Cargando…

The impact of colonoscopy indication on polyp detection rate

BACKGROUND: Adenoma/polyp detection rates are considered to be among the most important quality indicators of colonoscopy and are key measures of a quality procedure. However, they are designed for use in the screening setting and are not amenable to other colonoscopy indications. Little is known ab...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baker, Fadi Abu, Mari, Amir, Hosadurg, Deepash, Suki, Muhammed, Ovadia, Baruch, Gal, Oren, Kopelamn, Yael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6479646/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31040625
http://dx.doi.org/10.20524/aog.2019.0374
_version_ 1783413393182425088
author Baker, Fadi Abu
Mari, Amir
Hosadurg, Deepash
Suki, Muhammed
Ovadia, Baruch
Gal, Oren
Kopelamn, Yael
author_facet Baker, Fadi Abu
Mari, Amir
Hosadurg, Deepash
Suki, Muhammed
Ovadia, Baruch
Gal, Oren
Kopelamn, Yael
author_sort Baker, Fadi Abu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Adenoma/polyp detection rates are considered to be among the most important quality indicators of colonoscopy and are key measures of a quality procedure. However, they are designed for use in the screening setting and are not amenable to other colonoscopy indications. Little is known about their significance in other colonoscopy indications. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the various indications on polyp detection rate (PDR). METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center study. Electronic reports of index colonoscopy procedures with adequate bowel preparation over a 10-year period were reviewed. Patients were divided into 7 groups based on the study indication. PDR was determined for each group and was compared to that of a control group, the screening indication group. Adjustment was made for potential confounders such as age, sex, and procedural setting. RESULTS: A total of 13,054 patients were considered suitable for the study. PDR was greatest in the positive fecal occult blood test group, with a value of 33.1% (P<0.01). Overall, the remaining groups showed similar PDRs compared with screening (22.1% vs. 20.4%; P=0.15). This trend persisted in a multivariate analysis, which showed the odds ratio in the positive fecal occult blood test group to be significantly higher, with a value of 1.955 (1.759-2.172, P<0.001) compared with the screening group. CONCLUSION: PDR was highest for the positive fecal occult blood test indication, but was not affected significantly by most indications. Further randomized studies are warranted to confirm these findings and help calculate recommended thresholds for “overall” PDR.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6479646
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64796462019-05-01 The impact of colonoscopy indication on polyp detection rate Baker, Fadi Abu Mari, Amir Hosadurg, Deepash Suki, Muhammed Ovadia, Baruch Gal, Oren Kopelamn, Yael Ann Gastroenterol Original Article BACKGROUND: Adenoma/polyp detection rates are considered to be among the most important quality indicators of colonoscopy and are key measures of a quality procedure. However, they are designed for use in the screening setting and are not amenable to other colonoscopy indications. Little is known about their significance in other colonoscopy indications. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the various indications on polyp detection rate (PDR). METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center study. Electronic reports of index colonoscopy procedures with adequate bowel preparation over a 10-year period were reviewed. Patients were divided into 7 groups based on the study indication. PDR was determined for each group and was compared to that of a control group, the screening indication group. Adjustment was made for potential confounders such as age, sex, and procedural setting. RESULTS: A total of 13,054 patients were considered suitable for the study. PDR was greatest in the positive fecal occult blood test group, with a value of 33.1% (P<0.01). Overall, the remaining groups showed similar PDRs compared with screening (22.1% vs. 20.4%; P=0.15). This trend persisted in a multivariate analysis, which showed the odds ratio in the positive fecal occult blood test group to be significantly higher, with a value of 1.955 (1.759-2.172, P<0.001) compared with the screening group. CONCLUSION: PDR was highest for the positive fecal occult blood test indication, but was not affected significantly by most indications. Further randomized studies are warranted to confirm these findings and help calculate recommended thresholds for “overall” PDR. Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology 2019 2019-04-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6479646/ /pubmed/31040625 http://dx.doi.org/10.20524/aog.2019.0374 Text en Copyright: © Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Baker, Fadi Abu
Mari, Amir
Hosadurg, Deepash
Suki, Muhammed
Ovadia, Baruch
Gal, Oren
Kopelamn, Yael
The impact of colonoscopy indication on polyp detection rate
title The impact of colonoscopy indication on polyp detection rate
title_full The impact of colonoscopy indication on polyp detection rate
title_fullStr The impact of colonoscopy indication on polyp detection rate
title_full_unstemmed The impact of colonoscopy indication on polyp detection rate
title_short The impact of colonoscopy indication on polyp detection rate
title_sort impact of colonoscopy indication on polyp detection rate
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6479646/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31040625
http://dx.doi.org/10.20524/aog.2019.0374
work_keys_str_mv AT bakerfadiabu theimpactofcolonoscopyindicationonpolypdetectionrate
AT mariamir theimpactofcolonoscopyindicationonpolypdetectionrate
AT hosadurgdeepash theimpactofcolonoscopyindicationonpolypdetectionrate
AT sukimuhammed theimpactofcolonoscopyindicationonpolypdetectionrate
AT ovadiabaruch theimpactofcolonoscopyindicationonpolypdetectionrate
AT galoren theimpactofcolonoscopyindicationonpolypdetectionrate
AT kopelamnyael theimpactofcolonoscopyindicationonpolypdetectionrate
AT bakerfadiabu impactofcolonoscopyindicationonpolypdetectionrate
AT mariamir impactofcolonoscopyindicationonpolypdetectionrate
AT hosadurgdeepash impactofcolonoscopyindicationonpolypdetectionrate
AT sukimuhammed impactofcolonoscopyindicationonpolypdetectionrate
AT ovadiabaruch impactofcolonoscopyindicationonpolypdetectionrate
AT galoren impactofcolonoscopyindicationonpolypdetectionrate
AT kopelamnyael impactofcolonoscopyindicationonpolypdetectionrate