Anna Tavakkoli1, Ryan J Law1, Aarti O Bedi1, Anoop Prabhu1, Tadd Hiatt1, Michelle A Anderson1, Erik J Wamsteker1, B Joseph Elmunzer2, Cyrus R Piraka3, James M Scheiman1, Grace H Elta1, Richard S Kwon4. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Taubman 3912, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5362, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Taubman 3912, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5362, USA. rskwon@umich.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic experience is known to correlate with outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), particularly complete resection of the polyp tissue. Whether specialist endoscopists can protect against incomplete polypectomy in the setting of known risk factors for incomplete resection (IR) is unknown. AIMS: We aimed to characterize how specialist endoscopists may help to mitigate the risk of IR of large sessile polyps. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent EMR at the University of Michigan from January 1, 2006, to November 15, 2015. The primary outcome was endoscopist-reported polyp tissue remaining at the end of the initial EMR attempt. Specialist endoscopists were defined as endoscopists who receive tertiary referrals for difficult colonoscopy cases and completed at least 20 EMR colonic polyp resections over the study period. RESULTS: A total of 257 patients with 269 polyps were included in the study. IR occurred in 40 (16%) cases. IR was associated with polyp size ≥ 40 mm [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38-7.93], flat/laterally spreading polyps (aOR 2.61, 95% CI 1.24-5.48), and difficulty lifting the polyp (aOR 11.0, 95% CI 2.66-45.3). A specialist endoscopist performing the initial EMR was protective against IR, even in the setting of risk factors for IR (aOR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04-0.41). CONCLUSIONS: IR is associated with polyp size ≥ 40 mm, flat and/or laterally spreading polyps, and difficulty lifting the polyp. A specialist endoscopist initiating the EMR was protective of IR.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic experience is known to correlate with outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), particularly complete resection of the polyp tissue. Whether specialist endoscopists can protect against incomplete polypectomy in the setting of known risk factors for incomplete resection (IR) is unknown. AIMS: We aimed to characterize how specialist endoscopists may help to mitigate the risk of IR of large sessile polyps. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent EMR at the University of Michigan from January 1, 2006, to November 15, 2015. The primary outcome was endoscopist-reported polyp tissue remaining at the end of the initial EMR attempt. Specialist endoscopists were defined as endoscopists who receive tertiary referrals for difficult colonoscopy cases and completed at least 20 EMR colonic polyp resections over the study period. RESULTS: A total of 257 patients with 269 polyps were included in the study. IR occurred in 40 (16%) cases. IR was associated with polyp size ≥ 40 mm [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38-7.93], flat/laterally spreading polyps (aOR 2.61, 95% CI 1.24-5.48), and difficulty lifting the polyp (aOR 11.0, 95% CI 2.66-45.3). A specialist endoscopist performing the initial EMR was protective against IR, even in the setting of risk factors for IR (aOR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04-0.41). CONCLUSIONS: IR is associated with polyp size ≥ 40 mm, flat and/or laterally spreading polyps, and difficulty lifting the polyp. A specialist endoscopist initiating the EMR was protective of IR.
Authors: David A Lieberman; Douglas K Rex; Sidney J Winawer; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Theodore R Levin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Alan Moss; Stephen J Williams; Luke F Hourigan; Gregor Brown; William Tam; Rajvinder Singh; Simon Zanati; Nicholas G Burgess; Rebecca Sonson; Karen Byth; Michael J Bourke Journal: Gut Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Maria Pellise; Nicholas G Burgess; Nicholas Tutticci; Luke F Hourigan; Simon A Zanati; Gregor J Brown; Rajvinder Singh; Stephen J Williams; Spiro C Raftopoulos; Donald Ormonde; Alan Moss; Karen Byth; Heok P'Ng; Hema Mahajan; Duncan McLeod; Michael J Bourke Journal: Gut Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Nuzhat A Ahmad; Michael L Kochman; William B Long; Emma E Furth; Gregory G Ginsberg Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Alan Moss; Michael J Bourke; Stephen J Williams; Luke F Hourigan; Gregor Brown; William Tam; Rajvinder Singh; Simon Zanati; Robert Y Chen; Karen Byth Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Keith Leung; Paul Pinsky; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Elaine Lanza; Arthur Schatzkin; Robert E Schoen Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Rajesh N Keswani; Ryan Law; Jody D Ciolino; Amy A Lo; Adam B Gluskin; David J Bentrem; Sri Komanduri; Jennifer A Pacheco; David Grande; William K Thompson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-01-30 Impact factor: 9.427