Literature DB >> 29095420

Rates of Duodenal Biopsy During Upper Endoscopy Differ Widely Between Providers: Implications for Diagnosis of Celiac Disease.

Max Pitman1, David S Sanders2, Peter H R Green1, Benjamin Lebwohl1.   

Abstract

GOAL: The goal of this study is to determine factors associated with performance of duodenal biopsy during upper endoscopy.
BACKGROUND: Celiac disease (CD) prevalence approaches 1% in the United States and Europe, yet CD remains underdiagnosed, in part because of low rates of duodenal biopsy during upper endoscopy. We aimed to identify patient and provider factors associated with performance of duodenal biopsy during upper endoscopy. STUDY: In our hospital-based endoscopy suite, we identified all patients not previously diagnosed with CD who underwent upper endoscopy during a 5-year period for one of the following indications: abdominal pain/dyspepsia, gastroesophageal reflux (GERD), anemia/iron deficiency, diarrhea, and weight loss. We employed univariate and multivariate analysis to determine the association between clinical factors and the performance of duodenal biopsy.
RESULTS: Of 8572 patients included in the study, 4863 (57%) underwent duodenal biopsy. Of those who underwent duodenal biopsy, 24 (0.49%) were found to have CD. On multivariate analysis, age, gender, indication, gross endoscopic appearance, physician affiliation with a celiac disease center, and absence of a participating trainee were all significantly associated with the performance of duodenal biopsy. There was wide variability among providers, with duodenal biopsy rates ranging from 27% to 91% during these procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: A duodenal biopsy is more likely to be performed in younger patients, females, and for key indications such as weight loss, diarrhea, and anemia. Providers varied widely in the performance of duodenal biopsy. Further study is warranted to better understand the decision to perform duodenal biopsy and to determine the optimal scenarios for its performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 29095420      PMCID: PMC5930163          DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000957

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0192-0790            Impact factor:   3.062


  30 in total

Review 1.  AGA technical review on the evaluation and management of chronic diarrhea.

Authors:  K D Fine; L R Schiller
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Routine duodenal biopsies to exclude celiac disease?

Authors:  Peter H R Green; Joseph A Murray
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Gastroesophageal reflux symptoms in patients with celiac disease and the effects of a gluten-free diet.

Authors:  Fabio Nachman; Horacio Vázquez; Andrea González; Paola Andrenacci; Liliana Compagni; Hugo Reyes; Emilia Sugai; María Laura Moreno; Edgardo Smecuol; Hui Jer Hwang; Inés Pinto Sánchez; Eduardo Mauriño; Julio César Bai
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 11.382

4.  Procedure volume influences adherence to celiac disease guidelines.

Authors:  Benjamin Lebwohl; Robert M Genta; Robert C Kapel; Daniel Sheehan; Nina S Lerner; Peter H Green; Alfred I Neugut; Andrew Rundle
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.566

5.  Is there a relationship between physician and facility volumes of ambulatory procedures and patient outcomes?

Authors:  Askar S Chukmaitov; Nir Menachemi; Steven L Brown; Charles Saunders; Anqi Tang; Robert Brooks
Journal:  J Ambul Care Manage       Date:  2008 Oct-Dec

6.  Celiac disease is diagnosed less frequently in young adult males.

Authors:  Rohit Dixit; Benjamin Lebwohl; Jonas F Ludvigsson; Suzanne K Lewis; Norelle Rizkalla-Reilly; Peter H R Green
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  Adenoma detection rates vary minimally with time of day and case rank: a prospective study of 2139 first screening colonoscopies.

Authors:  Daniel A Leffler; Rakhi Kheraj; Arjun Bhansali; Hanako Yamanaka; Naama Neeman; Sunil Sheth; Mandeep Sawhney; J Thomas Lamont; Mark D Aronson
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Screening for celiac disease in a North American population: sequential serology and gastrointestinal symptoms.

Authors:  Kent D Katz; Shahrooz Rashtak; Brian D Lahr; L Joseph Melton; Patricia K Krause; Kristine Maggi; Nicholas J Talley; Joseph A Murray
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Evidence Against Routine Testing of Patients With Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders for Celiac Disease: A Population-based Study.

Authors:  Rok Seon Choung; Alberto Rubio-Tapia; Brian D Lahr; Robert A Kyle; Michael J Camilleri; G Richard Locke; Nicholas J Talley; Joseph A Murray
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-05-16       Impact factor: 11.382

10.  Variation in small bowel biopsy performance among diverse endoscopy settings: results from a national endoscopic database.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood; Jennifer L Holub; David A Lieberman
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 10.864

View more
  2 in total

1.  Prevalence and Clinical Features of Celiac Disease in Healthy School-Aged Children.

Authors:  Omer Faruk Beser; Emine Gulluelli; Fugen Cullu Cokugras; Tulay Erkan; Tufan Kutlu; Rasit Vural Yagci; Firuze Erbek Alp; Gulten Ercal; Nuray Kepil; Mine Kucur
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-10-12       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Routine Multiple Duodenal Biopsy during Endoscopy of Dyspeptic Patients Seems Unnecessary for Screening of Celiac Disease.

Authors:  Amir Behforouz; Abbas Esmaeelzadeh; Homan Mosanan Mozaffari; Ali Mokhtarifar; Elham Faravani; Sakineh Amoueian; Alireza Khooei; Lida Jarahi; Ladan Goshayeshi
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2020-12-22       Impact factor: 2.260

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.