Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: comparison of mannitol and sodium phosphate. Results of a prospective randomized study

METHOD: Eighty patients were prospectively randomized for precolonoscopic cleansing either with 750 ml of 10% mannitol (Group M) or 180 ml of a sodium phosphate preparation (Group NaP). Laboratory examinations before and after preparation on all patients included hemoglobin, hematocrit, sodium, potassium, phosphorous, calcium and serum osmolarity. A questionnaire was used to assess undesirable side effects and patient tolerance to the solution. The quality of preparation was assessed by the endoscopist who was unaware of the solution employed. RESULTS: Statistically significant changes were verified in serum sodium, phosphorous, potassium and calcium between the two groups, but no clinical symptoms were observed. There were no significant differences in the frequency of side effects studied. Six of the eight patients in Group NaP who had taken mannitol for a previous colonoscopy claimed better acceptance of the sodium phosphate solution. The endoscopic-blinded trial reported excellent or good bowel preparation in 85% prepared with sodium phosphate versus 82.5% for mannitol (p=0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Quality of preparation and frequency of side effects was similar in the two solutions. The smaller volume of sodium phosphate necessary for preparation seems to be related to its favorable acceptance. Nevertheless, the retention of sodium and phosphate ions contraindicates the use of sodium phosphate in patients with renal failure, cirrhosis, ascites, and heart failure.

Role of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents the third most common malignancy throughout the world. Little or no improvement in survival has been effectively achieved in the last 50 years. Extensive epidemiological and genetic data are able to identify more precisely definite risk-groups so screening and early diagnosis can be more frequently accomplished. CRC is best detected by colonoscopy, which allows sampling for histologic diagnosis. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for detection of small and premalignant lesions, although it is not cost-effective for screening average-risk population. Colonoscopic polypectomy and mucosal resection constitute curative treatment for selective cases of invasive CRC. Similarly, alternative trans-colonoscopic treatment can be offered for adequate palliation, thus avoiding surgery.

Is MDCT enough reliable for the evaluation of acute colitis including the underlying etiology? : correlation with colonoscopy and pathology : P2

Purpose: 1. To assess the diagnostic value of MDCT for acute colitis of various origin confirmed by colonoscopy and histology. 2. To evaluate the accuracy of MDCT of making the correct differential diagnosis. Methods and materials: The electronic hospital database from January 2006 to August 2008 revealed 351 patients with acute colitis of any origin wdetected by colonoscopy. In 85 out of these patients MDCT had been simultaneously performed (delay 3.1 days). Two radiologists jointly reviewed their corresponding CT features without knowledge of pathology and correlated them with the final histological diagnosis. Results: Eighty patients were finally included (46 women, mean age 63.4). Colitis was of ischemic (n = 35, 44%) or infectious (n = 15, 19%) origin. 18 patients (23%) had acute ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease, in 10 patients (12%) another inflammatory cause and in two patients (2%) post radiation colitis was proven. MDCT was positive in 63 patients (78.9%). In 11 out of the 17 negative MDCT, the examination had been performed without large bowel distention. Ischemic colitis was responsible for 47.1% of the negative MDCT. Correct differential diagnosis was made in 32 (50.7%) out of the 63 positive MDCT. Among the different etiologies, the ischemic colitis was the most often misdiagnosed cause (n = 17, 58.6%). Conclusion: Large bowel distension is mandatory for reliable MDCT detection of acute colitis of any origin. Among the different aetiologies the ischemic cause is the most often associated with false negative MDCT findings and, in case of positive features, the most difficult to recognize as such.

Colonoscopy is the preferred colorectal cancer screening method in a population-based program.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Various screening methods for colorectal cancer (CRC) are promoted by professional societies; however, few data are available about the factors that determine patient participation in screening, which is crucial to the success of population-based programs. This study aimed (i) to identify factors that determine acceptance of screening and preference of screening method, and (ii) to evaluate procedure success, detection of colorectal neoplasia, and patient satisfaction with screening colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Following a public awareness campaign, the population aged 50 - 80 years was offered CRC screening in the form of annual fecal occult blood tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, a combination of both, or colonoscopy. RESULTS: 2731 asymptomatic persons (12.0 % of the target population) registered with and were eligible to take part in the screening program. Access to information and a positive attitude to screening were major determinants of participation. Colonoscopy was the method preferred by 74.8 % of participants. Advanced colorectal neoplasia was present in 8.5 %; its prevalence was higher in males and increased with age. Significant complications occurred in 0.5 % of those undergoing colonoscopy and were associated with polypectomy or sedation. Most patients were satisfied with colonoscopy and over 90 % would choose it again for CRC screening. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, only a small proportion of the target population underwent CRC screening despite an extensive information campaign. Colonoscopy was the preferred method and was safe. The determinants of participation in screening and preference of screening method, together with the distribution of colorectal neoplasia in different demographic categories, provide a rationale for improving screening procedures.

Overuse and underuse of colonoscopy in a European primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to decrease overuse of health care may result in underuse. Overuse and underuse of colonoscopy have never been simultaneously evaluated in the same patient population. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, the appropriateness and necessity of referral for colonoscopy were evaluated by using explicit criteria developed by a standardized expert panel method. Inappropriate referrals constituted overuse. Patients with necessary colonoscopy indications who were not referred constituted underuse. Consecutive ambulatory patients with lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms from 22 general practices in Switzerland, a country with ready access to colonoscopy, were enrolled during a 4-week period. Follow-up data were obtained at 3 months for patients who did not undergo a necessary colonoscopy. RESULTS: Eight thousand seven hundred sixty patient visits were screened for inclusion; 651 patients (7.4%) had lower GI symptoms (mean age 56.4 years, 68% women). Of these, 78 (12%) were referred for colonoscopy. Indications for colonoscopy in 11 patients (14% of colonoscopy referrals or 1.7% of all patients with lower GI symptoms) were judged inappropriate. Among 573 patients not referred for the procedure, underuse ranged between 11% and 28% of all patients with lower GI symptoms, depending on the criteria used. CONCLUSIONS: Applying criteria from an expert panel of nationally recognized experts indicates that underuse of referral for colonoscopy exceeds overuse in primary care in Switzerland. To improve quality of care, both overuse and underuse of important procedures must be addressed.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Surveillance after polypectomy and after resection of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for surveillance after polypectomy and after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer (CRC), and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II. METHODS: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies regarding the evaluation and management of surveillance colonoscopy after polypectomy and after resection of CRC was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions. RESULTS: Most CRCs arise from adenomatous polyps. The characteristics of removed polyps, especially the distinction between low-risk adenomas (1 or 2, small [< 1 cm], tubular, no high-grade dysplasia) vs. high-risk adenomas (large [> or = 1 cm], multiple [> 3], high-grade dysplasia or villous features), have an impact on advanced adenoma recurrence. Most guidelines recommend a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy for high-risk adenomas and a 5-year colonoscopy for low-risk adenomas. Despite the lack of evidence to support or refute any survival benefit for follow-up colonoscopy after curative-intent CRC resection, surveillance colonoscopy is recommended by most guidelines. The timing of the first surveillance colonoscopy differs. The expert panel considered that 56 % of the clinical indications for colonoscopy for surveillance after polypectomy were appropriate. For surveillance after CRC resection, it considered colonoscopy appropriate 1 year after resection. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy is recommended as a first-choice procedure for surveillance after polypectomy by all published guidelines and by the EPAGE II criteria. Despite the limitations of the published studies, colonoscopy is also recommended by most of the guidelines and by EPAGE II criteria for surveillance after curative-intent CRC resection.

The EPAGE internet guideline as a decision support tool for determining the appropriateness of colonoscopy

RÉSUMÉ Contexte : Peu d'études ont examiné la façon dont les médecins appréhendent les guidelines, et encore moins celle dont ils perçoivent de tels guidelines disponibles sur Internet. Cette étude évalue l'acceptation par les médecins d'un guideline électronique portant sur l'adéquation de la colonoscopie. Méthode : Des gastroentérologues participant à une étude observationnelle internationale ont consulté un guideline électronique pour une série consécutive de patients adressés pour une colonoscopie. Le guideline a été élaboré par le Panel Européen sur l'Adéquation de l'Endoscopie Gastro-intestinale (EPAGE en version anglaise), utilisant une méthode validée (RAND). Les opinions des médecins sur le guideline, sur le site Internet et sur les perspectives d'utilisation ont été recueillies au moyen de questionnaires. Résultats : 289 patients ont été inclus dans l'étude. Le temps moyen pour consulter le site Internet a été de 1.8 min et 86% des médecins l'ont considéré comme simple à utiliser. Les recommandations ont été facilement localisées pour 82% des patients et les médecins étaient d'accord avec l'adéquation de la colonoscopie dans 86% des cas. Selon les critères EPAGE, la colonoscopie était appropriée, incertaine et inappropriée, respectivement chez 59, 28 et 13% des patients. Conclusions : Le guideline EPAGE a été considéré comme acceptable et simple à utiliser. L'utilisation, l'utilité et la pertinence du site Internet a été jugée comme acceptable. Son utilisation effective dépendra cependant de la levée de certains obstacles au niveau organisationnel et culturel.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II): presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Appropriate use of colonoscopy is a key component of quality management in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In an update of a 1998 publication, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE II) defined appropriateness criteria for various colonoscopy indications. This introductory paper therefore deals with methodology, general appropriateness, and a review of colonoscopy complications. METHODS:The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to evaluate the appropriateness of various diagnostic colonoscopy indications, with 14 multidisciplinary experts using a scale from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate). Evidence reported in a comprehensive updated literature review was used for these decisions. Consolidation of the ratings into three appropriateness categories (appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate) was based on the median and the heterogeneity of the votes. The experts then met to discuss areas of disagreement in the light of existing evidence, followed by a second rating round, with a subsequent third voting round on necessity criteria, using much more stringent criteria (i. e. colonoscopy is deemed mandatory). RESULTS: Overall, 463 indications were rated, with 55 %, 16 % and 29 % of them being judged appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate, respectively. Perforation and hemorrhage rates, as reported in 39 studies, were in general < 0.1 % and < 0.3 %, respectively CONCLUSIONS: The updated EPAGE II criteria constitute an aid to clinical decision-making but should in no way replace individual judgment. Detailed panel results are freely available on the internet (www.epage.ch) and will thus constitute a reference source of information for clinicians.

Reliability of panel-based guidelines for colonoscopy: an international comparison.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the reliability of explicit guidelines developed using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method. METHODS: The appropriateness of over 400 indications for colonoscopy was rated by two multispecialty expert panels (United States and Switzerland). A nine-point scale was used, which was consolidated into three categories of appropriateness: appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate. The distribution of appropriateness ratings between the two panels and the intrapanel and interpanel agreement for categories of appropriateness were calculated for all possible indications. Similar statistics were calculated for a series of 577 primary care patients referred for colonoscopy in Switzerland. RESULTS: Over 80% of all indications (348) could be directly compared. The proportions of indications classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate were 28.4%, 24.7%, 46.6% and 33.0%, 23.0%, 44.0% for the U.S. and the Swiss panels, respectively. Interpanel agreement was excellent for all the possible indications (kappa value: 0.75) and lower for actual cases (kappa value: 0.51) because of lower agreement for the most frequently encountered indications. CONCLUSIONS: Good agreement between the two sets of criteria was found, pointing to the reliability of the method. Partial disagreement occurred essentially for a few, albeit frequently encountered, indications for use of colonoscopy in cases of uncomplicated lower abdominal pain or constipation.

Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The quality of colon cleansing is a major determinant of quality of colonoscopy. To our knowledge, the impact of bowel preparation on the quality of colonoscopy has not been assessed prospectively in a large multicenter study. Therefore, this study assessed the factors that determine colon-cleansing quality and the impact of cleansing quality on the technical performance and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy. METHODS: Twenty-one centers from 11 countries participated in this prospective observational study. Colon-cleansing quality was assessed on a 5-point scale and was categorized on 3 levels. The clinical indication for colonoscopy, diagnoses, and technical parameters related to colonoscopy were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 5832 patients were included in the study (48.7% men, mean age 57.6 [15.9] years). Cleansing quality was lower in elderly patients and in patients in the hospital. Procedures in poorly prepared patients were longer, more difficult, and more often incomplete. The detection of polyps of any size depended on cleansing quality: odds ratio (OR) 1.73: 95% confidence interval (CI)[1.28, 2.36] for intermediate-quality compared with low-quality preparation; and OR 1.46: 95% CI[1.11, 1.93] for high-quality compared with low-quality preparation. For polyps >10 mm in size, corresponding ORs were 1.0 for low-quality cleansing, OR 1.83: 95% CI[1.11, 3.05] for intermediate-quality cleansing, and OR 1.72: 95% CI[1.11, 2.67] for high-quality cleansing. Cancers were not detected less frequently in the case of poor preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Cleansing quality critically determines quality, difficulty, speed, and completeness of colonoscopy, and is lower in hospitalized patients and patients with higher levels of comorbid conditions. The proportion of patients who undergo polypectomy increases with higher cleansing quality, whereas colon cancer detection does not seem to critically depend on the quality of bowel preparation.

Sedation and analgesia for colonoscopy: patient tolerance, pain, and cardiorespiratory parameters.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is generally performed with the patient sedated and receiving analgesics. However, the benefit of the most often used combination of intravenous midazolam and pethidine on patient tolerance and pain and its cardiorespiratory risk have not been fully defined. METHODS: In this double-blind prospective study, 150 outpatients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either (1) low-dose midazolam (35 micrograms/kg) and pethidine (700 micrograms/kg in 48 patients, 500 micrograms/kg in 102 patients), (2) midazolam and placebo pethidine, or (3) pethidine and placebo midazolam. RESULTS: Tolerance (visual analog scale, 0 to 100 points: 0 = excellent; 100 = unbearable) did not improve significantly more in group 1 compared with group 2 (7 points; 95% confidence interval [-2-17]) and group 3 (2 points; 95% confidence interval [-7-12]). Similarly, pain was not significantly improved in group 1 as compared with the other groups. Male gender (p < 0.001) and shorter duration of the procedure (p = 0.004), but not amnesia, were associated with better patient tolerance and less pain. Patient satisfaction was similar in all groups. Oxygen desaturation and hypotension occurred in 33% and 11%, respectively, with a similar frequency in all three groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the combination of low-dose midazolam and pethidine does not improve patient tolerance and lessen pain during colonoscopy as compared with either drug given alone. When applying low-dose midazolam, oxygen desaturation and hypotension do not occur more often after combined use of both drugs. For the individual patient, sedation and analgesia should be based on the endoscopist's clinical judgement.

The effect of non-medical factors on variations in the performance of colonoscopy among different health care settings

BACKGROUND: Previous published studies have shown significant variations in colonoscopy performance, even when medical factors are taken into account. This study aimed to examine the role of nonmedical factors (ie, embodied in health care system design) as possible contributors to variations in colonoscopy performance. METHODS: Patient data from a multicenter observational study conducted between 2000 and 2002 in 21 centers in 11 western countries were used. Variability was captured through 2 performance outcomes (diagnostic yield and colonoscopy withdrawal time), jointly studied as dependent variables, using a multilevel 2-equation system. RESULTS: Results showed that open-access systems and high-volume colonoscopy centers were independently associated with a higher likelihood of detecting significant lesions and longer withdrawal durations. Fee for service (FFS) payment was associated with shorter withdrawal durations, and so had an indirect negative impact on the diagnostic yield. Teaching centers exhibited lower detection rates and longer withdrawal times. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that gatekeeping colonoscopy is likely to miss patients with significant lesions and that developing specialized colonoscopy units is important to improve performance. Results also suggest that FFS may result in a lower quality of care in colonoscopy practice and highlight the fact that longer withdrawal times do not necessarily indicate higher quality in teaching centers.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Chronic diarrhea and known inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for investigation of chronic diarrhea, management of patients with known inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance in such patients, and to report report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II. METHODS: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies regarding the evaluation of chronic diarrhea, the management of IBD, and colorectal cancer surveillance in IBD was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions. RESULTS: According to the literature, colonoscopic evaluation may be justified for patients aged > 50 years with recent-onset chronic diarrhea or with alarm symptoms. Surveillance colonoscopy for CRC should be offered to all patients with extensive ulcerative colitis or colonic Crohn's disease of 8 years' duration, and to all patients with less extensive disease of 15 years' duration. Intervals for surveillance colonoscopy depend on duration of evolution, initial diagnosis, and histological findings. The EPAGE II criteria also confirmed the appropriateness of diagnostic colonoscopy for diarrhea of > 4 weeks' duration. They also suggest that, in addition to assessing extent of IBD by colonoscopy, further colonoscopic examination is appropriate in the face of persistent or worsening symptoms. Surveillance colonoscopy in IBD patients was generally appropriate after a lapse of 2 years. In the presence of dysplasia at previous colonoscopy, it was not only appropriate but necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Despite or perhaps because of the limitations of the available published studies, the panel-based EPAGE II (http://www.epage.ch) criteria can help guide appropriate colonoscopy use in the absence of strong evidence from the literature.