Literature DB >> 35533738

Longitudinal assessment of colonoscopy adverse events in the prospective Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 colorectal cancer screening and surveillance cohort.

Elizabeth A Kobe1, Brian A Sullivan2, Xuejun Qin3, Thomas S Redding4, Elizabeth R Hauser3, Ashton N Madison4, Cameron Miller5, Jimmy T Efird6, Ziad F Gellad7, David Weiss8, Kellie J Sims4, Christina D Williams9, David A Lieberman10, Dawn Provenzale2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data are limited regarding colonoscopy risk during long-term, programmatic colorectal cancer screening and follow-up. We aimed to describe adverse events during follow-up in a colonoscopy screening program after the baseline examination and examine factors associated with increased risk.
METHODS: Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 includes 3121 asymptomatic veterans aged 50 to 75 years who underwent screening colonoscopy between 1994 and 1997. Periprocedure adverse events requiring significant intervention were defined as major events (other events were minor) and were tracked during follow-up for at least 10 years. Multivariable odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for factors associated with risk of follow-up adverse events.
RESULTS: Of 3727 follow-up examinations in 1983 participants, adverse events occurred in 105 examinations (2.8%) in 93 individuals, including 22 major and 87 minor events (examinations may have had >1 event). Incidence of major events (per 1000 examinations) remained relatively stable over time, with 6.1 events at examination 2, 4.8 at examination 3, and 7.2 at examination 4. Examinations with major events included 1 perforation, 3 GI bleeds requiring intervention, and 17 cardiopulmonary events. History of prior colonoscopic adverse events was associated with increased risk of events (major or minor) during follow-up (OR, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-4.6).
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term programmatic screening and surveillance was safe, as major events were rare during follow-up. However, serious cardiopulmonary events were the most common major events. These results highlight the need for detailed assessments of comorbid conditions during routine clinical practice, which could help inform individual decisions regarding the utility of ongoing colonoscopy follow-up. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35533738      PMCID: PMC9531542          DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.04.1343

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   10.396


  43 in total

1.  Incidence of minor complications and time lost from normal activities after screening or surveillance colonoscopy.

Authors:  Cynthia W Ko; Stacy Riffle; Jean A Shapiro; Michael D Saunders; Scott D Lee; Bruce Y Tung; Rahul Kuver; Anne M Larson; Kris V Kowdley; Michael B Kimmey
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2006-12-14       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Predictive factors for colonoscopy complications.

Authors:  Annie O O Chan; Louis N W Lee; Angus C W Chan; W N Ho; Queenie W L Chan; Silvia Lau; Joseph W T Chan
Journal:  Hong Kong Med J       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 2.227

3.  Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380.

Authors:  D A Lieberman; D G Weiss; J H Bond; D J Ahnen; H Garewal; G Chejfec
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-07-20       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Association of polypectomy techniques, endoscopist volume, and facility type with colonoscopy complications.

Authors:  Askar Chukmaitov; Cathy J Bradley; Bassam Dahman; Umaporn Siangphoe; Joan L Warren; Carrie N Klabunde
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Prospective analysis of complications 30 days after outpatient colonoscopy.

Authors:  R Zubarik; D E Fleischer; C Mastropietro; J Lopez; J Carroll; S Benjamin; G Eisen
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Association between mutations of critical pathway genes and survival outcomes according to the tumor location in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Dae-Won Lee; Sae-Won Han; Yongjun Cha; Jeong Mo Bae; Hwang-Phill Kim; Jaemyun Lyu; Hyojun Han; Hyoki Kim; Hoon Jang; Duhee Bang; Iksoo Huh; Taesung Park; Jae-Kyung Won; Seung-Yong Jeong; Kyu Joo Park; Gyeong Hoon Kang; Tae-You Kim
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Baseline Colonoscopy Findings Associated With 10-Year Outcomes in a Screening Cohort Undergoing Colonoscopy Surveillance.

Authors:  David Lieberman; Brian A Sullivan; Elizabeth R Hauser; Xuejun Qin; Laura W Musselwhite; Meghan C O'Leary; Thomas S Redding; Ashton N Madison; A Jasmine Bullard; Reana Thomas; Kellie J Sims; Christina D Williams; Terry Hyslop; David Weiss; Samir Gupta; Ziad F Gellad; Douglas J Robertson; Dawn Provenzale
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  Process quality and incidence of acute complications in a series of more than 230,000 outpatient colonoscopies.

Authors:  A Crispin; B Birkner; A Munte; G Nusko; U Mansmann
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2009-10-23       Impact factor: 10.093

9.  Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  David A Lieberman; David G Weiss; William V Harford; Dennis J Ahnen; Dawn Provenzale; Stephen J Sontag; Thomas G Schnell; Gregorio Chejfec; Donald R Campbell; Jayashri Kidao; John H Bond; Douglas B Nelson; George Triadafilopoulos; Francisco C Ramirez; Judith F Collins; Tiina K Johnston; Kenneth R McQuaid; Harinder Garewal; Richard E Sampliner; Romeo Esquivel; Douglas Robertson
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Colonoscopic perforations: a retrospective review.

Authors:  Corey W Iqbal; Yun Shin Chun; David R Farley
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.267

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.