Caecal Intubation Rate Research Articles

Choosing Your Endoscopist: A Retrospective Single-Centre Cohort Study.

Background Colorectal cancer is one of the most commoninternal malignancies affecting Australians, and colonoscopy is widely accepted as a part of comprehensivelarge bowel assessment. Different specialties perform colonoscopies, most commonly general surgeons and gastroenterologists. Analysing performance outcomes against benchmarks allows insight into inter-specialty differences and enables the improvement of overall service provision and quality. Methods We performed a retrospective single-centre cohort study on 2086 patients undergoing colonoscopies by seven surgeons (S) and nine gastroenterologists (G) between July 2021 and June 2023. Primary outcomes were comparative caecal intubation rates (CIR), photo documentation rates (PDR), documented withdrawal rates (DWR), withdrawal times (WT), and adenoma detection rates (ADR). Secondary outcomes characterised adenoma frequency, optimal WT, and indications for colonoscopies. Results We found significant differences in CIR (S: 94.9%, 990/1043;G: 99%, 1033/1043, P<0.01), PDR (S: 95.9%, 949/990; G: 99.1%, 1024/1033, P<0.01), DWR (S: 17.4%, 181/1043; G: 87.3%, 911/1043, P<0.01), WT >6 minutes (S: 82.3%, 149/181; G: 97.8%, 891/911, P<0.01), and ADR (S: 37.9%, 193/509; G: 59.7%, 421/705, P<0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed adenoma frequency peaked at 50-70 years oldand optimal WT was ≥9 minutes. We demonstrated surgeons mainly perform colonoscopies for diverticulitis surveillance, abnormal imaging, post-cancer resections, and rectal bleeding, but gastroenterologists predominantly investigate bowel symptoms, polyp surveillance, positive faecal occult blood test, and anaemia. Conclusion Despite both specialties surpassing national standards in CIR and ADR, there were significant differences in performance indicators. We believe ADR differences could be explained by different indications specialties perform colonoscopies for. Increasing WT ≥9 minutes could improve ADR, and education on the usage of withdrawal timer on endoscopes will improve DWR.

Randomised trial of ‘hybrid’ water-assisted colonoscopy (modified water immersion) versus water exchange colonoscopy: WAVE study

Background and aimsColonoscopy practice has evolved with a trend towards water-assisted insertion. A recent national survey suggests a hybrid approach to colonic distension during insertion, with water used predominately to...

Artificial intelligence fails to improve colonoscopy quality: A single centre retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND Limited data currently exists on the clinical utility of Artificial Intelligence Assisted Colonoscopy (AIAC) outside of clinical trials. AIM To evaluate the impact of AIAC on key markers of colonoscopy quality compared to conventional colonoscopy (CC). METHODS This single-centre retrospective observational cohort study included all patients undergoing colonoscopy at a secondary centre in Brisbane, Australia. CC outcomes between October 2021 and October 2022 were compared with AIAC outcomes after the introduction of the Olympus Endo-AID module from October 2022 to January 2023. Endoscopists who conducted over 50 procedures before and after AIAC introduction were included. Procedures for surveillance of inflammatory bowel disease were excluded. Patient demographics, proceduralist specialisation, indication for colonoscopy, and colonoscopy quality metrics were collected. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR) were calculated for both AIAC and CC. RESULTS The study included 746 AIAC procedures and 2162 CC procedures performed by seven endoscopists. Baseline patient demographics were similar, with median age of 60 years with a slight female predominance (52.1%). Procedure indications, bowel preparation quality, and caecal intubation rates were comparable between groups. AIAC had a slightly longer withdrawal time compared to CC, but the difference was not statistically significant. The introduction of AIAC did not significantly change ADR (52.1% for AIAC vs 52.6% for CC, P = 0.91) or SSLDR (17.4% for AIAC vs 18.1% for CC, P = 0.44). CONCLUSION The implementation of AIAC failed to improve key markers of colonoscopy quality, including ADR, SSLDR and withdrawal time. Further research is required to assess the utility and cost-efficiency of AIAC for high performing endoscopists.

Quality in colonoscopy: time to ensure national standards are implemented?

BackgroundHigh-quality colonoscopy is crucial to ensure complete mucosal visualisation and to maximise detection of pathology. Previous audits showing variable quality have prompted national and international colonoscopy improvement programmes, including the...

Colonoscopy quality of GP endoscopists in three rural hospitals in Queensland, Australia.

Rural general practitioners (GPs) are responsible for delivering primary and secondary care to rural populations in Australia. There is limited literature investigating the performance of GP endoscopists. Theaim of this study was to investigate the colonoscopy performance of three GP endoscopists in rural Queensland against current Australian quality indicator (QI) standards. A cross sectional study investigated eligible colonoscopies between January 2018 and February 2021by three GP endoscopists in three rural hospitals inQueensland, Australia. A total of 1674 colonoscopies were investigated. The GP endoscopists demonstrated high QI performance, above the recommended benchmarks. Caecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate and clinically significant serrated polyp detection rate were 97.9%, 49.5%, 16% and 14.1% respectively. The major colonoscopy-related complications rate was 0.06%. Rural GP endoscopists potentially can deliver safe, high-quality colonoscopy services for rural communities and can have an integral part in facilitating colorectal cancer prevention and treatment in rural communities.

Program kolorektálního screeningu v České republice – hodnocení výkonnosti center za rok 2021

Summary: Background: Compared to other European countries, the Czech Republic has long been one of the countries with high rates of incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. The screening program was implemented in 2000 and has become an essential part of prevention policy in the Czech Republic. Continuous monitoring of the entire screening process is necessary to ensure high quality and the resulting success of the program. The aim of the paper is to present the current results of the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program using selected indicators in accordance with established recommendations. Material and Methods: The analysis was performed on data on preventive colonoscopies performed in Centers for screening colonoscopy (Centers) in 2021, with selected performance indicators being evaluated (number of preventive colonoscopies, adequate bowel preparation, caecal intubation rate and adenoma detection rate). The resulting performance indicators were evaluated by the published recommendations of the Czech Gastroenterological Society to point to the results of the program as a whole, not to assess individual Centers. Results: The majority (94.7%) of the Centers achieved the basic performance indicator (number of preventive colonoscopies). The performance indicator of adequate bowel preparation was met by 83.6% of Centers (the average proportion of colonoscopies with adequate bowel preparation in the Czech Republic is 93.8%). The optimal proportion of caecal intubation (90.0%) was reached by 87.2% of Centers in 2021. Only 16 Centers (8.5%) did not meet the adenoma detection rate indicator, but a high variability was observed across the Centers (11.6% to 68.2%) – a similar situation was observed in evaluation by gender and indication. A relatively low adenoma detection rate in follow-up colonoscopies after positive FOBT could be related to high and variable FOBT, which may indicate redundant colonoscopies and overburden the Centers. Conclusion: Some Centers do not reach the reference values for performance indicators according to reference values. It is necessary to continue monitoring performance indicators at the level of individual Centers to improve the quality of the entire program. Key words: colorectal cancer – screening – performance indicators – colonoscopy

Oral mannitol for bowel preparation: a dose-finding phase II study

BackgroundSuccessful bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy depends on the instructions, diet, the laxative product, and patient adherence, which all affect colonoscopy quality. Nevertheless, there are no laxatives which combine effectiveness, safety, easy self-administration, good patient acceptance, and low cost. However, mannitol, a sugar alcohol, could be an attractive candidate for use in clinical practice if it is shown to demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety.AimsThe present phase II dose-finding study compared three doses of mannitol (50, 100, and 150 g) to identify the best dose to be used in a subsequent phase III study.MethodsThe Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, caecal intubation rate, adherence, acceptability, and safety profile, including measurement of potentially dangerous colonic gas concentrations (CH4, H2, O2), were considered in all patients. A weighted algorithm was used to identify the best mannitol dose for use in the subsequent study.ResultsThe per-protocol population included 60 patients in the 50 g group, 54 in the 100 g group, and 49 in the 150 g group. The 100 g dose was the best as it afforded optimal colon cleansing efficacy (94.4% of patients had adequate BP), adherence, acceptability, and safety, including negligible gas concentrations.ConclusionsThe present study demonstrated that the colon cleansing efficacy and safety of mannitol were dose dependent. Conversely, gas concentrations were not dose dependent and negligible in all patients. Combined evaluation of efficacy, tolerability, and safety, using a weighted algorithm, determined that mannitol 100 g was the best dose for the phase III study.

Endoscopy training through the COVID-19 pandemic: maintaining procedural volumes and key performance standards

ObjectiveEndoscopy departments have experienced considerable challenges in the provision of endoscopy services since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Several studies have reported a reduction of procedures performed by trainee...

Effect of music intervention in colonoscopy-naïve adults: a randomised controlled trial.

Previous studies have evaluated music interventions before and during a colonoscopy, but the results are contradictory and inconclusive. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the effect of a music intervention with MusiCure music, both before and during colonoscopy. The study was a two-armed, prospective, randomised, controlled trial and 337 patients undergoing colonoscopy were included. Patients were allocated to receive relaxing music (MusiCure) before and during the colonoscopy or standard care (no music). Outcome measures included pain intensity, duration of the colonoscopy, consumption of alfentanil and midazolam, vital signs, patient satisfaction and caecal intubation rates (CIR). Men in the music group had a lower middle arterial blood pressure compared with men in the no music group. The majority of patients in the music group would prefer to listen to music if they need a colonoscopy in the future. No differences were found between groups regarding pain intensity, duration of the colonoscopy, consumption of alfentanil and midazolam, vital signs, patient satisfaction and CIR. The researchers were unable to show an effect on the primary endpoints. However, a high patient satisfaction was found in the music group and a decrease in the blood pressure during the colonoscopy, indicating a reduced stress level. Music before and during a colonoscopy may improve the patient experience.

Colonoscopy may be weak link in organised colorectal cancer screening programme with faecal immunochemical test.

To evaluate the quality of colonoscopies performed after a positive faecal immunochemical test in the French colorectal cancer screening programme. Retrospective analysis of all colonoscopies performed between 2015 and 2019 after a positive quantitative faecal immunochemical test in the population-based colorectal cancer screening programme organised in Alsace, part of the French programme. The following indicators were evaluated: annual colonoscopy volume, caecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, proximal serrated lesion detection rate and proportion of patients referred directly to surgery for benign polyp management. Endoscopists who performed <30 faecal immunochemical test positive colonoscopies were non-assessable. Overall, 13,455 faecal immunochemical test-positive colonoscopies performed by 116 community gastroenterologists were included, 13,067 of them by 80 assessable endoscopists. The overall caecal intubation, adenoma detection and proximal serrated lesion detection rates were 97.9%, 57.6% and 7.6%, respectively. They were <90%, <45% and <1% for 1.3%, 12.5% and 6.3% of the endoscopists, respectively. Overall, 1028 (7.9%) individuals were examined by 13 low-performing endoscopists and 328 (2.4%) individuals by 33 low-volume non-assessable endoscopists. Among 9133 individuals harbouring polyps, 155 (1.7%) had unwarranted surgery for a benign polyp. Overall, 1487 individuals (11.1%; 95% confidence interval 10.5-11.6) were not given the best possible chances, whereas 5545 individuals (41.2%; 95% confidence interval 40.4-42.0) were offered the best possible chances by 37 endoscopists. At programme level, the key performance indicators evaluated largely exceeded the target standards. At individual level, at least one in nine individuals was not given the best possible chances during faecal immunochemical test-positive colonoscopies by a minority of poor-performing and/or low-volume endoscopists.

EP.TU.660The rate of interval colorectal cancer within 5 years of a negative colonoscopy at a district general hospital

Abstract Aims Interval colorectal cancer is defined as cancer that has developed within a short interval of a diagnostic test that did not detect a cancer. Many authors define this interval as five years, though more complex definitions of interval cancer have been proposed. Our aim was to determine what percentage of colorectal cancers diagnosed at our hospital had a negative colonoscopy within the 5 years prior to their diagnosis. Methods We obtained details of all colorectal cancers diagnosed between 2017-2019 at our department. We then surveyed the endoscopy system to detect the patients who had a negative colonoscopy within the 5 years prior to their diagnosis, to calculate what percentage of cancers diagnosed within that period were interval cancers. Results Between 2017-2019, 539 patients were diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Age at diagnosis varied widely from 21 to 107, and 310 (57.5%) of patients were male. Seventeen patients had a negative colonoscopy within 5 years (though two of these were planned repeat procedures within a few months of the index ‘negative’ colonoscopy). We can therefore calculate the rate of interval cancer at 3.1% between 2017-2019. Conclusions The aetiology of interval colorectal cancer has been attributed to patient/tumour factors (right colon and female sex) and technical factors (adenoma detection and caecal intubation rate). Though the rate of interval cancer at our department seems pleasingly low compared to the literature, we plan to investigate the risk factors that might be at play: are biological factors to blame or can our endoscopy service be improved?

Impact of cumulative experience on the quality of screening colonoscopy: A 13-year observational study.

To investigate trends in quality of screening colonoscopy (using the Global Rating Score) in the 13 years since introduction of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. An English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopy service from 2007 to 2019. A retrospective observational study was undertaken using a prospectively collected database in order to analyse trends in screening endoscopies (including patients following positive faecal occult blood test or with high-risk findings on flexible sigmoidoscopy). The Global Rating Score quality indicators for Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopy were used as outcome measures, and trends over time were analysed. These included caecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, colorectal cancer detection rate, proportion of patients with minimal or mild discomfort scores, proportion of patients who required intravenous sedation, and adverse events. There were 5352 colonoscopies included, performed by 3 endoscopists; 73.8% were index procedures (i.e. first Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopy) and the remainder were follow-up or surveillance colonoscopies. The mean age of patients was 66 (standard deviation 5) years, and 59.8% were male. Mean age increased over time (R2=0.033; p < 0.001). There were significant trends over time towards higher caecal intubation rate (p = 0.015), higher adenoma detection rate (p < 0.001), lower proportion requiring intravenous sedation (p < 0.001). There were no significant trends in comfort scores (p = 0.606), adverse events (p = 0.503) or colorectal cancer detection (p = 0.089). There was a consistent improvement in the Global Rating Score for Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopies since the start of the programme, even when quality was already high at the start. Patients can expect high-quality colonoscopy when participating in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

Colonoscopy quality indicators in patients with and without prior colonic resection: A single-centre prospective comparative study.

Effective colonoscopy relies on meeting rigorous quality control thresholds. Some earlier studies evaluating colonoscopy key performance indicators (KPIs) have excluded patients who have previously undergone colonic resection (i.e., they have a nonintact colon); such patients also deserve high-quality colonoscopy. This study aimed to compare colonoscopy KPIs between patients with nonintact and intact colons. Consecutive colonoscopies performed at Whanganui Hospital (New Zealand) between September 2016 and March 2020 were included. The primary outcome was the caecal or ileal intubation rate (CIIR). Secondary outcomes were the adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), colonoscope withdrawal time (CWT) and caecal or ileal intubation time (CIIT). In total, 3017 colonoscopies were performed: 322 in nonintact colons and 2695 in intact colons. CIIR was significantly higher in nonintact than in intact colons (98.4% vs. 95.0%; P=0.0086). When all colonoscopies were included, the CIIR was 95.4%; this value decreased to 95.0% when nonintact colonoscopies were excluded. However, the ADR (39.9% vs. 38.8%; P=0.77) and PDR (58.4% vs. 59.1%; P=0.86) were similar for both nonintact and intact colons. CWT (P<0.0001) and CIIT (P<0.0001) were significantly shorter in participants with nonintact colons. The CIIR exceeded recommended targets and was 3.4% higher in patients with nonintact than intact colons. Patients with nonintact colons comprise a small proportion of the overall colonoscopy cohort and it is unlikely that this small difference is relevant for most endoscopists or endoscopy units. The ADR and PDR were similar among patients with nonintact and intact colons, despite nonintact colonoscopies being significantly quicker. Patients with nonintact colons deserve high-quality colonoscopy and therefore their KPIs should be included in colonoscopy performance reports.

The 'ins and outs' of colonoscopy at Wits Donald Gordon Medical Centre, South Africa: A practice audit of the outpatient endoscopy unit.

In South Africa, there are no national guidelines for the conduct or quality assessment of colonoscopy, the gold standard for investigation and diagnosis of bowel pathology. To describe the clinical profile of patients and evaluate the practice of colonoscopy using procedural quality indicators at the Wits Donald Gordon Medical Centre (WDGMC) outpatient endoscopy unit (OEU). We conducted a prospective, clinical practice audit of colonoscopies performed on adults (≥18 years of age). A total of 1 643 patients were included in the study and variables that were collected enabled the assessment of adequacy of bowel preparation, length of withdrawal time and calculation of caecal intubation rate (CIR), polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). We stratified PDR and ADR by sex, age, population group, withdrawal time and bowel preparation. CIR, PDR and ADR estimates were compared between patient groups by the χ2 test; Fisher's exact test was used for 2 × 2 tables. A p-value &lt;0.05 was used. Benchmark recommendations by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)/American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) were used in this audit to assess individual endoscopist performance and that of the endoscopy unit as a whole. The mean age of patients was 55.7 (standard deviation (SD) 14.4; range 18 - 91) years, ~60% were female, and the majority (75.5%) were white. Of the outpatients, 77.6% had adequate bowel preparation (ASGE/ACG benchmark ≥85%). The CIR was 97.0% overall, and screening colonoscopy was 96.3% (ASGE/ACG benchmark ≥90% overall and ≥95% for screening colonoscopies). The median withdrawal time for negative-result screening colonoscopies was 5.7 minutes (interquartile range (IQR) 4.2 - 9.3; range 1.1 - 20.6) (ASGE/ACG benchmark ≥ 6minutes), and PDR and ADR were 27.6% and 15.6%, respectively (ASGE/ACG benchmark ADR ≥25%). We demonstrated a 23.7% increase in PDR and 14.1% increase in ADR between scopes that had mean withdrawal times of ≥6 minutes and &lt;6 minutes, respectively. Although the number of black Africans in the study was relatively small, our results showed that they have similar ADRs and PDRs to the white population group, contradicting popular belief. The WDGMC OEU performed reasonably well against the international guidelines, despite some inadequacy in bowel preparation and lower than recommended median withdrawal times on negative-result colonoscopy. Annual auditing of clinical practice and availability of these data in the public domain will become standard of care, making this audit a baseline for longitudinal observation, assessing the impact of interventions, and contributing to the development of local guidelines.

Prevalence and characteristics of incidental colorectal polyps in patients undergoing colonoscopy at a South African tertiary institution.

There is a lack of data on the frequency and pattern of colorectal adenomas in sub-Saharan Africa to guide diagnostic and preventive strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the region. To describe polyp characteristics and adenoma frequency in patients at average risk of CRC, who are undergoing colonoscopy for bowel symptoms at a tertiary hospital in South Africa (SA). Colonoscopy records from the prospective endoscopy database at Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, SA, from August 2014 to February 2017, were retrieved. The presence of polyps, and their morphology, size, site and number in relation to ethnicity, symptoms and colonoscopy quality indicators were analysed. The histological type and grade were obtained from laboratory records and analysed. The primary endpoint was the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Age, gender, ethnicity, symptoms, bowel preparation and caecal intubation rates were also compared between patients with adenomas and those without. Of 1 334 colonoscopies, 342 were performed in patients at increased risk of premalignant lesions; these were excluded from the analysis. Polyps were identified in 172 of the remaining 992 patients (17.3%), whose self-declared ethnicity was mixed race (76%), white (12%), black African (11%) or Asian (1%). The quality of bowel preparation and caecal intubation rate were similar between patients with polyps and those without. Patients with polyps were older than those without polyps (mean age 61.5 (standard deviation 12.9) v. 56.3 (17.4) years; p&lt;0.002). On histological examination of these polyps, 119 were adenomas, 26 were hyperplastic and 27 were normal. The majority of the adenomas were tubular (80%), and there were only 6% with high-grade dysplasia. Half (51%) of the adenomas were in the proximal colon, and the overall ADR was 12%. The ADR (prevalence) was highest in white and Asian South Africans (18% each), followed by that in persons of mixed race (13%), but much lower in black Africans (5%). This study provides a benchmark ADR for our catchment population and potentially across Africa. There is evidence of a continuing differential colorectal neoplasia risk according to ethnicity, with fewer adenomas being detected in black South Africans.

Reducing the Cut-Off Value of the Fecal Immunochemical Test for Symptomatic Patients Does Not Improve Diagnostic Performance.

Introduction: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) has been established as a cost-effective test in colon cancer screening programmes. This test could also be helpful in symptomatic patients prior to colonoscopy, but data about diagnostic performance, and accurate cut-off values for these patients are still scarce.Materials and Methods: Prospective study that included consecutive unselected patients with gastrointestinal symptoms referred for colonoscopy between November 2016 and June 2018. We performed a FIT (FOB Gold® test, cut-off 20 micrograms of Hb/gram of feces) prior to colonoscopy and determined the accuracy of FIT in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value for clinically significant pathology, advanced neoplasia, and colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients, using two different cut-off values.Results: A total of 727 patients (44.3% men, aged 58.5 ± 14.9 years) was included in the study. The main symptom was history of previous (non-active) rectal bleeding (34.7%), followed by diarrhea (15.0%). Over one quarter of the patients (25.9%) had a positive FIT result. The caecal intubation rate was 95.5%. Clinically significant pathology was identified in 142 colonoscopies (19.5%), advanced neoplasia in 115 (15.8%) and colorectal cancer in 36 colonoscopies (5.0%). FIT performed very well for clinically significant pathology, advanced neoplasia and cancer, with a high negative predictive value (NPV). Reducing the cut-off value to 10 μg/g yielded similar NPV results, with a decrease in specificity. Using a combination of symptoms with a positive FIT result did not improve FIT performance. Only specificity was slightly higher compared to FIT alone, but this was paralleled by a decrease in sensitivity and NPV for cancer and clinically significant pathology. The odds of presenting clinically significant pathology, advanced neoplasia, or cancer increased with FIT concentration.Conclusions: The specificity and NPV of FIT for clinically significant pathology, advanced neoplasia, and cancer are high in symptomatic patients. FIT is a helpful test for determining the need to perform further studies. It may not be necessary to reduce the cut-off value for symptomatic patients, since FIT performance with the current standard cut-off value used in colorectal cancer screening was accurate. FIT can be used to avoid or prioritize colonoscopy procedures.

Impact of a national basic skills in colonoscopy course on trainee performance: An interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUNDThe Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy basic skills in colonoscopy (BSC) course was introduced in 2009 to improve colonoscopy training within the United Kingdom, but its impact on trainee performance is unknown.AIMTo assess whether attendance of the BSC could improve colonoscopy performance.METHODSTrainees awarded colonoscopy certification between 2011-2016 were stratified into 3 groups according to pre-course procedure count (< 70, 70-140 and > 140). Study outcomes, comprising the unassisted caecal intubation rate (CIR) and the performance indicator of colonic intubation (PICI), were studied over the 50 procedures pre and post- course. Interrupted time series analyses were performed to detect step-change changes attributable to the course.RESULTSA total of 369 trainees with pre-course procedure counts of < 70 (n = 118), 70-140 (n = 121) and > 140 (n = 130) were included. Over the 50 pre-course procedures, significant linear improvements in CIR were found, with average increases of 4.2, 3.6 and 1.7 percentage points (pp) per 10 procedures performed in the < 70, 70-140 and > 140 groups respectively (all P < 0.001). The < 70 procedures group saw a significant step-change improvement in CIR, increasing from 46% in the last pre-course procedure, to 51% in the first procedure post-course (P = 0.005). The CIR step-change was not significant in the 70-140 (68% to 71%; P = 0.239) or > 140 (86% to 87%; P = 0.354) groups. For PICI, significant step-change improvements were seen in all three groups, with average increases of 5.6 pp (P < 0.001), 5.4 pp (P = 0.003) and 3.9 pp (P = 0.014) respectively.CONCLUSIONAttendance of the BSC was associated with a significant step-change improvement in PICI, regardless of prior procedural experience. However, CIR data suggest that the optimal timing of course attendance appears to be at earlier stages of training (< 70 procedures).

Indications and findings of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a retrospective study in Eastern Regional Hospital, Koforidua, Ghana

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy is a safe and effective means of visual inspection of the large bowel from the distal rectum to the caecum. There is a paucity of data on this procedure in Ghana. The only data in literature are from Kumasi and Accra. This paper reviews the indications and findings of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGIE) in Eastern Regional Hospital, Koforidua, Ghana. METHODS: a retrospective study was undertaken on patients who underwent colorectal endoscopy between January 2019 and December 2019. RESULTS: one hundred and six (106) LGIE procedures were performed. Sixteen patients had flexible sigmoidoscopy and the rest had full colonoscopy. Of those who had colonoscopy, caecal intubation rate was 86.2%. Males were 69 and mean age 56.67 ± 16.48. The most common primary indication was bleeding per rectum. The most common primary endoscopic finding was haemorrhoids (54.17%) followed by colorectal tumors (15.0%). 11.6% of the patients had normal endoscopic findings. A diagnosis of haemorrhoids was made in 61.6% of those presented with bleeding per rectum as an indication and was the commonest cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). CONCLUSIONS: the commonest indication for colonoscopy was rectal bleeding, while the most frequent pathology was haemorrhoids. The proportion of our patient population found to have a colorectal tumor or polyps was not insignificant. Screening program for colorectal cancer in Ghana should be considered.

A1 COLONOSCOPY FINDINGS FOLLOWING A FECAL IMMUNOCHEMICAL TEST: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY ASSESSING THE SCREENING TEST PERFORMANCE

Abstract Background Fecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) is the preferred test for colorectal cancer screening in the average risk population in Canada. Aims This study aims to assess colonoscopy findings in patients who have undergone a FIT within the previous 2 years. Methods This retrospective study included all adult patients that have undergone a single diagnostic colonoscopy from March 2013 to March 2016 following a single FIT test at the CIUSSS de l’Estrie, a tertiary hospital. The primary outcome was to evaluate rates of clinically significant lesion when comparing FIT positive (FIT+) to FIT negative (FIT-) colonoscopy, using Quebec’s current threshold of 175 ng/ml of hemoglobin. Secondary outcomes included all other type of lesions, delays between FIT testing and colonoscopy, procedural time, caecal intubation rates and withdrawal time. Results Overall, 2230 patients were included, aged 62.0±10.5 years, 55.0% were female and 26.1% had a positive FIT. Patients with a positive FIT had a significantly higher polypectomy rate (62.4% vs 41.3%, p&amp;lt;0.01) and higher number of polyps per patient (2.9±2.5 vs 2.1±1.5, p&amp;lt;0.01). FIT+ had significantly higher rates of adenocarcinoma (3.4% vs 0.7%, p&amp;lt;0.01) with 11 out of 31 patients bearing a negative FIT with the current threshold. No difference was found for sessile serrated polyps (7.8% vs 6.0%, p=0.13). Patients with a FIT+ had significantly higher advanced adenomas (24.0% vs 5.6%, p&amp;lt;0.01), proximal polyps (33.6% vs 22.4%, p&amp;lt;0.01), distal polyps (52.8% vs 28.2%, p&amp;lt;0.01), non-advanced adenomas (38.5% vs 23.9%, p&amp;lt;0.01) and benign polyps (25.1% vs 17.2%, p&amp;lt;0.01). Patients with FIT+ received their colonoscopy 7.5 months earlier than FIT- patients (3.3±2.2 vs 10.8±8.3 months, p&amp;lt;0.01). FIT+ also yielded a significant longer procedural time (28.5±14.1 vs 25.5±12.1, p&amp;lt;0.01) but no difference was noted for caecal intubation rates and withdrawal time (93.3% vs 94.0%, p=0.55 and 14.0±8.4 vs 12.0±7.7, p=0.20 respectively). Results were similar when lowering the threshold to 150, 100, 75 and even 50 ng/ml. 8 patients with an adenocarcinoma had a FIT level lower than 50 ng/ml. Conclusions Patients with a colonoscopy and a positive FIT have higher rates of significant findings. Although commonly used for colorectal cancer screening, FIT still failed to detect almost 30% of adenomas and adenocarcinomas found during colonoscopy. It also does not perform very well for serrated polyps. Our data also fails to show an improved yield of the FIT when lowering the its threshold from 175 to 50. There is still a great need for a more sensitive non-invasive colon cancer screening test. Funding Agencies None

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: an evolving paradigm.

The year 1969 marked a revolution in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). It is when Dr Wolff developed the colonoscope and quickly realized its potential in both diagnosis and treatment of colonic neoplasms. Over the past 50 years there has been exponential increase in utilization of colonoscopy with over 1 million colonoscopies performed annually throughout Australasia. Endoscopic removal of pre-malignant lesions has been proven to reduce the incidence and mortality of colorectal. Although timing and frequency of surveillance colonoscopy plays a crucial role in risk reduction of CRC, this is dependent upon the findings of the index colonoscopy. The goal of screening colonoscopy is to detect CRC and identify and remove pre-malignant neoplasms that risk progression to CRC. With increasing uptake of bowel screening throughout Australasia, there is increasing pressure to ensure all endoscopists and endoscopy units perform at a universal high-quality. All too often high demand and constant delays compromise colonoscopy quality. Without clear and concise quality indicators with transparent measurement and audit, these flaws can quickly jeopardize screening goals and patient outcomes. This review aims to explore six key quality indicators and explore the evidence behind the current recommended standards. These key indicators include; rate of adequate bowel preparation, caecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, complication rates and surveillance intervals.