BACKGROUND: Split dose bowel preparations (SDP) have superior outcomes for colonoscopy as compared to evening before regimens. However, the association of the actual volume of the SDP to colonoscopy outcome measures has not been well studied. AIMS: Compare adenoma detection rate (ADR), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SDR), mean bowel cleanse score, and predictors of inadequate exams between small volume SDP and large volume SDP. METHODS: We have conducted a retrospective study in patients undergoing colonoscopy with small volume SDP versus large volume SDP between July 2014 and December 2014. Basic demographics (age, gender and BMI) along with clinical co-morbidities were recorded. Quality of the bowel preparation, ADR and SDR was compared between these groups. Univariate and multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess the determinants of inadequate exams in each group. RESULTS: 1573 patients with split dose preparation were included in this retrospective study. 58.4% (920/1573) patients took small volume SDP. There was no difference in ADR (37.9 vs. 38.8%, p = 0.2); however, SDR was higher for small volume SDP compared to large volume SDP (11.9 vs. 7.9% p = 0.005). There was no difference in the rate of inadequate exams between the two groups (p = 0.7). A history of diabetes and constipation was associated with inadequate exams only in the small volume SDP. CONCLUSIONS: SDR was higher in small volume SDP. There was no difference in rate of inadequate exams between the two groups. A history of diabetes and constipation was associated with inadequate exams only in patients with the small volume SDP.
BACKGROUND: Split dose bowel preparations (SDP) have superior outcomes for colonoscopy as compared to evening before regimens. However, the association of the actual volume of the SDP to colonoscopy outcome measures has not been well studied. AIMS: Compare adenoma detection rate (ADR), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SDR), mean bowel cleanse score, and predictors of inadequate exams between small volume SDP and large volume SDP. METHODS: We have conducted a retrospective study in patients undergoing colonoscopy with small volume SDP versus large volume SDP between July 2014 and December 2014. Basic demographics (age, gender and BMI) along with clinical co-morbidities were recorded. Quality of the bowel preparation, ADR and SDR was compared between these groups. Univariate and multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess the determinants of inadequate exams in each group. RESULTS: 1573 patients with split dose preparation were included in this retrospective study. 58.4% (920/1573) patients took small volume SDP. There was no difference in ADR (37.9 vs. 38.8%, p = 0.2); however, SDR was higher for small volume SDP compared to large volume SDP (11.9 vs. 7.9% p = 0.005). There was no difference in the rate of inadequate exams between the two groups (p = 0.7). A history of diabetes and constipation was associated with inadequate exams only in the small volume SDP. CONCLUSIONS: SDR was higher in small volume SDP. There was no difference in rate of inadequate exams between the two groups. A history of diabetes and constipation was associated with inadequate exams only in patients with the small volume SDP.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adenoma detection rate; Colonoscopy; Quality of the preparation; Split-dose preparation
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
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Dennis J Ahnen; John A Baron; Kenneth P Batts; Carol A Burke; Randall W Burt; John R Goldblum; José G Guillem; Charles J Kahi; Matthew F Kalady; Michael J O'Brien; Robert D Odze; Shuji Ogino; Susan Parry; Dale C Snover; Emina Emilia Torlakovic; Paul E Wise; Joanne Young; James Church Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: F Radaelli; S Paggi; C Hassan; C Senore; R Fasoli; A Anderloni; F Buffoli; M F Savarese; G Spinzi; D K Rex; A Repici Journal: Gut Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Rodrigo Jover; Pedro Zapater; Eduardo Polanía; Luis Bujanda; Angel Lanas; José A Hermo; Joaquín Cubiella; Akiko Ono; Yanira González-Méndez; Antonio Peris; María Pellisé; Agustín Seoane; Alberto Herreros-de-Tejada; Marta Ponce; José C Marín-Gabriel; María Chaparro; Guillermo Cacho; Servando Fernández-Díez; Juan Arenas; Federico Sopeña; Luisa de-Castro; Pablo Vega-Villaamil; María Rodríguez-Soler; Fernando Carballo; Dolores Salas; Juan D Morillas; Montserrat Andreu; Enrique Quintero; Antoni Castells Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: J E G IJspeert; C J Tutein Nolthenius; E J Kuipers; M E van Leerdam; C Y Nio; M G J Thomeer; K Biermann; M J van de Vijver; E Dekker; J Stoker Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Rune Erichsen; John A Baron; Stephen J Hamilton-Dutoit; Dale C Snover; Emina Emilia Torlakovic; Lars Pedersen; Trine Frøslev; Mogens Vyberg; Stanley R Hamilton; Henrik Toft Sørensen Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Joseph G H Lee; Jennifer J Telford; Cherry Galorport; Jordan Yonge; Christopher A Macdonnell; Robert A Enns Journal: J Can Assoc Gastroenterol Date: 2020-09-16
Authors: Shashank Sarvepalli; Ari Garber; Carol A Burke; Niyati Gupta; Mounir Ibrahim; John McMichael; Gareth Morris-Stiff; Amit Bhatt; John Vargo; Maged Rizk; Michael B Rothberg Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 3.199