Joseph C Anderson1, Lynn F Butterly2, Christina M Robinson3, Martha Goodrich3, Julia E Weiss3. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont, USA; The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA. 2. The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA; Section of Gastroenterology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA. 3. Department of Community and Family Medicine, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of colon preparation quality on adenoma detection rates (ADRs) is unclear, partly because of lack of uniform colon preparation ratings in prior studies. The New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry collects detailed data from colonoscopies statewide, by using a uniform preparation quality scale after the endoscopist has cleaned the mucosa. OBJECTIVE: To compare the overall and proximal ADR and serrated polyp detection rates (SDR) in colonoscopies with differing levels of colon preparation quality. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: New Hampshire statewide registry. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: We examined colon preparation quality for 13,022 colonoscopies, graded by using specific descriptions provided to endoscopists. ADR and SDR are the number of colonoscopies with at least 1 adenoma or serrated polyp (excluding those in the rectum and/or sigmoid colon) detected divided by the total number of colonoscopies, for the preparation categories: optimal (excellent and/or good), fair, and poor. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Overall/proximal ADR/SDR. RESULTS: The overall detection rates in examinations with fair colon preparation quality (SDR 8.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4-10.7, ADR 27.1%; 95% CI, 24.6-30.0) were similar to rates observed in colonoscopies with optimal preparation quality (SDR 8.8%; 95% CI, 8.3-9.4, ADR 26.3%; 95% CI, 25.6-27.2). This finding also was observed for rates in the proximal colon. A logistic regression model (including withdrawal time) found that proximal ADR was statistically lower in the poor preparation category (odds ratio 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24-0.84; P < .01) than in adequately prepared colons. LIMITATIONS: Homogeneous population. CONCLUSION: In our sample, there was no significant difference in overall or proximal ADR or SDR between colonoscopies with fair versus optimal colon preparation quality. Poor colon preparation quality may reduce the proximal ADR. Published by Mosby, Inc.
BACKGROUND: The effect of colon preparation quality on adenoma detection rates (ADRs) is unclear, partly because of lack of uniform colon preparation ratings in prior studies. The New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry collects detailed data from colonoscopies statewide, by using a uniform preparation quality scale after the endoscopist has cleaned the mucosa. OBJECTIVE: To compare the overall and proximal ADR and serrated polyp detection rates (SDR) in colonoscopies with differing levels of colon preparation quality. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: New Hampshire statewide registry. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: We examined colon preparation quality for 13,022 colonoscopies, graded by using specific descriptions provided to endoscopists. ADR and SDR are the number of colonoscopies with at least 1 adenoma or serrated polyp (excluding those in the rectum and/or sigmoid colon) detected divided by the total number of colonoscopies, for the preparation categories: optimal (excellent and/or good), fair, and poor. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Overall/proximal ADR/SDR. RESULTS: The overall detection rates in examinations with fair colon preparation quality (SDR 8.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4-10.7, ADR 27.1%; 95% CI, 24.6-30.0) were similar to rates observed in colonoscopies with optimal preparation quality (SDR 8.8%; 95% CI, 8.3-9.4, ADR 26.3%; 95% CI, 25.6-27.2). This finding also was observed for rates in the proximal colon. A logistic regression model (including withdrawal time) found that proximal ADR was statistically lower in the poor preparation category (odds ratio 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24-0.84; P < .01) than in adequately prepared colons. LIMITATIONS: Homogeneous population. CONCLUSION: In our sample, there was no significant difference in overall or proximal ADR or SDR between colonoscopies with fair versus optimal colon preparation quality. Poor colon preparation quality may reduce the proximal ADR. Published by Mosby, Inc.
Authors: Donald L Weaver; Robert D Rosenberg; William E Barlow; Laura Ichikawa; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Berta M Geller; Charles R Key; Susan J Maygarden; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Reena V Chokshi; Christine E Hovis; Thomas Hollander; Dayna S Early; Jean S Wang Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Polly A Newcomb; Amanda I Phipps; Michael N Passarelli; William M Grady; Melissa P Upton; Lee-Ching Zhu; John D Potter Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Joseph C Anderson; Rajeev Attam; Zvi Alpern; Catherine R Messina; Patricia Hubbard; Roger Grimson; Peter F Ells; Douglas L Brand Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Thomas R de Wijkerslooth; Esther M Stoop; Patrick M Bossuyt; Kristien M A J Tytgat; Jan Dees; Elisabeth M H Mathus-Vliegen; Ernst J Kuipers; Paul Fockens; Monique E van Leerdam; Evelien Dekker Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-01-12 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Joseph C Anderson; Lynn F Butterly; Martha Goodrich; Christina M Robinson; Julia E Weiss Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Stacy B Menees; H Myra Kim; Eric E Elliott; Jennifer L Mickevicius; Brittany B Graustein; Philip S Schoenfeld Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Audrey H Calderwood; Joseph C Anderson; Christina M Robinson; Lynn F Butterly Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-11-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Joseph C Anderson; John A Baron; Dennis J Ahnen; Elizabeth L Barry; Roberd M Bostick; Carol A Burke; Robert S Bresalier; Timothy R Church; Bernard F Cole; Marcia Cruz-Correa; Adam S Kim; Leila A Mott; Robert S Sandler; Douglas J Robertson Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 22.682