| Literature DB >> 11768262 |
L Trevisani1, S Sartori, G Gilli, C M Chiamenti, P Gaudenzi, V Alvisi, P Pazzi, V Abbasciano.
Abstract
Aims of this study were to evaluate: (1) whether upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) is used appropriately according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines in a hospital setting and (2) whether there is any relationship between appropriateness of UGE and the presence of lesions detected by endoscopy. Indications and endoscopic findings for 734 consecutive UGE performed in 697 inpatients were retrospectively evaluated using ASGE and BSG guidelines to determine appropriateness of referrals. UGE showing endoscopic findings that had direct therapeutic or prognostic consequences were classified as "positive"; the other UGEs were classified as "negative." In all, 46% of UGEs were "positive," 54% "negative," and 61.7% and 23.2% of UGEs were inappropriate according to ASGE and BSG guidelines, respectively (P < 0.001). The probability of finding a positive endoscopy was significantly higher in UGE rated as appropriate than in those rated as inappropriate on the basis of ASGE guidelines (P < 0.001), but not on the basis of BSG guidelines. Endoscopies rated as inappropriate according to ASGE and BSG criteria showed a positive finding in 37.3% and 42.3% of cases, respectively (not significant difference). Multivariate analysis showed that the positive finding is directly related to age (P < 0.05), male gender (P < 0.001), prior UGE (P < 0.05), hematemesis (P < 0.001), and inversely related with upper abdominal pain (P < 0.01) and dyspepsia (P < 0.05). In hospitalized patients, UGE is frequently used for inappropriate indications, according to both ASGE and BSG guidelines. However, the actual clinical usefulness of appropriateness criteria, such as those proposed by ASGE and BSG, is questionable, as their strict observance could lead to missing a large number of significant endoscopic findings.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2001 PMID: 11768262 DOI: 10.1023/a:1012775429096
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dig Dis Sci ISSN: 0163-2116 Impact factor: 3.199