Endoscopy 2018; 50(04): S50
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1637177
ESGE Days 2018 oral presentations
20.04.2018 – Colonoscopy quality parameters
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

EVALUATION OF MEAN ADENOMAS PER COLONOSCOPY AND ADENOMAS PER POSITIVE PARTICIPANT AS NEW QUALITY PARAMETERS IN SCREENING COLONOSCOPY

I Gessl
1   Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
2   Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (OEGGH), Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria
,
E Waldmann
2   Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (OEGGH), Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria
3   Medical University of Vienna, Internal Med. III, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria
,
D Penz
2   Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (OEGGH), Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria
3   Medical University of Vienna, Internal Med. III, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria
,
B Majcher
2   Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (OEGGH), Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria
3   Medical University of Vienna, Internal Med. III, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria
,
A Dokladanska
2   Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (OEGGH), Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria
3   Medical University of Vienna, Internal Med. III, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria
,
A Hinterberger
2   Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (OEGGH), Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria
3   Medical University of Vienna, Internal Med. III, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria
,
A Szymanska
2   Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (OEGGH), Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria
3   Medical University of Vienna, Internal Med. III, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria
,
M Trauner
3   Medical University of Vienna, Internal Med. III, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria
,
M Ferlitsch
2   Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (OEGGH), Quality Assurance Working Group, Vienna, Austria
3   Medical University of Vienna, Internal Med. III, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vienna, Austria
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 March 2018 (online)

Also available at
 

Aims:

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is widely accepted as one of the main quality parameters in screening colonoscopy. However, the question arises whether the detection of further adenomas after the first should be monitored. The primary aim of this study was to correlate adenomas per positive participant (APP) and mean adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) with the ADR, advanced ADR (AADR) and the detection rate of serrated adenomas (SDR). Furthermore, we wanted to assess if these parameters differ depending on the setting or profession.

Methods:

Colonoscopy records were obtained from the database of the Austrian certificate of quality for screening colonoscopy. Pearson's correlation was calculated to compare ADR, APC and APP. The parameters were compared between surgeons and internists and between private practices and hospitals using student's t-test.

Results:

A total of 44,142 colonoscopies of 202 endoscopists could be included to the study. APC showed a strong correlation with ADR and both showed a similar correlation with AADR and SDR. APP showed weaker correlations to all other parameters. Private practices did not differ in ADR or APC from hospitals, but the APP was significantly lower. Among endoscopists with an ADR of ≥25%, 12 (12.9%) had an APP in the lowest quartile while no endoscopists had an APC in the lowest quartile.

Conclusions:

APC did not reveal additional information to ADR and thus there is no need to use it instead or additionally to ADR. Although the APP identifies endoscopists who find few adenomas per procedure despite acceptable ADR, this additional information might not be important in regard to sufficient colorectal cancer prevention, as these endoscopists still had a high AADR and SDR.