Prevalence and Predictors of Barrett's Esophagus After Negative Initial Endoscopy: Analysis From Two National Databases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines suggest a single screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients with multiple risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to determine BE prevalence and predictors on repeat EGD after a negative initial EGD, using 2 large national databases (GI Quality Improvement Consortium [GIQuIC] and TriNetX). METHODS: Patients who underwent at least 2 EGDs were included and those with BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma detected at initial EGD were excluded. Patient demographics and prevalence of BE on repeat EGD were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess for independent risk factors for BE detected on the repeat EGD. RESULTS: In 214,318 and 153,445 patients undergoing at least 2 EGDs over a median follow-up of 28-35 months, the prevalence of BE on repeat EGD was 1.7% in GIQuIC and 3.4% in TriNetX, respectively (26%-45% of baseline BE prevalence). Most (89%) patients had nondysplastic BE. The prevalence of BE remained stable over time (from 1 to >5 years from negative initial EGD) but increased with increasing number of risk factors. BE prevalence in a high-risk population (gastroesophageal reflux disease plus ≥1 risk factor for BE) was 3%-4%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of >350,000 patients, rates of BE on repeat EGD ranged from 1.7%-3.4%, and were higher in those with multiple risk factors. Most were likely missed at initial evaluation, underscoring the importance of a high-quality initial endoscopic examination. Although routine repeat endoscopic BE screening after a negative initial examination is not recommended, repeat screening may be considered in carefully selected patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and ≥2 risk factors for BE, potentially using nonendoscopic tools.

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.

Wide Variability in Dysplasia Detection Rate and Adherence to Seattle Protocol and Surveillance Recommendations in Barrett's Esophagus: A Population-Based Analysis Using the GIQuIC National Quality Benchmarking Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Variability in adherence rates to the Seattle protocol and to surveillance interval recommendations, established quality indicators (QIs) in Barrett's esophagus (BE), is unknown. METHODS: We evaluated endoscopist and site-based adherence rates to these QIs from January 2018 to May 2021 using the GI Quality Improvement Consortium national registry with matched endoscopy and pathology data. RESULTS: Across 153 practices with 572 endoscopists performing 20,155 endoscopies, adherence to the Seattle protocol varied by endoscopists (median 93.8%, IQR 18.9%) and by site (median 90.0%, IQR 20.1%). Adherence to appropriate surveillance intervals for nondysplastic BE also varied by endoscopist (median 82.4%, IQR 36.3%) and site (median 77.2%, IQR 29.8%). The overall dysplasia detection rate was 3.1% and varied among endoscopists and sites. DISCUSSION: These US population-based results can serve as a benchmark for quality initiatives and intervention trials aimed at improving outcomes for patients with BE.

Age-Stratified Prevalence and Predictors of Neoplasia Among U.S. Adults Undergoing Screening Colonoscopy in a National Endoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several U.S. organizations now recommend starting average-risk colorectal cancer screening at age 45 years, but the prevalence of colonic neoplasia in individuals younger than 50 years has not been well characterized. We used a national endoscopic registry to calculate age-stratified prevalence and predictors of colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: Outpatient screening colonoscopies performed during 2010-2020 in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium registry were analyzed. We measured the prevalence of advanced neoplasia and adenomas by age, sex, and race/ethnicity, as well as the prevalence ratio of neoplasia compared with the reference group of 50- to 54-year-olds. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of neoplasia. RESULTS: We identified 3,928,727 screening colonoscopies, of which 129,736 (3.3%) were performed on average-risk individuals younger than 50 years. The prevalence of advanced neoplasia was 6.2% for 50- to 54-year-olds and 5.0% (prevalence ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.83) for average-risk 45- to 49-year-olds. Men had higher prevalence of neoplasia than women for all age groups. White individuals had higher prevalence of advanced neoplasia than persons of other racial/ethnic groups in most age groups, which was partially driven by serrated lesions. On multivariable regression, White individuals had higher odds of advanced neoplasia than Black, Hispanic, and Asian individuals in both younger and older age groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a large U.S. endoscopy registry, the prevalence of advanced neoplasia in 45- to 49-year-olds was substantial and supports beginning screening at age 45 years. White individuals had higher risk of advanced neoplasia than Black, Hispanic, and Asian individuals across the age spectrum. These findings may inform adenoma detection benchmarks and risk-based screening strategies.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Utilization of EGD and Colonoscopy in the United States: An Analysis of the GIQuIC Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has limited the ability to perform endoscopy. The aim of this study was to quantify the impact of the pandemic on endoscopy volumes and indications in the United States. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium (GIQuIC) registry. We compared volumes of colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) during the pandemic (March-September 2020) to before the pandemic (January 2019-February 2020). The primary outcome was change in monthly volumes. Secondary outcomes included changes in the distribution of procedure indications and in procedure volume by region of United States, patient characteristics, trainee involvement, and practice setting, as well as colorectal cancer diagnoses. RESULTS: Among 451 sites with 3514 endoscopists, the average monthly volume of colonoscopies and EGDs dropped by 38.5% and 33.4%, respectively. There was regional variation, with the greatest and least decline in procedures in the Northeast and South, respectively. There was a modest shift in procedure indications from prevention to diagnostic, an initial increase in performance in the hospital setting, and a decrease in procedures with trainees. The decline in volume of colonoscopy and EGD during the first 7 months of the pandemic was equivalent to approximately 2.7 and 2.4 months of prepandemic productivity, respectively. Thirty percent fewer colorectal cancers were diagnosed compared to expected. CONCLUSION: These data on actual endoscopy utilization nationally during the pandemic can help in anticipating impact of delays in care on outcomes and planning for the recovery phase.

Racial Disparities in Adherence to Quality Indicators in Barrett's Esophagus: An Analysis Using the GIQuIC National Benchmarking Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Racial disparities in outcomes in esophageal adenocarcinoma are well established. Using a nationwide registry, we aimed to compare clinical and endoscopic characteristics of blacks and whites with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and adherence to defined quality indicators. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Gastrointestinal Quality Improvement Consortium Registry between January 2012 and December 2019. Patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with an indication of BE screening or surveillance, or an endoscopic finding of BE, were included. Adherence to recommended endoscopic surveillance intervals of 3-5 years for nondysplastic BE and adherence to Seattle biopsy protocol were assessed. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess variables associated with adherence. RESULTS: A total of 100,848 esophagogastroduodenoscopies in 84,789 patients met inclusion criteria (blacks-3,957 and whites-96,891). Blacks were less likely to have histologically confirmed BE (34.3% vs 51.7%, P < 0.01), had shorter BE lengths (1.61 vs 2.35 cm, P < 0.01), and were less likely to have any dysplasia (4.3% vs 7.1%, P < 0.01). Although whites were predominantly male (62.2%), about half of blacks with BE were female (53.0%). Blacks with nondysplastic BE were less likely to be recommended appropriate surveillance intervals (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.68-0.89). Adherence rates to the Seattle protocol were modestly higher among blacks overall (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.20), although significantly lower among blacks with BE segments >6 cm. DISCUSSION: The use of sex as a risk factor for BE screening may be inappropriate among blacks. Fewer blacks were recommended appropriate surveillance intervals, and blacks with longer segment BE were less likely to undergo Seattle biopsy protocol.

An Analysis of the GIQuIC Nationwide Quality Registry Reveals Unnecessary Surveillance Endoscopies in Patients With Normal and Irregular Z-Lines.

INTRODUCTION: Population-based estimates of adherence to Barrett's esophagus (BE) guidelines are not available. Using a national registry, we assessed surveillance intervals for patients with normal and irregular Z-lines based on the presence or absence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) and among patients with suspected or confirmed BE. METHODS: We analyzed data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium Registry. Endoscopy data, including procedure indication, demographics, endoscopy and histology findings, and recommendations for further endoscopy, were assessed from January 2013 through December 2019. Patients with an indication of BE screening or surveillance or an endoscopic finding of BE were included. Biopsy and surveillance practices were assessed based on the length of columnar epithelium (0 cm, <1 cm, 1-3 cm, and >3 cm) and diagnosis based on histology findings. RESULTS: A total of 1,907,801 endoscopies were assessed; 135,704 endoscopies (7.1%) performed in 114,894 patients met the inclusion criteria (men 61.4%, Whites 91%, and mean age of 61.7 years [SD 12.5]). Among patients with normal Z-lines, surveillance endoscopy was recommended for 81% of patients with IM and 20% of individuals without IM. Among patients with irregular Z-lines, surveillance endoscopy was recommended for 81% with IM and 24% without IM. Approximately 30% of patients with confirmed nondysplastic BE (lengths 1-3 and >3 cm) had recommended surveillance intervals of <3 years. DISCUSSION: An analysis of data from a nationwide quality registry demonstrated that patients without BE are receiving recommendations for surveillance endoscopies and many patients with nondysplastic BE are reexamined too soon.

Endoscopists systematically undersample patients with long-segment Barrett's esophagus: an analysis of biopsy sampling practices from a quality improvement registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines recommend systematic biopsy sampling in Barrett's esophagus (BE) to reduce sampling error. Adherence to this biopsy sampling protocol has been suggested as a quality indicator; however, estimates of adherence are not available. Using a national registry, we assessed adherence and identified predictors of adherence to biopsy sampling protocols. METHODS: We analyzed data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium Registry that included procedure indication, demographics, endoscopy, and pathology results. Patients with an indication of BE screening/surveillance or an endoscopic finding of BE were included. Adherence to the Seattle protocol was assessed by dividing BE length by number of pathology jars, with a ratio ≤2.0 with rounding down (lenient definition) or rounding up (stringent definition) for odd BE lengths considered adherent. Variables associated with adherence were assessed using generalized estimating equations to control for clustering within individual physicians. RESULTS: Of 786,712 EGDs assessed, 58,709 (7.5%) EGDs in 53,541 patients met inclusion criteria (mean age, 61.3 years; 60.4% men; 90.2% white; mean BE length, 2.3 cm). When the lenient and stringent definitions for adherence were used, 87.8% and 82.7% of EGDs were adherent, respectively. Increasing BE length was the most significant predictor of nonadherence (odds ratio, .69; 95% confidence interval, .67-.71). Other predictors were increasing age, male gender, increasing American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and practice location. Performance of EGD by nongastroenterologist physicians was associated with nonadherence (odds ratio, .07; 95% confidence interval, .06-.10). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 20% of endoscopies performed in BE patients were not adherent to the Seattle protocol. As BE length increases, endoscopists become less compliant with odds of nonadherence increasing by 31% with every 1-cm increase in length.

Over-Utilization of Repeat Upper Endoscopy in Patients with Non-dysplastic Barrett's Esophagus: A Quality Registry Study.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines recommend that patients with non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE) undergo surveillance endoscopy every 3-5 years. Using a national registry, we assessed compliance to recommended surveillance intervals in patients with NDBE and identified factors associated with compliance. METHODS: We analyzed data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium registry. Data abstracted include procedure indication, demographics, endoscopy/pathology results, and recommendations for future endoscopy. Patients with an indication of Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening or surveillance, or an endoscopic finding of BE, with non-dysplastic intestinal metaplasia on pathological examination, were included. Compliance was defined as a recommendation to undergo subsequent endoscopy between 3 and 5 years. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess variables associated with compliance. RESULTS: Of 786,712 endoscopies assessed, 58,709 (7.5%) endoscopies in 53,541 patients met inclusion criteria (mean age 61.3 years, 60.4% men, 90.2% white, mean BE length was 2.3 cm). Most cases were performed by Gastroenterologists (92.3%) with propofol (78.7%). A total of 29,978 procedures (55.8%) resulted in pathology-confirmed BE. Among procedures with NDBE (n = 25,945), 29.9% were noncompliant with the 3-year threshold; most (26.9%) recommended surveillance at 1- to 2-year intervals. Patient factors such as extremes of age, black race, geographic region, type of sedation, and increasing BE length were associated with noncompliance. DISCUSSION: Approximately 30% of patients with NDBE are recommended to undergo surveillance endoscopy too soon. Patient factors associated with inappropriate utilization include extremes of age, black race, and increasing BE length. Compliance with appropriate endoscopic follow-up as a quality measure in BE is poor.

Burden and Cost of Gastrointestinal, Liver, and Pancreatic Diseases in the United States: Update 2018.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Estimates of disease burden can inform national health priorities for research, clinical care, and policy. We aimed to estimate health care use and spending among gastrointestinal (GI) (including luminal, liver, and pancreatic) diseases in the United States. METHODS: We estimated health care use and spending based on the most currently available administrative claims from commercial and Medicare Supplemental plans, data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium Registry, and national databases. RESULTS: In 2015, annual health care expenditures for gastrointestinal diseases totaled $135.9 billion. Hepatitis ($23.3 billion), esophageal disorders ($18.1 billion), biliary tract disease ($10.3 billion), abdominal pain ($10.2 billion), and inflammatory bowel disease ($7.2 billion) were the most expensive. Yearly, there were more than 54.4 million ambulatory visits with a primary diagnosis for a GI disease, 3.0 million hospital admissions, and 540,500 all-cause 30-day readmissions. There were 266,600 new cases of GI cancers diagnosed and 144,300 cancer deaths. Each year, there were 97,700 deaths from non-malignant GI diseases. An estimated 11.0 million colonoscopies, 6.1 million upper endoscopies, 313,000 flexible sigmoidoscopies, 178,400 upper endoscopic ultrasound examinations, and 169,500 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures were performed annually. Among average-risk persons aged 50-75 years who underwent colonoscopy, 34.6% had 1 or more adenomatous polyps, 4.7% had 1 or more advanced adenomatous polyps, and 5.7% had 1 or more serrated polyps removed. CONCLUSIONS: GI diseases contribute substantially to health care use in the United States. Total expenditures for GI diseases are $135.9 billion annually-greater than for other common diseases. Expenditures are likely to continue increasing.

Inadequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores predict the risk of missed neoplasia on the next colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The risks of missed findings after inadequate bowel preparation are not fully characterized in a diverse cohort. We aimed to evaluate the likelihood of missed polyps after an inadequate preparation as assessed by using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). METHODS: In this observational study of prospectively collected data within a large, national, endoscopic consortium, we identified patients aged 50 to 75 years who underwent average-risk screening colonoscopy (C1) followed by a second colonoscopy for any indication within 3 years (C2). We determined the polyp detection rates (PDRs) and advanced PDRs during C2 stratified by C1 BBPS scores. RESULTS: Among segment pairs without polyps at C1 (N = 601), those with inadequate C1 BBPS segment scores had a higher PDR at C2 (10%) compared with those with adequate bowel preparation at C1 (5%; P = .04). Among segment pairs with polyps at C1 (N = 154), segments with inadequate bowel preparation scores at C1 had higher advanced PDRs at C2 (20%) compared with those with adequate bowel preparation scores at C1 (4%; P = .03). In multivariable analysis, the presence of advanced polyps at C1 (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.5; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 1.1-10.8) but not inadequate BBPS scores at C1 (adjusted OR 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.1) was associated with a significantly increased risk of advanced polyps at C2. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate BBPS segment scores generally are associated with higher rates of polyps and advanced polyps at subsequent colonoscopy within a short timeframe. The presence of advanced polyps as well as inadequate BBPS segment scores can inform the risk of missed polyps and help triage which patients warrant a timely repeat colonoscopy.

Patient safety during sedation by anesthesia professionals during routine upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: an analysis of 1.38 million procedures.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sedation for GI endoscopy directed by anesthesia professionals (ADS) is used with the intention of improving throughput and patient satisfaction. However, data on its safety are sparse because of the lack of adequately powered, randomized controlled trials comparing it with endoscopist-directed sedation (EDS). This study was intended to determine whether ADS provides a safety advantage when compared with EDS for EGD and colonoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective, nonrandomized, observational cohort study used the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative National Endoscopic Database, a network of 84 sites in the United States composed of academic, community, health maintenance organization, military, and Veterans Affairs practices. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were defined as any event requiring administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, hospital or emergency department admission, administration of rescue/reversal medication, emergency surgery, procedure termination because of an adverse event, intraprocedural adverse events requiring intervention, or blood transfusion. RESULTS: There were 1,388,235 patients in this study that included 880,182 colonoscopy procedures (21% ADS) and 508,053 EGD procedures (23% ADS) between 2002 and 2013. When compared with EDS, the propensity-adjusted SAE risk for patients receiving ADS was similar for colonoscopy (OR, .93; 95% CI, .82-1.06) but higher for EGD (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.18-1.50). Additionally, with further stratification by American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, the use of ADS was associated with a higher SAE risk for ASA I/II and ASA III subjects undergoing EGD and showed no difference for either group undergoing colonoscopy. The sample size was not sufficient to make a conclusion regarding ASA IV/V patients. CONCLUSIONS: Within the confines of the SAE definitions used, use of anesthesia professionals does not appear to bring a safety benefit to patients receiving colonoscopy and is associated with an increased SAE risk for ASA I, II, and III patients undergoing EGD.

Length of endoscopic workup in gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: The number of procedures utilized in the general management of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) has not been investigated previously. We used the National Endoscopic Database of the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative for an observational study to analyze the average length of workup in GIB. METHODS: The electronic database was queried for all patients aged 18 years and older who underwent an endoscopic evaluation for any bleeding indication between 2000 and 2014. Data were stratified by indication, type, and number of endoscopies per patient, and length of workup. RESULTS: A total of 603 807 endoscopic procedures among 451 470 individual patients were used in the workup of GIB, with 152 337 procedures among 113 030 patients (25%) being performed as a secondary procedure. The average length was 2.4±0.9 procedures per workup in procedural sequences involving multiple endoscopies. The length of workup was independent of the initial type of GIB. An esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD), followed by a colonoscopy or a colonoscopy, followed by an EGD were the most frequent combinations. In another substantial fraction of two consecutive procedures, the first and the second procedure were identical. This pattern applied not only to EGD and colonoscopy but also to flexible sigmoidoscopy, enteroscopy, and video capsule endoscopy. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients with GIB require only one type of endoscopy to manage their bleeding. However, in a quarter of patients, on average, 2.4 procedures are needed. Previous trials assessing the outcomes of individual types of endoscopy may have exaggerated their overall success rates in diagnosing and treating GIB.

Predictors of Improvements in Pain Intensity in a National Cohort of Older Veterans With Chronic Pain.

UNLABELLED: Little is known about the factors associated with pain-related outcomes in older adults. In this observational study, we sought to identify patient factors associated with improvements in pain intensity in a national cohort of older veterans with chronic pain. We included 12,924 veterans receiving treatment from the Veterans Health Administration with persistently elevated numeric rating scale scores in 2010 who had not been prescribed opioids in the previous 12 months. We examined: 1) percentage decrease over 12 months in average pain intensity scores relative to average baseline pain intensity score; and 2) time to sustained improvement in average pain intensity scores, defined as a 30% reduction in 3-month scores compared with baseline. Average relative improvement in pain intensity scores from baseline ranged from 25% to 29%; almost two-thirds met criteria for sustained improvement during the 12-month follow-up period. In models, higher baseline pain intensity and older age were associated with greater likelihood of improvement in pain intensity, whereas Veterans Affairs service-connected disability, mental health, and certain pain-related diagnoses were associated with lower likelihood of improvement. Opioid prescription initiation during follow-up was associated with lower likelihood of sustained improvement. The findings call for further characterization of heterogeneity in pain outcomes in older adults as well as further analysis of the relationship between prescription opioids and treatment outcomes. PERSPECTIVE: This study identified factors associated with improvements in pain intensity in a national cohort of older veterans with chronic pain. We found that older veterans frequently show improvements in pain intensity over time, and that opioid prescriptions, mental health, and certain pain diagnoses are associated with lower likelihood of improvement.

Practice patterns of sedation for colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Sedative and analgesic medications have been used routinely for decades to provide patient comfort, reduce procedure time, and improve examination quality during colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends of sedation during colonoscopy in the United States. SETTING: Endoscopic data repository of U.S. gastroenterology practices (Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, CORI database from 2000 until 2013). PATIENTS: The study population was made up of patients undergoing a total of 1,385,436 colonoscopies. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy without any intervention or with mucosal biopsy, polypectomy, various means of hemostasis, luminal dilation, stent placement, or ablation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Dose of midazolam, diazepam, fentanyl, meperidine, diphenhydramine, promethazine, and propofol used for sedation during colonoscopy. RESULTS: During the past 14 years, midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol have become the most commonly used sedatives for colonoscopy. Except for benzodiazepines, which were dosed higher in women than men, equal doses of sedation were given to female and male patients. White patients were given higher doses than other ethnic groups undergoing sedation for colonoscopy. Except for histamine-1 receptor antagonists, all sedative medications were given at lower doses to patients with increasing age. The dose of sedatives was higher in colonoscopies associated with procedural interventions or of long duration. LIMITATIONS: Potential for incomplete or incorrect documentation in the database. CONCLUSION: The findings reflect on colonoscopy practice in the United States during the last 14 years and provide an incentive for future research on how sex and ethnicity influence sedation practices.

Practice variation in PEG tube placement: trends and predictors among providers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Enteral access placement is performed among a variety of providers and specialties, yet there is a dearth of literature on trends and factors related to enteral access placement in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in the incidence of enteral access procedures performed by gastroenterologists in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective review of upper endoscopic procedures that involved PEG tube placement between 2000 and 2010. SETTING: Endoscopy sites participating in the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI). PATIENTS: Patients undergoing upper endoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: PEG tube placement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Number of PEG tubes placed. RESULTS: Overall PEG tube placement by a provider from 2000 to 2010 was 1.7% (number of PEG tubes performed/number of upper endoscopies performed), with the majority of them being performed by gastroenterologists. Very young and very old, non-white racial background (Hispanic: odds ratio [OR] 1.21; 95% CI, 1.13-1.28; black: OR 2.24; 95% CI, 2.12-2.36), and men (OR 1.44; 95% CI, 1.39-1.50) were patient characteristics associated with greater PEG tube placement. In terms of practice setting, PEG tube placement occurred more frequently in community and/or health maintenance organization environments and on the East Coast. With respect to provider characteristics, male providers were less likely than female providers to perform a PEG tube insertion (OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.64-0.71), and there was a trend that as providers were further out of medical school they were less likely to perform a PEG tube procedure. Interestingly, surgeons (OR 6.69; 95% CI, 6.18-7.24) and other providers (non-pediatric/non-general practice) (OR 3.22; 95% CI, 2.63-3.94) were more likely to perform PEG tube procedures than were gastroenterologists. LIMITATIONS: Participation in CORI is voluntary and may not capture data on non-gastroenterologist providers. CONCLUSION: Significant practice variation was noted in PEG tube placement in the United States with respect to patient and provider characteristics, geographic region, and endoscopy settings.

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.