‘Do no harm’: an intuitive decision tool to assess the need for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Introduction

A fundamental principle of medical ethics states: “Above all, do no harm” [1]. Such maxim serves as a reminder to physicians that they need to be aware of the potential harms of their medical interventions. Because almost all medical interventions are associated with some downsides and costs, however, it is impractical to observe such maxim literally and without also balancing the benefit or effectiveness of an intervention with its cost.

Cost-effectiveness analyses have been used to develop guidelines of when to perform an endoscopy [2] [3] [4] [5]. Cost-effectiveness is generally calculated from a societal perspective to account for all personal and collective monetary costs that arise from an endoscopic procedure. The effectiveness of the procedure is measured in life-years saved through endoscopy, which may also become adjusted to their quality as quality adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness analyses have proven helpful in forming national policies or professional guidelines, but are impractical as instruments for dealing with individual patients. It would be difficult to account at the bedside for all the potential costs of endoscopy and its probable impact on life expectancy. Guidelines by professional societies, such as the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, provide general rules for managing common medical conditions. They cannot cover all intricacies encountered in the daily routine of managing individual patients. Apart from a societal perspective of cost-effectiveness analyses and the general principles outlined in guidelines, a physician would also be interested in addressing the patient’s individual risks, needs, expectations, fears, or consider his/her own estimates of the downsides, limitations, costs, and benefits of the planned procedure.

The aim of this editorial is to present an intuitive decision tool that would be applicable in clinical practice without involving complex mathematical analysis. As a bedside tool, it would focus on the individual patient’s and endoscopist’s perspective rather than on abstract concepts detached from clinical practice, such economic costs or QALYs. The outcome of the analysis would be expressed as threshold probabilities of when to perform gastrointestinal endoscopy.

^* Drs. Sonnenberg and Pohl: These authors contributed equally.

• References

• 1 Smith CM. Origin and uses of primum non nocere – above all, do no harm!. J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 45: 371-377
• 2 Sonnenberg A, Delcò F, Inadomi JM. Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133: 573-584
• 3 Naber SK, Kuntz KM, Henrikson NB. et al. Cost effectiveness of age-specific screening intervals for people with family histories of colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2018; 154: 105-116
• 4 Pohl H, Sonnenberg A, Strobel S. et al. Endoscopic versus surgical therapy for early cancer in Barrettʼs esophagus: a decision analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 623-631
• 5 Yeh JM, Hur C, Ward Z. et al. Gastric adenocarcinoma screening and prevention in the era of new biomarker and endoscopic technologies: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Gut 2016; 65: 563-574
• 6 Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med 1980; 302: 1109-1117
• 7 Sonnenberg A. Decision analysis in clinical gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 163-169 , 400
• 8 Wiktionary contributors. The cure is worse than the disease. Wiktionary, The Free Dictionary.. Available at https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=the_cure_is_worse_than_the_disease&oldid=43298282 [Accessed March 22, 2018]
• 9 Wikipedia contributors. Iatrogenesis. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iatrogenesis&oldid=826855182 [Accessed March 22, 2018]
• 10 Klein A, Bourke MJ. How to perform high-quality endoscopic mucosal resection during colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: 466-471
• 11 Sonnenberg A, Enestvedt BK, Bakis G. Management of suspected choledocholithiasis: A decision analysis for choosing the optimal imaging modality. Dig Dis Sci 2016; 61: 603-609
• 12 Robinson A. Thus spake Einstein. Aeon. March 12, 2018. Available at https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-we-love-to-quote-and-misquote-albert-einstein [Accessed March 22, 2018]
• 13 Burnand B, Harris JK, Wietlisbach V. et al. Use, appropriateness, and diagnostic yield of screening colonoscopy: an international observational study (EPAGE). Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 1018-1026
• 14 Argüello L, Pertejo V, Ponce M. et al. The appropriateness of colonoscopies at a teaching hospital: magnitude, associated factors, and comparison of EPAGE and EPAGE-II criteria. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 138-145
• 15 Hassan C, Bersani G, Buri L. et al. Appropriateness of upper-GI endoscopy: an Italian survey on behalf of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 767-774
• 16 Keren D, Rainis T, Stermer E. et al. A nine-year audit of open-access upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: results and experience of a single centre. Can J Gastroenterol 2011; 25: 83-88
• 17 Pohl H, Robertson D, Welch HG. Repeated upper endoscopy in the Medicare population: a retrospective analysis. Ann Intern Med 2014; 160: 154-160
• 18 Rubenstein JH, Pohl H, Adams MA. et al. Overuse of repeat upper endoscopy in the Veterans Health Administration: a retrospective analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2017; 112: 1678-1685
• 19 Wikipedia contributors. Law of the instrument. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument [Accessed March 22, 2018]
• 20 Longstreth GF, Wilson A, Knight K. et al. Irritable bowel syndrome, health care use, and costs: a U.S. managed care perspective. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 600-607
• 21 Cole JA, Yeaw JM, Cutone JA. et al. The incidence of abdominal and pelvic surgery among patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Dig Dis Sci 2005; 50: 2268-2275