TY - JOUR
T1 - Factors involved in endoscopists’ choice for prophylactic clipping after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection
T2 - a discrete choice experiment
AU - Turan, Ayla S.
AU - Didden, Paul
AU - Peters, Yonne
AU - Moons, Leon M.G.
AU - Schreuder, Ramon Michel
AU - Siersema, Peter D.
AU - van Geenen, Erwin J.M.
PY - 2020/6/2
Y1 - 2020/6/2
N2 - Background: Delayed bleeding (DB) occurs in ∼10% after colorectal EMR. Prophylactic clipping (PC) was reported to significantly decrease DB-rate in proximal lesions ≥2 cm. Objective: Our aim was to determine which predefined variables contribute to using PC in clinical practice. Methods: We performed an international discrete choice experiment (DCE) among ∼500 endoscopists. Relevant variables for PC use were selected by EMR experts: previous DB, anticoagulants, polyp size, morphology, location, intraprocedural bleeding and visible vessel(s). Respondents answered case scenarios with various variable combinations, each time choosing only one scenario for PC, or the ‘none’ option. Part-worth utilities and importance weights were calculated using HB regression. Subsequently, a predictive model was created to calculate the likelihood of endoscopists choosing PC in any given case. Results: The survey was completed by 190 EMR endoscopists from 17 countries. In total, 8% would never use PC, whereas 30.9% never chose the ‘none’ option. All variables except polyp type were significant in decision-making for PC (p <.01). The most important factor was anticoagulant use, accounting for 22.5% in decision-making. Polyps <2 cm were considered eligible for PC by 14% in the presence of high-weighing factors such as anticoagulant use. No significant differences were found between high and low-to-moderately experienced endoscopists. Conclusions: PC after EMR is often considered useful by endoscopists, usually based on risk factors for DB. Anticoagulant use was the most important factor in decision-making for PC, independent of endoscopist experience. Although not considered cost-effective, one in seven endoscopists chose PC for adenomas <2 cm.
AB - Background: Delayed bleeding (DB) occurs in ∼10% after colorectal EMR. Prophylactic clipping (PC) was reported to significantly decrease DB-rate in proximal lesions ≥2 cm. Objective: Our aim was to determine which predefined variables contribute to using PC in clinical practice. Methods: We performed an international discrete choice experiment (DCE) among ∼500 endoscopists. Relevant variables for PC use were selected by EMR experts: previous DB, anticoagulants, polyp size, morphology, location, intraprocedural bleeding and visible vessel(s). Respondents answered case scenarios with various variable combinations, each time choosing only one scenario for PC, or the ‘none’ option. Part-worth utilities and importance weights were calculated using HB regression. Subsequently, a predictive model was created to calculate the likelihood of endoscopists choosing PC in any given case. Results: The survey was completed by 190 EMR endoscopists from 17 countries. In total, 8% would never use PC, whereas 30.9% never chose the ‘none’ option. All variables except polyp type were significant in decision-making for PC (p <.01). The most important factor was anticoagulant use, accounting for 22.5% in decision-making. Polyps <2 cm were considered eligible for PC by 14% in the presence of high-weighing factors such as anticoagulant use. No significant differences were found between high and low-to-moderately experienced endoscopists. Conclusions: PC after EMR is often considered useful by endoscopists, usually based on risk factors for DB. Anticoagulant use was the most important factor in decision-making for PC, independent of endoscopist experience. Although not considered cost-effective, one in seven endoscopists chose PC for adenomas <2 cm.
KW - colorectal
KW - discrete choice experiment
KW - endoscopic mucosal resection
KW - Prophylactic clipping
KW - risk factors
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85087031632&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/00365521.2020.1770851
DO - 10.1080/00365521.2020.1770851
M3 - Article
C2 - 32516002
AN - SCOPUS:85087031632
SN - 0036-5521
VL - 55
SP - 737
EP - 744
JO - Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology
JF - Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology
IS - 6
ER -