Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Sano Y, Chiu HM, Li XB, Khomvilai S, Pisespongsa P, Co JT, et al.
    Dig Endosc, 2019 May;31(3):227-244.
    PMID: 30589103 DOI: 10.1111/den.13330
    BACKGROUND AND AIM: In recent years, the incidence of colorectal cancer has been increasing, and it is now becoming the major cause of cancer death in Asian countries. The aim of the present study was to develop Asian expert-based consensus to standardize the preparation, detection and characterization for the diagnosis of early-stage colorectal neoplasia.

    METHODS: A professional group was formed by 36 experts of the Asian Novel Bio-Imaging and Intervention Group (ANBI2 G) members. Representatives from 12 Asia-Pacific countries participated in the meeting. The group organized three consensus meetings focusing on diagnostic endoscopy for gastrointestinal neoplasia. The Delphi method was used to develop the consensus statements.

    RESULTS: Through the three consensus meetings with debating, reviewing the literature and regional data, a consensus was reached at third meeting in 2016. The consensus was reached on a total of 10 statements. Summary of statements is as follows: (i) Adequate bowel preparation for high-quality colonoscopy; (ii) Antispasmodic agents for lesion detection; (iii) Image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) for polyp detection; (iv) Adenoma detection rate for quality indicators; (v) Good documentation of colonoscopy findings; (vi) Complication rates; (vii) Cecal intubation rate; (viii) Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for polyp detection; (ix) Macroscopic classification using indigocarmine spray for characterization of colorectal lesions; and (x) IEE and/or magnifying endoscopy for prediction of histology.

    CONCLUSION: This consensus provides guidance for carrying out endoscopic diagnosis and characterization for early-stage colorectal neoplasia based on the evidence. This will enhance the quality of endoscopic diagnosis and improve detection of early-stage colorectal neoplasia.

    Matched MeSH terms: Colonoscopy/standards*
  2. Chan WK, Saravanan A, Manikam J, Goh KL, Mahadeva S
    BMC Gastroenterol, 2011;11:86.
    PMID: 21798022 DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-11-86
    Risk factors for poor bowel preparation are recognized to be independent of the type of bowel preparation method used. Patient and administrative factors influencing bowel preparation are known to vary in different healthcare systems.
    Matched MeSH terms: Colonoscopy/standards*
  3. Tan YM, Goh KL
    Med J Malaysia, 2004 Mar;59(1):34-8.
    PMID: 15535333 MyJurnal
    An open access endoscopy system allows for the direct scheduling of endoscopies by non-gastroenterologist physicians without prior gastroenterology consultation. The aim of our study was to examine our practice of open access endoscopy by evaluating the appropriateness of referrals for colonoscopy and to determine whether there were differences depending on the specialty of the referring clinician. The indication for colonoscopy was assessed in 499 consecutive outpatients referred for colonoscopy at University Hospital, Kuala Lumpur over a 12-month period. The American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines were used to determine the appropriateness of referrals. 80.6% of colonoscopies requested by the gastroenterologist were performed for accepted indications compared to 50.6% of referrals by the primary care physician (p<0.001) and 67.0% of referrals by the surgeon (p=0.006). The rate of colonoscopies generally not indicated was 2.1% for the gastroenterologist, 25.0% for the internist (p=0.002) and 7.5% for the surgeon (p=0.04). The rate of indications not listed in the ASGE guidelines was significantly lower for requests made by gastroenterologists (17.3%) than those requested by primary care physicians (44.2%; p<0.001). Patients who have had prior consultation with the gastroenterologist were significantly more likely to undergo colonoscopy for appropriate indications than among patients who were referred through an open access system. The rate of inappropriate indications for colonoscopy was also significantly lower when the gastroenterologist made the referral. A substantial proportion of colonoscopies (25.4%) was performed for indications not listed in the ASGE guidelines.
    Matched MeSH terms: Colonoscopy/standards*
  4. Lee WS, Tee CW, Koay ZL, Wong TS, Zahraq F, Foo HW, et al.
    World J Gastroenterol, 2018 Mar 07;24(9):1013-1021.
    PMID: 29531465 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i9.1013
    AIM: To study implications of measuring quality indicators on training and trainees' performance in pediatric colonoscopy in a low-volume training center.

    METHODS: We reviewed retrospectively the performance of pediatric colonoscopies in a training center in Malaysia over 5 years (January 2010-December 2015), benchmarked against five quality indicators: appropriateness of indications, bowel preparations, cecum and ileal examination rates, and complications. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline for pediatric endoscopy and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition training guidelines were used as benchmarks.

    RESULTS: Median (± SD) age of 121 children [males = 74 (61.2%)] who had 177 colonoscopies was 7.0 (± 4.6) years. On average, 30 colonoscopies were performed each year (range: 19-58). Except for investigations of abdominal pain (21/177, 17%), indications for colonoscopies were appropriate in the remaining 83%. Bowel preparation was good in 87%. One patient (0.6%) with severe Crohn's disease had bowel perforation. Cecum examination and ileal intubation rate was 95% and 68.1%. Ileal intubation rate was significantly higher in diagnosing or assessing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) than non-IBD (72.9% vs 50.0% P = 0.016). Performance of four trainees was consistent throughout the study period. Average cecum and ileal examination rate among trainees were 97% and 77%.

    CONCLUSION: Benchmarking against established guidelines helps units with a low-volume of colonoscopies to identify area for further improvement.

    Matched MeSH terms: Colonoscopy/standards*
  5. Janahiraman S, Tay CY, Lee JM, Lim WL, Khiew CH, Ishak I, et al.
    BMJ Open Gastroenterol, 2020 05;7(1).
    PMID: 32371502 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2020-000376
    OBJECTIVE: Preprocedural bowel preparation is necessary for optimal colonoscopy visualisation. However, it is challenging to achieve high-quality bowel preparation among patients scheduled for colonoscopy. This study aims to evaluate the impact of an intensive patient educational programme on the quality of bowel preparation.

    DESIGN: An accessor-blinded randomised controlled trial was carried out at the outpatient surgical clinic of a tertiary hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to the control group (received standard written and verbal instructions) or the experimental group (received an intensive and structured educational programme). All subjects completed a questionnaire before colonoscopy to assess their compliance, acceptability, and tolerability towards bowel preparation regime. Quality of bowel preparation was determined using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

    RESULTS: A total of 300 subjects who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were recruited. The experimental group had a significantly higher proportion of good quality bowel preparation than the control group (98.7% vs 52.3%, p<0.001). The median total BBPS score was also significantly higher in the experimental group (8 vs 5, p<0.001). Factors associated with good quality of bowel preparation included educational programme (OR: 22.79, 95% CI: 4.23 to 122.85, p<0.001), compliance to bowel cleansing agent (OR: 24.98, 95% CI 3.12 to 199.71, p<0.001), very difficult acceptability of preparation (OR: 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38, p<0.001), tolerability towards bowel preparation (OR: 4.98, 95% CI 1.44 to 17.20, p<0.011) and hypomotility drugs (OR: 3.03, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.91, p<0.05).

    CONCLUSION: An intensive patient educational programme can significantly improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

    Matched MeSH terms: Colonoscopy/standards*
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links