Follow-Up Colonoscopy for Detection of Missed Colorectal Cancer After Diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy often is recommended after an episode of diverticulitis to exclude missed colorectal cancer (CRC). This is a controversial recommendation based on limited evidence. We estimated the prevalence and odds of CRC and advanced colorectal neoplasia on colonoscopy in patients with diverticulitis compared with CRC screening. METHODS: Using data from the Gastrointestinal Quality Improvement Consortium registry, we performed a cross-sectional study with patients ≥40 years old undergoing outpatient colonoscopy for an indication of diverticulitis follow-up evaluation or CRC screening. The primary outcome was CRC. The secondary outcome was advanced colorectal neoplasia. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 4,591,921 outpatient colonoscopies performed for screening and 91,993 colonoscopies for diverticulitis follow-up evaluation. CRC prevalence was 0.33% in colonoscopies for screening and 0.31% in colonoscopies for diverticulitis. Compared with screening, patients with diverticulitis were less likely to have CRC (adjusted OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94). CRC prevalence decreased to 0.17% in colonoscopies performed for diverticulitis only. Compared with screening, patients with diverticulitis as the only indication were less likely to have CRC (adjusted OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.68). CRC prevalence increased to 1.43% in patients with complicated diverticulitis. Compared with screening, patients with complicated diverticulitis were more likely to have CRC (adjusted OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.59-8.01). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of CRC cancer is low in most patients with diverticulitis. Patients with complicated diverticulitis are the exception. Our results suggest that colonoscopy to detect missed CRC should include diverticulitis patients with a complication and those not current with CRC screening.

Significant Reduction in the Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus and Related Dysplasia During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted endoscopy practices, creating unprecedented decreases in cancer screening and surveillance services. We aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on the proportion of patients diagnosed with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and BE-related dysplasia and adherence to established quality indicators. METHODS: Data from all esophagogastroduodenoscopies in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, a national repository of matched endoscopy and pathology data, were analyzed from January 2018 to December 2022. Four cohorts were created based on procedure date and COVID-19 data: pre-pandemic (January 2018 to February 2020), pandemic-phase I (March 2020 to July 2020), pandemic-phase II (August 2020 to May 2021), and pandemic-phase III (June 2021 to December 2022). Observed and expected number of BE and BE-related dysplasia cases per month and adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol and recommended surveillance intervals for nondysplastic BE (NDBE) were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 2,446,857 esophagogastroduodenoscopies performed during the study period, 104,124 (4.3%) had pathology-confirmed BE. The histologic distribution was 87.4% NDBE, 1.8% low-grade dysplasia, 2.4% indefinite for dysplasia, and 1.4% high-grade dysplasia. The number of monthly BE (-47.9% pandemic-phase I, -21.5% pandemic-phase II, and -19.0% pandemic-phase III) and BE-related dysplasia (high-grade dysplasia: 41.2%, -27.7%, and -19.0%; low-grade dysplasia: 49.1%, -35.3%, and -26.5%; any dysplasia: 46.7%, -32.3%, and -27.9%) diagnoses were significantly reduced during the pandemic phases compared with pre-pandemic data. Adherence rates to the Seattle protocol and recommended surveillance intervals for NDBE did not decline during the pandemic. DISCUSSION: There was a significant decline in the number of BE and BE-related dysplasia diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an approximately 50% reduction in the number of cases of dysplasia diagnosed in the early pandemic. The absence of a compensatory increase in diagnoses in the pandemic-phase II and III periods may result in deleterious downstream effects on esophageal adenocarcinoma morbidity and mortality.

Recommendations for follow-up interval after colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation in a national colonoscopy quality registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopist recommendations regarding a repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel cleanliness have not been fully described. Our aim was to evaluate the timing of recommendations for repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel preparation using a large, national colonoscopy registry. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of all outpatient screening and surveillance colonoscopies among adults ages 50 to 75 reported in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium from 2011 to 2018. The primary outcome was a recommendation to repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Secondary outcomes were recommendations based on indication of colonoscopy and colonoscopy findings and predictors of a recommendation to follow-up within 1 year. RESULTS: There were 260,314 colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation performed at 672 different sites by 4001 endoscopists. Of these, 31.9% contained a recommendation for follow-up within 1 year. This did not differ meaningfully by examination indication. The severity of colonoscopy findings influenced the recommendations for follow-up (within 1 year in 84.0% of cases with adenocarcinoma, 51.8% with any advanced lesion, and 23.2% with 1-2 small adenomas). Younger age, more severe pathology, location in the Northeast, and performance by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate ≥25% were associated with recommendations for follow-up within 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Only some colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation are recommended to be repeated within 1 year, which may have implications for potential missed lesions. Further understanding of reasons driving recommendations is an important next step to improving guideline-concordant colonoscopy practice.

Yield and Practice Patterns of Surveillance Colonoscopy Among Older Adults: An Analysis of the GI Quality Improvement Consortium.

OBJECTIVES: There is little guidance regarding when to stop surveillance colonoscopy in individuals with a history of adenomas or colorectal cancer (CRC). We evaluated both yield and recommendations for follow-up colonoscopy in a large cohort of older individuals undergoing colonoscopy, using the GI Quality Improvement Consortium registry. METHODS: We analyzed the yield of colonoscopy in adults aged ≥75 years, comparing those who had an indication of surveillance as opposed to an indication of diagnostic or screening, stratified by 5-year age groups. Our primary outcome was CRC and advanced lesions. We also evaluated recommended follow-up intervals by age and findings. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2017, 376,686 colonoscopies were performed by 3,976 endoscopists at 628 sites, of which 43.2% were for surveillance. Detection of CRC among surveillance patients increased with age from 0.51% (age 75-79 years) to 1.8% (age ≥ 90 years); however, these risks were lower when compared with both the diagnostic and screening for the same age band (P < 0.0001). Yield of advanced lesions also increased by every 5-year interval of age across all groups by indication. Even at the most advanced ages and in those with nonadvanced findings, only a minority of patients were recommended for no further colonoscopy. For example, in patients aged 90 years and older with only low risk findings, 62.9% were recommended to repeat colonoscopy. DISCUSSION: Surveillance colonoscopy is frequently recommended at advanced ages even when recent findings may be clinically insignificant. Further work is needed to develop guidelines to inform best practice around when to stop surveillance in older adults.

Chestnut-crowned babbler calls are composed of meaningless shared building blocks.

A core component of human language is its combinatorial sound system: meaningful signals are built from different combinations of meaningless sounds. Investigating whether nonhuman communication systems are also combinatorial is hampered by difficulties in identifying the extent to which vocalizations are constructed from shared, meaningless building blocks. Here we present an approach to circumvent this difficulty and show that a pair of functionally distinct chestnut-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus ruficeps) vocalizations can be decomposed into perceptibly distinct, meaningless entities that are shared across the 2 calls. Specifically, by focusing on the acoustic distinctiveness of sound elements using a habituation-discrimination paradigm on wild-caught babblers under standardized aviary conditions, we show that 2 multielement calls are composed of perceptibly distinct sounds that are reused in different arrangements across the 2 calls. Furthermore, and critically, we show that none of the 5 constituent elements elicits functionally relevant responses in receivers, indicating that the constituent sounds do not carry the meaning of the call and so are contextually meaningless. Our work, which allows combinatorial systems in animals to be more easily identified, suggests that animals can produce functionally distinct calls that are built in a way superficially reminiscent of the way that humans produce morphemes and words. The results reported lend credence to the recent idea that language's combinatorial system may have been preceded by a superficial stage where signalers neither needed to be cognitively aware of the combinatorial strategy in place, nor of its building blocks.

Improvement in colonoscopy quality metrics in clinical practice from 2000 to 2014.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There has been a tremendous increase in research focused on quality metrics in colonoscopy since 2000. However, whether national performance in colonoscopy quality outcomes has changed significantly since then is not as well known. METHODS: We examined colonoscopy data collected prospectively through the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, which included 84 GI practice sites from 2000 to 2014 for patients undergoing colonoscopy for multiple indications. Colonoscopy outcomes by indication were compared across three 5-year periods (2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2010-2014) using the following metrics: bowel preparation quality (percentage good/excellent), finding a polyp, finding 2 or more polyps, and finding a polyp >9 mm. Multivariate logistic regression was used to generate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each time period while controlling for age, gender, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: A total of 1,541,837 adults were included in the study across all indication groups. The average-risk screening group (390,741 adults) demonstrated statistically significant improvement across all 4 quality metrics when comparing the baseline period with the final time period. Bowel preparation quality improved across all indications when comparing the baseline period with the final time period. Finding a polyp, finding 2 or more polyps, and finding a polyp >9 mm improved in the average-risk screening, surveillance, and diagnostic indication groups when comparing the baseline period with the final time period. The increased-risk screening and inflammatory bowel disease indication groups did not see improvements beyond bowel preparation quality when comparing the baseline with the final time period. CONCLUSION: Colonoscopy outcomes as measured by bowel preparation quality, finding a polyp, finding 2 or more polyps, and finding a polyp >9 mm improved significantly over the 15-year period between 2000 and 2014, with the largest and most consistent impact in the average-risk screening indication group.

Screening Women Aged 50-59 for CRC Using Fecal Occult Blood Test Produces Outcomes Similar to Men Undergoing Screening Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Average-risk women aged 50-59 years have a lower incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer relative to age-matched men, calling into question the benefit of screening colonoscopy in this age group. AIMS: We aimed to determine whether FOBT is an effective initial screening test in 50-59-year-old women. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a computerized endoscopic report generator. We identified 320,906 individuals who had average-risk screening colonoscopy and 32,369 who had colonoscopy for positive FOBT. The primary outcome was the positive predictive value (PPV) of FOBT for large polyp(s) greater than 9 mm, as a surrogate for advanced neoplasia. RESULTS: Among patients aged 50-59 years undergoing screening colonoscopy, men were more likely than women to have large polyps (6.3 vs 4.2%, p < 0.0001). Black women undergoing screening colonoscopy had higher rates of large polyps compared to non-Black women. The PPV in FOBT-positive men aged 50-54 (11.5%) and 55-59 (14.4%) was higher than in women aged 50-54 (6.1%) and 55-59 (5.4%). Despite this lower PPV, women aged 50-54 with a positive FOBT had a similar rate of large polyps as 50-54-year-old men undergoing screening colonoscopy (6.1 vs 6.3%, p = 0.626). CONCLUSIONS: CRC screening with FOBT identifies 50-59-year-old men and women with a higher risk of large polyps. Since younger women have a lower risk of large polyps than men, screening with FOBT in 50-59-year-old non-Black women could be an effective screening strategy, with outcomes similar to the use of screening colonoscopy in 50-59-year-old men.

Quality of Colonoscopy Performed in Rural Practice: Experience From the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative and the Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network.

PURPOSE: Colon cancer screening is effective. To complete screening in 80% of individuals over age 50 years by 2018 will require adequate colonoscopy capacity throughout the country, including rural areas, where colonoscopy providers may have less specialized training. Our aim was to study the quality of colonoscopy in rural settings. METHODS: The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI) and the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN) collaborated to recruit Oregon rural practices to submit colonoscopy reports to CORI's National Endoscopic Database (NED). Ten ORPRN sites were compared to non-ORPRN rural (n = 11) and nonrural (n = 43) sites between January 2009 and October 2011. Established colonoscopy quality measures were calculated for all sites. RESULTS: No ORPRN physicians were gastroenterologists compared with 82% of nonrural physicians. ORPRN practices reached the cecum in 87.4% of exams compared with 89.3% of rural sites (P = .0002) and 90.9% of nonrural sites (P < .0001). Resected polyps were less likely to be retrieved (84.7% vs 91.6%; P < .0001) and sent to pathology (77.1% vs 91.3%; P < .0001) at ORPRN practices compared to nonrural sites. The overall polyp detection (39.0% vs 40.3%) was similar (P = .217) between ORPRN and nonrural practices. Of exams with polyps, the rate for largest polyp on exam 6-9 mm was 20.8% at ORPRN sites, compared to 26.8% at nonrural sites (P < .0001), and for polyps >9mm 16.6% vs 18.7% (P = .106). CONCLUSION: ORPRN sites performed well on most colonoscopy quality measures, suggesting that high-quality colonoscopy can be performed in rural settings.

Multicenter evaluation of the utilization of endoscopic ultrasound.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: There are currently no data regarding the number and type of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures being carried out in the USA. The aims of the present study are to: (i) estimate the annual number of EUS procedures being carried out in a nationwide database; (ii) describe the indications and types of EUS carried out; and (iii) examine short-term trends in volume. METHODS: Retrospective analysis from the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI) of EUS procedures carried out on patients >18 years of age from 1 January 2010 through 31 December 2013. RESULTS: EUS cases (n = 7614) were carried out by 68 endoscopists at 18 sites over the study period, representing 1.7% of the total number of endoscopic procedures. The most common indications were evaluation of a pancreatic mass (14.7%), diagnostic sampling with fine-needle aspiration (14.1%), and evaluation of a pancreatic cyst (14.0%). The number of EUS examinations and cases undergoing same-day endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) increased over the study period (P < 0.0001). Use of general anesthesia or deep sedation increased markedly from 37.8% to 82.8% of procedures (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest survey of EUS practice in the USA. Evaluation of the pancreas accounts for approximately 40% of the indications for EUS. Use of EUS increased over the study period, and the proportion carried out with deep sedation or general anesthesia also increased. These data may have implications regarding the number of endosonographers who should be trained, as well as cost issues pertaining to increasing use of anesthesia providers and same-day ERCP.

Colonoscopy Identifies Increased Prevalence of Large Polyps or Tumors in Patients 40-49 Years Old With Hematochezia vs Other Gastrointestinal Indications.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is an unclear role for colonoscopy in the evaluation of symptomatic individuals younger than 50 years old. We aimed to determine the prevalence of large polyps (>9 mm) or tumors in individuals 40 to 49 years old who underwent colonoscopy for various signs and symptoms, and compare the results with those from average-risk individuals ages 50 to 54 years who underwent screening colonoscopy. METHODS: We collected data from a national endoscopy database, from 2000 through 2012, and identified patients 40 to 49 years old who underwent colonoscopy for bleeding and nonbleeding indications. The prevalence of large polyps (>9 mm) or tumors was compared with the prevalence in a reference group (n = 99,713 average-risk individuals ages 50-54 undergoing screening colonoscopy). RESULTS: A total of 65,892 patients ages 40 to 49 years underwent colonoscopy for a variety of indications. Significantly larger proportions of male and female patients with hematochezia without anemia or iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) had large polyps or tumors (7.2%) compared with the reference group (men, 7.2% vs 6.2%; P = .0001; and women, 5.5% vs 4.1%; P < .0001). Patients with weight loss, anemia or IDA, or hematochezia with anemia or IDA did not have a significantly higher prevalence of large polyps or tumors than the reference group. Significantly lower proportions of patients with general gastrointestinal symptoms (pain, bloating, or change in bowel habits) had advanced neoplasia compared with the reference group (men, 3.9% vs 6.2%; P < .0001; and women, 2.7% vs 4.1%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: An analysis of a national endoscopy database supports the role of colonoscopy to evaluate hematochezia in patients 40 to 49 years old. A lower proportion of patients with anemia, weight loss, and general abdominal symptoms had large polyps or tumors compared with average-risk patients 50 to 54 years old. A significantly lower proportion of patients younger than 50 years with general gastrointestinal symptoms had large polyps-these patients are therefore less likely to benefit from colonoscopy.

Quality indicators for pediatric colonoscopy: results from a multicenter consortium.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Currently, there are no quality measures specific to children undergoing GI endoscopy. We aimed to determine the baseline quality of pediatric colonoscopy by using the Pediatric Endoscopy Database System-Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (PEDS-CORI), a central registry. METHODS: We conducted prospective data collection by using a standard computerized report generator and central registry (PEDS-CORI) to examine key quality indicators from 14 pediatric centers between January 2000 and December 2011. Specific quality indicators, including bowel preparation, ileal intubation rate, documentation of American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA) class, and procedure time, were compared during the study period. RESULTS: We analyzed 21,807 colonoscopy procedures performed in patients with a mean age of 11.5 ± 4.8 years. Of the 21,807 reports received during the study period, 56% did not include bowel preparation quality, and 12.7% did not include ASA classification. When bowel preparation was reported, the quality was described as excellent, good, or fair in 90.3%. The overall ileal intubation rate was 69.4%, and 15.6% reported cecal intubation only, calculated to be 85% cecum or ileum intubation. Thus, 15% of colonoscopy procedures did not report reaching the cecum or ileum. When excluding the proportion of procedures not intended to reach the ileum (31.5%), the overall ileal intubation rate increased to 84.0%. The rate of ileum examination varied from 85% to 95%, depending on procedure indication. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy reports from our central registry revealed significant variations and inconsistent documentation in pediatric colonoscopy. Our study identifies areas for quality improvement and highlights the need for developing accepted quality measures specific to pediatric endoscopy.

Race, ethnicity, and sex affect risk for polyps >9 mm in average-risk individuals.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer risk differs based on patient demographics. We aimed to measure the prevalence of significant colorectal polyps in average-risk individuals and to determine differences based on age, sex, race, or ethnicity. METHODS: In a prospective study, colonoscopy data were collected, using an endoscopic report generator, from 327,785 average-risk adults who underwent colorectal cancer screening at 84 gastrointestinal practice sites from 2000 to 2011. Demographic characteristics included age, sex, race, and ethnicity. The primary outcome was the presence of suspected malignancy or large polyp(s) >9 mm. The benchmark risk for age to initiate screening was based on white men, 50-54 years old. RESULTS: Risk of large polyps and tumors increased progressively in men and women with age. Women had lower risks than men in every age group, regardless of race. Blacks had higher risk than whites from ages 50 through 65 years and Hispanics had lower risk than whites from ages 50 through 80 years. The prevalence of large polyps was 6.2% in white men 50-54 years old. The risk was similar among the groups of white women 65-69 years old, black women 55-59 years old, black men 50-54 years old, Hispanic women 70-74 years old, and Hispanic men 55-59 years old. The risk of proximal large polyps increased with age, female sex, and black race. CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the prevalence and location of large polyps and tumors in average-risk individuals based on age, sex, race, and ethnicity. These findings could be used to select ages at which specific groups should begin colorectal cancer screening.

Low rate of large polyps (>9 mm) within 10 years after an adequate baseline colonoscopy with no polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines recommend a 10-year interval between screening colonoscopies with negative results for average-risk individuals. However, many patients are examined at shorter intervals. We investigated outcomes of individuals with no polyps who had repeat colonoscopy in <10 years. METHODS: Data were collected using the National Endoscopic Database, from 69 gastroenterology centers, on 264,184 asymptomatic subjects who underwent screening colonoscopies from 2000 through 2006, were found to have no polyps, and received another colonoscopy examination within <10 years. RESULTS: No polyps were found in 147,375 patients during a baseline colonoscopy; 17,525 patients (11.9%) had a follow-up colonoscopy within <10 years, including 1806 (10.3%) who received the follow-up colonoscopy within <1 year. The most common reason for repeating the examination within 1 year was that the first was compromised by inadequate bowel preparation or incomplete examination. Of these patients, 6.5% (95% confidence interval: 5.3-7.6) had large polyp(s) >9 mm-a proportion similar to the prevalence in the average-risk screening population. Reasons that examinations were repeated within 1-5 years included average-risk screening (15.7%), family history of colon polyps or cancer (30.1%), bleeding (31.2%), gastrointestinal symptoms (11.8%), or a positive result from a fecal blood test (5.5%). If the baseline examination was adequate, the incidence of large polyps within 1-5 years after baseline colonoscopy was 3.1% (95% confidence interval: 2.7-3.5) and within years 5-10 years was 3.7% (95% confidence interval: 3.3-4.1). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat colonoscopies within 10 years are of little benefit to patients who had adequate examinations and were found to have no polyps. Repeat colonoscopies are beneficial to patients when the baseline examination was compromised.

Colonoscopy utilization and outcomes 2000 to 2011.

BACKGROUND: Understanding colonoscopy utilization and outcomes can help determine when the procedure is most effective. OBJECTIVE: To study trends in utilization and outcomes of colonoscopy in the United States from 2000 to 2011. DESIGN: Prospective collection of colonoscopy data. SETTING: A total of 84 adult diverse GI practices. PATIENTS: All adult patients receiving colonoscopy for any reason. INTERVENTION: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Polyps >9 mm or suspected malignant tumor. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,372,838 reports. The most common reason for colonoscopy in patients aged <50 years is evaluation of symptoms such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) (28.7%) and bleeding or anemia (35.3%). In patients aged 50 to 74 years, colorectal cancer screening accounts for 42.9% of examinations. In patients aged >74 years, surveillance for cancer or polyps is the most common indication. The use of colonoscopy for average-risk screening increased nearly 3-fold during the study period. The prevalence of large polyps increases with age and is higher in men for every procedure indication. The prevalence of large polyps in patients with symptoms of IBS was lower than in those undergoing average-risk screening (odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.87). With increasing age, there was a shift from distal to proximal large polyps. The rate of proximal large polyps is higher in the black population compared with the white population (OR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.13-1.25). LIMITATIONS: In the absence of pathology data, use of surrogate as the main outcome. CONCLUSION: Colonoscopy utilization changed from 2000 to 2011, with an increase in primary screening. The proximal location of large polyps in the black population and with advancing age has implications for screening and surveillance.

Endoscopic hemostasis is rarely used for hematochezia: a population-based study from the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative National Endoscopic Database.

BACKGROUND: Data on the use of endoscopic hemostasis performed during colonoscopy for hematochezia are primarily derived from expert opinion and case series from tertiary care settings. OBJECTIVES: To characterize patients with hematochezia who underwent in-patient colonoscopy and compare those who did and did not receive endoscopic hemostasis. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative National Endoscopic Database, 2002 to 2008. PATIENTS: Adults with hematochezia. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Demographics, comorbidities, practice setting, adverse events, and colonoscopy procedural characteristics and findings. RESULTS: We identified 3151 persons who underwent in-patient colonoscopy for hematochezia. Endoscopic hemostasis was performed in 144 patients (4.6%). Of those who received endoscopic hemostasis, the majority were male (60.3%), white (83.3%), and older (mean age 70.9 ± 12.3 years); had a low-risk American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (53.9%); and underwent colonoscopy in a community setting (67.4%). The hemostasis-receiving cohort was significantly more likely to be white (83.3% vs 71.0%, P = .02), have more comorbidities (classes 3 and 4, 46.2% vs 36.0%, P = .04), and have the cecum reached (95.8% vs 87.7%, P = .003). Those receiving hemostasis were significantly more likely to have an endoscopic diagnosis of arteriovenous malformations (32.6% vs 2.6%, P = .0001) or a solitary ulcer (8.3% vs 2.1%, P < .0001). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective database analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Less than 5% of persons presenting with hematochezia and undergoing inpatient colonoscopy received endoscopic hemostasis. These findings differ from published tertiary care setting data. These data provide new insights into in-patient colonoscopy performed primarily in a community practice setting for patients with hematochezia.

The role of colonoscopy in evaluating hematochezia: a population-based study in a large consortium of endoscopy practices.

BACKGROUND: Data on the role of colonoscopy in hematochezia are almost exclusively derived from clinical experience in tertiary care practice. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the patient population who received colonoscopy for hematochezia in a consortium of diverse gastroenterology practices. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative Database, 2002 to 2008. PATIENTS: Adults undergoing colonoscopy for the indication of hematochezia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Demographics, comorbidity, practice setting, adverse events, and colonoscopy procedure characteristics and findings. Age-stratified analyses and analyses of inpatient- versus outpatient-performed colonoscopies were also performed. RESULTS: A total of 966,536 colonoscopies were performed during the study period, 76,186 (7.9%) were performed for evaluation of hematochezia. The majority of patients were white non-Hispanic men younger than 60 years old who underwent colonoscopy at a community practice site (79.1%) and had a low-risk American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (81.5%), in whom colonoscopy reached the cecum (94.8%), and serious adverse events were rare. Colonoscopy findings were hemorrhoids (64.4%), diverticulosis (38.6%), and polyp or multiple polyps (38.8%). From the overall cohort, 38.3% were 60 years of age and older. The older age cohort had significantly more white non-Hispanic females, high-risk ASA scores, incomplete colonoscopies, and unplanned events. Colonoscopy findings demonstrated significantly higher rates of diverticulosis, polyp or multiple polyps, mucosal abnormality/colitis, tumor, and solitary ulcer (P < .0001). There were 3941 (5.2%) who underwent inpatient-performed colonoscopy. One third of this cohort (32.6%) was defined as having a high ASA score. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective database review. CONCLUSIONS: These results describe patient populations and characterize colonoscopy findings in individuals presenting with hematochezia primarily in a community practice setting.

Sex and racial disparities in duodenal biopsy to evaluate for celiac disease.

BACKGROUND: Celiac disease (CD) is common but underdiagnosed in the United States. Serological screening studies indicate that, although CD occurs at the same frequency in both sexes, women are diagnosed more frequently than men (2:1). CD is less frequently diagnosed among black patients, though the seroprevalence in this group is not known. OBJECTIVE: To measure the rates of duodenal biopsy during EGD for symptoms consistent with CD. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative National Endoscopy Database, spanning the years 2004 through 2009. PATIENTS: Adults undergoing EGD for the indication of diarrhea, anemia, iron deficiency, or weight loss, in which the endoscopic appearance of the upper GI tract was normal. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Performance of duodenal biopsy. RESULTS: Of 13,091 individuals (58% female patients, 9% black patients) who met the inclusion criteria, duodenal biopsy was performed in 43%, 45% of female patients and 39% of male patients (P < .0001). Black patients underwent duodenal biopsy in 28% of EGDs performed compared with 44% for white patients (P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, male sex (odds ratio [OR] 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.88), older age (OR for 70 years and older compared with 20-49 years, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.46-0.57), and black patients (OR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.48-0.64) were associated with decreased odds of duodenal biopsy. LIMITATIONS: Lack of histopathologic correlation with CD prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: In this multiregional endoscopy database spanning the period from 2004 through 2009, rates of duodenal biopsy increased modestly over time, but overall remained low in patients with possible clinical indications for biopsy. Nonperformance of duodenal biopsy during endoscopy may be contributing to the underdiagnosis of CD in the United States.

Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database.

BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the main quality measures for colonoscopy, but it is burdensome to calculate and is not amenable to claims-based reporting. OBJECTIVE: To validate the correlation between polypectomy rates (PRs) and ADRs by using a large group of endoscopists. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Community and academic endoscopy units in the United States. SUBJECTS: Sixty endoscopists and their patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients with any adenoma and any polyp removed; correlation between ADRs and PRs. RESULTS: In total, 14,341 screening colonoscopies were included, and there was high correlation between endoscopists' PRs and ADRs in men ( r(s)= .91, P < .0001) and women (r(s) = .91, P < .0001). Endoscopists with PRs in the highest quartile had a significantly higher ADR than did those in the lowest quartile in men (44.6% vs 19.4%, P < .0001) and women (33.6% vs 11.6%, P < .0001). Endoscopists in the top polypectomy quartile also found more advanced adenomas than did endoscopists in the bottom quartile (men: 9.6% vs 4.6%, P = .0006; women: 6.3% vs 3.0%, P = .01). Benchmark PRs of 40% and 30% correlated with ADRs greater than 25% and 15% for men and women, respectively. LIMITATION: Retrospective analysis of a subset of a national endoscopic database. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists' PRs correlate well with their ADRs. Given its clinical relevance, its simplicity, and the ease with which it can be incorporated into claims-based reporting programs, the PR may become an important quality measure.

Prevalence of colorectal polyps in pediatric colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The available data regarding the prevalence, types, and clinical determinants of colonic polyps in children is limited. AIMS: We aimed to estimate the prevalence of colorectal polyps in a large cohort of children. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the presence, number, and location of colorectal polyps reported in all children (0-20 years) who underwent colonoscopy at 14 pediatric facilities between January 2000 and December 2007 recorded in Pediatric Endoscopy Database System Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (PEDS-CORI). We compared procedures with and without polyps with respect to procedure indication, age, sex, and race. We also reviewed a sample of histopathologic reports from one participating center. RESULTS: We analyzed 13,115 colonoscopy procedures performed in 11,637 patients. Colorectal polyps were reported in 810 procedures (6.1%; 95% CI: 5.7-6.5%) performed in 705 patients, and in 12% of patients with lower GI bleeding. Children with colorectal polyps were significantly younger (8.9 years vs. 11.9 years; p < 0.0001), male (58.3% vs. 49.0%; p < 0.001), non-white race (27.5% vs. 21.9%; p < 0.001), and had lower GI bleeding (54.4% vs. 26.6%; p < 0.001) as compared to children without polyps. In a sample of 122 patients with polyps from a single center, the histological types were solitary juvenile in 91 (70.5%), multiple juvenile in 20 (15.5%), adenoma in 14 (10.9%) and hyperplastic polyps in four patients (3.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal polyps are detected in 6.1% overall and in 12.0% among those with lower gastrointestinal bleeding during pediatric colonoscopy. Approximately 26% are multiple juvenile or adenoma.