Literature DB >> 18445096

Technical performance of colonoscopy: the key role of sedation/analgesia and other quality indicators.

Franco Radaelli1, Gianmichele Meucci, Giusy Sgroi, Giorgio Minoli.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is essential to identify the factors in clinical practice that influence the technical performance of colonoscopy as a basis for quality improvement programs. AIMS: To assess the factors linked to two key indicators of colonoscopy performance, i.e., cecal intubation and polyp diagnosis. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Consecutives colonoscopies performed over a 2-wk period in 278 unselected practice sites throughout Italy were prospectively evaluated. A multivariate model was developed to identify determinants of the performance indicators of colonoscopy.
RESULTS: In total, 12,835 patients (mean age 60.5 yr, standard deviation [SD] 15.1, 53% men) were studied. Sedation and/or analgesia was administered in 55.3% of procedures: 28.8% of patients received intravenous (IV) benzodiazepines, 15.4% received benzodiazepines in combination with narcotics, 3.1% received propofol, and 7.5% received other sedation regimens. Overall, cecal intubation was achieved in 80.7% of procedures, and the polyp detection rate was 27.3%. Multivariate analysis showed that the strongest predictors of cecal intubation were the quality of bowel preparation (inadequate vs excellent: odds ratio [OR] 0.013, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.009-0.018; fair vs excellent: OR 0.246, 95% CI 0.209-0.290; and good vs excellent: OR 0.586, 95% CI 0.514-0.667) and the use of sedation (IV benzodiazepines vs no sedation: OR 1.460, 95% CI 1.282-1.663; IV benzodiazepines and narcotics vs no sedation: OR 2.128, 95% CI 1.776-2.565; and propofol vs no sedation: OR 2.355, 95% CI 1.590-3.488). The colonoscopy setting (workload and organizational complexity of the center) and the endoscopist colonoscopy volume were other factors independently correlated with completion of the procedure. Detection of polyps partially depended on the quality of bowel cleansing (inadequate vs excellent: OR 0.511, 95% CI 0.404-0.647) and use of sedation (OR 1.172, 95% CI 1.074-1.286).
CONCLUSION: In usual clinical practice, the use of sedation/analgesia, the colon-cleansing quality, the endoscopist experience, and some features related to the colonscopy setting decisively influence the quality of colonoscopy. These factors indicate the targets of future corrective measures to boost the quality of this examination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18445096     DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01778.x

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


  53 in total

1.  Balanced propofol sedation administered by nonanesthesiologists: The first Italian experience.

Authors:  Alessandro Repici; Nico Pagano; Cesare Hassan; Alessandra Carlino; Giacomo Rando; Giuseppe Strangio; Fabio Romeo; Angelo Zullo; Elisa Ferrara; Eva Vitetta; Daniel de Paula Pessoa Ferreira; Silvio Danese; Massimo Arosio; Alberto Malesci
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-09-07       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Endoscopic management of failed colonoscopy in clinical practice: to change endoscopist, instrument, or both?

Authors:  Sergio Morini; Angelo Zullo; Cesare Hassan; Roberto Lorenzetti; Salvatore M A Campo
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2010-08-05       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy.

Authors:  David Armstrong; Alan Barkun; Ron Bridges; Rose Carter; Chris de Gara; Catherine Dube; Robert Enns; Roger Hollingworth; Donald Macintosh; Mark Borgaonkar; Sylviane Forget; Grigorios Leontiadis; Jonathan Meddings; Peter Cotton; Ernst J Kuipers
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.522

4.  Lower rate of colonoscopic perforation: 110,785 patients of colonoscopy performed by colorectal surgeons in a large teaching hospital in China.

Authors:  Xiaohui Shi; Yongqi Shan; Enda Yu; Chuangang Fu; Ronggui Meng; Wei Zhang; Hantao Wang; Lianjie Liu; Liqiang Hao; Hao Wang; Miao Lin; Honglian Xu; Xiaodong Xu; Haifeng Gong; Zheng Lou; Haiyan He; Junjie Xing; Xianhua Gao; Beili Cai
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Impact of propofol sedation versus opioid/benzodiazepine sedation on colonoscopy outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Muhammad Aziz; Simcha Weissman; Rawish Fatima; Zubair Khan; Babu P Mohan; Tej I Mehta; Wade Lee-Smith; Ammar Hassan; Michael Sciarra; Ali Nawras; Douglas G Adler
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2020-05-25

6.  Colonoscopy completion rates and reasons for incompletion.

Authors:  Badr Aljarallah; Bader Alshammari
Journal:  Int J Health Sci (Qassim)       Date:  2011-07

7.  Segmental increases in force application during colonoscope insertion: quantitative analysis using force monitoring technology.

Authors:  Louis Y Korman; Lawrence J Brandt; David C Metz; Nadim G Haddad; Stanley B Benjamin; Susan K Lazerow; Hannah L Miller; David A Greenwald; Sameer Desale; Milind Patel; Armen Sarvazyan
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-07-27       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy.

Authors:  Vivian E Ekkelenkamp; Kevin Dowler; Roland M Valori; Paul Dunckley
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 9.  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

10.  What are the risk factors of colonoscopic perforation?

Authors:  Varut Lohsiriwat; Sasithorn Sujarittanakarn; Thawatchai Akaraviputh; Narong Lertakyamanee; Darin Lohsiriwat; Udom Kachinthorn
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 3.067

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.