Literature DB >> 26439436

Quantification of Adequate Bowel Preparation for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopy in Men.

Brian T Clark1, Petr Protiva2, Anil Nagar2, Avlin Imaeda2, Maria M Ciarleglio3, Yanhong Deng3, Loren Laine4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Bowel preparation is defined as adequate if it is sufficient for identification of polyps greater than 5 mm. However, adequate preparation has not been quantified. We performed a prospective observational study to provide an objective definition of adequate preparation, based on the Boston Bowel Prep Scale (BBPS, which consists of 0-3 points for each of 3 colon segments).
METHODS: We collected data from 438 men who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopies and then repeat colonoscopy examinations within 60 days by a different blinded endoscopist (1161 colon segments total) at the West Haven Veterans Affairs Medical Center from January 2014 to February 2015. Missed polyps were defined as those detected on the second examination of patients with the best possible bowel preparation (colon segment BBPS score of 3) on the second examination. The primary outcome was the proportion of colon segments with adenomas larger than 5 mm that were missed in the first examination. We postulated that the miss rate was noninferior for segments with BBPS scores of 2 vs those with BBPS scores of 3 (noninferiority margin, <5%). Our secondary hypotheses were that miss rates were higher in segments with BBPS scores of 1 vs those with scores of 3 or of 2.
RESULTS: The adjusted proportion with missed adenomas greater than 5 mm was noninferior for segments with BBPS scores of 2 (5.2%) vs those with BBPS scores of 3 (5.6%) (a difference of -0.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.9% to 2.2%). Of study subjects, 347 (79.2%) had BBPS scores of 2 or greater in all segments on the initial examination. A higher proportion of segments with BBPS scores of 1 had missed adenomas larger than 5 mm (15.9%) than segments with BBPS scores of 3 (5.6%) (a difference of 10.3%; 95% CI, 2.7%-17.9%) or 2 (5.2%) (a difference of 10.7%; 95% CI, 3.2%-18.1%). Screening and surveillance intervals based solely on the findings at the first examination would have been incorrect for 16.3% of patients with BBPS scores of 3 in all segments, for 15.3% with BBPS scores of 2 or 3 in all segments, and for 43.5% of patients with a BBPS score of 1 in 1 or more segments.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BBPS scores of 2 or 3 for all colon segments have adequate bowel preparation for the detection of adenomas larger than 5 mm and should return for screening or surveillance colonoscopy at standard guideline-recommended intervals. Colon segments with a BBPS score of 1 have a significantly higher rate of missed adenomas larger than 5 mm than segments with scores of 2 or 3. This finding supports a recommendation for early repeat colonoscopic evaluation in patients with a BBPS score of 0 or 1 in any colon segment.
Copyright © 2016 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colon Cancer; Colorectal Neoplasms; Endoscopy; Polyp

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26439436      PMCID: PMC4728019          DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.09.041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  31 in total

Review 1.  Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  David A Lieberman; Douglas K Rex; Sidney J Winawer; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Theodore R Levin
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  The impact of colon cleanliness assessment on endoscopists' recommendations for follow-up colonoscopy.

Authors:  Shomron Ben-Horin; Simon Bar-Meir; Benjamin Avidan
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-08-21       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 3.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  The effect of colonoscopy preparation quality on adenoma detection rates.

Authors:  Eric A Sherer; Timothy D Imler; Thomas F Imperiale
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2011-12-03       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Quality evaluation of colonoscopy reporting and colonoscopy performance in daily clinical practice.

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

6.  Recommendations for post-polypectomy surveillance in community practice.

Authors:  David F Ransohoff; Bonnie Yankaskas; Ziya Gizlice; Lisa Gangarosa
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study.

Authors:  Florian Froehlich; Vincent Wietlisbach; Jean-Jacques Gonvers; Bernard Burnand; John-Paul Vader
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Shortened surveillance intervals following suboptimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy: results of a national survey.

Authors:  Grace Clarke Hillyer; Corey H Basch; Benjamin Lebwohl; Charles E Basch; Fay Kastrinos; Beverly J Insel; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-08-12       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Technical performance of colonoscopy: the key role of sedation/analgesia and other quality indicators.

Authors:  Franco Radaelli; Gianmichele Meucci; Giusy Sgroi; Giorgio Minoli
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-04-28       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness.

Authors:  Audrey H Calderwood; Paul C Schroy; David A Lieberman; Judith R Logan; Michael Zurfluh; Brian C Jacobson
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 9.427

View more
  54 in total

1.  Pilot Study: Neurocognitive Disorders and Colonoscopy in Older Adults.

Authors:  Franchesca Arias; Michael Riverso; Shellie-Anne Levy; Rebecca Armstrong; David S Estores; Patrick Tighe; Catherine C Price
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 5.108

Review 2.  Update on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Cristina C Rutherford; Audrey H Calderwood
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-03

Review 3.  Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative.

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

4.  Colorectal cancer screening in patients with spinal cord injury yields similar results to the general population with an effective bowel preparation: a retrospective chart audit.

Authors:  Brandon J Teng; Shawn H Song; Jelena N Svircev; Jason A Dominitz; Stephen P Burns
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2017-11-24       Impact factor: 2.772

5.  Bowel preparation: defining adequacy and improving metrics.

Authors:  Philip Hendy
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-03-14

6.  A safe and effective multi-day colonoscopy bowel preparation for individuals with spinal cord injuries.

Authors:  Shawn H Song; Jelena N Svircev; Brandon J Teng; Jason A Dominitz; Stephen P Burns
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 1.985

Review 7.  Strategies to Increase Adenoma Detection Rates.

Authors:  Eelco C Brand; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-03

8.  Comparison of Two Intensive Bowel Cleansing Regimens in Patients With Previous Poor Bowel Preparation: A Randomized Controlled Study.

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

9.  Physician characteristics associated with higher adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Ateev Mehrotra; Michele Morris; Rebecca A Gourevitch; David S Carrell; Daniel A Leffler; Sherri Rose; Julia B Greer; Seth D Crockett; Andrew Baer; Robert E Schoen
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 9.427

10.  High-quality Bowel Preparation Is Required for Detection of Sessile Serrated Polyps.

Authors:  Brian T Clark; Loren Laine
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 11.382

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.