Article

The European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy guidelines colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study.

Department of Gastroenterology, Institut de Malalties Digestives, Hospital Clínic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics (Impact Factor: 4.55). 04/2005; 21(5):609-13. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02359.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The demand for gastrointestinal endoscopy is increasing in most developed countries, resulting in an important rise in overall costs and waiting lists for endoscopic procedures. Therefore, adherence to appropriate indications for these procedures is essential for the rational use of finite resources in an open-access system.
To assess indications and appropriateness of colonoscopy according to the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) criteria.
From May to June 2004, all consecutive patients referred to our Unit for open-access colonoscopy were considered for inclusion in this prospective study. Appropriateness of each colonoscopy was established according to the EPAGE criteria. In order to evaluate whether appropriateness of use correlated with the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy, relevant endoscopic findings were also recorded.
A total of 350 consecutive patients were included in the study. In 38 of them, the colonoscopy indication was not listed in the EPAGE guidelines and, consequently, they were not evaluated. In the remaining 312 patients, the indication for the procedure was considered inappropriate in 73 (23%) patients. Both referring doctor characteristics (specialty and health care setting) and patient data (age) correlated with appropriateness of endoscopy. The diagnostic yield was significantly higher for appropriate colonoscopies (42%) than in those judged inappropriate (21%) (P = 0.001).
A noteworthy proportion of patients referred for colonoscopy to an open-access endoscopy unit are considered inappropriate because of their indication, with significant differences among specialties. These results suggest that implementation of validated guidelines for its appropriate use could improve this situation and, considering the correlation between appropriateness and diagnostic yield, even contribute to improve the prognosis of patients with colorectal diseases.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
71 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are only a few data on the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in different symptoms. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of colonoscopy in patients with various gastrointestinal symptoms and to estimate the relation between the findings and the presenting symptoms. 1121 consecutive colonoscopies were registered during 1 year. Asymptomatic subjects and patients with known inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) were excluded, leaving 767 eligible for the study. Symptoms, findings and clinical judgement about their relation were recorded. In patients with bleeding symptoms (n=405), serious colonic pathology--cancers and adenomas >1 cm, IBD and angiodysplasia--was found in 54 (13.3%), 83 (20.5%) and 20 (4.9%) patients, respectively; 162 (40%) patients had findings that could be related to the symptom. In 173 subjects with non-bloody diarrhoea, the diagnostic yield was 31.2%, i.e. mostly IBD and microscopic colitis. In 189 subjects with other gastrointestinal symptoms, the diagnostic yield was 13.2%. Serious colonic pathology was found in 8 of 362 (2.2%) subjects examined because of non-bleeding symptoms. The diagnostic yield of colonoscopy is high in patients with bleeding symptoms or diarrhoea, while the prevalence of significant findings is equal to a screening population in patients with other symptoms.
    Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 03/2008; 43(3):356-62. · 2.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diagnostic delay in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is a quality indicator and its reduction could improve prognosis of the disease. To analyze the diagnostic value of different colonoscopy indications in CRC and to select the signs or symptoms that, if prioritized in a rapid diagnostic circuit, would be most efficient. A retrospective analysis of 2219 outpatients who underwent colonoscopy from 2000 to 2007 was performed. For each indication we calculated the sensitivity (S), positive predictive value (PPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and number of colonoscopies needed to diagnose a case of CRC (NND). A total of 179 patients were diagnosed with CRC. The indications with greatest PPV were liver metastases (35.3%), suspicious radiological image (20.8%), and non-distal rectal bleeding (22%). Iron deficiency anemia (11%), constitutional syndrome (10%), any rectal bleeding (9.4%) and rectal syndrome (9%) had intermediate PPV. Constipation (6.3%), alternating constipation-diarrhea (3.3%), changes in bowel habits (3%), distal rectal bleeding (2.1%), diarrhea (1.8%) and abdominal pain (1.1%) had low PPV. The NND was 4 in liver metastases, 7 in non-distal bleeding and 8 in suspicious radiological image. Distal bleeding (13), diarrhea (14), abdominal pain (14), changes in bowel habits (15) and alternating constipation-diarrhoea (21) had negative NND. The subgroup of patients aged >or= 50 years showed lower NND in non-distal rectal bleeding (5), suspicious radiological image (5) and any rectal bleeding (16). Patients with non-distal rectal bleeding should be prioritized over other indications in a strategy of rapid diagnosis of CRC. Age equal to or more than 50 years should also be considered because this factor seems to reduce NND. Distal bleeding, abdominal pain and changes in bowel habits had low PPV and were associated with other diagnoses than CRC. Consequently, prioritization of these factors would be inefficient.
    Gastroenterología y Hepatología 01/2008; 31(7):413-20. · 0.57 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE I) criteria were recently updated (EPAGE II), but no prospective studies have used these criteria in clinical practice. The aim of the current study was to validate the EPAGE II criteria in an open-access endoscopy unit. A prospective observational study was conducted in an open-access endoscopy unit at a tertiary care referral center. Consecutive outpatients (n = 1004; mean age 58.9 ± 13.1 years; 45 % men) were referred for diagnostic colonoscopy between September 2009 and February 2010. The appropriateness of colonoscopy was assessed based on EPAGE II criteria, and the relationship between appropriateness and both referral doctor and detection of significant lesions was examined. The effectiveness of EPAGE II criteria in assessing appropriateness was measured by means of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for detecting significant lesions. Colonoscopic cecal intubation was achieved in 956 patients (95.2 %). Most referral doctors were gastroenterologists (58.0 %) and the most common indication was colorectal cancer (CRC) screening (35.2 %). EPAGE II criteria were applicable in 968 patients (96.4 %); of these patients, the indication was appropriate in 778 (80.4 %), inappropriate in 102 (10.5 %), and uncertain in 88 (9.1 %). Patients with appropriate or uncertain indications based on EPAGE II criteria had more relevant endoscopic findings than those with inappropriate indications (38.8 % vs. 24.5 %; OR 1.95, 95 %CI 1.22 - 3.13; P < 0.005). Sensitivity and negative predictive value of EPAGE II criteria for detecting significant lesions were 93.1 % (95 %CI 90 % - 96 %) and 75.5 % (95 %CI 67 % - 84 %), respectively, whereas for advanced neoplastic lesions these values were 98.0 % (95 %CI 95 % - 100 %) and 98.0 % (95 % CI 95 % - 100 %), respectively. Adherence to EPAGE II recommendations was an independent predictor of finding a significant lesion (OR 1.93, 95 %CI 1.20 - 3.11; P = 0.007). EPAGE II is a simple, valid score for detecting inappropriate colonoscopies in clinical practice.
    Endoscopy 11/2011; 44(1):32-7. · 5.74 Impact Factor