Literature DB >> 22067187

Different bowel preparation schedule leads to different diagnostic yield of proximal and nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm at screening colonoscopy in average-risk population.

Han-Mo Chiu1, Jaw-Town Lin, Yi-Chia Lee, Jin-Tung Liang, Chia-Tung Shun, Hsiu-Po Wang, Ming-Shiang Wu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence indicates that the timing of bowel preparation is crucial, but its impact on the diagnostic yield of proximal or nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the impact of the timing of bowel preparation on the adenoma detection rate for nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm at colonoscopy.
DESIGN: This study is a retrospective analysis of a screening colonoscopy cohort database.
SETTING: The investigation was conducted at a screening colonoscopy unit in an university hospital. PATIENTS: A consecutive series of 3079 subjects who received primary screening colonoscopy with different timing of bowel preparation was analyzed. INTERVENTION: Different timing of bowel preparation (same day vs prior day) was studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes measured were patient demographics, timing of bowel preparation, colon-cleansing levels, diagnostic yields of colonoscopy, including adenoma, advanced adenoma, and nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm.
RESULTS: There were a total of 1552 subjects in the morning group and 1527 in the evening group. More subjects had proximal adenoma (175, 11.3% vs 138, 9.0%, P = .04), advanced adenoma (68, 4.4% vs 46, 13.0%, P = .044), nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm (98, 6.3% vs 67, 4.4%, P = .018), proximal nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm (71, 4.6% vs 40, 2.6%, P = .004), and advanced nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm (25, 1.6% vs 12, 0.8%, P = .036) detected by same-day preparation. On multivariate regression analysis, the adenoma detection rate was significantly higher in the same-day group regarding overall and proximal adenoma (OR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.00-1.50; OR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.05-1.74), advanced adenoma (OR 1.53, 95% CI: 1.04-2.28), overall, proximal, and advanced nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm (OR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.06-2.08; OR 1.82, 95% CI: 1.20-2.75; OR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.12-3.37). The adenoma detection rate was also significantly different among endoscopists. LIMITATION: This was a single-center, nonrandomized trial.
CONCLUSIONS: Improving bowel preparation quality by same-day preparation may lead to enhanced detection of overall, proximal, and advanced nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22067187     DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e318231d667

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  13 in total

1.  Impact of Bowel Preparation Quality on Adenoma Identification During Colonoscopy and Optimal Timing of Surveillance.

Authors:  Ju Seok Kim; Sun Hyung Kang; Hee Seok Moon; Eaum Seok Lee; Seok Hyun Kim; Jae Kyu Sung; Byung Seok Lee; Hyun Yong Jeong; Woo Suk Chung
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Variation in preparation for gastroscopy: lessons towards safer and better outcomes.

Authors:  J L Callaghan; J R Neale; P C Boger; A P Sampson; P Patel
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-03-08

Review 3.  What level of bowel prep quality requires early repeat colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preparation quality on adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Brian T Clark; Tarun Rustagi; Loren Laine
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 4.  Achieving the best bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Adolfo Parra-Blanco; Alex Ruiz; Manuel Alvarez-Lobos; Ana Amorós; Juan Cristóbal Gana; Patricio Ibáñez; Akiko Ono; Takahiro Fujii
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-21       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Validation of Models Used to Inform Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines: Accuracy and Implications.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; Amy B Knudsen; Tracey L Marsh; V Paul Doria-Rose; Eric Johnson; Chester Pabiniak; Karen M Kuntz; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 6.  Interval colorectal cancers: what and why.

Authors:  Chantal M C le Clercq; Silvia Sanduleanu
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2014-03

7.  Impact of the quality of bowel cleansing on the efficacy of colonic cancer screening: a prospective, randomized, blinded study.

Authors:  Jürgen Pohl; Marc Halphen; Hans Rudolf Kloess; Wolfgang Fischbach
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Accuracy of faecal occult blood test and Helicobacter pylori stool antigen test for detection of upper gastrointestinal lesions.

Authors:  Yi-Chia Lee; Han-Mo Chiu; Tsung-Hsien Chiang; Amy Ming-Fang Yen; Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu; Sam Li-Sheng Chen; Jean Ching-Yuan Fann; Yen-Po Yeh; Chao-Sheng Liao; Tsung-Hui Hu; Chia-Hung Tu; Ping-Huei Tseng; Chien-Chuan Chen; Mei-Jyh Chen; Jyh-Ming Liou; Wei-Chih Liao; Yo-Ping Lai; Chen-Ping Wang; Jenq-Yuh Ko; Hsiu-Po Wang; Hung Chiang; Jaw-Town Lin; Hsiu-Hsi Chen; Ming-Shiang Wu
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-10-30       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Meta-analysis: The effect of patient education on bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Chen-Wang Chang; Shou-Chuan Shih; Horng-Yuan Wang; Cheng-Hsin Chu; Tsang-En Wang; Chien-Yuan Hung; Tze-Yu Shieh; Yang-Sheng Lin; Ming-Jen Chen
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2015-06-24

10.  Metachronous neoplasms in patients with laterally spreading tumours during surveillance.

Authors:  Roel M M Bogie; Bjorn Winkens; Sean J J Retra; Chantal M C le Clercq; Mariëlle W Bouwens; Eveline J A Rondagh; Li-Chun Chang; Rogier de Ridder; Chantal Hoge; Jan-Willem Straathof; Danny Goudkade; Silvia Sanduleanu-Dascalescu; Ad A M Masclee
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2021-02-18       Impact factor: 4.623

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.