Florian Froehlich

Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: The European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study

BACKGROUND The quality of colon cleansing is a major determinant of quality of colonoscopy. To our knowledge, the impact of bowel preparation on the quality of colonoscopy has not been assessed prospectively in a large multicenter study. Therefore, this study assessed the factors that determine colon-cleansing quality and the impact of cleansing quality on the technical performance and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy. METHODS Twenty-one centers from 11 countries participated in this prospective observational study. Colon-cleansing quality was assessed on a 5-point scale and was categorized on 3 levels. The clinical indication for colonoscopy, diagnoses, and technical parameters related to colonoscopy were recorded. RESULTS A total of 5832 patients were included in the study (48.7% men, mean age 57.6 [15.9] years). Cleansing quality was lower in elderly patients and in patients in the hospital. Procedures in poorly prepared patients were longer, more difficult, and more often incomplete. The detection of polyps of any size depended on cleansing quality: odds ratio (OR) 1.73: 95% confidence interval (CI)[1.28, 2.36] for intermediate-quality compared with low-quality preparation; and OR 1.46: 95% CI[1.11, 1.93] for high-quality compared with low-quality preparation. For polyps >10 mm in size, corresponding ORs were 1.0 for low-quality cleansing, OR 1.83: 95% CI[1.11, 3.05] for intermediate-quality cleansing, and OR 1.72: 95% CI[1.11, 2.67] for high-quality cleansing. Cancers were not detected less frequently in the case of poor preparation. CONCLUSIONS Cleansing quality critically determines quality, difficulty, speed, and completeness of colonoscopy, and is lower in hospitalized patients and patients with higher levels of comorbid conditions. The proportion of patients who undergo polypectomy increases with higher cleansing quality, whereas colon cancer detection does not seem to critically depend on the quality of bowel preparation.

Conscious Sedation for Gastroscopy: Patient Tolerance and Cardiorespiratory Parameters

BACKGROUND/AIMS Most patients receive conscious sedation for gastroscopy. However, the benefit of the most often used combination of low-dose intravenous midazolam and topical lidocaine on patient tolerance remains poorly defined and has not been shown to outweigh cardiorespiratory risks. To respond to these issues, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective study was performed. METHODS Two hundred outpatients undergoing diagnostic gastroscopy were assigned to receive either (1) midazolam (35 micrograms/kg) and lidocaine spray (100 mg), (2) midazolam and placebo lidocaine, (3) placebo midazolam and lidocaine, or (4) placebo midazolam and placebo lidocaine. RESULTS Tolerance (visual analogue scale, 0-100 points; 0, excellent; 100, unbearable) improved as compared with placebo midazolam and placebo lidocaine by 23 points (95% confidence interval, 15-32) in group 1, 15 points (95% confidence interval, 7-24) in group 2, and 10 points (95% confidence interval, 2-18) in group 3. Increasing age (P < 0.001), low anxiety (P < 0.001), and male sex (P < 0.03), but not amnesia, were associated with better patient tolerance. Oxygen desaturation (< 1 minute) occurred in 8.2% and was not more frequent after midazolam treatment. Hypotension was rare (2.1%), and no adverse outcome occurred. CONCLUSIONS Both low-dose midazolam (35 micrograms/kg) and lidocaine spray have an additive beneficial effect on patients tolerance and rarely induce significant alterations in cardiorespiratory monitoring parameters, thus supporting the widespread use of conscious sedation.

Sedation and analgesia for colonoscopy : patient tolerance, pain, and cardiorespiratory parameters

BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is generally performed with the patient sedated and receiving analgesics. However, the benefit of the most often used combination of intravenous midazolam and pethidine on patient tolerance and pain and its cardiorespiratory risk have not been fully defined. METHODS In this double-blind prospective study, 150 outpatients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either (1) low-dose midazolam (35 micrograms/kg) and pethidine (700 micrograms/kg in 48 patients, 500 micrograms/kg in 102 patients), (2) midazolam and placebo pethidine, or (3) pethidine and placebo midazolam. RESULTS Tolerance (visual analog scale, 0 to 100 points: 0 = excellent; 100 = unbearable) did not improve significantly more in group 1 compared with group 2 (7 points; 95% confidence interval [-2-17]) and group 3 (2 points; 95% confidence interval [-7-12]). Similarly, pain was not significantly improved in group 1 as compared with the other groups. Male gender (p < 0.001) and shorter duration of the procedure (p = 0.004), but not amnesia, were associated with better patient tolerance and less pain. Patient satisfaction was similar in all groups. Oxygen desaturation and hypotension occurred in 33% and 11%, respectively, with a similar frequency in all three groups. CONCLUSIONS In this study, the combination of low-dose midazolam and pethidine does not improve patient tolerance and lessen pain during colonoscopy as compared with either drug given alone. When applying low-dose midazolam, oxygen desaturation and hypotension do not occur more often after combined use of both drugs. For the individual patient, sedation and analgesia should be based on the endoscopists clinical judgement.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II) Screening for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic individuals without personal history of CRC or polyps, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II. METHODS A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies regarding colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy in these circumstances. RESULTS Available evidence for CRC screening comes from small case-controlled studies, with heterogeneous results, and from indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening and studies on flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. Most guidelines recommend screening colonoscopy every 10 years starting at age 50 in average-risk individuals. In individuals with a higher risk of CRC due to family history, there is a consensus that it is appropriate to offer screening colonoscopy at < 50 years. EPAGE II considered screening colonoscopy appropriate above 50 years in average-risk individuals. Panelists deemed screening colonoscopy appropriate for younger patients, with shorter surveillance intervals, where family or personal risk of colorectal cancer is higher. A positive FOBT or the discovery of adenomas at sigmoidoscopy are considered appropriate indications. CONCLUSIONS Despite the lack of evidence based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), colonoscopy is recommended by most published guidelines and EPAGE II criteria available online (http://www.epage.ch), as a screening option for CRC in individuals at average risk of CRC, and undisputedly as the main screening tool for CRC in individuals at moderate and high risk of CRC.

Extraintestinal Manifestations of Crohn’s Disease

In each case of extraintestinal manifestations of Crohn’s disease, active disease, if present, should be treated to induce remission, which may positively influence the course of most concomitant extraintestinal manifestations. For some extraintestinal manifestations, however, a specific treatment should be introduced. This latter part of disease management will be discussed in this chapter, in particular for pyoderma gangrenosum, uveitis, spondylarthropathy – axial arthropathy – and primary sclerosing cholangitis, which have also been described in quiescent Crohn’s disease. Few new drugs for the treatment of extraintestinal manifestations of Crohn’s disease have been developed in the past and only the role of infliximab has increased in Crohn’s disease-related extraintestinal manifestations. Drugs specifically aimed at this treatment, stemming from a few randomized controlled studies or case series, are sulfasalazine, 5-ASA, corticosteroids, azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate, infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept and cyclosporine or tacrolimus. Unfortunately, because of the paucity of data in this field, the best evidence presented and discussed in this article for the treatment of these extraintestinal manifestations is extrapolated from patients that for the most part did not suffer from Crohn’s disease.

Overuse of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a country with open-access endoscopy: a prospective study in primary care

BACKGROUND This prospective observational study was aimed at evaluating the appropriateness of use of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) in primary care in a country with open access to and high availability of the procedure. METHODS Outpatients were consecutively included in two clinical settings: Setting A (20 primary care physicians during 4 weeks) and B (university-based outpatient clinic during 3 weeks). In patients undergoing UGE, appropriateness of referral was judged by explicit Swiss criteria developed by the RAND/UCLA panel method. RESULTS Patient visits (8135) were assessed. Six hundred eleven patients complained of upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Physicians decided to perform UGE in 63 of these patients. Twenty-five (40%) of the endoscopies were rated appropriate, 7 (11%) equivocal, and 31 (49%) inappropriate. Overuse of UGE occurred in 5.1% (setting A: 4.7%; setting B:6.5%; p = 0.39) of the patients who presented with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. The decision to perform UGE in previously untreated dyspeptic patients was the most common clinical situation resulting in overuse. CONCLUSIONS Inappropriate use of UGE is high in Switzerland. However, to better reflect primary care decision making, overuse should be related not only to patients referred for a medical test, but also to the number of patients who complain of the symptoms that would be investigated by the procedure.

Fistulizing Crohn’s Disease

Fistulas are common in Crohn’s disease. A population-based study has shown a cumulative risk of 33% after 10 years and 50% after 20 years. Perianal fistulas were the most common (54%). Medical therapy is the main option for perianal fistula once abscesses, if present, have been drained, and should include antibiotics (both ciprofloxacin and metronidazole) and immunomodulators. Infliximab should be reserved for refractory patients. Surgery is often necessary for internal fistulas.

Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment does not benefit patients with nonulcer dyspepsia

OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to assess the still controversial role of treatment of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection in patients with nonulcer dyspepsia.METHODS:We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial comparing the efficacy of 7 days of eradication treatment (lansoprazole 15 mg b.i.d., amoxicillin 1 g b.i.d., and clarithromycin 500 mg b.i.d.) with a control treatment (lansoprazole 15 mg b.i.d. and placebo) in H. pylori-infected patients with nonulcer dyspepsia. 13C breath tests were performed at baseline and during follow-up. We assessed patient symptoms, health status (based on the SF-12 questionnaire), patient satisfaction, drug consumption, health care consultation behavior, and absenteeism related to dyspepsia over a 1-yr period.RESULTS:A total of 74 patients randomized to eradication treatment and 70 patients randomized to placebo were compared. The rate of eradication of H. pylori infection was 75% in the active treatment group and 4% in the placebo group (p < 0.005). The symptom score improved to a similar extent in the group receiving active treatment (−4.0; 95% CI =− 5.0 to −3.0) and placebo (−3.6; 95% CI =− 4.5 to −2.7). Treatment response was not related to the severity or duration of initial symptoms or to the severity of gastritis on histology. Quality of life scores were comparable at 12 months. There was no significant difference in dyspepsia-related absenteeism or satisfaction with management of NUD. Patients receiving active treatment were more likely not to have had to use any dyspepsia treatment over the 12 months (60.8% vs 44.3%; p = 0.047).CONCLUSIONS:This study did not demonstrate any substantial benefit of curing H. pylori infection in patients with nonulcer dyspepsia. The study adds further evidence that H. pylori is not the main pathogenetic or therapeutic target in these patients.

Performance of panel-based criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of colonoscopy: a prospective study

BACKGROUND Prospective data describing the appropriateness of use of colonoscopy based on detailed panel-based clinical criteria are not available. METHODS In a cohort of 553 consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy to two university-based Swiss outpatient clinics, the percentage of patients who underwent colonoscopy for appropriate, equivocal, and inappropriate indications and the relationship between appropriateness of use and the presence of relevant endoscopic lesions was prospectively assessed. This assessment was based on criteria of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and explicit American and Swiss criteria developed in 1994 by a formal panel process using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. RESULTS The procedures were rated appropriate or equivocal in 72.2% by criteria of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, in 68.5% by explicit American criteria, and in 74.4% by explicit Swiss criteria (not statistically significant, NS). Inappropriate use (overuse) of colonoscopy was found in 27.8%, 31.5%, and 25.6%, respectively (NS). The proportion of appropriate procedures was higher with increasing age. Almost all reasons for using colonoscopy could be assessed by the two explicit criteria sets, whereas 28.4% of reasons for using colonoscopy could not be evaluated by the criteria of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (p < 0.0001). The probability of finding a relevant endoscopic lesion was distinctly higher in the procedures rated appropriate or equivocal than in procedures judged inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS The rate of inappropriate use of colonoscopy is substantial in Switzerland. Explicit criteria allow assessment of almost all indications encountered in clinical practice. In this study, all sets of appropriateness criteria significantly enhanced the probability of finding a relevant endoscopic lesion during colonoscopy.

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation: from the exception to standard practice. Sedation and monitoring trends over 20 years.

The practice of sedation, including monitoring practice for digestive endoscopy, continues to evolve throughout the world. In many countries, including Switzerland, there is a trend towards increased utilization of sedation during both routine and advanced endoscopic procedures. Sedation improves patient satisfaction with endoscopy and also improves the quality of the examination. In addition, a trend can be observed towards an increasing use of propofol as the preferred sedative drug. Here we review the latest published data from surveys describing sedation and monitoring practice in different countries and compare them with our own data from successive nationwide surveys among Swiss gastroenterologists over a period of 20 years. This development between these socioeconomically very similar Western industrialized countries, however, shows some unique and surprising differences. In Germany and Switzerland, propofol use has become increasingly widespread, in Switzerland even to the extent that during the last few years propofol has overtaken benzodiazepine sedation, with an absolute majority of Swiss gastroenterologists using it without the assistance of an anesthesiologist. In addition, the change in Switzerland reflects a successful generalization of nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) sedation from the hospital setting to private practice.