Endoscopy 2018; 50(04): S52
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1637182
ESGE Days 2018 oral presentations
20.04.2018 – Colonoscopy quality parameters
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

THE EFFECT OF ROUTINE VIDEO-RECORDING ON COLONOSCOPY QUALITY INDICATORS: A MULTICENTER, CLUSTER RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

M Rupinska
1   Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Warsaw, Poland
2   The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
,
P Wieszczy
1   Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Warsaw, Poland
,
R Franczyk
2   The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
,
M Rupinski
1   Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Warsaw, Poland
2   The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
,
J Reguła
1   Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Warsaw, Poland
2   The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
,
MF Kaminski
1   Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Warsaw, Poland
2   The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 March 2018 (online)

Also available at
 

Aims:

To assess the effect of routine video-recording (REC) on colonoscopy quality indicators: adenoma detection rate (ADR), and cecal intubation rate (CIR).

Methods:

The study was performed within the framework of colonoscopy screening in Poland, including individuals aged 55 – 64 years. The study was conducted in eight screening centers in three consecutive phases: pre-intervention (centers not informed, quality indicators measured), intervention phase (centers consented and randomized 1:1 either to REC or control (no REC) groups) and post-intervention (centers not informed, quality indicators measured). Participating centers were blinded to the endpoints. We compared differences in ADR and CIR between study phases. We used a generalized linear mixed effects model with random center and study phase effects. Colonoscopy recordings were audited to assess completeness of colonoscopy examination (audited CIR) and compared to the reported CIR.

Results:

Overall, 5,485, 6,190 and 9,217 colonoscopies from 7 screening centers were included in the analysis in pre-intervention, intervention and post-intervention phase. Data from one screening center (3,010 colonoscopies) were excluded from the primary analysis due to concerns about the quality of histopathology.

In the intervention phase average ADR in the REC group improved by 6.56% compared to 1.04% in the control group (p = 0.144). In the post-intervention phase average ADR decreased by 2.92% and 2.25% in the REC and control group, respectively, compared to the intervention phase (p = 0.525).

Audit of a random sample of 1,400 colonoscopies revealed that 1,182 (84.4%) were complete, 166 (11.9%) were doubtful (ileocecal valve seen but cecal caput not visualized) and 52 (3.7%) were incomplete. Audited CIR was significantly lower compared to the reported CIR (84.4% vs. 96.6%, p = 0.001).

Conclusions:

REC did not significantly improve ADR at screening colonoscopy. Audit revealed significant difference between reported and audited CIR. NCT02054923.