Clinical validation of the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) II criteria in an open-access unit: a prospective study
submitted 10 August 2010
accepted after revision 26 July 2011
22 November 2011 (eFirst)
Background and study aims: The European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE I) criteria were recently updated (EPAGE II), but no prospective studies have used these criteria in clinical practice. The aim of the current study was to validate the EPAGE II criteria in an open-access endoscopy unit.
Patients and methods: A prospective observational study was conducted in an open-access endoscopy unit at a tertiary care referral center. Consecutive outpatients (n = 1004; mean age 58.9 ± 13.1 years; 45 % men) were referred for diagnostic colonoscopy between September 2009 and February 2010. The appropriateness of colonoscopy was assessed based on EPAGE II criteria, and the relationship between appropriateness and both referral doctor and detection of significant lesions was examined. The effectiveness of EPAGE II criteria in assessing appropriateness was measured by means of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for detecting significant lesions.
Results: Colonoscopic cecal intubation was achieved in 956 patients (95.2 %). Most referral doctors were gastroenterologists (58.0 %) and the most common indication was colorectal cancer (CRC) screening (35.2 %). EPAGE II criteria were applicable in 968 patients (96.4 %); of these patients, the indication was appropriate in 778 (80.4 %), inappropriate in 102 (10.5 %), and uncertain in 88 (9.1 %). Patients with appropriate or uncertain indications based on EPAGE II criteria had more relevant endoscopic findings than those with inappropriate indications (38.8 % vs. 24.5 %; OR 1.95, 95 %CI 1.22 – 3.13; P < 0.005). Sensitivity and negative predictive value of EPAGE II criteria for detecting significant lesions were 93.1 % (95 %CI 90 % – 96 %) and 75.5 % (95 %CI 67 % – 84 %), respectively, whereas for advanced neoplastic lesions these values were 98.0 % (95 %CI 95 % – 100 %) and 98.0 % (95 % CI 95 % – 100 %), respectively. Adherence to EPAGE II recommendations was an independent predictor of finding a significant lesion (OR 1.93, 95 %CI 1.20 – 3.11; P = 0.007).
Conclusions: EPAGE II is a simple, valid score for detecting inappropriate colonoscopies in clinical practice.
- 1 Cohen LB, Wecsler JS, Gaetano JN et al. Endoscopic sedation in the United States: results from a nationwide survey. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 967-974
- 2 Sonnenberg A, Amorosi SL, Lacey MJ et al. 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
- 3 Fernandez-Esparrach G, Gimeno-Garcia AZ, Llach J et al. [Guidelines for the rational use of endoscopy to improve the detection of relevant lesions in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study]. Med Clin (Barc) 2007; 129: 205-208
- 4 Levin TR. Colonoscopy capacity: Can we build it? Will they come?. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 1841-1844
- 5 Seeff LC, Manninen DL, Dong FB et al. Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 1661-1669
- 6 Rodriguez-Moranta F, Trapero-Bertran M, Castells A et al. Endoscopic requirements of colorectal cancer screening programs in average-risk population. Estimation according to a Markov model. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 31: 405-412
- 7 Balaguer F, Llach J, Castells A et al. The European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy guidelines colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 21: 609-613
- 8 Burnand B, Harris JK, Wietlisbach V et al. Use, appropriateness, and diagnostic yield of screening colonoscopy: an international observational study (EPAGE). Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 1018-1026
- 9 Gonvers JJ, Harris JK, Wietlisbach V et al. A European view of diagnostic yield and appropriateness of colonoscopy. Hepatogastroenterology 2007; 54: 729-735
- 10 Vader JP, Froehlich F, Dubois RW et al. European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE): conclusion and WWW site. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 687-694
- 11 Juillerat P, Peytremann-Bridevaux I, Vader JP et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 240-246
- 12 Parra-Blanco A, Nicolas-Perez D, Gimeno-Garcia A et al. The timing of bowel preparation before colonoscopy determines the quality of cleansing, and is a significant factor contributing to the detection of flat lesions: a randomized study. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 6161-6166
- 13 Froehlich F, Pache I, Burnand B et al. Performance of panel-based criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of colonoscopy: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 1998; 48: 128-136
- 14 Kmieciak Le Corguille M, Gaudric M, Sogni P et al. [Appropiateness of colonoscopy in a gastrointestinal unit in 2001: a prospective study using criteria established by a European panel of experts]. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2003; 27: 213-218
- 15 Terraz O, Wietlisbach V, Jeannot JG et al. The EPAGE internet guideline as a decision support tool for determining the appropriateness of colonoscopy. Digestion 2005; 71: 72-77
- 16 Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 1570-1595
- 17 Arditi C, Gonvers JJ, Burnand B et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Surveillance after polypectomy and after resection of colorectal cancer. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 209-217
- 18 Grassini M, Verna C, Battaglia E et al. Education improves colonoscopy appropriateness. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 88-93
- 19 Grassini M, Verna C, Niola P et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy: diagnostic yield and safety in guidelines. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 1816-1819
- 20 Vader JP, Froehlich F, Burnand B et al. ASGE versus EPAGE versus diagnostic yield: a level playing field, please!. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 1892-1892
- 21 Sanchez-de lRio A, Quintero E, Alarcon O. [Appropriateness of indications for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in open-access endoscopy units]. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 27: 119-124
- 22 Morini S, Hassan C, Meucci G et al. Diagnostic yield of open access colonoscopy according to appropriateness. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 175-179
- 23 Suriani R, Rizzetto M, Mazzucco D et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in a digestive endoscopy unit: a prospective study using ASGE guidelines. J Eval Clin Pract 2009; 15: 41-45