Chi Hyuk Oh1, Chang Kyun Lee, Jung-Wook Kim, Jae-Jun Shim, Jae Young Jang. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, 26 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 130-701, Korea, harrison@daum.net.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the quality of bowel preparation affects colonoscopic detection of non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms (NP-CRNs). AIM: To evaluate the impact of bowel-cleansing quality on detection of NP-CRNs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of asymptomatic screening colonoscopy cases after standardized bowel preparation at an academic teaching hospital between June 2011 and May 2013. Primary outcome was a comparison of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of non-polypoid morphology according to quality of bowel preparation. Secondary outcomes included detection prevalence of non-polypoid adenomas. RESULTS: Of the enrolled 6097 screening examinations, the preparation quality was rated as adequate (excellent or good) in 5224 (85.7 %), fair in 615 (10.1 %), and poor in 258 (4.2 %) patients. The prevalence of NP-CRNs was 40.5 % (1962/4847) of all CRNs. The overall ADR of non-polypoid morphology was 12.3 % (747/6097) of all colonoscopies, but it significantly differed among participating endoscopists (all P < 0.05). The ADR of non-polypoid morphology was significantly lower with fair- or poor-quality preparation, versus adequate-quality preparation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.55, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.75; aOR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.30-0.79, respectively). Poor-quality preparation was also associated with impaired detection of polypoid, proximal colon, and sub-centimeter adenomas (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal (fair or poor) bowel preparation significantly impairs colonoscopic detection of NP-CRNs. Given that the prevalence of NP-CRNs is substantial in our average-risk screening cohort, ongoing efforts to improve the preparation quality are practically valuable in increasing the detection of NP-CRNs, thereby improving the efficacy of screening colonoscopies.
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the quality of bowel preparation affects colonoscopic detection of non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms (NP-CRNs). AIM: To evaluate the impact of bowel-cleansing quality on detection of NP-CRNs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of asymptomatic screening colonoscopy cases after standardized bowel preparation at an academic teaching hospital between June 2011 and May 2013. Primary outcome was a comparison of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of non-polypoid morphology according to quality of bowel preparation. Secondary outcomes included detection prevalence of non-polypoid adenomas. RESULTS: Of the enrolled 6097 screening examinations, the preparation quality was rated as adequate (excellent or good) in 5224 (85.7 %), fair in 615 (10.1 %), and poor in 258 (4.2 %) patients. The prevalence of NP-CRNs was 40.5 % (1962/4847) of all CRNs. The overall ADR of non-polypoid morphology was 12.3 % (747/6097) of all colonoscopies, but it significantly differed among participating endoscopists (all P < 0.05). The ADR of non-polypoid morphology was significantly lower with fair- or poor-quality preparation, versus adequate-quality preparation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.55, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.75; aOR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.30-0.79, respectively). Poor-quality preparation was also associated with impaired detection of polypoid, proximal colon, and sub-centimeter adenomas (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal (fair or poor) bowel preparation significantly impairs colonoscopic detection of NP-CRNs. Given that the prevalence of NP-CRNs is substantial in our average-risk screening cohort, ongoing efforts to improve the preparation quality are practically valuable in increasing the detection of NP-CRNs, thereby improving the efficacy of screening colonoscopies.
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: Matthew A Kluge; J Lucas Williams; Connie K Wu; Brian C Jacobson; Paul C Schroy; David A Lieberman; Audrey H Calderwood Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ralf Kiesslich; Stefan Schubert; Michael Mross; Tobias Klugmann; Michael Klemt-Kropp; Imke Behnken; Gillaume Bonnaud; Eric Keulen; Marcel Groenen; Michael Blaker; Thierry Ponchon; Wilfred Landry; Meredin Stoltenberg Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2017-04
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
Authors: Lynn F Butterly; Marion R Nadel; Joseph C Anderson; Christina M Robinson; Julia E Weiss; David Lieberman; Jean A Shapiro Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.174