Predictive factors affecting cecal intubation failure in colonoscopy trainees

Hong-Jun Park, Jin-Heon Hong, Hyun-Soo Kim, Bo-Ra Kim, So-Yeon Park, Ki-Won Jo, Jae-Woo Kim, Hong-Jun Park, Jin-Heon Hong, Hyun-Soo Kim, Bo-Ra Kim, So-Yeon Park, Ki-Won Jo, Jae-Woo Kim

Abstract

Background: Successful cecal intubation (SCI) is not only a quality indicator but also an important marker in a colonoscopy trainee's progress. We conducted this study to determine factors predicting SCI in colonoscopy trainees, and to compare these factors before and after trainees achieve technical competence.

Methods: Design of this study was a cross-sectional studies of two time series design for one year at a single center. From March 2011 to February 2012, a total 2,050 subjects who underwent colonoscopy by four first-year gastrointestinal fellows were enrolled at Christian hospital, Wonju, Republic of Korea. Four gastrointestinal fellows have filled out the colonoscopic documentation. Main outcome measurement was predictive factors affecting cecal intubation failure and learning curves.

Results: Colonoscopy was successfully completed to the cecum in 1,720 patients (83.9%). Success rates gradually increased as trainees performed more colonoscopies: the rate of SCI was 62% in the first 50 cases, and grew to 93% by the 250th case. Logistic regression analysis of factors affecting cecal intubation failure showed that female gender, low BMI (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²), poor bowel preparation, and past history of stomach surgery were more often associated with cecal intubation failure, particularly before the trainees achieved technical competence.

Conclusion: Several patient characteristics were identified that may predict difficulty of cecal intubation in colonoscopy trainees. Particularly, low BMI, inadequate bowel cleansing, and previous stomach operation were predictors of cecal intubation failure before the trainees have reached technical competency. The results could be informative so that trainees enhance the success rate regarding better colonoscopy training programs.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cecal intubation rate learning curves. The learning curve for average successful cecal intubation rates within 15 minutes based on the number of colonoscopies is shown. (P < 0.05 with the Turkey test, error bars represent the 95% confidence interval). Cecal intubation rates reach the 92.5% at 250-300th procedures.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cecal intubation time learning curves. The learning curve for average cecal intubation times is shown. (Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval). A significant inverse correlation between cecal intubation times and level of experience is shown.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Withdrawal time learning curves. The learning curve for average withdrawal times is shown. (Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval). Withdrawal times decrease with the level of experience, but steady around 10 minutes after 150 procedures.

References

    1. Citarda F, Tomaselli G, Capocaccia R. et al.Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut. 2001;48:812–815. doi: 10.1136/gut.48.6.812.
    1. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ. et al.Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:687–696. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1100370.
    1. Dafnis G, Granath F, Pahlman L. et al.The impact of endoscopists’ experience and learning curves and interendoscopist variation on colonoscopy completion rates. Endoscopy. 2001;33:511–517. doi: 10.1055/s-2001-14964.
    1. Lee SH, Chung IK, Kim SJ. et adequate level of training for technical competence in screening and diagnostic colonoscopy: a prospective multicenter evaluation of the learning curve. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:683–689. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.10.018.
    1. Chung JI, Kim N, Um MS. et al.Learning curves for colonoscopy: a prospective evaluation of gastroenterology fellows at a single center. Gut Liver. 2010;4:31–35. doi: 10.5009/gnl.2010.4.1.31.
    1. Spier BJ, Benson M, Pfau PR. et al.Colonoscopy training in gastroenterology fellowships: determining competence. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:319–324. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.05.012.
    1. Oh SY, Sohn CI, Sung IK. et al.Factors affecting the technical difficulty of colonoscopy. Hepatogastroenterology. 2007;54:1403–1406.
    1. Shah HA, Paszat LF, Saskin R. et al.Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: a population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:2297–2303. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.03.032.
    1. Bernstein C, Thorn M, Monsees K. et al.A prospective study of factors that determine cecal intubation time at colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:72–75. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(04)02461-7.
    1. Anderson JC, Messina CR, Cohn W. et al.Factors predictive of difficult colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:558–562. doi: 10.1067/mge.2001.118950.
    1. DiPalma JA, Wolff BG, Meagher A. et al.Comparison of reduced volume versus four liters sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solutions for colonoscopy colon cleansing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:2187–2191. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07690.x.
    1. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, Chak A, Cohen J, Deal SE. et al.Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(4):873–885.
    1. Sedlack RE. The mayo colonoscopy skills assessment tool: validation of a unique instrument to assess colonoscopy skills in trainees. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(6):1125–1133. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.09.001. 1133.e1-3.
    1. Sedlack RE. Training to competency in colonoscopy: assessing and defining competency standards. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:355–366. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.02.019. e1-2.
    1. WHO expert consultation. Appropriate body-mass index for asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies. Lancet. 2004;363:157–163.
    1. Chak A, Cooper GS, Blades EW. et al.Prospective assessment of colonoscopic intubation skills in trainees. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:54–57. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(96)70229-8.
    1. Lieberman DA, Faigel DO, Logan JR. et al.Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports: results from a multicenter consortium. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:645–653. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.08.034.
    1. Waye JD, Bashkoff E. Total colonoscopy: is it always possible? Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:152–154. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(91)70674-3.
    1. Church JM. Complete colonoscopy: how often? and if not, why not? Am J Gastroenterol. 1994;89:556–560.
    1. Varela JE, Hiyashi M, Nguyen T. et al.Comparison of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Am J Surg. 2006;192:837–842. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.08.054.
    1. Leung JW, Mann SK, Siao-Salera R, Ransibrahmanakul K, Lim B, Cabrera H. et al.A randomized, controlled comparison of warm water infusion in lieu of air insufflation versus air insufflation for aiding colonoscopy insertion in sedated patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70(3):505–510. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.12.253.
    1. Leung FW, Harker JO, Jackson G, Okamoto KE, Behbahani OM, Jamgotchian NJ. et al.A proof-of-principle, prospective, randomized, controlled trial demonstrating improved outcomes in scheduled unsedated colonoscopy by the water method. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(4):693–700. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.05.020.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren