Evaluation of an educational telephone intervention strategy to improve non-screening colonoscopy attendance: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy attendance is a key quality parameter in colorectal cancer population screening programmes. Within these programmes, educative interventions with bidirectional contact carried out by trained personnel have been proved to be an important tool for colonoscopy attendance improvement, and because of its huge clinical and economic impact, they have been widely implemented. However, outside of this population programmes, educative measures to improve colonoscopy attendance have been poorly studied and no navigation interventions are usually performed. AIM: To investigate the clinical and economic impacts of an educational telephone intervention on colonoscopy attendance outside colorectal cancer screening programmes. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included consecutive patients referred to colonoscopy from primary care centres from November 2017 to May 2018. The intervention group (IG) received a telephone intervention, while the control group (CG) did not. Patients assigned to the IG received an educational telephone call 7 d before the colonoscopy appointment. The intervention was carried out by two nurses with deep endoscopic knowledge who were previously trained for a telephone educational intervention for colonoscopy. The impact on patient compliance with preparedness protocols related to bowel cleansing, anti-thrombotic management, and sedation scheduling was also evaluated. A second call was conducted to assess patient satisfaction. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 738 and 746 patients were finally included in the IG and CG respectively. Six hundred thirteen (83%) patients were contacted in the IG. The non-attendance rate was lower in the IG, both in the ITT analysis (IG 8.4% vs CG 14.3%, P < 0.001) and in the PP analysis (4.4% vs 14.3%, P < 0.001). In a multivariable analysis, belonging to the control group increased the risk of non-attendance in both, the ITT analysis (OR 1.81, 95%CI: 1.27 to 2.58, P = 0.001) and the PP analysis (OR 3.56, 95%CI: 2.25 to 5.64, P < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in compliance with preparedness protocols [bowel cleansing: IG 61.7% vs CG 52.6% (P = 0.001), antithrombotic management: IG 92.5% vs CG 62.8% (P = 0.001), and sedation scheduling: IG 78.8% vs CG 0% (P ≤ 0.001)]. We observed a net benefit of €55600/year after the intervention. The information given before the procedure was rated as excellent by 26% (CG) and 51% (IG) of patients, P ≤ 0.001. CONCLUSION: Educational telephone nurse intervention improves attendance, protocol compliance and patient satisfaction in the non-screening colonoscopy setting and has a large economic impact, which supports its imple-mentation and maintenance over time.

Incidencia de la perforación iatrogénica por colonoscopia y resultados del tratamiento en un hospital universitario / Incidence of iatrogenic perforation during colonoscopy and their treatment in a university hospital

Introducción: La perforación del colon es una complicación poco frecuente, aunque grave, de la endoscopia digestiva baja. El tratamiento es controvertido, aunque en la mayoría de los casos es quirúrgico. Los objetivos de este estudio fueron determinar la incidencia de las perforaciones por colonoscopia en nuestro centro y conocer los resultados de las opciones terapéuticas empleadas. Material y métodos: Estudio retrospectivo de las perforaciones producidas por colonoscopia entre enero de 2004 y octubre de 2009. Las variables analizadas fueron las siguientes: características demográficas, indicación de la colonoscopia, manifestaciones clínicas, pruebas diagnósticas utilizadas, tiempo entre la perforación y el diagnóstico, tipo de tratamiento, estancia hospitalaria y complicaciones. Resultados: Durante el período de estudio se realizaron 13.493 colonoscopias. En 13 pacientes (0,1%) se produjo una perforación del colon. Nueve perforaciones ocurrieron durante la realización de una colonoscopia diagnóstica (0,08%) y las restantes 4 después de una colonoscopia terapéutica (0,16%). En 10 casos, el diagnóstico se realizó durante las primeras 12h y en 5 de ellos, la perforación se identificó durante el mismo procedimiento. La localización más frecuente fue el sigma en 7 casos. En 11 pacientes se realizó tratamiento quirúrgico y en 2 pacientes se resolvió con tratamiento conservador. La técnica quirúrgica más utilizada fue la sutura simple seguida de la resección con anastomosis. Un paciente falleció por sepsis intraabdominal. Conclusión: Las perforaciones causadas por colonoscopia son complicaciones poco frecuentes, aunque graves. La mayoría de estos pacientes precisarán tratamiento quirúrgico, y quedará reservado el tratamiento conservador para pacientes seleccionados (AU)

Introduction: Colon perforation is a fairly uncommon, but serious, complication during endoscopy of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Treatment is controversial, although surgery is used in the majority of cases. The aims of this study were to determine the incidence of perforations due to colonoscopy in our hospital and to find out the results of the treatment options used. Material and methods: Retrospective study of perforations caused by colonoscopy between January 2004 and October 2008. The variables analysed were: demographic characteristics, colonoscopy indication, clinical signs and symptoms, diagnostic tests used, time between perforation and the diagnosis, treatment type, hospital stay and complications. Results: A total of 13,493 colonoscopies were performed during the study period. A perforation of the colon was found in 13 (0.1%) patients. Nine perforations occurred whilst performing a diagnostic colonoscopy (0.08%) and the remaining 4 after a therapeutic colonoscope (0.16%). In 10 of the cases the diagnosis was made within the first 12h, and in 5 of these the perforation was identified during the procedure itself. The most common location was the sigmoid, in 7 cases. Surgical treatment was carried out on 11 patients, and in the other two it was resolved by conservative treatment. The most used surgical technique was simple suture followed by resection with anastomosis. One patient died due to intra-abdominal sepsis. Conclusion: Perforations caused by colonoscopy are rare, but serious, complications. The majority of these patients required surgical treatment, with conservative treatment being reserved for selected patients (AU)

[Incidence of iatrogenic perforation during colonoscopy and their treatment in a university hospital]. / Incidencia de la perforación iatrogénica por colonoscopia y resultados del tratamiento en un hospital universitario.

INTRODUCTION: Colon perforation is a fairly uncommon, but serious, complication during endoscopy of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Treatment is controversial, although surgery is used in the majority of cases. The aims of this study were to determine the incidence of perforations due to colonoscopy in our hospital and to find out the results of the treatment options used. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective study of perforations caused by colonoscopy between January 2004 and October 2008. The variables analysed were: demographic characteristics, colonoscopy indication, clinical signs and symptoms, diagnostic tests used, time between perforation and the diagnosis, treatment type, hospital stay and complications. RESULTS: A total of 13,493 colonoscopies were performed during the study period. A perforation of the colon was found in 13 (0.1%) patients. Nine perforations occurred whilst performing a diagnostic colonoscopy (0.08%) and the remaining 4 after a therapeutic colonoscope (0.16%). In 10 of the cases the diagnosis was made within the first 12h, and in 5 of these the perforation was identified during the procedure itself. The most common location was the sigmoid, in 7 cases. Surgical treatment was carried out on 11 patients, and in the other two it was resolved by conservative treatment. The most used surgical technique was simple suture followed by resection with anastomosis. One patient died due to intra-abdominal sepsis. CONCLUSION: Perforations caused by colonoscopy are rare, but serious, complications. The majority of these patients required surgical treatment, with conservative treatment being reserved for selected patients.