criteria. Consistently, the vast majority of patients (approximately 95%) were very satisfied with their colonoscopy experience. Patient satisfaction was similar for screening and nonscreening colonoscopy. Patient willingness to return for the procedure ranged from 73% to 100%. Of the five studies that examined modality preference, three studies reported the majority of patients preferred colonography to colonoscopy and two studies reported the reverse. Our pilot study findings mirrored those of other studies that were conducted in the United States. The major limitation of the included studies was that patients who were most dissatisfied may have gone elsewhere to have their colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS:

Patients were very satisfied with colonoscopy. The majority were willing to return for repeat testing under the same conditions, and colonoscopy was not preferred over other modalities. However, studies were limited by methodological shortcomings.