Colonoscopy in the very elderly.

Introduction: Colonoscopy is the gold standard test for investigating lower gastrointestinal symptoms and is an important therapeutic tool for colonic polypectomy. This paper is aimed at the general physician and examines the role of colonoscopy in very elderly patients by exploring the particular risks in this population, the yield of colonoscopy and potential alternative investigations. Sources of data: Original research and review articles were identified through selective PubMed searches. Guidelines were identified through interrogation of national and international society websites in addition to PubMed searches. Areas of agreement: Advanced age alone is not a reason to avoid investigation. The decision to perform colonoscopy in this population must take into account indication and yield, risks of the procedure and bowel preparation, physical fitness of the patient, potential alternative and the ability to consent. As a general rule, the principle of 'first doing no harm' should be applied and requires balancing of the risks of the procedure and preparation with the benefits of doing the test. Areas of controversy: There is no defined upper age limit at which colonoscopy is contraindicated, however; the National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme stops inviting patients for screening and surveillance colonoscopy at age 75. Growing points and areas timely for developing research: The concepts of 'first do no harm' and shared decision-making are not new but are increasingly important, particularly in this patient group. It is crucial to provide patients with information about risks, benefits and alternative investigations to empower their decision-making.

Scottish Bowel Screening Programme colonoscopy quality - scope for improvement?

AIM: The delivery of the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme (SBoSP) is rooted in the provision of a high quality, effective and participant-centred service. Safe and effective colonoscopy forms an integral part of the process. Additional accreditation as part of a multi-faceted programme for participating colonoscopists, as in England, does not exist in Scotland. This study aimed to describe the quality of colonoscopy in the SBoSP and compare this to the English national screening standards. METHODS: Data were collected from the SBoSP between 2007 and 2014. End-points for analysis were caecal intubation, cancer, polyp and adenoma detection, and complications. Overall results were compared with 2012 published English national standards for screening and outcomes from 2006 to 2009. RESULTS: During the study period 53 332 participants attended for colonoscopy. The colonoscopy completion rate was 95.6% overall. The mean cancer detection rate was 7.1%, the polyp detection rate was 45.7% and the adenoma detection rate was 35.5%. The overall complication rate was 0.47%. CONCLUSION: Colonoscopy quality in the SBoSP has exceeded the standard set for screening colonoscopy in England, despite not adopting a multi-faceted programme for screening colonoscopy. However, the overall adenoma detection rate in Scotland was 9.1% lower than that in England which has implications for colonoscopy quality and may have an impact on cancer prevention rates, a key aim of the SBoSP.

Detection rate of serrated polyps and serrated polyposis syndrome in colorectal cancer screening cohorts: a European overview.

OBJECTIVE: The role of serrated polyps (SPs) as colorectal cancer precursor is increasingly recognised. However, the true prevalence SPs is largely unknown. We aimed to evaluate the detection rate of SPs subtypes as well as serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) among European screening cohorts. METHODS: Prospectively collected screening cohorts of ≥1000 individuals were eligible for inclusion. Colonoscopies performed before 2009 and/or in individuals aged below 50 were excluded. Rate of SPs was assessed, categorised for histology, location and size. Age-sex-standardised number needed to screen (NNS) to detect SPs were calculated. Rate of SPS was assessed in cohorts with known colonoscopy follow-up data. Clinically relevant SPs (regarded as a separate entity) were defined as SPs ≥10 mm and/or SPs >5 mm in the proximal colon. RESULTS: Three faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening cohorts and two primary colonoscopy screening cohorts (range 1.426-205.949 individuals) were included. Rate of SPs ranged between 15.1% and 27.2% (median 19.5%), of sessile serrated polyps between 2.2% and 4.8% (median 3.3%) and of clinically relevant SPs between 2.1% and 7.8% (median 4.6%). Rate of SPs was similar in FOBT-based cohorts as in colonoscopy screening cohorts. No apparent association between the rate of SP and gender or age was shown. Rate of SPS ranged from 0% to 0.5%, which increased to 0.4% to 0.8% after follow-up colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The detection rate of SPs is variable among screening cohorts, and standards for reporting, detection and histopathological assessment should be established. The median rate, as found in this study, may contribute to define uniform minimum standards for males and females between 50 and 75 years of age.

Optimising faecal occult blood screening:retrospective analysis of NHS Bowel Cancer Screening data to improve the screening algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal neoplasia causes bleeding, enabling detection using Faecal Occult Blood tests (FOBt). The National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) guaiac-based FOBt (gFOBt) kits contain six sample windows (or 'spots') and each kit returns either a positive, unclear or negative result. Test kits with five or six positive windows are termed 'abnormal' and the subject is referred for further investigation, usually colonoscopy. If 1-4 windows are positive, the result is initially 'unclear' and up to two further kits are submitted, further positivity leads to colonoscopy ('weak positive'). If no further blood is detected, the test is deemed 'normal' and subjects are tested again in 2 years' time. We studied the association between spot positivity % (SP%) and neoplasia. METHODS: Subjects in the Southern Hub completing the first of two consecutive episodes between April 2009 and March 2011 were studied. Each episode included up to three kits and a maximum of 18 windows (spots). For each positivity combination, the percentage of positive spots out of the total number of spots completed by an individual in a single-screening episode was derived and named 'SP%'. Fifty-five combinations of SP can occur if the position of positive/negative spots on the same test card is ignored.The proportion of individuals for whom neoplasia was identified in Episode 2 was derived for each of the 55 spot combinations. In addition, the Episode 1 spot pattern was analysed for subjects with cancer detected in Episode 2. RESULTS: During Episode 2, 284,261 subjects completed gFOBT screening and colonoscopies were performed on 3891 (1.4%) subjects. At colonoscopy, cancer was detected in 7.4% (n=286) and a further 39.8% (n=1550) had adenomas. Cancer was detected in 21.3% of subjects with an abnormal first kit (five or six positive spots) and in 5.9% of those with a weak positive test result.The proportion of cancers detected was positively correlated with SP%, with an R(2) correlation (linear) of 0.89. As the SP% increased from 11 to 100%, so the colorectal cancer (CRC) detection rate increased from 4 to 25%. At the lower SP%s, from 11to 25%, the CRC risk was relatively static at ~4%. Above an SP% of 25%, every 10-percentage points increase in the SP%, was associated with an increase in cancer detection of 2.5%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a strong correlation between SP% and cancer detection within the NHS BCSP. At the population level, subjects' cancer risk ranged from 4 to 25% and correlated with the gFOBt spot pattern.Some subjects with an SP% of 11% proceed to colonoscopy, whereas others with an SP% of 22% do not. Colonoscopy on patients with four positive spots in kit 1 (SP% 22%) would, we estimate, detect cancer in ~4% of cases and increase overall colonoscopy volume by 6%. This study also demonstrated how screening programme data could be used to guide its ongoing implementation and inform other programmes.

Screen-detected colorectal cancers are associated with an improved outcome compared with stage-matched interval cancers.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancers (CRCs) detected through the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) have been shown to have a more favourable outcome compared to non-screen-detected cancers. The aim was to identify whether this was solely due to the earlier stage shift of these cancers, or whether other factors were involved. METHODS: A combination of a regional CRC registry (Northern Colorectal Cancer Audit Group) and the BCSP database were used to identify screen-detected and interval cancers (diagnosed after a negative faecal occult blood test, before the next screening round), diagnosed between April 2007 and March 2010, within the North East of England. For each Dukes' stage, patient demographics, tumour characteristics, and survival rates were compared between these two groups. RESULTS: Overall, 322 screen-detected cancers were compared against 192 interval cancers. Screen-detected Dukes' C and D CRCs had a superior survival rate compared with interval cancers (P=0.014 and P=0.04, respectively). Cox proportional hazards regression showed that Dukes' stage, tumour location, and diagnostic group (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29-0.69, P<0.001 for screen-detected CRCs) were all found to have a significant impact on the survival of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The improved survival of screen-detected over interval cancers for stages C and D suggest that there may be a biological difference in the cancers in each group. Although lead-time bias may have a role, this may be related to a tumour's propensity to bleed and therefore may reflect detection through current screening tests.

Management of complex colonic polyps in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

BACKGROUND: Large sessile or flat colonic polyps, defined as polyps at least 20 mm in size, are difficult to treat endoscopically and may harbour malignancy. The aim of this study was to describe their current management to provide insight into optimal management. METHODS: This retrospective observational study identified patients with large sessile or flat polyps detected in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme between 2006 and 2009. Initial therapeutic modality (surgical or endoscopic), subsequent management and outcomes were recorded. The main outcome measures analysed were: presence of malignancy, need for surgical treatment, complications, and residual or recurrent polyp at 12 months. RESULTS: In total, 557 large sessile or flat polyps with benign appearance or initial histology were identified in 557 patients. Some 436 (78.3 per cent) were initially managed endoscopically and 121 (21.7 per cent) were managed surgically from the outset. Seventy of those initially treated endoscopically subsequently required surgery owing to the presence of malignancy (19) or not being suitable for further endoscopic management (51). Residual or recurrent polyp was present at 12 months in 26 (6.0 per cent) of 436 patients managed endoscopically. There was wide variation between centres in the use of surgery as a primary therapy, ranging from 7 to 36 per cent. Endoscopic complications included bleeding in 13 patients (3.0 per cent) and perforation in two (0.5 per cent). CONCLUSION: Management of large sessile or flat colonic polyps is safe and effective in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Wide variation in the use of surgery suggests a need for standardized management algorithms. Presented to a meeting of the British Society of Gastroenterology, Birmingham, U.K., March 2011.

Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Increasing colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) is thought to be associated with increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). Current English guidelines recommend a minimum CWT of 6 minutes. It is known that in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England there is wide variation in CWT. The aim of this observational study was to examine the relationship between CWT and ADR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study examined data from 31 088 colonoscopies by 147 screening program colonoscopists. Colonoscopists were grouped in four levels of mean CWT ( < 7, 7 - 8.9, 9 - 10.9, and ≥ 11 minutes). Univariable and multivariable analysis (binary logistic and negative binomial regression) were used to explore the relationship between CWT, ADR, mean number of adenomas and number of right-sided and advanced adenomas. RESULTS: In colonoscopists with a mean CWT < 7 minutes, the mean ADR was 42.5 % compared with 47.1 % in the ≥ 11-minute group (P < 0.001). The mean number of adenomas detected per procedure increased from 0.77 to 0.94, respectively (P < 0.001). The increase in adenoma detection was mainly of subcentimeter or proximal adenomas; there was no increase in the detection of advanced adenomas. Regression models showed an increase in ADR from 43 % to 46.5 % for mean CWT times ranging from 6 to 10 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that longer mean withdrawal times are associated with increasing adenoma detection, mainly of small or right-sided adenomas. However, beyond 10 minutes the increase in ADR is minimal. Mean withdrawal times longer than 6 minutes are not associated with increased detection of advanced adenomas. Withdrawal time remains an important quality metric of colonoscopy.

Outcome of 12-month surveillance colonoscopy in high-risk patients in the National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

AIM: Current British guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopy at 12 months for individuals found to have five or more adenomas, or three or more adenomas of which at least one is ≥ 1 cm in size. This study describes the yield of surveillance colonoscopy in this group and explores patient and clinical factors that may be associated with the presence of advanced adenomas or cancer at surveillance. METHOD: Data were retrieved from the national database of the National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. The detection of advanced colonic neoplasia (ACN, cancer or advanced adenoma) was used as the main outcome variable. Multivariable analysis was used to analyse relationships between patient factors (age, gender, body mass index, smoking and alcohol use) and clinical findings (number, size and nature of adenomas detected during index colonoscopy) with the outcome variable. RESULTS: One-thousand, seven-hundred and sixty individuals were included in the study. The yield of ACN at 12-month surveillance was 6.6% (116/1760), of which 14/1760 (0.8%) had colorectal cancer. Nine (64.3%) of these 14 cancers were Dukes A at diagnosis. The presence of a villous adenoma or a right-sided adenoma at screening colonoscopy was associated with ORs of 1.98 (95% CI: 1.11-3.53, P = 0.012) and 1.76 (95% CI: 1.13-2.74, P = 0.020), respectively, for detection of ACN at surveillance. CONCLUSION: Twelve-month surveillance colonoscopy is necessary in this group of patients. The presence of villous or proximal lesions at baseline is associated with increased risk of ACN at surveillance. Site and histological type of baseline lesions may be relevant for determining the surveillance interval.

Plasma and rectal mucosal oxylipin levels during aspirin and eicosapentaenoic acid treatment in the seAFOod polyp prevention trial.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) have colorectal polyp prevention activity, alone and in combination. This study measured levels of plasma and rectal mucosal oxylipins in participants of the seAFOod 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, who received aspirin 300 mg daily and EPA 2000 mg free fatty acid, alone and in combination, for 12 months. METHODS: Resolvin (Rv) E1, 15-epi-lipoxin (LX) A4 and respective precursors 18-HEPE and 15-HETE (with chiral separation) were measured by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in plasma taken at baseline, 6 months and 12 months, as well as rectal mucosa obtained at trial exit colonoscopy at 12 months, in 401 trial participants. RESULTS: Despite detection of S- and R- enantiomers of 18-HEPE and 15-HETE in ng/ml concentrations, RvE1 or 15­epi-LXA4 were not detected above a limit of detection of 20 pg/ml in plasma or rectal mucosa, even in individuals randomised to both aspirin and EPA. We have confirmed in a large clinical trial cohort that prolonged (12 months) treatment with EPA is associated with increased plasma 18-HEPE concentrations (median [inter-quartile range] total 18-HEPE 0.51 [0.21-1.95] ng/ml at baseline versus 0.95 [0.46-4.06] ng/ml at 6 months [P<0.0001] in those randomised to EPA alone), which correlate strongly with respective rectal mucosal 18-HEPE levels (r = 0.82; P<0.001), but which do not predict polyp prevention efficacy by EPA or aspirin. CONCLUSION: Analysis of seAFOod trial plasma and rectal mucosal samples has not provided evidence of synthesis of the EPA-derived specialised pro-resolving mediator RvE1 or aspirin-trigged lipoxin 15­epi-LXA4. We cannot rule out degradation of individual oxylipins during sample collection and storage but readily measurable precursor oxylipins argues against widespread degradation.

Comparison of screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) offers biennial faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) followed by colonoscopy after positive results. Colorectal cancers (CRCs) registered with the Northern Colorectal Cancer Audit Group database were cross-referenced with the BCSP database to analyse their screening history. METHODS: The CRCs in the screening population between April 2007 and March 2010 were identified and classified into four groups: control (diagnosed before first screening invite), screen-detected, interval (diagnosed between screening rounds after a negative FOBt), and non-uptake (declined screening). Patient demographics, tumour characteristics and survival were compared between groups. RESULTS: In all, 511 out of 1336 (38.2%) CRCs were controls; 825 (61.8%) were in individuals invited for screening of which 322 (39.0%) were screen detected, 311 (37.7%) were in the non-uptake group, and 192 (23.3%) were interval cancers. Compared with the control and interval cancer group, the screen-detected group had a higher proportion of men (P=0.002, P=0.003 respectively), left colon tumours (P=0.007, P=0.003), and superior survival (both P<0.001). There was no difference in demographics, tumour location/stage, or survival between control and interval groups. CONCLUSION: The FOBt is better at detecting cancers in the left colon and in men. The significant numbers of interval cancers weren't found to have an improved outcome compared with the non-screened population.

Lower gastrointestinal symptoms are prevalent among individuals colonoscoped within the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

AIM: The National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) aims to detect earlier stage cancer in asymptomatic individuals. Early experience suggested that many participants had lower gastrointestinal symptoms before screening. The study evaluated the prevalence of lower gastrointestinal symptoms and consultation behaviour among individuals undergoing colonoscopy at the South of Tyne BCSP Centre. METHOD: Data were collected on all undergoing clinic assessment and colonoscopy. Symptoms were categorized as altered bowel habit (ABH), rectal bleeding (RB), abdominal pain (AP) and unexplained weight loss (UWL). RESULTS: Symptoms were present in 65.1% (492/756) of subjects, 64.4% (431/669) of those with a non-cancer diagnosis and 70.1% (61/87) of those with cancer. Among those with a non-cancer diagnosis, symptoms were ABH in 52% (224/431), RB in 81.4% (351/431), AP in 15.3% (66/431) and UWL in 3.0% (13/431). In those with cancer symptoms they were ABH in 33.3% (29/87), RB in 55.2% (48/87) and AP in 11.5% (10/87). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of symptoms in those with a cancer or non-cancer diagnosis. A total of 34.2% (157/459) of individuals with symptoms had consulted their general practitioner, 28.1% (16/57) of those with cancer and 35.1% (141/402) without. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of individuals colonoscoped in the BCSP reported symptoms predating screening. Their prevalence did not differ significantly between cancer and non-cancer diagnoses. The majority had not consulted their general practitioner. Health promotion regarding the importance of lower gastrointestinal symptoms and a risk assessment tool to help select those needing urgent specialist assessment are required.

Achieving high quality colonoscopy: using graphical representation to measure performance and reset standards.

AIM: Completeness and thoroughness of colonoscopy are measured by the caecal intubation rate (CIR) and the adenoma detection rate (ADR). National standards are ≥ 90% and ≥ 10% respectively. Variability in CIR and ADR have been demonstrated but comparison between individuals and units is difficult. We aimed to assess the performance of colonoscopy in endoscopy units in the northeast of England. METHOD: Data on colonoscopy performance and sedation use were collected over 3 months from 12 units. Colonoscopies performed by screening colonoscopists were included for the CIR only. Funnel plots with upper and lower 95% confidence limits for CIR and ADR were created. RESULTS: CIR was 92.5% (n = 5720) and ADR 15.9% (n = 4748). All units and 128 (99.2%) colonoscopists were above the lower limit for CIR. All units achieved the ADR standard with 10 above the upper limit. Ninety-nine (76.7%) colonoscopists were above 10%, 16 (12.4%) above the upper limit and 7 (5.4%) below the lower limit. Median medication doses were 2.2 mg midazolam, 29.4 mg pethidine and 83.3 µg fentanyl. In all, 15.1% of colonoscopies were unsedated. Complications were bleeding (0.10%) and perforation (0.02%). There was one death possibly related to bowel preparation. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that colonoscopies are performed safely and to a high standard. Funnel plots can highlight variability and areas for improvement. Analyses of ADR presented graphically around the global mean suggest that the national standard should be reset at 15%.

What do patients want from their endoscopy experience? The importance of measuring and understanding patient attitudes to their care.

Understanding and addressing patient attitudes to their care facilitates their engagement and attendance, improves the quality of their experience and the appropriate utilisation of resources. Gastrointestinal endoscopy is a commonly performed medical procedure that can be associated with patient anxiety and apprehension. Measuring patient attitudes to endoscopy can be undertaken through a number of approaches with contrasting benefits and limitations. Methodological validation is necessary for accurate interpretation of results and avoiding bias. Retrospective post-procedure questionnaires measuring satisfaction are easily undertaken but have limited value, particularly in directing service improvements. Patient experience questionnaires indicate areas of poor care but may reflect the clinician's not the patient's perspective. Directly assessing patient priorities and expectations identifies what is important to patients in their healthcare experience (patient-reported value) that can also provide a basis for other forms of evaluation. Published studies of patient attitudes to their endoscopy procedure indicate the importance of ensuring that endoscopists and their staff control patient discomfort, have adequate technical skill and effectively communicate with their patient relating to the procedure and results. Environmental factors, including noise, privacy and the single-sex environment, are considered to have less value. There are contrasting views on patient attitudes to waiting times for the procedure. Implementing patient-centred care in endoscopy requires an understanding of what patients want from their healthcare experience. The results from available studies suggest implications for current practice that relate to the training and practice of the endoscopist and their staff.

Concerns, perceived need and competing priorities: a qualitative exploration of decision-making and non-participation in a population-based flexible sigmoidoscopy screening programme to prevent colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Optimising uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is important to achieve projected health outcomes. Population-based screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) was introduced in England in 2013 (NHS Bowel scope screening). Little is known about reactions to the invitation to participate in FS screening, as offered within the context of the Bowel scope programme. We aimed to investigate responses to the screening invitation to inform understanding of decision-making, particularly in relation to non-participation in screening. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of semistructured in-depth interviews and written accounts. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: People from 31 general practices in the North East and East of England invited to attend FS screening as part of NHS Bowel scope screening programme were sent invitations to take part in the study. We purposively sampled interviewees to ensure a range of accounts in terms of beliefs, screening attendance, sex and geographical location. RESULTS: 20 screeners and 25 non-screeners were interviewed. Written responses describing reasons for, and circumstances surrounding, non-participation from a further 28 non-screeners were included in the analysis. Thematic analysis identified a range of reactions to the screening invitation, decision-making processes and barriers to participation. These include a perceived or actual lack of need; inability to attend; anxiety and fear about bowel preparation, procedures or hospital; inability or reluctance to self-administer an enema; beliefs about low susceptibility to bowel cancer or treatment and understanding of harm and benefits. The strength, rather than presence, of concerns about the test and perceived need for reassurance were important in the decision to participate for screeners and non-screeners. Decision-making occurs within the context of previous experiences and day-to-day life. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the reasons for non-participation in FS screening can help inform strategies to improve uptake and may be transferable to other screening programmes.

Therapeutic modalities in portal hypertension.

Optimal medical management is with octreotide or terlipressin (Glypressin) for acute variceal bleeding and combined beta-blocker and nitrate prophylaxis for prevention of rebleeding. Injection sclerotherapy is necessary to arrest acute bleeding, with variceal banding preferred for the obliteration of large varices. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) are best used for uncontrolled or recurrent bleeding episodes which fail to respond to endoscopic or drug therapy. They can also rarely be used to treat refractory ascites. Surgical portosystemic shunting and devascularization techniques have now been superseded. Hepatic transplantation should be considered where overall hepatic function is poor.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: a limited role in refractory ascites.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in the management of patients with refractory ascites. DESIGN: A retrospective study of 25 consecutive patients for whom refractory ascites was the primary indication for TIPS insertion. SETTING: Regional liver unit at Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Twelve male and 13 female patients with a mean age of 58 years and mean Child-Pugh score of 10, treated with TIPS for refractory ascites between July 1992 and September 1995. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effect of TIPS on mortality, ascites and hospital admission rate. RESULTS: TIPS was successfully placed in all patients with a 59% mean reduction in portosystemic pressure gradient. Response rate was 68%, 48% and 33% at 1, 3 and 12 months, respectively. Mortality was 48% at 3 months and 67% at 12 months, being higher in those patients older than 60, those with renal impairment and those with higher Child-Pugh score. Amongst nine patients surviving long term (> 12 months) the mean time spent in hospital in the 3 months before TIPS was 35 days and in the year following TIPS 30 days. Patients who died (16 in total) spent a mean of 19 days in hospital before TIPS, 10 never leaving hospital, and 6 who were discharged spent a mean of 19 days post procedure in hospital (mean survival 84 days). CONCLUSION: TIPS has a limited role in the management of patients with refractory ascites. It is not an appropriate treatment where patients are older than 60, have renal impairment (creatinine > 200 mumol/l) or have a Child-Pugh score greater than 10.

Diagnostic laryngeal electromyography: The Wake Forest experience 1995-1999.

BACKGROUND: Laryngeal electromyography (LEMG) is a valuable diagnostic/prognostic test for patients with suspected laryngeal neuromuscular disorders. OBJECTIVE: To report our experience with diagnostic LEMG at the Center for Voice Disorders of Wake Forest University and to evaluate the impact of LEMG on clinical management. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 415 patients who underwent diagnostic LEMG over a 5-year period (1995-1999). RESULTS: Of 415 studies, 83% (346 of 415) were abnormal, indicating a neuropathic process. LEMG results altered the diagnostic evaluation (eg, the type of radiographic imaging) in 11% (46 of 415) of the patients. Unexpected LEMG findings (eg, contralateral neuropathy) were found in 26% (107 of 415) of the patients, and LEMG results differentiated vocal fold paralysis from fixation in 12% (49 of 415). Finally, LEMG results altered the clinical management (eg, changed the timing and/or type of surgical procedure) in 40% (166 of 415) of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: LEMG is a valuable diagnostic test that aids the clinician in the diagnosis and management of laryngeal neuromuscular disorders.

Bowel cancer screening is safe, detects earlier stage cancer and adenomas in 50% of cases: experience of the prevalent round of screening from two first wave centres in the North East of England.

OBJECTIVE: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) began roll-out in 2006 aiming to reduce cancer mortality through detection at an earlier stage. We report results from the prevalent round of screening at two first wave centres and compare with the UK pilot study. DESIGN: This is a service evaluation study. Data were collected prospectively for all individuals undergoing faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) and colonoscopy including: uptake and outcomes of FOBt, colonoscopic performance, findings, histological data and complications. Continuous data were compared using a two-tailed test of two proportions. SETTING: The South of Tyne and Tees Bowel Cancer Screening centres. PATIENTS: Participants of the BCSP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 1) Colonoscopy Quality Assurance and 2) Cancer stage shift. RESULTS: 195,772 individuals were invited to participate. Uptake was 54% and FOBt positivity 1.7%. 1524 underwent colonoscopy with caecal intubation in 1485 (97%). 180 (12%) cancers were detected. Dukes stages were: 76 (42%) A; 47 (26%) B; 47 (26%) C; 8 (4%) D and 2 (1%) unknown. This demonstrates a significantly earlier stage at diagnosis compared with data from 2867 non-screening detected cancers (p<0.001). Adenomas were detected in 758 (50%). One perforation occurred (0.07%) and two intermediate bleeds requiring transfusion only (0.12%). Both caecal intubation and adenoma detection were significantly higher than in the UK pilot study (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalent round of screening demonstrates a high adenoma and cancer detection rate and significantly earlier stage at diagnosis. Complications were few providing reassurance regarding safety. Efforts are required to improve uptake.

Functional oesophagoscopy: endoscopic evaluation of the oesophageal phase of deglutition.

BACKGROUND: The anatomy and function of the oropharynx and larynx during deglutition can be assessed using the flexible endoscope, but this evaluation does not provide information on the oesophagus. Guided observation of oesophageal swallowing enables extended dysphagia evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic utility of guided observation of oesophageal swallowing in the evaluation of dysphagia. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Procedures for guided observation of oesophageal swallowing were reviewed for oesophageal findings and compared with fluoroscopy and manometry. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients underwent guided observation of oesophageal swallowing and concurrent videofluoroscopy and/or manometry. No complications of the former procedure occurred. The results of guided observation of oesophageal swallowing concurred with those of fluoroscopy in 15/21 cases (71 per cent) and with those of manometry in five of six (83 per cent) cases. Guided observation of oesophageal swallowing revealed anatomic pathology contributing to dysphagia in 15/21 (71 per cent) patients. The procedure identified pathology not detected by fluoroscopy and manometry in 13/21 (62 per cent) patients. CONCLUSION: Guided observation of oesophageal swallowing appears to be a safe diagnostic tool with which to evaluate the oesophageal phase of deglutition.