scholarly journals Comparing the influence of 1-day versus 3-day low-residue diet on bowel preparation for colonoscopy:a randomized controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Jiao ◽  
Junmin Wang ◽  
Wenjuan Zhao ◽  
Huan Ma ◽  
Xiao Fan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Patient Tolerance ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Low Residue Diet

Abstract Backgroud :A low-residue diet (LRD) can potentially reduce the hunger of patients while improving compliance and tolerance,without compromising the quality of bowel preparation.This study investigated the effects of 1-day low-residue diets compared with 3-day for colonoscopic bowel preparation . Methods: Patients undergoing bowel preparation before colonoscopy were randomly divided into 1-day and 3-day LRD groups.Oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte solution and simethicone were applied to all patients submitted to bowel preparation. The primary outcome measure included the quality of the bowel preparation rated by the Boston bowel preparation scale(BBPS), and the secondary measures included (i) cecal intubation time and withdrawal time, (ii) polyp detection rate, (iii) patient tolerance and (iv) the willingness of the patient to repeat the diet protocol thereafter. Results: No significant difference was detected in regards the quality of the bowel preparation when comparing the two groups, since the mean of BBPS score was 6.54 versus 6.55 in the 1- and 3-day LRD groups. The cecal intubation times,withdrawal times, polyp detection rates,and the patient tolerance (i.e.hunger-comfort score[1]) showed no significant difference between the 1- and 3-day LRD groups. However,overall satisfaction was higher with the 1-day LRD group than with the 3-day LRD group. Conclusion: The 1-day and 3-day low-residue diets showed no major effect on bowel preparation previously to colonoscopy, while the tolerance and satisfaction of patients were higher after 1-day low-residue diet. Trial registration: Clinical Trial Registry Identifier:ChiCTR1900025843.Date of registration:September 10,2019 “Retrospectively registered”. Key words: colonoscopy; bowel preparation; low-residue diet; duration; bowel-cleansing quality

scholarly journals A120 NO EVIDENCE OF A FRIDAY EFFECT ON COLONOSCOPY QUALITY OUTCOMES

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 101-102
Author(s):  
Z Hindi ◽  
L Guizzetti ◽  
S cocco ◽  
M Brahmania ◽  
A Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Adjusted Risk ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Colonoscopy Quality

Abstract Background Colonoscopy quality may be influenced by operator fatigue. Prior studies have shown lower adenoma detection rates for procedures performed at the end of the day. However, it is unknown if colonoscopy quality is impaired at the end of the work week. Aims We investigated whether colonoscopy quality-related metrics differ at the end of the work week using the South West Ontario Colonoscopy Cohort. Methods Between April 2017 to February 2018, 45,510 consecutive colonoscopies from 20 academic and community hospitals in our health region were captured to form the cohort. In Canada, outpatient endoscopies are generally performed between Monday to Friday, taking Friday, or the last business day, as the last day of the work week compared to the rest of the work week. When a statutory holiday occurred on a Friday, Thursday was designated the last day of the work week. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), and secondary outcomes were sessile serrated polyp detection rate (ssPDR), polyp detection rate (PDR), and failed cecal intubation. Outcomes were presented as unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios derived from modified Poisson regression and adjusting for physician-level clustering, and characteristics of the patient (age, sex, severity), procedure (hospital setting, trainee presence, indication, sedation, bowel preparation quality) and physician (experience and specialty). Results During the observation period, 9,132 colonoscopies were performed on the last day of the work week compared to 36,378 procedures during the rest of the work week. No significant difference was observed for ADR (26.4% vs. 26.6%, p=0.75), ssPDR (4.5% vs. 5.0%, p=0.12), PDR (44.1% vs. 43.1%, p=0.081), or failed cecal intubation (2.8% vs. 2.9%, p=0.51) for colonoscopies performed on the last day of the work week compared to the rest of the week, respectively. After adjusting for potential confounders, there were no significant differences in the ADR (RR 1.01, 95% CI [0.88, 1.15], p=0.94), ssPDR (RR 0.90, 95% CI [0.70, 1.14], p=0.38), PDR (RR 1.00, 95% CI [0.92, 1.09], p=0.94), or failed cecal intubation (RR 0.92, 95% CI [0.72, 1.18], p=0.51) for colonoscopies performed on the last day of the work week compared to the rest of week, respectively. Conclusions Colonoscopy quality metrics, including ADR, ssPDR, PDR, and failed cecal intubation are not significantly different at the end of the week. Funding Agencies None

scholarly journals Effect of physician-provided education on the quality of bowel preparation

2021 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
B Dikkanoğlu ◽  
A.E. Duman ◽  
S Hülagü
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Procedure Time ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Written Information ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Inadequate Bowel Preparation

Background and study aims : Inadequate bowel preparation inpatients scheduled for colonoscopy is an important problem. Inour study, we aimed to investigate the effect of physician-providedbowel preparation education on the quality of bowel preparationand process. Patients and methods : A total of 150 outpatients who were referredto Kocaeli University Medical Faculty Hospital GastroenterologyUnit for colonoscopy between May 2019 and October 2019 wereenrolled in our prospective, endoscopist-blinded study. Patientswere divided into two groups. Group 1 (education group) included73 patients who received 10 minutes of verbal information froma physician in addition to a written information form. Group 2(control group) included 75 patients who received informationfrom a medical secretary in addition to a written information form.During colonoscopy, the quality of bowel preparation was assessedusing the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS). A BBPS score≥ 5 was considered adequate bowel preparation. The mean BBPSscore, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate and time, andprocedure time were also evaluated. Results : The rate of adequate bowel preparation (BBPS score≥ 5) was 90.4% and 74.7% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p =0.021). The odds ratio for having a BBPS score ≥ 5 in the educationgroup was 3.199 compared with the control group (95% confidenceinterval = 1.254-8.164; p = 0.015). The cecal intubation rates were91.8% and 88% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p > 0.05). The cecalintubation time, procedure time, and adenoma detection rates weresimilar between the groups. The relationships of age, educationlevel, sex, diabetes mellitus, medicine use, procedure time, andintraabdominal surgery with inadequate bowel preparationwere analysed using a logistic regression model. Univariate andmultivariate analyses revealed no significant factors associatedwith inadequate bowel preparation. Conclusions : Patient education on the bowel preparationprocess via a physician improved the quality of bowel preparation.

scholarly journals PROPOSED SCORE FOR THE SELF-ASSESSMENT OF AN ENDOSCOPY DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE IN COLONOSCOPY SCREENING

2016 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-32
Author(s):  
Ioan Sporea ◽  
Alina Popescu ◽  
Roxana Sirli ◽  
Oliviu Pascu ◽  
Cristina Cijevschi Prelipcean ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Quality Parameter ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Highest Weight ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate

The aim of the paper was to propose a score for performance evaluation in colonoscopy units.Method. We proposed a score (CDCD score - Cecal intubation, polyp Detection rate, Cleansing and Documentation of cecal intubation) based on the following parameters that  assess the quality of colonoscopy units: total colonoscopies rate, polyp detection rate, rate of cecal intubation photo record, rate of recorded Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) (rated 1 to 5 stars). The mean score obtained based on the above mentioned criteria was used as a quality parameter of the endoscopy unit.We  applied and calculated this score in all screening colonoscopies performed in our Endoscopy Department during the last 4 years.Results. The study group included 856 screening colonoscopies. The rate of total colonoscopies was 92.1% (789/856 cases) and the polyp detection rate was 23.9%. Regarding the quality of bowel preparation, the BBPS was recorded in 51.1% cases. The cecal intubation was photo recorded in 44% of cases.We considered that of the 4 parameters, the highest weight for an excellent quality belonged to the cecal intubation rate, followed by the polyp detection rate, because they evaluate the endoscopic technique, while the other 2 are more administrative. Thus, for the unit’s assessment we used the following equation: UNIT’S QUALITY CDCD SCORE = (3xcecal intubation rate+3xpolyp detection rate+1xphoto documentation+1xBBPS documentation)/8. Thus, the CDCD Score for our unit was ≈4 stars (3.7 stars).Conclusion. the proposed CDCD score may be an objective tool for the quality assessment in different endoscopy units. 

Polyp Detection Rate during Colonoscopy Is Correlated with Quality of Bowel Preparation

2006 ◽  
Vol 101 ◽  
pp. S556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence B. Cohen ◽  
David Kastenberg ◽  
Sandra R. Lottes ◽  
William P. Forbes ◽  
Edwin Carter
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate

scholarly journals Efficacy of Macrogol 4000 Plus Electrolytes in Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Patients with Chronic Constipation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryoji Ichijima ◽  
Sho Suzuki ◽  
Mitsuru Esaki ◽  
Tomomi Sugita ◽  
Kanako Ogura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Chronic Constipation ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Observation Time ◽  
Insertion Time ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection

Abstract Background: Chronic constipation is a significant factor in poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Macrogol 4000 plus electrolytes (Movicol, EA Pharma, Tokyo, Japan), containing polyethylene glycol (PEG) and electrolytes, have been used recently to treat patients with constipation. However, prospective studies on the use of macrogol 4000 for bowel cleansing for colonoscopy are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of macrogol 4000 in addition to PEG administered in patients with chronic constipation.Methods: This single-center, single-arm prospective study enrolled patients with chronic constipation who were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of good bowel preparation assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (6 or more points). The secondary endpoints were the time from when pPEG (MoviPrep, EA Pharma, Tokyo, Japan) was taken until colonoscopy could be started, amount of PEG taken, number of defecations, whether additional PEG doses were taken, and adverse events. Endoscopy-related endpoints included cecal intubation rate, insertion time, observation time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and polyp detection rate (PDR). The tolerability of PEG and macrogol 4000 was assessed using a questionnaire.Results: Forty patients were included in the analysis. The median BBPS was 7 (range, (3–9)) and ³6 points in 37 cases (92.5%). The median time until colonoscopy can be started was 210 min (90–360 min), the median volume of PEG taken was 1500 mL (1000–2000 mL), and the median number of defecations was 7 (3-20). No adverse events were observed. Fourteen patients required an additional dose of PEG. Cecal intubation was achieved in all cases, the median insertion time was 6.0 min (range, 2.3–22 min), and the median observation time was 8.8 min (range, 4.0–16.0 min). The ADR and PDR were 60.0% and 75.0%, respectively. A greater proportion of patients rated the tolerability of macrogol 4000 as good compared with that of PEG (95.0% vs. 50.0%, p < 0.01).Conclusions: Intake of macrogol 4000 in addition to PEG is effective and safe for colonoscopy in patients with chronic constipation.

BowelScope: Accuracy of Detection Using Endocuff Optimisation of Mucosal Abnormalities (the B-ADENOMA Study): a multicentre, randomised controlled flexible sigmoidoscopy trial

Gut ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (11) ◽  
pp. 1959-1965
Author(s):  
Colin J Rees ◽  
Andrew Brand ◽  
Wee Sing Ngu ◽  
Clive Stokes ◽  
Zoe Hoare ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Flexible Sigmoidoscopy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Participant Experience ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesAdenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality marker at lower GI endoscopy. Higher ADRs are associated with lower postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates. The English flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening programme (BowelScope), offers a one-off FS to individuals aged 55 years. However, variation in ADR exists. Large studies have demonstrated improved ADR using Endocuff Vision (EV) within colonoscopy screening, but there are no studies within FS. We sought to test the effect of EV on ADR in a national FS screening population.DesignBowelScope: Accuracy of Detection Using ENdocuff Optimisation of Mucosal Abnormalities was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial involving 16 English BowelScope screening centres. Individuals were randomised to Endocuff Vision-assisted BowelScope (EAB) or Standard BowelScope (SB). ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), mean adenomas per procedure (MAP), polyp characteristics and location, participant experience, procedural time and adverse events were measured. Comparison of ADR within the trial with national BowelScope ADR was also undertaken.Results3222 participants were randomised (53% male) to receive EAB (n=1610) or SB (n=1612). Baseline demographics were comparable between arms. ADR in the EAB arm was 13.3% and that in the SB arm was 12.2% (p=0.353). No statistically significant differences were found in PDR, MAP, polyp characteristics or location, participant experience, complications or procedural characteristics. ADR in the SB control arm was 3.1% higher than the national ADR.ConclusionEV did not improve BowelScope ADR when compared with SB. ADR in both arms was higher than the national ADR. Where detection rates are already high, EV is unable to improve detection further.Trial registration numbersNCT03072472, ISRCTN30005319 and CPMS ID 33224.

scholarly journals Colonoscopy Practice in Lagos, Nigeria: A Report of an Audit

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. A. Onyekwere ◽  
J. N. Odiagah ◽  
O. O. Ogunleye ◽  
C. Chibututu ◽  
O. A. Lesi
Keyword(s):  
Conscious Sedation ◽  
Lower Abdominal Pain ◽  
Colonic Disease ◽  
Quality Indices ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Low Residue Diet ◽  
Lower Gi Bleeding

Background. Colonoscopy effectiveness depends on the quality of the examination. Community-based report of quality of colonoscopy practice in a developing country will help in determining standard and also serve as a stimulus for improvement in service. Aim. To review the quality of colonoscopy practice and document pattern of colonic disease including polyp detection rate in Lagos, Nigeria. Method. A protocol that captured the patients’ demographics, indication, and some quality indices of colonoscopy was developed and sent to all the identified colonoscopy units in Lagos to complete for all procedures performed between January 2011 and June 2012. All data were collated and analyzed. The quality indices studied were compared with guideline standard. Results. Twelve colonoscopy centers were identified but only nine centers responded. The gastroenterologist/endoscopists were physicians (3) and surgeons (5). Six hundred and seven colonoscopy procedures were performed during this period (M : F = 333 : 179) while the sex was not disclosed in 95 subjects. The examination indications were lower GI bleeding (24.2%), altered bowel habits (9.2%), lower abdominal pain (9.1%), screening for CRC (4.3%) and unspecified (46.8%). Conscious sedation was generally used while bowel preparation (good in 81.4%) was done with low residue diet and stimulant laxatives. Caecal intubation rate was 81.2%. Common endoscopic findings were haemorrhoids (43.2%), polyps/masses (13.4%), diverticulosis (11.1%), and no abnormality (23.4%). Polyp was detected in 6.8% of cases. Conclusion. Colonoscopy utilization is low, and the quality of practice is suboptimal; although limited resources could partly explain this, however it is not clear if the low rate of polyp detection is due to missed lesions or low population incidence.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Patient Tolerability Profiles of Probiotic Solution with Bisacodyl Versus Conventional Cleansing Solution for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 3286
Author(s):  
Youn I Choi ◽  
Jong-Joon Lee ◽  
Jun-Won Chung ◽  
Kyoung Oh Kim ◽  
Yoon Jae Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Screening Colonoscopy ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Case Group ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Bowel Cleansing

Although adequate bowel preparation is essential in screening colonoscopy, patient intolerability to bowel cleansing agents is problematic. Recently, a probiotic mixture solution with bisacodyl emerged to improve patient tolerability. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and patient tolerability profiles of probiotics with bisacodyl versus conventional polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution for bowel preparation for screening colonoscopies in healthy patients in this prospective, randomized, case-control study. In total, 385 volunteers were randomly assigned to receive 2 L of water + 200 mL of probiotic solution (case group, n = 195) or 4 L of PEG solution (control group, n = 190). The efficacy of the bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Ottawa scale system, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate, and the patient tolerability profiles were assessed using a questionnaire. The demographics were not significantly different between groups. When the Ottawa score for each bowel segment was stratified into an adequate vs. inadequate level (Ottawa score ≤ 3 vs. >3), there were no statistical differences between groups in each segment of the colon. There were no significant differences in the polyp and adenoma detection rates between groups (38.42% vs. 32.42, p = 0.30; 25.79% vs. 18.97%, p = 0.11). The case group showed significantly fewer events than the control group, especially nausea, vomiting, and abdominal bloating events. Regarding the overall satisfaction grade, the case group reported significantly more “average” scores (95% vs. 44%, p < 0.001) and were more willing to use the same agents again (90.26% vs. 61.85%, p < 0.001). As patient compliance with bowel preparation agents is associated with an adequate level of bowel cleansing, a probiotic solution with bisacodyl might be a new bowel preparation candidate, especially in patients who show a poor compliance with conventional bowel preparation agents.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document