Carina Leal1, Nuno Almeida2,3, Maria Silva1, Antonieta Santos1, Helena Vasconcelos1, Pedro Figueiredo2,3. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Centro Hospitalar de Leiria, Leiria, Portugal. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 3. Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Advances in endoscopy and open-access systems led to an increase in endoscopic procedures. However, overuse of endoscopy has been consistently reported. This study aims to assess the appropriateness of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy referral in the private and public setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter study at 2 public and 5 private endoscopy units. Patients scheduled for elective EGD or colonoscopy were enrolled. Clinical data and endoscopy findings were recorded. Appropriateness of endoscopy was defined according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines (for EGD) and the European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II (for colonoscopy). RESULTS: Regarding EGD: 215 patients enrolled (43.7% were males) with a mean age of 61.0 ± 15.1 years; 54.0% (n = 116) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 34.9% (n = 75). Appropriate indications were made for 62.3% (n = 134): 42.4% in private versus 79.3% in public endoscopy units (odds ratio [OR] 5.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.85-9.49; p < 0.01). Rate of appropriate EGD was 74.7% for gastroenterologist referral and 56.1% for other specialties (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.24-4.28; p < 0.01). Diagnostic yield for relevant findings was 47.9%. No association between indication appropriateness, gastroenterologist referral, and relevant endoscopic findings was found. Regarding colonoscopy: 287 patients enrolled (49.1% were males) with a mean age of 60.4 ± 14.4 years; 48.1% (n = 138) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 20.6% (n = 59). Appropriate indications were made for 70.0% (n = 201): 53.0% in private vs. 88.4% in public endoscopy units (OR 6.75; 95% CI 3.66-12.47; p < 0.01). Diagnostic yield was 57.1%. Relevant endoscopic diagnosis was associated with indication: 63.2% in the appropriate vs. 43.0% in the nonappropriate indication group (p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: A significant percentage of endoscopies, mainly in the private setting, were performed without an appropriate indication. This influenced the diagnostic yield. The use of adequate criteria is fundamental for the rational use of an open-access system.
INTRODUCTION: Advances in endoscopy and open-access systems led to an increase in endoscopic procedures. However, overuse of endoscopy has been consistently reported. This study aims to assess the appropriateness of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy referral in the private and public setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter study at 2 public and 5 private endoscopy units. Patients scheduled for elective EGD or colonoscopy were enrolled. Clinical data and endoscopy findings were recorded. Appropriateness of endoscopy was defined according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines (for EGD) and the European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II (for colonoscopy). RESULTS: Regarding EGD: 215 patients enrolled (43.7% were males) with a mean age of 61.0 ± 15.1 years; 54.0% (n = 116) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 34.9% (n = 75). Appropriate indications were made for 62.3% (n = 134): 42.4% in private versus 79.3% in public endoscopy units (odds ratio [OR] 5.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.85-9.49; p < 0.01). Rate of appropriate EGD was 74.7% for gastroenterologist referral and 56.1% for other specialties (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.24-4.28; p < 0.01). Diagnostic yield for relevant findings was 47.9%. No association between indication appropriateness, gastroenterologist referral, and relevant endoscopic findings was found. Regarding colonoscopy: 287 patients enrolled (49.1% were males) with a mean age of 60.4 ± 14.4 years; 48.1% (n = 138) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 20.6% (n = 59). Appropriate indications were made for 70.0% (n = 201): 53.0% in private vs. 88.4% in public endoscopy units (OR 6.75; 95% CI 3.66-12.47; p < 0.01). Diagnostic yield was 57.1%. Relevant endoscopic diagnosis was associated with indication: 63.2% in the appropriate vs. 43.0% in the nonappropriate indication group (p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: A significant percentage of endoscopies, mainly in the private setting, were performed without an appropriate indication. This influenced the diagnostic yield. The use of adequate criteria is fundamental for the rational use of an open-access system.
Authors: Dayna S Early; Tamir Ben-Menachem; G Anton Decker; John A Evans; Robert D Fanelli; Deborah A Fisher; Norio Fukami; Joo Ha Hwang; Rajeev Jain; Terry L Jue; Khalid M Khan; Phyllis M Malpas; John T Maple; Ravi S Sharaf; Jason A Dominitz; Brooks D Cash Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Laura C Seeff; Thomas B Richards; Jean A Shapiro; Marion R Nadel; Diane L Manninen; Leslie S Given; Fred B Dong; Linda D Winges; Matthew T McKenna Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Anne F Peery; Seth D Crockett; Caitlin C Murphy; Jennifer L Lund; Evan S Dellon; J Lucas Williams; Elizabeth T Jensen; Nicholas J Shaheen; Alfred S Barritt; Sarah R Lieber; Bharati Kochar; Edward L Barnes; Y Claire Fan; Virginia Pate; Joseph Galanko; Todd H Baron; Robert S Sandler Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Sigrun Losada Eskeland; Eirin Dalén; Jon Sponheim; Even Lind; Cathrine Brunborg; Thomas de Lange Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 2.423