Download PDF
Endoscopy 2012; 44(01): 32-37
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1291386
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Clinical validation of the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) II criteria in an open-access unit: a prospective study

A. Z. Gimeno García
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
,
Y. González
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
,
E. Quintero
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
,
D. Nicolás-Pérez
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
,
Z. Adrián
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
,
R. Romero
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
,
O. Alarcón Fernández
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
,
M. Hernández
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
,
M. Carrillo
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
,
V. Felipe
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
,
J. Díaz
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
,
L. Ramos
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
,
M. Moreno
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
,
A. Jiménez-Sosa
2   Research Unit, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 10 August 2010

accepted after revision 26 July 2011

Publication Date:
22 November 2011 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Background and study aims: The European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE I) criteria were recently updated (EPAGE II), but no prospective studies have used these criteria in clinical practice. The aim of the current study was to validate the EPAGE II criteria in an open-access endoscopy unit.

Patients and methods: A prospective observational study was conducted in an open-access endoscopy unit at a tertiary care referral center. Consecutive outpatients (n = 1004; mean age 58.9 ± 13.1 years; 45 % men) were referred for diagnostic colonoscopy between September 2009 and February 2010. The appropriateness of colonoscopy was assessed based on EPAGE II criteria, and the relationship between appropriateness and both referral doctor and detection of significant lesions was examined. The effectiveness of EPAGE II criteria in assessing appropriateness was measured by means of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for detecting significant lesions.

Results: Colonoscopic cecal intubation was achieved in 956 patients (95.2 %). Most referral doctors were gastroenterologists (58.0 %) and the most common indication was colorectal cancer (CRC) screening (35.2 %). EPAGE II criteria were applicable in 968 patients (96.4 %); of these patients, the indication was appropriate in 778 (80.4 %), inappropriate in 102 (10.5 %), and uncertain in 88 (9.1 %). Patients with appropriate or uncertain indications based on EPAGE II criteria had more relevant endoscopic findings than those with inappropriate indications (38.8 % vs. 24.5 %; OR 1.95, 95 %CI 1.22 – 3.13; P < 0.005). Sensitivity and negative predictive value of EPAGE II criteria for detecting significant lesions were 93.1 % (95 %CI 90 % – 96 %) and 75.5 % (95 %CI 67 % – 84 %), respectively, whereas for advanced neoplastic lesions these values were 98.0 % (95 %CI 95 % – 100 %) and 98.0 % (95 % CI 95 % – 100 %), respectively. Adherence to EPAGE II recommendations was an independent predictor of finding a significant lesion (OR 1.93, 95 %CI 1.20 – 3.11; P = 0.007).

Conclusions: EPAGE II is a simple, valid score for detecting inappropriate colonoscopies in clinical practice.

 

  • References

  • 1 Cohen LB, Wecsler JS, Gaetano JN et al. Endoscopic sedation in the United States: results from a nationwide survey. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 967-974
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Sonnenberg A, Amorosi SL, Lacey MJ et al. Patterns of endoscopy in the United States: analysis of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Endoscopic Database. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 489-496
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Fernandez-Esparrach G, Gimeno-Garcia AZ, Llach J et al. [Guidelines for the rational use of endoscopy to improve the detection of relevant lesions in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study]. Med Clin (Barc) 2007; 129: 205-208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Levin TR. Colonoscopy capacity: Can we build it? Will they come?. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 1841-1844
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Seeff LC, Manninen DL, Dong FB et al. Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 1661-1669
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Rodriguez-Moranta F, Trapero-Bertran M, Castells A et al. Endoscopic requirements of colorectal cancer screening programs in average-risk population. Estimation according to a Markov model. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 31: 405-412
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Balaguer F, Llach J, Castells A et al. The European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy guidelines colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 21: 609-613
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Gonvers JJ, Harris JK, Wietlisbach V et al. A European view of diagnostic yield and appropriateness of colonoscopy. Hepatogastroenterology 2007; 54: 729-735
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Vader JP, Froehlich F, Dubois RW et al. European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE): conclusion and WWW site. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 687-694
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Juillerat P, Peytremann-Bridevaux I, Vader JP et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 240-246
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Parra-Blanco A, Nicolas-Perez D, Gimeno-Garcia A et al. The timing of bowel preparation before colonoscopy determines the quality of cleansing, and is a significant factor contributing to the detection of flat lesions: a randomized study. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 6161-6166
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Froehlich F, Pache I, Burnand B et al. Performance of panel-based criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of colonoscopy: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 1998; 48: 128-136
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Kmieciak Le Corguille M, Gaudric M, Sogni P et al. [Appropiateness of colonoscopy in a gastrointestinal unit in 2001: a prospective study using criteria established by a European panel of experts]. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2003; 27: 213-218
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Terraz O, Wietlisbach V, Jeannot JG et al. The EPAGE internet guideline as a decision support tool for determining the appropriateness of colonoscopy. Digestion 2005; 71: 72-77
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 1570-1595
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Arditi C, Gonvers JJ, Burnand B et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Surveillance after polypectomy and after resection of colorectal cancer. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 209-217
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Grassini M, Verna C, Battaglia E et al. Education improves colonoscopy appropriateness. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 88-93
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Grassini M, Verna C, Niola P et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy: diagnostic yield and safety in guidelines. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 1816-1819
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Vader JP, Froehlich F, Burnand B et al. ASGE versus EPAGE versus diagnostic yield: a level playing field, please!. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 1892-1892
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Sanchez-de lRio A, Quintero E, Alarcon O. [Appropriateness of indications for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in open-access endoscopy units]. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 27: 119-124
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Morini S, Hassan C, Meucci G et al. Diagnostic yield of open access colonoscopy according to appropriateness. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 175-179
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Suriani R, Rizzetto M, Mazzucco D et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in a digestive endoscopy unit: a prospective study using ASGE guidelines. J Eval Clin Pract 2009; 15: 41-45
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar