Dataset Information

Risks associated with colonoscopy in a population-based colon screening program: an observational cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The risks associated with colonoscopy performed through the British Columbia Colon Screening Program (BCCSP) are not known. We aimed to determine the rate of colonoscopy-related serious adverse events within this program.

Methods

For this prospective observational study, we used the BCCSP database to identify participants 50 to 74 years of age who had a positive result on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) between Nov. 15, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2017, followed by colonoscopy. Unplanned medical events were recorded at the time of colonoscopy and 14 days later. We reviewed the unplanned events and defined them as serious adverse events if they resulted in death, hospital admission or intervention; we also classified them as probably, possibly or unlikely related to the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was the overall rate of serious adverse events; the secondary outcomes were 14-day post-colonoscopy rates of perforation, bleeding and death.

Results

During the study period, a total of 96 192 colonoscopies were performed by 308 physicians at 50 sites. The median age of patients was 62 (10th-90th percentile 52-71) years, and 56% were male. Of these, 78 831 patients were contacted after the colonoscopy. Serious adverse events were deemed to have occurred in 350 colonoscopies (44 per 10 000, 95% confidence interval [CI] 39-50 per 10 000), with a number needed to harm of 225. Of the 332 (94.9%) serious adverse events that were probably or possibly related to colonoscopy, perforation occurred in 6 (95% CI 5-8) per 10 000 colonoscopies, bleeding in 26 (95% CI 22-30) per 10 000 colonoscopies and death in 3 (95% CI 1-10) per 100 000 colonoscopies.

Interpretation

The rate of serious adverse events associated with colonoscopy in the BCCSP was in keeping with previous publications and met accepted benchmarks. The findings of this study inform stakeholders of the risks associated with colonoscopy in an FIT-based colon screening program.

SUBMITTER: Tomaszewski M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8513602 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Screening colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal carcinoma is provided by several specialties. Few studies have assessed geographic variation in the delivery of this care. Our objective was to investigate how geographic and socioeconomic factors affect who provides screening colonoscopy in Canada. METHODS:This was a population-based cohort of all screening colonoscopy procedures performed at publicly funded Canadian health care facilities (excluding those in Quebec) between April 2008 and March 2015. The main outcome of interest was the proportion of colonoscopy procedures performed by surgeons versus gastroenterologists at the neighbourhood level. Predictors of interest included socioeconomic and geographic variables. We used spatial analysis to evaluate significant clustering of practitioner services and multinomial logistic regression to model predictors. RESULTS:We identified 658 113 screening colonoscopy procedures performed by 1886 providers (1169 surgeons and 717 gastroenterologists) over the study period, of which 353 165 (53.7%) were performed by surgeons. A total of 24.2% of neighbourhoods were located within clusters predominantly served by gastroenterologists, and 19.5% were within surgeon clusters; the remainder were in mixed clusters. Rural neighbourhoods had a significantly increased relative risk of being within a surgeon cluster (relative risk [RR] 5.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.48-8.01) compared to mixed clusters and nearly 100 times higher relative risk of being in a surgeon cluster compared to gastroenterologist clusters (RR 98.95, 95% CI 15.3-427.2). Neighbourhoods with the highest socioeconomic status were 1.74 (95% CI 1.14-2.56) times likelier to be in gastroenterologist clusters than in mixed clusters. INTERPRETATION:Surgeons provide a large proportion of colonoscopy procedures in Canada and are essential for access to care, particularly in rural regions. Most Canadians are served relatively equally by surgeons and gastroenterologists. This emphasizes the importance of both specialties to the delivery of colonoscopy care across the country.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough some countries have implemented widespread colonoscopy screening, most European countries have not introduced it because of uncertainty regarding participation rates, procedure-related pain and discomfort, endoscopist performance, and effectiveness. To our knowledge, no randomized trials on colonoscopy screening currently exist.ObjectiveTo investigate participation rate, adenoma yield, performance, and adverse events of population-based colonoscopy screening in several European countries.Design, setting, and populationA population-based randomized clinical trial was conducted among 94 959 men and women aged 55 to 64 years of average risk for colon cancer in Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden from June 8, 2009, to June 23, 2014.InterventionsColonoscopy screening or no screening.Main outcomes and measuresParticipation in colonoscopy screening, cancer and adenoma yield, and participant experience. Study outcomes were compared by country and endoscopist.ResultsOf 31 420 eligible participants randomized to the colonoscopy group, 12 574 (40.0%) underwent screening. Participation rates were 60.7% in Norway (5354 of 8816), 39.8% in Sweden (486 of 1222), 33.0% in Poland (6004 of 18 188), and 22.9% in the Netherlands (730 of 3194) (P < .001). The cecum intubation rate was 97.2% (12 217 of 12 574), with 9726 participants (77.4%) not receiving sedation. Of the 12 574 participants undergoing colonoscopy screening, we observed 1 perforation (0.01%), 2 postpolypectomy serosal burns (0.02%), and 18 cases of bleeding owing to polypectomy (0.14%). Sixty-two individuals (0.5%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 3861 (30.7%) had adenomas, of which 1304 (10.4%) were high-risk adenomas. Detection rates were similar in the proximal and distal colon. Performance differed significantly between endoscopists; recommended benchmarks for cecal intubation (95%) and adenoma detection (25%) were not met by 6 (17.1%) and 10 of 35 endoscopists (28.6%), respectively. Moderate or severe abdominal pain after colonoscopy was reported by 601 of 3611 participants (16.7%) examined with standard air insufflation vs 214 of 5144 participants (4.2%) examined with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceColonoscopy screening entails high detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Participation rates and endoscopist performance vary significantly. Postprocedure abdominal pain is common with standard air insufflation and can be significantly reduced by using CO2.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00883792.

Project description:BackgroundIn current care, patients' personal and self-reported family histories are primarily used to determine whether genetic testing for hereditary endocrine tumor syndromes (ETS) is indicated. Population genomic screening for other conditions has increased ascertainment of individuals with pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants, leading to improved management and earlier diagnoses. It is unknown whether such benefits occur when screening broader populations for P/LP ETS variants. This manuscript assesses clinical utility outcomes of a large, unselected, healthcare-based genomic screening program by describing personal and family history of syndrome-related features, risk management behaviors after result disclosure, and rates of relevant post-disclosure diagnoses in patient-participants with P/LP ETS variants.MethodsObservational study of individuals informed of a P/LP variant in MEN1, RET, SDHAF2, SDHB, SDHC, SDHD, or VHL through Geisinger's MyCode Community Health Initiative between June 2016 and October 2019. Electronic health records (EHRs) of participants were evaluated for a report of pre-disclosure personal and self-reported family histories and post-disclosure risk management and diagnoses.ResultsP/LP variants in genes of interest were identified in 199 of 130,490 (1 in 656) adult Geisinger MyCode patient-participants, 80 of which were disclosed during the study period. Eighty-one percent (n = 65) did not have prior evidence of the result in their EHR and, because they were identified via MyCode, were included in further analyses. Five participants identified via MyCode (8%) had a personal history of syndrome-related features; 16 (25%) had a positive self-reported family history. Time from result disclosure to EHR review was a median of 0.7 years. Post-disclosure, 36 (55.4%) completed a recommended risk management behavior; 11 (17%) were diagnosed with a syndrome-related neoplasm after completing a risk management intervention.ConclusionsBroader screening for pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants associated with endocrine tumor syndromes enables detection of at-risk individuals, leads to the uptake of risk management, and facilitates relevant diagnoses. Further research will be necessary to continue to determine the clinical utility of screening diverse, unselected populations for such variants.