Literature DB >> 23580411

Optimal resource allocation in colonoscopy: timing of follow-up colonoscopies in relation to adenoma detection rates.

J Sint Nicolaas1, V de Jonge, O van Baalen, F J G M Kubben, W Moolenaar, M F J Stolk, E J Kuipers, M E van Leerdam.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The assessment of indications for follow-up colonoscopy may help to improve the allocation of available endoscopy resources. The aim of this study was to assess the timing of early follow-up colonoscopy and surveillance utilization in relation to adenoma detection rate (ADR) at follow-up.
METHODS: An assessment of the timing and yield of follow-up colonoscopies was performed in patients with non-inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in a Dutch multicenter study. The primary outcome was the number of patients with a prior (index) colonoscopy. The necessity for follow-up procedures was assessed using the ADR.
RESULTS: Of 4800 consecutive patients undergoing a colonoscopy, 1249 non-IBD patients had undergone an index colonoscopy. Of these, follow-up procedures were performed within 1 year in 27 % (331/1249). Excluding incomplete colonoscopy, incomplete polypectomy, or poor bowel preparation on index, the ADR on early follow-up was 4 % for symptomatic and 26 % for asymptomatic patients. Among the asymptomatic patients with a follow-up colonoscopy at > 1 year (n = 463), an ADR of 23 % (108/463) was found. In 27 % of these patients, the observed surveillance intervals were in accordance with American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) surveillance recommendations; 60 % were classified as over-utilization and 13 % as under-utilization according to the AGA. Optimal utilization follow-up colonoscopies had higher ADRs on follow-up compared with over-utilized procedures (31 % vs. 17 %; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up colonoscopy in symptomatic patients within a year has limited value in terms of adenoma detection. A considerable proportion of surveillance colonoscopies are performed too early according to current guidelines, resulting in low detection rates. Both aspects can be targeted for optimal usage in endoscopic capacity. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23580411     DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1326359

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


  9 in total

1.  A Risk Prediction Model for Sporadic CRC Based on Routine Lab Results.

Authors:  Ben Boursi; Ronac Mamtani; Wei-Ting Hwang; Kevin Haynes; Yu-Xiao Yang
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-02-19       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Impact of a Clinical Decision Support System on Guideline Adherence of Surveillance Recommendations for Colonoscopy After Polypectomy.

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

Review 3.  Post-polypectomy Guideline Adherence: Importance of Belief in Guidelines, Not Guideline Knowledge or Fear of Missed Cancer.

Authors:  Neha Patel; Liyue Tong; Chul Ahn; Amit G Singal; Samir Gupta
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Predictors of guideline concordance for surveillance colonoscopy recommendations in patients at a safety-net health system.

Authors:  Ben Kahn; Zachary Freeland; Purva Gopal; Deepak Agrawal; Christian A Mayorga; Rozina Mithani; Celette Sugg Skinner; Ethan A Halm; Amit G Singal
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 2.506

5.  Risk factors of nonadherence to colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy and its impact on clinical outcomes: a KASID multicenter study.

Authors:  Chung Hyun Tae; Chang Mo Moon; Seong-Eun Kim; Sung-Ae Jung; Chang Soo Eun; Jae Jun Park; Geom Seog Seo; Jae Myung Cha; Sung Chul Park; Jaeyoung Chun; Hyun Jung Lee; Yunho Jung; Jin Oh Kim; Young-Eun Joo; Dong Il Park
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 7.527

6.  Repeat colonoscopy after a colonoscopy with a negative result in Ontario: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Lieke Hol; Rinku Sutradhar; Sumei Gu; Nancy N Baxter; Linda Rabeneck; Jill M Tinmouth; Lawrence F Paszat
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2015-04-02

7.  Molecular stool testing as an alternative for surveillance colonoscopy: a cross-sectional cohort study.

Authors:  Meta C J van Lanschot; Beatriz Carvalho; Veerle M H Coupé; Manon van Engeland; Evelien Dekker; Gerrit A Meijer
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2017-02-07       Impact factor: 4.430

8.  Clinical care pathway program versus open-access system: a study on appropriateness, quality, and efficiency in the delivery of colonoscopy in the colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Giovanna Del Vecchio Blanco; Rami Dwairi; Mario Giannelli; Giampiero Palmieri; Vincenzo Formica; Ilaria Portarena; Enrico Grasso; Laura Di Iorio; Michela Benassi; Emilia Anna Giudice; Antonella Nardecchia; Piero Rossi; Mario Roselli; Giuseppe Sica; Giovanni Monteleone; Omero Alessandro Paoluzi
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 3.397

9.  A Retrospective Case-Control Study Evaluating the Bowel Preparation Quality during Surveillance Colonoscopy after Colonic Resection.

Authors:  Stefano Pontone; Giovanni Leonetti; Antonietta Lamazza; Fausto Fiocca; Angelo Filippini; Gianfranco Fanello; Fabrizio Cereatti; Enrico Fiori; Rita Angelini; Gregorio Patrizi; Manuela Brighi; Simone Vetere; Angelo Antoniozzi; Daniele Pironi; Simone Manfredelli; Paolo Pontone
Journal:  ISRN Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-03-06
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.