Search

Background & Aims: Significant variability exists in colonoscopy quality indicators, including adenoma detection rate (ADR). We synthesized evidence from randomized trials in a network meta-analysis on interventions to improve colonoscopy quality., Methods: We included trials from database inceptions to September 25, 2023, of patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy and presented efficacies of interventions within domains (periprocedural parameters, endoscopist-directed interventions, intraprocedural techniques, endoscopic technologies, distal attachment devices, and additive substances) compared to standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR. We used a Bayesian random-effects model using Markov-chain Monte Carlo simulation, with 10,000 burn-ins and 100,000 iterations. We calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals and present surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves., Results: We included 124 trials evaluating 37 interventions for the primary outcome. Nine interventions resulted in statistically significant improvements in ADR compared to standard colonoscopy (9-minute withdrawal time, dual observation, water exchange, i-SCAN [Pentax Ltd], linked color imaging, computer-aided detection, Endocuff [Olympus Corp], Endocuff Vision [Olympus Corp], and oral methylene blue). Dual observation (SUCRA, 0.84) and water exchange (SUCRA, 0.78) ranked highest among intraprocedural techniques; i-SCAN (SUCRA, 0.95), linked color imaging (SUCRA, 0.85), and computer-aided detection (SUCRA, 0.78) among endoscopic technologies; WingCap (A&A Medical Supply LLC) (SUCRA, 0.87) and Endocuff (SUCRA, 0.85) among distal attachment devices and oral methylene blue (SUCRA, 0.94) among additive substances. No interventions improved detection of advanced adenomas, and only narrow-band imaging improved detection of serrated lesions (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% credible interval, 1.46-6.25)., Conclusions: Several interventions are effective in improving adenoma detection and overall colonoscopy quality, many of which are cost-free. These results can inform endoscopists, unit managers, and endoscopy societies on relative efficacies., (Copyright © 2024 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: The management of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers is associated with high health care spending. We estimated trends in United States (US) health care spending for patients with GI cancers between 1996 and 2016 and developed projections to 2030., Methods: We used economic data, adjusted for inflation, developed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluations for the Disease Expenditure Project. Corresponding US age-adjusted prevalence of GI cancers was estimated from the Global Burden of Diseases Study. Prevalence-adjusted temporal trends in the US health care spending in patients with GI cancers, stratified by cancer site, age, and setting of care, were estimated using joinpoint regression, expressed as annual percentage change (APC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Autoregressive integrated moving average models were used to project spending to 2030., Results: In 2016, total spending for GI cancers was primarily attributable to colorectal ($10.50 billion; 95% CI, $9.35-$11.70 billion) and pancreatic cancer ($2.55 billion; 95% CI, $2.23-$2.82 billion), and primarily for inpatient care (64.5%). Despite increased total spending, more recent per-patient spending for pancreatic (APC 2008-2016, -1.4%; 95% CI, -2.2% to -0.7%), gallbladder/biliary tract (APC 2010-2016, -4.3%; 95% CI, -4.8% to -3.8%), and gastric cancer (APC 2011-2016, -4.4%; 95% CI, -5.8% to -2.9%) decreased. Increasing price and intensity of care provision was the largest driver of higher expenditures. By 2030, it is projected more than $21 billion annually will be spent on GI cancer management., Conclusions: Total spending for GI cancers in the US is substantial and projected to increase. Expenditures are primarily driven by inpatient care for colorectal cancer, although per-capita spending trends differ by GI cancer type., (Copyright © 2022 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: The most widely quoted complication rates for colonoscopy are from case series performed by expert endoscopists. Our objectives were to evaluate the rates of bleeding, perforation, and death associated with outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in a population-based study., Methods: We identified all individuals 50 to 75 years old who underwent an outpatient colonoscopy during April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2003, in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, Canada. Using administrative data, we identified all individuals who were admitted to hospital with bleeding or perforation within 30 days following the colonoscopy in each province. We calculated the pooled rates of bleeding and perforation from the 4 provinces. In Ontario, we abstracted the hospital charts of all deaths that occurred within 30 days following the procedure. We used generalized estimating equations models to evaluate factors associated with bleeding and perforation., Results: We identified 97,091 persons who had an outpatient colonoscopy. The pooled rates of colonoscopy-related bleeding and perforation were 1.64/1000 and 0.85/1000, respectively. The death rate was 0.074/1000 or approximately 1/14,000. Older age, male sex, having a polypectomy, and having the colonoscopy performed by a low-volume endoscopist were associated with increased odds of bleeding or perforation., Conclusions: Although colonoscopy has established benefits for the detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, the procedure is associated with risks of serious complications, including death. Older age, male sex, having a polypectomy, and having the procedure done by a low-volume endoscopist were independently associated with colonoscopy-related bleeding and perforation.