A cooling off period: decline in the use of hot biopsy forceps technique in colonoscopy in the U.S. Medicare population 2000-2019.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Andrew J Read, Jacob E Kurlander, Akbar K Waljee, Sameer D Saini
{"title":"A cooling off period: decline in the use of hot biopsy forceps technique in colonoscopy in the U.S. Medicare population 2000-2019.","authors":"Andrew J Read, Jacob E Kurlander, Akbar K Waljee, Sameer D Saini","doi":"10.1186/s12876-025-04020-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of hot biopsy forceps (with electrocautery) is no longer routinely recommended given increased complications compared to cold biopsy forceps (without electrocautery). It is unknown how often the technique is currently used in the United States (U.S.) or how its usage has changed over time.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To characterize the use of hot biopsy forceps by U.S. Medicare providers over time, identify provider characteristics of those who more commonly perform this technique, and determine if there are regional differences in use of this technique within the U.S.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study using U.S. Medicare summary data from 2000 to 2019 to analyze the frequency of cold and hot biopsies. We used detailed provider and state summary files to characterize providers' demographics, including geographic region, to identify regional variation in use of these techniques, and identify factors associated with use of hot biopsy forceps from 2012 to 2019.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The hot biopsy forceps technique peaked in 2003 (412,165/year) and declined to 108,232/year in 2019, while the cold biopsy forceps technique increased from 482,862/year in 2000 to 1,533,558/year in 2019. Use of hot biopsy forceps was more common by non-gastroenterologists and in rural practice settings. In addition, there was up to 50-fold difference in utilization in these techniques between states (on a population normalized basis), with the highest rate of use in the southeastern U.S.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Variation in the use of hot biopsy forceps by region and provider suggests a potential area for quality improvement given the comparative advantages of the cold biopsy forceps technique. De-implementation of an existing endoscopic practice may require different approaches than implementation of a new practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":9129,"journal":{"name":"BMC Gastroenterology","volume":"25 1","pages":"411"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12117802/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-025-04020-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The use of hot biopsy forceps (with electrocautery) is no longer routinely recommended given increased complications compared to cold biopsy forceps (without electrocautery). It is unknown how often the technique is currently used in the United States (U.S.) or how its usage has changed over time.

Aim: To characterize the use of hot biopsy forceps by U.S. Medicare providers over time, identify provider characteristics of those who more commonly perform this technique, and determine if there are regional differences in use of this technique within the U.S.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study using U.S. Medicare summary data from 2000 to 2019 to analyze the frequency of cold and hot biopsies. We used detailed provider and state summary files to characterize providers' demographics, including geographic region, to identify regional variation in use of these techniques, and identify factors associated with use of hot biopsy forceps from 2012 to 2019.

Results: The hot biopsy forceps technique peaked in 2003 (412,165/year) and declined to 108,232/year in 2019, while the cold biopsy forceps technique increased from 482,862/year in 2000 to 1,533,558/year in 2019. Use of hot biopsy forceps was more common by non-gastroenterologists and in rural practice settings. In addition, there was up to 50-fold difference in utilization in these techniques between states (on a population normalized basis), with the highest rate of use in the southeastern U.S.

Conclusion: Variation in the use of hot biopsy forceps by region and provider suggests a potential area for quality improvement given the comparative advantages of the cold biopsy forceps technique. De-implementation of an existing endoscopic practice may require different approaches than implementation of a new practice.

冷却期:2000-2019年美国医疗保险人群结肠镜检查中热活检钳技术使用的下降。
背景:与冷活检钳(不带电)相比,由于并发症增加,热活检钳(带电)不再被常规推荐使用。目前尚不清楚这项技术在美国的使用频率,也不知道它的使用方式是如何随着时间的推移而变化的。目的:表征美国医疗保险提供者随时间推移对热活检钳的使用情况,确定更常使用该技术的提供者特征,并确定在美国使用该技术是否存在区域差异。方法:我们使用2000年至2019年的美国医疗保险汇总数据进行了回顾性横断面研究,以分析冷活检和热活检的频率。我们使用详细的提供者和州摘要文件来描述提供者的人口统计特征,包括地理区域,以确定这些技术使用的区域差异,并确定2012年至2019年使用热活检钳的相关因素。结果:热活检钳技术在2003年达到峰值(412,165例/年),到2019年下降到108,232例/年,而冷活检钳技术从2000年的482,862例/年增加到2019年的1,533,558例/年。使用热活检钳是更常见的非胃肠病学家和农村实践设置。此外,各州之间在这些技术的使用率上存在高达50倍的差异(在人口标准化的基础上),美国东南部的使用率最高。结论:由于冷活检钳技术的相对优势,不同地区和提供者使用热活检钳的差异表明了质量改进的潜在领域。与实施新的实践相比,取消现有的内镜实践可能需要不同的方法。
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
BMC Gastroenterology
BMC Gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
465
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Gastroenterology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信