Search

Background: Differences between American (United States [US]) and European guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance may create confusion for the practicing clinician. Under- or overutilization of surveillance colonoscopy can impact patient care., Methods: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) convened a working group (CAG-WG) to review available guidelines and provide unified guidance to Canadian clinicians regarding appropriate follow-up for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance after index colonoscopy. A literature search was conducted for relevant data that postdated the published guidelines., Results: The CAG-WG chose the 2012 US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) on Colorectal Cancer to serve as the basis for the Canadian position, primarily because the US approach was the simplest and comprehensively addressed the issue of serrated polyps. Aspects of other guidelines were incorporated where relevant. The CAG-WG recommendations differed from the US MSTF guidelines in three main areas: patients with negative index colonoscopy should be followed-up at 10 years using any of the appropriate screening tests, including colonoscopy, for average-risk individuals; among patients with >10 adenomas, a one-year interval for subsequent colonoscopy is recommended; and for long-term follow-up, patients with low-risk adenomas on both the index and first follow-up procedures can undergo second follow-up colonoscopy at an interval of five to 10 years., Discussion: The CAG-WG adapted the US MSTF guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance to the Canadian health care environment with a few modifications. It is anticipated that the present article will provide unified guidance that will enhance physician acceptance and encourage appropriate utilization of recommended surveillance intervals.

Background: Adherence to surveillance colonoscopy guidelines is important to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) and unnecessary workload., Objective: To evaluate how well Canadian gastroenterologists adhere to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines after adenoma removal or treatment for CRC., Methods: Patients with a history of adenomas or CRC who had surveillance performed between October 2008 and October 2010 were retrospectively included. Time intervals between index colonoscopy and surveillance were compared with the 2008 guideline recommendations of the American Gastroenterological Association and regarded as appropriate when the surveillance interval was within six months of the recommended time interval., Results: A total of 265 patients were included (52% men; mean age 58 years). Among patients with a normal index colonoscopy (n=110), 42% received surveillance on time, 38% too early (median difference = 1.2 years too early) and 20% too late (median difference = 1.0 year too late). Among patients with nonadvanced adenomas at index (n=96), 25% underwent surveillance on time, 61% too early (median difference = 1.85) and 14% too late (median difference = 1.1). Among patients with advanced neoplasia at index (n=59), 29% underwent surveillance on time, 34% too early (median difference = 1.86) and 37% later than recommended (median difference = 1.61). No significant difference in adenoma detection rates was observed when too early surveillance versus appropriate surveillance (34% versus 33%; P=0.92) and too late surveillance versus appropriate surveillance (21% versus 33%; P=0.11) were compared., Conclusion: Only a minority of surveillance colonoscopies were performed according to guideline recommendations. Deviation from the guidelines did not improve the adenoma detection rate. Interventions aimed at improving adherence to surveillance guidelines are needed.

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and the Canadian Digestive Health Foundation published guidelines on colon cancer screening in 2004. Subsequent to the publication of these guidelines, many advances have occurred, thereby necessitating a review of the existing guidelines in the context of new technologies and clinical knowledge. The assembled guideline panel recognized three recent American sets of guidelines and identified seven issues that required comment from a Canadian perspective. These issues included, among others, the role of program-based screening, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, barium enema and quality improvement. The panel also provided context for the selection of the fecal immunochemical test as the fecal occult blood test of choice, and the relative role of colonoscopy as a primary screening tool. Recommendations were also provided for an upper age limit for colon cancer screening, whether upper endoscopy should be performed following a negative colonoscopy for a positive fecal occult blood test and when colon cancer screening should resume following negative colonoscopy.

Over the past decade, multiple clinical reports have demonstrated that the use of propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by gastroenterologists and trained endoscopy nurses is safe and effective in appropriately selected patients. Proposed benefits of propofol sedation include rapid onset of action, improved patient comfort and rapid clearance, as well as prompt recovery and discharge from the endoscopy unit. As a result of medical evidence, a number of international professional societies have endorsed the use of propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In Canada, no formal guidelines currently exist. In the present article, the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology presents a position statement, incorporating updated information on the use of propofol sedation for endoscopy in adult patients.

Introduction: High-resolution manometry (HRM) of the esophagus is a new technique that provides a more precise assessment of esophageal motility than conventional techniques. Because HRM measures pressure events along the entire length of the esophagus simultaneously, clinical procedure time should be shorter because less catheter manipulation is required. According to manufacturer advertising, the new HRM system is more accurate and up to 50% faster than conventional methods., Objective: To test the hypothesis that clinical testing with HRM requires less procedural time than a standard water perfusion (WP) method., Methods: Forty-one consecutive patients were studied (20 underwent WP and 21 underwent HRM). Using time-motion analysis, the start and end times for each task associated with performing the study were recorded. Patient discomfort and study quality were also assessed by using five- and four-point qualitative scales, respectively., Results: Total procedure time was reduced on average by 25.6% in the HRM group (from 41.8 minutes with WP to 30.7 minutes with HRM, P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the discomfort scores reported by the study subjects and no difference in study quality., Conclusions: HRM requires less time to complete than conventional manometry and should therefore shorten the wait-times of patients scheduled for esophageal manometry and have a significant impact on the cost of performing this commonly used clinical investigation.

Objective: To determine whether the clinical efficacy and safety of infliximab in diverse clinical referral practices was similar to that seen in the randomized, controlled clinical trials., Methods: Data were gathered from a review of charts of 109 consecutive patients with inflammatory and/or fistulizing Crohn's disease who received infliximab infusions. Responses were recorded based on the physician's global clinical assessment and classified as complete, partial or nonresponse., Results: One hundred nine patients were treated with one to nine infusions of infliximab at a dose of 5 mg/kg and followed up for a median of 24 weeks (range one to 40 weeks). Fifty-four patients were treated for inflammatory disease, 38 for fistulizing disease and 17 for both. Clinical response occurred in 73% (17% complete response, 55% partial response). The clinical response rate did not vary relative to patient demographics, disease distribution, indication for infliximab, or the concomitant use of corticosteroids or immune modifiers. For those taking concomitant immune modifiers, the response rate was 75%. The median time to response was two weeks (range one to six weeks). The median duration of response was 12 weeks (range six to 88 weeks). Reduction or cessation of steroids was possible in 17 of 32 patients. Adverse events related to infliximab occurred in 7% of patients. These events were characterized as mild and did not require stoppage of infliximab therapy, except in one patient who had a treatable anaphylactic-like infusion reaction., Conclusions: The patient group in the present study realized significant clinical benefit, with minimal adverse effects, following treatment with infliximab. Clinical response rates paralleled those previously described in placebo controlled trials and retrospective clinical practice reviews. Nevertheless, the complete response rate (ie, remission) in this patient group was lower than that previously described.