Defining the accuracy of secretin pancreatic function testing in patients with suspected early chronic pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVES: The diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis in patients with characteristic symptoms but normal pancreatic imaging is challenging. Assessment of pancreatic function through secretin pancreatic function testing (SPFT) has been advocated in this setting, but its diagnostic accuracy is not fully known. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients who received SPFT at our tertiary care institution between January 1995 and December 2008 for suspected chronic pancreatitis. For all patients, medical records were reviewed for evidence of subsequent development of chronic pancreatitis by imaging and/or pathology. Patients were then categorized as "true positive" or "true negative" for chronic pancreatitis based on follow-up imaging or histologic evidence. RESULTS: In all, 116 patients underwent SPFT. Of the 27 patients who tested positive, 7 were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 20 SPFT-positive patients, 9 (45%) developed radiologic or histologic evidence of chronic pancreatitis after a median of 4 years (1-11 years). Of the 89 patients who had negative SPFT testing, 19 were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 70 patients, 2 were eventually diagnosed with chronic pancreatitis based on subsequent imaging/histology after a median follow-up period of 7 years (3-11 years). The sensitivity of the SPFT in diagnosing chronic pancreatitis was 82% with a specificity of 86%. The positive predictive value (PPV) of chronic pancreatitis was 45% with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected early chronic pancreatitis and normal pancreatic imaging, SPFT is highly accurate at ruling out early chronic pancreatitis with a NPV of 97%.

Quality improvement in gastroenterology clinical practice.

An emphasis on quality improvement (QI) is vital to the cost-effective provision of evidence-based health care. QI projects in gastroenterology have typically focused on endoscopy to minimize or eliminate procedure-related complications or errors. However, a significant component of gastroenterology care is based on the management of chronic disease. Patients with chronic diseases are seen in many different outpatient practices in the community and academia. In an attempt to ensure that every patient receives high-quality care, major gastrointestinal societies have published guidelines on the management of common gastrointestinal complaints. However, adherence to these guidelines varies. We discuss common outpatient gastrointestinal illnesses with established guidelines for management that could benefit from active QI projects; these would ensure a consistently high standard of care for every patient.

Adenoma detection rates vary minimally with time of day and case rank: a prospective study of 2139 first screening colonoscopies.

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate is an important measure of colonoscopy quality; however, factors including procedure order that contribute to adenoma detection are incompletely understood. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate factors associated with adenoma detection rate. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. Data were collected on patient and physician characteristics, trainee participation, time of day, and case rank. SETTING: Outpatient tertiary-care center. PATIENTS: This study involved consecutive patients presenting for first screening colonoscopies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Adenoma and polyp detection rates (proportion of cases with one or more lesion detected) and ratios (mean number of lesions detected per case). RESULTS: A total of 2139 colonoscopies were performed by 32 gastroenterologists. Detection rates were 42.7% for all polyps, 25.4% for adenomas, and 5.0% for advanced adenomas. Adenoma detection was associated with male sex and increasing age on multivariate analysis. In the overall study cohort, time of day and case rank were not significantly associated with detection rates. In post hoc analysis, polyp and adenoma detection rates appeared lower after the fifth case of the day for endoscopists with low volumes of cases and after the tenth case of the day for endoscopists with high volumes of cases. LIMITATION: Single center. CONCLUSION: Overall, time of day and case rank did not influence adenoma detection rate. We observed a small but significant decrease in detection rates in later procedures, which was dependent on physician typical procedure volume. These findings imply that colonoscopy quality in general is stable throughout the day; however, there may be a novel "stamina effect" for some endoscopists, and interventions aimed at improving colonoscopy quality need to take individual physician practice styles into consideration.

The incidence and cost of unexpected hospital use after scheduled outpatient endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Data on complications of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are limited. We evaluated prospectively the incidence and cost of hospital visits resulting from outpatient endoscopy. METHODS: We developed an electronic medical record-based system to record automatically admissions to the emergency department (ED) within 14 days after endoscopy. Physicians evaluated all reported cases for relatedness of the ED visit to the prior endoscopy based on predetermined criteria. RESULTS: We evaluated 6383 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) and 11 632 colonoscopies (7392 for screening and surveillance). Among these, 419 ED visits and 266 hospitalizations occurred within 14 days after the procedure. One hundred thirty-four (32%) of the ED visits and 76 (29%) of the hospitalizations were procedure related, whereas 31 complications were recorded by standard physician reporting (P < .001). Procedure-related hospital visits occurred in 1.07%, 0.84%, and 0.95% of all EGDs, all colonoscopies, and screening colonoscopies, respectively. The mean costs were $1403 per ED visit and $10 123 per hospitalization based on Medicare standardized rates. Across the overall screening/surveillance colonoscopy program, these episodes added $48 per examination. CONCLUSIONS: Using a novel automated system, we observed a 1% incidence of related hospital visits within 14 days of outpatient endoscopy, 2- to 3-fold higher than recent estimates. Most events were not captured by standard reporting, and strategies for automating adverse event reporting should be developed. The cost of unexpected hospital visits postendoscopy may be significant and should be taken into account in screening or surveillance programs.