edoc

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Chronic diarrhea and known inflammatory bowel disease

Schusselé Filliettaz, S. and Juillerat, P. and Burnand, B. and Arditi, C. and Windsor, A. and Beglinger, C. and Dubois, R. W. and Peytremann-Bridevaux, I. and Pittet, V. and Gonvers, J.-J. and Froehlich, F. and Vader, J.-P.. (2009) Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Chronic diarrhea and known inflammatory bowel disease. Endoscopy, Vol. 41, H. 3. pp. 218-226.

Full text not available from this repository.

Official URL: http://edoc.unibas.ch/dok/A6007707

Downloads: Statistics Overview

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for investigation of chronic diarrhea, management of patients with known inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance in such patients, and to report report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II. METHODS: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies regarding the evaluation of chronic diarrhea, the management of IBD, and colorectal cancer surveillance in IBD was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions. RESULTS: According to the literature, colonoscopic evaluation may be justified for patients aged < 50 years with recent-onset chronic diarrhea or with alarm symptoms. Surveillance colonoscopy for CRC should be offered to all patients with extensive ulcerative colitis or colonic Crohn's disease of 8 years' duration, and to all patients with less extensive disease of 15 years' duration. Intervals for surveillance colonoscopy depend on duration of evolution, initial diagnosis, and histological findings. The EPAGE II criteria also confirmed the appropriateness of diagnostic colonoscopy for diarrhea of < 4 weeks' duration. They also suggest that, in addition to assessing extent of IBD by colonoscopy, further colonoscopic examination is appropriate in the face of persistent or worsening symptoms. Surveillance colonoscopy in IBD patients was generally appropriate after a lapse of 2 years. In the presence of dysplasia at previous colonoscopy, it was not only appropriate but necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Despite or perhaps because of the limitations of the available published studies, the panel-based EPAGE II (http://www.epage.ch) criteria can help guide appropriate colonoscopy use in the absence of str evidence from the literature.
Faculties and Departments:03 Faculty of Medicine > Departement Biomedizin > Former Units at DBM > Gastroenterology (Beglinger)
03 Faculty of Medicine > Bereich Medizinische Fächer (Klinik) > Gastroenterologie
03 Faculty of Medicine > Departement Klinische Forschung > Bereich Medizinische Fächer (Klinik) > Gastroenterologie
UniBasel Contributors:Beglinger, Christoph and Froehlich, Florian
Item Type:Article, refereed
Article Subtype:Further Journal Contribution
Bibsysno:Link to catalogue
Publisher:Georg Thieme
ISSN:0013-726X
Note:Publication type according to Uni Basel Research Database: Journal item
Related URLs:
Identification Number:
Last Modified:18 Jul 2014 09:09
Deposited On:18 Jul 2014 09:09

Repository Staff Only: item control page