Literature DB >> 17477852

The impact of poor bowel preparation on colonoscopy: a prospective single centre study of 10,571 colonoscopies.

P O Hendry1, J T Jenkins, R H Diament.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Colonoscopy is regarded as the most sensitive method of evaluating the colon. Inadequate preparation reduces sensitivity and has adverse implications for individual patients and the Heath Service.
METHOD: Data concerning the adequacy of bowel preparation and colonoscopy completion rates were prospectively collected on all colonoscopies performed in a single centre between January 1996 and January 2005. In addition, the strategy of further investigation in the event of incomplete examination was assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 10 571 colonoscopies were assessed and poor bowel preparation was identified in 1788 of these cases (16.9%). The completion rate was 67.5% in those with satisfactory preparation. In patients with poor preparation, 36% of colonoscopies were complete. Incomplete examination was more likely with poor preparation [OR = 3.76 (95% CI, 3.38-4.18), P = 0.0005]. Poor preparation was more likely for inpatients [OR = 3.54 (95% CI 3.14-3.96), P = 0.0005]. Even with satisfactory preparation, inpatient completion rates were significantly less [OR = 1.78 (95% CI, 3.14-3.96), P = 0.0005). A further 542 diagnostic procedures were undertaken in the poor preparation group, an additional pound101 950 (euro149 459) in expenditure.
CONCLUSION: This study supports the view that inpatients fare badly. This is partly explained by higher rates of poor preparation; however, completion rates were reduced even with adequate preparation. Failed investigation and prolonged hospital stay increase cost. Colonoscopy completion rates need to be improved with particular attention to inpatients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17477852     DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01220.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 1462-8910            Impact factor:   3.788


  33 in total

1.  The inpatient colonoscopy: a worthwhile endeavour.

Authors:  Darin Krygier; Robert Enns
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.522

Review 2.  The in-patient colonoscopy: a difficult endeavor.

Authors:  Robert Enns; Darin Krygier
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.522

3.  Predictors of Inadequate Inpatient Colonoscopy Preparation and Its Association with Hospital Length of Stay and Costs.

Authors:  Rena Yadlapati; Elyse R Johnston; Dyanna L Gregory; Jody D Ciolino; Andrew Cooper; Rajesh N Keswani
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-06-21       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Electrolyte changes after bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A randomized controlled multicenter trial.

Authors:  Kyong Joo Lee; Hong Jun Park; Hyun-Soo Kim; Kwang Ho Baik; Yeon Soo Kim; Sung Chul Park; Hyun Il Seo
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-03-14       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Queue position in the endoscopic schedule impacts effectiveness of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Alexander Lee; John M Iskander; Nitin Gupta; Brian B Borg; Gary Zuckerman; Bhaskar Banerjee; C Prakash Gyawali
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-03-29       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 6.  Alternatives to Incomplete Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Nicolas A Villa; Rahul Pannala; Shabana F Pasha; Jonathan A Leighton
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2015-11

7.  Efficacy of morning-only 4 liter sulfa free polyethylene glycol vs 2 liter polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for afternoon colonoscopy.

Authors:  John M Rivas; Alejandro Perez; Marlow Hernandez; Alison Schneider; Fernando J Castro
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Approach to Incomplete Colonoscopy: New Techniques and Technologies.

Authors:  Diana L Franco; Jonathan A Leighton; Suryakanth R Gurudu
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2017-08

9.  Factors influencing quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Ronald V Romero; Sanjiv Mahadeva
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-02-16

10.  Variation in caecal intubation rates between screening and symptomatic patients.

Authors:  Nalin Nagrath; Perminder S Phull
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.623

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.