Cargando…

“Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross sectional study from Sri Lanka”

BACKGROUND: Due to finite resources, the clinical decision to subject a patient to colonoscopy needs to be based on the evidence, regardless of its availability, affordability and safety. This study assessed the appropriateness of colonoscopies conducted in selected study settings in Sri Lanka. In t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Samarakoon, Yasara, Gunawardena, Nalika, Pathirana, Aloka, Hewage, Sumudu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5975517/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29843628
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-018-0798-7
_version_ 1783327001407389696
author Samarakoon, Yasara
Gunawardena, Nalika
Pathirana, Aloka
Hewage, Sumudu
author_facet Samarakoon, Yasara
Gunawardena, Nalika
Pathirana, Aloka
Hewage, Sumudu
author_sort Samarakoon, Yasara
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Due to finite resources, the clinical decision to subject a patient to colonoscopy needs to be based on the evidence, regardless of its availability, affordability and safety. This study assessed the appropriateness of colonoscopies conducted in selected study settings in Sri Lanka. In the absence of local guidelines, audit was based on European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II (EPAGE II) criteria. METHODS: This cross-sectional study assessed consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy between June to August 2015 at four main hospitals in Sri Lanka. Interviewer administered questionnaire and secondary data were collected by trained health staff. Indications were assessed according to EPAGE II criteria. RESULTS: Out of 325 patients, male female proportions were 57.2 and 42.8%. Mean (SD) age was 54.9 (12.1) years. Colonoscopies were appropriate in 61.2% (95% CI 55.8–66.3), uncertain in 28.6% (95% CI 23.9–33.7) and inappropriate in 10.2% (95% CI 7.3–13.9). Colonoscopy to evaluate abdominal pain has highest percentage of inappropriateness of 10.0%. However, 9.5% of these colonoscopies revealed Colo-Rectal Cancer (CRC), reflecting differences in the profile of local CRC patients. Colonoscopies with appropriate or uncertain indications are three times more likely to have a relevant finding than inappropriate indications (42.5% vs. 18.2%; OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.33–8.3; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Majority of colonoscopies are appropriate. However, it cannot be neglected that every one in ten patients undergo inappropriate colonoscopy. Proportion of inappropriateness was highest for the indication of chronic abdominal pain, of which, 9.5% of patients were diagnosed with CRC. This may reflect the different profile of local CRC patients in terms of symptom manifestation and other characteristics. In conclusion, the authors recommend formulation of national guidelines for colonoscopy indications based on current best evidence and local patient profile. Use of such prepared local guidelines will improve the efficient use of finite resources.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5975517
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59755172018-05-31 “Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross sectional study from Sri Lanka” Samarakoon, Yasara Gunawardena, Nalika Pathirana, Aloka Hewage, Sumudu BMC Gastroenterol Research Article BACKGROUND: Due to finite resources, the clinical decision to subject a patient to colonoscopy needs to be based on the evidence, regardless of its availability, affordability and safety. This study assessed the appropriateness of colonoscopies conducted in selected study settings in Sri Lanka. In the absence of local guidelines, audit was based on European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II (EPAGE II) criteria. METHODS: This cross-sectional study assessed consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy between June to August 2015 at four main hospitals in Sri Lanka. Interviewer administered questionnaire and secondary data were collected by trained health staff. Indications were assessed according to EPAGE II criteria. RESULTS: Out of 325 patients, male female proportions were 57.2 and 42.8%. Mean (SD) age was 54.9 (12.1) years. Colonoscopies were appropriate in 61.2% (95% CI 55.8–66.3), uncertain in 28.6% (95% CI 23.9–33.7) and inappropriate in 10.2% (95% CI 7.3–13.9). Colonoscopy to evaluate abdominal pain has highest percentage of inappropriateness of 10.0%. However, 9.5% of these colonoscopies revealed Colo-Rectal Cancer (CRC), reflecting differences in the profile of local CRC patients. Colonoscopies with appropriate or uncertain indications are three times more likely to have a relevant finding than inappropriate indications (42.5% vs. 18.2%; OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.33–8.3; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Majority of colonoscopies are appropriate. However, it cannot be neglected that every one in ten patients undergo inappropriate colonoscopy. Proportion of inappropriateness was highest for the indication of chronic abdominal pain, of which, 9.5% of patients were diagnosed with CRC. This may reflect the different profile of local CRC patients in terms of symptom manifestation and other characteristics. In conclusion, the authors recommend formulation of national guidelines for colonoscopy indications based on current best evidence and local patient profile. Use of such prepared local guidelines will improve the efficient use of finite resources. BioMed Central 2018-05-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5975517/ /pubmed/29843628 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-018-0798-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Samarakoon, Yasara
Gunawardena, Nalika
Pathirana, Aloka
Hewage, Sumudu
“Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross sectional study from Sri Lanka”
title “Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross sectional study from Sri Lanka”
title_full “Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross sectional study from Sri Lanka”
title_fullStr “Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross sectional study from Sri Lanka”
title_full_unstemmed “Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross sectional study from Sri Lanka”
title_short “Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross sectional study from Sri Lanka”
title_sort “appropriateness of colonoscopy according to epage ii in a low resource setting: a cross sectional study from sri lanka”
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5975517/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29843628
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-018-0798-7
work_keys_str_mv AT samarakoonyasara appropriatenessofcolonoscopyaccordingtoepageiiinalowresourcesettingacrosssectionalstudyfromsrilanka
AT gunawardenanalika appropriatenessofcolonoscopyaccordingtoepageiiinalowresourcesettingacrosssectionalstudyfromsrilanka
AT pathiranaaloka appropriatenessofcolonoscopyaccordingtoepageiiinalowresourcesettingacrosssectionalstudyfromsrilanka
AT hewagesumudu appropriatenessofcolonoscopyaccordingtoepageiiinalowresourcesettingacrosssectionalstudyfromsrilanka