Variations in colonoscopy practice in Europe: a multicentre descriptive study (EPAGE)

Propofol versus midazolam with or without short-acting opioids for sedation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in colonoscopy; however, its benefits over midazolam (± short-acting opioids) are not well quantified. The objective of this study was to compare safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes of propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids) in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library (to July 30, 2018) for randomized controlled trials of colonoscopies performed with propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids). We pooled odds ratios for cardiorespiratory outcomes using mixed-effects conditional logistic models. We pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) for patient and endoscopist satisfaction and efficiency outcomes using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Nine studies of 1427 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in cardiorespiratory outcomes (hypotension, hypoxia, bradycardia) between sedative groups. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups, with most patients reporting willingness to undergo a future colonoscopy with the same sedative regimen. In the meta-analysis, patients sedated with propofol had greater satisfaction than those sedated with midazolam (± short-acting opioids) (SMD, .54; 95% confidence interval [CI], .30-.79); however, there was considerable heterogeneity. Procedure time was similar between groups (SMD, .15; 95% CI, .04-.27), but recovery time was shorter in the propofol group (SMD, .41; 95% CI, .08-.74). The median difference in recovery time was 3 minutes, 6 seconds shorter in patients sedated with propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

Both propofol and midazolam (± short-acting opioids) result in high patient satisfaction and appear to be safe for use in colonoscopy. The marginal benefits to propofol are small improvements in satisfaction and recovery time.

Cecal intubation rates in different eras of endoscopic technological development

Introduction

Colonoscopy plays a critical role in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and has been widely regarded as the gold standard. Cecal intubation rate (CIR) is one of the well-defined quality indicators used to assess colonoscopy.

Aim

To assess the impact of new technologies on the quality of colonoscopy by assessing completion rates.

Material and methods

This was a dual-center study at the 2^nd Department of Surgery at Jagiellonian University Medical College and at the Specialist Center “Medicina” in Krakow, Poland. The CIR and cecal intubation time (CIT) in three different eras of technological advancement were determined. The study enrolled 27 463 patients who underwent colonoscopy as part of a national CRC screening program. The patients were divided into three groups: group I – 3408 patients examined between 2000 and 2003 (optical endoscopes); group II – 10 405 patients examined between 2004 and 2008 (standard electronic endoscopes); and group III – 13 650 patients examined between 2009 and 2014 (modern endoscopes).

Results

There were statistically significant differences in the CIR between successive eras. The CIR in group I (2000–2003) was 69.75%, in group II (2004–2008) was 92.32%, and in group III (2009–2014) was 95.17%. The mean CIT was significantly reduced in group III.

Conclusions

Our study shows that the technological innovation of novel endoscopy devices has a great influence on the effectiveness of the CRC screening program. The new era of endoscopic technological development has the potential to reduce examination-related patient discomfort, obviate the need for sedation and increase diagnostic yields.

Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic modality. A large proportion of the population is likely to undergo colonoscopy for diagnosis and treatment of colorectal diseases, or when participating in colorectal cancer screening programs. To reduce pain, water infusion instead of traditional air insufflation during the insertion phase of the colonoscopy has been proposed, thereby improving patients' acceptance of the procedure. Moreover, the water infusion method may improve early detection of precancerous neoplasms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare water infusion techniques with standard air insufflation, specifically evaluating technical quality and screening efficacy, as well as patients' acceptance of the water infusion procedure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialized Register (February 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to February 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to February 2014), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1999 to February 2014) for eligible randomised controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing water infusion (water exchange or water immersion methods) against standard air insufflation during the insertion phase of the colonoscopy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and extracted data from eligible studies. We performed analysis using Review Manager software (RevMan 5).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 randomised controlled trials consisting of 2933 colonoscopies. Primary outcome measures were cecal intubation rate and adenoma detection; secondary outcomes were time needed to reach the cecum, pain experienced by participants during the procedure, completion of cecal intubation without sedation/analgesia, and adverse events. Completeness of colonoscopy, that is cecal intubation rate, was similar between water infusion and standard air insufflation (risk ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03, P = 0.93). Adenoma detection rate, that is number of participants with at least one detected adenoma, was slightly improved with water infusion (risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.30, P = 0.007). Assuming the fraction of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy who had one or more adenomas detected was 20 per 100 with standard colonoscopy, the use of water colonoscopy may increase the fraction to 23 per 100 individuals. From our findings, it is possible that up to 68,000 more of the 1.7 million outpatient screening colonoscopies performed annually in the United States, could detect adenomas if water infusion colonoscopy was used. In addition, with water infusion participants experienced significantly less pain (mean difference in pain score on a 0 to 10 scale: -1.57, 95% CI -2.00 to -1.14, P < 0.00001) and a significantly lower proportion of participants requested on-demand sedation or analgesia, or both (risk ratio 1.20, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.27, P < 0.00001). Qualitative analysis suggests that water infusion colonoscopy was not associated with a markedly increased rate of adverse events compared with the standard procedure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Completeness of colonoscopy, that is cecal intubation rate, was not improved by water infusion compared with standard air insufflation colonoscopy. However, adenoma detection, assessed with two different measures (that is adenoma detection rate and number of detected adenomas per procedure), was slightly augmented by the water infusion colonoscopy. Improved adenoma detection might be due to the cleansing effects of water infusions on the mucosa. Detection of premalignant lesions during standard colonoscopy is suboptimal, and so improvements in adenoma detection by water infusion colonoscopy, although small, may help to reduce the risk of interval colorectal carcinoma. The most obvious benefit of water infusion colonoscopy was reduction of procedure-related abdominal pain, which may enhance the acceptance of screening/surveillance colonoscopy.

Variation of quality of colonoscopy in Italy over five years: a nation-wide observational study

BACKGROUND/AIM

A nation-wide survey of colonoscopy practice carried out in 2004 showed disappointing data on colonoscopy quality in Italy. Present study was aimed prospectively at re-evaluating quality indicators of colonoscopy and their changes over a five-year-period.

METHODS

The main features of each Endoscopy Unit and performance indicators on consecutive colonoscopies performed in a 2-week period were recorded. Variation of colonoscopy quality was assessed by comparing caecal-intubation and polyp-detection rates in present survey with those collected five-years before; statistical analysis was restricted to centres participating in both data collections.

RESULTS

6158 colonoscopies from 116 centres were evaluated; unadjusted caecal-intubation rate was 83.0%, with 21.6% centres reporting a value >90%; mean polyp-detection rate was 32.0% (range 9.6-71.2% across centres). To assess variation of performance indicators, 4452 procedures from 77 centres were compared to 3589 procedures performed five-years before, in the same centres. A significant difference between the two rounds of data collections was observed for both caecal-intubation (82.6% versus 80.9%, p=0.043) and polyp-detection (31.3% versus 28.1%, p=0.002). However, 52 centres maintained a caecal-intubation rate constantly <90%.

CONCLUSIONS

Present data show that colonoscopy in Italy is still far below quality standards and that a significant improvement of practice did not occur over the last five years. Strategies to enhance colonoscopy quality should be pursued by professional societies.

Difficult colonoscopies in the propofol era

BACKGROUND

To study the relationship between endoscopic practice and adverse events during colonoscopy under standard deep sedation induced and monitored by an anesthetist.

METHODS

We investigated the routine activity of an endoscopy center at the Padova University teaching hospital. We considered not only endoscopic and cardiorespiratory complications, but also the need to use high-dose propofol to complete the procedure, and the inability to complete the procedure. Variables relating to the patient's clinical conditions, bowel preparation, the endoscopist's and the anesthetist's experience, and the duration of the procedure were input in the model.

RESULTS

617 procedures under deep sedation were performed with a 5% rate of adverse events. The average dose of propofol used was 2.6 ± 1.2 mg/kg. In all, 14 endoscopists and 42 anesthetists were involved in the procedures. The logistic regression analysis identified female gender (OR=2.3), having the colonoscopy performed by a less experienced endoscopist (OR=1.9), inadequate bowel preparation (OR=3.2) and a procedure lasting longer than 17.5 minutes (OR=1.6) as the main risk factors for complications. An ASA score of 2 carried a 50% risk reduction (OR=0.5).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Our model showed that none of the variables relating to anesthesiological issues influenced which procedures would prove difficult.

Colometer: A real-time quality feedback system for screening colonoscopy

AIM: To investigate the performance of a new software-based colonoscopy quality assessment system.

METHODS: The software-based system employs a novel image processing algorithm which detects the levels of image clarity, withdrawal velocity, and level of the bowel preparation in a real-time fashion from live video signal. Threshold levels of image blurriness and the withdrawal velocity below which the visualization could be considered adequate have initially been determined arbitrarily by review of sample colonoscopy videos by two experienced endoscopists. Subsequently, an overall colonoscopy quality rating was computed based on the percentage of the withdrawal time with adequate visualization (scored 1-5; 1, when the percentage was 1%-20%; 2, when the percentage was 21%-40%, etc.). In order to test the proposed velocity and blurriness thresholds, screening colonoscopy withdrawal videos from a specialized ambulatory colon cancer screening center were collected, automatically processed and rated. Quality ratings on the withdrawal were compared to the insertion in the same patients. Then, 3 experienced endoscopists reviewed the collected videos in a blinded fashion and rated the overall quality of each withdrawal (scored 1-5; 1, poor; 3, average; 5, excellent) based on 3 major aspects: image quality, colon preparation, and withdrawal velocity. The automated quality ratings were compared to the averaged endoscopist quality ratings using Spearman correlation coefficient.

RESULTS: Fourteen screening colonoscopies were assessed. Adenomatous polyps were detected in 4/14 (29%) of the collected colonoscopy video samples. As a proof of concept, the Colometer software rated colonoscope withdrawal as having better visualization than the insertion in the 10 videos which did not have any polyps (average percent time with adequate visualization: 79% ± 5% for withdrawal and 50% ± 14% for insertion, P < 0.01). Withdrawal times during which no polyps were removed ranged from 4-12 min. The median quality rating from the automated system and the reviewers was 3.45 [interquartile range (IQR), 3.1-3.68] and 3.00 (IQR, 2.33-3.67) respectively for all colonoscopy video samples. The automated rating revealed a strong correlation with the reviewer’s rating (ρ coefficient= 0.65, P = 0.01). There was good correlation of the automated overall quality rating and the mean endoscopist withdrawal speed rating (Spearman r coefficient= 0.59, P = 0.03). There was no correlation of automated overall quality rating with mean endoscopists image quality rating (Spearman r coefficient= 0.41, P = 0.15).

CONCLUSION: The results from a novel automated real-time colonoscopy quality feedback system strongly agreed with the endoscopists’ quality assessments. Further study is required to validate this approach.

Capnographic monitoring reduces the incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation and hypoxemia during propofol sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled study (ColoCap Study)

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this randomized study was to determine whether intervention based on additional capnographic monitoring reduces the incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation during propofol sedation for colonoscopy.

METHODS

Patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (ASA) 1-3) scheduled for colonoscopy under propofol sedation were randomly assigned to either a control arm with standard monitoring (standard arm) or an interventional arm in which additional capnographic monitoring (capnography arm) was available. In both study arms, detection of apnea or altered respiration induced withholding propofol administration, stimulation of the patient, chin lift maneuver, or further measures. The primary study end point was the incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation (defined as a fall in oxygen saturation (SaO(2)) of ≥5% or <90%); secondary end points included the occurrences of hypoxemia (SaO(2) <90%), severe hypoxemia (SaO(2) ≤85%), bradycardia, hypotension, and the quality of sedation (patient cooperation and patient satisfaction).

RESULTS

A total of 760 patients were enrolled at three German endoscopy centers. The intention-to-treat analysis revealed a significant reduction of the incidence of oxygen desaturation in the capnography arm in comparison with the standard arm (38.9% vs. 53.2%; P<0.001). The numbers of patients with a fall in SaO(2) <90% and ≤85% were also significantly different (12.5% vs. 19.8%; P=0.008 and 3.7 vs. 7.8%; P=0.018). There were no differences regarding the rates of bradycardia and hypotension. Quality of sedation was similar in both groups. Results of statistical analyses were maintained for the per-protocol population.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional capnographic monitoring of ventilatory activity reduces the incidence of oxygen desaturation and hypoxemia during propofol sedation for colonoscopy.

Underutilisation of the gastroscope for total colonoscopy in adults: a survey of two European countries

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

High caecal intubation success rates have been reported with the gastroscope in adults. We surveyed the current use of the gastroscope for total colonoscopy in adults in the UK and Greece.

METHODS

A questionnaire was e-mailed to 952 members of the British Society of Gastroenterology (UK) and 478 members of the Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology (GR), enquiring as to access to a paediatric colonoscope, use of gastroscope for total colonoscopy and estimate of caecal intubation success rate.

RESULTS

Valid replies were 17.4% from UK and 19.7% from GR. The paediatric colonoscope was available to 106/138 (77%) UK and to only 18/86 (21%) GR respondents (p = 0.0002). Of all the UK and GR respondents, 109/138 (79%) and 68/86 (79%), respectively, did not use the gastroscope for total colonoscopy. For the use of the gastroscope for total colonoscopy, 26/29 (89%) UK and 9/18 (50%) GR users did so, while a paediatric colonoscope was also available (p = 0.001), and 3/29 (10.3%) UK and 9/18 (50%) GR users did so, whilst they had no access to a paediatric colonoscope (p = 0.001). Estimated gastroscope caecal intubation success rate was 69% (SD 0.26) UK and 46% (SD 0.36) GR, p = 0.008. Only 37% UK and 28% GR respondents used the gastroscope to examine the left colon.

CONCLUSIONS

The gastroscope is underutilised for total colonoscopy in both the UK and Greece. Use of the gastroscope does not appear to be related to lack of access to a paediatric colonoscope in the UK but may be in GR. Gastroscope caecal intubation success rate justifies its use where the colonoscope fails.

STOP questionnaire to screen for hypoxemia in deep sedation for young and middle-aged colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hypoxemia is the most common unexpected cardiopulmonary complication that is used as a surrogate for severe complications in colonoscopy. The aim of the present study was to access the STOP Questionnaire to screen for hypoxemia in deep sedation for colonoscopy in young and middle-aged outpatients.

METHODS

Outpatients aged 18-65 with ASA class I or II who were to undergo elective colonoscopy with deep sedation were offered participation. Before sedation, the patients were given the STOP Questionnaire, a brief survey that stratifies patients into high or low risk of hypoxemia. Data on pulse oxygen saturation (SpO(2) ) were collected during sedation. Hypoxemia was defined as SpO(2)<95% anytime during the procedure, regardless of episode duration. We estimated the score of the STOP Questionnaire and the incidence of hypoxemia.

RESULTS

A total of 210 consecutive outpatients were offered enrollment. Thirteen (6.2%) patients had hypoxemia. Thirty-two (15.2%) patients were scored to be at high risk of hypoxemia, of whom 10 had hypoxemia. Results of analyzing the STOP Questionnaire for the incidence of hypoxemia were sensitivity 76.9%, specificity 88.8%, Youden's index 0.658, consistency rate 88%, kappa value 0.39, positive predictive value 31.3%, negative predictive value 98.3%, and area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve 0.935 (P<0.001, 95% CI 0.879-0.991).

CONCLUSIONS

STOP Questionnaire is a validated and easy-to-use screening tool for hypoxemia in outpatient colonoscopy. It has high sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value.

Propofol, the preferred sedation for screening colonoscopy, is underused. Results of an international survey

BACKGROUND

The use of propofol during colonoscopy has become more widespread. To increase availability while maintaining quality and decreasing costs, European Guidelines have been issued for non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP). We aimed to assess the current use of propofol during screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

International survey.

RESULTS

Eighty-four questionnaires were collected from endoscopists practicing in 29 countries. Practices were most often located in high-volume community hospitals (Italy, Belgium, Spain, Netherlands in half cases). An anesthesiologist was regularly present in the Endoscopy Unit of 69.0% survey respondents. In low-risk (ASA classification, 1-2) patients, propofol, benzodiazepine+opioids and benzodiazepine alone were used in 45%, 31% and 14% of screening colonoscopies, respectively. Propofol was associated with the highest endoscopist satisfaction (score on a 10-point visual analogue scale, 9.2±1.2 vs. 5.5±1.9 and 4.7±2.0 for benzodiazepine+opioids and benzodiazepine alone, respectively; P<0.0001). NAAP was used by 29.9% of respondents in 9 countries and approximately two-thirds of other endoscopists would consider implementing NAAP. Main reasons for not considering NAAP implementation were medico-legal issues and cost.

CONCLUSION

Propofol provides the highest endoscopist satisfaction but it is used in less than half of screening colonoscopies. Propofol is administered by non-anesthesiologists in one-third of settings; its implementation is foreseen by a majority of endoscopists who do not currently use it.

Unsedated colonoscopy: A neverending story

Although sedation and analgesia for patients undergoing colonoscopy is the standard practice in Western countries, unsedated colonoscopy is still routinely provided in Europe and the Far East. This variation in sedation practice relies on the different cultural attitudes of both patients and endoscopists across these countries. Data from the literature consistently report that, in unsedated patients, the use of alternative techniques, such as warm water irrigation or carbon dioxide insufflation, can allow a high quality and well tolerated examination.

Quality indicators for colonoscopy procedures: a prospective multicentre method for endoscopy units

Background and Aims

Healthcare professionals are required to conduct quality control of endoscopy procedures, and yet there is no standardised method for assessing quality. The topic of the present study was to validate the applicability of the procedure in daily practice, giving physicians the ability to define areas for continuous quality improvement.

Methods

In ten endoscopy units in France, 200 patients per centre undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled in the study. An evaluation was carried out based on a prospectively developed checklist of 10 quality-control indicators including five dependent upon and five independent of the colonoscopy procedure.

Results

Of the 2000 procedures, 30% were done at general hospitals, 20% at university hospitals, and 50% in private practices. The colonoscopies were carried out for a valid indication for 95.9% (range 92.5–100). Colon preparation was insufficient in 3.7% (range 1–10.5). Colonoscopies were successful in 95.3% (range 81–99). Adenoma detection rate was 0.31 (range 0.17–0.45) in successful colonoscopies.

Conclusion

This tool for evaluating the quality of colonoscopy procedures in healthcare units is based on standard endoscopy and patient criteria. It is an easy and feasible procedure giving the ability to detect suboptimal practice and differences between endoscopy-units. It will enable individual units to assess the quality of their colonoscopy techniques.

Functional evaluation of the endotics system, a new disposable self-propelled robotic colonoscope: in vitro tests and clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Currently, the best method for CRC screening is colonoscopy, which ideally (where possible) is performed under partial or deep sedation. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Endotics System, a new robotic device composed of a workstation and a disposable probe, in performing accurate and well-tolerated colonoscopies. This new system could also be considered a precursor of other innovating vectors for atraumatic locomotion through natural orifices such as the bowel. The flexible probe adapts its shape to the complex contours of the colon, thereby exerting low strenuous forces during its movement. These novel characteristics allow for a painless and safe colonoscopy, thus eliminating all major associated risks such as infection, cardiopulmonary complications and colon perforation.

METHODS

An experimental study was devised to investigate stress pattern differences between traditional and robotic colonoscopy, in which 40 enrolled patients underwent both robotic and standard colonoscopy within the same day.

RESULTS

The stress pattern related to robotic colonoscopy was 90% lower than that of standard colonoscopy. Additionally, the robotic colonoscopy demonstrated a higher diagnostic accuracy, since, due to the lower insufflation rate, it was able to visualize small polyps and angiodysplasias not seen during the standard colonoscopy. All patients rated the robotic colonoscopy as virtually painless compared to the standard colonoscopy, ranking pain and discomfort as 0.9 and 1.1 respectively, on a scale of O to 10, versus 6.9 and 6.8 respectively for the standard device.

CONCLUSIONS

The new Endotics System demonstrates efficacy in the diagnosis of colonic pathologies using a procedure nearly completely devoid of pain. Therefore, this system can also be looked upon as the first step toward developing and implementing colonoscopy with atraumatic locomotion through the bowel while maintaining a high level of diagnostic accuracy;

Sedation in digestive endoscopy: the Athens international position statements

BACKGROUND

Guidelines and practice standards for sedation in endoscopy have been developed by various national professional societies. No attempt has been made to assess consensus among internationally recognized experts in this field.

AIM

To identify areas of consensus and dissent among international experts on a broad range of issues pertaining to the practice of sedation in digestive endoscopy.

METHODS

Thirty-two position statements were reviewed during a 1 (1/2)-day meeting. Thirty-two individuals from 12 countries and four continents, representing the fields of gastroenterology, anaesthesiology and medical jurisprudence heard evidence-based presentations on each statement. Level of agreement among the experts for each statement was determined by an open poll.

RESULTS

The principle recommendations included the following: (i) sedation improves patient tolerance and compliance for endoscopy, (ii) whenever possible, patients undergoing endoscopy should be offered the option of having the procedure either with or without sedation, (iii) monitoring of vital signs as well as the levels of consciousness and pain/discomfort should be performed routinely during endoscopy, and (iv) endoscopists and nurses with appropriate training can safely and effectively administer propofol to low-risk patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

While the standards of practice vary from country to country, there was broad agreement among participants regarding most issues pertaining to sedation during endoscopy.

Pain relief by applying transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) during unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a noninvasive alternative to traditional pain treatments. TENS has been studied in the past as a pain reduction modality in colonoscopy with limited success. Reviews and meta-analysis have shown that the inconclusive results of TENS may be due to the lack of randomized controlled trials and the difficulty in defining precise output parameters. The objective of this double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial was to investigate the pain-relieving effect of a new application of TENS in unsedated screening colonoscopy. Ninety patients undergoing unsedated screening colonoscopy were randomly allocated to one of three groups: a control group (n=30), a group to receive active TENS (n=30), or a group to receive placebo TENS (n=30). A visual analogue scale (VAS) and a five-point Likert scale were used to assess pain 5 min into the procedure and at the end of the procedure. The patient's bloating sensation during colonoscopy and the effect on the duration of the procedure were also evaluated. Throughout the procedure, the active TENS group experienced a VAS pain score reduction ≥50% compared to the placebo TENS group (P<0.001) and the control group (P<0.001). On the five-point Likert scale, there was also a significant reduction in pain score in the active TENS group compared to the placebo TENS and control groups (P=0.009). No significant differences were found between the study groups as to the bloating sensation and the duration of the procedure. We conclude that TENS can be used as a pain relief therapy in unsedated screening colonoscopy.

Training and transfer of colonoscopy skills: a multinational, randomized, blinded, controlled trial of simulator versus bedside training

BACKGROUND

The Olympus colonoscopy simulator provides a high-fidelity training platform designed to develop knowledge and skills in colonoscopy. It has the potential to shorten the learning process to competency.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of the simulator in training novices in colonoscopy by comparing training outcomes from simulator training with those of standard patient-based training.

DESIGN

Multinational, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

Four academic endoscopy centers in the United Kingdom, Italy, and The Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION

This study included 36 novice colonoscopists who were randomized to 16 hours of simulator training (subjects) or patient-based training (controls). Participants completed 3 simulator cases before and after training. Three live cases were assessed after training by blinded experts.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Automatically recorded performance metrics for the simulator cases and blinded expert assessment of live cases using Direct Observation of Procedural Skills and Global Score sheets.

RESULTS

Simulator training significantly improved performance on simulated cases compared with patient-based training. Subjects had higher completion rates (P=.001) and shorter completion times (P < .001) and demonstrated superior technical skill (reduced simulated pain scores, correct use of abdominal pressure, and loop management). On live colonoscopy, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups.

LIMITATIONS

Assessment tools for live colonoscopies may lack sensitivity to discriminate between the skills of relative novices.

CONCLUSION

Performance of novices trained on the colonoscopy simulator matched the performance of those with standard patient-based colonoscopy training, and novices in the simulator group demonstrated superior technical skills on simulated cases. The simulator should be considered as a tool for developing knowledge and skills prior to clinical practice.

Colonoscopy and its complications across a Canadian regional health authority

BACKGROUND

Defining the complication rate of endoscopy performed across an entire city will capture usual as opposed to referral center data.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to evaluate the current practice of colonoscopy and complications associated with lower GI endoscopy in usual clinical practice.

DESIGN

All admissions within 30 days of an outpatient lower GI endoscopy at any of the 6 adult-care Winnipeg hospitals were identified. This includes endoscopy for both complex and routine patients. A chart audit of all cases with potential complications was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 24,509 outpatient lower GI endoscopies for adults were performed at the 6 hospitals over the 2 study years (April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2006). There were 303 admissions with potential complications. The colonoscopy completion rate was 65% (72% for gastroenterologists vs 59% for general surgeons, P < .005). Quality of bowel preparation and nature of polyps were often not documented. The overall rate of complications was 2.9/1000 procedures; the perforation rate after polypectomy was 1.8/1000; and the postpolypectomy bleeding rate was 6.4/1000. Most (67%) complications were recognized after discharge for the index procedure. The complication rate was highest for the endoscopists performing fewer than 200 procedures per year (5.4/1000 vs 2.7/1000 for the rest, P = .02, relative risk 2 [95% CI, 1.1-3.7]).

LIMITATIONS

Chart audit was limited to cases requiring admission within 30 days of the index procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall complication rate after lower GI endoscopy in usual clinical practice in Winnipeg is comparable to that previously reported. A higher complication rate after endoscopy by low-volume endoscopists needs to be further evaluated. The reporting of endoscopy must be standardized to enhance outcomes interpretation.

Colonoscopy practice in Italy: a prospective survey on behalf of the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists

BACKGROUND

Examining the current practice is important for the benchmarking of quality of colonoscopy and the comparison with the standards and recommendations expected by professional societies.

AIM

To describe colonoscopy practice in Italy, on the basis of prospective analysis of a large number of examinations performed by operators with different levels of expertise in a wide range of unselected centres.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional, prospective and multicentre study.

METHODS

The main features of each endoscopy centre (structure indicators) were collected through the use of a standardised questionnaire. A second questionnaire was used to prospectively record details of all the consecutive colonoscopies performed in a 2-week study period.

RESULTS

Data from 278 centres and 12,835 consecutive colonoscopies were evaluated. Centres were uniformly distributed throughout Italy - north, centre and south - as was their organizational complexity and workload. Overall, adequate facilities (i.e. cleaning area for disinfection/reprocessing, equipped recovery room), and safety equipment (i.e. pulse oximetry, equipment for emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation) were lacking in a considerable amount of centres, especially in those with a lower degree of organizational complexity. Written informed consent was routinely required in 87% of the centres, but a specific consent for colonoscopy, including detailed information on adverse events, was adopted by 66%. Regular programs for recording some quality indicators (i.e. cecal intubation, quality of bowel cleansing, patients' satisfaction and complications) were implemented in a minority of centres. About 93% of the colonoscopies were performed for diagnostic purpose; screening and surveillance accounted for 13.7% and 25.3% of the indications, respectively. Sedation and/or analgesia was administered in about half of the patients. Overall, colonoscopies were completed to the cecum in 80.7% of cases, and only 22.1% of the centres reported a cecal intubation rate >or=90%; this figure was reported in 33.1% of centres with high-organizational complexity and in 14.4% of outpatient units. The overall incidence of immediate complications was low (2 perforations, 26 bleedings and 32 serious cardiorespiratory complications).

CONCLUSIONS

This study documented a wide variation in colonoscopy practice between centres and highlighted problem areas where interventions are needed to improve performance and safety of the examinations.

Factors associated with the technical performance of colonoscopy: An EPAGE Study

BACKGROUND

Variations in colonoscopy practice exist, which may be related to healthcare quality.

AIMS

To determine factors associated with three performance indicators of colonoscopy: complete colonoscopy, adenomatous polyp diagnosis, and duration.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy from 21 centres in 11 countries.

METHODS

This prospective observational study used multiple variable regression analyses to identify determinants of the quality indicators.

RESULTS

Six thousand and four patients were included in the study. Patients from private, open-access centres (odds ratio: 3.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.87-5.38) were more likely to have a complete colonoscopy than patients from public, gatekeeper centres. Patients from centres where over 50% of the endoscopists were of senior rank were roughly twice as likely to have an adenoma diagnosed, and longer average withdrawal duration (odds ratio: 1.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.07-1.09) was associated with more frequent adenoma diagnoses. Patients who had difficulty during colonoscopy had longer durations to caecum (time ratio: 2.87, 95% confidence interval: 2.72-3.01) and withdrawal durations (time ratio: 1.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.18-1.33) than patients who had no difficulties.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple factors have been identified as being associated with key quality indicators. The non-modifiable factors permit the identification of patients who may be at greater risk of not having quality colonoscopy, while changes to the modifiable factors may help improve the quality of colonoscopy.

The appropriateness of colonoscopy: a multi-center, international, observational study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the appropriateness and necessity of colonoscopy across Europe.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

A total of 21 gastrointestinal centers from 11 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy at each center.

INTERVENTION

Appropriateness criteria developed by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, using the RAND appropriateness method, were used to assess the appropriateness of colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Appropriateness of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 5213 of 6004 (86.8%) patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy and had an appropriateness rating were included in this study. According to the criteria, 20, 26, 27, or 27% of colonoscopies were judged to be necessary, appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate, respectively. Older patients and those with a major illness were more likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication for colonoscopy as compared to healthy patients or patients who were 45-54 years old. As compared to screening patients, patients who underwent colonoscopy for iron-deficiency anemia [OR: 30.84, 95% CI: 19.79-48.06] or change in bowel habits [OR: 3.69, 95% CI: 2.74-4.96] were more likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication, whereas patients who underwent colonoscopy for abdominal pain [OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49-0.83] or chronic diarrhea [OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.40-0.75] were less likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified significant proportions of inappropriate colonoscopies. Prospective use of the criteria by physicians referring for or performing colonoscopies may improve appropriateness and quality of care, especially in younger patients and in patients with nonspecific symptoms.