65
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Meticulous cecal image documentation at colonoscopy is associated with improved polyp detection

      research-article
      ,
      Endoscopy International Open
      © Georg Thieme Verlag KG

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and study aims: No studies have looked at the quality of cecal images versus the outcomes of colonoscopic procedures. Here, we tested our hypothesis that endoscopists who provide better image documentation of the cecum during their procedures have a higher polyp detection rate (PDR).

          Patients and methods: In this retrospective study, planned colonoscopies performed by 16 experienced colonoscopists were included. We formulated a new scoring system, the cecal image documentation score (CIDS), for quantifying the quality of the cecal images obtained at colonoscopy. Cecal image documentation was graded as follows: no image, 0; unclear image, 1; clear image, 2; clear image with a label, 3. We assessed the correlation between image quality and the PDR.

          Results: A total of 651 procedures performed by 16 colonoscopists were analyzed retrospectively. The mean CIDS for the 16 endoscopists was 2.13. The mean PDR was 23.5 %, and the mean polyps per procedure value (PPP) was 0.42. The 10 colonoscopists with a mean CIDS > 2.0 (n = 429 procedures) had a PDR of 27.8 % and a PPP of 0.51. On the other hand, the 6 colonoscopists (n = 222 procedures) with a mean CIDS < 2.0 had a PDR of 15.2 % and a PPP of 0.23. A mean CIDS > 2.0 was associated with a higher PDR (odds ratio [OR] 2.1, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.4 – 3.2, P = 0.001). A mean CIDS > 2.0 was found to be an independent predictor of a higher PDR (OR 2.53, 95 %CI 1.45 – 3.59, P = 0.001). A mean CIDS > 2.0 was also associated with a higher right-sided PDR (OR 3.67, 95 %CI 1.91 – 7.02, P < 0.001).

          Conclusions: Colonoscopists who are more meticulous in cecal image documentation detect more polyps per procedure and have higher PDRs. Better cecal image documentation is also associated with better right-sided colonic polyp detection.

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE).

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

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

            Data on process quality and complications of colonoscopies are sparse, especially for the screening setting. We describe process quality in routine care, estimate the incidence of acute complications, and identify risk indicators for substandard care and complications. We analyzed data from 236 087 compulsory health insurance (CHI) members who underwent colonoscopies in 2006. Data were documented prospectively in the Electronic Colonoscopy Documentation of the Bavarian Association of CHI Physicians, a registry of outpatient colonoscopies performed in practices throughout Bavaria, Germany. It covers demographic characteristics, indications, quality indicators, macroscopic and histological findings, diagnoses, and acute complications. Colon preparation resulted in clear bowels in 76.31 % of patients, liquid residues in 22.22 %, and dirty bowels in 1.47 %. In total, 92.85 % of the examinations were performed with patients under sedation/analgesia and 97.43 % of colonoscopies were complete. Photo documentation was present for 98.87 %. Male sex, middle age, screening, satisfactory bowel preparation, and sedation/analgesia were associated with completeness. A total of 735 patients (0.31 %) suffered complications, among them 520 bleedings (0.22 %), 69 perforations (0.03 %), and 152 cardiorespiratory complications (0.06 %). Male sex, higher age, nonscreening indication, biopsies, polypectomies, and absence of sedation/analgesia were indicative of a higher bleeding risk. Perforations were also related to biopsies and polypectomies. Higher age was the only discernible risk indicator for cardiorespiratory events. Outpatient colonoscopy is a safe procedure with a low risk of acute complications. Improving bowel preparation enhances completeness. Sedation/analgesia is conducive to both completeness and the lowering of the risk of acute complications. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart New York.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Minimal standard terminology for gastrointestinal endoscopy - MST 3.0.

              Standardization of the language of gastrointestinal endoscopy is becoming increasingly important on account of international collaboration, standardized documentation requirements, and computer-based reporting. Version 1 of the Minimal Standard Terminology (MST) was devised to facilitate this development, and, through broad international collaboration, the document was developed and tested further to produce version 2.0, published in 2000. The document forms the basis for computer software by offering standard minimal lists of terms to be used in the structured documentation of endoscopic findings. The ownership of the MST has been transferred to the World Organisation of Digestive Endoscopy (OMED) and in this context, a new revision of the MST document is now in place. Version 3.0 of the terminology includes terms for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and enteroscopy, as well as for adverse event reporting. In addition, acknowledged scoring systems have been included for specific findings, and some structural enhancements have been implemented. The entire document is freely available for noncommercial use from www.omed.org.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Endosc Int Open
                Endosc Int Open
                10.1055/s-0034-1377934
                Endoscopy International Open
                © Georg Thieme Verlag KG (Stuttgart · New York )
                2364-3722
                2196-9736
                December 2015
                15 September 2015
                : 3
                : 6
                : E629-E633
                Affiliations
                Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                Corresponding author Mo Hameed Thoufeeq, MRCP (UK), MRCP (Gastroenterology) Sheffield NHS Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust Herries RoadSheffield, S5 7AUUnited Kingdom+44-114- 2266064 mo.thoufeeq@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                10.1055/s-0034-1392783
                4683143
                26716125
                aa323690-a470-4d68-bec0-28266f31b7ee
                © Thieme Medical Publishers
                History
                : 26 October 2014
                : 29 June 2015
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article