BACKGROUND: There are limited data on recommendations and adherence to complete colon evaluation (CCE) after incomplete colonoscopy (IC). AIMS: Our objectives were to (1) identify recommendations and adherence to recommendations after IC, (2) determine the diagnostic yield of CCE after IC, and (3) determine the effect of an IC referral program on recommendations for CCE. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of IC procedures at a teaching hospital over two time periods (January 1 to May 1 2004 and July 1 to November 1 2010). A referral process for repeat colonoscopy after IC was instituted in April 2009. Outcomes included (1) recommendations (2) adherence, and (3) yield of CCE after IC. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients underwent at least one IC (overall rate of 2.5 %). In 120 patients (54.1 %), CCE was recommended within 1 year; the rate did not change from 2004 to 2010. Patients with IC due to poor preparation were more likely to have specific CCE recommendations (85.5 vs. 72.2 %, P = 0.03) and recommendations of endoscopic follow-up (76.3 vs. 10.4 %, P < 0.0001) than those with IC due to difficult anatomy. When IC was due to difficult colonoscopy, there was increase in endoscopic follow-up recommended (16.3 vs. 2.8 %, P = 0.01) in 2010 compared to 2004. Adherence to recommendations was similar regardless of modality recommended, inpatient/outpatient status, polyps on initial exam, or extent of initial exam. Polyp detection rate was greater utilizing colonoscopy than barium enema (34.3 vs. 3.6 %, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consensus in management strategies for patients after IC. Implementation of a referral program has had minimal impact on provider recommendations.
BACKGROUND: There are limited data on recommendations and adherence to complete colon evaluation (CCE) after incomplete colonoscopy (IC). AIMS: Our objectives were to (1) identify recommendations and adherence to recommendations after IC, (2) determine the diagnostic yield of CCE after IC, and (3) determine the effect of an IC referral program on recommendations for CCE. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of IC procedures at a teaching hospital over two time periods (January 1 to May 1 2004 and July 1 to November 1 2010). A referral process for repeat colonoscopy after IC was instituted in April 2009. Outcomes included (1) recommendations (2) adherence, and (3) yield of CCE after IC. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients underwent at least one IC (overall rate of 2.5 %). In 120 patients (54.1 %), CCE was recommended within 1 year; the rate did not change from 2004 to 2010. Patients with IC due to poor preparation were more likely to have specific CCE recommendations (85.5 vs. 72.2 %, P = 0.03) and recommendations of endoscopic follow-up (76.3 vs. 10.4 %, P < 0.0001) than those with IC due to difficult anatomy. When IC was due to difficult colonoscopy, there was increase in endoscopic follow-up recommended (16.3 vs. 2.8 %, P = 0.01) in 2010 compared to 2004. Adherence to recommendations was similar regardless of modality recommended, inpatient/outpatient status, polyps on initial exam, or extent of initial exam. Polyp detection rate was greater utilizing colonoscopy than barium enema (34.3 vs. 3.6 %, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consensus in management strategies for patients after IC. Implementation of a referral program has had minimal impact on provider recommendations.
Authors: Laura C Seeff; Thomas B Richards; Jean A Shapiro; Marion R Nadel; Diane L Manninen; Leslie S Given; Fred B Dong; Linda D Winges; Matthew T McKenna Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 22.682
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
Authors: Elaine Yong; Olga Zenkova; Fred Saibil; Lawrence B Cohen; Kay Rhodes; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ivana Dzeletovic; M Edwyn Harrison; Shabana F Pasha; Michael D Crowell; G Anton Decker; Suryakanth R Gurudu; Jonathan A Leighton Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2012-05-22 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Drew B Schembre; Andrew S Ross; Michael N Gluck; John J Brandabur; Susan E McCormick; Otto S Lin Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: M Neerincx; J S Terhaar sive Droste; C J Mulder; M Räkers; J F Bartelsman; R J Loffeld; H A Tuynman; R M Brohet; R W van der Hulst Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2010-07-28 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Hemant A Shah; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; Therese A Stukel; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2007-03-21 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Jaap Stoker; Onofre Alarcon; Federico Barbaro; Davide Bellini; Michael Bretthauer; Margriet C De Haan; Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Monika Ferlitsch; Steve Halligan; Emma Helbren; Mikael Hellstrom; Ernst J Kuipers; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Emanuele Neri; Lucio Petruzziello; Andrew Plumb; Daniele Regge; Stuart A Taylor; Cesare Hassan; Andrea Laghi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ana Ponte; Rolando Pinho; Adélia Rodrigues; Luísa Proença; Joana Silva; Jaime P Rodrigues; Mafalda Sousa; João Carlos Silva; João Carvalho Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-02-06