Literature DB >> 19881361

Withdrawal times and associated factors in colonoscopy: a quality assurance multicenter assessment.

Bergein F Overholt1, Linda Brooks-Belli, Michael Grace, Kristin Rankin, Royce Harrell, Mary Turyk, Fred B Rosenberg, Robert W Barish, Norman H Gilinsky.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use and impact of the recommended withdrawal time of at least 6 minutes from the cecum in colonoscopy in multiple gastroenterology endoscopy ambulatory surgery centers serving a wide geographical area.
METHODS: An observational prospective multicenter quality assurance review was conducted in 49 ambulatory surgery centers in 17 states with 315 gastroenterologists. There was no intervention with this quality assessment program as care of patients and the routine of gastroenterologists continued as standard practice. Multivariable analysis was applied to the database to examine factors affecting withdrawal time and polyp detection.
RESULTS: There were 15,955 consecutive qualified patients receiving colonoscopies in a designated 4-week period. Gastroenterologists with average withdrawal times of 6 minutes or more in patients with no polyps were 1.8 times more likely to detect 1 or more polyps and had a significantly higher rate (P<0.0001) of polyp detection in patients with findings of polyps compared to gastroenterologists with average withdrawal times of less than 6 minutes in patients with no polyps. For patients with no pathology, the mean time of withdrawal was 6.98 (SD=4.34) minutes and for patients with pathology mean time of withdrawal was 11.27 (SD=6.71) minutes. Strongest predictors of withdrawal time of 6 minutes or more were presence of carcinoma (3.7 times more likely than those with no pathology), adenoma (2.0 times more likely than those with no pathology), and number of polyps visualized (1.7 times more likely for each polyp).
CONCLUSIONS: This quality assurance assessment from standard colonoscopy practices of 315 gastroenterologists in 49 endoscopic ambulatory surgery centers serving a wide geographical area provides support for the merits of a colonoscopy withdrawal time from the cecum of 6 minutes or more to improve the detection of polyps.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 19881361     DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181bf9b02

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0192-0790            Impact factor:   3.062


  24 in total

1.  Advances in IBD: Current Developments in the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2010-04

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

3.  Colometer: a real-time quality feedback system for screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Dobromir Filip; Xuexin Gao; Leticia Angulo-Rodríguez; Martin P Mintchev; Shane M Devlin; Alaa Rostom; Wayne Rosen; Christopher N Andrews
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 4.  Colonoscopy quality assurance in Ontario: Systematic review and clinical practice guideline.

Authors:  Jill Tinmouth; Erin B Kennedy; David Baron; Mae Burke; Stanley Feinberg; Michael Gould; Nancy Baxter; Nancy Lewis
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2014-05

Review 5.  Strategies to Increase Adenoma Detection Rates.

Authors:  Eelco C Brand; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-03

6.  Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

Authors:  Lynn Butterly; Christina M Robinson; Joseph C Anderson; Julia E Weiss; Martha Goodrich; Tracy L Onega; Christopher I Amos; Michael L Beach
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Proficiency in the diagnosis of nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm yields high adenoma detection rates.

Authors:  Tonya Kaltenbach; Sarah K McGill; Venkat Kalidindi; Shai Friedland; Roy Soetikno
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-10-02       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  State of the Art Review: Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Joseph A Diaz; Teresa Slomka
Journal:  Am J Lifestyle Med       Date:  2011-08-02

9.  Should Assessment of Quality Indicator of Colonoscopy Be Varied Depending on the Colonoscopic Technique Level?

Authors:  Bum Su Choung; Seong Hun Kim; Kyung Bo Yoo; Seung Young Seo; In Hee Kim; Seung Ok Lee; Soo Teik Lee; Sang Wook Kim
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 3.199

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.