Comparison of cecal intubation and adenoma detection between hospitals can provide incentives to improve quality of colonoscopy

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Background and study aims: Cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) have been found to be inversely associated with the occurrence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Depicting differences in CIR and ADR between hospitals could provide incentives for quality improvement. The aim of this study was to compare quality parameters of routine colonoscopies between seven hospitals in The Netherlands in order to determine the extent to which possible differences were attributable to procedural and institutional factors.

Patients and methods: Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were prospectively included between November 2012 and January 2013 at two academic and five nonacademic hospitals. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. Main outcome measures were CIR and ADR.

Results: A total of 3129 patients were included (mean age 59 ± 15 years; 45.5 % male). The majority of patients (86.2 %) had a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score ≥ 6. Overall CIR was 94.8 %, ranging from 89.4 % to 99.2 % between hospitals. After adjustment for case mix (age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and indication for colonoscopy), factors associated with CIR were hospital and a BBPS score ≥ 6. Overall ADR was 31.8 % and varied between hospitals, ranging from 24.8 % to 46.8 %. Independent predictors for ADR were hospital, BBPS score ≥ 6, and cecal intubation. By combining CIR and ADR for each hospital, a colonoscopy quality indicator (CQI) was developed, which can be used by hospitals to stimulate quality improvement.

Conclusion: Differences in the quality of colonoscopy between hospitals can be demonstrated using CIR and ADR. As both indicators are affected by institution and bowel preparation, a comparison between hospitals based on the newly developed CQI could assist in further improving the quality of colonoscopy.

^* The first two authors contributed equally to the work.

^** Both senior authors contributed equally to the work.

• References

• 1 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Amri R, Bordeianou LG, Sylla P et al. Impact of screening colonoscopy on outcomes in colon cancer surgery. JAMA Surg 2013; 148: 747-754
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 16-S28
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF et al. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 1-8
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Rabeneck L, Souchek J, El-Serag HB. Survival of colorectal cancer patients hospitalized in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1186-1192
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Ricci E, Hassan C, Petruzziello L et al. Inter-centre variability of the adenoma detection rate: a prospective, multicentre study. Dig Liver Dis 2013; 45: 1022-1027
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 378-384
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Jover R, Zapater P, Polania E et al. Modifiable endoscopic factors that influence the adenoma detection rate in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 381-389
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 686-692
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Aslinia F, Uradomo L, Steele A et al. Quality assessment of colonoscopic cecal intubation: an analysis of 6 years of continuous practice at a university hospital. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 721-731
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Chen SC, Rex DK. Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 856-861
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Barret M, Boustiere C, Canard JM et al. Factors associated with adenoma detection rate and diagnosis of polyps and colorectal cancer during colonoscopy in France: results of a prospective, nationwide survey. PLoS One 2013; 8: e68947
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 De Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, Cahen DL et al. Quality evaluation of colonoscopy reporting and performance in daily clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 98-106
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Bhangu A, Bowley DM, Horner R et al. Volume and accreditation, but not specialty, affect quality standards in colonoscopy. Br J Surg 2012; 99: 1436-1444
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Radaelli F, Paggi S, Minoli G. Variation of quality of colonoscopy in Italy over five years: a nation-wide observational study. Dig Liver Dis 2013; 45: 28-32
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Harris JK, Vader JP, Wietlisbach V et al. Variations in colonoscopy practice in Europe: a multicentre descriptive study (EPAGE). Scand J Gastroenterol 2007; 42: 126-134
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Imperiale TF, Glowinski EA, Juliar BE et al. Variation in polyp detection rates at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 1288-1295
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Adler A, Wegscheider K, Lieberman D et al. Factors determining the quality of screening colonoscopy: a prospective study on adenoma detection rates, from 12,134 examinations (Berlin colonoscopy project 3, BECOP-3). Gut 2013; 62: 236-241
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Heitman SJ, Ronksley PE, Hilsden RJ et al. Prevalence of adenomas and colorectal cancer in average risk individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 1272-1278
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Bannert C, Reinhart K, Dunkler D et al. Sedation in screening colonoscopy: impact on quality indicators and complications. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 1837-1848
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Radaelli F, Meucci G, Sgroi G et al. Technical performance of colonoscopy: the key role of sedation/analgesia and other quality indicators. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 1122-1130
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Ferlitsch M, Reinhart K, Pramhas S et al. Sex-specific prevalence of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and colorectal cancer in individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. JAMA 2011; 306: 1352-1358
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR et al. Variation of adenoma prevalence by age, sex, race, and colon location in a large population: implications for screening and quality programs. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 172-180
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 20-26
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533-2541
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Moritz V, Bretthauer M, Ruud HK et al. Withdrawal time as a quality indicator for colonoscopy – a nationwide analysis. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 476-481
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material