Monitoring colonoscopy withdrawal time significantly improves the adenoma detection rate and the performance of endoscopists
Submitted: 02. April 2015
Accepted after revision: 09. Oktober 2015
25. Januar 2016 (eFirst)
Background and study aims: The recommended minimum withdrawal time for screening colonoscopy is 6 minutes. Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) increase with longer withdrawal times. We aimed to compare withdrawal times and ADRs of endoscopists unaware of being monitored vs. aware.
Patients and methods: Seven experienced gastroenterologists prospectively performed 558 screening colonoscopies during a 9-month period in a Swiss University hospital. Colonoscopy withdrawal times were first measured without the gastroenterologists’ knowledge of being monitored (n = 355 colonoscopies) and then with their knowledge (n = 203 colonoscopies).
Results: The median withdrawal time when gastroenterologists were unaware of being monitored was 4.5 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 4 – 5.5 minutes) without intervention and 6 minutes (IQR 4 – 9 minutes) with intervention, increasing significantly to 7.3 minutes (IQR 6.5 – 9 minutes) and 8 minutes (IQR 7 – 11 minutes), respectively, when they were aware of being monitored (P < 0.001 both for colonoscopies with and without intervention). The ADR increased from 21.4 % when the gastroenterologists were unaware of being monitored to 36.0 % when they were aware (P < 0.001). In the multivariate regression model, the endoscopists knowing they were being monitored was the strongest factor associated with ADR (odds ratio 4.417; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.241 – 8.705; P < 0.001).
Conclusions: Colonoscopy withdrawal time in unmonitored gastroenterologists is shorter than recommended and increases with awareness of monitoring. ADR significantly increases when gastroenterologists are aware of being monitored. Implementation of systematic monitoring, and analysis of withdrawal time and ADR for each endoscopist may help to increase the ADR.
* The first two authors contributed equally to this article.
- 1 Benson VS, Patnick J, Davies AK et al. International colorectal cancer screening network. Colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of 35 initiatives in 17 countries. Int J Cancer 2008; 122: 1357-1367
- 2 Seeff LC, Richards TB, Shapiro JA et al. How many endoscopies are performed for CRC screening? Results from CDC’s survey of endoscopic capacity. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 1670-1677
- 3 Prajapati DN, Saeian K, Binion DG et al. Volume and yield of screening colonoscopy at a tertiary medical center after change in medicare reimbursement. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 194-199
- 4 Elmunzer BJ, Singal AG, Sussman J et al. Comparing the effectiveness of competing tests for reducing colorectal cancer mortality: a network meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 700-709
- 5 Brenner H, Stock C, Hoffmeister M. Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ 2014; 348: g2467 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g2467.
- 6 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. Prevention of CRC by colonoscopic polypectomy. NEJM 1993; 329: 1977-1981
- 7 Citards F, Tomaselli G, Capocaccia R et al. Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut 2001; 48: 812-815
- 8 Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF et al. Quality screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 957-968
- 9 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. NEJM 2006; 355: 2533-2541
- 10 Overholt BF, Brooks-Belli L, Grace M et al. Withdrawal times and associated factors in colonoscopy: a quality assurance multicenter assessment. J Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 44: e80-e86
- 11 Simmons DT, Harewood GC, Baron TH et al. Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 24: 965-971
- 12 Sanchez W, Harewood GC, Petersen BT. Evaluation of polyp detection in relation to procedure time of screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 1941-1945
- 13 Fatima H, Rex DK, Rothstein R et al. Cecal insertion and withdrawal times with wide-angle versus standard colonoscopes: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 109-114
- 14 Lee TJW, Blanks RG, Rees CJ et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012; 61: 1050-1057
- 15 Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers J-J et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 378-384
- 16 Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296-1308
- 17 Butterly L, Robinson CM, Anderson JC et al. Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 417-426
- 18 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Greenlaw RL. Effect of a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol on adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 1091-1098
- 19 Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N et al. Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1892-1898
- 20 Sinn DH, Chang DK, Choi WS et al. Formal documentation of withdrawal time to improve the quality of colonoscopic observation. Hepatogastroenterology 2011; 58: 779-784
- 21 Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 20-26
- 22 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. NEJM 2010; 362: 1795-1803
- 23 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. NEJM 2014; 370: 1298-1306
- 24 Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 128-134
- 25 Rex DK. Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 33-36
- 26 Rex DK, Hewett DG, Raghavendra M et al. The impact of videorecording on the quality of colonoscopy performance: a pilot study. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2312-2317