Guideline Title
Complications of colonoscopy.
Bibliographic Source(s)
ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Fisher DA, Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, Cash BD, Decker GA, Early DS, Evans JA, Fanelli RD, Fukami N, Hwang JH, Jain R, Jue TL, Khan KM, Malpas PM, Sharaf RN, Shergill AK, Dominitz JA. Complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011 Oct;74(4):745-52. [119 references] PubMed  |
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
This guideline updates a previous version: Dominitz JA, Eisen GM, Baron TH, et al. Complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;57:441-5.
UMLS Concepts ( what's this?)
Click to view all guideline(s) indexed with these concepts
ICD9CM:
Accidental cut, puncture, perforation or hemorrhage during endoscopic examination (E870.4); Colonoscopy (45.23); Hemorrhage of gastrointestinal tract, unspecified (578.9)
MSH:
Colonoscopes; Colonoscopy; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Patient Safety; Patient Selection; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Safety Management; Wounds, Penetrating
MTH:
Colonoscopy; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Injury due to unintentional cut, puncture, perforation or haemorrhage during endoscopic examination; patient safety; Perforation of colon; risk factors; Wounds, Penetrating
PDQ:
colonoscopy
SNOMEDCT:
Accidental cut, puncture, perforation or hemorrhage during endoscopic examination (216885009); Colonoscope (90412006); Colonoscopy (73761001); Complication of diagnostic procedure (129656002); Gastrointestinal hemorrhage (74474003); Penetrating wound (134222005); Penetrating wound (262560006); Perforation of colon (50257008); Risk assessment (225338004); Risk factor (80943009)
SPN:
COLONOSCOPE, GENERAL & PLASTIC SURGERY
UMD:
Colonoscopes (10-950)
Hide...
|
Disease/Condition(s)
Colonoscopy-related complications
Note: A discussion of the diagnosis and management of all complications of colonoscopy is beyond the scope of this document, although general principles are reviewed.
Guideline Category
Management
Prevention
Risk Assessment
Clinical Specialty
Colon and Rectal Surgery
Gastroenterology
Internal Medicine
Intended Users
Allied Health Personnel
Nurses
Physicians
Guideline Objective(s)
- To provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients undergoing colonoscopy and increase knowledge of potential complications
- To update the 2003 American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guideline on complications of colonoscopy
Target Population
Patients undergoing a colonoscopy examination
Interventions and Practices Considered
- Endoscopists are expected to:
- Select patients carefully
- Be aware of potential endoscopic complications, their expected frequency, and the risk factors associated with their occurrence
- Be familiar with the planned procedure and available technology
- Be prepared to manage any adverse events
- Early recognition and prompt intervention of complications
- Review of complications to reduce future risk and improve overall quality
Major Outcomes Considered
Complications, including:
- Cardiovascular and pulmonary complications*
- Colonic perforation
- Hemorrhage
- Postpolypectomy electrocoagulation syndrome
- Mortality
- Infection
- Gas explosion
- Abdominal pain or discomfort
- Complications associated with specific colonoscopic interventions; including tattooing, dilation, stent placement, decompression tube placement, percutaneous endoscopic colostomy, hemostasis and foreign body removal
*Cardiovascular and pulmonary complications related to sedation are reviewed in detail in the 2008 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Guideline for Sedation and Anesthesia in GI Endoscopy.
|
Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
Hand-searches of Published Literature (Primary Sources)
Hand-searches of Published Literature (Secondary Sources)
Searches of Electronic Databases
Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performed a search of the medical literature by using PubMed (1990-2011). Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When limited or no data existed from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis was given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts.
Number of Source Documents
Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence
Expert Consensus
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence
Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Systematic Review
Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Expert Consensus
Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
- The committee meets formally twice a year (Spring and Fall) and edit/complete documents by consensus. The time from completion and publication is typically less than 6 weeks and data is updated until completion of the article, based on emerging evidence.
- Position statements are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the documents are drafted.
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations
Cost Analysis
A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.
Method of Guideline Validation
Not stated
Description of Method of Guideline Validation
|
Major Recommendations
Complications are inherent in the performance of colonoscopy. As endoscopy assumes a more therapeutic role in the management of Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, the potential for complications will likely increase. Knowledge of potential endoscopic complications, their expected frequency, and the risk factors associated with their occurrence may help to minimize the incidence of complications. Endoscopists are expected to carefully select patients for the appropriate intervention, be familiar with the planned procedure and available technology, and be prepared to manage any adverse events that may arise. Once a complication occurs, early recognition and prompt intervention will minimize the morbidity and mortality associated with that complication. Review of complications as part of a continuing quality improvement process may serve to educate endoscopists, help to reduce the risk of future complications, and improve the overall quality of endoscopy.
|
Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
The type of evidence supporting the recommendations is not specifically stated.
|
Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations
Potential Benefits
Appropriate review of complications as part of a continuing quality improvement process may serve to educate endoscopists, help to reduce the risk of future complications, and improve the overall quality of endoscopy.
|
Qualifying Statements
- Position statements are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the document was drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this document, which may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice.
- This document is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This position statement is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient's condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this position statement.
|
Implementation of the Guideline
Description of Implementation Strategy
An implementation strategy was not provided.
Implementation Tools
Staff Training/Competency MaterialFor information about availability, see the Availability of Companion Documents and Patient Resources fields below.
|
Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories
IOM Care Need
Getting Better
Living with Illness
Staying Healthy
IOM Domain
Effectiveness
Patient-centeredness
|
Identifying Information and Availability
Bibliographic Source(s)
| ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Fisher DA, Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, Cash BD, Decker GA, Early DS, Evans JA, Fanelli RD, Fukami N, Hwang JH, Jain R, Jue TL, Khan KM, Malpas PM, Sharaf RN, Shergill AK, Dominitz JA. Complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011 Oct;74(4):745-52. [119 references] PubMed |
Adaptation
Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.
Date Released
2003 (revised 2011 Oct)
Guideline Developer(s)
American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy - Medical Specialty Society
Source(s) of Funding
American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Guideline Committee
Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline
Committee Members: Deborah A. Fisher, MD, MHS, FASGE; John T. Maple, DO; Tamir Ben-Menachem, MD; Brooks D. Cash, MD; G. Anton Decker, MD; Dayna S. Early, MD, FASGE; John A. Evans, MD; Robert D. Fanelli, MD (SAGES Representative); Norio Fukami, MD; Joo Ha Hwang, MD, PhD, FASGE; Rajeev Jain, MD; Terry L. Jue, MD; Khalid M. Khan, MD (NASPGHN Representative); Phyllis M. Malpas, MA, RN, CGRN (SGNA Representative); Ravi N. Sharaf, MD; Amandeep K. Shergill, MD; Jason A. Dominitz, MD, MHS, FASGE (Chair)
Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest
D. Fisher is a consultant for Epigenomics. P. Malpas is a consultant for Olympus America. J. Dominitz is a consultant for Epigenomics and Salix Pharmaceuticals. B. Cash is a consultant for Salix Pharmaceuticals, J. Evans is a consultant for Cook Medical. G. Decker is a consultant for Facet Biotechnology. No other financial relationships relevant to this publication were disclosed.
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
This guideline updates a previous version: Dominitz JA, Eisen GM, Baron TH, et al. Complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;57:441-5.
Availability of Companion Documents
The following is available:
NGC Status
This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on August 17, 2012.
Copyright Statement
This NGC summary is based on the original guideline, which is subject to the guideline developer's copyright restrictions.
|
NGC Disclaimer
The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site. Read full disclaimer...The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.
All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.
Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion-criteria.aspx.
NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.
Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer. Hide...
|
