Literature DB >> 20401535

The impact of advances in instrumentation and techniques of colonoscopy from 1988 to 2008 on inpatient colonoscopy performance at a high volume endoscopy unit in the United States: significantly shorter procedure time, higher completion rate, performance on sicker inpatients, and near disappearance of flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Mitchell S Cappell1, Rami Abboud.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy instrumentation and technique have improved from 1988 to 2008. We analyze whether these improvements have resulted in improved colonoscopy performance.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 50 consecutive inpatients in 1988 vs. 1998 vs. 2008 undergoing intended colonoscopy at a teaching hospital. Patient APACHE score, cecal and terminal ileal intubation rates, procedure time, and colonoscopic diagnoses were compared for the three different years.
RESULTS: Changes in practice of inpatient colonoscopy in 2008 from 1988 include (1) remarkably sicker inpatients undergoing colonoscopy in 2008, as indicated by: significantly higher mean APACHE II score (11.0 ± 6.6 vs. 5.9 ± 4.1, P < 0.00001), significantly more frequent monitored bed status (58% vs. 10%, OR = 12.4; 95%-ORCI: 4.31-35.4, P < 0.00001), and significantly higher rates of several chronic diseases (e.g. CHF, 24% vs. 6%, P = 0.02); (2) significantly higher colonoscopy completion rate in 2008 (88% vs. 64%; OR = 4.13, 95%-ORCI: 1.51-11.2, P = 0.009); (3) significantly higher terminal ileum intubation rate in 2008 (44% vs. 14%, OR = 4.83, 95%-ORCI: 1.85-12.5, P = 0.002); and (4) significantly shorter mean procedure time in 2008 (26.3 ± 7.9 min vs. 48.0 ± 20.3 min, P < 0.00001). The ratio of intended colonoscopy/flexible sigmoidoscopy was significantly higher in 2008 vs. 1988 (OR = 7.50, 95%-ORCI: 2.56-21.8, P < 0.00001). Internal hemorrhoids were significantly more frequently diagnosed by colonoscopy in 2008 (44% vs. 12%, OR = 5.76, 95%-ORCI: 2.12-15.5, P = 0.001), attributed to increased rectal retroflexion.
CONCLUSIONS: Due to improved instrumentation and technique, colonoscopy has dramatically changed from 1988 to become a clinically more valuable test in 2008 as manifested by a higher completion rate, greater clinical applicability, and shorter procedure time. Colonoscopy is supplanting flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20401535     DOI: 10.1007/s10620-010-1207-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.199


  32 in total

1.  Colonoscopy practice patterns since introduction of medicare coverage for average-risk screening.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood; David A Lieberman
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 2.  Advances in colonic imaging: technical improvements in colonoscopy.

Authors:  Gregor J E Brown; Brian P Saunders
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.566

3.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 4.  Advances in colonoscope technique and technology.

Authors:  Kyu Chan Huh; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Rev Gastroenterol Disord       Date:  2008

Review 5.  Achieving cecal intubation in the very difficult colon.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 6.  Sedation in PACU: the role of propofol.

Authors:  Germano De Cosmo; Elisabetta Congedo; Antonio Clemente; Paola Aceto
Journal:  Curr Drug Targets       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.465

7.  Successful treatment of normeperidine neurotoxicity by hemodialysis.

Authors:  H Hassan; B Bastani; M Gellens
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 8.860

8.  Colonoscopy with a VideoEndoscope: preliminary experience.

Authors:  M V Sivak; D E Fleischer
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1984-02       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 9.  Hematologic management of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  G S Maltz; J E Siegel; J L Carson
Journal:  Gastroenterol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.806

10.  Cecal insertion and withdrawal times with wide-angle versus standard colonoscopes: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Hala Fatima; Douglas K Rex; Richard Rothstein; Emad Rahmani; Omar Nehme; John Dewitt; Debra Helper; Arifa Toor; Steven Bensen
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2007-12-11       Impact factor: 11.382

View more
  1 in total

1.  Age Is the Only Predictor of Poor Bowel Preparation in the Hospitalized Patient.

Authors:  Julia McNabb-Baltar; Alastair Dorreen; Hisham Al Dhahab; Michael Fein; Xin Xiong; Mike O' Byrne; Imene Ait; Myriam Martel; Alan N Barkun
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-04-20
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.