Search

Background and Aim: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder associated with other somatic disorders. We studied the prevalence and predictors of fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in IBS patients. Methods: We used the National Inpatient Sample and included hospitalization of individuals with IBS, using ICD-10 codes, from 2016–2019. The prevalence and predictors of fibromyalgia and CFS in IBS patients were studied. Univariate and multivariate patient- and hospital-level regression models were used to calculate the adjusted odds of fibromyalgia and CFS in the IBS patient population. Results: Of 1,256,325 patients with an ICD-10 code of IBS included in the study, 10.73% (134,890) also had ICD-10 codes for fibromyalgia and 0.42% (5220) for CFS. The prevalence of fibromyalgia and CFS was significantly higher in IBS patients (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 5.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.24–5.41, p < 0.001, and AOR 5.40, 95% CI 5.04–5.78, p < 0.001, respectively) compared to the general adult population without IBS. IBS-diarrhea, IBS-constipation, and IBS-mixed types were independently associated with increased odds of fibromyalgia and CFS. Increasing age (AOR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.04, p 0.003; AOR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.03, p 0.001), female gender (AOR 11.2, 95% CI 11.1–11.4, p < 0.001; AOR 1.86, 95% CI 1.78–1.93, p < 0.001) and white race (AOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.95–2.12, p < 0.001; AOR 1.69, 95% CI 1.34–2.13, p < 0.001) were independent predictors of increased odds of fibromyalgia and CFS, respectively. Conclusions: It appears that IBS is associated with an increased prevalence of somatic disorders such as fibromyalgia and CFS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) symptoms often overlap. In some IBS cases there are subtle inflammatory changes similar to the immune-mediated pathophysiology of IBD, and the risk of both increases after infectious gastroenteritis (IGE). Methods: To evaluate the effect of IBS and IGE on IBD risk utilizing US Department of Defense medical encounter data, active duty personnel with IBS were matched to subjects without IBS. Medical encounter history was analyzed to assess for incident IBD. IGE was identified from documented medical encounters and by self-report. Relative risks were calculated using Poisson regression models. Results: We identified 9,341 incident IBS cases and 18,678 matched non-IBS subjects and found an 8.6-fold higher incidence (p<0.0001) of IBD among those with IBS (238.1 per 100,000 person-years) compared to our referent population (27.8 per 100,000 person-years). In a subset (n = 2,205) of well-defined IBS cases, IBD risk was 15 times that of subjects without IBS. The median time between IBS and IBD diagnoses was 2.1 years. IGE also increased IBD risk approximately 2-fold (p<0.05) after controlling for IBS. Conclusions: These data reflect a complex interaction between illness presentation and diagnosis of IBS and IBD and suggest intercurrent IGE may increase IBD risk in IBS patients. Additional studies are needed to determine whether IBS lies on the causal pathway for IBD or whether the two are on a pathophysiological spectrum of the same clinical illness. These data suggest consideration of risk reduction interventions for IGE among IBS patients at high disease risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Military personnel are frequently deployed to regions of the world with high travelers' diarrhea (TD) rates. Pathogens associated with TD have been linked to several post-infectious sequelae, including functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGD), such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and functional dyspepsia. Furthermore, stress associated with deployment may potentiate the increased FGD risk.Aim: We sought to assess whether self-reported diarrhea, vomiting, and stressors during deployment were associated with increased FGD risk.Methods: Using active duty military medical encounter data from the Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS), we conducted a matched case-control study to assess the odds of FGD (IBS, functional constipation, functional diarrhea, dyspepsia) following self-reported diarrhea or vomiting during deployment. Only first-time deployers with detailed self-reporting of deployment-related exposures from 2008 and 2009 were included. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.Results: A total of 129 cases of FGD were identified, with the following distribution: constipation (n = 67), dyspepsia (n = 15), IBS (n = 22), and overlapping disorders (n = 25). Diarrhea and/or vomiting during deployment were significantly associated with the development of FGD. Other demographic factors were also associated with variable risk. We found no consistent effect of war-related stressors or non-combat-related correlates of stress.Conclusions: Deployment-related TD is common in deployed military personnel and is associated with an increased risk of several FGD. When considering effective countermeasures and mitigation strategies, both the acute effects and chronic sequelae of enteric infections should be considered. Increased emphasis on existing and novel primary prevention strategies are needed, as well as outcome studies among those developing these conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES:Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGDs) are recognized sequelae of infectious gastroenteritis (IGE). Within the active duty military population, a group with known high IGE rates, the population-based incidence, risk factors, and attributable burden of care referable to FGD after IGE are poorly defined.METHODS:Using electronic medical encounter data (1999-2007) on active duty US military, a matched, case-control study describing the epidemiology and risk determinants of FGD (irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional constipation (FC), functional diarrhea (FD), dyspepsia (D)) was conducted. Incidence rates and duration of FGD-related medical care were estimated, and conditional logistic regression was utilized to evaluate FGD risk after IGE.RESULTS:A total of 31,866 cases of FGD identified were distributed as follows: FC 55% (n=17,538), D 21.2% (n=6,750), FD 2.1% (n=674), IBS 28.5% (n=9,091). Previous IGE episodes were distributed as follows: specific bacterial pathogen (n=65, 1.2%), bacterial, with no pathogen specified (n=2155, 38.9%), protozoal (n=38, 0.7%), viral (n=3431, 61.9%). A significant association between IGE and all FGD (odds ratio (OR) 2.64; P<0.001) was seen, with highest risk for FD (OR 6.28, P<0.001) and IBS (OR 3.72, P<0.001), and moderate risk for FC (2.15, P<0.001) and D (OR 2.39, P<0.001). Risk generally increased with temporal proximity to, and bacterial etiology of, exposure. Duration of FGD-related care was prolonged with 22.7% having FGD-associated medical encounters 5 years after diagnosis.CONCLUSIONS:FGD are common in this population at high risk for IGE. When considering effective countermeasures and mitigation strategies, attention directed toward prevention as well as the acute and chronic sequelae of these infections is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This real-world US-based claims study compared constipation-related symptoms and complications 6 months before and after prucalopride initiation in adults with chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC)., Methods: This observational, retrospective cohort analysis used the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database and the Medicare Supplemental Database (January 2015-June 2020). Prucalopride-treated patients (≥18 years old) who had ≥1 constipation-related International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification ( ICD-10-CM ) diagnosis code during the baseline or study period were included. The proportions of patients with constipation-related symptoms (abdominal pain, abdominal distension [gaseous], incomplete defecation, and nausea) and constipation-related complications (anal fissure and fistula, intestinal obstruction, rectal prolapse, hemorrhoids, perianal venous thrombosis, perianal/perirectal abscess, and rectal bleeding) were examined. Constipation-related symptoms and complications were identified using ICD-10-CM , ICD-10 - Procedure Coding System , or Current Procedural Terminology codes. Data were stratified by age (overall, 18-64 years, and ≥65 years)., Results: This study included 690 patients: The mean (SD) patient age was 48.0 (14.7) years, and 87.5% were women. The proportions of patients overall with constipation-related symptoms decreased 6 months after prucalopride initiation (abdominal pain [50.4% vs 33.3%, P < 0.001]; abdominal distension [gaseous] [23.9% vs 13.3%, P < 0.001]; and nausea [22.6% vs 17.7%, P < 0.01]; no improvements observed for incomplete defecation). Similarly, the proportions of patients overall with constipation-related complications decreased 6 months after prucalopride initiation (intestinal obstruction [4.9% vs 2.0%, P < 0.001]; hemorrhoids [10.7% vs 7.0%, P < 0.05]; and rectal bleeding [4.1% vs 1.7%, P < 0.05])., Discussion: This study suggests that prucalopride may be associated with improved constipation-related symptoms and complications 6 months after treatment initiation., (Copyright © 2024 Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

The differential diagnosis for left lower quadrant pain is wide and conditions range from the benign and self-limited to life-threatening surgical emergencies. Along with patient history, physical examination, and laboratory tests, imaging is often critical to limit the differential diagnosis and identify life-threatening abnormalities. This document will discuss the guidelines for the appropriate use of imaging in the initial workup for patients who present with left lower quadrant pain, patients with suspected diverticulitis, and patients with suspected complications from diverticulitis. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Acute right upper quadrant pain is one of the most common presenting symptoms in hospital emergency departments, as well as outpatient settings. Although gallstone-related acute cholecystitis is a leading consideration in diagnosis, a myriad of extrabiliary sources including hepatic, pancreatic, gastroduodenal, and musculoskeletal should also be considered. This document focuses on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging studies performed specifically to evaluate acute right upper quadrant pain, with biliary etiologies including acute cholecystitis and its complications being the most common. An additional consideration of extrabiliary sources such as acute pancreatitis, peptic ulcer disease, ascending cholangitis, liver abscess, hepatitis, and painful liver neoplasms remain a diagnostic consideration in the right clinical setting. The use of radiographs, ultrasound, nuclear medicine, CT, and MRI for these indications are discussed. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This document focuses on imaging in the adult and pregnant populations with right lower quadrant (RLQ) abdominal pain, including patients with fever and leukocytosis. Appendicitis remains the most common surgical pathology responsible for RLQ abdominal pain in the United States. Other causes of RLQ pain include right colonic diverticulitis, ureteral stone, and infectious enterocolitis. Appropriate imaging in the diagnosis of appendicitis has resulted in decreased negative appendectomy rate from as high as 25% to approximately 1% to 3%. Contrast-enhanced CT remains the primary and most appropriate imaging modality to evaluate this patient population. MRI is approaching CT in sensitivity and specificity as this technology becomes more widely available and utilization increases. Unenhanced MRI and ultrasound remain the diagnostic procedures of choice in the pregnant patient. MRI and ultrasound continue to perform best in the hands of the experts. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer-reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer-reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Preoperative imaging of rectal carcinoma involves accurate assessment of the primary tumor as well as distant metastatic disease. Preoperative imaging of nonrectal colon cancer is most beneficial in identifying distant metastases, regardless of primary T or N stage. Surgical treatment remains the definitive treatment for colon cancer, while organ-sparing approach may be considered in some rectal cancer patients based on imaging obtained before and after neoadjuvant treatment. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cirrhosis is a heterogeneous disease that cannot be studied as a single entity and is classified in two main prognostic stages: compensated and decompensated cirrhosis. Portal hypertension, characterized by a pathological increase of the portal pressure and by the formation of portal-systemic collaterals that bypass the liver, is the initial and main consequence of cirrhosis and is responsible for the majority of its complications. A myriad of treatment options exists for appropriately managing the most common complications of portal hypertension, including acute variceal bleeding and refractory ascites. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Diverticulosis remains the commonest cause for acute lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding (GIB). Conservative management is initially sufficient for most patients, followed by elective diagnostic tests. However, if acute lower GIB persists, it can be investigated with colonoscopy, CT angiography (CTA), or red blood cell (RBC) scan. Colonoscopy can identify the site and cause of bleeding and provide effective treatment. CTA is a noninvasive diagnostic tool that is better tolerated by patients, can identify actively bleeding site or a potential bleeding lesion in vast majority of patients. RBC scan can identify intermittent bleeding, and with single-photon emission computed tomography, can more accurately localize it to a small segment of bowel. If patients are hemodynamically unstable, CTA and transcatheter arteriography/embolization can be performed. Colonoscopy can also be considered in these patients if rapid bowel preparation is feasible. Transcatheter arteriography has a low rate of major complications; however, targeted transcatheter embolization is only feasible if extravasation is seen, which is more likely in hemodynamically unstable patients. If bleeding site has been previously localized but the intervention by colonoscopy and transcatheter embolization have failed to achieve hemostasis, surgery may be required. Among patients with obscure (nonlocalized) recurrent bleeding, capsule endoscopy and CT enterography can be considered to identify culprit mucosal lesion(s). The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Incidental liver masses are commonly identified on imaging performed for other indications. Since the prevalence of benign focal liver lesions in adults is high, even in patients with primary malignancy, accurate characterization of incidentally detected lesions is of paramount clinical importance. This document reviews utilization of various imaging modalities for characterization of incidentally detected liver lesions, discussed in the context of several clinical scenarios. For each clinical scenario, a summary of current evidence supporting the use of a given diagnostic modality is reported. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Small-bowel obstruction is a common cause of abdominal pain and accounts for a significant proportion of hospital admissions. Radiologic imaging plays the key role in the diagnosis and management of small-bowel obstruction as neither patient presentation, the clinical examination, nor laboratory testing are sufficiently sensitive or specific enough to diagnose or guide management. This document focuses on the imaging evaluation of the two most commonly encountered clinical scenarios related to small-bowel obstruction: the acute presentation and the more indolent, low-grade, or intermittent presentation. This document hopes to clarify the appropriate utilization of the many imaging procedures that are available and commonly employed in these clinical settings. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Hemorrhage, resulting from gastric varies, can be challenging to treat, given the various precipitating etiologies. A wide variety of treatment options exist for managing the diverse range of the underlying disease processes. While cirrhosis is the most common cause for gastric variceal bleeding, occlusion of the portal or splenic vein in noncirrhotic states results in a markedly different treatment paradigm. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Infected fluid collections are common and occur in a variety of clinical scenarios throughout the body. Minimally invasive image-guided management strategies for infected fluid collections are often preferred over more invasive options, given their low rate of complications and high rates of success. However, specific clinical scenarios, anatomic considerations, and prior or ongoing treatments must be considered when determining the optimal management strategy. As such, several common scenarios relating to infected fluid collections were developed using evidence-based guidelines for management. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Three common clinical scenarios involving use of imaging in Crohn disease are covered. These include the initial evaluation of Crohn disease when the diagnosis has not been previously established, the evaluation for anticipated exacerbation of known disease, and the evaluation of disease activity during therapy monitoring. The appropriateness of a given imaging modality for each scenario is rated as one of three categories (usually appropriate, may be appropriate, usually not appropriate) to help guide evaluation. Pediatric presentation of Crohn disease and the appropriateness of imaging are not covered in this document. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is divided into two types: interstitial edematous and necrotizing. AP severity is classified clinically into mild, moderately severe, and severe, depending on the presence and persistence of organ failure and local or systemic complications. The revised Atlanta classification divides the clinical course of AP into an early (first week) and late phase (after first week) and the clinical phase determines the role of imaging. Imaging has a limited role in the early phase. In the early phase with typical presentations of AP, ultrasound is usually the only appropriate modality and is used for the detection of gallstones. CT and MRI are appropriate in the early phase in equivocal presentations. In the late phase (or at least 48-72 hours after presentation), CT and MRI play a primary role in the imaging of patients with AP for evaluation of etiology, complications, extent of disease, intervention, and follow-up; CT is particularly useful in patients with suspected acute hemorrhage. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Palpable abdominal masses may arise from the abdominal cavity or the abdominal wall. The differential diagnosis is broad for each variant ranging from benign lipomas, inflammatory processes, to malignant tumors. The imaging approach to diagnosis varies by location. For intra-abdominal masses, contrast-enhanced CT and ultrasound examination have demonstrated accuracy. For abdominal wall masses, which may arise from muscle, subcutaneous tissue, or connective tissue, MRI, CT, and ultrasound all provide diagnostic value. This publication reviews the current evidence supporting the imaging approach to diagnosis of palpable abdominal masses for two variants: suspected intra-abdominal neoplasm and suspected abdominal wall masses. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Biliary obstruction is a serious condition that can occur in the setting of both benign and malignant pathologies. In the setting of acute cholangitis, biliary decompression can be lifesaving; for patients with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy, untreated obstructive jaundice may lead to biochemical derangements that often preclude continuation of therapy unless biliary decompression is performed (see the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® topic on "Jaundice"). Recommended therapy including percutaneous decompression, endoscopic decompression, and/or surgical decompression is based on the etiology of the obstruction and patient factors including the individual's anatomy. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This review summarizes the relevant literature for the initial imaging of patients with symptoms of dysphagia. For patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia who have an underlying attributable cause, a modified barium swallow is usually appropriate for initial imaging but for those who have unexplained dysphagia a fluoroscopic biphasic esophagram is usually appropriate. Fluoroscopic biphasic esophagram is usually appropriate for initial imaging in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients who have retrosternal dysphagia. For postoperative patients with dysphagia, fluoroscopic single-contrast esophagram and CT neck and chest with intravenous (IV) contrast are usually appropriate for oropharyngeal or retrosternal dysphagia occurring in the early postoperative period where water-soluble contrast is usually preferred rather than barium sulfate. In the later postoperative period (greater than 1 month), CT neck and chest with IV contrast and fluoroscopic single-contrast esophagram are usually appropriate. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Jaundice is the end result of myriad causes, which makes the role of imaging in this setting particularly challenging. In the United States, the most common causes of all types of jaundice fall into four categories including hepatitis, alcoholic liver disease, blockage of the common bile duct by a gallstone or tumor, and toxic reaction to a drug or medicinal herb. Clinically, differentiating between the various potential etiologies of jaundice requires a detailed history, targeted physical examination, and pertinent laboratory studies, the results of which allow the physician to categorize the type of jaundice into mechanical or nonmechanical causes. Imaging modalities used to evaluate the jaundiced patient (all etiologies) include abdominal ultrasound (US), CT, MR cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic US. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This review summarizes the relevant literature regarding imaging of suspected diverticulitis as an etiology for left lower quadrant pain, and imaging of complications of acute diverticulitis. The most common cause of left lower quadrant pain in adults is acute sigmoid or descending colonic diverticulitis. Appropriate imaging triage for patients with suspected diverticulitis should address the differential diagnostic possibilities and what information is necessary to make a definitive management decision. Patients with diverticulitis may require surgery or interventional radiology procedures because of associated complications, including abscesses, fistulas, obstruction, or perforation. As a result, there has been a trend toward greater use of imaging to confirm the diagnosis of diverticulitis, evaluate the extent of disease, and detect complications before deciding on appropriate treatment. Additionally, in the era of bundled payments and minimizing health care costs, patients with acute diverticulitis are being managed on an outpatient basis and rapid diagnostic imaging at the time of initial symptoms helps to streamline and triage patients to the appropriate treatment pathway. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although right upper quadrant pain is a very common clinical presentation, it can be nonspecific. However, acute cholecystitis is very often the diagnosis of exclusion. This review focuses on the recommended imaging evaluation in the most commonly encountered clinical scenarios presenting with right upper quadrant abdominal pain, including suspected biliary disease, suspected acute cholecystitis, and suspected acalculous cholecystitis. This document hopes to clarify the appropriate utilization of the many imaging procedures that are available and commonly employed in these clinical settings. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: European guidelines recommend different surveillance intervals of non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE) based on segment length, as opposed to guidelines in the United States, which do recommend surveillance intervals based on BE length. We studied rates of progression of NDBE to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in patients with short-segment BE using the definition of BE in the latest guidelines (length ≥1 cm)., Methods: We collected demographic, clinical, endoscopy, and histopathology data from 1883 patients with endoscopic evidence of NDBE (mean age, 57.3 years; 83.5% male; 88.1% Caucasians) seen at 7 tertiary referral centers. Patients were followed for a median 6.4 years. Cases of dysplasia or EAC detected within 1 year of index endoscopy were considered prevalent and were excluded. Unadjusted rates of progression to HGD or EAC were compared between patients with short (≥1 and <3) and long (≥3) BE lengths using log-rank tests. A subgroup analysis was performed on patients with a documented Prague C&M classification. We used a multivariable proportional hazards model to evaluate the association between BE length and progression. Adjusted hazards ratios were calculated after adjusting for variables associated with progression., Results: We found 822 patients to have a short-segment BE (SSBE) and 1061 to have long segment BE (LSBE). We found patients with SSBE to have a significantly lower annual rate of progression to EAC (0.07%) than of patients with LSBE (0.25%) (P = .001). For the combined endpoint of HGD or EAC, annual progression rates were significantly lower among patients with SSBE (0.29%) compared to compared to LSBE (0.91%) (P < .001). This effect persisted in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-0.57; P < .001)., Conclusion: We analyzed progression of BE (length ≥1 cm) to HGD or EAC in a large cohort of patients seen at multiple centers and followed for a median 6.4 years. We found a lower annual rate of progression of SSBE to EAC (0.07%/year) than of LSBE (0.25%/year). We propose lengthening current surveillance intervals for patients with SSBE., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Data on time trends of dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) during the index endoscopy (ie, prevalent cases) are limited. Our aim was to determine the prevalence patterns of BE-associated dysplasia on index endoscopy over the past 25 years., Methods: The Barrett's Esophagus Study is a multicenter outcome project of a large cohort of patients with BE. Proportions of patients with index endoscopy findings of no dysplasia (NDBE), low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and EAC were extracted per year of index endoscopy, and 5-yearly patient cohorts were tabulated over years 1990 to 2010+ (2010-current). Prevalent dysplasia and endoscopic findings were trended over the past 25 years using percentage dysplasia (LGD, HGD, EAC, and HGD/EAC) to assess changes in detection of BE-associated dysplasia over the last 25 years. Statistical analysis was done using SAS version 9.4 software (SAS, Cary, NC)., Results: A total of 3643 patients were included in the analysis with index endoscopy showing NDBE in 2513 (70.1%), LGD in 412 (11.5%), HGD in 193 (5.4%), and EAC in 181 (5.1%). Over time, there was an increase in the mean age of patients with BE (51.7 ± 29 years vs 62.6 ± 11.3 years) and the proportion of males (84% vs 92.6%) diagnosed with BE but a decrease in the mean BE length (4.4±4.3 cm vs 2.9±3.0 cm) as time progressed (1990-1994 to 2010-2016 time periods). The presence of LGD on index endoscopy remained stable over 1990 to 2016. However, a significant increase (148% in HGD and 112% in EAC) in the diagnosis of HGD, EAC, and HGD/EAC was noted on index endoscopy over the last 25 years (P < .001). There was also a significant increase in the detection of visible lesions on index endoscopy (1990-1994, 5.1%; to 2005-2009, 6.3%; and 2010+, 16.3%) during the same period., Conclusion: Our results suggest that the prevalence of HGD and EAC has significantly increased over the past 25 years despite a decrease in BE length during the same period. This increase parallels an increase in the detection of visible lesions, suggesting that a careful examination at the index examination is crucial., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Appendicitis remains the most common surgical pathology responsible for right lower quadrant (RLQ) abdominal pain presenting to emergency departments in the United States, where the incidence continues to increase. Appropriate imaging in the diagnosis of appendicitis has resulted in decreased negative appendectomy rate from as high as 25% to approximately 1% to 3%. Contrast-enhanced CT remains the primary and most appropriate imaging modality to evaluate this patient population. MRI is approaching CT in sensitivity and specificity as this technology becomes more widely available and utilization increases. Unenhanced MRI and ultrasound remain the diagnostic procedures of choice in the pregnant patient. MRI and ultrasound continue to perform best in the hands of experts. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This review summarizes the relevant literature regarding colorectal screening with imaging. For individuals at average or moderate risk for colorectal cancer, CT colonography is usually appropriate for colorectal cancer screening. After positive results on a fecal occult blood test or immunohistochemical test, CT colonography is usually appropriate for colorectal cancer detection. For individuals at high risk for colorectal cancer (eg, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn colitis), optical colonoscopy is preferred because of its ability to obtain biopsies to detect dysplasia. After incomplete colonoscopy, CT colonography is usually appropriate for colorectal cancer screening for individuals at average, moderate, or high risk. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Crohn disease is a chronic inflammatory disorder involving the gastrointestinal tract, characterized by episodic flares and times of remission. Underlying structural damage occurs progressively, with recurrent bouts of inflammation. The diagnosis and management of this disease process is dependent on several clinical, laboratory, imaging, endoscopic, and histologic factors. In recent years, with the maturation of CT enterography, and MR enterography, imaging has played an increasingly important role in relation to Crohn Disease. In addition to these specialized examination modalities, ultrasound and routine CT have potential uses. Fluoroscopy, radiography, and nuclear medicine may be less beneficial depending on the clinical scenario. The imaging modality best suited to evaluating this disease may change, depending on the target population, severity of presentation, and specific clinical situation. This document presents seven clinical scenarios (variants) in both the adult and pediatric populations and rates the appropriateness of the available imaging options. They are summarized in a consolidated table, and the underlying rationale and supporting literature are presented in the accompanying narrative. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every three years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Study Aim: Data are limited on the natural history of patients with Barrett's esophagus with a diagnosis of "indefinite for dysplasia" (IND). The aims of this study were to: (i) determine rates of progression to high grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma, and compare these with rates for low grade dysplasia (LGD); and (ii) determine the proportion of patients whose histological IND diagnosis changed on follow-up endoscopy., Patients and Methods: Demographic, endoscopic, and histologic information of patients with diagnoses of IND and LGD and at least 12 months of follow-up were extracted from the database of a multicenter Barrett's esophagus study. Rates and times for progression to HGD and esophageal adenocarcinoma and regression to nondysplastic epithelium were calculated. Proportions of diagnoses upgraded to HGD/esophageal adenocarcinoma or downgraded to nondysplastic epithelium at first follow-up endoscopy were evaluated., Results: Amongst 2264 patients, 83 with a diagnosis of IND (mean age 60 years, 95 % men, 95 % white; mean follow-up 5.6 years) and 79 with diagnosis of LGD were identified. In the IND group, annual incidences of esophageal adenocarcinoma and HGD were 0.21 % and 0.64 %, respectively, representing a combined incidence of 0.8 %. Mean time to progression was 4.72 years. Within the IND group 55 % patients showed regression to nondysplastic epithelium at first follow-up endoscopy and the overall regression rate was 80 %. Corresponding rates in LGD patients were similar., Conclusions: Lesions diagnosed as IND and LGD show similar biological behavior and can be treated as a single category with respect to surveillance and follow-up., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every two years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. The Atlanta Classification by the Acute Pancreatitis Classification Working Group recently modified the terminology for the clinical course and the morphologic changes identified on imaging, primarily contrast- enhanced multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). The two distinct clinical courses of the disease are classified as (1) early phase, which lasts approximately 1 week, and (2) late phase, which starts after the first week and can last for months after the initial episode. The two, primary, morphologic changes are acute, interstitial edematous and necrotizing pancreatitis. Timing of imaging, primarily MDCT, is based on the clinical phases and is, therefore, important for these imaging guidelines. Ultrasound's role is to detect gallstones after the first episode. MDCT plays a primary role in the management of acutely ill patients, only after a minimum of 48-72 hours and generally after one week. MR plays a supplementary role to MDCT. Follow-up MDCT guides management and therapy: percutaneous aspiration of fluid collections and/or placement of large caliber catheters in infected necrosis.

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most colorectal cancers can be prevented by detecting and removing the precursor adenomatous polyp. Individual risk factors for the development of colorectal cancer will influence the particular choice of screening tool. CT colonography (CTC) is the primary imaging test for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals, whereas the double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) is now considered to be a test that may be appropriate, particularly in settings where CTC is unavailable. Single-contrast barium enema has a lower performance profile and is indicated for screening only when CTC and DCBE are not available. CTC is also the preferred test for colon evaluation following an incomplete colonoscopy. Imaging tests including CTC and DCBE are not indicated for colorectal cancer screening in high-risk patients with polyposis syndromes or inflammatory bowel disease. This paper presents the updated colorectal cancer imaging test ratings and is the result of evidence-based consensus by the ACR Appropriateness Criteria Expert Panel on Gastrointestinal Imaging. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Acute right upper quadrant pain is a common presenting symptom in patients with acute cholecystitis. When acute cholecystitis is suspected in patients with right upper quadrant pain, in most clinical scenarios, the initial imaging modality of choice is ultrasound. Although cholescintigraphy has been shown to have slightly higher sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis, ultrasound is preferred as the initial study for a variety of reasons, including greater availability, shorter examination time, lack of ionizing radiation, morphologic evaluation, confirmation of the presence or absence of gallstones, evaluation of bile ducts, and identification or exclusion of alternative diagnoses. CT or MRI may be helpful in equivocal cases and may identify complications of acute cholecystitis. When ultrasound findings are inconclusive, MRI is the preferred imaging test in pregnant patients who present with right upper quadrant pain. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: It is not clear whether length of Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a risk factor for high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in patients with nondysplastic BE. We studied the risk of progression to HGD or EAC in patients with nondysplastic BE, based on segment length., Methods: We analyzed data from a large cohort of patients participating in the BE Study-a multicenter outcomes project comprising 5 US tertiary care referral centers. Histologic changes were graded as low-grade dysplasia, HGD, or EAC. The study included patients with BE of documented length without dysplasia and at least 1 year of follow-up evaluation (n = 1175; 88% male), and excluded patients who developed HGD or EAC within 1 year of their BE diagnosis. The mean follow-up period was 5.5 y (6463 patient-years). The annual risk of HGD and EAC was plotted in 3-cm increments (≤3 cm, 4-6 cm, 7-9 cm, 10-12 cm, and ≥13 cm). We calculated the association between time to progression and length of BE., Results: The mean BE length was 3.6 cm; 44 patients developed HGD or EAC, with an annual incidence rate of 0.67%/y. Compared with nonprogressors, patients who developed HGD or EAC had longer BE segments (6.1 vs 3.5 cm; P < .001). Logistic regression analysis showed a 28% increase in risk of HGD or EAC for every 1-cm increase in BE length (P = .01). Patients with BE segment lengths of 3 cm or shorter took longer to develop HGD or EAC than those with lengths longer than 4 cm (6 vs 4 y; P = nonsignificant)., Conclusions: In patients with BE without dysplasia, length of BE was associated with progression to HGD or EAC. The results support the development of a risk stratification scheme for these patients based on length of BE segment., (Copyright © 2013 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Guidelines recommend that patients with symptoms of nonconstipated irritable bowel syndrome (NC-IBS) undergo testing for celiac disease (CD). We evaluated the prevalence of CD antibodies, and biopsy confirmed CD among patients with NC-IBS in a large US population., Methods: In a study conducted at 4 sites, from 2003 to 2008, we compared data from 492 patients with symptoms of NC-IBS to 458 asymptomatic individuals who underwent colonoscopy examinations for cancer screening or polyp surveillance (controls). All participants provided blood samples for specific and nonspecific CD-associated antibodies. Additionally, patients with IBS were analyzed for complete blood cell counts, metabolic factors, erythrocyte sedimentation rates, and levels of C-reactive protein and thyroid-stimulating hormone. Any subjects found to have CD-associated antibodies were offered esophagogastroduodenoscopy and duodenal biopsy analysis., Results: Of patients with NC-IBS, 7.3% had abnormal results for CD-associated antibodies, compared with 4.8% of controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.76-2.90; P=.25). Within the NC-IBS group, 6.51% had antibodies against gliadin, 1.22% against tissue transglutaminase, and 0.61% against endomysium (P>.05 vs controls for all antibodies tested). CD was confirmed in 0.41% of patients in the NC-IBS group and 0.44% of controls (P>.99)., Conclusions: Although CD-associated antibodies are relatively common, the prevalence of CD among patients with NC-IBS is similar to that among controls in a large US population. These findings challenge recommendations to routinely screen patients with NC-IBS for CD. More than 7% of patients with NC-IBS had CD-associated antibodies, suggesting that gluten sensitivity might mediate IBS symptoms; further studies are needed., (Copyright © 2011 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is placed on results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and are graded on the quality of the supporting evidence (Table 1). The strength of individual recommendations is based on both the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as "we suggest," whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as "we recommend." This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient's condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this guideline., (Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: There are limited data on the yield of colonoscopy in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). This study compared the prevalence of structural colonic lesions in patients with suspected non-constipation-predominant IBS and healthy volunteers. We also determined the yield of rectosigmoid biopsies in patients with suspected IBS., Methods: This was a prospective, case-control study conducted at three US sites. Patients with suspected non-constipation-predominant IBS (Rome II) underwent colonoscopy with rectosigmoid biopsies. Healthy persons undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening or polyp surveillance comprised the control group. Abnormalities identified at colonoscopy were compared between suspected IBS and control groups., Results: In all, 466 suspected IBS patients and 451 controls were enrolled. Suspected IBS patients were significantly younger (P<0.0001) and more frequently female (P<0.0001) than controls. The most common lesions in suspected IBS patients were hemorrhoids (18.2%), polyps (14.6%), and diverticulosis (8.8%). Suspected IBS patients had a lower prevalence of adenomas (7.7% vs. 26.1%, P<0.0001) and diverticulosis (8.8% vs. 21.3%, P<0.0001) and higher prevalence of mucosal erythema or ulceration (4.9% vs. 1.8%, P<0.01) compared with controls. Logistic regression found the between-group differences in adenoma prevalence to be robust after correction for demographic factors. The overall prevalence of microscopic colitis in suspected IBS patients was 1.5% (7/466) and 2.3% (4/171) in those > or =45 years of age., Conclusions: The prevalence of structural abnormalities of the colon is no higher in suspected non-constipation IBS patients than in healthy controls. Microscopic colitis can be identified in a small proportion of persons with IBS symptoms.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a commonly encountered condition seen in multiple medical specialties. Recent research has brought dramatic advances in our understanding of the epidemiology, burden of illness, diagnosis, and management of IBS. It is now widely accepted that the prevalence of IBS is between 10% and 20% of the US population and that the direct and indirect costs associated with IBS are significant. The processes required for diagnosis of IBS remain controversial. Scant evidence exists to support exhaustive diagnostic evaluations, and IBS is no longer considered a diagnosis of exclusion. The use of standardized symptom-based criteria remains to be perfected, and the diagnosis is often arrived at only after multiple laboratory, endoscopic, and radiologic examinations. The effects of treatment for IBS mirror the heterogeneous nature of the condition. No single medication has proven to be universally effective, and multiple therapeutic approaches exist. Greater understanding of gastrointestinal neurophysiology has led to promising advances in medical and nonmedical approaches to IBS.