BACKGROUND: The quality of colon cleansing is a major determinant of quality of colonoscopy. To our knowledge, the impact of bowel preparation on the quality of colonoscopy has not been assessed prospectively in a large multicenter study. Therefore, this study assessed the factors that determine colon-cleansing quality and the impact of cleansing quality on the technical performance and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy. METHODS: Twenty-one centers from 11 countries participated in this prospective observational study. Colon-cleansing quality was assessed on a 5-point scale and was categorized on 3 levels. The clinical indication for colonoscopy, diagnoses, and technical parameters related to colonoscopy were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 5832 patients were included in the study (48.7% men, mean age 57.6 [15.9] years). Cleansing quality was lower in elderly patients and in patients in the hospital. Procedures in poorly prepared patients were longer, more difficult, and more often incomplete. The detection of polyps of any size depended on cleansing quality: odds ratio (OR) 1.73: 95% confidence interval (CI)[1.28, 2.36] for intermediate-quality compared with low-quality preparation; and OR 1.46: 95% CI[1.11, 1.93] for high-quality compared with low-quality preparation. For polyps >10 mm in size, corresponding ORs were 1.0 for low-quality cleansing, OR 1.83: 95% CI[1.11, 3.05] for intermediate-quality cleansing, and OR 1.72: 95% CI[1.11, 2.67] for high-quality cleansing. Cancers were not detected less frequently in the case of poor preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Cleansing quality critically determines quality, difficulty, speed, and completeness of colonoscopy, and is lower in hospitalized patients and patients with higher levels of comorbid conditions. The proportion of patients who undergo polypectomy increases with higher cleansing quality, whereas colon cancer detection does not seem to critically depend on the quality of bowel preparation.
BACKGROUND: The quality of colon cleansing is a major determinant of quality of colonoscopy. To our knowledge, the impact of bowel preparation on the quality of colonoscopy has not been assessed prospectively in a large multicenter study. Therefore, this study assessed the factors that determine colon-cleansing quality and the impact of cleansing quality on the technical performance and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy. METHODS: Twenty-one centers from 11 countries participated in this prospective observational study. Colon-cleansing quality was assessed on a 5-point scale and was categorized on 3 levels. The clinical indication for colonoscopy, diagnoses, and technical parameters related to colonoscopy were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 5832 patients were included in the study (48.7% men, mean age 57.6 [15.9] years). Cleansing quality was lower in elderly patients and in patients in the hospital. Procedures in poorly prepared patients were longer, more difficult, and more often incomplete. The detection of polyps of any size depended on cleansing quality: odds ratio (OR) 1.73: 95% confidence interval (CI)[1.28, 2.36] for intermediate-quality compared with low-quality preparation; and OR 1.46: 95% CI[1.11, 1.93] for high-quality compared with low-quality preparation. For polyps >10 mm in size, corresponding ORs were 1.0 for low-quality cleansing, OR 1.83: 95% CI[1.11, 3.05] for intermediate-quality cleansing, and OR 1.72: 95% CI[1.11, 2.67] for high-quality cleansing. Cancers were not detected less frequently in the case of poor preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Cleansing quality critically determines quality, difficulty, speed, and completeness of colonoscopy, and is lower in hospitalized patients and patients with higher levels of comorbid conditions. The proportion of patients who undergo polypectomy increases with higher cleansing quality, whereas colon cancer detection does not seem to critically depend on the quality of bowel preparation.
Authors: Grace Clarke Hillyer; Benjamin Lebwohl; Richard M Rosenberg; Alfred I Neugut; Randi Wolf; Corey H Basch; Jennie Mata; Edwin Hernandez; Douglas A Corley; Steven Shea; Charles E Basch Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 4.409
Authors: Shail M Govani; Eric E Elliott; Stacy B Menees; Stephanie L Judd; Sameer D Saini; Constantinos P Anastassiades; Annette L Urganus; Suzanna J Boyce; Philip S Schoenfeld Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-09-16
Authors: Grace Clarke Hillyer; Benjamin Lebwohl; Corey H Basch; Charles E Basch; Fay Kastrinos; Beverly J Insel; Alfred I Neugut Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.409
Authors: Danielle M Tholey; Corbett E Shelton; Gloria Francis; Archana Anantharaman; Robert A Frankel; Paurush Shah; Amy Coan; Sarah E Hegarty; Benjamin E Leiby; David M Kastenberg Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.062