Does completing advanced endoscopy fellowship improve outcomes after endoscopic mucosal resection?

IF 3 4区 医学 Q3 Medicine
Mohamad Mouchli, Lindsey Bierle, Shravani Reddy, Christopher Walsh, Adil Mir, Paul Yeaton, Vikas Chitnavis
{"title":"Does completing advanced endoscopy fellowship improve outcomes after endoscopic mucosal resection?","authors":"Mohamad Mouchli,&nbsp;Lindsey Bierle,&nbsp;Shravani Reddy,&nbsp;Christopher Walsh,&nbsp;Adil Mir,&nbsp;Paul Yeaton,&nbsp;Vikas Chitnavis","doi":"10.23736/S2724-5985.21.02782-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It was reported that about 60% of the physicians in the USA believed that their Gastroenterology fellowship poorly prepared them for large polyp resection. The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) efficacy and complication rates between skilled general gastroenterologists who perform high volume of EMR and advanced endoscopists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified 140 patients with documented large colonic polyps treated by 4 providers using EMR technique at Carilion Clinic, in Roanoke, Virginia, USA between 01/01/2014-12/31/2017, with follow-up through 10-2018. Information on demographics, clinical and pathological features of high-risk polyps (i.e., size, histology, site, and degree of dysplasia), timing of surveillance endoscopies, tools used during resection, and skills of performing endoscopist's were extracted. The cumulative risks of polyp recurrence after first resection using EMR technique were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and forty patients were identified (mean age, 64.1±11.2 years; 47.1% males). Fifty-five polyps (39.3%) were removed by 2 skilled gastroenterologists and 85 (60.7%) were removed by advanced endoscopists. Most of the polyps resected were located in the right colon (63.6%) and roughly half of the polyps were removed in piecemeal fashion. At follow-up endoscopy, the advanced endoscopy group had lower polyp recurrence rates. The median recurrence after polypectomy was significantly different between the groups (0.88 and 1.03 years for skilled gastroenterologists who did not complete and completed EMR hands-on workshops; respectively vs. 3.99 years for the advanced endoscopist who did not complete EMR hands-on workshop, P=0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a need for additional EMR training since polyp recurrence was significantly different between the groups despite high rates of piecemeal resection in the advanced endoscopy groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":18653,"journal":{"name":"Minerva gastroenterology","volume":"69 3","pages":"344-350"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5985.21.02782-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: It was reported that about 60% of the physicians in the USA believed that their Gastroenterology fellowship poorly prepared them for large polyp resection. The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) efficacy and complication rates between skilled general gastroenterologists who perform high volume of EMR and advanced endoscopists.

Methods: We identified 140 patients with documented large colonic polyps treated by 4 providers using EMR technique at Carilion Clinic, in Roanoke, Virginia, USA between 01/01/2014-12/31/2017, with follow-up through 10-2018. Information on demographics, clinical and pathological features of high-risk polyps (i.e., size, histology, site, and degree of dysplasia), timing of surveillance endoscopies, tools used during resection, and skills of performing endoscopist's were extracted. The cumulative risks of polyp recurrence after first resection using EMR technique were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves.

Results: One hundred and forty patients were identified (mean age, 64.1±11.2 years; 47.1% males). Fifty-five polyps (39.3%) were removed by 2 skilled gastroenterologists and 85 (60.7%) were removed by advanced endoscopists. Most of the polyps resected were located in the right colon (63.6%) and roughly half of the polyps were removed in piecemeal fashion. At follow-up endoscopy, the advanced endoscopy group had lower polyp recurrence rates. The median recurrence after polypectomy was significantly different between the groups (0.88 and 1.03 years for skilled gastroenterologists who did not complete and completed EMR hands-on workshops; respectively vs. 3.99 years for the advanced endoscopist who did not complete EMR hands-on workshop, P=0.03).

Conclusions: There is a need for additional EMR training since polyp recurrence was significantly different between the groups despite high rates of piecemeal resection in the advanced endoscopy groups.

完成高级内镜治疗是否能改善内镜粘膜切除术后的预后?
背景:据报道,大约60%的美国医生认为他们的胃肠病学研究项目对大息肉切除术准备不足。本研究的目的是比较内镜下粘膜切除术(EMR)的疗效和并发症发生率在熟练的普通胃肠病学家和高级内镜医师之间进行了大量的EMR。方法:我们在2014年1月1日至2017年12月31日期间,在美国弗吉尼亚州罗阿诺克的Carilion诊所,筛选了140例经4名提供者使用EMR技术治疗的大结肠息肉患者,随访至10-2018年。提取了高危息肉的人口统计学、临床和病理特征(即大小、组织学、部位和发育不良程度)、监测内窥镜检查的时间、切除时使用的工具和内窥镜医师的技能等信息。利用Kaplan-Meier曲线估计首次EMR切除后息肉复发的累积风险。结果:共发现140例患者(平均年龄64.1±11.2岁;47.1%的男性)。2名熟练消化内科医师切除息肉55例(39.3%),高级内窥镜医师切除息肉85例(60.7%)。大部分切除的息肉位于右结肠(63.6%),大约一半的息肉以碎片方式切除。在随访内镜检查中,晚期内镜组息肉复发率较低。息肉切除术后的中位复发率在两组之间有显著差异(未完成和完成EMR实践工作坊的熟练胃肠病学家的复发率分别为0.88年和1.03年;相比之下,未完成EMR实践培训的高级内窥镜医师的寿命为3.99年,P=0.03)。结论:有必要进行额外的EMR培训,因为尽管在高级内窥镜组中有很高的分段切除率,但两组之间的息肉复发率有显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Minerva gastroenterology
Minerva gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信