No abstract

Background The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is the primary modality used by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LADHS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk patients. Some patients referred for FITpositive diagnostic colonoscopy have neither adenomas nor more advanced pathology. We aimed to identify predictors of false-positive FIT (FP-FIT) results in our largely disenfranchised, low socioeconomic status population. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of 596 patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy following a positive screening FIT. Colonoscopies showing adenomas (or more advanced pathology) were considered positive. We employed multiple logistic and linear regression as well as machine learning models (MLMs) to identify clinical predictors of FP-FIT (primary outcome) and the presence of advanced adenomas (secondary outcome). Results Overall, 268 patients (45.0%) had a FP-FIT. Female sex and hemorrhoids (odds ratios [ORs] 1.59 and 1.89, respectively) were associated with increased odds of FP-FIT and fewer advanced adenomas (β = − 0.658 and − 0.516, respectively). Conversely, increasing age and BMI (ORs 0.94 and 0.96, respectively) were associated with decreased odds of FP-FIT and a greater number of advanced adenomas (β = 0.073 and 0.041, respectively). MLMs predicted FP-FIT with high specificity (93.8%) and presence of advanced adenoma with high sensitivity (94.4%). Conclusion Increasing age and BMI are associated with lower odds of FP-FIT and greater number of advanced adenomas, while female sex and hemorrhoids are associated with higher odds of FP-FIT and fewer advanced adenomas. The presence of the aforementioned predictors may inform the decision to proceed with diagnostic colonoscopy in FIT-positive patients. Keywords Early detection of cancer • Colonoscopy • Adenoma • Colorectal neoplasms • Machine learning • Social class Abbreviations BMI Body mass index GI Gastrointestinal NSAIDs Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs IQR Interquartile range * Jade Law

Unrecognised oesophageal intubation causes preventable serious harm to patients undergoing tracheal intubation. When capnography is unavailable or doubted, clinicians still use clinical findings to confirm tracheal intubation, or exclude oesophageal intubation, and false reassurance from clinical examination is a recurring theme in fatal cases of unrecognised oesophageal intubation. We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of the diagnostic accuracy of five clinical examination tests and the oesophageal detector device when used to confirm tracheal intubation. We searched four databases for studies reporting index clinical tests against a reference standard, from inception to 28 February 2023. We included 49 studies involving 10,654 participants. Methodological quality was overall moderate to high. We looked at misting (three studies, 115 participants); lung auscultation (three studies, 217 participants); combined lung and epigastric auscultation (four studies, 506 participants); the oesophageal detector device (25 studies, 3024 participants); `hang-up´(two non-human studies); and chest rise (one non-human study). The reference standards used were capnography (22 studies); direct vision (10 studies); and bronchoscopy (three studies). When used to confirm tracheal intubation, misting has a false positive rate (95%CI) of 0.69 (0.43-0.87); lung auscultation 0.14 (0.08-0.23); fivepoint auscultation 0.18 (0.08-0.36); and the oesophageal detector device 0.05 (0.02-0.09). Tests to exclude events that invariably lead to severe damage or death must have a negligible false positive rate. Misting or auscultation have too high a false positive rate to reliably exclude oesophageal intubation and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of `hang-up´or chest rise. The oesophageal detector device may be considered where other more reliable means are not available, though waveform capnography remains the reference standard for confirmation of tracheal intubation.

No abstract