6533b873fe1ef96bd12d59a8

RESEARCH PRODUCT

The appropriateness of colonoscopies at a teaching hospital: magnitude, associated factors, and comparison of EPAGE and EPAGE-II criteria.

Vicente GarriguesVirginia PertejoLidia ArgüelloJulio PonceSalvador PeiróMarta Ponce

subject

AdultDiarrheaMalemedicine.medical_specialtyAdolescentColorectal cancerCross-sectional studyMEDLINEColonoscopyColonic PolypsUnnecessary ProceduresColonic polypectomyYoung AdultCrohn DiseasemedicineHumansRadiology Nuclear Medicine and imagingMedical diagnosisHospitals TeachingReferral and ConsultationAgedAged 80 and overChi-Square Distributionmedicine.diagnostic_testbusiness.industryGastroenterologyColonoscopyMiddle Agedmedicine.diseaseHematocheziaSurgeryCross-Sectional StudiesSpainEmergency medicinePractice Guidelines as TopicColitis UlcerativeFemaleGuideline Adherencemedicine.symptombusinessColorectal NeoplasmsGastrointestinal HemorrhageChi-squared distributionSentinel Surveillance

description

Background The growing demand for colonoscopies and inappropriate colonoscopies have become a significant problem for health care. Objectives To assess the appropriateness of colonoscopies and to analyze the association with some clinical and organizational factors. To compare the results of the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) and the EPAGE-II criteria. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Endoscopy unit of a teaching hospital in Spain. Patients Patients referred for colonoscopy, excluding urgent, therapeutic indications, and poor cleansing. Main Outcome Measurements Appropriateness of colonoscopies according to the EPAGE criteria. Results From 749 colonoscopies, 619 were included. Most patients were referred by gastroenterologists (66.1%) in an outpatient setting (80.6%). Hematochezia was the most frequent indication (31.5%) followed by colorectal cancer–related indications (27.3%); a clinically relevant diagnosis was established in 41%. Inappropriate use was higher with EPAGE (27.0%) than EPAGE-II (17.4%) criteria. Surveillance after colonic polypectomy and uncomplicated lower abdominal pain were the indications exhibiting higher inadequacy. Inappropriate use was less with older age, in hospitalized patients, with referrals from internal medicine, and in colonoscopies with clinically relevant diagnoses. Agreement between EPAGE and EPAGE-II was fair (weighted κ = 0.31) but improved to moderate (simple κ = 0.60) after grouping appropriate and uncertain levels. Limitations The appropriateness criteria are based on panel opinions. Some patients (12%) could not be evaluated with the EPAGE criteria. Conclusions Our study identifies substantial colonoscopy overuse, especially in tumor disease surveillance. The EPAGE-II criteria decrease the inappropriate rate and the possibility of overlooking potentially severe lesions.

yearjournalcountryeditionlanguage
2011-04-06Gastrointestinal endoscopy
10.1016/j.gie.2011.08.039https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22100299