Literature DB >> 15447753

Evaluation of polyp detection in relation to procedure time of screening or surveillance colonoscopy.

William Sanchez1, Gavin C Harewood, Bret T Petersen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Multiple factors influence the yield of colonoscopy for the detection of neoplasia. Few studies have addressed the impact of colonoscopy duration on procedure yield. The aim of our study was to determine whether endoscopist-specific procedure times correlate with the number and clinical significance of polyps detected at screening or surveillance colonoscopy.
METHODS: Procedural data from screening or surveillance colonoscopies performed at Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN, between January 1, 1996 and June 30, 2000, were reviewed. Individual endoscopists were characterized by their personal endoscopist procedure mean time (EPMT) to perform a negative colonoscopy. Procedure time included patient's consent and sedation. EPMT was then correlated with individual polyp detection rates.
RESULTS: Overall, 10,159 colonoscopies were reviewed of which 4,312 (42.4%) yielded polyps. Polyp detection varied among endoscopists between 19.0% and 62.3%. There was a close correlation between EPMT and polyp yield (all sizes), r = 0.64, although correlation was weaker for polyps >10 mm (r = 0.42) and polyps >20 mm (r = 0.20). On multivariate analysis, longer mean endoscopist time was associated with colonic lesion detection, OR = 1.54 (95% CI 1.37-1.62). Longer mean procedure duration demonstrated a looser association with identification of polyps >10 mm, OR = 1.40 (1.19-1.64) and polyps >20 mm, OR = 1.03 (0.74-1.43).
CONCLUSIONS: There is a direct correlation between colonoscopy procedure time and yield, with a three-fold variation of polyp detection rates. These results should prompt future prospective studies assessing the impact of colonoscopic withdrawal time on lesion detection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15447753     DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.40569.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  30 in total

1.  Implementation of colonoscopic process measures: does it improve quality?

Authors:  Theodor Asgeirsson; Anthony J Senagore; Nadav Dujovny; Rebecca Hoedema; Donald Kim; Heather Slay; Martin Luchtefeld
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Endoscopy and polyps-diagnostic and therapeutic advances in management.

Authors:  Scott R Steele; Eric K Johnson; Bradley Champagne; Brad Davis; Sang Lee; David Rivadeneira; Howard Ross; Dana A Hayden; Justin A Maykel
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-07-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Quality indicators in colonoscopy.

Authors:  Robert Enns
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.522

4.  Canadian credentialing guidelines for colonoscopy.

Authors:  J Romagnuolo; R Enns; T Ponich; J Springer; D Armstrong; A N Barkun
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.522

5.  User's perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing quality colonoscopy services in Canada: a study protocol.

Authors:  Gilles Jobin; Marie Pierre Gagnon; Bernard Candas; Catherine Dubé; Anis Ben Abdeljelil; Sonya Grenier
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 7.327

6.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Knowledge of quality performance measures associated with endoscopy among gastroenterology trainees and the impact of a web-based intervention.

Authors:  Jennifer S Thompson; Benjamin Lebwohl; Sapna Syngal; Fay Kastrinos
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 8.  Transparent cap colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jenna L Morgan; Kathryn Thomas; Sarah Braungart; Richard L Nelson
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 3.781

9.  Quality indicators for colorectal cancer screening for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen
Journal:  Tech Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-04

Review 10.  Endoscopy reporting standards.

Authors:  Daphnée Beaulieu; Alan N Barkun; Catherine Dubé; Jill Tinmouth; Pierre Hallé; Myriam Martel
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.522

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.