Search

Objectives: Colonoscopy withdrawal times are associated with the adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, the relationship between ADR and cecal insertion time has been inadequately characterized. We aimed to evaluate endoscopist‐related factors involved in the ADR, including the average individual colonoscopy insertion and withdrawal times. Methods: This observational study used a colonoscopy database with pathology data from routine clinical practice in Japanese institutions. The odds ratios (OR) of endoscopist‐related factors related to ADRs were examined using a generalized linear mixed model. Results: Of the 186,293 colonoscopies performed during the study period, 47,705 colonoscopies by 189 endoscopists in four hospitals were analyzed for ADR. The overall ADR was 38.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 37.8, 38.7). Compared to endoscopists with mean cecal insertion times of <5 min, the OR of ADR for those with mean cecal insertion times of 5–9, 10–14, and ≥15 min were 0.84 (95% CI 0.71, 0.99), 0.68 (95% CI 0.52, 0.90), and 0.45 (95% CI 0.25, 0.78), respectively. Compared to endoscopists with mean withdrawal times of <6 min, the OR of ADR for those with mean withdrawal times of 6–9, 10–14, and ≥15 min were 1.38 (95% CI 1.03, 1.85), 1.48 (95% CI 1.09, 2.02), and 1.68 (95% CI 1.04, 2.61), respectively. There were no significant differences in ADRs by endoscopist specialty, gender, or the total number of examinations performed. Conclusion: Individual mean colonoscopy insertion time was associated with ADR and might be considered as a colonoscopy quality indicator as well as withdrawal time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine whether reasonable detection rate of endoscopically diagnosed lesions as adenoma ("endoscopic" adenoma detection rate [ADR]) could be calculated with a database generated from colonoscopy reports and whether it could be used as a surrogate colonoscopy quality indicator of "pathological" ADR. Methods: A lesion‐by‐lesion database of colonoscopies performed between 2010 and 2020 at eight Japanese endoscopy centers and corresponding pathology database were integrated. Differences in numbers of detected polyps, "endoscopic" and "pathological" adenomas, and what these differences could be attributed to were examined. Polyp detection rate (PDR), "endoscopic" and "pathological" ADRs, and correlation coefficients between "pathological" ADR and PDR or "endoscopic" ADR by each endoscopist were calculated. Results: Overall, 129,065 colonoscopy reports were analyzed. Among a total of 146,854 polyps, more "endoscopic" adenomas (n = 117,359) were observed than "pathological" adenomas (n = 70,076), primarily because adenomas were not resected on site, rather than because of a misdiagnosis. In all patients analyzed, PDR, "endoscopic" and "pathological" ADRs were 56.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 56.2–56.7), 48.0% (95% CI 47.7–48.3), and 32.7% (95% CI 32.5–33.0), respectively. "Endoscopic" and "pathological" ADRs from each endoscopist showed a high correlation in hospitals where adenomas were usually resected at the time of examination. Conclusions: By appropriately describing endoscopically diagnosed lesions as "adenomas" in endoscopy reports, "endoscopic" ADR might be used as a surrogate colonoscopy quality indicator of "pathological" ADR (UMIN000040690). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Few studies have reported on a national, population‐based endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) database. Hence, in 2015, we established a multicenter ERCP database registry, the Japan Endoscopic Database (JED) Project in preparation for a nationwide endoscopic database. The objective the present study was to evaluate this registry before the establishment of a nationwide endoscopic database. Methods: From 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2017, we collected and analyzed the ERCP data of all patients who underwent ERCP in four participating centers in the JED Project based on the JED protocol. Results: Four centers carried out 4104 ERCP on 2173 patients. Data entry of ERCP information (age, 100%; gender, 100%; American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System, 74.5%; scope, 92.7%; time to ERCP, 100%; antithrombotic drug information, 55.0%; primary selective common bile duct [CBD] cannulation methods, 73.0%; number of attempts at primary selective CBD cannulation, 67.6%; overall selective CBD cannulation methods, 68.9%; ERCP procedure time, 66.3%; fluoroscopy time, 65.1%; adverse events, 74.9%; serum amylase levels 1 day post‐ERCP, 36.5%) was accurately extracted from the four centers. Success rate of CBD cannulation by level of ERCP difficulty was 98.5%, 99.0%, and 96.4% in grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Complication rate by overall selective CBD cannulation method was 5.6%, 7.6%, and 10.5% in the contrast‐assisted technique, guidewire‐assisted technique, and cross‐over method, respectively. Conclusion: Data from this evaluation of the JED Project, a multicenter ERCP database registry, suggest the feasibility of establishing a nationwide ERCP database and its challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been brought to the attention of the publisher that an error appeared in the citation of the original Japanese publication of the above article. It should read as follows: Translated from Denshi Joho Tsushin Gakkai Ronbunshi Vol. 79-D-II, No. 6, June 1996, pp. 1080–1088. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused the authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]