Combination of Enhanced Instructions Improve Quality of Bowel Preparation: A Prospective, Colonoscopist-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate bowel preparation is highly important for the efficacy of colonoscopy; however, up to one-third of patients do not accomplish adequate bowel preparation. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the impact of the combination of enhanced instruction on the quality of bowel preparation and its impact on clinically relevant outcomes. DESIGN: This was a colonoscopist-blinded, prospective, randomized trial. SETTINGS: All patients received regular instructions for bowel preparation. Patients were randomly assigned to the control, telephone reeducation, and combined enhanced instruction groups. PATIENTS: Outpatients aged 19 to 75 years scheduled to undergo colonoscopy were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was adequate bowel preparation rate. RESULTS: A total of 311 patients were randomly assigned to the combined enhanced instruction (n = 104), telephone reeducation (n = 101), and control groups (n = 106). An intention-to-treat analysis showed that the adequate bowel preparation rate was higher in the combined enhanced instruction group than in the telephone reeducation and control groups (92.3% vs 82.2% vs 76.4%, p = 0.007). The rate of compliance with the instructions was significantly higher in the combined enhanced instruction group than in the telephone reeducation and control groups. Method of education was associated with proper bowel preparation (adjusted OR 17.46; p < 0.001 for combined enhanced instruction relative to control). LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study conducted in Korea. CONCLUSIONS: Combined enhanced instruction as an adjunct to regular instructions much improved the quality of bowel preparation and patients' adherence to the preparation instructions. The combined enhanced instruction method could be the best option for bowel preparation instruction. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B673. LA COMBINACIN DE INSTRUCCIONES MEJORADAS, INCREMENTA LA CALIDAD DE LA PREPARACIN INTESTINAL ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO, CONTROLADO, ALEATORIO Y CIEGO PARA EL COLONOSCOPISTA: ANTECEDENTES:La preparación adecuada del intestino es muy importante para la eficacia de la colonoscopia; sin embargo, hasta un tercio de los pacientes no logran buenos resutlados.OBJETIVO:Investigar el impacto de la combinación de instrucciónes claras en la calidad de la preparación intestinal y su impacto en los resultados clínicos.DISEÑO:Trabajo aleatorio, prospectivo y ciego para el colonoscopista.AJUSTES:Los pacientes recibieron instrucciones periódicas para la preparación intestinal. Fueron asignados aleatoriamente al grupo control, educación telefónica y de instrucción mejoradas.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes ambulatorios de 19 a 75 años programados para ser sometidos a colonoscopia.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El principal resultado fue una adecuada preparación intestinal.RESULTADOS:Un total de 311 pacientes fueron asignados al azar a la instrucción mejorada combinada (n = 104), reeducación telefónica (n = 101) y grupo de control (n = 106). El análisis estadístico mostró que la tasa de preparación intestinal adecuada fue mayor en el grupo combinado de instrucción mejorada que en los grupos de reeducación telefónica y control (92,3% vs 82,2% vs 76,4%, p = 0,007). La tasa de cumplimiento de las instrucciones fue significativamente mayor en el grupo de instrucción mejorada combinada que en los otros. El método de educación se asoció con una preparación intestinal adecuada (razón de posibilidades ajustada de 17,46; p <0,001 para la instrucción mejorada combinada en relación con el control.LIMITACIONES:Estudio en un solo centro realizado en Corea.CONCLUSIONES:La instrucción mejorada combinada como complemento de las instrucciones regulares mejoró mucho la calidad de la preparación intestinal y la adherencia de los pacientes a las instrucciones de preparación. El método de instrucción mejorado combinado podría ser la mejor opción para la instrucción de preparación intestinal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B673.

Improving the Quality of Bowel Preparation: Rewarding Patients for Success or Intensive Patient Education?

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The quality of the bowel preparation is a critical parameter for the outcome of colonoscopies. It is well established that the bowel preparation modality (e.g., split or larger volume preparation) significantly improves the quality of the bowel preparation. Patient compliance is another important factor impacting on the quality of bowel preparations that receives relatively little research attention. We aimed to explore if intensified education or a lottery ticket as reward for good bowel preparation could improve outcomes. METHODS: After informed consent, all patients received a standardized printed information booklet. In a randomized fashion, patients were offered (a) a lottery scratchy ticket with an opportunity to win $25,000 as "reward" for good bowel preparation, (b) an education session delivered over the phone by a trained nurse, or (c) no additional measure. RESULTS: Overall, the quality of the bowel preparation was rated good or very good in 69.1% (95% CI 61.7-75.7%) of patients. Reward intervention did not influence the quality of bowel preparation (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.09-1.91, p = 0.260); however, bowel preparation quality decreased in patients randomized to receive the additional education (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.96, p = 0.042). Neither intervention significantly impacted on polyp detection rates. CONCLUSIONS: Contrasting general beliefs, additional interventions (e.g., incentives or phone consultation) did not improve the quality of the bowel preparation. The unexpected result shows that utilizing extra resources must be balanced against real-world outcomes and may not always provide the expected result.

Determination of withdrawal times in individualized opportunistic screening colonoscopies.

To investigate effects of bowel preparation, experience level of colonoscopists, and colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) on the quality of an individual opportunistic screening colonoscopy, according to adenoma detection rate (ADR).Data were retrospectively analyzed from opportunistic screening colonoscopies (n = 16,951) at 4 hospitals of various care levels in China.The ADR positively correlated with the experience level of the colonoscopist. The individualized CWT varied, depending on the quality of bowel preparation and the number of colonoscopies performed previously by the colonoscopist. In a setting of adequate bowel preparation, the mean CWT decreased with the increased experience of the colonoscopist. With poor and inadequate bowel preparation, no colonoscopist at any level of experience could obtain a satisfactory ADR.For adequately prepared colonoscopies, minimum CWTs have been determined. Repeat colonoscopy is strongly recommended for patients with poor bowel preparation, regardless of the colonoscopist's experience.

The effect of quality of segmental bowel preparation on adenoma detection rate.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness in surveillance colonoscopy largely depends on the quality of bowel preparation. We aimed to investigate the quality of bowel preparation segmentally and its effect on Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rate (AADR) at corresponding bowel segments. METHODS: This is a single-centered and cross-sectional study. A consecutive of 5798 patients who underwent colonoscopy examination were included. Bowel preparation was evaluated based on Bowel Bubble Scale (BBS) in general and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) in each segment (right side, transverse and left side of colon) and total BBPS scores. The quality of bowel preparation was correlated with ADR and AADR. RESULTS: Four thousand nine hundred forty colonoscopies (14,820 bowel segments) were included in the final analysis. In which 30.9% scored 3, 57.5% scored 2, 11.2% scored 1 and 0.4% scored 0 on basis of BBPS. For each score, ADR were 10.8, 7.7, 4.9 and 3.2%, respectively; whereas AADR were 4.5, 2.8,1.8 and 1.6% (P < 0.05). 36.9% of the colonoscopies showed presence of minimal bubbles and 34.3% with no bubble. For bowels without bubbles and with a large amount of bubbles, ADR were 28.3 and 20.0% respectively; and AADR were 13.3 and 7.1% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Segmental bowels' cleanliness and the amount of bubbles in bowels significantly affect ADR and AADR. The better the bowel preparation at each segment is and the less bubbles in the bowel there are, the higher ADR and AADR we got. We suggest repeating colonoscopy if any segment of the bowel preparation is poor, or if there is more bubbles, even if the total score of BBPS indicates good or fair bowel preparation.

Association between hypokalemia and small bowel capsule endoscopy completion rates in patients in South China: A prospective single-center study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Approximately 20-30% of small bowel capsule endoscopies (SBCEs) do not reach the cecum at the completion of the examination. We aimed to determine whether hypokalemia influences the completion rate and small bowel transit time (SBTT) of SBCE. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January to December 2017, 112 patients (18-75 years old) who underwent SBCE were assessed consecutively for enrolment in our study. On the day of the procedure, a blood test was performed prior to capsule ingestion. The completion rate, gastric transit time (GTT), SBTT, and diagnostic yield were recorded for each SBCE. RESULTS: The SBCE completion rate was lower in the hypokalemia group than that in the normal potassium group (55.6% (15/27) vs. 76.5% (65/85), P = 0.036). The median GTT was 55.5 ± 47.1 min in the hypokalemia group and 46.7 ± 44.5 min in the normal potassium group (P > 0.05). The median SBTT was 412.8 ± 123.3 min in the hypokalemia group and 367.3 ± 172.5 min in the normal potassium group (P > 0.05). The diagnostic yields of the hypokalemia and normal potassium groups were 74.1% and 78.8%, respectively (P = 1.00). CONCLUSION: Hypokalemia may decrease the SBCE completion rate. Physicians should consider the possibility of hypokalemia after bowel preparation because this condition is not rare. Potassium deficiencies should be rectified prior to performing SBCE procedures to increase the SBCE completion rate.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: what is best and necessary for quality?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Colonoscopy is recognizably, the best colon cancer prevention test, provided the quality of the preparation is adequate for detection of precancerous polyps but also allowing for accurate identification of margins, thereby facilitating complete endoscopic resection. As there are many aspects effecting colon prep outcomes, it is timely to review new standards for optimizing outcomes, including product selection based on patient demographics. RECENT FINDINGS: New national guidelines have set a minimum quality threshold for adequacy and also defined a split day delivery for oral options as the "standard of care". Several new prep options have been recently released and these data are discussed. SUMMARY: Optimizing the quality of colon preps has major implications for clinical practice. Clinicians must recognize new targets for standard of care, providing the best approach for each individual patient, considering variable factors which may otherwise compromise success.

Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Patients with a History of Abdomino-Pelvic Surgery: Retrospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Prior abdomino-pelvic (AP) surgery makes colonoscopy difficult and can affect bowel preparation quality. However, bowel preparation quality has been found to vary according to prior AP surgery type. We examined the relationship of prior AP surgery type with bowel preparation quality in a large-scale retrospective cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the health screening cohort of the National Cancer Center, 12881 participants who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy between June 2007 and December 2014 were included. Personal data were collected by reviewing patient medical records. Bowel preparation quality was assessed using the Aronchick scale and was categorized as satisfactory for excellent to good bowel preparation or unsatisfactory for fair to inadequate bowel preparation. RESULTS: A total of 1557 (12.1%) participants had a history of AP surgery. The surgery types were colorectal surgery (n=44), gastric/small intestinal surgery (n=125), appendectomy/peritoneum/laparotomy (n=476), cesarean section (n=278), uterus/ovarian surgery (n=317), kidney/bladder/prostate surgery (n=19), or liver/pancreatobiliary surgery (n=96). The proportion of satisfactory bowel preparations was 70.7%. In multivariate analysis, unsatisfactory bowel preparation was related to gastric/small intestinal surgery (odds ratio=1.764, 95% confidence interval=1.230-2.532, p=0.002). However, the other surgery types did not affect bowel preparation quality. Current smoking, diabetes, and high body mass index were risk factors of unacceptable bowel preparation. CONCLUSION: Only gastric/small intestinal surgery was a potential risk factor for poor bowel preparation. Further research on patients with a history of gastric/small intestinal surgery to determine appropriate methods for adequate bowel preparation is mandatory.

Split-dose bowel preparation improves adequacy of bowel preparation and gastroenterologists' adherence to National Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance Guidelines.

AIM: To quantify the impact of split-dose regimen on endoscopists' compliance with guideline recommendations for timing of repeat colonoscopy in patients with normal colonoscopy or 1-2 small polyps (< 10 mm). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all endoscopy reports was undertaken in average-risk individuals > 50 years old with a normal screening colonoscopy and 1-2 small polyps. Data were abstracted from two time periods, pre and post-split-dose bowel preparation institution. Main outcome measurements were recommendation for timing of repeat colonoscopy and bowel preparation quality. Bivariate analysis by χ2 tests and Student's t-tests were performed to assess differences between the two cohorts. Multivariable logistic regression was used with guideline consistent recommendations as the dependent variables and an indicator for 2011 cohort as the primary predictor. RESULTS: Four thousand two hundred and twenty-five patients were included in the study; 47.0% (1987) prior to the institution of split dose bowel preparation, and 53.0% (2238) after the institution of split dose bowel preparation. Overall, 82.2% (n = 3472) of the colonoscopies were compliant with guideline recommendations, with a small but significantly increased compliance rate in year 2011 (83.7%) compared to year 2009 (80.4%, P = 0.005), corresponding to an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.25 (95%CI: 1.07-1.47; P = 0.005). Colonoscopies with either "Adequate" or "Excellent" had increased from 30.6% in year 2009 to 39.6% in year 2011 (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in poor/inadequate category of bowel preparation as there was a mild increase from 4.6% in year 2009 to 5.1% in year 2011 (P = 0.50). CONCLUSION: Split-dose bowel regimen increases endoscopists' compliance to guidelines in average-risk patients with normal colonoscopy or 1-2 small polyps.

An Automated Inpatient Split-dose Bowel Preparation System Improves Colonoscopy Quality and Reduces Repeat Procedures.

BACKGROUND/GOALS: Inpatient colonoscopy preparations are often inadequate, compromising patient safety and procedure quality, while resulting in greater hospital costs. The aims of this study were to: (1) design and implement an electronic inpatient split-dose bowel preparation order set; (2) assess the intervention's impact upon preparation adequacy, repeated colonoscopies, hospital days, and costs. STUDY: We conducted a single center prospective pragmatic quasiexperimental study of hospitalized adults undergoing colonoscopy. The experimental intervention was designed using DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, and control) methodology. Prospective data collected over 12 months were compared with data from a historical preintervention cohort. The primary outcome was bowel preparation quality and secondary outcomes included number of repeated procedures, hospital days, and costs. RESULTS: On the basis of a Delphi method and DMAIC process, we created an electronic inpatient bowel preparation order set inclusive of a split-dose bowel preparation algorithm, automated orders for rescue medications, and nursing bowel preparation checks. The analysis data set included 969 patients, 445 (46%) in the postintervention group. The adequacy of bowel preparation significantly increased following intervention (86% vs. 43%; P<0.01) and proportion of repeated procedures decreased (2.0% vs. 4.6%; P=0.03). Mean hospital days from bowel preparation initiation to discharge decreased from 8.0 to 6.9 days (P=0.02). The intervention resulted in an estimated 1-year cost-savings of $46,076 based on a reduction in excess hospital days associated with repeated and delayed procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Our interdisciplinary initiative targeting inpatient colonoscopy preparations significantly improved quality and reduced repeat procedures, and hospital days. Other institutions should consider utilizing this framework to improve inpatient colonoscopy value.

[Treatment of Chronic Functional Constipation during Pregnancy and Lactation]. / Behandlung der chronischen funktionellen Obstipation in der Schwangerschaft und Stillperiode.

Natural fibres (bulk-forming agents), docusate sodium (stool-softener), mineral oils (lubricant laxatives), macrogol (polyethylene glycol, PEG), sugars and sugar alcohols (osmotic laxatives) and anthraquinones and diphenolic laxatives (stimulant laxatives) seem to be safe medicaments regarding teratogenicity and lactation. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) risk categories for these substances taken during pregnancy and lactation are often the result of the lack of studies than of evidence-based information. So risk categories do not help in the decision-making for the right laxative. Alternative solutions such as proposals of the American College of Gastroenterology's Committee on FDA related matters, (ACG-FDA) and the Motherisk Programme try to improve decision-making. For newer compounds such as chloride-channel-activators and procinetics no data regarding safe use in pregnancy and during breast-feeding are available as yet. We suggest the use of macrogol and lactulose as the first-line therapy in treating chronic constipation during pregnancy. Macrogol shows some advantages, such as faster onset of bowel action and fewer flatulences. If this treatment does not work or starts but then stops working, we recommend in the second and third trimenon a second-line treatment with diphenolic laxatives such as bisacodyl and and sodium picosulfate. During pregnancy the decision on the application of these laxatives is largely determined by the side-effects of tenesmus associated with preterm births. During lactation we recommend macrogol (preferable to lactulose due to the lack of data), lactulose, bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate, according to the nature of the conditions.

Impact of the quality of bowel cleansing on the efficacy of colonic cancer screening: a prospective, randomized, blinded study.

OBJECTIVES: Efficacy of two low volume bowel cleansing preparations, polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG + Asc) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (NaPic/MgCit), were compared for polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR) and overall cleansing ability. Primary endpoint was PDR (the number of patients with ≥ 1 polypoid or flat lesion recorded by the colonoscopist). METHODS: Diagnostic, surveillance or screening colonoscopy patients were enrolled into this investigator-blinded, multi-center Phase IV study and randomized 1:1 to receive PEG + Asc (administered the evening before and the morning of colonoscopy, per label) or NaPic/MgCit (administered in the morning and afternoon the day before colonoscopy, per label). The blinded colonoscopist documented any lesion and assessed cleansing quality (Harefield Cleansing Scale). RESULTS: Of 394 patients who completed the study, 393 (PEG + Asc, N = 200; NaPic/MgCit, N = 193) had a colonoscopy. Overall PDR for PEG+Asc versus NaPic/MgCit was 51.5% versus 44.0%, p = 0.139. PDR and ADR on the right side of the bowel were significantly higher with PEG + Asc versus NaPic/MgCit (PDR: 56[28.0%] versus 32[16.6%], p = 0.007; ADR: 42[21.0%] versus 23[11.9%], p = 0.015), as was detection of flat lesions (43[21.5%] versus 25[13.0%], p = 0.025). Cleansing quality was better with PEG + Asc than NaPic/MgCit (98.5% versus 57.5% considered successful cleansing). Overall, there were 132 treatment-emergent adverse events (93 versus 39 for PEG+Asc and NaPic/MgCit, respectively). These were mainly mild abdominal symptoms, all of which were reported for higher proportions of patients in the PEG+Asc than NaPic/MgCit group. Twice as many patients in the NaPic/MgCit versus the PEG + Asc group reported tolerance of cleansing solution as 'very good'. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with NaPic/MgCit, PEG + Asc may be more efficacious for overall cleansing ability, and subsequent detection of right-sided and flat lesions. This is likely attributable to the different administration schedules of the two bowel cleansing preparations, which may positively impact the detection and prevention of colorectal cancer, thereby improving mortality rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01689792.

Advances in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Precolonoscopy bowel preparation is adequate to identify lesions larger than 5 mm about 70% to 75% of the time, but the opportunity for further improvement exists. The use of high-quality formulations with established efficacy rates of 90% or greater, identification of patients who are at increased risk of an inadequate preparation, as well as patient education and motivation to be invested in the process further improves the success of cleansing. Endoscopists should strive to achieve an adequate bowel preparation in 85% or more of patients. High-quality colonoscopy requires high-quality bowel cleansing.

Adenoma detection in excellent versus good bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

GOAL: To determine whether Excellent bowel cleansing is superior to Good for the detection of adenomas. BACKGROUND: High quality colonoscopy requires Adequate bowel preparation. However, it is unknown whether adenoma detection differs between subcategories of Adequate cleansing. STUDY: We utilized a retrospective, cross-sectional study design to obtain data about patients undergoing colonoscopy at a single university center between August 31, 2011 and September 1, 2012. Primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), the percentage of patients with ≥1 adenoma. Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy, adenoma distribution (proximal vs. distal), and detection of advanced adenomas, sessile serrated polyps (SSP), and cancer. RESULTS: The electronic medical record of 5113 consecutive colonoscopies with Good or Excellent preparation was queried for preparation quality, colonoscopy indication, demographics, medical history, and history of adenoma and colon cancer. Exclusion criteria were age below 18 years, inflammatory bowel disease, or familial polyposis. Adenoma detection was not superior with Excellent cleansing as compared with Good for ADR [respectively, 26% vs. 29%, odds ratio 0.97 (0.85, 1.11), P=0.618] or adenomas per colonoscopy [respectively, 0.437 vs. 0.499, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.98 (0.90, 1.07), P=0.705]. Excellent cleansing demonstrated superior detection of SSPs [IRR 1.66 (1.14, 2.40), P=0.008] and advanced adenomas [IRR 1.37 (1.09, 1.72), P=0.007] but not colon cancer [odds ratio 0.286 (0.083, 0.985), P=0.0474]. CONCLUSIONS: ADR is not significantly different between the Adequate subcategories of Excellent and Good. However, Excellent cleansing is associated with superior detection of advanced adenomas and SSPs. If confirmed, achieving an Excellent preparation may improve colonoscopy performance in the proximal colon where SSPs primarily occur.

Validation of the Harefield Cleansing Scale: a tool for the evaluation of bowel cleansing quality in both research and clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Variations in bowel cleansing quality before colonoscopy can cause confounding of results within clinical trials and inappropriate treatment decisions in clinical practice. A new tool-the Harefield Cleaning Scale-has been developed, which addresses the limitations of existing scales. OBJECTIVE: Validation exercise for the new cleansing scale. DESIGN: Retrospective validation study. SETTING: Various colonoscopy units in France. PATIENTS: Patients who had a total of 337 colonoscopies recorded. INTERVENTION: Video-recorded colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Comparisons of 2 scoring systems to assess direct correlation, interrater reliability, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability, based on assessment of video recordings from 337 colonoscopies. RESULTS: Correlation analysis for expert scores by using the 2 scales yielded a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.833. Similarly, the comparison of the segmental sum score revealed a Spearman correlation coefficient of -0.778. Cross-tabulation for successful colon cleansing was 92.88% versus unsuccessful colon cleansing in 7.12%. Reliability assessment indicated an acceptable internal consistency with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.81. Test-retest reliability demonstrated an overall agreement of 0.639 (kappa statistic). Receiver operating characteristic analysis versus Aronchick Scale scores yielded an area under the curve of 0.945, with sensitivity of 99% and specificity of 83% at the optimum score cut-off point. LIMITATIONS: Test-retest reliability was assessed by using a different patient population to the other measures. There were insufficient patient numbers to assess performance by using adenoma detection rate. CONCLUSION: This validation analysis has demonstrated that the Harefield Cleansing Scale is a robust, reliable, and consistent tool that has the potential to improve the effective standardization of bowel preparation assessment in both clinical and research practice.

The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research.

BACKGROUND: Few bowel-preparation rating scales have been validated. Most scales were intended for comparing oral purgatives and fail to account for washing and/or suctioning by the endoscopist. This limits their utility in studies of colonoscopy outcomes, such as polyp-detection rates. OBJECTIVE: To develop a valid and reliable scale for use in colonoscopy outcomes research. SETTING: Academic medical center. METHODS: We developed the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), a 10-point scale that assesses bowel preparation after all cleansing maneuvers are completed by the endoscopist. We assessed interobserver and intraobserver reliability by using video footage of colonoscopies viewed on 2 separate occasions by 22 clinicians. We then applied the BBPS prospectively during screening colonoscopies and compared BBPS scores with clinically meaningful outcomes, including polyp-detection rates and procedure times. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (a measure of interobserver reliability) for BBPS scores was 0.74. The weighted kappa (a measure of intraobserver reliability) for scores was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.87). During 633 screening colonoscopies, the mean (SD) BBPS score was 6.0 +/- 1.6. Higher BBPS scores (> or =5 vs <5) were associated with a higher polyp-detection rate (40% vs 24%, P < .02). BBPS scores were inversely correlated with colonoscope insertion (r = -0.16, P < .003) and withdrawal (r = -0.23, P < .001) times. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: The BBPS is a valid and reliable measure of bowel preparation. It may be well suited to colonoscopy outcomes research because it reflects the colon's cleanliness during the inspection phase of the procedure.

Mechanical bowel preparation or not for elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical bowel preparation has been a mainstay in the management of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, but in recent years, this practice has been challenged; and a number of clinical reports have demonstrated no benefit, as judged by reduction of surgical site infections. This paper presents the advantages and disadvantages of mechanical bowel preparation. METHODS: Review of the pertinent English language literature. RESULTS: Some published studies support omission of mechanical preparation of the colon prior to elective colo-rectal surgery. However, the evidence is not definitive, in that the most rigorous study performed to date, a large, randomized trial, is non-confirmatory. CONCLUSIONS: Additional stratified studies of different mechanical bowel preparation methods, compared with no preparation, are required to address whether the practice should be abandoned.