AIMS: This multicenter and prospective study was aimed at examining the appropriate use of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in an open access system (primary endoscopy) using the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines. We also wished to see whether these guidelines can be easily used in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three thousand four hundred fourteen upper gastrointestinal endoscopies performed in seven endoscopy units of different size were studied prospectively. The real indication, to be with the guidelines, was determined by the endoscopist before performing the examination, based on a patient's history. RESULTS: Seven hundred eighty-one (23%) endoscopies were "generally not indicated," according to ASGE guidelines, and were distributed as follows: follow-up of duodenal ulcer healing (33%), follow-up of other healed benign diseases (24%), surveillance of gastric atrophy, pernicious anemia, metaplasia, treated achalasia, and prior gastric intervention (14%), diagnosis of dyspepsia considered functional in origin (13%), and uncomplicated heartburn responding to medical therapy (7%). Endoscopies "generally not indicated" accounted for 23% in the bigger endoscopy units, 24% in the average sized units, and 22% in the smaller ones. They accounted for 32% when the examination was prescribed by family doctors, 17% when prescribed by internists, 19% by surgeons, and 14% by gastroenterologists (p < 0.001). Eighty-six (2.5%) endoscopies were done for indications not provided in the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that ASGE guidelines are complete and easy to use and that the rate of inappropriate indications in an open access system can be considerable. They occurred mainly in the follow-up of healed benign disease and were more frequent when the examination was prescribed by the family doctor.
AIMS: This multicenter and prospective study was aimed at examining the appropriate use of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in an open access system (primary endoscopy) using the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines. We also wished to see whether these guidelines can be easily used in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three thousand four hundred fourteen upper gastrointestinal endoscopies performed in seven endoscopy units of different size were studied prospectively. The real indication, to be with the guidelines, was determined by the endoscopist before performing the examination, based on a patient's history. RESULTS: Seven hundred eighty-one (23%) endoscopies were "generally not indicated," according to ASGE guidelines, and were distributed as follows: follow-up of duodenal ulcer healing (33%), follow-up of other healed benign diseases (24%), surveillance of gastric atrophy, pernicious anemia, metaplasia, treated achalasia, and prior gastric intervention (14%), diagnosis of dyspepsia considered functional in origin (13%), and uncomplicated heartburn responding to medical therapy (7%). Endoscopies "generally not indicated" accounted for 23% in the bigger endoscopy units, 24% in the average sized units, and 22% in the smaller ones. They accounted for 32% when the examination was prescribed by family doctors, 17% when prescribed by internists, 19% by surgeons, and 14% by gastroenterologists (p < 0.001). Eighty-six (2.5%) endoscopies were done for indications not provided in the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that ASGE guidelines are complete and easy to use and that the rate of inappropriate indications in an open access system can be considerable. They occurred mainly in the follow-up of healed benign disease and were more frequent when the examination was prescribed by the family doctor.
Authors: Suryakanth R Gurudu; Lucía C Fry; David E Fleischer; Bradford H Jones; Marlene R Trunkenbolz; Jonathan A Leighton Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2006-09-29 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: L Trevisani; S Sartori; G Gilli; C M Chiamenti; P Gaudenzi; V Alvisi; P Pazzi; V Abbasciano Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Kryssia Rodriguez; Marilisa Franceschi; Antonio Ferronato; Lorenzo Brozzi; Antonio Antico; Maria Piera Panozzo; Arianna Massella; Barbara Pertoldi; Alice Morini; Alberto Barchi; Michele Russo; Pellegrino Crafa; Lorella Franzoni; Lucio Cuoco; Gianluca Baldassarre; Francesco Di Mario Journal: Acta Biomed Date: 2022-08-31