A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop

Patients and practitioners expect that their endoscopy procedures will go smoothly and according to plan. There are several reasons why they may be disappointed. The procedure may fail technically (eg, incomplete colonoscopy, failed biliary cannulation). It may seem to be successful technically but turn out to be clinically unhelpful (eg, a diagnosis missed, an unsuccessful treatment), or there may be an early relapse (eg, stent dysfunction). In addition, some patients and relatives may be disappointed by a lack of courtesy and poor communication, even when everything otherwise works well. Rigorous scientific study of endoscopic adverse events requires not only a lexicon but a reliable reporting systemGastrointestinal EndoscopyVol. 72Issue 6PreviewI read with great interest the important article by Cotton et al1 on developing a lexicon for reporting endoscopic adverse events (AEs). Such a lexicon is highly important for standardized reports to scientifically and rigorously compare the risks of AEs among different techniques, endoscopists, institutions, and clinical studies. Although this article comprehensively reviews this subject, it only briefly addresses the critical related issue of data reliability attributed to underreporting of delayed AEs; serious AEs such as postpolypectomy hemorrhage and bowel perforation are often delayed2,3 and therefore can result in admission to a different hospital system, in which case the AE is missing from the medical record of the hospital at which the index endoscopy was performed. Full-Text PDF