GOAL: To determine whether Excellent bowel cleansing is superior to Good for the detection of adenomas. BACKGROUND: High quality colonoscopy requires Adequate bowel preparation. However, it is unknown whether adenoma detection differs between subcategories of Adequate cleansing. STUDY: We utilized a retrospective, cross-sectional study design to obtain data about patients undergoing colonoscopy at a single university center between August 31, 2011 and September 1, 2012. Primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), the percentage of patients with ≥1 adenoma. Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy, adenoma distribution (proximal vs. distal), and detection of advanced adenomas, sessile serrated polyps (SSP), and cancer. RESULTS: The electronic medical record of 5113 consecutive colonoscopies with Good or Excellent preparation was queried for preparation quality, colonoscopy indication, demographics, medical history, and history of adenoma and colon cancer. Exclusion criteria were age below 18 years, inflammatory bowel disease, or familial polyposis. Adenoma detection was not superior with Excellent cleansing as compared with Good for ADR [respectively, 26% vs. 29%, odds ratio 0.97 (0.85, 1.11), P=0.618] or adenomas per colonoscopy [respectively, 0.437 vs. 0.499, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.98 (0.90, 1.07), P=0.705]. Excellent cleansing demonstrated superior detection of SSPs [IRR 1.66 (1.14, 2.40), P=0.008] and advanced adenomas [IRR 1.37 (1.09, 1.72), P=0.007] but not colon cancer [odds ratio 0.286 (0.083, 0.985), P=0.0474]. CONCLUSIONS: ADR is not significantly different between the Adequate subcategories of Excellent and Good. However, Excellent cleansing is associated with superior detection of advanced adenomas and SSPs. If confirmed, achieving an Excellent preparation may improve colonoscopy performance in the proximal colon where SSPs primarily occur.
GOAL: To determine whether Excellent bowel cleansing is superior to Good for the detection of adenomas. BACKGROUND: High quality colonoscopy requires Adequate bowel preparation. However, it is unknown whether adenoma detection differs between subcategories of Adequate cleansing. STUDY: We utilized a retrospective, cross-sectional study design to obtain data about patients undergoing colonoscopy at a single university center between August 31, 2011 and September 1, 2012. Primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), the percentage of patients with ≥1 adenoma. Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy, adenoma distribution (proximal vs. distal), and detection of advanced adenomas, sessile serrated polyps (SSP), and cancer. RESULTS: The electronic medical record of 5113 consecutive colonoscopies with Good or Excellent preparation was queried for preparation quality, colonoscopy indication, demographics, medical history, and history of adenoma and colon cancer. Exclusion criteria were age below 18 years, inflammatory bowel disease, or familial polyposis. Adenoma detection was not superior with Excellent cleansing as compared with Good for ADR [respectively, 26% vs. 29%, odds ratio 0.97 (0.85, 1.11), P=0.618] or adenomas per colonoscopy [respectively, 0.437 vs. 0.499, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.98 (0.90, 1.07), P=0.705]. Excellent cleansing demonstrated superior detection of SSPs [IRR 1.66 (1.14, 2.40), P=0.008] and advanced adenomas [IRR 1.37 (1.09, 1.72), P=0.007] but not colon cancer [odds ratio 0.286 (0.083, 0.985), P=0.0474]. CONCLUSIONS: ADR is not significantly different between the Adequate subcategories of Excellent and Good. However, Excellent cleansing is associated with superior detection of advanced adenomas and SSPs. If confirmed, achieving an Excellent preparation may improve colonoscopy performance in the proximal colon where SSPs primarily occur.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John H Bond; Sidney Winawer; Theodore R Levin; Randall W Burt; David A Johnson; Lynne M Kirk; Scott Litlin; David A Lieberman; Jerome D Waye; James Church; John B Marshall; Robert H Riddell Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: L B Cohen; S M Sanyal; C Von Althann; C Bodian; M Whitson; N Bamji; K M Miller; W Mavronicolas; S Burd; J Freedman; J Aisenberg Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Lynn Butterly; Christina M Robinson; Joseph C Anderson; Julia E Weiss; Martha Goodrich; Tracy L Onega; Christopher I Amos; Michael L Beach Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-01-07 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Charles J Kahi; David G Hewett; Dustin Lee Norton; George J Eckert; Douglas K Rex Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Vincent de Jonge; Jerome Sint Nicolaas; Djuna L Cahen; Willem Moolenaar; Rob J Th Ouwendijk; Thjon J Tang; Antonie J P van Tilburg; Ernst J Kuipers; Monique E van Leerdam Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-09-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Vikram Boolchand; Gregory Olds; Joseph Singh; Pankaj Singh; Amitabh Chak; Gregory S Cooper Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-11-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: S Thomas-Gibson; P Rogers; S Cooper; R Man; M D Rutter; N Suzuki; D Swain; A Thuraisingam; W Atkin Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Roberto Trasolini; Estello Nap-Hill; Matthew Suzuki; Cherry Galorport; Jordan Yonge; Jack Amar; Brian Bressler; Hin Hin Ko; Eric C S Lam; Alnoor Ramji; Gregory Rosenfeld; Jennifer J Telford; Scott Whittaker; Robert A Enns Journal: J Can Assoc Gastroenterol Date: 2019-09-04
Authors: Jung Hun Park; Sang Jin Kim; Jong Hee Hyun; Kyung Su Han; Byung Chang Kim; Chang Won Hong; Sang-Jeon Lee; Dae Kyung Sohn Journal: Ann Coloproctol Date: 2017-06-30