Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Adequacy of EGD Reporting: a Review of 100 Reports from 100 Endoscopists

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery Aims and scope

Abstract

Introduction

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is commonly performed in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). An EGD report should document pertinent findings such as esophagitis, a columnar-lined esophagus (CLE), the location of the squamo-columnar and gastroesophageal junctions, the size and type of a hiatal hernia and the number and location of any biopsies. The aim of this study was to evaluate how commonly these findings were noted in the EGD reports of patients referred for antireflux surgery.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed of patient charts from 2012 to 2015 to identify 100 consecutive EGD reports from different endoscopists in different patients. Each EGD report was reviewed for pertinent findings and the use of a classification system for esophagitis (Savory-Miller or Los Angeles) and for reporting a CLE (Prague).

Results

In 100 EGD reports, esophagitis was noted in 33 patients, but was graded in only 14 (42%). A CLE was noted in 28 patients, but the length was reported in only 16 (57%) and no report used the Prague classification system. A hiatal hernia was noted in 61 patients, measured in 31 (51%) and the type classified in 26%. A biopsy was taken in 93 patients and the location noted in 86 patients (93%). The number of biopsies was recorded in only 20 patients (22%). In 12 patients the EGD was for Barrett’s surveillance, yet a Seattle biopsy protocol was reported to be used in only 3 patients.

Conclusion

Endoscopy reports frequently do not include the use of a grading system for esophagitis or the Prague system for CLE. This hampers the assessment of change with therapy or over time. The size of a hiatal hernia was typically reported in a subjective fashion and only infrequently was the type specified. Lack of clarity about the presence of a paraesophageal hernia can impede evaluation of acute symptoms. In patients with Barrett’s esophagus a standard biopsy protocol was infrequently reported to be used. These findings raise concern about the quality of upper endoscopy, both in the performance of the procedure and the documentation of findings. A consistent reporting system is recommended for routine use with upper endoscopy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Peery A, Dellon E, Lund J. Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology. 2012;143(5):1179-1187. doi:https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2012.08.002.Burden.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Muthusamy VR, Lightdale JR, Acosta RD, Chandrasekhara V, Chathadi K V., Eloubeidi MA, Fanelli RD, Fonkalsrud L, Faulx AL, Khashab MA, Saltzman JR, Shaukat A, Wang A, Cash B, Dewitt JM. The role of endoscopy in the management of GERD. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(6):1305-1310. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.02.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lieberman D, Nadel M, Smith RA, Atkin W, Duggirala SB, Fletcher R, Glick SN, Johnson CD, Levin TR, Pope JB, Potter MB, Ransohoff D, Rex D, Schoen R, Schroy P, Winawer S. Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system: report of the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65(6):757-766. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2006.12.055.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Keswani RN, Yadlapati R, Gleason KM, Ciolino JD, Manka M, O’Leary KJ, Barnard C, Pandolfino JE. Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(AUGUST):1134-1139. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2015.103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Robertson DJ, Lawrence LB, Shaheen NJ, Baron JA, Paskett E, Petrelli NJ, Sandler RS. Quality of colonoscopy reporting: a process of care study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(10):2651-2656. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9270(02)04402-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Abrams JA, Kapel RC, Lindberg GM, Saboorian MH, Genta RM, Neugut AI, Lightdale CJ. Adherence to biopsy guidelines for Barrett’s esophagus surveillance in the community setting in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7(7):736-742. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2008.12.027.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Park WG, Shaheen NJ, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Inadomi JM, Laine LA, Lieb JG, Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Wani S. Quality indicators for EGD. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(1):17-30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.057.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hill LD, Kozarek RA, Kraemer SJM, Aye RW, Mercer CD, Low DE, Pope CE. The gastroesophageal flap valve: in vitro and in vivo observations. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44(5):541-547. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(96)70006-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Oberg S, Peters JH, DeMeester TR, Lord R V, Johansson J, Crookes PF, Bremner CG. Endoscopic grading of the gastroesophageal valve in patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Surg Endosc. 1999;13(12):1184-1188. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00009617.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schwameis K, Lin B, Roman J, Olengue K, Siegal S, DeMeester SR. Is pH testing necessary before antireflux surgery in patients with endoscopic erosive esophagitis? J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22(1):8-12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3554-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Holmberg D, Ness-Jensen E, Mattsson F, Lagergren J. Clinical prediction model for tumor progression in Barrett’s esophagus. Surg Endosc. 2018;0(0):0. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6590-5.

  12. Rudolph RE, Vaughan TL, Storer BE, Haggitt RC, Rabinovitch PS, Levine DS, Reid BJ. Effect of segment length on risk for neoplastic progression in patients with Barrett esophagus. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132(8):612-620. doi:https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-132-8-200004180-00003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang KK, Sampliner RE. Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(3):788-797. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.01835.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wani S, Williams JL, Komanduri S, Muthusamy VR, Shaheen NJ. Endoscopists systematically undersample patients with long-segment Barrett’s esophagus: an analysis of biopsy sampling practices from a quality improvement registry. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;90(5):732-741.e3. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2019.04.250.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Corley DA, Mehtani K, Quesenberry C, Zhao W, De Boer J, Weiss NS. Impact of endoscopic surveillance on mortality from Barrett’s esophagus-associated esophageal adenocarcinomas. Gastroenterology. 2013;145(2):312-319.e1. doi:https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2013.05.004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Abdelmoarty W, Dunst C, Reid F, Doan H, Tugulan C, Walters J, Davila-Bradley D, Reavis K, Swanstrom L DS. The development and natural history of hiatal hernias: a study using sequential barium upper gastrointestinal series. Ann Surg. 2020:Submitted.

  17. Stylopoulos N, Gazelle GS, Rattner DW. Paraesophageal hernias: operation or observation? Ann Surg. 2002;236(4):492-501. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200210000-00012.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California San Diego Thoracic Surgery, UCSD School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA

    Joshua A. Boys

  2. University of Southern California Thoracic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Beina Azadgoli, Mathew Martinez & Daniel S. Oh

  3. Atrium Health Thoracic Surgery, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Jeffrey A. Hagen

  4. The Oregon Clinic; Thoracic and Foregut Surgery, 4805 NE Glisan StreetSuite 6N60, Portland, OR, 97213, USA

    Steven R. DeMeester

Authors
  1. Joshua A. Boys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beina Azadgoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mathew Martinez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel S. Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeffrey A. Hagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Steven R. DeMeester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven R. DeMeester.

Ethics declarations

This study was approved by the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boys, J.A., Azadgoli, B., Martinez, M. et al. Adequacy of EGD Reporting: a Review of 100 Reports from 100 Endoscopists. J Gastrointest Surg 25, 1117–1123 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-020-04634-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-020-04634-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation