John G. Lieb

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 The preprocedure period encompasses the time from first contact by the patient until administration of sedation or instrument insertion. The aspects of patient care addressed in prior documents apply here as well, including timely scheduling, patient preparation, identification, history and physical examination, appropriate choice of sedation and analgesia, evaluation of bleeding risk, etc. Because many examinations are currently being performed for colon cancer screening and are elective, care must be taken to be certain that all potential risks have been reduced to as low as practically achievable. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) (10) and the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colon Cancer have published appropriate indications for colonoscopy (11) (Tables 2 and 3).

American Pancreatic Association Practice Guidelines in Chronic Pancreatitis: evidence-based report on diagnostic guidelines.

Abstract The diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis remains challenging in early stages of the disease. This report defines the diagnostic criteria useful in the assessment of patients with suspected and established chronic pancreatitis. All current diagnostic procedures are reviewed, and evidence-based statements are provided about their utility and limitations. Diagnostic criteria for chronic pancreatitis are classified as definitive, probable, or insufficient evidence. A diagnostic (STEP-wise; survey, tomography, endoscopy, and pancreas function testing) algorithm is proposed that proceeds from a noninvasive to a more invasive approach. This algorithm maximizes specificity (low false-positive rate) in subjects with chronic abdominal pain and equivocal imaging changes. Furthermore, a nomenclature is suggested to further characterize patients with established chronic pancreatitis based on TIGAR-O (toxic, idiopathic, genetic, autoimmune, recurrent, and obstructive) etiology, gland morphology (Cambridge criteria), and physiologic state (exocrine, endocrine function) for uniformity across future multicenter research collaborations. This guideline will serve as a baseline manuscript that will be modified as new evidence becomes available and our knowledge of chronic pancreatitis improves.

Detection of Circulating Pancreas Epithelial Cells in Patients With Pancreatic Cystic Lesions

Hematogenous dissemination is thought to be a late event in cancer progression. We recently showed in a genetic model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma that pancreas cells can be detected in the bloodstream before tumor formation. To confirm these findings in humans, we used microfluidic geometrically enhanced differential immunocapture to detect circulating pancreas epithelial cells in patient blood samples. We captured more than 3 circulating pancreas epithelial cells/mL in 7 of 21 (33%) patients with cystic lesions and no clinical diagnosis of cancer (Sendai criteria negative), 8 of 11 (73%) with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and in 0 of 19 patients without cysts or cancer (controls). These findings indicate that cancer cells are present in the circulation of patients before tumors are detected, which might be used in risk assessment.

Review article: pain and chronic pancreatitis.

Background  Pain in chronic pancreatitis chronic pancreatitis is a frustrating and challenging symptom for both the patient and clinician. It is the most frequent and most significant symptom. Many patients fail the currently available conservative options and require opiates or endoscopic/surgical therapy.

Quality Indicators for ERCP

ERCP is one of the most technically demanding and high-risk procedures performed by GI endoscopists. It requires significant focused training and experience to maximize success and to minimize poor outcomes (1, 2). ERCP has evolved from a purely diagnostic to a predominately therapeutic procedure (3). ERCP and ancillary interventions are effective in the non-surgical management of a variety of pancreaticobiliary disorders, most commonly the removal of bile duct stones and relief of malignant obstructive jaundice (4). The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) has published specific criteria for training and granting of clinical privileges for ERCP, which detail the many skills that must be developed to perform this procedure in clinical practice with high quality (5, 6, 7).

Randomized, controlled trial of standard, large-capacity versus jumbo biopsy forceps for polypectomy of small, sessile, colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND Polypectomy with cold biopsy forceps is a frequently used technique for removal of small, sessile, colorectal polyps. Jumbo forceps may lead to more effective polypectomy because of the larger size of the forceps cup. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficiency of cold jumbo biopsy forceps compared with standard forceps for polypectomy of small, sessile, colorectal polyps. DESIGN Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING Outpatient endoscopy center. PATIENTS This study involved 140 patients found to have at least one eligible polyp defined as a sessile polyp measuring ≤6 mm. INTERVENTION Polypectomy with cold biopsy forceps. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Complete visual polyp eradication with one forceps bite. RESULTS In 140 patients, a total of 305 eligible polyps were detected (151 removed with jumbo forceps and 154 with standard forceps). Complete visual eradication of the polyp with one forceps bite was achieved in 78.8% of the jumbo forceps group and 50.7% of the standard forceps group (P < .0001). Biopsies from the polypectomy sites of adenomatous polyps thought to be visually completely eradicated with one bite showed a trend toward a higher complete histologic eradication rate with the jumbo forceps (82.4%) compared with the standard forceps (77.4%), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .62). The withdrawal time for visual inspection of the colon and time to perform polypectomies were significantly shorter in the jumbo forceps group (mean 21.43 vs 18.23 minutes; P = .02). LIMITATIONS Lack of blinding to the type of forceps used. CONCLUSION The jumbo biopsy forceps is superior to the standard forceps in removing small, sessile polyps. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT00855790.).

Quality Indicators Common to All GI Endoscopic Procedures

Quality of care is the degree to which health services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge (1). The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) have continually promoted the ideal that all patients have access to high-quality GI endoscopy services. A high-quality endoscopy is an examination in which patients receive an indicated procedure, correct and relevant diagnoses are recognized or excluded, any therapy provided is appropriate, and all steps that minimize risk have been taken.

Use and perceived effectiveness of non-analgesic medical therapies for chronic pancreatitis in the United States

Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 33: 149–159

Quality Indicators for EUS

EUS has become integral to the diagnosis and staging of GI and mediastinal mass lesions and conditions. EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) allows the endoscopist to obtain tissue or fluid for cytologic and chemical analysis, adding to the procedures utility. Furthermore, the recent development of EUS-guided core biopsy techniques enables his-tologic sampling in selected cases and for obtaining tissue for molecular analysis in neoadjuvant and palliative settings. The clinical effectiveness of EUS and EUS-FNA depends on the judicious use of these techniques.

Quality indicators for EGD.

Abbreviations: ACG, American College of Gastroenterology; ASGE, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; BE, Barrett’s esophagus; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; PPI, proton pump inhibitor