Hoff Geir, Holme Øyvind, Bretthauer Michael, Sandvei Per, Darre-Næss Ole, Stallemo Asbjørn, Wiig Håvard, Høie Ole, Noraberg Geir, Moritz Volker, de Lange Thomas
Department of Medicine, Telemark Hospital, Skien, Norway.
Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Endosc Int Open. 2017 Jun;5(6):E489-E495. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-106180. Epub 2017 May 31.
Some guidelines recommend a minimum standard of 90 % cecal intubation rate (CIR) in routine clinics and 95 % in screening colonoscopy, while others have not made this distinction - both with limited evidence to support either view. This study questions the rationale for making such differentiation.
We assessed cecum intubation rates amongst colonoscopies recorded in the Norwegian national quality register Gastronet by 35 endoscopists performing both clinical and screening colonoscopies. Colonoscopies were categorized into primary screening colonoscopy, work-up colonoscopy of screen-positives and clinical colonoscopy or surveillance. Cases with insufficient bowel preparation or mechanical obstruction were excluded. Endoscopists were categorized into "junior" and "senior" endoscopists depending on training and experience. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were applied.
During a 2-year period, 10,267 colonoscopies were included (primary screening colonoscopy: 746; work-up colonoscopy of screen-positives: 2,604; clinical colonoscopy or surveillance: 6917). The crude CIR in clinical routine colonoscopy, primary screening colonoscopy and work-up colonoscopy was 97.1 %, 97.1 % and 98.6 %, respectively. In a multiple logistic regression analysis, there were no differences in CIR between the 3 groups. Poor bowel cleansing and female sex were independent predictors for intubation failure.
Cecal intubation rate in clinical colonoscopies and colonoscopy screening are similar. There is no reason to differentiate between screening and clinical colonoscopy with regard to CIR.
一些指南建议在常规临床操作中盲肠插管率(CIR)的最低标准为90%,在结肠镜筛查中为95%,而其他指南并未做此区分——两种观点均缺乏有力证据支持。本研究对做出这种区分的理由提出质疑。
我们评估了挪威国家质量登记系统Gastronet中记录的35位同时进行临床和筛查结肠镜检查的内镜医师的结肠镜检查盲肠插管率。结肠镜检查分为初次筛查结肠镜检查、筛查阳性者的后续结肠镜检查以及临床结肠镜检查或监测。肠道准备不充分或存在机械性梗阻的病例被排除。根据培训和经验,内镜医师被分为“初级”和“高级”内镜医师。应用单变量和多变量逻辑回归分析。
在2年期间,共纳入10267例结肠镜检查(初次筛查结肠镜检查:746例;筛查阳性者的后续结肠镜检查:2604例;临床结肠镜检查或监测:6917例)。临床常规结肠镜检查、初次筛查结肠镜检查和后续结肠镜检查的粗CIR分别为97.1%、97.1%和98.6%。在多变量逻辑回归分析中,三组之间的CIR没有差异。肠道清洁不佳和女性是插管失败的独立预测因素。
临床结肠镜检查和结肠镜筛查中的盲肠插管率相似。就CIR而言,没有理由区分筛查结肠镜检查和临床结肠镜检查。