Search

In recent years, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) has attracted considerable attention. In order to better understand patient preferences for CTC versus colonoscopy, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature. Data sources included published studies, abstracts and book chapters, in any language, with publication dates from 1995 through February 2012, and with prospective or retrospective enrollment of diagnostic or screening patients who had undergone both procedures and explicit assessment of their preference for colonoscopy versus CTC. A predefined algorithm identified eligible studies using computer and hand searches performed by two independent investigators. We used a mixed effects model to pool preference differences (defined as the proportion of subjects who preferred CTC minus the proportion who preferred colonoscopy for each study). Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 5616 subjects. In 16 of these studies, patients preferred CTC over colonoscopy, while colonoscopy was preferred in three studies. Due to the high degree of heterogeneity, an overall pooled preference difference was not calculated. Stratified analysis revealed that studies published in radiology journals (preference difference 0.590 [95 % CI 0.485, 0.694]) seemed more likely than studies in gastroenterology (0.218 [-0.015-0.451]) or general medicine journals (-0.158 [-0.389-0.072]) to report preference for CTC (p<0.001). Studies by radiology authors showed a trend towards stronger preference for CTC compared with studies by gastroenterology authors. Symptomatic patients expressed no preference, but screening patients preferred CTC. There was no difference in preferences between studies using "masked" and "unmasked" preference ascertainment methods. Three studies featuring limited bowel preparations for CTC reported marked preference for CTC. There was no evidence of publication bias, while cumulative and exclusion analysis did not show any temporal trend or dominant study. Limitations included data heterogeneity and preference ascertainment limitations. In conclusion, most included studies reported preference for CTC. On stratified analysis, screening patients preferred CTC while diagnostic patients showed no preference. Studies published in radiology journals showed significantly stronger preference for CTC compared with studies in gastroenterology or general medicine journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) is an alternative to EGD for Barrett's esophagus screening. A multicenter study found ECE to be safe, well tolerated, and accurate; however, a post hoc adjudication process was used that may have biased results. OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of ECE for the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus. DESIGN: Prospective and blinded, with no adjudication. PATIENTS: Screening patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux and surveillance patients with known Barrett's esophagus. INTERVENTIONS: ECE followed by EGD in each subject. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of ECE for Barrett's esophagus by using EGD results, with histologic confirmation as the criterion standard. RESULTS: Ninety-six subjects were enrolled, of whom 90 (94%) completed the study, including 66 screening and 24 surveillance patients. ECE was 67% sensitive and 84% specific for identifying Barrett's esophagus, diagnosing 14 of 21 cases of biopsy-confirmed Barrett's esophagus. Positive and negative predictive values were 22% and 98%, respectively (calculated for screening patients only). Sensitivity for short- and long-segment Barrett's esophagus was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our blinded, unadjudicated study shows that ECE had only moderate sensitivity and specificity for identifying Barrett's esophagus. ECE in its present form is not suitable as a primary screening tool for Barrett's esophagus but may be used in patients unwilling to undergo EGD. Inadequate visualization of the gastroesophageal junction may be the cause of suboptimal ECE accuracy; this may be improved by advances in ingestion protocol and capsule calibration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation (NAPCIS) is a new nonanesthesia propofol delivery method for gastrointestinal endoscopy. NAPCIS is adopted from the computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) protocol. We evaluated the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of NAPCIS in low-risk subjects., Methods: Between December 2016 and July 2017, patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at our center were compared against 2 historical control groups of similar patients who had undergone procedures with CAPS or midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation., Results: The mean age of the NAPCIS cohort (N = 3,331) was 55.2 years (45.8% male) for 945 esophagogastroduodenoscopies and 57.8 years (48.7% male) for 2,386 colonoscopies. The procedural success rates with NAPCIS were high (99.1%-99.2%) and similar to those seen in 3,603 CAPS (98.8%-99.0%) and 3,809 MF (99.0%-99.3%) controls. NAPCIS recovery times were shorter than both CAPS and MF (24.8 vs 31.7 and 52.4 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). On arrival at the recovery unit, 86.6% of NAPCIS subjects were recorded as "Awake" compared with 82.8% of CAPS and 40.8% of MF controls (P < 0.001). Validated clinician and patient satisfaction scores were generally higher for NAPCIS compared with CAPS and MF subjects. For NAPCIS, there were only 4 cases of oxygen desaturation requiring transient mask ventilation and no serious sedation-related complications. These low complication rates were similar to those seen with CAPS (8 cases of mask ventilation) and MF (3 cases)., Discussion: NAPCIS seems to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy in low-risk patients.

Background & Aims: Patients who chronically use alcohol, marijuana, or opioids, or suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), can be difficult to sedate with midazolam and fentanyl, and often are referred for monitored anesthesia care during endoscopy. Nurse-administered propofol continuous infusion sedation (NAPCIS), which confers the benefit of propofol-based sedation without the added expense of anesthesia, is effective and safe for sedation of healthy patients. We investigated whether NAPCIS also is effective for patients who are difficult to sedate., Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent upper endoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at a single center from January 2018 through April 2018. We reviewed records from patients who were heavy users of alcohol (n = 105), daily users of marijuana (n = 267) or opioids (n = 178), had a diagnosis of PTSD (n = 91), or were none of these (controls, n = 786). We compared mean fentanyl and propofol doses (adjusted for body weight), procedure and recovery times, procedure success rates, and adverse events., Results: Compared with the controls, the marijuana group required higher mean adjusted sedative doses for colonoscopies (0.6 vs 0.4 mcg/kg fentanyl and 5.0 vs 4.7 mg/kg propofol; P ≤ .025 for both) and upper endoscopies (0.8 vs 0.3 mcg/kg fentanyl and 3.7 vs 3.2 mg/kg propofol; P ≤ .021 for both), the PTSD group required a higher dose of fentanyl for colonoscopies (0.6 vs 0.4 mcg/kg; P = .009), and the alcohol group required a higher dose of fentanyl for upper endoscopies (0.7 vs 0.3 mcg/kg; P < .001). Procedure success rates were high (95.1%-100%) and did not differ significantly between the difficult-to-sedate groups and controls; mean procedure times (7.0-9.0 minutes for upper endoscopies, 21.1-22.9 minutes for colonoscopies) and recovery times (22.5-29.6 minutes) also were similar among groups. Upper endoscopies were associated with lower sedative doses and shorter procedure and recovery times than colonoscopies. Sedation-related adverse events were rare in all groups (only 26 cases total), and there were no serious complications or deaths., Conclusions: NAPCIS seems to be a safe and effective means of providing sedation for endoscopy to patients who may be difficult to sedate owing to alcohol, marijuana, or opioid use, or PTSD., (Copyright © 2021 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) allows non-anesthesiologists to administer propofol for gastrointestinal procedures in relatively healthy patients. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use, we report our 1-year experience with CAPS for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)., Methods: Between September 2014 and August 2015, 926 outpatients underwent elective EGDs with CAPS at our center. All EGDs were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of CAPS. Procedural success rates, procedure times, and recovery times were compared against corresponding historical controls done with midazolam and fentanyl sedation from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in CAPS patients were recorded., Results: The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 56.7 years (45% male); 16.2% of the EGDs were for variceal screening or Barrett's surveillance and 83.8% for symptoms. The procedural success rates were similar to that of historical controls (99.0% vs. 99.3%; p = 0.532); procedure times were also similar (6.6 vs. 7.4 min; p = 0.280), but recovery time was markedly shorter (31.7 vs. 52.4 min; p < 0.001). There were 11 (1.2%) cases of mild transient oxygen desaturation (< 90%), 15 (1.6%) cases of marked agitation due to undersedation, and 1 case of asymptomatic hypotension. In addition, there were six (0.6%) patients with more pronounced desaturation episodes that required brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no other serious adverse events., Conclusions: CAPS appears to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing sedation for EGD in healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical controls.

Background: There are only limited data available on changes in the etiology, management, and clinical outcomes in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding over the past decade., Study: We compared 2 groups of consecutive patients hospitalized with lower gastrointestinal bleeding during 2 time periods: 2005 to 2007 (301 patients) and 2015 to 2017 (249 patients)., Results: Compared with the 2005 to 2007 group, the mean Charlson comorbidity index in the 2015 to 2017 group was higher (5.0±2.6 vs. 6.0±3.0, P=0.028), whereas the use of computerized tomographic angiography and small bowel capsule endoscopy was more common (12.9% vs. 58.1%, P<0.001, and 28.8% vs. 69.0%, P=0.031, respectively). In 2005 to 2007, ischemic colitis (12.0%) was the most common confirmed etiology of bleeding and diverticular bleeding the second most common (8.6%), whereas in 2015 to 2017, diverticular bleeding was the most common etiology (10.4%), followed by angiodysplasia (8.4%). Small bowel bleeding sources were confirmed more often in the 2015 to 2017 group (P=0.017). Endoscopic treatment was attempted in 16.6% of patients in 2005 to 2007 versus 25.3% in 2015 to 2017 (P=0.015). Higher rebleeding rates, longer hospitalization durations (4.6±4.3 vs. 5.5±3.4 d, P=0.019), and a higher proportion of patients needing a transfusion (62.0% vs. 78.4%, P=0.016) were noted in 2015 to 2017., Conclusions: Over a 10-year span, there were several notable changes: (1) more comorbidities in patients hospitalized for lower gastrointestinal bleeding; (2) marked increase in the use of computerized tomographic angiography and capsule endoscopy for diagnostic evaluation; and (3) longer hospitalization durations and greater need for blood transfusion, possibly reflecting the selection of sicker patients for in-patient management in 2015 to 2017.

Background and Aims: For young individuals (age <40 years) without strong family histories that would put them at risk for genetic colorectal cancer syndromes, it is unclear if national Multi-Society Task Force surveillance recommendations apply or if endoscopists follow these guideline recommendations when such patients are incidentally found to have adenoma(s) on colonoscopy., Methods: We reviewed records on young (age <40 years) patients, with either no family history or only a moderate family history (1 first-degree family member with colorectal cancer at age ≥50), who were found to have neoplastic polyp(s) on their index colonoscopy. We assessed the pattern of endoscopist surveillance recommendations, whether endoscopist recommendations complied with national guidelines, and compliance with surveillance recommendations., Results: One hundred forty-one subjects were included, of whom 19 (13.5%) had a moderate family history of colorectal cancer. For patients with non-high-risk findings, 27.7% were asked to repeat their colonoscopy in ≤3 years and 99.0% within 5 years. Endoscopist surveillance recommendation compliance rates with national guidelines were >65.0% for low-risk neoplasia but lower for high-risk (40.0%), nonpolypoid (44.2%), and serrated neoplasia (54.2%, P < .001 for all). Subjects whose endoscopist recommendations were noncompliant with guidelines were usually recalled too early (96%). Only 24.7% of subjects were actually compliant with endoscopist surveillance recommendations., Conclusions: For young patients with neoplastic polyp(s) but no strong family history, most endoscopists complied with national guidelines and recommended repeat colonoscopy in 3 to 5 years. However, relatively few patients were compliant with repeat colonoscopy recommendations. For most cases that were noncompliant with guidelines, patients were recalled too early as opposed to too late., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Pancreatic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy followed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is accepted worldwide as a treatment for a large, symptomatic, obstructing pancreatic stones. However, timely completion of the combined process requires coordination of equipment and personnel from two different complex procedures. We used Lean management tools in a week-long event to redesign the process around the patient. Using idea-generated Plan Do Study Act cycles to refine the process, from scheduling to postprocedure recovery, equipment and personnel were aligned to allow these two procedures to occur in immediate succession. The redesigned process resulted in all patients receiving both procedures without delay. This eliminated over 8 hours of wait time. Standard work and a newly created complex scheduler improved flow. We reduced the number of anaesthetics for patients without prolonging the procedure length., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Purpose of Review: To assess the trends in nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) for gastrointestinal endoscopy over the past few years, and to describe alternative methods of delivering propofol sedation in selected low-risk patients., Recent Findings: The use of NORA for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has been rising steadily over the past decade in the United States, considerably increasing healthcare costs. Because of this, there have been attempts to develop nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation methods in low-risk patients. There is controversy as to whether properly trained nonanesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation SUMMARY: The deployment of nonanesthesia-administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall healthcare costs without sacrificing sedation quality. We also address the realm of anesthesia provider care for advanced endoscopic procedures including setup for administration of anesthesia, decision-making regarding placement of an endotracheal tube, and the potential need to move a challenging case to the operating room.

Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used, but propofol sedation is becoming more popular because its unique pharmacokinetic properties make endoscopy almost painless, with a very predictable and rapid recovery process. There is controversy as to whether propofol should be administered only by anesthesia professionals (monitored anesthesia care) or whether properly trained non-anesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation. The deployment of non-anesthesia administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall health care costs without sacrificing sedation quality. This review will discuss efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction issues with various modes of sedation for non-advanced, non-emergent endoscopic procedures, mainly esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: Otto S. Lin served as a consultant for SEDASYS Inc.

Background: Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) is now approved for moderate sedation of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I and II patients undergoing routine endoscopy. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS for routine clinical use, we compared patient and endoscopist satisfaction with CAPS versus midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation., Methods: Patients who underwent elective outpatient upper endoscopy and colonoscopy with CAPS were compared with concurrent patients sedated with MF. The primary end points were patient satisfaction (measured by the validated Patient Sedation Satisfaction Index [PSSI]), and endoscopist satisfaction (Clinician Sedation Satisfaction Index [CSSI]). Secondary end points included procedural success rates, polyp detection rates, adverse events, and procedure/recovery times. Multivariable regression was used for comparative analysis., Results: CAPS was utilized to sedate 244 patients, of whom 55 underwent upper endoscopy, 173 colonoscopy, and 16 double procedures. During the same period, 75 upper endoscopies, 223 colonoscopies, and 30 doubles were performed with MF on similar patients. For upper endoscopy, the procedural success rate was 98.2% for CAPS versus 98.7% for MF (P = .96), whereas for colonoscopy, the success rate was 98.9% vs 98.8% (P = .59). Colonoscopic polyp detection rate was 54.5% for CAPS and 59.3% for MF (P = .67). Procedure times were similar between CAPS and MF. For CAPS, the mean recovery time was 26.4 vs 39.1 minutes for MF (P < .001). One CAPS patient required mask ventilation, 4 experienced asymptomatic hypotension or desaturation, and 5 experienced marked agitation resulting from undersedation. For MF, 5 patients had hypotension or desaturation, and 8 experienced undersedation. For colonoscopy, the CAPS group had higher PSSI scores for sedation adequacy, the recovery process and global satisfaction, and higher CSSI scores for ease of sedation administration, the recovery process and global satisfaction. For upper endoscopy and doubles, the CAPS CSSI score was higher for the recovery process only. All P values were adjusted for confounding by using regression analysis., Conclusions: In low-risk patients, CAPS appears to be effective and efficient. CAPS is associated with higher satisfaction than MF for colonoscopies and, to a lesser extent, upper endoscopies.

To date, not much is known about ethnic differences in the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in symptomatic young patients with lower gastrointestinal symptoms. This study sought to compare diagnostic colonoscopic findings in symptomatic young patients from South Korea and the United States. Results from the first diagnostic colonoscopies in symptomatic 18- to 49-year-old patients were compared between the United States and Korean cohorts. The US cohort data were collected at Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle, Washington between January 2007 and January 2010, and the Korean cohort data were collected at 14 university hospitals in Korea between June 2006 and June 2015.The prevalence of advanced neoplasias was similar in both cohorts for bleeding and nonbleeding symptoms (P = .966 and P = .076, respectively). In a subgroup analysis for 40- to 49-year-old patients, the prevalence of advanced neoplasias was similar for bleeding symptoms; however, nonbleeding symptoms were significantly higher in the Korean cohort than in the US cohort (6.2% vs 2.6%, P < .001). In an age subgroup analysis for 18- to 39-year-old patients, the prevalence of advanced neoplasias was similar for bleeding and nonbleeding symptoms in both cohorts. Multivariate analysis showed that lower gastrointestinal symptoms were not associated with the risk of any type of advanced neoplasia in young Korean patients.Ethnic disparities in the prevalence of advanced neoplasia on diagnostic colonoscopy were not noticeable between Korean and US young patients. However, 40- to 49-year-old patients with nonbleeding symptoms require more attention to detect advanced neoplasia in Korea than similarly aged patients in the United States.

Aim: To report our one-year experience with computer assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) for colonoscopy as the first United States Medical Center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use., Methods: Between September 2014 and August 2015, 2677 patients underwent elective outpatient colonoscopy with CAPS at our center. All colonoscopies were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of the CAPS system, with the assistance of a specially trained nurse. Procedural success rates, polyp detection rates, procedure times and recovery times were recorded and compared against corresponding historical measures from 2286 colonoscopies done with midazolam and fentanyl from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in the CAPS group were recorded., Results: The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 59.9 years (48.7% male); 31.3% were ASA I, 67.3% ASA II and 1.4% ASA III. 45.1% of the colonoscopies were for screening, 31.5% for surveillance, and 23.4% for symptoms. The mean propofol dose administered was 250.7 mg (range 16-1470 mg), with a mean fentanyl dose of 34.1 mcg (0-100 mcg). The colonoscopy completion and polyp detection rates were similar to that of historical measures. Recovery times were markedly shorter (31 min vs 45.6 min, P < 0.001). In CAPS patients, there were 20 (0.7%) cases of mild desaturation (< 90%) treated with a chin lift and reduction or temporary discontinuation of the propofol infusion, 21 (0.8%) cases of asymptomatic hypotension (< 90 systolic blood pressure) treated with a reduction in the propofol rate, 4 (0.1%) cases of marked agitation or discomfort due to undersedation, and 2 cases of pronounced transient desaturation requiring brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no sedation-related serious adverse events such as emergent intubation, unanticipated hospitalization or permanent injury., Conclusion: CAPS appears to be a safe, effective and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for colonoscopy in relatively healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical measures. There were few adverse events, and no serious adverse events, related to CAPS., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: Lin OS, Tombs D, Beecher R, Koch J and Ross A served as consultants for SEDASYS Inc., there are no other conflicts of interest.

Background: Endoscopic documentation software can generate research data on large numbers of subjects automatically. There are increasing numbers of published studies based on endoscopic databases such as the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative. However, no study has yet validated such data. We compared colonoscopic findings reported by an endoscopic documentation software (Provation) against manually collected medical records data from two similar patient cohorts in the same endoscopy unit., Methods: In November 2011, our unit switched from dictation-based text documentation to the Provation system. As a quality control initiative, we collected data on 9614 patients who had undergone colonoscopies from January 2010 to November 2011, using manual electronic chart review. We compared these data against those generated by Provation on 7091 similar patients who underwent colonoscopy from November 2011 to March 2013., Results: Age, sex and procedural indication distribution were similar between the Manual and Provation cohorts, as were the large (≥1 cm) polyp (7.6 vs. 8.1%; p = 0.25) and advanced neoplasia (8.3 vs. 8.2%; p = 0.80) prevalences. However, there were significant differences in the polyp (46.9 vs. 49.8%) and adenoma prevalences (31.3 vs. 26.8%; p < 0.001). Furthermore, the Manual cohort had a higher prevalence of diverticulosis and hemorrhoids, and a lower colonoscopy completion rate. Stratification by indication resulted in additional discrepancies between the two cohorts for screening and surveillance patients. There were also differences in the anatomic (right vs. left colon) distribution of large polyps., Conclusions: There were significant discrepancies between data from Provation and manually collected medical records data. Although the two cohorts were enrolled during slightly different time periods, they came from the same endoscopy unit, had the same endoscopists and indications, and demonstrated similar demographics, making it unlikely for there to be true differences between the cohorts independent of documentation method. Thus, caution is advised when using endoscopic data for research.

Background & Aims: Although the numbers of medical procedures performed on extremely elderly patients (90 years or older, nonagenarians) are increasing, there are no data on the performance, diagnostic yield, or safety of colonoscopy for these patients. We compared the performance and safety of diagnostic colonoscopy, as well as lesions detected, in nonagenarians with patients who were 75 to 79 years old., Methods: In a retrospective study, we compared data from 76 extremely elderly patients (90 years or older) with data from 140 very elderly patients (75 to 79 years old, controls), all of whom underwent diagnostic colonoscopy from January 2010 through March 2013 at Virginia Mason Medical Center. All colonoscopies were performed by 15 endoscopists. We compared rates of colonoscopy completion, bowel preparation quality, diagnostic yield, and adverse events., Results: In extremely elderly patients, more colonoscopies were performed under general anesthesia, compared with controls (P < .001). When extremely elderly patients underwent colonoscopies with moderate sedation, lower doses of midazolam and fentanyl were given, compared with controls (P < .001). Colonoscopies were completed in a lower proportion of extremely elderly patients (88.2% vs. 99.3% for controls, P < .001), and these patients had a higher incidence of inadequate bowel preparation (29.7% vs. 15.0% for controls, P = .011). Colonoscopies were also associated with cardiopulmonary events in a higher proportion of extremely elderly patients (P = .006) as well as overall adverse events, compared with controls (P = .002). A higher proportion of extremely elderly patients were found to have advanced neoplasia (28.4% vs. 6.4% of controls, P < .001) as well as any neoplasia (P < .001 vs. controls). A greater percentage of extremely elderly patients also had large lesions (P = .002) and malignancies detected by histology (P < .001 vs. controls). Eleven extremely elderly patients (14.9%) were found to have cancer or high-grade dysplasia by colonoscopy., Conclusions: In patients 90 years or older, diagnostic colonoscopy is associated with increased risk for incomplete procedure, inadequate bowel preparation, and adverse events. However, a large proportion of patients are found to have advanced neoplasia and cancer, compared with patients 75 to 79 years old., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Colon cancer screening is being introduced in many countries, but standard Western screening approaches may not be appropriate for Asian societies if differences in colon cancer epidemiology exist. Comparative analysis of colorectal neoplasia patterns in South Korean and Western subjects has implications for appropriate screening approaches in non-Western societies., Methods: The results of concurrent screening colonoscopies performed in average-risk patients 50 to 69 years old in 2 teaching hospitals, Kyung Hee University Hospital (Seoul, South Korea) and Virginia Mason Medical Center (Seattle, Wash), were compared with respect to prevalence, histologic features, anatomic distribution, and shape characteristics of colorectal neoplasia., Results: The U.S. (n = 3460) and South Korean (n = 2193) cohorts were similar with regard to the prevalence of adenomas (28.5% vs 29.8%, respectively, P = .312) and advanced neoplasia (6.4% vs 5.4%, respectively, P = .102), but the proportion of proximal adenomas was greater in the U.S. cohort (62.8% vs 45.9%, P < .001). The prevalence of adenomas and advanced neoplasia was similar in male patients, but there was a greater prevalence of neoplasia (23.5% vs 18.8%, P = .006) and advanced neoplasia (5.1% vs 2.7%, P < .001) in U.S. women than South Korean women. When large (≥10 mm) adenomas were considered, proximal location and nonpolypoid (flat) shape were more common in the U.S. cohort (79.4% vs 37.1%, P = .003 and 43.5% vs 12.3%, P < .001, respectively). The overall prevalence of large flat adenomas in the U.S. cohort was 5 times that of the South Korean cohort (2.6% vs 0.5%, P < .001). Adjustment for sex ratio discrepancies (48.3% men in the U.S. cohort vs 60.8% in the South Korean cohort, P < .001) did not result in any significant changes in the conclusions., Conclusion: Compared with Westerners, South Koreans have a more distal distribution of adenomas and advanced neoplasia and lower prevalence of large flat adenomas. South Korean women have a lower prevalence of colorectal neoplasia than Western women. Such disparities suggest that Western screening strategies cannot be directly adopted by other countries, but need to be customized by society., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The threshold for diagnostic colonoscopy in symptomatic patients aged <50 years remains controversial. Previous studies on the prevalence of neoplasia or other serious pathology in young patients mostly have been uncontrolled, providing only limited data on the risk associated with specific symptoms., Objective: To compare colonoscopy findings in patients aged <50 years who have various symptoms (diagnostic cohort) against those of concurrent patients aged 50 to 54 years who are asymptomatic (screening cohort)., Design: Retrospective controlled cohort study., Setting: Teaching hospital., Patients: Symptomatic patients aged between 18 and 49 years and asymptomatic patients aged between 50 and 54 years., Interventions: Colonoscopy., Main Outcome Measurements: Prevalence of advanced neoplasia., Results: During the study period, 1638 patients underwent colonoscopy in the screening cohort (mean [± standard deviation{SD}] age 51.7 ± 1.4 years) and 1266 underwent colonoscopy in the diagnostic cohort (40.4 ± 8.0 years). Despite the age difference, the prevalence of advanced neoplasia in patients with rectal bleeding was comparable with that in the screening controls: 28 of 472 (5.9%) versus 113 of 1638 patients (6.9%) (P = .459). Furthermore, 10 patients (2.1%) with rectal bleeding were newly diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease. In contrast, other symptoms that commonly lead to colonoscopy, such as abdominal pain, changes in bowel habits, and weight loss, were associated with much lower risks for neoplasia. As a result, the overall prevalences of neoplasia and advanced neoplasia were significantly higher in the screening cohort than in the diagnostic cohort: 467 of 1638 patients (28.5%) versus 179 of 1266 patients (14.1%), and 113 patients (6.9%) versus 48 patients (3.8%), respectively (both P < .001)., Limitations: No data on duration of symptoms; discrepant sex ratios between cohorts., Conclusion: The threshold for diagnostic colonoscopy in symptomatic young adults should be individualized for each symptom category. Rectal bleeding warrants colonoscopy to detect advanced neoplasia or inflammatory bowel disease in most young patients, especially those aged 40 to 49 years, whereas non-bleeding symptoms, including some traditionally regarded as "alarm" symptoms, were associated with a much lower risk for neoplasia compared with the risk in screening patients aged 50 to 54 years., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) using sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy is now common in many developed countries. This concise, evidence-based review looks at the impact of sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy screening on CRC incidence, CRC mortality and overall mortality. Data from controlled retrospective and prospective (observational or randomized) studies have generally shown that sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, whether for diagnostic, screening or surveillance purposes, are associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence and CRC mortality. The data on their impact on overall mortality is much more limited, with most studies unable to report a reduction in overall mortality. The results of three meta-analyses have confirmed these conclusions. As expected, sigmoidoscopy has a predominant effect on left-sided CRC, although some studies have shown modest effects on right-sided colon cancer as well. Most studies on colonoscopy have demonstrated that the protective effect applies to both right and left-sided cancer, although the protection seemed better on the left side. Despite the introduction of other screening and diagnostic modalities for the colon, such as computed tomography colonography and colonic capsule endoscopy, lower endoscopy will continue to be an important mode of screening for CRC and evaluating the colon.

Many diagnostic and screening colonoscopies are performed on very elderly patients. Although colonoscopic yield increases with age, the potential benefits in such patients decrease because of shorter life expectancy and more frequent comorbidities. Colonoscopy in very elderly patients carries a greater risk of complications and morbidity than in younger patients, and is associated with lower completion rates and higher likelihood of poor bowel preparation. Thus, screening colonoscopy in very elderly patients should be performed only after careful consideration of potential benefits, risks and patient preferences. On the other hand, diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy are more likely to benefit even very elderly patients, and in most cases should be performed if indicated.

Background and Aims: Traditional endoscopic management of benign biliary strictures (BBS) consists of placement of one or more plastic stents. Emerging data support the use of covered self-expandable metal stents (CSEMS). We sought to assess outcome of endoscopic temporary placement of CSEMS in patients with BBS., Methods: This was a retrospective study of CSEMS placement for BBS between May 2005 and July 2012 from two tertiary care centers. A total of 145 patients (81 males, median age 59 years) with BBS were identified; 73 of which were classified as extrinsic and were caused by chronic pancreatitis, and 70 were intrinsic. Main outcome measures were resolution of stricture and adverse events (AEs) due to self-expandable metal stents (SEMS)-related therapy., Results: Fully covered and partially covered 8-10 mm diameter SEMS were placed and subsequently removed in 121/125 (97 %) attempts in BBS (failure to remove four partially covered stents). Stricture resolution occurred in 83/125 (66 %) patients after a median stent duration of 26 weeks (median follow-up 90 weeks). Resolution of extrinsic strictures was significantly lower compared to intrinsic strictures (31/65, 48 % vs. 52/60, 87 %, p = 0.004) despite longer median stent duration (30 vs. 20 weeks). Thirty-seven AEs occurred in 25 patients (17 %), with 12 developing multiple AEs including cholangitis (n = 17), pancreatitis (n = 5), proximal stent migration (n = 3), cholecystitis (n = 2), pain requiring SEMS removal and/or hospitalization (n = 3), inability to remove (n = 4), and new stricture formation (n = 3)., Conclusions: Benign biliary strictures can be effectively treated with CSEMS. Successful resolution of biliary strictures due to extrinsic disease is seen significantly less often than those due to intrinsic disease. Removal is successful in all patients with fully covered SEMS.

Background: Currently, there are no data on adherence to guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in patients with a family history., Aim: We conducted a retrospective study to assess if such patients were being appropriately screened according to American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guidelines., Methods: Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive medical record review of family and CRC screening history on 362 adults with a family history of CRC in a first-degree relative who had recently undergone screening colonoscopy. The endpoint was appropriate initiation of screening and endoscopist-recommended subsequent screening intervals, as compared to AGA guideline recommendations., Results: Of 362 subjects, only 146 (40.3 %) were screened appropriately; 213 (58.9 %) had late initiation of screening (i.e., screening was started ≥5 years later than the age recommended by guidelines) and three (0.8 %) had premature initiation (i.e., screening was started ≥1 year too early). Of cases involving delayed screening initiation, 126 were not under primary care at the time when screening was supposed to have started, while most of the remaining received either no or incorrect screening recommendations from their primary care provider. Of 270 subjects with no neoplasia found on initial screening, 112 (41.5 %) had endoscopist-recommended subsequent screening intervals that were ≥2 years shorter than that recommended by guidelines. Results were similar if American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy or American College of Gastroenterology guidelines were used., Conclusions: Patients with a family history often suffer from late initiation of screening and overly short endoscopist-recommended subsequent intervals for colonoscopy. Further education of patients and providers on screening recommendations may be helpful.

We report a unique case of a 70-year-old woman with Gardner's syndrome who had a subtotal colectomy with ileoproctostomy. Since then, she has undergone 12 uncomplicated proctoileoscopies, each time with argon plasma coagulation ablation of small polyps without any bowel preparation. However, during the most recent procedure, when we attempted to cauterize some rectal polyps, an immediate explosion occurred, leading to multiple rectal and ileal perforations that required surgical repair with a temporary end ileostomy. This event suggests that bacterial fermentation of colonic content or visible feces is not necessary for combustion because we observed a cautery-related explosion in the absence of a colon. This case shows the need for adequate bowel preparation if cautery is to be used, even in patients who have undergone a colectomy., (Copyright © 2012 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patients with a positive family history have an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and, in many countries, more intensive screening regimens, sometimes involving the use of colonoscopy as opposed to sigmoidoscopy or fecal occult blood testing, are recommended. This review discusses current screening guidelines in the United States and other countries, data on the magnitude of CRC risk in the presence of a family history and the efficacy of recommended screening programs, as well as ancillary issues such as compliance, cost-effectiveness and accuracy of family history ascertainment. We focus on the relatively common "sporadic" family histories of CRC, which typically imparts a mild to moderate elevation in the risk for CRC development in the proband. Defined familial syndromes associated with extremely high risks of CRC, such as hereditary non-polyposis colorectal syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis, require specialized management approaches and are beyond the scope of this article. We will also not discuss colonoscopic surveillance in patients with a personal history of adenomas or CRC.

Background: Most outcomes data on pancreatic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (P-ESWL) for chronic calcific pancreatitis (CCP) are based on studies with <4 years' follow-up, and U.S. long-term studies are lacking., Objective: To report long-term P-ESWL outcomes for CCP and to assess whether smoking or alcohol use influences P-ESWL outcomes., Design: Cross-sectional study, retrospective chart review., Setting: Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington., Patients: This study involved 120 patients who underwent P-ESWL and ERCP for CCP and completed an outcomes questionnaire., Intervention: P-ESWL and ERCP, outcomes survey., Main Outcome Measurements: Pain, quality of life, narcotics use, diabetes status, pancreatic enzyme requirement, repeat P-ESWL, repeat ERCP, surgery., Results: A total of 120 patients underwent P-ESWL followed by ERCP (mean ± standard deviation [SD] follow-up 4.3 [± 3.7] years) and completed a survey. The mean (± SD) before-P-ESWL pain score was 7.9 (± 2.6) compared with 2.9 (± 2.6) after P-ESWL (P < .001). Improved pain was reported by 102 patients (85%); 60 (50%) reported complete pain relief and no narcotic use. The mean (± SD) before-P-ESWL quality-of-life score was 3.7 (± 2.4) compared with 7.3 (± 2.7) after P-ESWL (P < .001). In patients with ≥ 4 years' follow-up, repeat procedures included P-ESWL (29%), ERCP (84%), and surgery (16%). Smokers who quit smoking after P-ESWL had improved narcotic requirements compared with those who continued smoking (95% vs 67%; P = .014), and a trend suggested a decreased need for repeat ERCPs (68% vs 84%; P = .071)., Limitations: Single center, retrospective, recall bias, nonvalidated pain and quality-of-life scales., Conclusion: P-ESWL as the initial therapy for CCP may lead to more lifetime procedures; however, partial pain relief in 85%, complete pain relief with no narcotic use in 50%, and avoidance of surgery in 84% of patients may be achieved. Quitting smoking after P-ESWL may improve outcomes., (Copyright © 2012 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A redundant colon can lead to incomplete colonoscopy. A variety of tools and techniques are available to complete colonoscopy but have limitations., Objective: To determine the feasibility and safety of using a spiral overtube to complete a difficult colonoscopy., Design: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database., Setting: Single tertiary institution., Patients: Twenty-four patients with incomplete colonoscopy because of redundant colons underwent 26 procedures. The median age was 68 years, and 58% were men., Interventions: All patients underwent colonoscopy performed with a 90-cm flexible threaded overtube and a variable-stiffness pediatric colonoscope. Four individuals (18%) required exchanging the colonoscope for an enteroscope., Main Outcome Measurements: Successful cecal intubation, polyp identification and removal, time to reach the cecum, sedation needed, and complications., Results: Cecal intubation was achieved in 22 patients (92%). Failures occurred in 2 patients with large hernias. The median time from insertion of the colonoscope to reaching the cecum was 14.5 minutes. All procedures were performed by using conscious sedation with midazolam (median dose 7 mg) and fentanyl (median dose 150 μg). Significant findings were encountered in 17 of 22 patients (77%) including 1 cancer and 2 advanced polyps. A median of 3 polyps was removed from each patient who had polyps. All noncancerous polyps were removed during the procedure. There were no complications., Limitations: Retrospective design, no control group, single center., Conclusion: Spiral overtube-assisted colonoscopy can enable cecal intubation in the majority of patients in whom standard colonoscopy fails because of a redundant colon., (Copyright © 2011. Published by Mosby, Inc.)

Background: Previous studies showed a correlation between mean withdrawal times during screening colonoscopy and polyp/neoplasia detection rates., Objectives: To assess the effect of a monitoring and feedback program on withdrawal times, polyp/neoplasia detection rates, and patient satisfaction., Design: Comparison of retrospective and prospective data., Setting: Teaching hospital., Patients: Asymptomatic adults undergoing screening colonoscopy., Interventions: Monitoring and feedback program., Main Outcome Measurements: Withdrawal times, polyp and neoplasia detection rates, and patient satisfaction scores., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 850 screening colonoscopies, recording withdrawal times, polyp findings, and patient satisfaction scores. All procedures were performed by 10 experienced gastroenterologists who were then informed that periodic confidential monitoring and feedback of withdrawal times, polyp detection rates, and satisfaction scores would be started. We then prospectively collected data on another 541 screening colonoscopies. We compared pre- and postmonitoring outcome measures., Results: Overall, after monitoring had begun, there was an increase in mean withdrawal times (from 6.57 to 8.07 minutes; P < .0001), and polyp detection rates (from 33.1% to 38.1%; P = .04, significance removed by Bonferroni correction). Nine of the 10 endoscopists increased their withdrawal times significantly. There was a small, nonsignificant increase in the neoplasia detection rate (from 19.6% to 22.7%; P = .17), but no significant change in mean satisfaction scores. Across endoscopists, there was a moderate correlation (r = 0.63; P = .04, significance removed by Bonferroni correction) between withdrawal times and polyp detection rates, but not between withdrawal times and satisfaction scores., Limitations: No randomization, possible response bias, confounding of intervention effects, and sample size limitations., Conclusions: Monitoring and feedback are associated with increases in mean withdrawal times and polyp detection rates, but not patient satisfaction scores. Neoplasia detection rates showed a statistically nonsignificant trend toward an increase., (Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: A large controlled prospective observational study to compare pre- and postsurgery changes in reflux symptoms between cholecystectomy and hernia repair surgery patients., Summary Background Data: Six studies have suggested that gastroesophageal reflux worsens after cholecystectomy. However, all these studies had design limitations., Methods: We recruited 302 patients scheduled to undergo elective cholecystectomy (study group) or hernia repair (controls) at 2 hospitals. Both groups filled out the validated Reflux Symptom Score (RSS) and Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) questionnaires 1 to 15 days prior to and 4 to 12 weeks after the operation. Changes in symptom scores between the pre and postsurgery assessments were measured, and compared between the 2 groups., Results: Baseline RSS and GSRS reflux subscores were higher in the study group than controls (1.44 vs. 1.02 and 1.91 vs. 1.43, respectively; P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in any of the symptom score changes between the 2 groups except for the GSRS pain subscore, which decreased more in the study group than the control group (-0.59 vs. -0.10; P < 0.001). With regard to reflux, the RSS decreased by -0.34 in the study group and -0.14 in controls (P = 0.27), while the GSRS reflux subscore decreased by -0.32 in the study group and -0.05 in controls (P = 0.12). GSRS diarrhea and constipation subscores decreased slightly after surgery, to the same extent in both groups., Conclusions: This large prospective controlled study, the only one using validated reflux symptom questionnaires, shows that cholecystectomy does not lead to an increase in reflux symptoms. As expected, GSRS pain subscores were decreased in the cholecystectomy group but not the controls.

The risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) is influenced by several acquired risk factors, including environmental exposures and comorbid medical conditions that are partially genetic in nature. These risk factors are based on data almost exclusively derived from observational studies. Because of the possibility of bias due to confounding, these acquired risk factors should not be automatically assumed to be causative, and in fact some may not be truly independent risk factors. Acquired risk factors include the following categories: 1) dietary factors, 2) lifestyle factors, 3) side-effects of medical interventions, and 4) comorbid medical conditions. Dietary factors that potentially increase the risk of CRC include low fruit, vegetable, or fiber intake, high red meat or saturated fat consumption, and exposure to caffeine or alcohol. Of these factors, the significance of low fruit, vegetable, and fiber intake has been called into question because of contradictory results from large observational studies and negative results from randomized trials. The association of high red meat or saturated fat consumption with increased CRC risk is supported by the preponderance of observational data. Lifestyle factors include lack of exercise and smoking. These risk factors are supported by observational data of moderate quality. Medical interventions that may increase the risk of CRC include pelvic irradiation, cholecystectomy, and ureterocolic anastomosis after major surgery of the urinary and intestinal tracts. Aside from cholecystectomy, these risk factors are supported by observational data from small studies only, therefore their validity is not well established. Finally, comorbid medical conditions that are associated with increased risk of CRC include Barrett's esophagus, human immunodeficiency virus infection, acromegaly, and inflammatory bowel disease. The association between inflammatory bowel disease and CRC is well established and it forms the basis for widely adopted colonoscopic surveillance recommendations from national medical organizations. The other factors are supported by limited observational data only and are still controversial.

Background: Endoscopic therapies for early neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus may be a viable alternative to esophagectomy., Objective: Our purpose was to compare endoscopic therapy and esophagectomy., Design: Retrospective review from a single institution., Setting: A medium-sized tertiary referral center., Patients and Interventions: All patients with Barrett's esophagus and dysplasia or intramucosal carcinoma treated by photodynamic therapy (PDT), EMR, or argon plasma coagulation (APC) or esophagectomy with curative intent from May 1998 until November 2005., Main Outcome Measurements: Survival, progression to cancer, eradication of dysplasia and Barrett's esophagus, major and minor complications, and costs were compared., Results: Sixty-two patients who underwent endoscopic therapy (2 APC alone, 18 EMR + APC, 20 PDT + APC, and 22 EMR + PDT + APC) and 32 patients who underwent esophagectomy met the inclusion criteria. The 30-day mortality rate included 1 patient in the endotherapy group (2%) and none in the surgical group (P = .49). No deaths from esophageal cancer occurred in either group. Cancer developed in 6% of endotherapy patients and in none in the surgical cohort (P < .05). Major and minor complications occurred in 8% and 31% of endotherapy patients, respectively, and 13% and 63% of surgery patients (P = .50, P < .001). Median cost to date was $40,079 for endotherapy and $66,060 for esophagectomy (P < .001)., Limitations: Retrospective study, relatively short follow-up, small numbers., Conclusions: Both endotherapy and esophagectomy can effectively treat high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal carcinoma associated with Barrett's esophagus. Endotherapy is associated with a higher risk of tumor progression, although this is uncommon. Esophagectomy incurs higher initial costs and results in more frequent minor complications but is usually curative.

Background: Many endoscopy units administer patient satisfaction surveys. We hypothesized that the survey collection method would affect satisfaction scores., Objective: To compare satisfaction scores obtained by using on-site (OS) surveys versus mail-back (MB) surveys., Design: Quasi-randomization based on alternating weeks., Setting: Teaching hospital., Patients: Patients undergoing elective routine outpatient colonoscopy or upper endoscopy., Interventions: Every patient was given an 11-question survey that asked about the patient's satisfaction with the nurses and the physician, wait times, the bowel-preparation process, patient education, procedural comfort, and sedation. Survey collection methods alternated weekly between an OS versus an MB method., Main Outcome Measurements: Satisfaction scores on a Likert scale ranged from 1 (worst) to 7 (best)., Results: A total of 1698 subjects were included. The response rate was higher for the OS group (95%) than the MB group (62%). OS scores were significantly higher than MB scores for 5 of 11 questions, which concerned nurse satisfaction, physician satisfaction, bowel-preparation comfort, postprocedure education, and overall satisfaction (Bonferroni adjusted P < .05 for all). Younger patients gave lower scores than older patients for all questions, whereas women gave significantly lower scores than men for bowel-preparation satisfaction., Limitations: Lack of true randomization and formal validation of the satisfaction survey., Conclusions: Survey collection methods may bias not only response rates but also satisfaction scores. OS survey collection methods tend to result in higher satisfaction scores than MB methods. This bias should be noted when comparing scores among studies that used different survey collection methods.

Background: Capsule impaction is a well-recognized complication of capsule endoscopy, with an incidence rate of 0.75% to 21%, depending on indication. There have been only 2 reported cases of capsule impaction causing symptomatic obstruction., Objective: We present 3 cases of capsule impaction causing acute symptomatic obstruction and/or perforation., Design: Case series., Setting: Teaching hospital., Patients: A 71-year-old woman had iron deficiency anemia in the setting of negative upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, enteroclysis, and enteroscopy. She developed severe abdominal pain, vomiting, and leukocytosis 20 hours after capsule ingestion. Emergent surgery was performed to remove the capsule, which was impacted at a previously undiagnosed ileal Crohn's stricture leading to perforation. A 64-year-old woman with Gardner's syndrome and a history of colectomy and subsequent episodes of small bowel obstruction underwent capsule endoscopy to define the site of obstruction. She experienced severe abdominal pain 24 hours after capsule ingestion, and emergent enteroscopy was done to retrieve the capsule, which was impacted at a previously undiagnosed annular mass in the distal duodenum. An 85-year-old man with episodic small bowel obstruction due to radiation enteritis underwent capsule endoscopy to localize the site of obstruction in anticipation of surgery. He returned with severe abdominal pain and vomiting 3 days later. At surgery, the capsule was found to be impacted at an ileal radiation stricture., Main Outcome Measurements: Acute symptomatic bowel obstruction., Results: These cases show that bowel obstruction and even possibly perforation can occur as a result of capsule impaction., Conclusions: The possibility of acute symptomatic small bowel obstruction should be included in the informed consent for capsule endoscopy.

Background & Aims: Esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) is a promising new technology for the detection of esophageal pathology. Potential advantages for Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening include ability to return to work as a result of lack of intravenous sedation., Methods: We designed a Markov model to compare lifetime costs and life expectancy for a cohort of 50-year old men with chronic GERD for the presence of BE. We compared the base-case strategy of no screening for BE to 2 competing screening strategies: (1) ECE followed by upper endoscopy (EGD) if BE were suspected or if there was poor visualization on the ECE; and (2) standard sedated EGD with biopsy. Cost estimates were obtained from a third-party payer perspective. For each strategy we determined lifetime costs, life-years gained, numbers of esophageal cancers detected, death rates from esophageal cancer, and procedural deaths., Results: Initial EGD was more expensive but more effective compared with the no screening strategy. Assuming a theoretical cohort of 10,000 patients with GERD, initial EGD cost $1988 and was associated with 18.54 life-years compared with $2392 and 18.36 life-years for the ECE arm and $901 and 18.30 life-years for the no screening arm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of screening with EGD compared with the no screening arm was $4530 per life-year gained. The model was robust to a wide range of sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: Initial EGD appears more effective and less costly compared with ECE under base-case conditions for patients with chronic GERD undergoing screening for BE.

Background & Aims: We developed a risk index to identify low-risk patients who may be screened for colorectal cancer with computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) instead of colonoscopy., Methods: Asymptomatic persons aged 50 years or older who had undergone screening colonoscopy were randomized retrospectively to derivation (n = 1512) and validation (n = 1493) subgroups. We developed a risk index (based on age, sex, and family history) from the derivation group. The expected results of 3 screening strategies--universal colonoscopy, universal CTC, and a stratified strategy of colonoscopy for high-risk and CTC for low-risk patients--were then compared. Outcomes for the 3 strategies were extrapolated from the known colonic findings in each patient, using sensitivity/specificity values for CTC from the medical literature. Results were validated in the validation subgroup., Results: In the derivation subgroup, universal colonoscopy detected 94% of advanced neoplasia and universal CTC detected only 70% and resulted in the largest total number of procedures and number of patients undergoing both procedures. The stratified strategy detected 92% of advanced neoplasia, requiring colonoscopy in 68% and CTC in 36% of patients, with only 4% having to undergo both procedures. In the validation subgroup, universal colonoscopy detected 94% and universal CTC detected 71% of advanced neoplasia, whereas the stratified strategy detected 89%, requiring colonoscopy in 64% and CTC in 40%. Unlike universal CTC, the stratified strategy was independent of assumptions for CTC sensitivity, specificity, and threshold for colonoscopy., Conclusions: The stratified strategy based on our risk index may optimize the yield of colonoscopic resources and reduce the number of patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare findings on screening colonoscopy in a Chinese cohort versus a concurrent Western cohort., Methods: Asymptomatic adults aged 40 years or older concurrently underwent screening colonoscopy in two hospitals, one in Taiwan and the other in Seattle. The prevalence and distribution of colonic neoplasia and advanced neoplasia (defined as an adenoma >or=10 mm or with villous, high-grade dysplastic, or malignant features) were compared between the two groups., Results: The Taiwan cohort was composed of 1,456 subjects. Colonic neoplasms were found in 214 (14.7%), advanced neoplasms in 58 (4%), and colon cancers in 4 subjects (0.3%). The Seattle cohort was composed of 3,403 subjects. Neoplasms were found in 705 (20.7%), advanced neoplasms in 166 (4.9%), and cancers in 11 subjects (0.3%). Age and male sex were risk factors for neoplasia in both groups. The adjusted risk ratio was 1.30 (95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.57) in Western versus Chinese patients. However, the prevalence of advanced neoplasms was not statistically different between the two cohorts. The Chinese cohort had a higher proportion of distal neoplasia (66.4%vs 52.6%; p= 0.0004). The sensitivity of a sigmoidoscopic screening strategy for detecting advanced neoplasia was higher in Chinese (79.3%) than in Western patients (67.5%)., Conclusions: Compared to Westerners, Chinese patients have a slightly lower prevalence of colon neoplasia (but not advanced neoplasia), more distal distribution of neoplasia, and higher likelihood of concomitant proximal advanced neoplasia and distal neoplasia. Colonoscopy is safe, well-tolerated, and a viable screening option in Chinese patients, but its advantage over sigmoidoscopy as a screening tool may be smaller.