RESUMO

GOAL: To determine whether Excellent bowel cleansing is superior to Good for the detection of adenomas. BACKGROUND: High quality colonoscopy requires Adequate bowel preparation. However, it is unknown whether adenoma detection differs between subcategories of Adequate cleansing. STUDY: We utilized a retrospective, cross-sectional study design to obtain data about patients undergoing colonoscopy at a single university center between August 31, 2011 and September 1, 2012. Primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), the percentage of patients with ≥1 adenoma. Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy, adenoma distribution (proximal vs. distal), and detection of advanced adenomas, sessile serrated polyps (SSP), and cancer. RESULTS: The electronic medical record of 5113 consecutive colonoscopies with Good or Excellent preparation was queried for preparation quality, colonoscopy indication, demographics, medical history, and history of adenoma and colon cancer. Exclusion criteria were age below 18 years, inflammatory bowel disease, or familial polyposis. Adenoma detection was not superior with Excellent cleansing as compared with Good for ADR [respectively, 26% vs. 29%, odds ratio 0.97 (0.85, 1.11), P=0.618] or adenomas per colonoscopy [respectively, 0.437 vs. 0.499, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.98 (0.90, 1.07), P=0.705]. Excellent cleansing demonstrated superior detection of SSPs [IRR 1.66 (1.14, 2.40), P=0.008] and advanced adenomas [IRR 1.37 (1.09, 1.72), P=0.007] but not colon cancer [odds ratio 0.286 (0.083, 0.985), P=0.0474]. CONCLUSIONS: ADR is not significantly different between the Adequate subcategories of Excellent and Good. However, Excellent cleansing is associated with superior detection of advanced adenomas and SSPs. If confirmed, achieving an Excellent preparation may improve colonoscopy performance in the proximal colon where SSPs primarily occur.

Assuntos

Adenoma/diagnóstico , Catárticos/normas , Colonoscopia/normas , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Idoso , Pólipos do Colo/diagnóstico , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Razão de Chances , Estudos Retrospectivos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The diagnosis of intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy of is difficult, especially when no primary lesion has been identified. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA cytology in patients with enlarged intra-abdominal lymph nodes of unknown etiology. PATIENT AND METHODS: 147 patients with abdominal lymphadenopathy on imaging in whom EUS-FNA was performed with a 22-gauge needle. Performance characteristics of EUS-FNA including the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: AThe location of the enlarged lymph nodes was the celiac axis (8.2%), peri-gastric (34%), peri-pancreatic (25.2%), peri-portal (27.9%), and other intra-abdominal locations (4.8%). The median number of EUS-FNA passes was 5. The final diagnosis were lymphoma in (n=27), metastatic adenocarcinoma (n=44) patients, other miscellaneous malignancies (n=22) and benign disease (n=54). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA were 89.7, 98.3, and 93.5% respectively. A false positive FNA result was present in only 1 case (0.7%); false negative FNA results were present in eight cases (5.8%). Lymph node morphologic features of roundness, echogenicity, and homogeneity on EUS were not a predictor of lymph node malignancy. CONCLUSION: In a retrospective cohort trial, EUS-FNA was found to be highly accurate and safe in diagnosing patients with intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology.