Original article
Clinical endoscopy
Colonoscopy utilization and outcomes 2000 to 2011

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.01.014Get rights and content

Background

Understanding colonoscopy utilization and outcomes can help determine when the procedure is most effective.

Objective

To study trends in utilization and outcomes of colonoscopy in the United States from 2000 to 2011.

Design

Prospective collection of colonoscopy data.

Setting

A total of 84 adult diverse GI practices.

Patients

All adult patients receiving colonoscopy for any reason.

Intervention

Colonoscopy.

Main Outcome Measurements

Polyps >9 mm or suspected malignant tumor.

Results

We analyzed 1,372,838 reports. The most common reason for colonoscopy in patients aged <50 years is evaluation of symptoms such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) (28.7%) and bleeding or anemia (35.3%). In patients aged 50 to 74 years, colorectal cancer screening accounts for 42.9% of examinations. In patients aged >74 years, surveillance for cancer or polyps is the most common indication. The use of colonoscopy for average-risk screening increased nearly 3-fold during the study period. The prevalence of large polyps increases with age and is higher in men for every procedure indication. The prevalence of large polyps in patients with symptoms of IBS was lower than in those undergoing average-risk screening (odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.87). With increasing age, there was a shift from distal to proximal large polyps. The rate of proximal large polyps is higher in the black population compared with the white population (OR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.13-1.25).

Limitations

In the absence of pathology data, use of surrogate as the main outcome.

Conclusion

Colonoscopy utilization changed from 2000 to 2011, with an increase in primary screening. The proximal location of large polyps in the black population and with advancing age has implications for screening and surveillance.

Section snippets

CORI

We developed a consortium of diverse clinical practice settings. Endoscopists use a structured computerized endoscopic report generator to produce endoscopic reports. The data that are transmitted from the local site to the National Endoscopic Database does not contain most patient or provider identifiers and qualifies as a Limited Data Set under the Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR §164.514[e][2]). This analysis of the National Endoscopic Database is approved by the Oregon Health and

Results

From 2000 to 2011, we received 1,372,838 colonoscopy reports regarding 1,169,457 patients from 84 endoscopy practice sites. A total of 1,218,085 reports came from centers other than VA medical centers.

Discussion

This is the largest analysis of colonoscopy practice that has ever been reported from data sources not related to claims in the United States. The direct entry of data by the endoscopist provides data unavailable in claims data, such as detailed procedure findings (polyp descriptors) and quality.

Acknowledgment

We thank Dr Doug Levine for his advice about data analysis.

References (20)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (103)

View all citing articles on Scopus

DISCLOSURE: This project was supported with funding from National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases U01DK57132, R33-DK61778-01, and R21-CA131626 and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. D. Lieberman is director of the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative. In addition, the practice network (Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative) has received support from the following entities to support the infrastructure of the practice-based network: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bard International, Pentax USA, ProVation, Endosoft, Given Imaging, and Ethicon. The latter commercial entities had no involvement in this research. No other financial relationships relevant to this publication were disclosed.

View full text