Continuous monitoring of colonoscopy performance in the Netherlands: first results of a nationwide registry

Abstract

Background To optimize colonoscopy quality, several performance measures have been developed. These are usually assessed without distinction between the indications for colonoscopy. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of linking two national registries (one for colonoscopy and one for adverse events of gastrointestinal endoscopies in the Netherlands), and to describe the results of colonoscopy quality per indication.

Methods This retrospective study was conducted with prospectively collected data of the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit (DGEA) and the Dutch Registration of Complications in Endoscopy (DRCE). Data between 01–01–2016 and 01–01–2019 were analyzed. To calculate adverse event rates, data were linked at the level of endoscopy service.

Results During the 3-year study period, 266 981 colonoscopies were recorded in DGEA. Of all indications, cecal intubation rate was highest in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive screening colonoscopies (97.1 %), followed by surveillance (93.2 %), diagnostic (90.7 %), and therapeutic colonoscopies (83.1 %). The highest rate of adequate bowel preparation was observed in FIT-positive screening colonoscopies (97.1 %). A total of 1540 colonoscopy-related adverse events occurred (0.58 % of all colonoscopies). Bleeding and perforation and rates were highest for therapeutic (1.56 % and 0.51 %, respectively) and FIT-positive screening (0.72 % and 0.06 %, respectively) colonoscopies. The colonoscopy-related mortality was 0.006 %.

Conclusion This study describes the first results of the Dutch national colonoscopy registry, which was successfully linked to data from the national registry for adverse events of gastrointestinal endoscopies. In this large dataset, performance varied between indications. Our results emphasize the importance of defining benchmarks per indication in future guidelines.

Publication History

Received: 19 February 2021

Accepted after revision: 22 July 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
22 July 2021

Article published online:
24 September 2021

• References

• 1 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Jansen L. et al. Reduced risk of colorectal cancer up to 10 years after screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2014; 146: 709-717
• 2 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM. et al. Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 22-30
• 3 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
• 4 Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
• 5 Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F. et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 775-794
• 6 de Neree Tot Babberich MPM, Ledeboer M, van Leerdam ME. et al. Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit: automated extraction of colonoscopy data for quality assessment and improvement. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 154-162
• 7 Beck N, van Bommel AC, Eddes EH. et al. The Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing: achieving Codman’s Dream on a nationwide basis. Ann Surg 2020; 271: 627-631
• 8 Van Leersum NJ, Snijders HS, Henneman D. et al. The Dutch surgical colorectal audit. Eur J Surg Oncol 2013; 39: 1063-1070
• 9 Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L. et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 446-454
• 10 Kastenberg D, Bertiger G, Brogadir S. Bowel preparation quality scales for colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2018; 24: 2833-2843
• 11 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G. et al. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69 (03) 620-625
• 12 Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S. et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (06) CD000259
• 13 Mangas-Sanjuan C, Santana E, Cubiella J. et al. Variation in colonoscopy performance measures according to procedure indication. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 1216-1223
• 14 Crispin A, Birkner B, Munte A. et al. Process quality and incidence of acute complications in a series of more than 230,000 outpatient colonoscopies. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 1018-1025
• 15 Ko CW, Riffle S, Michaels L. et al. Serious complications within 30 days of screening and surveillance colonoscopy are uncommon. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 166-173
• 16 Pox CP, Altenhofen L, Brenner H. et al. Efficacy of a nationwide screening colonoscopy program for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 142: 1460-1467
• 17 Singh H, Penfold RB, DeCoster C. et al. Colonoscopy and its complications across a Canadian regional health authority. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69 (03) 665-671
• 18 Cubiella J, Castells A, Andreu M. et al. Correlation between adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy- and fecal immunochemical testing-based colorectal cancer screening programs. United European Gastroenterol J 2017; 5: 255-260
• 19 Hilsden RJ, Bridges R, Dube C. et al. Defining benchmarks for adenoma detection rate and adenomas per colonoscopy in patients undergoing colonoscopy due to a positive fecal immunochemical test. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 1743-1749
• 20 Kothari ST, Huang RJ, Shaukat A. et al. ASGE review of adverse events in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 863-876
• 21 Rutter MD, Nickerson C, Rees CJ. et al. Risk factors for adverse events related to polypectomy in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 90-97
• 22 Kooyker AI, Toes-Zoutendijk E, Opstal-van Winden AWJ. et al. Colonoscopy-related mortality in a fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19: 1418-1425