Endoscopy 2018; 50(04): S50
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1637176
ESGE Days 2018 oral presentations
20.04.2018 – Colonoscopy quality parameters
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

ADENOMA DETECTION RATE CORRELATIONS WITH SECONDARY COLONOSCOPY QUALITY INDICATORS

K Triantafyllou
1   Attikon University General Hospital, Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Athens, Greece
,
S Karamaroudis
1   Attikon University General Hospital, Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Athens, Greece
,
A Stamou
1   Attikon University General Hospital, Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Athens, Greece
,
V Papadopoulos
1   Attikon University General Hospital, Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Athens, Greece
,
S Hariklia Vorri
1   Attikon University General Hospital, Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Athens, Greece
,
G Tziatzios
1   Attikon University General Hospital, Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Athens, Greece
,
P Katsouli
1   Attikon University General Hospital, Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Athens, Greece
,
E Karagkouni
1   Attikon University General Hospital, Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Athens, Greece
,
P Gkolfakis
1   Attikon University General Hospital, Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Athens, Greece
,
GD Dimitriadis
1   Attikon University General Hospital, Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Athens, Greece
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 March 2018 (online)

 

Aims:

Measurement of adenoma detection rate (ADR) is cumbersome in clinical practice. In order to calculate it indirectly, associations of ADR with easier to measure quality indicators are under investigation. We aimed to examine the association of ADR with secondary colonoscopy quality indicators.

Methods:

This is a retrospective study in a University endoscopy facility that enrolled consecutive patients aged > 50 years who underwent colonoscopy for screening (cohort 1), surveillance (cohort 2) and diagnostic (cohort 3) indications by 5 endoscopists, between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2015. We correlated ADR with the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and the mean number of adenomas per positive colonoscopy (APPC), in different colonoscopy indications cohorts. Additionally, we explored the association of screening ADR with overall (all colonoscopy indications included) ADR, APC and APPC. Correlations were examined with Pearson's r.

Results:

A total of 1918 colonoscopies were included; the distribution of indications was 30%/30%/40% for cohorts 1/2/3, respectively. ADRs were significantly correlated (r = 0.94, 0. 97 and 0.88; p < 0.02) to APCs, in each of the 3 cohorts and in the whole population (r = 0.94; p = 0.009), as well. On the contrary, no correlation was detected between ADR and APPC in any cohort. Screening ADR was not correlated with either overall ADR (r = 0.70; p = 0.09) or overall APC (r = 0.42; p = 0.24) or overall APPC (r = 0.33; p = 0.29).

Conclusions:

In our population, screening ADR was not correlated to the studied overall colonoscopy quality indicators. However, ADRs was correlated to APCs in each colonoscopy indication cohort.