PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Douglas K Rex

Publications and source records attributed to Douglas K Rex.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Both advancing age and male gender are known predictors of adenomas and large adenomas at colonoscopy. However, the importance of endoscopist compared with both age and gender as predictors of adenomas is not known. In this study, we assessed the adenoma detection rates of nine endoscopists performing colonoscopy and the effects of endoscopist on adenoma detection compared with the established predictors of advancing age and male gender. METHODS: Consecutive colonoscopy reports by nine attending gastroenterologists at Indiana University Hospital between January 1999 and January 2004 were obtained. Patients with indications for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), inherited colon cancer syndromes, or who were referred for polypectomy were excluded. RESULTS: There were 10,034 included colonoscopies. The overall mean age (yr) +/- SD for the entire cohort was 56.0 +/- 13.5, range 14-93 yr. Multivariate analysis indicated that both advancing age and male gender were powerful predictors of adenomas, both for the overall cohort and in those >or=50 of age (P or=50 yr of age, the range of detection of at least one adenoma per colonoscopy by nine colonoscopists was 15.5-41.1%, at least two adenomas was 4.9-20.0%, at least three adenomas was 0.8-10.8%, and at least one adenoma >or=1.0 cm was 1.7-6.2%, and the range of adenomas detected per colonoscopy was 0.21-0.86. Differences between endoscopists were significant (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Who performs the procedure can be more important than age and gender in predicting adenomas at colonoscopy. Our results underscore the need to measure adenoma detection rates in the continuous quality improvement process and to report them to endoscopists. Additional data are needed to determine whether corrective measures can reduce variation in adenoma detection rates.

Adenoma↗
PubMed2006

Safety and colon-cleansing efficacy of a new residue-free formulation of sodium phosphate tablets.

OBJECTIVE: A residue-free sodium phosphate tablet (RF-NaP) was formulated that lacks microcrystalline cellulose, which can appear as a whitish residue in the colon. A multicenter, randomized, investigator-blinded study was conducted to compare the colon-cleansing efficacy of 40 or 32 tablets of RF-NaP with the marketed 40-tablet NaP treatment regimen. METHODS: Eight hundred sixteen patients were randomized prior to colonoscopy to receive either 40 tablets (60 g) of NaP or RF-NaP or 32 tablets (48 g) of RF-NaP. Colon cleansing was assessed using a 4-point scale based on retained "colonic contents." The primary end point was overall colon-cleansing response rate to treatment (score of excellent/good) versus nonresponse (fair/inadequate). RESULTS: Seven hundred four patients were included in the efficacy analysis. The overall colon-cleansing response rates were comparable among treatment arms (94.5%, 97.0%, and 95.3% for NaP, RF-NaP 40, and RF-NaP 32 tablets, respectively). Ascending colon-cleansing response rates for RF-NaP 40 (95.7%) and 32 tablets (93.6%) were significantly better than for NaP tablets (88.5%, p < 0.03 for both). Patients treated with RF-NaP 32 tablets experienced less pronounced changes in electrolyte levels and fewer adverse events (138/239, 58%) compared with patients receiving NaP (161/238, 68%, p= 0.07) and RF-NaP 40 tablets (156/236, 66%, p= 0.03). The most common adverse events reported were abdominal distention, nausea, abdominal pain, and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the safety, efficacy, and patient preferences, the 32-tablet RF-NaP regimen was superior to the 40-tablet RF-NaP and NaP regimen for colon cleansing prior to colonoscopy.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Colonoscopic polypectomy in retroflexion.

BACKGROUND: Little has been written about the value of retroflexion in the removal of large sessile colon polyps. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the utility of retroflexion for removal of large sessile colon polyps. DESIGN: This was a retrospective evaluation of consecutive cases. SETTING: This study was conducted at an academic-hospital-based tertiary-referral colonoscopy practice. PATIENTS: The study comprised consecutive patients with sessile polyps > or = 2 cm who were undergoing endoscopic resection. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention was endoscopic resection of 59 consecutive sessile colon polyps 2 cm or larger in size and located proximal to the rectum by using prototype colonoscopes with short bending sections. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measurement was successful endoscopic resection. RESULTS: Fourteen of the polyps were removed either entirely (n = 4) or partially (n = 10) in retroflexion. Patients with polyps that were removed in retroflexion were more likely to have been referred by another colonoscopist than those patients with polyps removed entirely in the forward view (p = 0.05). There were no perforations and no complications related to retroflexion. LIMITATIONS: The study is retrospective, and the practice is a tertiary referral colonoscopy practice. The colonoscopes used are not widely available at this time. CONCLUSIONS: Retroflexion is a useful adjunctive procedure for the removal of some colon polyps proximal to the rectum that are difficult to access endoscopically. The use of retroflexion can increase the fraction of proximal sessile colon polyps amenable to endoscopic resection.

Colonic Polyps↗
PubMed2006

Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society.

Adenomatous polyps are the most common neoplastic findings discovered in people who undergo colorectal screening or who have a diagnostic work-up for symptoms. It was common practice in the 1970s for these patients to have annual follow-up surveillance examinations to detect additional new adenomas and missed synchronous adenomas. As a result of the National Polyp Study report in 1993, which showed clearly in a randomized design that the first postpolypectomy examination could be deferred for 3 years, guidelines published by a gastrointestinal consortium in 1997 recommended that the first follow-up surveillance take place 3 years after polypectomy for most patients. In 2003 these guidelines were updated and colonoscopy was recommended as the only follow-up examination, stratification at baseline into low risk and higher risk for subsequent adenomas was suggested. The 1997 and 2003 guidelines dealt with both screening and surveillance. However, it has become increasingly clear that postpolypectomy surveillance is now a large part of endoscopic practice, draining resources from screening and diagnosis. In addition, surveys have shown that a large proportion of endoscopists are conducting surveillance examinations at shorter intervals than recommended in the guidelines. In the present report, a careful analytic approach was designed to address all evidence available in the literature to delineate predictors of advanced pathology, both cancer and advanced adenomas, so that patients can be stratified more definitely at their baseline colonoscopy into those at lower risk or increased risk for a subsequent advanced neoplasia. People at increased risk have either 3 or more adenomas, high-grade dysplasia, villous features, or an adenoma 1 cm or larger in size. It is recommended that they have a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy. People at lower risk who have 1 or 2 small (<1 cm) tubular adenomas with no high-grade dysplasia can have a follow-up evaluation in 5-10 years, whereas people with hyperplastic polyps only should have a 10-year follow-up evaluation, as for average-risk people. There have been recent studies that have reported a significant number of missed cancers by colonoscopy. However, high-quality baseline colonoscopy with excellent patient preparation and adequate withdrawal time should minimize this and reduce clinicians concerns. These guidelines were developed jointly by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society to provide a broader consensus and thereby increase the use of the recommendations by endoscopists. The adoption of these guidelines nationally can have a dramatic impact on shifting available resources from intensive surveillance to screening. It has been shown that the first screening colonoscopy and polypectomy produces the greatest effects on reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer in patients with adenomatous polyps.

Adenomatous Polyposis Coli↗
PubMed2006

Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Patients with resected colorectal cancer are at risk for recurrent cancer and metachronous neoplasms in the colon. This joint update of guidelines by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer addresses only the use of endoscopy in the surveillance of these patients. Patients with endoscopically resected Stage I colorectal cancer, surgically resected Stages II and III cancers, and Stage IV cancer resected for cure (isolated hepatic or pulmonary metastasis) are candidates for endoscopic surveillance. The colorectum should be carefully cleared of synchronous neoplasia in the perioperative period. In nonobstructed colons, colonoscopy should be performed preoperatively. In obstructed colons, double-contrast barium enema or computed tomography colonography should be performed preoperatively, and colonoscopy should be performed 3 to 6 months after surgery. These steps complete the process of clearing synchronous disease. After clearing for synchronous disease, another colonoscopy should be performed in 1 year to look for metachronous lesions. This recommendation is based on reports of a high incidence of apparently metachronous second cancers in the first 2 years after resection. If the examination at 1 year is normal, then the interval before the next subsequent examination should be 3 years. If that examination is normal, then the interval before the next subsequent examination should be 5 years. Shorter intervals may be indicated by associated adenoma findings (see "Guidelines for Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society"). Shorter intervals also are indicated if the patient's age, family history, or tumor testing indicate definite or probable hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Patients undergoing low anterior resection of rectal cancer generally have higher rates of local cancer recurrence compared with those with colon cancer. Although effectiveness is not proven, performance of endoscopic ultrasound or flexible sigmoidoscopy at 3- to 6-month intervals for the first 2 years after resection can be considered for the purpose of detecting a surgically curable recurrence of the original rectal cancer.

Colectomy↗
PubMed2006

Endoscopic treatment of chronic radiation proctopathy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic radiation proctopathy is a complication of pelvic radiation therapy. The acute phase of radiation injury to the rectum occurs during or up to 3 months following radiation. Acute radiation injury can continue into a chronic phase or chronic radiation proctopathy may develop after a latent period of several months or years. Symptoms associated with the condition include diarrhea, rectal pain, bleeding, tenesmus, and stricture formation. Of the various symptoms, only bleeding from radiation-induced telangiectasias is amenable to endoscopic therapy. This paper summarizes the findings of experts in the field on endoscopic treatment of bleeding from chronic radiation proctopathy. RECENT FINDINGS: Medical management is generally ineffective in controlling bleeding from chronic radiation proctopathy. Surgical intervention has a high incidence of morbidity. Promising advances have been made in endoscopic therapy, including formalin, neodymium/yttrium aluminum garnet, argon and potassium titanyl phosphate laser treatments, as well as argon plasma coagulation. Argon plasma coagulation presents an effective, efficient, inexpensive and reasonably safe noncontact method for destruction of radiation telangiectasias. SUMMARY: Based on currently available data and trends, argon plasma coagulation is the favored treatment for bleeding from chronic radiation proctopathy.

Argon↗
PubMed2006

Quality in colonoscopy: cecal intubation first, then what?

In 2002, the U.S. MultiSociety Task Force on Colorectal Cancer proposed multiple quality indicators for use in the continuous quality improvement (CQI) process for colonoscopy. The quality indicators were not prioritized for implementation in clinical practice. This editorial reviews evidence suggesting that after cecal intubation rates, two quality indicators should be the priorities for the CQI process for colonoscopy: (1) measurement of individual endoscopists' adenoma detection rates and (2) recommended intervals for postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopy.

Adenoma↗