Literature DB >> 31085185

Endoscopists systematically undersample patients with long-segment Barrett's esophagus: an analysis of biopsy sampling practices from a quality improvement registry.

Sachin Wani1, J Lucas Williams2, Srinadh Komanduri3, V Raman Muthusamy4, Nicholas J Shaheen5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines recommend systematic biopsy sampling in Barrett's esophagus (BE) to reduce sampling error. Adherence to this biopsy sampling protocol has been suggested as a quality indicator; however, estimates of adherence are not available. Using a national registry, we assessed adherence and identified predictors of adherence to biopsy sampling protocols.
METHODS: We analyzed data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium Registry that included procedure indication, demographics, endoscopy, and pathology results. Patients with an indication of BE screening/surveillance or an endoscopic finding of BE were included. Adherence to the Seattle protocol was assessed by dividing BE length by number of pathology jars, with a ratio ≤2.0 with rounding down (lenient definition) or rounding up (stringent definition) for odd BE lengths considered adherent. Variables associated with adherence were assessed using generalized estimating equations to control for clustering within individual physicians.
RESULTS: Of 786,712 EGDs assessed, 58,709 (7.5%) EGDs in 53,541 patients met inclusion criteria (mean age, 61.3 years; 60.4% men; 90.2% white; mean BE length, 2.3 cm). When the lenient and stringent definitions for adherence were used, 87.8% and 82.7% of EGDs were adherent, respectively. Increasing BE length was the most significant predictor of nonadherence (odds ratio, .69; 95% confidence interval, .67-.71). Other predictors were increasing age, male gender, increasing American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and practice location. Performance of EGD by nongastroenterologist physicians was associated with nonadherence (odds ratio, .07; 95% confidence interval, .06-.10).
CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 20% of endoscopies performed in BE patients were not adherent to the Seattle protocol. As BE length increases, endoscopists become less compliant with odds of nonadherence increasing by 31% with every 1-cm increase in length.
Copyright © 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31085185     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.04.250

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  17 in total

1.  Adequacy of EGD Reporting: a Review of 100 Reports from 100 Endoscopists.

Authors:  Joshua A Boys; Beina Azadgoli; Mathew Martinez; Daniel S Oh; Jeffrey A Hagen; Steven R DeMeester
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 2.  Highlighting the Undetectable - Fluorescence Molecular Imaging in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Authors:  Judith A Stibbe; Petra Hoogland; Friso B Achterberg; Derek R Holman; Raoul S Sojwal; Jacobus Burggraaf; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Wouter B Nagengast; Stephan Rogalla
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 3.488

3.  Post-endoscopy Esophageal Neoplasia in Barrett's Esophagus: Consensus Statements From an International Expert Panel.

Authors:  Sachin Wani; Rena Yadlapati; Siddharth Singh; Tarek Sawas; David A Katzka
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2021-10-14       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  High rate of missed Barrett's esophagus when screening with forceps biopsies.

Authors:  Mendel E Singer; Robert D Odze
Journal:  Esophagus       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 3.671

5.  Kyoto international consensus report on anatomy, pathophysiology and clinical significance of the gastro-oesophageal junction.

Authors:  Kentaro Sugano; Stuart Jon Spechler; Emad M El-Omar; Kenneth E L McColl; Kaiyo Takubo; Takuji Gotoda; Mitsuhiro Fujishiro; Katsunori Iijima; Haruhiro Inoue; Takashi Kawai; Yoshikazu Kinoshita; Hiroto Miwa; Ken-Ichi Mukaisho; Kazunari Murakami; Yasuyuki Seto; Hisao Tajiri; Shobna Bhatia; Myung-Gyu Choi; Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Kwong Ming Fock; Khean-Lee Goh; Khek Yu Ho; Varocha Mahachai; Maria O'Donovan; Robert Odze; Richard Peek; Massimo Rugge; Prateek Sharma; Jose D Sollano; Michael Vieth; Justin Wu; Ming-Shiang Wu; Duowu Zou; Michio Kaminishi; Peter Malfertheiner
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 31.793

Review 6.  Artificial Intelligence and Its Role in Identifying Esophageal Neoplasia.

Authors:  Taseen Syed; Akash Doshi; Shan Guleria; Sana Syed; Tilak Shah
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 7.  Best Practices in Surveillance for Barrett's Esophagus.

Authors:  Joseph R Triggs; Gary W Falk
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am       Date:  2020-10-21

8.  Prevalence and Predictors of Missed Dysplasia on Index Barrett's Esophagus Diagnosing Endoscopy in a Veteran Population.

Authors:  Theresa H Nguyen; Aaron P Thrift; Rollin George; Daniel G Rosen; Hashem B El-Serag; Gyanprakash A Ketwaroo
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2021-04-08       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 9.  Endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett's oesophagus: state of the art.

Authors:  Jennifer M Kolb; Sachin Wani
Journal:  Curr Opin Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 2.741

10.  Independent Validation of a Tissue Systems Pathology Assay to Predict Future Progression in Nondysplastic Barrett's Esophagus: A Spatial-Temporal Analysis.

Authors:  Nicola F Frei; Kadère Konte; Emily A Bossart; Katelyn Stebbins; Yi Zhang; Roos E Pouw; Rebecca J Critchley-Thorne; Jacques J G H M Bergman
Journal:  Clin Transl Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 4.396

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.