Appropriateness of colonoscopies in a Tunisian endoscopy center: factors and EPAGE-I/II criteria comparison.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing demand for colonoscopy, worldwide, resulting in increased rate of inappropriate referrals. This "overuse" of colonoscopies has become a major burden for health care. OBJECTIVES: to assess the appropriateness of colonoscopies performed at the endoscopy unit of the university hospital of Sousse and to compare these results of appropriateness according to the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) I and EPAGE II criteria. PATIENTS AND METHODS: this cross-sectional study included all consecutive patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy, between January 2017 and December 2018. Patients referred for exclusively therapeutic indications, those with incomplete colonoscopies were not included. Patients with poor bowel preparation or missing data were also excluded. Indications were assessed using the EPAGE I and EPAGE II criteria. RESULTS: From 1972 consecutive patients, 1307 were included. Overall, 986 (75.4%) of all referrals were for out-patients. The majority of patients were referred by gastroenterologists (n = 1026 patients; 78.5%), followed by general surgeons (n = 85; 6.5%). The commonest indications were lower abdominal symptoms (275; 21%) followed by uncomplicated diarrhea (152; 11.6%). Relevant findings were present in 363 patients (27.7%). Neoplastic lesions were the dominant finding in 221 patients (16.9%). EPAGE I and EPAGE II criteria were applicable for 1237 (88.8%) and 1276 (97.7%) patients respectively. Hematochezia and abdominal pain recorded the highest inappropriate rates with both sets of criteria. Appropriate colonoscopies increased to 76.4% when EPAGE II criteria were applied; whereas uncertain and inappropriate procedures decreased to 10.3% and 10.9% respectively Appropriateness of indication was significantly higher in hospitalized patients. For the EPAGE II criteria, the specialty of the referring physician was also significantly associated to the appropriate use. The agreement between EPAGE I and EPAGE II criteria was slight using the weighted version of k (k = 0.153). CONCLUSIONS: The updated and improved EPAGE II guidelines are a simple and valid tool for assessing the appropriateness of colonoscopies. They decreased the inappropriate rate and the possibility of missing potentially severe diagnoses.

Management of anal fistulas in Crohn's disease after failure of Infliximab.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of complex perianal fistulas in Crohn's disease remains a challenge especially after the failure of Infliximab. AIM: Update on the different therapeutic alternatives for anal fistula in Crohn's disease after failure of Infliximab. METHODS: A research in the medical literature on PubMed and Google Scholar was carried out. We included cohort studies, reviews and randomized double-blinded therapeutic trials. Case reports and fundamental research studies have been excluded. RESULTS: Anti-TNF therapy, notably Infliximab remain the therapeutic option of choice. Since Infliximab efficacy has been estimated at 60%, with a significant loss-of response rate, new therapeutic strategies have been evaluated and may offer new opportunities for the management of anal fistulas: for example, Ustekinumab could be effective after failure of anti-TNF therapy, although further studies are required. Recent guidelines suggest that injection of mesenchymal stem cells is an effective and safe treatment for complex fistulas. Other surgical options have been proposed, such as endorectal advancement flap, fibrin glue injection, anal fistula plug and ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract, but all with limited and debatable efficacy. Given the failure rate of all these options, new strategies are currently being evaluated. CONCLUSION: Anal fistulas in Crohn's disease are a real therapeutic challenge. New medical and surgical therapies are currently being evaluated, with promising results.