Sporadic duodenal adenoma and the association with colorectal neoplasia: a case-control study

OBJECTIVES: Sporadic duodenal adenomas are an uncommon finding. It is not clear whether patients with sporadic duodenal adenoma have a greater risk for colorectal neoplasia and should undergo colonoscopy. The aims of the present study were to estimate the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in patients with sporadic duodenal adenoma, and to compare colorectal neoplasia rates in patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas versus those without them. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was conducted to identify sporadic duodenal adenoma patients using the databases of two academic and one regional hospital in the Netherlands. Colonoscopic findings in the sporadic duodenal adenoma patients were compared with those of a control group of patients who underwent both gastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy. Furthermore, the frequency of colorectal cancer in the sporadic duodenal adenoma patients was compared with the population incidence of colorectal cancer. RESULTS: During the period 1991-2006, 102 patients in total with sporadic duodenal adenomas were identified. Colonoscopy was performed in 49 patients (48%), and colorectal neoplasia was present in 21 of these patients (43%). There was a significantly higher rate of both colorectal neoplasia (43%vs 17%, odds ratio [OR] 3.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-7.4) and advanced colorectal adenoma (18%vs 3%, OR 7.8, 95% CI 2.1-29.4) in the patients with sporadic duodenal adenoma compared to that in the control group. Also, the incidence of colorectal cancer was higher in sporadic duodenal adenoma patients compared to that in the population (P= 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with sporadic duodenal adenomas appear to be at a significantly higher risk of colorectal neoplasia, and therefore should undergo colonoscop

Implementation of mandatory ERCP registration in The Netherlands and compliance with European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures: a multicenter database study

Background In 2018, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) published quality performance measures for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Since January 2016, all endoscopists in the Netherlands have been required to register all ERCP procedures in a nationwide quality registry. This study aimed to evaluate the procedural success rates of ERCP after the implementation of mandatory national registration and to compare these with the ESGE quality performance measures.Methods This study was conducted with data from a multicenter endoscopy database. Data from 2019 and 2020 were analyzed. The primary outcome was ERCP procedural outcome. ESGE performance measures that could be evaluated were the percentage of successful bile duct cannulations in patients with virgin papillary anatomy; successful stent placement for a biliary obstruction located below the liver hilum; and complete removal of bile duct stones

Benefit of earlier anti-TNF treatment on IBD disease complications?

Background: Anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] treatment was demonstrated to have disease-modifying abilities in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. In this study, we aimed to determine the effect of anti-TNF treatment timing on IBD disease complications and mucosal healing [MH]. Methods: The following IBD-related complications were tested in relation to timing of anti-TNF therapy start in newly diagnosed IBD patients [n = 413]: Fistula formation, abscess formation, extra-intestinal manifestations [EIM], surgery, referral to academic centre, and MH. Results: A total of 85 patients [21%] received anti-TNF (66 Crohn's disease [CD], 16 ulcerative colitis [UC], 3 inflammatory bowel disease unclassified [IBDU]) of whom 57% [48 patients] were treated 16 months] regarding gender, age, smoking status, and familial IBD. More importantly, patients receiving anti-TNF early did not suffer less IBD-related complications during follow-up as compared with patients started on anti-TNF late, nor was more MH observed. Similar results were obtained when anti-TNF treated patient were stratified more stringently, ie 2 4 months [24 patients]. Cox regression analysis showed no beneficial correlations between anti-TNF timing and IBD-related complications. Anti-TNF treated patients achieving MH were 11 times less likely to develop EIMs compared with patients who did not achieved MH while on anti-TNF. Conclusions: This study was unable to confirm a benefit of earlier anti-TNF treatment on IBD disease complications. This could be explained by more aggressive treatment earlier in disease, resulting in fewer IBD complications. However, it seems more likely that inappropriate selection of patients for therapy leads to suboptimal treatment and subsequently suboptimal outcome

Comparison of cecal intubation and adenoma detection between hospitals can provide incentives to improve quality of colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) have been found to be inversely associated with the occurrence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Depicting differences in CIR and ADR between hospitals could provide incentives for quality improvement. The aim of this study was to compare quality parameters of routine colonoscopies between seven hospitals in The Netherlands in order to determine the extent to which possible differences were attributable to procedural and institutional factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were prospectively included between November 2012 and January 2013 at two academic and five nonacademic hospitals. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. Main outcome measures were CIR and ADR. RESULTS: A total of 3129 patients were included (mean age 59 ± 15 years; 45.5 % male). The majority of patients (86.2 %) had a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score ≥ 6. Overall CIR was 94.8 %, ranging from 89.4 % to 99.2 % between hospitals. After adjustment for case mix (age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and indication for colonoscopy), factors associated with CIR were hospital and a BBPS score ≥ 6. Overall ADR was 31.8 % and varied between hospitals, ranging from 24.8 % to 46.8 %. Independent predictors for ADR were hospital, BBPS score ≥ 6, and cecal intubation. By combining CIR and ADR for each hospital, a colonoscopy quality indicator (CQI) was developed, which can be used by hospitals to stimulate quality improvement. CONCLUSION: Differences in the quality of colonoscopy between hospitals can be demonstrated using CIR and ADR. As both indicators are affected by institution and bowel preparation, a comparison between hospitals based on the newly developed CQI could assist in further improving the quality of colonoscopy

Comparison of cecal intubation and adenoma detection between hospitals can provide incentives to improve quality of colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) have been found to be inversely associated with the occurrence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Depicting differences in CIR and ADR between hospitals could provide incentives for quality improvement. The aim of this study was to compare quality parameters of routine colonoscopies between seven hospitals in The Netherlands in order to determine the extent to which possible differences were attributable to procedural and institutional factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were prospectively included between November 2012 and January 2013 at two academic and five nonacademic hospitals. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. Main outcome measures were CIR and ADR. RESULTS: A total of 3129 patients were included (mean age 59 ± 15 years; 45.5 % male). The majority of patients (86.2 %) had a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score ≥ 6. Overall CIR was 94.8 %, ranging from 89.4 % to 99.2 % between hospitals. After adjustment for case mix (age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and indication for colonoscopy), factors associated with CIR were hospital and a BBPS score ≥ 6. Overall ADR was 31.8 % and varied between hospitals, ranging from 24.8 % to 46.8 %. Independent predictors for ADR were hospital, BBPS score ≥ 6, and cecal intubation. By combining CIR and ADR for each hospital, a colonoscopy quality indicator (CQI) was developed, which can be used by hospitals to stimulate quality improvement. CONCLUSION: Differences in the quality of colonoscopy between hospitals can be demonstrated using CIR and ADR. As both indicators are affected by institution and bowel preparation, a comparison between hospitals based on the newly developed CQI could assist in further improving the quality of colonoscopy

Predicting inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy in participants receiving split-dose bowel preparation : Development and validation of a prediction score

Background: Adequate bowel preparation is important for optimal colonoscopy. It is important to identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation because this allows taking precautions in this specific group. Objective: To develop a prediction score to identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation who may benefit from an intensified bowel cleansing regimen. Design: Patient and colonoscopy data were prospectively collected, whereas clinical data were retrospectively collected for a total of 1996 colonoscopies in participants who received split-dose bowel preparation. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted in a random two-thirds of the cohort to develop a prediction model. Validation and evaluation of the discriminative power of the prediction model were performed within the remaining one-third of the cohort. Setting: Four centers, including one academic and three medium-to-large size nonacademic centers. Patients: Consecutive colonoscopies in November and December 2012. Mean age was 57.3 ± 15.9 years, 45.8% were male and indications for colonoscopy were screening and/or surveillance (27%), abdominal symptoms and/or blood loss and/or anemia (60%), inflammatory bowel disease (9%), and others (4%). Interventions: Colonoscopy. Main Outcome Measurements: Inadequate bowel preparation defined as Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score <6. Results: A total of 1331 colonoscopies were included in the development cohort, of which 172 (12.9%) had an inadequate bowel preparation. Independent factors included in the prediction model were American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System score ≤3, use of tricyclic antidepressants, use of opioids, diabetes, chronic constipation, history of abdominal and/or pelvic surgery, history of inadequate bowel preparation, and current hospitalization. The discriminative ability of the scale was good, with an area under the curve of 0.77 in the validation cohort. Limitations: Study design partially retrospective, no data on patient compliance. Conclusion: We developed a validated, easy-to-use prediction scale that can be used to identify subjects with an increased risk of inadequate bowel preparation with good accuracy