Search

Introduction: Given the sparsity of longitudinal studies on colonoscopy use, we quantified utilization of repeat colonoscopy within 10 years and the proportion of persons with polypectomies at first repeat colonoscopy using a large German claims database., Methods: Based on the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database, we identified persons who underwent colonoscopy between 2006 and 2015 (index colonoscopy) and assessed colonoscopies and polypectomies during follow-up. We defined 3 subcohorts based on available procedure/diagnosis codes at index colonoscopy: persons with snare polypectomy, which is reimbursable for lesions ≥5 mm in size (cohort 1), with a forceps polypectomy (cohort 2), and without such procedures/diagnoses (cohort 3). We stratified all analyses by diagnostic vs screening index colonoscopy., Results: Overall, we included 3,076,657 persons (cohort 1-3: 15%, 13%, 72%). Among persons with screening index colonoscopy (30%), the proportions with a repeat colonoscopy within 10 years in cohorts 1, 2, and 3 were 78%, 66%, and 43%, respectively, and a snare polypectomy at first repeat colonoscopy was performed in 27%, 17%, and 12%, respectively. In cohort 1, 32% of persons with a (first) repeat colonoscopy after 9 years had a snare polypectomy (after 3 years: 25%). Among persons with diagnostic index colonoscopies, 80%, 78%, and 65% had a repeat colonoscopy, and 27%, 17%, and 10% had a snare polypectomy at first repeat colonoscopy, respectively., Discussion: Our study suggests substantial underuse of repeat colonoscopy among persons with previous snare polypectomy and overuse among lower risk groups. One-quarter of persons with a snare polypectomy at baseline had another snare polypectomy at first repeat colonoscopy., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Introduction: Colonoscopy is an imperfect gold standard for detecting colorectal neoplasms because some proportion of adenomas may be missed, mainly small lesions. This proportion is expected to be higher in case of inadequate bowel cleansing, which is frequently seen in routine practice. We estimated the proportions of neoplasms that are in principle detectable by colonoscopy but might be missed in case of incomplete bowel preparation., Methods: For 8,193 participants of screening colonoscopy in South-Western Germany, recruited between 2005 and 2016, the prevalence and numbers of different findings were extracted from colonoscopy reports and compared according to the reported bowel preparation quality., Results: Bowel preparation quality was reported as good, poor, or was unspecified in 30.3%, 11.1%, and 58.6% of colonoscopy records. Reported prevalences of nonadvanced adenomas (NAAs) were similar among participants with poor and unspecified bowel preparation quality but substantially lower than among participants with good bowel preparation (adjusted prevalence rate ratio [RR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-0.96). The differences were observed for proximal but not for distal NAAs (RRs 0.82, 95% CI: 0.71-0.95 and 0.95, 95% CI: 0.82-1.10)., Discussion: Our study suggests that a significant proportion of NAAs located in the proximal colon might be missed during colonoscopy if bowel cleansing is not adequate. Major efforts should be made to further facilitate and enhance high-quality bowel preparation in routine screening practice.