A113 ANNUAL COLONOSCOPY VOLUME IS NOT PREDICTIVE OF COLONOSCOPY QUALITY - FINDINGS FROM THE SOUTHWEST ONTARIO COLONOSCOPY COHORT

Background

Performing a minimum number of colonoscopies annually has been proposed by some jurisdictions as a requirement for maintaining privileges. However, this practice is supported by limited evidence.

Aims

The objective of this study was to determine if annual colonoscopy volume was associated with colonoscopy quality metrics.

Methods

A population-based study was performed using the Southwest Ontario Colonoscopy cohort, which consists of all adult patients who underwent colonoscopy between April 2017 and Oct 2018 at 21 academic and community hospitals within the health region. Data were collected through a mandatory quality assurance form completed after each procedure and pathology reports were manually reviewed. Physician annualized colonoscopy volumes were compared by correlation analysis to each quality-related outcome, by means of the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), and logistic regression. The prognostic value of colonoscopy volume was also adjusted for case-mix and potential confounders in separate regression analyses for each outcome. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate (PDR), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR), and cecal intubation.

Results

A total of 47,195 colonoscopies were performed by 75 physicians (37.5% by gastroenterologists, 60% by general surgeons, 2.5% others). There were no clear relationships between annual colonoscopy volumes and study outcomes. Colonoscopy volume was not associated with ADR (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96–1.10, p=0.48) and corresponded to an AUROC not significantly different from the null (AUROC 0.52, 95% CI 0.43–0.61, p=0.65). Multi-variable regression adjusting for case-mix also demonstrated no predictive value of annual colonoscopy volume for the primary outcome (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94–1.12, p=0.55). Similarly, analyses of secondary outcomes failed to find an association between colonoscopy volume and PDR, SSPDR, or cecal intubation (Table 1).

Conclusions

Annual colonoscopy volumes do not predict ADR, PDR, SSPDR, or cecal intubation rate.

Results of unconditional and conditional approaches for examining the predictive value of annual colonoscopy volume for quality related outcomes.

Funding Agencies

None

A117 PROPOFOL SEDATION DOES NOT IMPROVE MEASURES OF COLONOSCOPY QUALITY – FINDINGS FROM THE SOUTHWEST ONTARIO COLONOSCOPY COHORT

Background

The use of propofol during colonoscopy has gained increased popularity due to deeper anesthesia compared to conscious sedation. Prior studies examining the use of propofol sedation during colonoscopy have primarily focused on anesthesia outcomes. Whether propofol sedation is associated with improvements in colonoscopy outcomes is uncertain.

Aims

The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes were the detection of any adenoma (conventional adenoma, sessile serrated polyp, and traditional serrated adenoma), sessile serrated polyp detection rate, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, and perforation rate.

Methods

The Southwest Ontario Colonoscopy cohort consists of all patients who underwent colonoscopy between April 2017 and Oct 2018 at 21 hospitals serving a large geographic area in Southwest Ontario. Procedures performed in patients less than 18 years of age or by endoscopist who perform <50 colonoscopies/year were excluded. Data were collected through a mandatory quality assurance form that was completed by the endoscopist after each procedure. Pathology reports were manually reviewed.

Results

A total of 46,634 colonoscopies were performed by 75 physicians (37.5% by gastroenterologists, 60% by general surgeons, 2.5% others) of which 16,408 (35.2%) received propofol and 30,226 (64.8%) received conscious sedation (e.g. combination of a benzodiazepine and a narcotic). Patients who received propofol were likely to have a screening indication (49.2% vs 45.5%, p<0.0001), not have a trainee endoscopist present and be performed at a non-academic centre (32.2% vs 44.6%, p<0.0001). Compared to conscious sedation, use of propofol was associated with a lower ADR (24.6% vs. 27.0%, p<0.0001) and detection of any adenoma (27.7% vs. 29.8%, p<0.0001); no difference was observed in the detection ofsessile serrated polyps (5.0% vs. 4.7%, p=0.26), polyp detection rate (41.2% vs 41.2%, p=0.978), cecal intubation rate (97.1% vs. 96.8%, p=0.15) or perforation rate (0.04% vs. 0.06%,p=0.45). On multi-variable analysis, the use of propofol was not significantly associated with any improvement in ADR (RR=0.90, 95% CI 0.74–1.10, p=0.30), detection of any adenoma (RR=0.93, 95% CI 0.75–1.14, p=0.47), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (RR=1.20, 95%CI 0.90–1.60, p=0.22), polyp detection rate (RR=1.00, 95% CI 0.90–1.11, p=0.99), or cecal intubation rate (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.80–1.26, p=0.99).

Conclusions

The use of propofol sedation does not improve colonoscopy quality metrics.

Funding Agencies

None

A120 NO EVIDENCE OF A FRIDAY EFFECT ON COLONOSCOPY QUALITY OUTCOMES

Background

Colonoscopy quality may be influenced by operator fatigue. Prior studies have shown lower adenoma detection rates for procedures performed at the end of the day. However, it is unknown if colonoscopy quality is impaired at the end of the work week.

Aims

We investigated whether colonoscopy quality-related metrics differ at the end of the work week using the South West Ontario Colonoscopy Cohort.

Methods

Between April 2017 to February 2018, 45,510 consecutive colonoscopies from 20 academic and community hospitals in our health region were captured to form the cohort. In Canada, outpatient endoscopies are generally performed between Monday to Friday, taking Friday, or the last business day, as the last day of the work week compared to the rest of the work week. When a statutory holiday occurred on a Friday, Thursday was designated the last day of the work week. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), and secondary outcomes were sessile serrated polyp detection rate (ssPDR), polyp detection rate (PDR), and failed cecal intubation. Outcomes were presented as unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios derived from modified Poisson regression and adjusting for physician-level clustering, and characteristics of the patient (age, sex, severity), procedure (hospital setting, trainee presence, indication, sedation, bowel preparation quality) and physician (experience and specialty).

Results

During the observation period, 9,132 colonoscopies were performed on the last day of the work week compared to 36,378 procedures during the rest of the work week. No significant difference was observed for ADR (26.4% vs. 26.6%, p=0.75), ssPDR (4.5% vs. 5.0%, p=0.12), PDR (44.1% vs. 43.1%, p=0.081), or failed cecal intubation (2.8% vs. 2.9%, p=0.51) for colonoscopies performed on the last day of the work week compared to the rest of the week, respectively. After adjusting for potential confounders, there were no significant differences in the ADR (RR 1.01, 95% CI [0.88, 1.15], p=0.94), ssPDR (RR 0.90, 95% CI [0.70, 1.14], p=0.38), PDR (RR 1.00, 95% CI [0.92, 1.09], p=0.94), or failed cecal intubation (RR 0.92, 95% CI [0.72, 1.18], p=0.51) for colonoscopies performed on the last day of the work week compared to the rest of week, respectively.

Conclusions

Colonoscopy quality metrics, including ADR, ssPDR, PDR, and failed cecal intubation are not significantly different at the end of the week.

Funding Agencies

None