Brian C. Jacobson

A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop

Patients and practitioners expect that their endoscopy procedures will go smoothly and according to plan. There are several reasons why they may be disappointed. The procedure may fail technically (eg, incomplete colonoscopy, failed biliary cannulation). It may seem to be successful technically but turn out to be clinically unhelpful (eg, a diagnosis missed, an unsuccessful treatment), or there may be an early relapse (eg, stent dysfunction). In addition, some patients and relatives may be disappointed by a lack of courtesy and poor communication, even when everything otherwise works well. The most feared negative outcome is when something ‘‘goes wrong’’ and the patient experiences a ‘‘complication.’’ This term has unfortunate medicolegal connotations and is perhaps better avoided. Describing these deviations from the plan as ‘‘unplanned events’’ fits nicely

The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research

BACKGROUND Few bowel-preparation rating scales have been validated. Most scales were intended for comparing oral purgatives and fail to account for washing and/or suctioning by the endoscopist. This limits their utility in studies of colonoscopy outcomes, such as polyp-detection rates. OBJECTIVE To develop a valid and reliable scale for use in colonoscopy outcomes research. SETTING Academic medical center. METHODS We developed the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), a 10-point scale that assesses bowel preparation after all cleansing maneuvers are completed by the endoscopist. We assessed interobserver and intraobserver reliability by using video footage of colonoscopies viewed on 2 separate occasions by 22 clinicians. We then applied the BBPS prospectively during screening colonoscopies and compared BBPS scores with clinically meaningful outcomes, including polyp-detection rates and procedure times. RESULTS The intraclass correlation coefficient (a measure of interobserver reliability) for BBPS scores was 0.74. The weighted kappa (a measure of intraobserver reliability) for scores was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.87). During 633 screening colonoscopies, the mean (SD) BBPS score was 6.0 +/- 1.6. Higher BBPS scores (> or =5 vs <5) were associated with a higher polyp-detection rate (40% vs 24%, P < .02). BBPS scores were inversely correlated with colonoscope insertion (r = -0.16, P < .003) and withdrawal (r = -0.23, P < .001) times. LIMITATIONS Single-center study. CONCLUSIONS The BBPS is a valid and reliable measure of bowel preparation. It may be well suited to colonoscopy outcomes research because it reflects the colons cleanliness during the inspection phase of the procedure.

Quality indicators for colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy is widely used for the diagnosis and treatment of colonic disorders. Properly performed, colonoscopy is generally safe, accurate, and well tolerated by most patients. Visualization of the mucosa of the entire large intestine and distal terminal ileum is usually possible at colonoscopy. In patients with chronic diarrhea, biopsy specimens can help diagnose the underlying condition. Polyps can be identified and removed during colonoscopy, thereby reducing the risk of colon cancer. Colonoscopy is the preferred method to evaluate the colon in most adult patients with bowel symptoms, iron deficiency anemia, abnormal radiographic studies of the colon, positive colorectal cancer screening tests, postpolypectomy and postcancer resection surveillance, surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease, and in those with suspected masses. The use of colonoscopy has become accepted as the most effective method of screening the colon for neoplasia in patients over the age of 50 years and in younger patients at increased risk (1). The effectiveness of colonoscopy in reducing colon cancer incidence depends on adequate visualization of the entire colon, diligence in examining the mucosa, and patient acceptance of the procedure. Preparation quality affects the ability to perform a complete examination, the duration the procedure, and the need to cancel or reschedule procedures (2, 3). Ineffective preparation is a major contributor to costs (4). Longer withdrawal times have been demonstrated to improve polyp detection rates, (5–7) and conversely, rapid withdrawal may miss lesions and reduce the effectiveness of colon cancer prevention by colonoscopy. The miss rates of colonoscopy for large (≥1 cm) adenomas may be higher than previously thought (8, 9) Thus, careful examinations are necessary to optimize the effectiveness of recommended intervals between screening and surveillance examinations. Finally, technical expertise will help prevent complications that can offset any cost benefit ratio gained by removing neoplastic lesions. The following quality indicators have been selected to establish competence in performing colonoscopy and help define areas for continuous quality improvement. The levels of evidence supporting these quality indicators were graded according to Table 1. PREPROCEDURE

Guidelines for Conscious Sedation and Monitoring During Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.

ASGE guideline: The role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and the management of cystic lesions and inflammatory fluid collections of the pancreas.

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.

Clinical outcome of the use of enteral stents for palliation of patients with malignant upper GI obstruction

BACKGROUND The endoscopically placed enteral stent has emerged as a reasonable alternative to palliative surgery for malignant intestinal obstruction. This is a report of our experience with the use of enteral stents for nonesophageal malignant upper GI obstruction. METHODS Data on all patients who had undergone enteral stent placement were reviewed. Those with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were compared with another similar cohort of patients who underwent palliative gastrojejunostomy. RESULTS Thirty-one procedures were performed on 29 patients (mean age 67.7 years). Thirteen (45%) were men and 16 (55%) women. The diagnoses were gastric (13.8%), duodenal (10.3%), pancreatic (41.4%), metastatic (27.6%), and other malignancies (6.9%). Malignant obstruction occurred at the pylorus (20.7%), first part of duodenum (37.9%), second part of duodenum (27.6%), third part of duodenum (3.5%), and anastomotic sites (10.3%). Twenty-nine (93.5%) procedures were successful and good clinical outcome was achieved in 25 (80.6%). Re-obstruction by tumor ingrowth occurred in 2 patients after a mean of 183 days. The median survival time for patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent enteral stent placement compared with those who underwent surgical gastrojejunostomy was 94 and 92 days, charges were

Guidelines for Antibiotic Prophylaxis for GI Endoscopy

9921 and

ASGE guideline: complications of EUS.

28,173, and duration of hospitalization was 4 and 14 days, respectively (latter 2 differences with p value < 0.005). CONCLUSION Endoscopic enteral stent placement of nonesophageal malignant upper GI obstruction is a safe, efficacious, and cost-effective procedure with good clinical outcome, lower charges, and shorter hospitalization period than the surgical alternative.

Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.

A randomized trial comparing uncovered and partially covered self- expandable metal stents in the palliation of distal malignant biliary obstruction

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of experts. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement and revision needed to clarify aspects of this statement and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to the recommendations.