Substantial cost savings of ultrasound-based management over magnetic resonance imaging-based management in an inflammatory bowel disease service.

BACKGROUND: Imaging is used to monitor disease activity in small bowel Crohn's disease (CD). Magnetic Resonance Enterography is often employed as a first modality in the United Kingdom for assessment and monitoring; however, waiting times, cost, patient burden and limited access are significant. It is as yet uncertain if small bowel intestinal ultrasound (IUS) may be a quicker, more acceptable, and cheaper alternative for monitoring patients with CD. METHODS: A clinical service evaluation of imaging pathways was undertaken at a single NHS site in England, United Kingdom. Data were collected about patients who were referred and underwent an imaging analysis for their IBD. Only patients who underwent a therapy change were included in the analysis. Data were collected from care episodes between 01 January 2021-30 March 2022. RESULTS: A combined total of 193 patient care episodes were reviewed, 107 from the IUS pathway and 86 from the MRE pathway. Estimated costs per patient in the IUS pathway was £78.86, and £375.35 per patient in the MRE pathway. The MRE pathway had an average time from referral to treatment initiation of 91 days (SD= ±61) with patients in the IUS pathway waiting an average of 46 days (SD= ±17). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this work indicate that IUS is a potential cost-saving option when compared to MRE when used in the management of CD. This is in addition to the cost difference of the radiological modalities. A large, multicentre, prospective study is needed to validate these initial findings.

What is already known on this topic ­ Ultrasound is a quick and accurate imaging investigation for patients living with Crohn's disease. Its effect on the cost utility of an Inflammatory Bowel Disease service is unknown.What this study adds ­ This work provides initial data suggesting that an ultrasound-based service may provide significant cost savings when compared to a magnetic resonance imaging-based service.How this study might affect research, practice, or policy ­ This work is part of a larger programme of work to investigate the barriers to wider ultrasound implementation in UK IBD services. This work will contribute to the design of an implementation and training package for intestinal ultrasound in the UK.

Polyps seen but not removed during index colonoscopy: an underestimated inefficiency in endoscopy practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the United Kingdom endoscopists are certified for independent practice once competent in the removal of polyps up to 20 mm in size. Where polyps are detected but not removed during the index colonoscopy, a repeat procedure is required. The aim of this study was to identify the proportion of polyps <20 mm that were not removed at the time of diagnosis. METHODS: Polyps identified at colonoscopy during a 12-month period in a single institution were included in this study. All polyps were categorized according to the reported size and complexity per the size, morphology, site, access (SMSA) classification. In cases where polyps ≤20 mm were not removed, patient records and endoscopy reports were interrogated to ascertain the reasons for this. RESULTS: Across 1444 patients, 2442 polyps <20 mm in size were diagnosed. Removal at the time of the index procedure occurred in 1158 patients (80.2%). Nonremoval for a predefined acceptable reason, such as concomitant anticoagulation therapy, accounted for 174 cases (12.0%). Nonremoval without contraindication was noted in 112 cases (7.8%). The mean polypectomy complexity as determined by the SMSA score of these polyps was lower than level 2, denoting low complexity. The requirement for unnecessary repeat procedures equated to 9.3 days of endoscopy capacity per year. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that a small but significant proportion of small colorectal polyps are not removed at the time of diagnosis. This practice has implications for both patients and service provision.