Forty-Year Analysis of Colonoscopic Surveillance Program for Neoplasia in Ulcerative Colitis: An Updated Overview

C.R.C. was funded by the Derek Willoughby Fund for Inflammatory Research. A.L.H. and T.A.G. were funded by Higher Education Funding Council of England

Variability in cecal intubation rate by calculation method:a call for standardization of key performance indicators in endoscopy

Background and Aims The cecal intubation rate (CIR) is a widely accepted key performance indicator (KPI) in colonoscopy but lacks a universal calculation method. We aimed to assess whether differences in CIR calculation methods could impact on perceived trainee outcomes. Methods A systematic review of CIR calculation methods was conducted on major societal guidelines (United Kingdom, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ESGE] and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ASGE]) and trainee-inclusive studies. Trainees awarded colonoscopy certification between June 2011 and 2016 were identified from the United Kingdom e-portfolio and selected as a validation cohort. For each trainee, both the crude and unassisted CIR were calculated over 50 post-certification procedures using definitions from the 3 international guidelines. The resulting CIRs, and the proportions of endoscopists failing to meet the minimum standard of CIR ≥90%, were then compared across these definitions. Results Across the 3 guidelines and 37 eligible studies identified, differences in CIR calculation methodology were demonstrated. These related to adjustment criteria (18 studies), and whether unassisted CIR was stipulated (18 studies). In the validation cohort of 733 trainees (36,650 procedures), the median crude CIR ranged from 96% (ESGE) to 98% (ASGE) [p<0.001], and whether unassisted CIR was specified (ESGE: 94%, ASGE: 96%, P<0.001). The proportion of trainees failing to achieve CIR ≥90% varied significantly across the different definitions, from 4.9% in the crude ASGE definition, to 18.6% in the unassisted ESGE definition (p<0.001). Conclusions CIR calculation methods vary between guidelines and research studies, which impact on trainee performance measures. With CIR used as an example, this study highlights the need for standardized definitions and calculations of KPIs in endoscopy.No Full Tex

A randomized controlled trial of metformin on left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with coronary artery disease without diabetes:the MET-REMODEL trial

Aim We tested the hypothesis that metformin may regress left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in patients who have coronary artery disease (CAD), with insulin resistance (IR) and/or pre-diabetes. Methods and results We randomly assigned 68 patients (mean age 65 ± 8 years) without diabetes who have CAD with IR and/or pre-diabetes to receive either metformin XL (2000 mg daily dose) or placebo for 12 months. Primary endpoint was change in left ventricular mass indexed to height1.7 (LVMI), assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (n = 63), metformin treatment significantly reduced LVMI compared with placebo group (absolute mean difference −1.37 (95% confidence interval: −2.63 to −0.12, P = 0.033). Metformin also significantly reduced other secondary study endpoints such as: LVM (P = 0.032), body weight (P = 0.001), subcutaneous adipose tissue (P = 0.024), office systolic blood pressure (BP, P = 0.022) and concentration of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances, a biomarker for oxidative stress (P = 0.04). The glycated haemoglobin A1C concentration and fasting IR index did not differ between study groups at the end of the study. Conclusion Metformin treatment significantly reduced LVMI, LVM, office systolic BP, body weight, and oxidative stress. Although LVH is a good surrogate marker of cardiovascular (CV) outcome, conclusive evidence for the cardio-protective role of metformin is required from large CV outcomes trials

Diagnostic yield from symptomatic gastroscopy in the UK: British Society of Gastroenterology analysis using data from the National Endoscopy Database

Objective: This national analysis aimed to calculate the diagnostic yield from gastroscopy for common symptoms, guiding improved resource utilisation. Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted of diagnostic gastroscopies between 1 March 2019 and 29 February 2020 using the UK National Endoscopy Database. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used, incorporating random (endoscopist) and fixed (symptoms, age and sex) effects on two dependent variables (endoscopic cancer; Barrett’s oesophagus (BO) diagnosis). Adjusted positive predictive values (aPPVs) were calculated. Results: 382 370 diagnostic gastroscopies were analysed; 30.4% were performed in patients aged <50 and 57.7% on female patients. The overall unadjusted PPV for cancer was 1.0% (males 1.7%; females 0.6%, p<0.01). Other major pathology was found in 9.1% of procedures, whereas 89.9% reported only normal findings or minor pathology (92.5% in females; 94.6% in patients <50). Highest cancer aPPVs were reached in the over 50s (1.3%), in those with dysphagia (3.0%) or weight loss plus another symptom (1.4%). Cancer aPPVs for all other symptoms were below 1%, and for those under 50, remained below 1% regardless of symptom. Overall, 73.7% of gastroscopies were carried out in patient groups where aPPV cancer was <1%. The overall unadjusted PPV for BO was 4.1% (males 6.1%; females 2.7%, p<0.01). The aPPV for BO for reflux was 5.8% and ranged from 3.2% to 4.0% for other symptoms. Conclusions: Cancer yield was highest in elderly male patients, and those over 50 with dysphagia. Three-quarters of all gastroscopies were performed on patients whose cancer risk was <1%, suggesting inefficient resource utilisation

Risk Factors for Metachronous Colorectal Cancer or Advanced Adenomas After Endoscopic Resection of Highrisk Adenomas

Background & aims: Among the characteristics of high-risk adenomas (HRAs), some may predict a higher risk of metachronous advanced lesions. Our aim was to assess which HRA characteristics are associated with high risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced adenomas (AAs). Methods: We systematically searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for cohort studies and clinical trials of CRC or AA incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline lesion size, histology, and multiplicity. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. Results: Fifty-five studies were included, with 936,540 patients with mean follow-up 5.4 ± 2.9 years. CRC incidence per 1000 person-years was 2.6 (2.1-3.0) for adenomas ≥20 mm, 2.7 (2.2-3.2) for high-grade dysplasia (HGD), 2.0 (1.8-2.3) for villous component, 0.8 (0.1-1.4) for ≥5 adenomas, 1.0 (0.7-1.2) for ≥3 adenomas. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in adenomas ≥20 mm vs 10 to 19 mm (RR, 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-3.61), HGD vs low-grade dysplasia (RR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.88-4.44), villous vs tubular (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.33-2.31). No significant differences in CRC risk were found in ≥3 adenomas vs 1 to 2 (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.83), nor in ≥5 adenomas vs 3 to 4 (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.30-2.11). Compared with normal colonoscopy, RR for CRC risk was 2.61 (95% CI, 2.06-3.32) for ≥10mm, 6.62 (95% CI, 4.60-9.52) for HGD, 3.58 (95% CI, 2.24-5.73) for villous component, and 2.03 (95% CI, 1.40-2.94) for ≥3 adenomas. Similar trends were seen for metachronous AAs. Conclusion: Metachronous CRC risk is highest in patients with baseline adenomas with ≥20 mm or HGD. Multiplicity does not seem to be associated with substantially higher CRC risk in the near term