Nikhil Kapila1, Harjinder Singh2, Kiranmayee Kandragunta2, Fernando J Castro2. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Boulevard, Weston, FL, USA. kapilan@ccf.org. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Boulevard, Weston, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Open access colonoscopy (OAC) has gained widespread acceptance and has the potential to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, there is little data evaluating its appropriateness for CRC prevention. AIMS: The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriateness of OAC in CRC screening and polyp surveillance by comparing to procedures ordered by gastroenterologists (NOAC). As secondary outcomes, we compared the quality of bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR) between OAC and NOAC. METHODS: It is retrospective single-center study. Inclusion criteria included patients > 50 years of age undergoing a colonoscopy for CRC screening and surveillance. Appropriateness was defined as those colonoscopies performed within 12 months of the recommended 2012 consensus guidelines. Secondary outcomes included the quality of bowel preparation and ADR. RESULTS: 5211 colonoscopies met inclusion criteria, and 64.9% were OAC. Screening OAC was appropriately 91.6% and NOAC 92.9% of the time (p = 0.179). Surveillance NOAC were inappropriate in 26.4% of cases, and surveillance OAC was 32.6% (p = 0.008). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that OAC did not influence ADR (OR for NOAC 0.97; 95% CI 0.86-1.1; p = 0.644) or an adequate bowel preparation (OR for NOAC 1.11; 95% CI 0.91-1.36; p = 0.306). CONCLUSION: OAC performed similarly to NOAC for screening indications, quality of bowel preparation, and ADR. However, more surveillance procedures were inappropriate in the OAC group although both groups had a high number of inappropriate indications. Although OAC can be efficiently performed for screening indications, measures to decrease inappropriate surveillance colonoscopies are needed.
BACKGROUND: Open access colonoscopy (OAC) has gained widespread acceptance and has the potential to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, there is little data evaluating its appropriateness for CRC prevention. AIMS: The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriateness of OAC in CRC screening and polyp surveillance by comparing to procedures ordered by gastroenterologists (NOAC). As secondary outcomes, we compared the quality of bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR) between OAC and NOAC. METHODS: It is retrospective single-center study. Inclusion criteria included patients > 50 years of age undergoing a colonoscopy for CRC screening and surveillance. Appropriateness was defined as those colonoscopies performed within 12 months of the recommended 2012 consensus guidelines. Secondary outcomes included the quality of bowel preparation and ADR. RESULTS: 5211 colonoscopies met inclusion criteria, and 64.9% were OAC. Screening OAC was appropriately 91.6% and NOAC 92.9% of the time (p = 0.179). Surveillance NOAC were inappropriate in 26.4% of cases, and surveillance OAC was 32.6% (p = 0.008). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that OAC did not influence ADR (OR for NOAC 0.97; 95% CI 0.86-1.1; p = 0.644) or an adequate bowel preparation (OR for NOAC 1.11; 95% CI 0.91-1.36; p = 0.306). CONCLUSION:OAC performed similarly to NOAC for screening indications, quality of bowel preparation, and ADR. However, more surveillance procedures were inappropriate in the OAC group although both groups had a high number of inappropriate indications. Although OAC can be efficiently performed for screening indications, measures to decrease inappropriate surveillance colonoscopies are needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colonoscopy; Colonoscopy standards; Colorectal neoplasms; Open access colonoscopy
Authors: G Minoli; G Meucci; A Bortoli; A Garripoli; R Gullotta; P Leo; A Pera; A Prada; F Rocca; A Zambelli Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Todd H Baron; Brenda D Kimery; Darius Sorbi; Linda C Gorkis; Jonathan A Leighton; David E Fleischer Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Suryakanth R Gurudu; Shiva Ratuapli; Russell Heigh; John DiBaise; Jonathan Leighton; Michael Crowell Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Vikram Boolchand; Gregory Olds; Joseph Singh; Pankaj Singh; Amitabh Chak; Gregory S Cooper Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-11-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: F Balaguer; J Llach; A Castells; J M Bordas; M Ppellisé; F Rodríguez-Moranta; A Mata; G Fernández-Esparrach; A Ginès; J M Piqué Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2005-03-01 Impact factor: 8.171