Search

Background and Study Aims: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for the investigation of iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) and hematochezia, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II., Methods: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies regarding the evaluation and management of IDA and hematochezia was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions., Results: IDA occurs in 2 %-5 % of adult men and postmenopausal women. Examination of both the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract is recommended in patients with iron deficiency. Colonoscopy for IDA yields one colorectal cancer (CRC) in every 9-13 colonoscopies. Hematochezia is a well-recognized alarm symptom and such patients are likely to be referred for colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is unanimously recommended in patients aged > or = 50. Diverticulosis, vascular ectasias, and ischemic colitis are common causes of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB); CRC is found in 0.2 %-11 % of the colonoscopies performed for LGIB. Most patients with scant hematochezia have an anorectal or a distal source of bleeding. The expert panel considered most clinical indications for colonoscopy as appropriate in the presence of IDA (58 %) or hematochezia (83 %)., Conclusion: Despite the limitations of the published studies, guidelines unanimously recommend colonoscopy for the investigation of IDA and hematochezia in patients aged > or = 50 years. These indications were also considered appropriate by EPAGE II, as were indications in patients at low risk for CRC with no obvious cause of bleeding found during adequate previous investigations.

Background and Study Aims: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for investigation of chronic diarrhea, management of patients with known inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance in such patients, and to report report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II., Methods: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies regarding the evaluation of chronic diarrhea, the management of IBD, and colorectal cancer surveillance in IBD was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions., Results: According to the literature, colonoscopic evaluation may be justified for patients aged > 50 years with recent-onset chronic diarrhea or with alarm symptoms. Surveillance colonoscopy for CRC should be offered to all patients with extensive ulcerative colitis or colonic Crohn's disease of 8 years' duration, and to all patients with less extensive disease of 15 years' duration. Intervals for surveillance colonoscopy depend on duration of evolution, initial diagnosis, and histological findings. The EPAGE II criteria also confirmed the appropriateness of diagnostic colonoscopy for diarrhea of > 4 weeks' duration. They also suggest that, in addition to assessing extent of IBD by colonoscopy, further colonoscopic examination is appropriate in the face of persistent or worsening symptoms. Surveillance colonoscopy in IBD patients was generally appropriate after a lapse of 2 years. In the presence of dysplasia at previous colonoscopy, it was not only appropriate but necessary., Conclusions: Despite or perhaps because of the limitations of the available published studies, the panel-based EPAGE II (http://www.epage.ch) criteria can help guide appropriate colonoscopy use in the absence of strong evidence from the literature.

Background and Study Aims: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for surveillance after polypectomy and after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer (CRC), and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II., Methods: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies regarding the evaluation and management of surveillance colonoscopy after polypectomy and after resection of CRC was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions., Results: Most CRCs arise from adenomatous polyps. The characteristics of removed polyps, especially the distinction between low-risk adenomas (1 or 2, small [< 1 cm], tubular, no high-grade dysplasia) vs. high-risk adenomas (large [> or = 1 cm], multiple [> 3], high-grade dysplasia or villous features), have an impact on advanced adenoma recurrence. Most guidelines recommend a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy for high-risk adenomas and a 5-year colonoscopy for low-risk adenomas. Despite the lack of evidence to support or refute any survival benefit for follow-up colonoscopy after curative-intent CRC resection, surveillance colonoscopy is recommended by most guidelines. The timing of the first surveillance colonoscopy differs. The expert panel considered that 56 % of the clinical indications for colonoscopy for surveillance after polypectomy were appropriate. For surveillance after CRC resection, it considered colonoscopy appropriate 1 year after resection., Conclusions: Colonoscopy is recommended as a first-choice procedure for surveillance after polypectomy by all published guidelines and by the EPAGE II criteria. Despite the limitations of the published studies, colonoscopy is also recommended by most of the guidelines and by EPAGE II criteria for surveillance after curative-intent CRC resection.

Background and Study Aims: Appropriate use of colonoscopy is a key component of quality management in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In an update of a 1998 publication, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE II) defined appropriateness criteria for various colonoscopy indications. This introductory paper therefore deals with methodology, general appropriateness, and a review of colonoscopy complications., Methods: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to evaluate the appropriateness of various diagnostic colonoscopy indications, with 14 multidisciplinary experts using a scale from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate). Evidence reported in a comprehensive updated literature review was used for these decisions. Consolidation of the ratings into three appropriateness categories (appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate) was based on the median and the heterogeneity of the votes. The experts then met to discuss areas of disagreement in the light of existing evidence, followed by a second rating round, with a subsequent third voting round on necessity criteria, using much more stringent criteria (i. e. colonoscopy is deemed mandatory)., Results: Overall, 463 indications were rated, with 55 %, 16 % and 29 % of them being judged appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate, respectively. Perforation and hemorrhage rates, as reported in 39 studies, were in general < 0.1 % and < 0.3 %, respectively, Conclusions: The updated EPAGE II criteria constitute an aid to clinical decision-making but should in no way replace individual judgment. Detailed panel results are freely available on the internet (www.epage.ch) and will thus constitute a reference source of information for clinicians.

Background and Study Aims: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for the investigation of functional bowel symptoms, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II., Methods: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies regarding the evaluation and management of functional bowel symptoms was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions., Results: Much of the evidence for use of colonoscopy in evaluation of chronic abdominal pain, and/or constipation and/or abdominal bloating is modest. Major limitations include small numbers of patients and lack of adequate characterization of these patients. Large community-based follow-up studies are needed to enable better definition of the natural history of patients with functional bowel disorders. Guidelines stress that alarm features ("red flags"), such as rectal bleeding, anemia, weight loss, nocturnal symptoms, family history of colon cancer, age of onset > 50 years, and recent onset of symptoms should all lead to careful evaluation before a diagnosis of functional bowel disorder is made. EPAGE II assessed these symptoms by means of 12 clinical scenarios, rating colonoscopy as appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate in 42 % (5/12), 25 % (3/12), and 33 % (4/12) of these, respectively., Conclusions: Evidence to support the use of colonoscopy in the evaluation of patients with functional bowel disorders and no alarm features is lacking. These patients have no increased risk of colon cancer and thus advice on screening for this is not different from that for the general population. EPAGE II criteria, available online (http://www.epage.ch), consider colonoscopy appropriate in patients of > 50 years with chronic or new-onset bowel disturbances, but not in patients with isolated chronic abdominal pain.

Background and Study Aims: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic individuals without personal history of CRC or polyps, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II., Methods: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies regarding colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy in these circumstances., Results: Available evidence for CRC screening comes from small case-controlled studies, with heterogeneous results, and from indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening and studies on flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. Most guidelines recommend screening colonoscopy every 10 years starting at age 50 in average-risk individuals. In individuals with a higher risk of CRC due to family history, there is a consensus that it is appropriate to offer screening colonoscopy at < 50 years. EPAGE II considered screening colonoscopy appropriate above 50 years in average-risk individuals. Panelists deemed screening colonoscopy appropriate for younger patients, with shorter surveillance intervals, where family or personal risk of colorectal cancer is higher. A positive FOBT or the discovery of adenomas at sigmoidoscopy are considered appropriate indications., Conclusions: Despite the lack of evidence based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), colonoscopy is recommended by most published guidelines and EPAGE II criteria available online (http://www.epage.ch), as a screening option for CRC in individuals at average risk of CRC, and undisputedly as the main screening tool for CRC in individuals at moderate and high risk of CRC.

Background: Variations in colonoscopy practice exist, which may be related to healthcare quality., Aims: To determine factors associated with three performance indicators of colonoscopy: complete colonoscopy, adenomatous polyp diagnosis, and duration., Patients: Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy from 21 centres in 11 countries., Methods: This prospective observational study used multiple variable regression analyses to identify determinants of the quality indicators., Results: Six thousand and four patients were included in the study. Patients from private, open-access centres (odds ratio: 3.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.87-5.38) were more likely to have a complete colonoscopy than patients from public, gatekeeper centres. Patients from centres where over 50% of the endoscopists were of senior rank were roughly twice as likely to have an adenoma diagnosed, and longer average withdrawal duration (odds ratio: 1.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.07-1.09) was associated with more frequent adenoma diagnoses. Patients who had difficulty during colonoscopy had longer durations to caecum (time ratio: 2.87, 95% confidence interval: 2.72-3.01) and withdrawal durations (time ratio: 1.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.18-1.33) than patients who had no difficulties., Conclusions: Multiple factors have been identified as being associated with key quality indicators. The non-modifiable factors permit the identification of patients who may be at greater risk of not having quality colonoscopy, while changes to the modifiable factors may help improve the quality of colonoscopy.

Objective: To examine the appropriateness and necessity of colonoscopy across Europe., Design: Prospective observational study., Setting: A total of 21 gastrointestinal centers from 11 countries., Participants: Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy at each center., Intervention: Appropriateness criteria developed by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, using the RAND appropriateness method, were used to assess the appropriateness of colonoscopy., Main Outcome Measure: Appropriateness of colonoscopy., Results: A total of 5213 of 6004 (86.8%) patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy and had an appropriateness rating were included in this study. According to the criteria, 20, 26, 27, or 27% of colonoscopies were judged to be necessary, appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate, respectively. Older patients and those with a major illness were more likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication for colonoscopy as compared to healthy patients or patients who were 45-54 years old. As compared to screening patients, patients who underwent colonoscopy for iron-deficiency anemia [OR: 30.84, 95% CI: 19.79-48.06] or change in bowel habits [OR: 3.69, 95% CI: 2.74-4.96] were more likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication, whereas patients who underwent colonoscopy for abdominal pain [OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49-0.83] or chronic diarrhea [OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.40-0.75] were less likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication., Conclusions: This study identified significant proportions of inappropriate colonoscopies. Prospective use of the criteria by physicians referring for or performing colonoscopies may improve appropriateness and quality of care, especially in younger patients and in patients with nonspecific symptoms.

Background and Study Aims: Sedation and monitoring practice during colonoscopy varies between centers and over time. Knowledge of current practice is needed to ensure quality of care and help focus future research. The objective of this study was to examine sedation and monitoring practice in endoscopy centers internationally., Patients and Methods: This observational study included consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy at 21 centers in 11 countries. Endoscopists reported sedation and monitoring practice, using a standard questionnaire for each patient., Results: 6004 patients were included in this study, of whom 53 % received conscious/moderate sedation during colonoscopy, 30 % received deep sedation, and 17 % received no sedation. Sedation agents most commonly used were midazolam (47 %) and opioids (33 %). Pulse oximetry was done during colonoscopy in 77 % of patients, blood pressure monitoring in 34 %, and electrocardiography in 24 %. Pulse oximetry was most commonly used for moderately sedated patients, while blood pressure monitoring and electrocardiography were used predominantly for deeply sedated patients. Sedation and monitoring use ranged from 0 % to 100 % between centers. Oxygen desaturation (

Background and Study Aim: Little is known about how gastroenterologists perceive the appropriateness of colonoscopies they perform. The objective of this study was to compare the appropriateness and necessity of colonoscopies as assessed by an expert panel and by the gastroenterologists performing the colonoscopies., Methods: This observational study included 21 centers in 11 countries. Patients referred for colonoscopy were consecutively included. Appropriateness and necessity of colonoscopies were independently rated on a 9-point scale by the gastroenterologists performing them and by an expert panel using a validated method (RAND). The differences between the ratings from the two groups were examined., Results: 6004 patients were included in the study. Comparisons of ratings were possible for 5381 (89.6 %) patients. The gastroenterologists' mean appropriateness rating was 7.2 +/- 1.7, and the panel's mean appropriateness rating was 5.4 +/- 2.3 ( P < 0.001). The percentages of indications rated inappropriate, uncertain, appropriate, and necessary were 4.1 %, 23.8 %, 14.2 %, and 58.0 % for the gastroenterologists and 27.2 %, 26.7 %, 25.0 %, and 21.1 % for the panel, respectively. Agreement between the two groups' ratings was poor (28.8 %, kappa = 0.11). Differences between the two groups' ratings decreased with increasing patient age, decreasing health status, and decreasing expertise level of the referring physician. However, the gastroenterologists produced consistently higher ratings., Conclusions: Compared with an expert panel, gastroenterologists tend to overestimate the appropriateness of colonoscopies they perform. Except for well-delineated reasons, participating gastroenterologists weighed patient characteristics differently from the panel when judging appropriateness. Ways to increase the prospective use of appropriateness criteria in order to improve appropriateness and reduce overuse of colonoscopies should be examined further.

Objective: The specificity of a University Hospital Centre is usually assessed from its teaching and research capacity. The EPAGE survey, an instrument used to help decision making available on the Internet, permitted us to compare the prescription of a routine exploration, gastrointestinal endoscopy, between the University Hospital Center in Clermont-Ferrand and the Hospital Centre in Moulins. The aim was to demonstrate the differences in daily practice between these two geographically close hospital centres and hence to underline the specificity of a University Hospital Centre that is not taken into account in the financing systems of such hospitals. Method The data collected were taken from the EPAGE trial, a prospective mutlicentre study that included 21 European and Canadian centres. Data was collected from the University Hospital centre in Clermont-Ferrand over two periods: from December 2000 to March 2001, then from December 2001 to February 2002, and from the Hospital Centre in Moulins, from December 2000 to the end of November 2001. For this Article, only the patients' characteristics, indications for gastrointestinal endoscopy and opportunity rate were analysed. Comparison of patients' categories from the 2 centres was conducted according to their DRG (diagnostic related group) (homogeneous patient group) classification, thus allowing calculation of the mean of the SIA (synthetic index of activity) points in the two centres., Results: 221 cases of gastrointestinal endoscopy performed in the University Hospital centre and 292 in the Hospital Centre were included in the survey. No statistically significant difference was found in the reasons motivating a gastrointestinal endoscopy, with regard to the indications listed on the EPAGE website. There were 18% of unlisted indications in the University Hospital Centre versus 4.8% in the Hospital Centre (p<1.10-6). Using the DRG nomenclature, calculation of the mean SIA points at the University Hospital Centre per patient was of 1161 versus 1147: non significant deviation of 1.2% in favour of the University Hospital Centre., Discussion: - Conclusion The difference in reasons motivating a gastrointestinal endoscopy found between the two centres concerned rare, complex or innovating situations. This illustrates the role of a Regional Reference University Hospital Centre, an aspect clearly underestimated when measuring mixed cases according to the HPG. Study of the financing and/or information systems is warranted and might resolve the apparent underestimation of the current financing system.

Background and Study Aims: Appropriateness of use of colonoscopy is an important issue in health care in the quest to improve quality of care while at the same time containing costs. This prospective study examined whether detailed and explicit appropriateness criteria significantly improve the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy., Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients referred for diagnostic colonoscopy at five centers (one university hospital and its outpatient department, two district hospitals, and two gastroenterology practices) were prospectively studied over a 17-month period. The appropriateness of the indications for these colonoscopies was assessed using explicit Swiss criteria developed by the Rand Corporation/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) panel method, and the relationship between appropriateness of use and the presence of clinically relevant endoscopic lesions was analysed., Results: 1188 patients were included in the study. Indications for 1144 (96.3 %) of the colonoscopies could be evaluated using explicit criteria; 64.1 % of the colonoscopies were judged appropriate, 13.3 % uncertain and 22.6 % inappropriate. Significant endoscopic lesions were found in 23.8 % of the colonoscopies. Colonoscopies judged appropriate or uncertain yielded significantly more relevant lesions than did those judged to be inappropriate (25.6 % vs. 17.4 %; P = 0.007). Of 51 colon cancers, all but one were found in colonoscopies judged to be appropriate or uncertain. In a multivariate analysis, the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy was significantly influenced by appropriateness, patient gender and treatment setting., Conclusions: The use of detailed and explicit appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy significantly enhances the identification of relevant lesions and in particular of colon cancer. The use of such criteria could therefore improve patient selection for colonoscopy and thus contribute to efforts aimed at enhancing the quality and efficiency of care.

Background: Efforts to decrease overuse of health care may result in underuse. Overuse and underuse of colonoscopy have never been simultaneously evaluated in the same patient population., Methods: In this prospective observational study, the appropriateness and necessity of referral for colonoscopy were evaluated by using explicit criteria developed by a standardized expert panel method. Inappropriate referrals constituted overuse. Patients with necessary colonoscopy indications who were not referred constituted underuse. Consecutive ambulatory patients with lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms from 22 general practices in Switzerland, a country with ready access to colonoscopy, were enrolled during a 4-week period. Follow-up data were obtained at 3 months for patients who did not undergo a necessary colonoscopy., Results: Eight thousand seven hundred sixty patient visits were screened for inclusion; 651 patients (7.4%) had lower GI symptoms (mean age 56.4 years, 68% women). Of these, 78 (12%) were referred for colonoscopy. Indications for colonoscopy in 11 patients (14% of colonoscopy referrals or 1.7% of all patients with lower GI symptoms) were judged inappropriate. Among 573 patients not referred for the procedure, underuse ranged between 11% and 28% of all patients with lower GI symptoms, depending on the criteria used., Conclusions: Applying criteria from an expert panel of nationally recognized experts indicates that underuse of referral for colonoscopy exceeds overuse in primary care in Switzerland. To improve quality of care, both overuse and underuse of important procedures must be addressed.

Background: Prospective data describing the appropriateness of use of colonoscopy based on detailed panel-based clinical criteria are not available., Methods: In a cohort of 553 consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy to two university-based Swiss outpatient clinics, the percentage of patients who underwent colonoscopy for appropriate, equivocal, and inappropriate indications and the relationship between appropriateness of use and the presence of relevant endoscopic lesions was prospectively assessed. This assessment was based on criteria of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and explicit American and Swiss criteria developed in 1994 by a formal panel process using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method., Results: The procedures were rated appropriate or equivocal in 72.2% by criteria of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, in 68.5% by explicit American criteria, and in 74.4% by explicit Swiss criteria (not statistically significant, NS). Inappropriate use (overuse) of colonoscopy was found in 27.8%, 31.5%, and 25.6%, respectively (NS). The proportion of appropriate procedures was higher with increasing age. Almost all reasons for using colonoscopy could be assessed by the two explicit criteria sets, whereas 28.4% of reasons for using colonoscopy could not be evaluated by the criteria of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (p < 0.0001). The probability of finding a relevant endoscopic lesion was distinctly higher in the procedures rated appropriate or equivocal than in procedures judged inappropriate., Conclusions: The rate of inappropriate use of colonoscopy is substantial in Switzerland. Explicit criteria allow assessment of almost all indications encountered in clinical practice. In this study, all sets of appropriateness criteria significantly enhanced the probability of finding a relevant endoscopic lesion during colonoscopy.

Background: This study examined the reliability of explicit guidelines developed using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method., Methods: The appropriateness of over 400 indications for colonoscopy was rated by two multispecialty expert panels (United States and Switzerland). A nine-point scale was used, which was consolidated into three categories of appropriateness: appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate. The distribution of appropriateness ratings between the two panels and the intrapanel and interpanel agreement for categories of appropriateness were calculated for all possible indications. Similar statistics were calculated for a series of 577 primary care patients referred for colonoscopy in Switzerland., Results: Over 80% of all indications (348) could be directly compared. The proportions of indications classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate were 28.4%, 24.7%, 46.6% and 33.0%, 23.0%, 44.0% for the U.S. and the Swiss panels, respectively. Interpanel agreement was excellent for all the possible indications (kappa value: 0.75) and lower for actual cases (kappa value: 0.51) because of lower agreement for the most frequently encountered indications., Conclusions: Good agreement between the two sets of criteria was found, pointing to the reliability of the method. Partial disagreement occurred essentially for a few, albeit frequently encountered, indications for use of colonoscopy in cases of uncomplicated lower abdominal pain or constipation.