Análisis de 6 parámetros de calidad de las colonoscopias detamizaje realizadas en la Unidad de Gastroenterología de CEDIMAT

Carlota Cabrer P.; Lisbeth Martínez O.; Alma De los Santos B.; Fernando Contreras P.; Eduardo Bon R.

Authors

Carlota Cabrer P. Gastroenterology Unit, Centro de Diagnóstico Medicina Avanzada y Telemedicina (CEDIMAT), Santo Domingo, República Dominicana
Lisbeth Martínez O. Gastroenterology Unit, Centro de Diagnóstico Medicina Avanzada y Telemedicina (CEDIMAT), Santo Domingo, República Dominicana
Alma De los Santos B. Internal Medicine Service, Centro de Diagnóstico Medicina Avanzada y Telemedicina (CEDIMAT), Santo Domingo, República Dominicana
Fernando Contreras P. Gastroenterology Unit, Centro de Diagnóstico Medicina Avanzada y Telemedicina (CEDIMAT), Santo Domingo, República Dominicana
Eduardo Bon R. Gastroenterology Unit, Centro de Diagnóstico Medicina Avanzada y Telemedicina (CEDIMAT), Santo Domingo, República Dominicana

Keywords:

colonoscopy, screening, quality indicators, colorectal cancer, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale

Abstract

The effectiveness of screening colonoscopy depends on meeting quality indicators associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer, mortality, and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Objective: To evaluate six basic quality indicators and immediate complications in screening colonoscopies performed at the Gastroenterology Unit of CEDIMAT (September–December 2024). Methods: Observational, cross-sectional, retrospective, descriptive study. We included 498 adult screening colonoscopies performed at the Gastroenterology Unit of CEDIMAT (September–December 2024). Indicators were extracted from electronic records and measured at collective and individual levels using Olympus 180 systems (white light with on-demand NBI). Reporting followed STROBE, and descriptive statistics were used. Results: N=498; 64% women. Mean Boston score was 7.88; 87.95% had Boston ≥6 and 84% also achieved Boston ≥2 in each segment (adequate preparation). Cecal intubation rate was 99% (all endoscopists ≥95%). Mean withdrawal time in normal colonoscopies was 9 min 56 s; 69% achieved ≥6 min and 61% ≥8 min. Adenoma detection rate was 25% (individual range 10.91–60%), serrated lesion detection rate 0.4%, and polyp detection rate 37% (individual range 20–80%). No immediate complications were recorded. Conclusion: Quality indicators approached international benchmarks; improvement opportunities remain in the proportion of withdrawal times ≥6–8 minutes and in adenoma and serrated lesion detection rates. No immediate adverse events were recorded, suggesting a favorable safety profile.

References

1. Keswani RN, Crockett SD, Calderwood AH. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Strategies to Improve Quality of Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2021 Aug;161(2):701–711.

2. Lin JS, Perdue LA, Henrikson NB, Bean SI, Blasi PR. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021 May 18;325(19):1978–1998.

3. Baidoun F, Elshiwy K, Elkeraie Y, Merjaneh Z, Khoudari G, Sarmini MT, et al. Colorectal cancer epidemiology: recent trends and impact on outcomes. Curr Drug Targets. 2021;22(9):998– 1009.

4. Rex DK, Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Kaminski MF, Kubiliun N, Neeraj N, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2024;119(10):1754–1780.

5. Hilsden RJ, Dube C, Heitman SJ, Bridges R, McGregor SE, Rostom A. The association of colonoscopy quality indicators with the detection of screen‑relevant lesions, adverse events, and postcolonoscopy cancers in an asymptomatic Canadian colorectal cancer screening population. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Nov;82(5):887–894.

6. Shaukat A, Kahi CJ, Burke CA, Rabeneck L, Sauer BG, Rex DK. ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021 Mar 1;116(3):458–479.

7. Schottinger JE, Jensen CD, Ghai NR, Chubak J, Lee JK, Kamineni A, et al. Association of physician adenoma detection rates with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. JAMA. 2022;327(21):2114– 2122.

8. Abdul Baki H, Schoen RE, Dean K, Rose S, Leffler DA, Kuganeswaran E, et al. Public reporting of colonoscopy quality is associated with an increase in endoscopist adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82(4):676–682. Bishay K, Causada Calo N, Scaffidi MA, Walsh CM, Anderson JT, Rostom A, et al. Associations between endoscopist feedback and improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;92(5):1030–1040.e9.

9. Keswani RN, Yadlapati R, Gleason KM, Ciolino JD, Manka M, O’Leary KJ, et al. Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(8):1134–1139.

10. IJspeert JE, de Wit K, van der Vlugt M, Bastiaansen BA, Fockens P, Dekker E. Prevalence, distribution and risk of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps at a center with a high adenoma detection rate and experienced pathologists. Endoscopy. 2016 Aug;48(8):740–746.

11. Murphy B, Myers E, O’Shea T, Feeley K, Waldron B. Correlation between adenoma detection rate and polyp detection rate at endoscopy in a non‑screening population. Sci Rep. 2020 Feb 10;10(1):2295.

12. Spada C, Koulaouzidis A, Hassan C, Amaro P, Agrawal A, Brink L, et al. Factors associated with polyp detection rate in European colonoscopy practice: findings of the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(6):3388.

13. Abate Namnum P, Durán JA, Campusano MA, Contreras F. Tasa de detección de pólipos serrados en pacientes que se les realizó colonoscopía en el Centro de Gastroenterología Avanzada, en el período comprendido entre enero del año 2015 y marzo del año 2017. Santo Domingo: Universidad Iberoamericana (UNIBE); 2018.

14. Rodríguez Díaz CI, Caimares Gautreau AG. Diferencia en la tasa de detección de adenomas utilizando luz blanca convencional versus imagen en color vinculada con inteligencia artificial como método de evaluación de la mucosa colónica, en una Unidad de Endoscopía de Santo Domingo en el periodo de enero a diciembre 2022 [Tesis]. Santo Domingo: Universidad Nacional Pedro Henríquez Ureña; 2023.

15. Penz D, Ferlitsch A, Waldmann E, Irina G, Daniel P, Asaturi A, et al. Impact of adenoma detection rate on detection of advanced adenomas and endoscopic adverse events in a study of over 200,000 screening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020; 91(1):135–141.