Publications

BACKGROUND

Unsedated colonoscopy has potential benefits, including decreased costs and decreased risks.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether patient comfort during unsedated colonoscopy can be improved through the use of a magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI) colonoscope compared with a standard colonoscope.

DESIGN

Prospective, patient-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

PATIENTS

Veterans undergoing outpatient screening or surveillance colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Use of a standard or MEI colonoscope during unsedated colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

The primary outcome variable was patient perception of pain using a 7-point scale. The secondary endpoint was patient willingness to undergo a future unsedated colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Of the 160 patients enrolled, 140 completed an unsedated colonoscopy in the study protocol. In a per-protocol analysis, the mean and median pain score was 3.12 (standard deviation 1.22) and 4 (interquartile range 2-4) for the standard colonoscope group and 3.06 (standard deviation 1.13) and 3 (interquartile range 2-4) for the MEI group, where 3 was mild pain (P = not significant). Overall, 80% of subjects were willing to undergo a future unsedated colonoscopy for screening or surveillance. In an intention-to-treat analysis, 80% of subjects (64/80) in the standard colonoscope arm and 79% in the MEI arm (63/80) were willing to undergo a future unsedated colonoscopy (P = not significant).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study of mostly male veterans.

CONCLUSIONS

This patient-blinded, randomized, controlled trial did not demonstrate any difference in patient perception of pain or willingness to undergo unsedated examinations when using the MEI versus the conventional colonoscope. Unsedated colonoscopy is generally feasible and well tolerated and is associated with high patient satisfaction rates.

BACKGROUND

Tandem colonoscopy is regarded as the reference standard for the evaluation of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma miss rate (AMR) during colonoscopy. Pooled results from previous tandem studies yield AMRs of 22%. The AMR of trainees is important to estimate the number of colonoscopies required to develop competence in screening for colorectal neoplasms.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the ADR and AMR of trainees as a function of experience.

METHODS

Prospective tandem colonoscopy study at an academic VA medical center. A trainee initially attempted colonoscopy. If the trainee was able to intubate the cecum, the trainee performed the withdrawal, and the colonoscopy was then repeated by the attending physician to assess the AMR.

RESULTS

Twelve trainee endoscopists were included in the study. Trainees had between 0 and 33 months of previous endoscopic experience and had done between 0 and 605 previous colonoscopies. A total of 230 patients were evaluated for the study, and 218 patients were enrolled. Complete tandem colonoscopy was performed in 147 patients. There was a 54% ADR. The mean (standard deviation) size of the adenomas in the cohort was 5.9 (5.3) mm. Significant variables in multivariate logistic regression analysis for missed adenomas were trainee experience (P = .011) and patient age (P < .001). The AMR decreased with increasing experience, and it is estimated that 450 colonoscopies are required to attain AMRs of less than 25% in a 60-year-old patient.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study; the attending physician performing the second pass was not blinded to the first pass. The AMR was only analyzed for cases in which the trainee was able to reach the cecum with no or minimal assistance.

CONCLUSIONS

Our tandem colonoscopy study demonstrates that the AMR decreases as the experience of trainees increases and is a late competency attained during training. Future training may need to incorporate these findings to serve as a basis for determining appropriate training guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between overuse of healthcare services and geographic variations in medical care.

DESIGN

Systematic Review.

DATA SOURCES

Articles published in Medline between 1978, the year of publication of the first framework to measure quality, and January 1, 2009.

STUDY SELECTION

Four investigators screened 114,830 titles and 2 investigators screened all selected abstracts and articles for possible inclusion and extracted all data.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted data on rates of overuse in different geographic areas. We also extracted data on underuse, if available, for the same population in which overuse was measured.

RESULTS

Five papers examined the relationship between geographic variations and overuse of healthcare services. One study in 2008 compared the appropriateness of coronary angiography (CA) for acute myocardial infarction in high-cost areas versus low cost areas in the Medicare population and found largely similar rates of inappropriateness (12.2% vs. 16.2%). A study in 2000 using national data concluded that overuse of CA explained little of the geographic variations in the use of this procedure in the Medicare program. An older study of Medicare patients found similar rates of inappropriate use of CA (15% to 17% vs. 18%), endoscopy (15% vs. 18% 19%), and carotid endarterectomy (29% vs. 30%) in low-use and high-use regions. A small area reanalysis of data from this study of 3 procedures found no evidence of a relationship between inappropriate use of procedures and volume in 23 adjacent counties of California. Another 2008 study found that inappropriate chemotherapy for stage I cancer was less common in low-cost areas compared with high-cost areas (3.1% vs. 6.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The limited available evidence does not lend support to the hypothesis that inappropriate use of procedures is a major source of geographic variations in intensity and/or costs of care. More research is needed to improve our understanding of the relationship between geographic variations and the quality of care.