Can an educational video improve the adequacy of bowel preparation for patients undergoing their first colonoscopy? Results of the EBOPS RCT.

Background and study aims The aim of this study was to assess the effect of an educational video on the quality of bowel preparation of patients from a UK population attending for their first colonoscopy. Patients and methods A prospective, endoscopist-blinded trial with 1:1 allocation was performed. Patients referred for their first colonoscopy were recruited between February 2019 and December 2019. All participants were prescribed Moviprep and received the trial site's standard written bowel preparation instructions, with the intervention group also receiving a bespoke educational video. Adequacy of bowel preparation (defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale of ≥2 in each segment of the bowel) and polyp detection rates (PDRs) were compared. Fisher's chi squared test was utilized with P <0.05 as the threshold for significance. Results A total of 509 participants completed the trial from six centers; 251 were randomized to the intervention group. The mean age was 57 years and 52.3% were female. The primary endpoint was met with an adequacy rate of 216 of 251 (86.1%) in the intervention group, compared with 205 of 259 (79.1%) in the control group ( P <0.05, odds ratio [OR] 1.626, 95% CI 1.017-2.614). The PDR was significantly higher in the intervention group (39% vs 30%, OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04-2.19, P <0.05). Conclusions An educational video leads to improved bowel preparation for patients attending for their first colonoscopy, and is also associated with greater detection of polyps. Widespread adoption of an educational video incurs minimal investment, but would reduce the number of inadequate procedures, missed pathology, and the cost that both these incur.

Prioritisation of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes of a novel triage pathway.

Objective: The 2-week-wait (2ww) referral pathway is used in England to fast-track patients with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC). A two-stage triage pathway was used to prioritise lower gastrointestinal (LGI) endoscopy for suspected CRC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: All patients referred for an LGI endoscopy via a 2ww referral pathway between March 2020 and July 2020 were assessed. The first stage triaged patients to high, standard or low risk of CRC based on symptoms and faecal immunochemical test (FIT), and offered CT scans to those at high risk. The second stage, endoscopy prioritisation (EP), incorporated the CT results, FIT and symptoms to triage into four groups, EP1-EP4; with EP1 being the most urgent and EP4 the least. The primary outcome measure was CRC detection. Results: 514 patients were included. The risk of CRC was triaged as high in 190/514 patients (37%), standard in 274/514 patients (53%) and low in 50/514 (10%) patients. 422/514 patients (82%) underwent endoscopy with triage to EP1 in 52/422 (12%), EP2 in 105/422 (25%), EP3 in 210/422 (50%) and EP4 in 55/422 (13%). CRC was detected in 23 patients (5.4%). CRC was significantly more frequent in the EP1 group (23.1%, relative risk (RR)=16.2) and EP2 group (6.7%, RR=4.7) compared with EP3 group (1.4%). All CRC lesions were identified by CT imaging when performed prior to LGI endoscopy. Conclusion: This triage pathway designated 83% of patients with CRC to either EP1 or EP2. During a period of limited endoscopy provision, this pathway effectively prioritises endoscopy for those at greatest risk of CRC.

Is it time we split bowel preparation for all colonoscopies? Outcomes from a national survey of bowel preparation practice in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for effective colonoscopy. Split bowel preparation results in optimal cleansing. This study assessed the bowel preparation regimes advised by endoscopy units across the UK, and correlated the differences with outcomes. METHODS: Trusts in the UK were surveyed, with data requested between January 2018 and January 2019, including: the type and timing of preparation, pre-endoscopy diet, adequacy rates and polyp detection. Trusts were grouped according to the timing of bowel preparation. χ2 test was used to assess for differences in bowel preparation adequacy. RESULTS: Moviprep was the first line bowel preparation in 79% of trusts. Only 7% of trusts advised splitting bowel preparation for all procedures, however, 91% used split bowel preparation for afternoon procedures. Trusts that split preparation for all procedures had an inadequacy rate of 6.7%, compared with 8.5% (p<0.001) for those that split preparation for PM procedures alone and 9.5% (p<0.001) for those that provided day before preparation for all procedures. Morning procedures with day-before preparation had a higher rate of inadequate cleansing than afternoon procedures that received split preparation (7.7% vs 6.5 %, p<0.001). The polyp detection rate for procedures with adequate preparation was 37.1%, compared with 26.4% for those that were inadequate. CONCLUSION: Most trusts in the UK do not provide instructions optimising the timing of bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. This correlated with an increased rate of inadequate cleansing. Splitting bowel preparation is likely to reduce the impacts of poor cleansing: missed lesions, repeat colonoscopies and significant costs.

A validation study of electrical cardiometry in pregnant patients using transthoracic echocardiography as the reference standard.

To validate electrical cardiometry (EC) in pregnant patients using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) as the reference standard. To improve EC accuracy via a one-time, measurement of left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter. 44 non-laboring, resting women with singleton, viable pregnancies underwent simultaneous EC and TTE measurements. Data were analyzed using Bland-Altman analysis. Entry multiple regression with stepwise elimination was used to develop a model for improved prediction of stroke volume by TTE (SVTTE) using EC. Bootstrapping and an 11-fold cross validation were used to test the model. Heart rate by TTE and EC had a mean bias of 3.3 beats/min and mean percentage error of 10.7 %. Envelope time and left ventricular ejection time had a mean bias of -4.9 ms and mean percentage error 12.7 %. Stroke volumes by the two techniques had a mean bias of 15.6 mL and mean percentage error of 43.7 %. A model, SVEC_Modified, predicting SVTTE was developed using LVOT area, stroke volume by electrical cardiometry and weight. SVTTE and SVEC_Modified had a mean bias of -0.83 mL and mean percentage error of 22 %. EC accurately measures heart rate and duration of systole when compared with TTE. Stroke volume measurements correlate but have a high bias and percentage error. Knowledge of LVOT area, by a one-time, measurement with TTE, could improve prediction of stroke volume by EC.