QUALITY OF COLONOSCOPY «QUACOL». THE RESULTS OF THE PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTRE STUDY «QUACOL 2» COMPARED WITH RESULTS OF THE «QUACOL 1» STUDY IN RUSSIA

Le résumé fourni par la source

Aims In Russia, colorectal cancer (CRC) represents the second most common cancer in women, the third in men. The long-term efficacy of colonoscopy in preventing Colorectal Cancer is strictly related with the risk of interval cancer, which in turn is associated with colonoscopy quality indicators: Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR), Ceacal Intubation Rate (CIR), Colonoscopy Withdrawal Time (CWT), Bowel preparation. The aims of our «QuaCol 2» study were to assess quality of colonoscopy in Russia after performing educational project «QuaCol» and to compare the results of «QuaCol 2» and «QuaCol 1» studies. Methods For the first time the quality of colonoscopy was examined within «QuaCol 1» study in Russia in 2014. Cohort of 8829 patients was included in «QuaCol 1» from 14 centers. The quality of colonoscopy in Russia within «QuaCol 1» was recognized as suboptimal. Then the educational «QuaCol» project was performed. After that the quality of colonoscopy in Russia was assessed within «QuaCol 2» in 2019. Results Cohort of 22380 patients (male 58%, female 42%, mean age 52,3) was included from 82 centers between November 2018 and March 2019 within «QuaCol 2». The results were compared with «QuaCol 1». Bowel preparation was adequate 89 % in «QuaCol 2» vs 77% in «QuaCol 1» (p < 0,001). Two factors associated with bowel preparation quality were: split-regimen and 2 liters of laxative. The split-regimen 70 % vs 25 % (p < 0,001). CIR 96,2% vs 86 % (p < 0,001). CWT was examined in 74,5 % vs 64 % (p < 0,001). ADR 25,8 % vs 18 % (p < 0,001). Conclusions The «QuaCol 2» study showed that after carrying out an educational project «QuaCol» the colonoscopy quality in Russia improved and became optimal according to ESGE recommendations. Our study revealed that the medical educational project can be a key factor for improving colonoscopy quality.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.