Colonoscopy appropriateness: Really needed or a waste of time?
- PMID: 25685265
- PMCID: PMC4325314
- DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i2.94
Colonoscopy appropriateness: Really needed or a waste of time?
Abstract
Technical and quality improvements in colonoscopy along with the widespread implementation of population screening programs and the development of open-access units have resulted in an exponential increase in colonoscopy demands, forcing endoscopy units to bear an excessive burden of work. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appropriateness guideline and the European panel appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy guideline have appeared as potential solutions to tackle this problem and to increase detection rates of relevant lesions. Inappropriate indications based on either guideline are as high as 30%. Strategies based on these clinical criteria or other systems may be used to reduce inappropriate indications, thus decreasing waiting lists for outpatient colonoscopy, saving costs, prioritizing colonoscopy referrals and subsequently decreasing interval times from diagnosis to treatment. Despite the potential role of appropriateness guidelines, they have not been widely adopted partly due to fear of missing significant lesions detected in inappropriate indications. We review the main appropriateness and prioritising systems, their usefulness for detecting relevant lesions, as well as interventions based on those systems and cost-effectiveness.
Keywords: Colonoscopy appropriateness; Colonoscopy prioritisation; European panel appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy II; National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; Open access endoscopy unit.
Similar articles
-
The European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy guidelines colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study.Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Mar 1;21(5):609-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02359.x. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005. PMID: 15740545
-
Appropriateness of colonoscopy in the era of colorectal cancer screening: a prospective, multicenter study in a private-practice setting (Berlin Colonoscopy Project 1, BECOP 1).Dis Colon Rectum. 2007 Oct;50(10):1628-38. doi: 10.1007/s10350-007-9029-y. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007. PMID: 17694415
-
Clinical validation of the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) II criteria in an open-access unit: a prospective study.Endoscopy. 2012 Jan;44(1):32-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1291386. Epub 2011 Nov 22. Endoscopy. 2012. PMID: 22109649 Free PMC article.
-
Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications.Endoscopy. 2009 Mar;41(3):240-6. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1119643. Epub 2009 Mar 11. Endoscopy. 2009. PMID: 19280536 Review.
-
Development of appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy: comparison between a standardized expert panel and an evidence-based medicine approach.Int J Qual Health Care. 2003 Feb;15(1):15-22. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/15.1.15. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003. PMID: 12630797 Review.
Cited by
-
Distribution pattern of colorectal diseases based on 2300 total colonoscopies.Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2017 Spring;10(2):90-96. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2017. PMID: 28702131 Free PMC article.
-
Colonoscopic Evaluation of Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding (LGIB): Practical Approach.Med Arch. 2021 Aug;75(4):274-279. doi: 10.5455/medarh.2021.75.274-279. Med Arch. 2021. PMID: 34759447 Free PMC article.
-
AEG-SEED position paper for the resumption of endoscopic activity after the peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Aug-Sep;43(7):389-407. doi: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2020.05.004. Epub 2020 May 27. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020. PMID: 32561216 Free PMC article. Review. English, Spanish.
-
Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Value-Based Algorithm to Triage Symptomatic Colorectal Patients: A Retrospective Study From a Tertiary Care Hospital.Cureus. 2024 Sep 21;16(9):e69889. doi: 10.7759/cureus.69889. eCollection 2024 Sep. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 39439629 Free PMC article.
-
Most Premature Surveillance Colonoscopy Is Not Attributable to Bowel Preparation or New Clinical Indications.Dig Dis Sci. 2016 Sep;61(9):2496-504. doi: 10.1007/s10620-016-4177-3. Epub 2016 May 3. Dig Dis Sci. 2016. PMID: 27142669
References
-
- Froehlich F, Harris JK, Wietlisbach V, Burnand B, Vader JP, Gonvers JJ. Current sedation and monitoring practice for colonoscopy: an International Observational Study (EPAGE) Endoscopy. 2006;38:461–469. - PubMed
-
- Misra T, Lalor E, Fedorak RN. Endoscopic perforation rates at a Canadian university teaching hospital. Can J Gastroenterol. 2004;18:221–226. - PubMed
-
- Sonnenberg A, Amorosi SL, Lacey MJ, Lieberman DA. Patterns of endoscopy in the United States: analysis of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Endoscopic Database. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:489–496. - PubMed
-
- Heuss LT, Froehlich F, Beglinger C. Changing patterns of sedation and monitoring practice during endoscopy: results of a nationwide survey in Switzerland. Endoscopy. 2005;37:161–166. - PubMed
-
- Recommendations on cancer screening in the European union. Advisory Committee on Cancer Prevention. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:1473–1478. - PubMed
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources