Audrey H Calderwood1, Paul C Schroy1, David A Lieberman2, Judith R Logan3, Michael Zurfluh2, Brian C Jacobson1. 1. Section of Gastroenterology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 3. Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Establishing a threshold of bowel cleanliness below which colonoscopies should be repeated at accelerated intervals is important, yet there are no standardized definitions for an adequate preparation. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores could serve as a standard definition of adequacy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational analysis of colonoscopy data from 36 adult GI endoscopy practices and prospective survey showing 4 standardized colonoscopy videos with varying degrees of bowel cleanliness. SETTING: The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative. PATIENTS: Average-risk patients attending screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Recommended follow-up intervals among average-risk, screening colonoscopies without polyps stratified by BBPS scores. RESULTS: We evaluated 2516 negative screening colonoscopies performed by 74 endoscopists. If the BBPS score was ≥2 in all 3 segments (N = 2295), follow-up was recommended in 10 years in 90% of cases. Examinations with total BBPS scores of 3 to 5 (N = 167) had variable recommendations. Follow-up within 1 year was recommended for 96% of examinations with total BBPS scores of 0 to 2 (N = 26). Similar results were noted among 167 participants in a video survey with pre-established BBPS scores. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study. CONCLUSION: BBPS scores correlate with endoscopist behavior regarding follow-up intervals for colonoscopy. A total BBPS score ≥6 and/or all segment scores ≥2 provides a standardized definition of adequate for 10-year follow-up, whereas total scores ≤2 indicate that a procedure should be repeated within 1 year. Future work should focus on finding consensus for management of examinations with total scores of 3 to 5.
BACKGROUND: Establishing a threshold of bowel cleanliness below which colonoscopies should be repeated at accelerated intervals is important, yet there are no standardized definitions for an adequate preparation. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores could serve as a standard definition of adequacy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational analysis of colonoscopy data from 36 adult GI endoscopy practices and prospective survey showing 4 standardized colonoscopy videos with varying degrees of bowel cleanliness. SETTING: The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative. PATIENTS: Average-risk patients attending screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Recommended follow-up intervals among average-risk, screening colonoscopies without polyps stratified by BBPS scores. RESULTS: We evaluated 2516 negative screening colonoscopies performed by 74 endoscopists. If the BBPS score was ≥2 in all 3 segments (N = 2295), follow-up was recommended in 10 years in 90% of cases. Examinations with total BBPS scores of 3 to 5 (N = 167) had variable recommendations. Follow-up within 1 year was recommended for 96% of examinations with total BBPS scores of 0 to 2 (N = 26). Similar results were noted among 167 participants in a video survey with pre-established BBPS scores. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study. CONCLUSION:BBPS scores correlate with endoscopist behavior regarding follow-up intervals for colonoscopy. A total BBPS score ≥6 and/or all segment scores ≥2 provides a standardized definition of adequate for 10-year follow-up, whereas total scores ≤2 indicate that a procedure should be repeated within 1 year. Future work should focus on finding consensus for management of examinations with total scores of 3 to 5.
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: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: David Lieberman; Marion Nadel; Robert A Smith; Wendy Atkin; Subash B Duggirala; Robert Fletcher; Seth N Glick; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; John B Pope; Michael B Potter; David Ransohoff; Douglas Rex; Robert Schoen; Paul Schroy; Sidney Winawer Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: David A Lieberman; Jennifer L Holub; Matthew D Moravec; Glenn M Eisen; Dawn Peters; Cynthia D Morris Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Audrey H Calderwood; Judith R Logan; Michael Zurfluh; David A Lieberman; Brian C Jacobson; Timothy C Heeren; Paul C Schroy Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Edwin J Lai; Audrey H Calderwood; Gheorghe Doros; Oren K Fix; Brian C Jacobson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-01-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: David A Lieberman; Douglas O Faigel; Judith R Logan; Nora Mattek; Jennifer Holub; Glenn Eisen; Cynthia Morris; Robert Smith; Marion Nadel Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Michal F Kaminski; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Marek Bugajski; Michael Bretthauer; Colin J Rees; Evelien Dekker; Geir Hoff; Rodrigo Jover; Stepan Suchanek; Monika Ferlitsch; John Anderson; Thomas Roesch; Rolf Hultcranz; Istvan Racz; Ernst J Kuipers; Kjetil Garborg; James E East; Maciej Rupinski; Birgitte Seip; Cathy Bennett; Carlo Senore; Silvia Minozzi; Raf Bisschops; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Matthew D Rutter Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Brian T Clark; Petr Protiva; Anil Nagar; Avlin Imaeda; Maria M Ciarleglio; Yanhong Deng; Loren Laine Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Antonio Z Gimeno-García; Goretti Hernandez; Ana Aldea; David Nicolás-Pérez; Alejandro Jiménez; Marta Carrillo; Vanesa Felipe; Onofre Alarcón-Fernández; Manuel Hernandez-Guerra; Rafael Romero; Inmaculada Alonso; Yanira Gonzalez; Zaida Adrian; Miguel Moreno; Laura Ramos; Enrique Quintero Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Vladimir M Kushnir; Young S Oh; Thomas Hollander; Chien-Huan Chen; Gregory S Sayuk; Nicholas Davidson; Daniel Mullady; Faris M Murad; Noura M Sharabash; Eric Ruettgers; Themistocles Dassopoulos; Jeffrey J Easler; C Prakash Gyawali; Steven A Edmundowicz; Dayna S Early Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-03-03 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Audrey H Calderwood; Katherine D Thompson; Paul C Schroy; David A Lieberman; Brian C Jacobson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Sean C Rice; Tina Higginbotham; Melanie J Dean; James C Slaughter; Patrick S Yachimski; Keith L Obstein Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 10.864