Shomron Ben-Horin1, Simon Bar-Meir, Benjamin Avidan. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Sheba Medical Center, and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Hashomer, Israel.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Repeat colonoscopy is advocated for low-quality preparations. However, there are few data on how endoscopists assess the quality of bowel preparation. We aimed to investigate, in a visually reproducible manner, endoscopists' assessment of colon cleanliness, as reflected by their subsequent recommendations for follow-up. METHODS: Gastroenterologists attending the Israeli Gastroenterology Association meeting were presented with photographs depicting varying degrees of colon cleanliness at a hypothetical screening colonoscopy. Endoscopists were requested to denote their recommendation for the timing of a follow-up procedure for each of the different preparations, both when no polyps were detected and when two small adenomas were found. RESULTS: Seventy-eight gastroenterologists were included. There was considerable interobserver variability in endoscopists' assessment of preparation adequacy, and recommended follow-up timing ranged from more than 5 yr to immediate repeat colonoscopy for identical preparations. Interestingly, even when repeat colonoscopy was not considered necessary, most endoscopists recommended progressively shorter follow-up intervals in line with reduced preparation quality (mean interval dropping from 9.2+/-1.7 to 6.3+/-2.8 to 2.5+/-2 yr, P<0.001 for trend). Similar findings were observed when two adenomas were hypothetically found on the index procedure, although follow-up intervals were shorter. No correlation was found between endoscopists' clinical experience or acquaintance with clinical guidelines and their actual recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical decisions derived from colon cleanliness assessment vary considerably among endoscopists, and there is little agreement on what constitutes a disqualifying preparation. Moreover, when confronted with an intermediate-quality preparation, most gastroenterologists recommend a shorter follow-up interval, rather than repeating the procedure. Further studies are required to validate this management approach and to standardize the assessment of preparation quality.
OBJECTIVE: Repeat colonoscopy is advocated for low-quality preparations. However, there are few data on how endoscopists assess the quality of bowel preparation. We aimed to investigate, in a visually reproducible manner, endoscopists' assessment of colon cleanliness, as reflected by their subsequent recommendations for follow-up. METHODS: Gastroenterologists attending the Israeli Gastroenterology Association meeting were presented with photographs depicting varying degrees of colon cleanliness at a hypothetical screening colonoscopy. Endoscopists were requested to denote their recommendation for the timing of a follow-up procedure for each of the different preparations, both when no polyps were detected and when two small adenomas were found. RESULTS: Seventy-eight gastroenterologists were included. There was considerable interobserver variability in endoscopists' assessment of preparation adequacy, and recommended follow-up timing ranged from more than 5 yr to immediate repeat colonoscopy for identical preparations. Interestingly, even when repeat colonoscopy was not considered necessary, most endoscopists recommended progressively shorter follow-up intervals in line with reduced preparation quality (mean interval dropping from 9.2+/-1.7 to 6.3+/-2.8 to 2.5+/-2 yr, P<0.001 for trend). Similar findings were observed when two adenomas were hypothetically found on the index procedure, although follow-up intervals were shorter. No correlation was found between endoscopists' clinical experience or acquaintance with clinical guidelines and their actual recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical decisions derived from colon cleanliness assessment vary considerably among endoscopists, and there is little agreement on what constitutes a disqualifying preparation. Moreover, when confronted with an intermediate-quality preparation, most gastroenterologists recommend a shorter follow-up interval, rather than repeating the procedure. Further studies are required to validate this management approach and to standardize the assessment of preparation quality.
Authors: Corey H Basch; Charles E Basch; Randi L Wolf; Patricia Zybert; Benjamin Lebwohl; Celia Shmukler; Alfred I Neugut; Steven Shea Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2013-11 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: Joseph C Anderson; Lynn F Butterly; Christina M Robinson; Martha Goodrich; Julia E Weiss Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 9.427
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