Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 289–296 | Cite as

Adverse events after screening and follow-up colonoscopy

  • Carolyn M. Rutter
  • Eric Johnson
  • Diana L. Miglioretti
  • Margaret T. Mandelson
  • John Inadomi
  • Diana S. M. Buist
Original paper

Abstract

Objective

We provide new information about how the risk of adverse events following colonoscopy varies by age and indication (screening vs. follow-up performed to evaluate a positive result from another screening modality).

Methods

We constructed a retrospective cohort comprised of 43,456 individuals aged 40–85 years enrolled in a large integrated healthcare organization in Washington State who underwent outpatient colonoscopy between 1994 and 2009. We calculated rates of serious adverse events (perforation, hemorrhage, and acute diverticulitis) in the 30 days following colonoscopy and compared rates using log-binomial regression models.

Results

We observed 4.7 serious adverse events per 1,000 screening colonoscopies and 6.8 per 1,000 follow-up colonoscopies. Polypectomy increased the rate of serious adverse events (relative rate [RR], 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.97–3.56). Older age was associated with increased risk of serious adverse events, after adjusting for polypectomy, gender, and indication. Compared to individuals aged 50–64 years, risk was elevated for those aged 65–74 (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.40–2.65) and 75–85 (RR, 3.21; 95% CI 2.14–4.86). We observed similar age effects in individuals with and without significant comorbid conditions.

Conclusions

The risks of serious adverse events following colonoscopy performed as part of screening are low but increase with age and are more likely after polypectomy.

Keywords

Colorectal cancer screening Polypectomy Age trends Comorbidity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NCI U01 CA97427 and NCI U01 CA152959.

References

  1. 1.
    Lieberman D (2010) Progress and challenges in colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Gastroenterology 138(6):2115–2126 [PMID: 20167216]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland BG, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Bond J et al (2008) Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American cancer society, the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer, and the american college of radiology. Gastroenterology 134(5):1570–1595 [PMID: 18384785]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Liles E, Beil TL, Fu R (2008) Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the US preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 149(9):638–658 [PMID: 18838718]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    US Preventive Services Task Force (2008) Screening for colorectal cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 149(9):627–637 [PMID: 18838716]Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, Schoenfeld PS, Burke CA, Inadomi JM (2009) American college of gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol 104(3):739–750 [PMID: 19240699]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA, Eheman C, Zauber AG, Anderson RN et al (2009) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 116(3):544–573 [PMID: 19998273]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schenck AP, Peacock SC, Klabunde CN, Lapin P, Coan JF, Brown ML (2009) Trends in colorectal cancer test use in the medicare population, 1998–2005. Am J Prev Med 37(1):1–7 [PMID: 19423273]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Richardson IC, Rim SH, Plescia M (2010) Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 50–75 years—United States, 2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 59:808–812 [PMID: 20613704]Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holden DJ, Harris R, Porterfield DS, Jonas DE, Morgan L, Reuland D et al (2010) Enhancing the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment no 190. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; AHRQ publication no 10-E002. Rockville, MD, http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/crcuse/crcuse.pdf. Accessed 17 Nov 2011 [PMID 20726624]
  10. 10.
    Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C, Seeff LC, Manninen DL, Shapiro JA et al (2006) Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med 145(12):880–886 [PMID: 17179057]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singh H, Penfold RB, DeCoster C, Kaita L, Proulx C, Taylor G et al (2009) Colonoscopy and its complications across a Canadian regional health authority. Gastrointest Endosc 69(3 Pt 2):665–671 [PMID: 19251007]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Mariotto AB, Meekins A, Topor M, Brown ML et al (2009) Adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in the Medicare population. Ann Intern Med 150:849–857 [PMID: 19528563]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ko CW, Riffle S, Michaels L, Morris C, Holub J, Shapiro JA et al (2010) Serious complications within 30 days of screening and surveillance colonoscopy are uncommon. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 8(2):166–173 [PMID: 19850154]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shih YC, Zhao L, Elting LS (2006) Does Medicare coverage of colonoscopy reduce racial/ethnic disparities in cancer screening among the elderly? Health Aff (Millwood) 25(4):1153–1162 [PMID: 16835198]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, Bond J, Burt R, Ferrucci J et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 124(2):544–560 [PMID: 12557158]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Hilsden RJ, Saskin R, Leddin D, Grunfeld E et al. (2008) Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice. Gastroenterology 135(6):1899–1906, 1906.e1 [PMID: 18938166]Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cheon JH, Kim WH (2007) Recent advances of endoscopy in inflammatory bowel diseases. Gut Liver 1(2):118–125 [PMID: 20485627]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greenstein AJ, Sachar DB, Smith H, Janowitz HD, Aufses AH Jr (1981) A comparison of cancer risk in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Cancer 48(12):2742–2745 [PMID: 7306930]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Konda A, Duffy MC (2008) Surveillance of patients at increased risk of colon cancer: inflammatory bowel disease and other conditions. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 37(1):191–213, viii [PMID: 18313546]Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klabunde CN, Potosky AL, Legler JM, Warren JL (2000) Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data. J Clin Epidemiol 53(12):1258–1267 [PMID: 11146273]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rutter CM, Yu O, Miglioretti DL (2007) A hierarchical non-homogenous Poisson model for meta-analysis of adenoma counts. Stat Med 26(1):98–109 [PMID: 16372387]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sharma VK, Nguyen CC, Crowell MD, Lieberman DA, de Garmo P, Fleischer DE (2007) A national study of cardiopulmonary unplanned events after GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 66(1):27–34 [PMID: 17591470]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolyn M. Rutter
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Eric Johnson
    • 1
  • Diana L. Miglioretti
    • 1
    • 2
  • Margaret T. Mandelson
    • 4
  • John Inadomi
    • 5
  • Diana S. M. Buist
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Group Health Research InstituteSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics, School of Public HealthUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health Services, School of Public HealthUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Epidemiology, School of Public HealthUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  5. 5.Division of Gastroenterology, Department of MedicineUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations