Download PDF
Endoscopy 2016; 48(03): 256-262
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1569674
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Monitoring colonoscopy withdrawal time significantly improves the adenoma detection rate and the performance of endoscopists

Stephan R. Vavricka   *
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Triemlispital, Zurich, Switzerland
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
,
Michael C. Sulz   *
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
,
Lukas Degen
3   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland
,
Roman Rechner
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
,
Michael Manz
4   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Claraspital, Basel, Switzerland
,
Luc Biedermann
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
,
Christoph Beglinger
3   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland
,
Shajan Peter
3   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland
,
Ekaterina Safroneeva
5   Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland
,
Gerhard Rogler
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
,
Alain M. Schoepfer
6   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Centre Hospitaler Universitaire Vaudois/CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Submitted: 02 April 2015

Accepted after revision: 09 October 2015

Publication Date:
25 January 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Background and study aims: The recommended minimum withdrawal time for screening colonoscopy is 6 minutes. Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) increase with longer withdrawal times. We aimed to compare withdrawal times and ADRs of endoscopists unaware of being monitored vs. aware.

Patients and methods: Seven experienced gastroenterologists prospectively performed 558 screening colonoscopies during a 9-month period in a Swiss University hospital. Colonoscopy withdrawal times were first measured without the gastroenterologists’ knowledge of being monitored (n = 355 colonoscopies) and then with their knowledge (n = 203 colonoscopies).

Results: The median withdrawal time when gastroenterologists were unaware of being monitored was 4.5 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 4 – 5.5 minutes) without intervention and 6 minutes (IQR 4 – 9 minutes) with intervention, increasing significantly to 7.3 minutes (IQR 6.5 – 9 minutes) and 8 minutes (IQR 7 – 11 minutes), respectively, when they were aware of being monitored (P < 0.001 both for colonoscopies with and without intervention). The ADR increased from 21.4 % when the gastroenterologists were unaware of being monitored to 36.0 % when they were aware (P < 0.001). In the multivariate regression model, the endoscopists knowing they were being monitored was the strongest factor associated with ADR (odds ratio 4.417; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.241 – 8.705; P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Colonoscopy withdrawal time in unmonitored gastroenterologists is shorter than recommended and increases with awareness of monitoring. ADR significantly increases when gastroenterologists are aware of being monitored. Implementation of systematic monitoring, and analysis of withdrawal time and ADR for each endoscopist may help to increase the ADR.

* The first two authors contributed equally to this article.


 

  • References

  • 1 Benson VS, Patnick J, Davies AK et al. International colorectal cancer screening network. Colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of 35 initiatives in 17 countries. Int J Cancer 2008; 122: 1357-1367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Seeff LC, Richards TB, Shapiro JA et al. How many endoscopies are performed for CRC screening? Results from CDC’s survey of endoscopic capacity. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 1670-1677
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Prajapati DN, Saeian K, Binion DG et al. Volume and yield of screening colonoscopy at a tertiary medical center after change in medicare reimbursement. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 194-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Elmunzer BJ, Singal AG, Sussman J et al. Comparing the effectiveness of competing tests for reducing colorectal cancer mortality: a network meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 700-709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Brenner H, Stock C, Hoffmeister M. Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ 2014; 348: g2467 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g2467.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. Prevention of CRC by colonoscopic polypectomy. NEJM 1993; 329: 1977-1981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Citards F, Tomaselli G, Capocaccia R et al. Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut 2001; 48: 812-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF et al. Quality screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 957-968
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. NEJM 2006; 355: 2533-2541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Overholt BF, Brooks-Belli L, Grace M et al. Withdrawal times and associated factors in colonoscopy: a quality assurance multicenter assessment. J Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 44: e80-e86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Simmons DT, Harewood GC, Baron TH et al. Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 24: 965-971
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sanchez W, Harewood GC, Petersen BT. Evaluation of polyp detection in relation to procedure time of screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 1941-1945
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fatima H, Rex DK, Rothstein R et al. Cecal insertion and withdrawal times with wide-angle versus standard colonoscopes: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 109-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lee TJW, Blanks RG, Rees CJ et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012; 61: 1050-1057
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers J-J et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 378-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296-1308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Butterly L, Robinson CM, Anderson JC et al. Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 417-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Greenlaw RL. Effect of a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol on adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 1091-1098
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N et al. Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1892-1898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sinn DH, Chang DK, Choi WS et al. Formal documentation of withdrawal time to improve the quality of colonoscopic observation. Hepatogastroenterology 2011; 58: 779-784
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 20-26
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. NEJM 2010; 362: 1795-1803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. NEJM 2014; 370: 1298-1306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 128-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rex DK. Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 33-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rex DK, Hewett DG, Raghavendra M et al. The impact of videorecording on the quality of colonoscopy performance: a pilot study. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2312-2317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar