BACKGROUND: The quality of colonoscopy has been related to a higher risk of interval cancer, and this issue has been addressed extensively in developed countries. The aim of our study was to explore the main quality indicators of colonoscopy in a large emerging country. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy in 14 centres were prospectively included between July and October 2014. Before colonoscopy, several clinical and demographic variables were collected. Main quality indicators (i.e. caecal intubation rate, (advanced) adenoma detection rate, rate of adequate cleansing and sedation) were collected. Data were analysed at per patient and per centre level (only for those with at least 100 cases). Factors associated with caecal intubation rate and adenoma detection rate were explored at multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 8829 (males: 35%; mean age: 57 + 14 years) patients were included, with 11 centres enrolling at least 100 patients. Screening (including non-alarm symptoms) accounted for 59% (5188/8829) of the indications. Sedation and split preparation were used in 26% (2294/8829) and 25% (2187/8829) of the patients. Caecal intubation was achieved in 7616 patients (86%), and it was ≥85% in 8/11 (73%) centres. Adenoma detection rate was 18% (1550/8829), and it was higher than 20% in five (45%) centres, whilst it was lower than 10% in four (33%) centres. At multivariate analysis, age (OR: 1.020, 95% CI: 1.015-1.024), male sex (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1-1.3), alarm symptoms (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.7-2), split preparation (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2-1.6), caecal intubation rate (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.3-1.9) and withdrawal time measurement (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.6-2.1) were predictors of a higher adenoma detection rate, while adequate preparation (OR: 3.4: 95% CI: 2.9-3.9) and sedation (OR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1-1.6) were the strongest predictors of caecal intubation rate. CONCLUSIONS: According to our study, there is a substantial intercentre variability in the main quality indicators. Overall, the caecal intubation rate appears to be acceptable in most centres, whilst the overall level of adenoma detection appears low, with less than half of the centres being higher than 20%. Educational and quality assurance programs, including higher rates of sedation and split regimen of preparation, may be necessary to increase the key quality indicators.
BACKGROUND: The quality of colonoscopy has been related to a higher risk of interval cancer, and this issue has been addressed extensively in developed countries. The aim of our study was to explore the main quality indicators of colonoscopy in a large emerging country. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy in 14 centres were prospectively included between July and October 2014. Before colonoscopy, several clinical and demographic variables were collected. Main quality indicators (i.e. caecal intubation rate, (advanced) adenoma detection rate, rate of adequate cleansing and sedation) were collected. Data were analysed at per patient and per centre level (only for those with at least 100 cases). Factors associated with caecal intubation rate and adenoma detection rate were explored at multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 8829 (males: 35%; mean age: 57 + 14 years) patients were included, with 11 centres enrolling at least 100 patients. Screening (including non-alarm symptoms) accounted for 59% (5188/8829) of the indications. Sedation and split preparation were used in 26% (2294/8829) and 25% (2187/8829) of the patients. Caecal intubation was achieved in 7616 patients (86%), and it was ≥85% in 8/11 (73%) centres. Adenoma detection rate was 18% (1550/8829), and it was higher than 20% in five (45%) centres, whilst it was lower than 10% in four (33%) centres. At multivariate analysis, age (OR: 1.020, 95% CI: 1.015-1.024), male sex (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1-1.3), alarm symptoms (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.7-2), split preparation (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2-1.6), caecal intubation rate (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.3-1.9) and withdrawal time measurement (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.6-2.1) were predictors of a higher adenoma detection rate, while adequate preparation (OR: 3.4: 95% CI: 2.9-3.9) and sedation (OR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1-1.6) were the strongest predictors of caecal intubation rate. CONCLUSIONS: According to our study, there is a substantial intercentre variability in the main quality indicators. Overall, the caecal intubation rate appears to be acceptable in most centres, whilst the overall level of adenoma detection appears low, with less than half of the centres being higher than 20%. Educational and quality assurance programs, including higher rates of sedation and split regimen of preparation, may be necessary to increase the key quality indicators.
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: Nancy N Baxter; Rinku Sutradhar; Shawn S Forbes; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-09-18 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Jaroslaw Regula; Maciej Rupinski; Ewa Kraszewska; Marcin Polkowski; Jacek Pachlewski; Janina Orlowska; Marek P Nowacki; Eugeniusz Butruk Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-11-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Hassan; M Bretthauer; M F Kaminski; M Polkowski; B Rembacken; B Saunders; R Benamouzig; O Holme; S Green; T Kuiper; R Marmo; M Omar; L Petruzziello; C Spada; A Zullo; J M Dumonceau Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2013-01-18 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Manuel Zorzi; Carlo Senore; Filippo Da Re; Alessandra Barca; Luigina Ada Bonelli; Renato Cannizzaro; Renato Fasoli; Lucia Di Furia; Emilio Di Giulio; Paola Mantellini; Carlo Naldoni; Romano Sassatelli; Douglas Rex; Cesare Hassan; Marco Zappa Journal: Gut Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 23.059