Literature DB >> 26657900

Split-dose preparation for colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a randomised controlled trial in an organised screening programme.

F Radaelli1, S Paggi1, C Hassan2, C Senore3, R Fasoli4, A Anderloni5, F Buffoli6, M F Savarese6, G Spinzi1, D K Rex7, A Repici5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although a split regimen of bowel preparation has been associated with higher levels of bowel cleansing, it is still uncertain whether it has a favourable effect on the adenoma detection rate (ADR). The present study was aimed at evaluating whether a split regimen was superior to the traditional 'full-dose, day-before' regimen in terms of ADR.
DESIGN: In a multicentre, randomised, endoscopist-blinded study, 50-69-year-old subjects undergoing first colonoscopy after positive-faecal immunochemical test within an organised colorectal cancer organised screening programmes were 1:1 randomised to receive low-volume 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-ascorbate solution in a 'split-dose' (Split-Dose Group, SDG) or 'day-before' regimen (Day-Before Group, DBG). The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with at least one adenoma. Secondary endpoints were the detection rates of advanced adenomas and serrated lesions at per-patient analysis and the total number of lesions.
RESULTS: 690 subjects were included in the study. At per-patient analysis, the proportion of subjects with at least one adenoma was significantly higher in the SDG than in the DBG (183/345, 53.0% vs 141/345, 40.9%, relative risk (RR) 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.46); corresponding figures for advanced adenomas were 26.4% (91/345) versus 20.0% (69/345, RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.73). At per-polyp analysis, the total numbers of both adenomas and advanced adenomas per subject were significantly higher in the SDG (1.15 vs 0.8, p <0.001; 0.36 vs 0.22, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In an organised screening setting, the adoption of a split regimen resulted into a higher detection rate of clinically relevant neoplastic lesions, thus improving the effectiveness of colonoscopy. Based on such evidence, the adoption of a split regimen for colonoscopy should be strongly recommended. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02178033. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL ADENOMAS; COLORECTAL CANCER; COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING; ENDOSCOPY

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26657900     DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310685

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


  34 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  The Natural History of Colorectal Polyps: Overview of Predictive Static and Dynamic Features.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; Bryan Dustin Pooler; David H Kim; Cesare Hassan; Kristina A Matkowskyj; Richard B Halberg
Journal:  Gastroenterol Clin North Am       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 3.806

3.  Similar Adenoma Detection Rates in Colonoscopic Procedures of Patients with Spinal Cord Injury Compared to Controls.

Authors:  Ana Blanco Belver; Mirko Aach; Wolff Schmiegel; Thomas A Schildhauer; Renate Meindl; Thorsten Brechmann
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-08-29       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Comparing the Real-World Effectiveness of Competing Colonoscopy Preparations: Results of a Prospective Trial.

Authors:  Phillip Gu; Daniel Lew; Sun Jung Oh; Aarshi Vipani; Jeffrey Ko; Kevin Hsu; Ebrahim Mirakhor; Varun Pattisapu; Tia Bullen; Garth Fuller; Brennan M R Spiegel; Christopher V Almario
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  Water Exchange Versus Split-Dose Bowel Preparation and the ADR: Is WE There Yet?

Authors:  Felix W Leung; Hui Jia
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Comparison of Small Versus Large Volume Split Dose Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Study of Colonoscopy Outcomes.

Authors:  Hassan Siddiki; Sreya Ravi; Mohanad T Al-Qaisi; Ayman R Fath; Francisco Ramirez; Michael D Crowell; Rahul Pannala; Douglas O Faigel; Suryakanth R Gurudu
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  Endoscopic approach to polyp recognition.

Authors:  Conor Lahiff; James E East
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-02-10

8.  Endoscopist factors that influence serrated polyp detection: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Seth D Crockett; Rebecca A Gourevitch; Michele Morris; David S Carrell; Sherri Rose; Zhuo Shi; Julia B Greer; Robert E Schoen; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 10.093

9.  In split-dose prepared patients, water exchange could significantly improve overall and segmental bowel preparation scores and increase adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Felix W Leung
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-02-08

10.  Reduction of multitasking distractions underlies the higher adenoma detection rate of water exchange compared to air insufflation - blinded analysis of withdrawal phase videos.

Authors:  Yu-Hsi Hsieh; Malcolm Koo; Chih-Wei Tseng; Hsiu-Wen Yang; Felix W Leung
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 4.623

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.