Cargando…

Cecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS : Some guidelines recommend a minimum standard of 90 % cecal intubation rate (CIR) in routine clinics and 95 % in screening colonoscopy, while others have not made this distinction – both with limited evidence to support either view. This study questions the rationale for m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hoff, Geir, Holme, Øyvind, Bretthauer, Michael, Sandvei, Per, Darre-Næss, Ole, Stallemo, Asbjørn, Wiig, Håvard, Høie, Ole, Noraberg, Geir, Moritz, Volker, de Lange, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2017
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5451274/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28573182
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-106180
_version_ 1783240141771374592
author Hoff, Geir
Holme, Øyvind
Bretthauer, Michael
Sandvei, Per
Darre-Næss, Ole
Stallemo, Asbjørn
Wiig, Håvard
Høie, Ole
Noraberg, Geir
Moritz, Volker
de Lange, Thomas
author_facet Hoff, Geir
Holme, Øyvind
Bretthauer, Michael
Sandvei, Per
Darre-Næss, Ole
Stallemo, Asbjørn
Wiig, Håvard
Høie, Ole
Noraberg, Geir
Moritz, Volker
de Lange, Thomas
author_sort Hoff, Geir
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS : Some guidelines recommend a minimum standard of 90 % cecal intubation rate (CIR) in routine clinics and 95 % in screening colonoscopy, while others have not made this distinction – both with limited evidence to support either view. This study questions the rationale for making such differentiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS:  We assessed cecum intubation rates amongst colonoscopies recorded in the Norwegian national quality register Gastronet by 35 endoscopists performing both clinical and screening colonoscopies. Colonoscopies were categorized into primary screening colonoscopy, work-up colonoscopy of screen-positives and clinical colonoscopy or surveillance. Cases with insufficient bowel preparation or mechanical obstruction were excluded. Endoscopists were categorized into “junior” and “senior” endoscopists depending on training and experience. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were applied. RESULTS : During a 2-year period, 10,267 colonoscopies were included (primary screening colonoscopy: 746; work-up colonoscopy of screen-positives: 2,604; clinical colonoscopy or surveillance: 6917). The crude CIR in clinical routine colonoscopy, primary screening colonoscopy and work-up colonoscopy was 97.1 %, 97.1 % and 98.6 %, respectively. In a multiple logistic regression analysis, there were no differences in CIR between the 3 groups. Poor bowel cleansing and female sex were independent predictors for intubation failure. CONCLUSION : Cecal intubation rate in clinical colonoscopies and colonoscopy screening are similar. There is no reason to differentiate between screening and clinical colonoscopy with regard to CIR.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5451274
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher © Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54512742017-06-01 Cecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy Hoff, Geir Holme, Øyvind Bretthauer, Michael Sandvei, Per Darre-Næss, Ole Stallemo, Asbjørn Wiig, Håvard Høie, Ole Noraberg, Geir Moritz, Volker de Lange, Thomas Endosc Int Open BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS : Some guidelines recommend a minimum standard of 90 % cecal intubation rate (CIR) in routine clinics and 95 % in screening colonoscopy, while others have not made this distinction – both with limited evidence to support either view. This study questions the rationale for making such differentiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS:  We assessed cecum intubation rates amongst colonoscopies recorded in the Norwegian national quality register Gastronet by 35 endoscopists performing both clinical and screening colonoscopies. Colonoscopies were categorized into primary screening colonoscopy, work-up colonoscopy of screen-positives and clinical colonoscopy or surveillance. Cases with insufficient bowel preparation or mechanical obstruction were excluded. Endoscopists were categorized into “junior” and “senior” endoscopists depending on training and experience. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were applied. RESULTS : During a 2-year period, 10,267 colonoscopies were included (primary screening colonoscopy: 746; work-up colonoscopy of screen-positives: 2,604; clinical colonoscopy or surveillance: 6917). The crude CIR in clinical routine colonoscopy, primary screening colonoscopy and work-up colonoscopy was 97.1 %, 97.1 % and 98.6 %, respectively. In a multiple logistic regression analysis, there were no differences in CIR between the 3 groups. Poor bowel cleansing and female sex were independent predictors for intubation failure. CONCLUSION : Cecal intubation rate in clinical colonoscopies and colonoscopy screening are similar. There is no reason to differentiate between screening and clinical colonoscopy with regard to CIR. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2017-06 2017-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5451274/ /pubmed/28573182 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-106180 Text en © Thieme Medical Publishers
spellingShingle Hoff, Geir
Holme, Øyvind
Bretthauer, Michael
Sandvei, Per
Darre-Næss, Ole
Stallemo, Asbjørn
Wiig, Håvard
Høie, Ole
Noraberg, Geir
Moritz, Volker
de Lange, Thomas
Cecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy
title Cecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy
title_full Cecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy
title_fullStr Cecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy
title_full_unstemmed Cecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy
title_short Cecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy
title_sort cecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5451274/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28573182
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-106180
work_keys_str_mv AT hoffgeir cecumintubationrateasqualityindicatorinclinicalversusscreeningcolonoscopy
AT holmeøyvind cecumintubationrateasqualityindicatorinclinicalversusscreeningcolonoscopy
AT bretthauermichael cecumintubationrateasqualityindicatorinclinicalversusscreeningcolonoscopy
AT sandveiper cecumintubationrateasqualityindicatorinclinicalversusscreeningcolonoscopy
AT darrenæssole cecumintubationrateasqualityindicatorinclinicalversusscreeningcolonoscopy
AT stallemoasbjørn cecumintubationrateasqualityindicatorinclinicalversusscreeningcolonoscopy
AT wiighavard cecumintubationrateasqualityindicatorinclinicalversusscreeningcolonoscopy
AT høieole cecumintubationrateasqualityindicatorinclinicalversusscreeningcolonoscopy
AT noraberggeir cecumintubationrateasqualityindicatorinclinicalversusscreeningcolonoscopy
AT moritzvolker cecumintubationrateasqualityindicatorinclinicalversusscreeningcolonoscopy
AT delangethomas cecumintubationrateasqualityindicatorinclinicalversusscreeningcolonoscopy