Overview of a national endoscopy database: The Trans.IT database and its impact on data registration quality.

BACKGROUND: The Trans.IT database is a national gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy database developed in 2012. It automatically collects anonymous data from GI endoscopy procedures in a centralized database. All endoscopists use a structured reporting tool for uniform data collection. In this study, we aim to provide an overview of the database and to evaluate its impact on data registration quality. METHODS: We used all ERCPs, colonoscopies and colorectal cancer (CRC)-screening colonoscopies performed between 2016 and 2020. We excluded centers joining after 2016 and patients below age 18. Data registration quality for ERCPs included completeness of data for: intention of ERCP, Schutz score, ASA classification, papillary status (virgin or previous sphincterotomy), cannulation (success or failure to cannulate the desired duct) and procedural success. For colonoscopies: indication, ASA-classification, Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), cecal intubation, polyp detection rate (PDR). For CRC-screening colonoscopies, ASA-classification, BBPS, cecal intubation, PDR and adenoma detection rate (ADR). RESULTS: A total of 14,156 ERCPs, 150,962 colonoscopies and 37,199 colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies were included in our analysis. For ERCPs, registration of procedural intention, Schutz score, ASA classification, papillary status, cannulation and procedural success improved from 34.9%, 32.7%, 72.6%, 36.5%, 34.6%, 27.2% in 2016, to 86.4%, 84.6%, 97.4%, 86.4%, 82.1%, 84.0%, respectively, in 2020. For non-screening colonoscopies, registration of indication, ASA classification, BBPS, cecal intubation and PDR improved from 40.4%, 60.5%, 47.6%, 69.8% and 32.3% in 2016 to 90.3%, 88.9%, 59.8%, 79.1% and 39.1%, respectively, in 2020. For CRC-cancer screening colonoscopy registration equaled outcome, PDR and ADR changed from 74.7% to 63.6% in 2016 to 66.3% and 53.8% in 2020, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of endoscopy data registration has consistently improved over the years by using the Trans.IT database. This is most likely the result of feedback to performing endoscopists to review performance in real-time online and progressive awareness of quality of data registration.

Predictors for neoplastic progression in patients with Barrett's Esophagus: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) have an increased risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). As the absolute risk remains low, there is a need for predictors of neoplastic progression to tailor more individualized surveillance programs. The aim of this study was to identify such predictors of progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and EAC in patients with BE after 4 years of surveillance and to develop a prediction model based on these factors. METHODS: We included 713 patients with BE (≥ 2 cm) with no dysplasia (ND) or low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in a multicenter, prospective cohort study. Data on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), reflux symptoms, tobacco and alcohol use, medication use, upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy findings, and histology were prospectively collected. As part of this study, patients with ND underwent surveillance every 2 years, whereas those with LGD were followed on a yearly basis. Log linear regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with the development of HGD or EAC during surveillance. RESULTS: After 4 years of follow-up, 26/713 (3.4%) patients developed HGD or EAC, with the remaining 687 patients remaining stable with ND or LGD. Multivariable analysis showed that a known duration of BE of ≥ 10 years (risk ratio (RR) 3.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-7.8), length of BE (RR 1.11 per cm increase in length; 95% CI 1.01-1.2), esophagitis (RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.3-9.5), and LGD (RR 9.7; 95% CI 4.4-21.5) were significant predictors of progression to HGD or EAC. In a prediction model, we found that the annual risk of developing HGD or EAC in BE varied between 0.3% and up to 40%. Patients with ND and no other risk factors had the lowest risk of developing HGD or EAC (<1%), whereas those with LGD and at least one other risk factor had the highest risk of neoplastic progression (18-40%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with BE, the risk of developing HGD or EAC is predominantly determined by the presence of LGD, a known duration of BE of ≥10 years, longer length of BE, and presence of esophagitis. One or combinations of these risk factors are able to identify patients with a low or high risk of neoplastic progression and could therefore be used to individualize surveillance intervals in BE.

A cost-benefit analysis of endoscopy reporting methods: handwritten, dictated and computerized.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Gastrointestinal endoscopy investigations are frequently requested by gastroenterologists, general practitioners and other physicians. In addition to the classic methods of report writing, several electronic endoscopic report systems are currently available. The aim of the study was to evaluate the costs of three different ways of producing reports; by hand, by dictation, or by computer. METHODS: Three methods of report writing were compared, with special attention to costs. The endoscopy process was analyzed, from arrival of the patient to sending the report to the referring doctor, and including production of endoscopic images or video, logging of used endoscopes and their disinfection, and storage costs for endoscopy data. RESULTS: During the first 5 years, the mean costs per procedure were Euro 4.78 for handwritten, Euro 6.39 for dictated and Euro 8.90 for computerized reports. Due to depreciation, after this initial period, the respective costs declined to Euro 4.37, Euro 5.20 and Euro 5.13, respectively. Despite high initial costs, a cost-benefit analysis already revealed a financial benefit from a computerized system after 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The electronic production of an endoscopic report turned out to be the most expensive way of report writing during the first 5 years, due to high initial costs. After 5 years the costs of the different systems were comparable with each other. Cost-benefit analysis showed a positive financial benefit for computerized reports after 3 years.