Composite detection rate as an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy quality measure correlating with detection of neoplasia.
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Gastrointestinal neoplasm
Quality indicator
Upper gastrointestinal tract
Journal
Journal of gastroenterology
ISSN: 1435-5922
Titre abrégé: J Gastroenterol
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 9430794
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2021
07 2021
Historique:
received:
17
12
2020
accepted:
15
04
2021
pubmed:
3
5
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
2
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is commonly used diagnostic method with no widely accepted quality measure. We assessed quality indicator-composite detection rate (CDR)-consisting of detection of at least one of the following: cervical inlet patch, gastric polyp and post-ulcer duodenal bulb deformation. The aim of the study was to validate CDR according to detection rate of upper gastrointestinal neoplasms (UGN). It was a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted from January 2019 to October 2019. The endoscopic reports from 2896 symptomatic patients who underwent diagnostic EGD were analyzed. The EGDs were performed in three endoscopy units located in tertiary university hospital, private outpatient clinic and local hospital. 64 UGNs were detected. The mean CDR was 21.9%. The CDR correlated with UGN detection rate (R = 0.49, p = 0.045). Based on CDR quartiles, operators were divided into group 1 with CDR < 10%, group 2 with CDR 10-17%, group 3 with CDR 17.1-26%, and group 4 with CDR > 26%. Detection rate of UGN was significantly higher in the group 4 in comparison to group 1 (OR 4.4; 95% CI 2.2 - 9.0). In the multivariate regression model, patient age, male gender and operator's CDR > 26% were independent risk factors of UGN detection (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01 - 1.05, OR 2; 95% CI 1.2 - 3.5, and OR 5.7 95% CI 1.5 - 22.3, respectively). The CDR is associated with the detection of upper gastrointestinal neoplasms. This parameter may be a useful quality measure of EGD to be applied in general setting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is commonly used diagnostic method with no widely accepted quality measure. We assessed quality indicator-composite detection rate (CDR)-consisting of detection of at least one of the following: cervical inlet patch, gastric polyp and post-ulcer duodenal bulb deformation. The aim of the study was to validate CDR according to detection rate of upper gastrointestinal neoplasms (UGN).
METHODS
It was a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted from January 2019 to October 2019. The endoscopic reports from 2896 symptomatic patients who underwent diagnostic EGD were analyzed. The EGDs were performed in three endoscopy units located in tertiary university hospital, private outpatient clinic and local hospital.
RESULTS
64 UGNs were detected. The mean CDR was 21.9%. The CDR correlated with UGN detection rate (R = 0.49, p = 0.045). Based on CDR quartiles, operators were divided into group 1 with CDR < 10%, group 2 with CDR 10-17%, group 3 with CDR 17.1-26%, and group 4 with CDR > 26%. Detection rate of UGN was significantly higher in the group 4 in comparison to group 1 (OR 4.4; 95% CI 2.2 - 9.0). In the multivariate regression model, patient age, male gender and operator's CDR > 26% were independent risk factors of UGN detection (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01 - 1.05, OR 2; 95% CI 1.2 - 3.5, and OR 5.7 95% CI 1.5 - 22.3, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
The CDR is associated with the detection of upper gastrointestinal neoplasms. This parameter may be a useful quality measure of EGD to be applied in general setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33934197
doi: 10.1007/s00535-021-01790-3
pii: 10.1007/s00535-021-01790-3
pmc: PMC8280029
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
651-658Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
United European Gastroenterol J. 2017 Apr;5(3):309-334
pubmed: 28507745
Dig Endosc. 2017 Jul;29(5):569-575
pubmed: 28066945
Gastroenterology. 2017 Aug;153(2):460-469.e1
pubmed: 28501581
Gastroenterology. 2017 May;152(6):1319-1328.e7
pubmed: 28147224
Dig Dis Sci. 2015 Jan;60(1):38-46
pubmed: 25063206
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jun;89(6):1141-1149
pubmed: 30659831
Frontline Gastroenterol. 2018 Jul;9(3):214-220
pubmed: 30046427
Gastroenterology. 2019 Jan;156(1):254-272.e11
pubmed: 30315778
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Mar;13(3):480-487.e2
pubmed: 25117772
Gastroenterology. 2017 Aug;153(2):420-429
pubmed: 28456631
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Sep;28(9):1041-9
pubmed: 27148773
Endoscopy. 2019 Feb;51(2):115-124
pubmed: 30184610
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):17-30
pubmed: 25480101
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Sep;76(3):531-8
pubmed: 22732877
Yonsei Med J. 2019 Nov;60(11):1054-1060
pubmed: 31637887
United European Gastroenterol J. 2019 Mar;7(2):189-198
pubmed: 31080603
BMJ. 2015 Jul 27;351:h3867
pubmed: 26215280
Gut. 2017 Nov;66(11):1886-1899
pubmed: 28821598
Endoscopy. 2019 Apr;51(4):365-388
pubmed: 30841008
Endoscopy. 2016 Sep;48(9):843-64
pubmed: 27548885
Gastroenterology. 2020 Feb;158(3):693-702
pubmed: 31816298
Prz Gastroenterol. 2017;12(2):135-139
pubmed: 28702103