Literature DB >> 23254403

Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England.

T J W Lee1, R G Blanks, C J Rees, K C Wright, C Nickerson, S M Moss, A Chilton, A F Goddard, J Patnick, R J Q McNally, M D Rutter.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Increasing colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) is thought to be associated with increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). Current English guidelines recommend a minimum CWT of 6 minutes. It is known that in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England there is wide variation in CWT. The aim of this observational study was to examine the relationship between CWT and ADR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study examined data from 31 088 colonoscopies by 147 screening program colonoscopists. Colonoscopists were grouped in four levels of mean CWT ( < 7, 7 - 8.9, 9 - 10.9, and ≥ 11 minutes). Univariable and multivariable analysis (binary logistic and negative binomial regression) were used to explore the relationship between CWT, ADR, mean number of adenomas and number of right-sided and advanced adenomas.
RESULTS: In colonoscopists with a mean CWT < 7 minutes, the mean ADR was 42.5 % compared with 47.1 % in the ≥ 11-minute group (P < 0.001). The mean number of adenomas detected per procedure increased from 0.77 to 0.94, respectively (P < 0.001). The increase in adenoma detection was mainly of subcentimeter or proximal adenomas; there was no increase in the detection of advanced adenomas. Regression models showed an increase in ADR from 43 % to 46.5 % for mean CWT times ranging from 6 to 10 minutes.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that longer mean withdrawal times are associated with increasing adenoma detection, mainly of small or right-sided adenomas. However, beyond 10 minutes the increase in ADR is minimal. Mean withdrawal times longer than 6 minutes are not associated with increased detection of advanced adenomas. Withdrawal time remains an important quality metric of colonoscopy. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23254403     DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1325803

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  58 in total

1.  Assessing bowel preparation quality using the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy.

Authors:  Grace Clarke Hillyer; Benjamin Lebwohl; Richard M Rosenberg; Alfred I Neugut; Randi Wolf; Corey H Basch; Jennie Mata; Edwin Hernandez; Douglas A Corley; Steven Shea; Charles E Basch
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 4.409

Review 2.  Quality in Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Katherine T Brunner; Audrey H Calderwood
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2015-10

3.  Stability of increased adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Follow-up of an endoscopic quality improvement program-EQUIP-II.

Authors:  Vivian Ussui; Susan Coe; Cynthia Rizk; Julia E Crook; Nancy N Diehl; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Morning colonoscopies are associated with improved adenoma detection rates.

Authors:  Tze Yeong Teng; Shao Nan Khor; Manimegalai Kailasam; Wei Keat Cheah; Cheryl Chien Li Lau
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-07-22       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  British society of gastroenterology Endoscopy Quality Improvement Programme (EQIP): overview and progress.

Authors:  Colin J Rees; Sara Koo; John Anderson; Mark McAlindon; Andrew M Veitch; Allan John Morris; Pradeep Bhandari; James E East; George Webster; Kofi W Oppong; Ian D Penman
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-01-18

Review 6.  Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative.

Authors:  Michal F Kaminski; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Marek Bugajski; Michael Bretthauer; Colin J Rees; Evelien Dekker; Geir Hoff; Rodrigo Jover; Stepan Suchanek; Monika Ferlitsch; John Anderson; Thomas Roesch; Rolf Hultcranz; Istvan Racz; Ernst J Kuipers; Kjetil Garborg; James E East; Maciej Rupinski; Birgitte Seip; Cathy Bennett; Carlo Senore; Silvia Minozzi; Raf Bisschops; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Matthew D Rutter
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2017-03-16       Impact factor: 4.623

7.  Cecal Insertion Time and the ADR: Patience Is Good for Patients.

Authors:  Yu-Hsi Hsieh; Malcolm Koo
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  Adenoma detection rates decline with increasing procedural hours in an endoscopist's workload.

Authors:  Majid A Almadi; Maida Sewitch; Alan N Barkun; Myriam Martel; Lawrence Joseph
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-05-21

9.  Detection rates of premalignant polyps during screening colonoscopy: time to revise quality standards?

Authors:  William A Ross; Selvi Thirumurthi; Patrick M Lynch; Asif Rashid; Mala Pande; Mehnaz A Shafi; Jeffrey H Lee; Gottumukkala S Raju
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-01-10       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 10.  Can Technology Improve the Quality of Colonoscopy?

Authors:  Selvi Thirumurthi; William A Ross; Gottumukkala S Raju
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2016-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.