Implementation of mandatory ERCP registration in The Netherlands and compliance with European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures: a multicenter database study.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) published quality performance measures for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Since January 2016, all endoscopists in the Netherlands have been required to register all ERCP procedures in a nationwide quality registry. This study aimed to evaluate the procedural success rates of ERCP after the implementation of mandatory national registration and to compare these with the ESGE quality performance measures. METHODS: This study was conducted with data from a multicenter endoscopy database. Data from 2019 and 2020 were analyzed. The primary outcome was ERCP procedural outcome. ESGE performance measures that could be evaluated were the percentage of successful bile duct cannulations in patients with virgin papillary anatomy; successful stent placement for a biliary obstruction located below the liver hilum; and complete removal of bile duct stones (< 10 mm). RESULT: In total, 5295 ERCPs performed in 11 centers were included for analysis. The overall procedural success rate was 89.1 %. Successful biliary cannulation in patients with a virgin papilla was 90.3 % in nonacademic and 92.4 % in academic centers. The rates of successful stent placement in patients with a biliary obstruction located below the liver hilum were 97.0 % in nonacademic and 98.2 % in academic centers, and of successful bile duct stone extraction were 97.9 % in both nonacademic and academic centers. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of ERCPs performed met five of the six evaluated ESGE performance measures. The 95 % target for successful biliary cannulation in patients with virgin papillary anatomy in academic centers was not met. Mandatory registration provides valuable insight into ERCP performance rates.

Continuous monitoring of colonoscopy performance in the Netherlands: first results of a nationwide registry.

BACKGROUND: To optimize colonoscopy quality, several performance measures have been developed. These are usually assessed without distinction between the indications for colonoscopy. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of linking two national registries (one for colonoscopy and one for adverse events of gastrointestinal endoscopies in the Netherlands), and to describe the results of colonoscopy quality per indication. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted with prospectively collected data of the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit (DGEA) and the Dutch Registration of Complications in Endoscopy (DRCE). Data between 01-01-2016 and 01-01-2019 were analyzed. To calculate adverse event rates, data were linked at the level of endoscopy service. RESULTS: During the 3-year study period, 266 981 colonoscopies were recorded in DGEA. Of all indications, cecal intubation rate was highest in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive screening colonoscopies (97.1 %), followed by surveillance (93.2 %), diagnostic (90.7 %), and therapeutic colonoscopies (83.1 %). The highest rate of adequate bowel preparation was observed in FIT-positive screening colonoscopies (97.1 %). A total of 1540 colonoscopy-related adverse events occurred (0.58 % of all colonoscopies). Bleeding and perforation and rates were highest for therapeutic (1.56 % and 0.51 %, respectively) and FIT-positive screening (0.72 % and 0.06 %, respectively) colonoscopies. The colonoscopy-related mortality was 0.006 %. CONCLUSION: This study describes the first results of the Dutch national colonoscopy registry, which was successfully linked to data from the national registry for adverse events of gastrointestinal endoscopies. In this large dataset, performance varied between indications. Our results emphasize the importance of defining benchmarks per indication in future guidelines.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gastrointestinal endoscopy in the Netherlands: analysis of a prospective endoscopy database.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has dramatically affected gastrointestinal endoscopy practice. We aimed to investigate its impact on procedure types, indications, and findings. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed endoscopies performed in 15 Dutch hospitals by comparing periods 15 March to 25 June of 2019 and 2020 using the prospective Trans.IT database. RESULTS: During lockdown in 2020, 9776 patients underwent endoscopy compared with 19 296 in 2019. Gastroscopies decreased by 57 % (from 7846 to 4467) and colonoscopies by 45 % (from 12219 to 5609), whereas endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography volumes remained comparable (from 578 to 522). Although endoscopy results indicative of cancer decreased (from 524 to 340), the likelihood of detecting cancer during endoscopy increased (2.7 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.5 - 3.0] in 2019 versus 3.5 % [95 %CI 3.1 - 3.9] in 2020; P < 0.001). After lifting of lockdown, endoscopy volumes started to return to normal, except for colorectal cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer endoscopies were performed during the COVID-19 lockdown, leading to a significant reduction in the absolute detection of cancer. Endoscopies increased rapidly after lockdown, except for colorectal cancer screening.

The yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients below 60 years and without alarm symptoms presenting with dyspepsia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is frequently performed in patients with upper abdominal symptoms. Although guidelines recommend withholding an endoscopy in the absence of alarm symptoms, dyspeptic symptoms remain a predominant indication for endoscopy. We aimed to investigate the yield of upper GI endoscopy in patients with low-risk dyspeptic symptoms. METHODS: We conducted an analysis in a prospectively maintained endoscopy reporting database. We collected the results of all upper GI endoscopy procedures between 2015 and 2019 that was performed in adult patients aged <60 years with dyspeptic symptoms. Patients with documented alarm symptoms were excluded. We categorized endoscopic findings into major and minor endoscopic findings. RESULTS: We identified 26,440 patients with dyspeptic symptoms who underwent upper GI endoscopy. A total of 13,978 patients were considered low-risk and included for analysis (median age 46 years, interquartile range (IQR) [36-53], 62% female). In 11,353 patients (81.2%), no endoscopic abnormalities were detected. Major endoscopic findings were seen in 513 patients (3.7%) and minor endoscopic findings in 2178 patients (15.6%). Endoscopic findings indicative of upper GI cancer were reported in 47 patients (0.3%), including 16 (0.1%) oesophageal, 28 (0.2%) gastric and 5 (0.04%) duodenal lesions. Despite an initial unremarkable endoscopy result, 1015 of 11,353 patients (8.9%) underwent a follow-up endoscopy after a median of 428 days [IQR 158-819]. This did not lead to the additional identification of malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: The yield of upper GI endoscopy in low-risk (<60 years, no alarm symptoms) patients with dyspepsia is very limited. This study further supports a restrictive use of upper GI endoscopy in these patients.

Predicting inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy in participants receiving split-dose bowel preparation: development and validation of a prediction score.

BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation is important for optimal colonoscopy. It is important to identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation because this allows taking precautions in this specific group. OBJECTIVE: To develop a prediction score to identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation who may benefit from an intensified bowel cleansing regimen. DESIGN: Patient and colonoscopy data were prospectively collected, whereas clinical data were retrospectively collected for a total of 1996 colonoscopies in participants who received split-dose bowel preparation. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted in a random two-thirds of the cohort to develop a prediction model. Validation and evaluation of the discriminative power of the prediction model were performed within the remaining one-third of the cohort. SETTING: Four centers, including one academic and three medium-to-large size nonacademic centers. PATIENTS: Consecutive colonoscopies in November and December 2012. Mean age was 57.3 ± 15.9 years, 45.8% were male and indications for colonoscopy were screening and/or surveillance (27%), abdominal symptoms and/or blood loss and/or anemia (60%), inflammatory bowel disease (9%), and others (4%). INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Inadequate bowel preparation defined as Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score <6. RESULTS: A total of 1331 colonoscopies were included in the development cohort, of which 172 (12.9%) had an inadequate bowel preparation. Independent factors included in the prediction model were American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System score ≥3, use of tricyclic antidepressants, use of opioids, diabetes, chronic constipation, history of abdominal and/or pelvic surgery, history of inadequate bowel preparation, and current hospitalization. The discriminative ability of the scale was good, with an area under the curve of 0.77 in the validation cohort. LIMITATIONS: Study design partially retrospective, no data on patient compliance. CONCLUSION: We developed a validated, easy-to-use prediction scale that can be used to identify subjects with an increased risk of inadequate bowel preparation with good accuracy.

Comparison of cecal intubation and adenoma detection between hospitals can provide incentives to improve quality of colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) have been found to be inversely associated with the occurrence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Depicting differences in CIR and ADR between hospitals could provide incentives for quality improvement. The aim of this study was to compare quality parameters of routine colonoscopies between seven hospitals in The Netherlands in order to determine the extent to which possible differences were attributable to procedural and institutional factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were prospectively included between November 2012 and January 2013 at two academic and five nonacademic hospitals. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. Main outcome measures were CIR and ADR. RESULTS: A total of 3129 patients were included (mean age 59 ±â€Š15 years; 45.5 % male). The majority of patients (86.2 %) had a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score ≥ 6. Overall CIR was 94.8 %, ranging from 89.4 % to 99.2 % between hospitals. After adjustment for case mix (age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and indication for colonoscopy), factors associated with CIR were hospital and a BBPS score ≥ 6. Overall ADR was 31.8 % and varied between hospitals, ranging from 24.8 % to 46.8 %. Independent predictors for ADR were hospital, BBPS score ≥ 6, and cecal intubation. By combining CIR and ADR for each hospital, a colonoscopy quality indicator (CQI) was developed, which can be used by hospitals to stimulate quality improvement. CONCLUSION: Differences in the quality of colonoscopy between hospitals can be demonstrated using CIR and ADR. As both indicators are affected by institution and bowel preparation, a comparison between hospitals based on the newly developed CQI could assist in further improving the quality of colonoscopy.

Efficacy of different bowel preparation regimen volumes for colorectal cancer screening and compliance with European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures.

BACKGROUND: Various volumes of bowel preparation are used in clinical practice. There is conflicting data on the effectiveness of individual regimens. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and compliance of currently used bowel preparations with the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures using data of the Dutch nationwide colorectal cancer screening (CRC) program. METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter endoscopy database, we identified all CRC screening colonoscopies performed in 15 Dutch endoscopy centers from 2016 to 2020. We excluded procedures without documented bowel preparation or the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score. Bowel preparation regimens were categorized into three groups, that is, 4-L (polyethylene glycol (PEG)), 2-L (2-L PEG with ascorbic acid) and ≤1-L volumes (sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate, 1L-PEG with sodium sulfate and ascorbic acid or oral sulfate solution). European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures included adequate BBPS score (≥6) (>90%), cecal intubation rate (CIR, >90%), adenoma detection rate (ADR, >25%) and polyp detection rate (PDR, >40%). Logistic regression was performed to identify predictive factors for adequate BBPS and patient discomfort. RESULTS: A total of 39,042 CRC screening colonoscopies were included. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores, CIR, ADR and PDR for 4L, 2L and ≤1L regimens all met the minimum ESGE performance measures standards. However, an adequate BBPS score was more frequently seen with 2L regimens (98.0%) as compared to 4L (97.1%) and ≤1L regimens (97.0%) (p < 0.001), respectively. In addition, CIR was higher for ≤1L (98.4%) versus 4L (97.7%) and 2L (97.9%) regimens (p = 0.001), ADR higher for lower volume (≤1L (60.0%) and 2L (61.2)) versus higher volume (4L (58.6%)) regimens (p < 0.001), and PDR higher for ≤1L (70.0%) and 2L (70.8%) versus 4L (67.2%) regimens (p < 0.001). Boston Bowel Preparation Scale for ≤1L regimens was higher when combined with bisacodyl (97.3%) than without (95.6%) (p < 0.001). Overall, bisacodyl use was independently associated with higher patient discomfort (odds ratios = 1.47, confidence intervals = 1.26-1.72). CONCLUSIONS: Despite variations in bowel preparation volumes, all regimens meet the minimum ESGE performance measures for bowel preparation and other quality parameters. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale can be further improved if ultra low volume regimens are combined with bisacodyl. The choice for either bowel preparation volume can therefore be based on volume-tolerance and patient preference.

Benefit of Earlier Anti-TNF Treatment on IBD Disease Complications?

BACKGROUND: Anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] treatment was demonstrated to have disease-modifying abilities in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. In this study, we aimed to determine the effect of anti-TNF treatment timing on IBD disease complications and mucosal healing [MH]. METHODS: The following IBD-related complications were tested in relation to timing of anti-TNF therapy start in newly diagnosed IBD patients [n = 413]: fistula formation, abscess formation, extra-intestinal manifestations [EIM], surgery, referral to academic centre, and MH. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients [21%] received anti-TNF (66 Crohn's disease [CD], 16 ulcerative colitis [UC], 3 inflammatory bowel disease unclassified [IBDU]) of whom 57% [48 patients] were treated < 16 months after diagnosis. Patients receiving anti-TNF early [< 16 months] did not differ from patients receiving anti-TNF late [> 16 months] regarding gender, age, smoking status, and familial IBD. More importantly, patients receiving anti-TNF early did not suffer less IBD-related complications during follow-up as compared with patients started on anti-TNF late, nor was more MH observed. Similar results were obtained when anti-TNF treated patient were stratified more stringently, ie < 12 months [40 patients] vs >2 4 months [24 patients]. Cox regression analysis showed no beneficial correlations between anti-TNF timing and IBD-related complications. Anti-TNF treated patients achieving MH were 11 times less likely to develop EIMs compared with patients who did not achieved MH while on anti-TNF. CONCLUSIONS: This study was unable to confirm a benefit of earlier anti-TNF treatment on IBD disease complications. This could be explained by more aggressive treatment earlier in disease, resulting in fewer IBD complications. However, it seems more likely that inappropriate selection of patients for therapy leads to suboptimal treatment and subsequently suboptimal outcome.

Phenotype of inflammatory bowel disease at diagnosis in the Netherlands: a population-based inception cohort study (the Delta Cohort).

BACKGROUND: To describe the clinical characteristics of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) at diagnosis in The Netherlands at the population level in the era of biologics. METHODS: All patients with newly diagnosed IBD (diagnosis made between January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2007) followed in 9 general hospitals in the southwest of the Netherlands were included in this population-based inception cohort study. RESULTS: A total of 413 patients were enrolled, of which 201 Crohn's disease (CD) (48.7%), 188 ulcerative colitis (UC) (45.5%), and 24 IBD unclassified (5.8%), with a median age of 38 years (range, 14-95). Seventy-eight patients with CD (38.8%) had ileocolonic disease and 73 patients (36.3%) had pure colonic disease. In 8 patients (4.0%), the upper gastrointestinal tract was involved. Nineteen patients with CD (9.5%) had perianal disease. Thirty-nine patients with CD (19.4%) had stricturing phenotype. Of the patients with UC and IBDU, 39 (18.4%) suffered from pancolitis and 61 (29%) from proctitis. Severe endoscopic lesions at diagnosis were seen in 119 patients (28.8%, 68 CD, 49 UC, and 2 IBDU), whereas 98 patients (23.7%) had severe histological disease activity. Thirteen patients (3.1%, 10 CD and 3 UC) had extraintestinal manifestations at diagnosis. Twenty-three patients (5.6%, 20 CD and 3 UC) had fistula at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, 31% of the patients with CD had complicated disease at diagnosis, 39% had ileocolonic disease, 9.5% had perianal disease, and in 4% the upper gastrointestinal tract was involved. Most patients with UC suffered from left-sided colitis (51%). Severe endoscopic lesions were reported in 34% of the patients with CD and 26% of the patients with UC. Three percent of the patients with IBD had extraintestinal manifestations.