Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter Study

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Leal,Carina
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: Almeida,Nuno, Silva,Maria, Santos,Antonieta, Vasconcelos,Helena, Figueiredo,Pedro
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452022000100005
Resumo: Abstract Introduction: Advances in endoscopy and open-access systems led to an increase in endoscopic procedures. However, overuse of endoscopy has been consistently reported. This study aims to assess the appropriateness of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy referral in the private and public setting. Patients and Methods: We conducted a prospective, multicenter study at 2 public and 5 private endoscopy units. Patients scheduled for elective EGD or colonoscopy were enrolled. Clinical data and endoscopy findings were recorded. Appropriateness of endoscopy was defined according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines (for EGD) and the European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II (for colonoscopy). Results: Regarding EGD: 215 patients enrolled (43.7% were males) with a mean age of 61.0 ± 15.1 years; 54.0% (n = 116) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 34.9% (n = 75). Appropriate indications were made for 62.3% (n = 134): 42.4% in private versus 79.3% in public endoscopy units (odds ratio [OR] 5.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.85-9.49; p < 0.01). Rate of appropriate EGD was 74.7% for gastroenterologist referral and 56.1% for other specialties (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.24-4.28; p < 0.01). Diagnostic yield for relevant findings was 47.9%. No association between indication appropriateness, gastroenterologist referral, and relevant endoscopic findings was found. Regarding colonoscopy: 287 patients enrolled (49.1% were males) with a mean age of 60.4 ± 14.4 years; 48.1% (n = 138) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 20.6% (n = 59). Appropriate indications were made for 70.0% (n = 201): 53.0% in private vs. 88.4% in public endoscopy units (OR 6.75; 95% CI 3.66-12.47; p < 0.01). Diagnostic yield was 57.1%. Relevant endoscopic diagnosis was associated with indication: 63.2% in the appropriate vs. 43.0% in the nonappropriate indication group (p < 0.05). Discussion: A significant percentage of endoscopies, mainly in the private setting, were performed without an appropriate indication. This influenced the diagnostic yield. The use of adequate criteria is fundamental for the rational use of an open-access system.
id RCAP_dd6f794ae7e35de9887c2f022cbe327e
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S2341-45452022000100005
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter StudyGastrointestinal endoscopyAppropriatenessOpen-access endoscopyIndicationOveruseAbstract Introduction: Advances in endoscopy and open-access systems led to an increase in endoscopic procedures. However, overuse of endoscopy has been consistently reported. This study aims to assess the appropriateness of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy referral in the private and public setting. Patients and Methods: We conducted a prospective, multicenter study at 2 public and 5 private endoscopy units. Patients scheduled for elective EGD or colonoscopy were enrolled. Clinical data and endoscopy findings were recorded. Appropriateness of endoscopy was defined according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines (for EGD) and the European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II (for colonoscopy). Results: Regarding EGD: 215 patients enrolled (43.7% were males) with a mean age of 61.0 ± 15.1 years; 54.0% (n = 116) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 34.9% (n = 75). Appropriate indications were made for 62.3% (n = 134): 42.4% in private versus 79.3% in public endoscopy units (odds ratio [OR] 5.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.85-9.49; p < 0.01). Rate of appropriate EGD was 74.7% for gastroenterologist referral and 56.1% for other specialties (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.24-4.28; p < 0.01). Diagnostic yield for relevant findings was 47.9%. No association between indication appropriateness, gastroenterologist referral, and relevant endoscopic findings was found. Regarding colonoscopy: 287 patients enrolled (49.1% were males) with a mean age of 60.4 ± 14.4 years; 48.1% (n = 138) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 20.6% (n = 59). Appropriate indications were made for 70.0% (n = 201): 53.0% in private vs. 88.4% in public endoscopy units (OR 6.75; 95% CI 3.66-12.47; p < 0.01). Diagnostic yield was 57.1%. Relevant endoscopic diagnosis was associated with indication: 63.2% in the appropriate vs. 43.0% in the nonappropriate indication group (p < 0.05). Discussion: A significant percentage of endoscopies, mainly in the private setting, were performed without an appropriate indication. This influenced the diagnostic yield. The use of adequate criteria is fundamental for the rational use of an open-access system.Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia2022-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452022000100005GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology v.29 n.1 2022reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452022000100005Leal,CarinaAlmeida,NunoSilva,MariaSantos,AntonietaVasconcelos,HelenaFigueiredo,Pedroinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-02-06T17:34:16Zoai:scielo:S2341-45452022000100005Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T02:36:16.550208Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter Study
title Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter Study
spellingShingle Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter Study
Leal,Carina
Gastrointestinal endoscopy
Appropriateness
Open-access endoscopy
Indication
Overuse
title_short Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter Study
title_full Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter Study
title_fullStr Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter Study
title_full_unstemmed Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter Study
title_sort Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter Study
author Leal,Carina
author_facet Leal,Carina
Almeida,Nuno
Silva,Maria
Santos,Antonieta
Vasconcelos,Helena
Figueiredo,Pedro
author_role author
author2 Almeida,Nuno
Silva,Maria
Santos,Antonieta
Vasconcelos,Helena
Figueiredo,Pedro
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Leal,Carina
Almeida,Nuno
Silva,Maria
Santos,Antonieta
Vasconcelos,Helena
Figueiredo,Pedro
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Gastrointestinal endoscopy
Appropriateness
Open-access endoscopy
Indication
Overuse
topic Gastrointestinal endoscopy
Appropriateness
Open-access endoscopy
Indication
Overuse
description Abstract Introduction: Advances in endoscopy and open-access systems led to an increase in endoscopic procedures. However, overuse of endoscopy has been consistently reported. This study aims to assess the appropriateness of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy referral in the private and public setting. Patients and Methods: We conducted a prospective, multicenter study at 2 public and 5 private endoscopy units. Patients scheduled for elective EGD or colonoscopy were enrolled. Clinical data and endoscopy findings were recorded. Appropriateness of endoscopy was defined according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines (for EGD) and the European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II (for colonoscopy). Results: Regarding EGD: 215 patients enrolled (43.7% were males) with a mean age of 61.0 ± 15.1 years; 54.0% (n = 116) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 34.9% (n = 75). Appropriate indications were made for 62.3% (n = 134): 42.4% in private versus 79.3% in public endoscopy units (odds ratio [OR] 5.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.85-9.49; p < 0.01). Rate of appropriate EGD was 74.7% for gastroenterologist referral and 56.1% for other specialties (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.24-4.28; p < 0.01). Diagnostic yield for relevant findings was 47.9%. No association between indication appropriateness, gastroenterologist referral, and relevant endoscopic findings was found. Regarding colonoscopy: 287 patients enrolled (49.1% were males) with a mean age of 60.4 ± 14.4 years; 48.1% (n = 138) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 20.6% (n = 59). Appropriate indications were made for 70.0% (n = 201): 53.0% in private vs. 88.4% in public endoscopy units (OR 6.75; 95% CI 3.66-12.47; p < 0.01). Diagnostic yield was 57.1%. Relevant endoscopic diagnosis was associated with indication: 63.2% in the appropriate vs. 43.0% in the nonappropriate indication group (p < 0.05). Discussion: A significant percentage of endoscopies, mainly in the private setting, were performed without an appropriate indication. This influenced the diagnostic yield. The use of adequate criteria is fundamental for the rational use of an open-access system.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-02-01
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452022000100005
url http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452022000100005
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452022000100005
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology v.29 n.1 2022
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799137414775570432