Repeat colonoscopy has a low yield even in symptomatic patients - 16/08/11
Perth, Western Australia
Abstract |
Background |
In many regions, the demand for colonoscopy exceeds its availability. Patients undergoing repeat examinations comprise a significant proportion of those on waiting lists.
Objective |
To assess the yield of repeat colonoscopy in varied clinical settings.
Design |
Cohort study.
Setting |
Endoscopic database of an Australian tertiary referral hospital.
Patients |
Adults who had ≥2 colonoscopies between 1992 and 2004. Patients were excluded if the repeat procedure was for completion or for high-risk surveillance.
Main Outcome Measurements |
Yield for neoplasia by indication, interval to repeat examination, and appropriateness for surveillance (determined by National Australian guidelines).
Results |
A total of 4974 colonoscopies in 2075 patients were studied. The mean age was 63.1 years (range, 19.2-92.4 years). The mean number of examinations was 2.4 (range, 2-8), with a mean interval between examinations of 2.9 years. Colorectal cancer (CRC) was significantly more prevalent at initial colonoscopy compared with subsequent colonoscopies (7.9% vs 0.6%; prevalence ratio 14.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.5-23.7, P < .001), as were advanced adenomas (15.3% vs 4.8%; prevalence ratio 3.2, 95% CI 2.6-3.9, P < .001). No CRCs were detected in symptomatic patients undergoing polyp surveillance examinations performed before the recommended interval.
Limitations |
Retrospective design.
Conclusions |
Yield of repeat colonoscopy is significantly lower than for initial colonoscopy, irrespective of indication. In symptomatic patients within a polyp surveillance program, the yield is negligible when a colonoscopy is performed before the recommended surveillance interval. The need for a repeat colonoscopy should be carefully considered, and patients who have never had a colonoscopy must take priority on waiting lists over those awaiting repeat examinations.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Vol 64 - N° 6
P. 941-947 - décembre 2006 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
