A closer look at same-day bidirectional endoscopy.
ABSTRACT Same-day bidirectional endoscopy (BDE) is commonly used in clinical practice.
Our purpose was to determine the frequency, patient demographics, indications, and significant endoscopic findings for patients undergoing BDE.
Retrospective study with a national endoscopic database.
Diverse clinical practice settings in the United States, including 75% from private practice.
A total of 591,074 adult patients had upper or lower endoscopy; 66,265 patients (11.2%) with same-day BDE and a subgroup (n = 9067) with a common indication for both upper and lower examinations are the subjects of this analysis.
Age, sex, and procedure indication were analyzed in all subjects. Significant endoscopic findings were measured in patients with a single indication of anemia, a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT), or abdominal pain/dyspepsia (pain) for both upper and lower endoscopy.
The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI) national endoscopic database was analyzed to determine the number of patients who underwent same-day BDE between 2000 and 2004. Patients with a single indication of anemia, positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT), or abdominal pain/dyspepsia (pain) on both EGD and colonoscopy were included for the analysis of endoscopic findings. Significant upper GI findings were defined as suspected malignancy, arteriovenous malformation (AVM), ulcer, Barrett's esophagus, and stricture. Significant lower GI findings included suspected malignancy, polyp >9 mm, and AVM.
A total of 591,074 patients had upper and/or lower endoscopy; 66,265 patients (11.2%) had same-day BDE. The majority of patients were female (52.1%), and the mean age of patients with BDE was 60.8 years. A total of 6538 patients (9.9%) had anemia, 1169 (1.8%) had a positive FOBT, and 1360 (2.1%) had pain as the sole indication for both examinations. After adjustment for age and sex, significant findings were higher in patients with anemia than in those with pain (odds ratio 1.89; 95% CI, 1.59-2.26) and for patients with positive FOBT versus pain (odds ratio 1.83; 95% CI, 1.48-2.26).
Retrospective analysis with possible bias. Fewer patients with pain had significant findings compared to the other two groups (P value <.0001).
More than 10% of patients undergoing upper or lower endoscopy receive same-day BDE. BDE commonly revealed important conditions in patients with anemia or positive FOBT. Bidirectional endoscopy commonly revealed important pathology in patients with anemia or positive FOBT. Patients with pain had a lower prevalence of serious findings compared to the other groups studied. The benefits of BDE in patients with pain are uncertain and require additional investigation.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The safety and cost-effectiveness of a combination of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy [or bidirectional endoscopy (BDE)] versus alternative-day EGD and colonoscopy when using nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol have never been evaluated. This was a single-center prospective registry of consecutive American Society of Anaesthesiology class I-III outpatients undergoing EGD, colonoscopy, and BDE. Propofol was the sole sedative used. Adverse events, recovery time, and procedure-related costs were analyzed. Among the 1500 study participants (51.5% women), EGD, colonoscopy, and BDE were carried out on 449, 702, and 349 patients, respectively. All patients were discharged directly from the endoscopy unit. No sex differences were found with respect to age (mean 54.4, range 18-96 years), BMI, or procedure type. Propofol doses for BDE were 25.9% less than when EGD and colonoscopy were performed separately (P<0.001). Adverse events, including transient O2 saturation less than 90%, systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg, and bradycardia (<50 bpm), appeared in 10.7% of single EGD and 8.6% of EGD within BDE; for colonoscopies, the figures were 8.6 and 9.5%, respectively (P=NS). Recovery time to discharge after BDE was 47.9% shorter than when EGD and colonoscopy were performed separately (P<0.001). The cost of same-day BDE was 28.1% lower than that of EGD and colonoscopy performed as separated procedures (P<0.001). Same-day BDE with nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol resulted in reductions in propofol doses, recovery time, and procedure-related costs as compared with carrying out EGD and colonoscopy separately, without an increase in adverse events.European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology 12/2013; · 1.66 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Abstract Background. False positives of fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) regarding colorectal cancer detection are common. The aim was to investigate the upper gastrointestinal (GI) condition confirmed by endoscopy in positive FOBT patients without advanced colorectal neoplasia, hemorrhoid, or colitis. Methods. The authors reviewed the collective data of 340 positive FOBT patients who underwent both esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy from January 2005 to October 2011. Demographic data, effects of medications, including antiplatelet agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or warfarin on the results of FOBT, presence or absence of GI mucosal lesions confirmed by EGD and colonoscopy, and FOBT titer in 552 positive FOBT patients were analyzed. Results. On colonoscopy, colorectal cancer was detected in 35 patients (10.3%), advanced adenoma in 22 patients (6.4%). "Negative colonoscopy" included no significant lesions and non-advanced adenomas. In 243 patients with "negative colonoscopy", EGD findings included 3 (1.2%) gastric cancers and 39 (16%) peptic ulcer diseases. Gastric cancers were all found in patients who had no experience of EGD within 2 years; however, the incidence of peptic ulcer disease was not different in patients with or without previous EGD within 2 years. Two or more antiplatelet agents increased false positive rates of FOBT. Conclusions. Upper GI evaluation is mandatory in patients with positive FOBTs and negative colonoscopy especially in patients without experience of EGD within 2 years.Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 06/2013; 48(6):657-662. · 2.33 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In patients with appropriate indications, performance of both colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodonscopy (EGD) at the same time (bundling) is convenient for patients, efficient for providers, and cost saving for the healthcare system. However, Medicare reimbursement for bundled procedures is at a rate that is less than the sum of the two procedures when charged separately; this may create a disincentive to bundle. The practice patterns of bundling are unknown at a US population-based level. We examined 2007 to 2009 Medicare claims from the Carrier file in a national, random sample of fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 66 and older. We identified patients who had both a colonoscopy and EGD performed within 180 days of each other and calculated the proportions of patients with both procedures bundled on the same date, within 1 to 30 days, and within 31 to180 days of each other. We compared patients in these 3 groups for demographics and clinical indications for the procedures (bleeding, lower or upper gastrointestinal [GI] symptoms, surveillance, and screening). We identified 12,982 Medicare-enrolled individuals who had a colonoscopy and an EGD performed within 180 days of each other. Approximately 35% of procedures were not bundled on the same day; and, of these, 2,359 (18%) were performed within 30 days of each other; and 2,219 (17%) were performed within 31 to180 days of each other. There were marked geographic differences in the percentage of bundling, with the lowest in the Northeast and the highest in the West. Patients with bundled procedures were more likely to have GI bleeding and less likely to have screening or surveillance indications. Although same-day bundling of endoscopic procedures offers a number of advantages, it is not practiced in more than one third of cases in a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 08/2013; · 5.64 Impact Factor