BACKGROUND: There are no guidelines for the recommended interval to the next examination after colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy after initial examinations with suboptimal preparations and to measure adenoma miss rates in this context. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Hospital-based endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: Bowel preparation quality was recorded in 12,787 patients. RESULTS: Of 12,787 colonoscopies, preparation quality was suboptimal (poor or fair) in 3047 patients (24%). Among these 3047 patients, repeat examination was performed in <3 years in 505 (17%). Factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy included lack of cecal intubation (odds ratio [OR] 3.62, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.50-5.24) and finding a polyp (OR 1.55, 95% CI, 1.17-2.07). Among 216 repeat colonoscopies with optimal preparation, 198 adenomas were identified, of which 83 were seen only on the second examination, an adenoma miss rate of 42% (95% CI, 35-49). The advanced adenoma miss rate was 27% (95% CI, 17-41). For colonoscopies repeated in <1 year, the adenoma and advanced adenoma miss rates were 35% and 36%, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Single-center, retrospective study. CONCLUSION: Although a minority of patients undergo early repeat examination after colonoscopies done with suboptimal bowel preparation, the miss rates for colonoscopies done with suboptimal bowel preparation were high, suggesting that suboptimal bowel preparation substantially decreases colonoscopy effectiveness and may mandate an early follow-up examination.
BACKGROUND: There are no guidelines for the recommended interval to the next examination after colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy after initial examinations with suboptimal preparations and to measure adenoma miss rates in this context. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Hospital-based endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: Bowel preparation quality was recorded in 12,787 patients. RESULTS: Of 12,787 colonoscopies, preparation quality was suboptimal (poor or fair) in 3047 patients (24%). Among these 3047 patients, repeat examination was performed in <3 years in 505 (17%). Factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy included lack of cecal intubation (odds ratio [OR] 3.62, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.50-5.24) and finding a polyp (OR 1.55, 95% CI, 1.17-2.07). Among 216 repeat colonoscopies with optimal preparation, 198 adenomas were identified, of which 83 were seen only on the second examination, an adenoma miss rate of 42% (95% CI, 35-49). The advanced adenoma miss rate was 27% (95% CI, 17-41). For colonoscopies repeated in <1 year, the adenoma and advanced adenoma miss rates were 35% and 36%, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Single-center, retrospective study. CONCLUSION: Although a minority of patients undergo early repeat examination after colonoscopies done with suboptimal bowel preparation, the miss rates for colonoscopies done with suboptimal bowel preparation were high, suggesting that suboptimal bowel preparation substantially decreases colonoscopy effectiveness and may mandate an early follow-up examination.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: D Heresbach; T Barrioz; M G Lapalus; D Coumaros; P Bauret; P Potier; D Sautereau; C Boustière; J C Grimaud; C Barthélémy; J Sée; I Serraj; P N D'Halluin; B Branger; T Ponchon Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Robert E Schoen; Paul F Pinsky; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Douglas J Reding; Richard B Hayes; Timothy Church; Susan Yurgalevich; V Paul Doria-Rose; Tom Hickey; Thomas Riley; Christine D Berg Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2009-10-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Elina S Kazarian; Fernando S Carreira; Neil W Toribara; Thomas D Denberg Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Douglas K Rex; David A Johnson; Joseph C Anderson; Phillip S Schoenfeld; Carol A Burke; John M Inadomi Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; Theodore R Levin; Perry Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Scott R Steele; Eric K Johnson; Bradley Champagne; Brad Davis; Sang Lee; David Rivadeneira; Howard Ross; Dana A Hayden; Justin A Maykel Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-07-21 Impact factor: 5.742
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