Quality indicators for GI endoscopic procedures

Quality indicators for EGD

The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update (CPU) Expert Review is to provide clinicians with guidance on best practices for performing a high-quality upper endoscopic exam.

The best practice advice statements presented herein were developed from a combination of available evidence from published literature, guidelines, and consensus-based expert opinion. No formal rating of the strength or quality of the evidence was carried out, which aligns with standard processes for American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPUs. These statements are meant to provide practical, timely advice to clinicians practicing in the United States. This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates (CPU) Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

Endoscopists should ensure that upper endoscopy is being performed for an appropriate indication and that informed consent clearly explaining the risks, benefits, alternatives, sedation plan, and potential diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is obtained. These elements should be documented by the endoscopist before the procedure.

Endoscopists should ensure that adequate visualization of the upper gastrointestinal mucosa, using mucosal cleansing and insufflation as necessary, is achieved and documented.

A high-definition white-light endoscopy system should be used for upper endoscopy instead of a standard-definition white-light endoscopy system whenever possible. The endoscope used for the procedure should be documented in the procedure note.

Image enhancement technologies should be used during the upper endoscopic examination to improve the diagnostic yield for preneoplasia and neoplasia. Suspicious areas should be clearly described, photodocumented, and biopsied separately.

Endoscopists should spend sufficient time carefully inspecting the foregut mucosa in an anterograde and retroflexed view to improve the detection and characterization of abnormalities.

Endoscopists should document any abnormalities noted on upper endoscopy using established classifications and standard terminology whenever possible.

Endoscopists should perform biopsies for the evaluation and management of foregut conditions using standardized biopsy protocols.

Endoscopists should provide patients with management recommendations based on the specific endoscopic findings (eg, peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis), and this should be documented in the medical record. If recommendations are contingent upon histopathology results (eg, H pylori infection, Barrett’s esophagus), then endoscopists should document that appropriate guidance will be provided after results are available.

Endoscopists should document whether subsequent surveillance endoscopy is indicated and, if so, provide appropriate surveillance intervals. If the determination of surveillance is contingent on histopathology results, then endoscopists should document that surveillance intervals will be suggested after results are available.

There are few scales with prospective validation for the assessment of the upper gastrointestinal mucosal cleanliness during an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reproducible cleanliness scale for use during an EGD.

We developed a cleanliness scale (Barcelona scale) with a score (0–2 points) of five segments of the upper gastrointestinal tract with thorough cleaning techniques (esophagus, fundus, body, antrum, and duodenum). First, 125 photos (25 of each area) were assessed, and a score was assigned to each image by consensus among 7 experts endoscopists. Subsequently, 100 of the 125 images were selected and the inter- and intra-observer variability of 15 previously trained endoscopists was evaluated using the same images at two different times.

In total, 1500 assessments were performed. In 1336/1500 observations (89%) there was agreement with the consensus score, with a mean kappa value of 0.83 (0.45–0.96). In the second evaluation, in 1330/1500 observations (89%) there was agreement with the consensus score, with a mean kappa value of 0.82 (0.45–0.93). The intra-observer variability was 0.89 (0.76–0.99).

The Barcelona cleanliness scale is a valid measure and reproducible with minimal training. Its application in clinical practice is a significant step to standardize the quality of the EGD.

Existen pocas escalas validadas prospectivamente para evaluar la limpieza de la mucosa esofagogastroduodenal durante la endoscopia digestiva alta (EDA). El objetivo de este estudio fue desarrollar una escala válida y reproducible para su uso en la realización de una EDA.

Desarrollamos una escala de limpieza (escala Barcelona) en la que se aplicó una puntuación de 0 a 2 a cinco áreas del tracto digestivo superior (esófago, fundus, cuerpo, antro y duodeno) después de haber realizado todas las maniobras de lavado necesarias. Inicialmente, se evaluaron 125 fotos (25 de cada área) y se asignó una puntuación (de 0 a 2) a cada una por consenso entre siete endoscopistas. Posteriormente, se seleccionaron 100 de las 125 fotografías y se evaluó la variabilidad inter e intraobservador de 15 endoscopistas previamente formados utilizando las mismas imágenes en dos momentos diferentes.

Se efectuaron un total de 1.500 observaciones. En 1.336/1.500 de ellas (89%) hubo coincidencia con la puntuación del consenso, siendo el valor medio de kappa de 0,83 (0,45-0,96). En la segunda evaluación, en 1.330/1.500 observaciones (89%) hubo coincidencia con la puntuación del consenso, siendo el valor medio de kappa de 0,82 (mínimo 0,45 y máximo 0,93). La variabilidad intraobservador fue de 0,89 (0,76-0,99).

La escala de limpieza Barcelona es una medida válida y reproducible con un mínimo entrenamiento. Su uso en la práctica clínica podría ser un paso significativo para estandarizar la calidad de la EDA.

As a precursor to gastric cancer, gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) represents a target for surveillance. US-based guidelines recommend surveillance of racial/ethnic minorities and immigrants from high incidence gastric cancer regions, yet there is marked variability in prevalence amongst these subgroups and within groups from high incidence regions. There is a paucity of information regarding country of birth as a risk factor for GIM and we sought to determine the association between country of birth and GIM in an ethnically and racially diverse US population.

This was a retrospective cohort study of persons who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with gastric biopsy at University of Miami Hospital between 2011 and 2021. A natural language processing (NLP) algorithm was developed and implemented to extract diagnoses of GIM and Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection from endoscopic pathology reports. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate risk factors for GIM, accounting for important covariates, including country of birth.

A total of 21,108 persons from 130 varying countries of birth were included in the study. A total of 1699 cases of GIM were identified yielding a prevalence of 8.0% (95% CI: 7.7–8.4%). Multivariable analysis was restricted to countries with at least 100 persons in the cohort, yielding 15 countries with 1208 cases of GIM. Country of birth (p < 0.0001), race/ethnicity (p = 0.026), active HP infection (p < 0.0001), and increasing age (p < 0.0001) were significantly associated with increased odds of GIM. Highest odds for GIM were among persons born in Ecuador (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.56–3.50), Honduras (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.65–3.34), and Peru (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.58–2.99).

We demonstrate that country of birth is a key risk factor for GIM. Not all countries that are thought to be in “high-risk” regions are associated with higher rates of GIM, underlining the importance of studying the under-investigated risk factor of country of birth. Guidelines should account for country of birth, in addition to other risk factors, to tailor screening/surveillance appropriately.

Shida Haghighat, MD, MPH is supported by an NIH training grant T32 DK 11667805.

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is effective in reducing gastric cancer mortality through detection of early-stage cancer in areas with a high prevalence of gastric cancer. Although the risk of post-endoscopy advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is low, interval AGC remains a concern. We investigated the characteristics and predictors of interval AGC after negative EGD.

We included 1257 patients with gastric cancer within 6 to 36 months of a “cancer-negative” index EGD between 2005 and 2021 at a tertiary university hospital in South Korea. Observation time on the index EGD was used as a quality indicator. We compared the clinical and endoscopic characteristics and quality indicators between interval AGC and screen-detected early gastric cancer (EGC).

Within 6 to 36 months of negative EGD, 102 AGCs (8.1%) and 1155 EGCs (91.9%) were identified. The percentage of patients with shorter observation time (<3 minutes) in the index EGD was higher in the interval AGC group than in the detected EGC group (P = .002). A multivariable analysis comparing screen-detected EGD and interval AGC was adjusted for age, sex, family history of gastric cancer, H. pylori status, endoscopic findings, and endoscopy-related factors including gastric observation time and interval time. A shorter observation time (<3 minutes) (odds ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.20–4.30), and interval time >2 years (odds ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.04–3.24) were associated with an increased risk of interval AGC.

A shorter observation time during index EGD is an important predictor of interval AGC. Further, withdrawal time longer than 3 minutes may be a quality indicator for screening EGD.