BACKGROUND: Appropriate surveillance intervals are important to ensure that the benefits of surveillance are not offset by harm. This study aimed to determine the factors associated with nonadherence to recommended colonoscopic surveillance intervals. METHODS: The study enrolled 296 patients who underwent screening colonoscopy. The colonoscopies were performed by four endoscopists in the first or second year of fellowship. After each procedure, the endoscopists responded to a questionnaire that elicited information on the degree of concern for missed polyps (using a visual analog scale [VAS]), colonoscopic technical factors, and surveillance intervals. RESULTS: Of the 296 patients, 105 (36%) were adherent and 191 (64%) and were nonadherent to the guidelines. There were no differences in insertion time, withdrawal time, or polyp detection rate between the adherence and nonadherence groups. The endoscopy at cecal intubation was longer in the nonadherence group than in the adherence group (P = 0.013). The proportion of patients with poor bowel preparation was higher in the nonadherence group than in the adherence group (P = 0.011). The endoscopist's concern for missed polyps was greater in the nonadherence group than in the adherence group (P < 0.001). Based on multivariate analysis, only the endoscopist's concern was an independent factor associated with adherence to guidelines (P = 0.008). Poor bowel preparation, loop formation, and colonoscopy experience were independent factors associated with a high concern for missed polyps. CONCLUSIONS: Nonadherence to the recommended guidelines was associated with the endoscopist's concern for missed polyps. Improving colonoscopic skills and bowel preparation may decrease nonadherence to the recommended postpolypectomy surveillance interval.
BACKGROUND: Appropriate surveillance intervals are important to ensure that the benefits of surveillance are not offset by harm. This study aimed to determine the factors associated with nonadherence to recommended colonoscopic surveillance intervals. METHODS: The study enrolled 296 patients who underwent screening colonoscopy. The colonoscopies were performed by four endoscopists in the first or second year of fellowship. After each procedure, the endoscopists responded to a questionnaire that elicited information on the degree of concern for missed polyps (using a visual analog scale [VAS]), colonoscopic technical factors, and surveillance intervals. RESULTS: Of the 296 patients, 105 (36%) were adherent and 191 (64%) and were nonadherent to the guidelines. There were no differences in insertion time, withdrawal time, or polyp detection rate between the adherence and nonadherence groups. The endoscopy at cecal intubation was longer in the nonadherence group than in the adherence group (P = 0.013). The proportion of patients with poor bowel preparation was higher in the nonadherence group than in the adherence group (P = 0.011). The endoscopist's concern for missed polyps was greater in the nonadherence group than in the adherence group (P < 0.001). Based on multivariate analysis, only the endoscopist's concern was an independent factor associated with adherence to guidelines (P = 0.008). Poor bowel preparation, loop formation, and colonoscopy experience were independent factors associated with a high concern for missed polyps. CONCLUSIONS: Nonadherence to the recommended guidelines was associated with the endoscopist's concern for missed polyps. Improving colonoscopic skills and bowel preparation may decrease nonadherence to the recommended postpolypectomy surveillance interval.
Authors: Raquel E Davila; Elizabeth Rajan; Todd H Baron; Douglas G Adler; James V Egan; Douglas O Faigel; Seng-Ian Gan; William K Hirota; Jonathan A Leighton; David Lichtenstein; Waqar A Qureshi; Bo Shen; Marc J Zuckerman; Trina VanGuilder; Robert D Fanelli Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Madhusudhan R Sanaka; Nirav Shah; Kevin D Mullen; D R Ferguson; Charles Thomas; Arthur J McCullough Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Robert H Fletcher; Jonathon S Stillman; Michael J O'Brien; Bernard Levin; Robert A Smith; David A Lieberman; Randall W Burt; Theodore R Levin; John H Bond; Durado Brooks; Tim Byers; Neil Hyman; Lynne Kirk; Alan Thorson; Clifford Simmang; David Johnson; Douglas K Rex Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Vikram Boolchand; Gregory Olds; Joseph Singh; Pankaj Singh; Amitabh Chak; Gregory S Cooper Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-11-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Thomas F Imperiale; Elizabeth A Glowinski; Ching Lin-Cooper; Gregory N Larkin; James D Rogge; David F Ransohoff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 91.245
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
Authors: Melissa Magrath; Edward Yang; Chul Ahn; Christian A Mayorga; Purva Gopal; Caitlin C Murphy; Samir Gupta; Deepak Agrawal; Ethan A Halm; Eric K Borton; Celette Sugg Skinner; Amit G Singal Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Alexander J Eckardt; Joan Kheder; Anjali Basil; Taryn Silverstein; Krunal Patel; Mohamed Mahmoud; Yasir Al-Azzawi; Daniel Ellis; William Gillespie; Yoel Carrasquillo Vega; Sharina D Person; John M Levey Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2020-11-17
Authors: Stacy B Menees; H Myra Kim; Grace H Elta; Sheryl Korsnes; Philip Schoenfeld Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Jaison John; Abdul Al-Douri; Bretta Candelaria; Saurin Gandhi; Paul Guzik; Brent Herndon; Christopher Kim; Nicole Kluz; Jennifer Thompson; Jessica Trevino; Victoria Valencia; Michael Pignone Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2020-10-31 Impact factor: 2.260