Baseline Features and Reasons for Nonparticipation in the Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) Study, a Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial.

Importance: The Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized clinical trial sought to recruit 50 000 adults into a study comparing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality outcomes after randomization to either an annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy. Objective: To (1) describe study participant characteristics and (2) examine who declined participation because of a preference for colonoscopy or stool testing (ie, fecal occult blood test [FOBT]/FIT) and assess that preference's association with geographic and temporal factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study within CONFIRM, which completed enrollment through 46 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers between May 22, 2012, and December 1, 2017, with follow-up planned through 2028, comprised veterans aged 50 to 75 years with an average CRC risk and due for screening. Data were analyzed between March 7 and December 5, 2022. Exposure: Case report forms were used to capture enrolled participant data and reasons for declining participation among otherwise eligible individuals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the cohort overall and by intervention. Among individuals declining participation, logistic regression was used to compare preference for FOBT/FIT or colonoscopy by recruitment region and year. Results: A total of 50 126 participants were recruited (mean [SD] age, 59.1 [6.9] years; 46 618 [93.0%] male and 3508 [7.0%] female). The cohort was racially and ethnically diverse, with 748 (1.5%) identifying as Asian, 12 021 (24.0%) as Black, 415 (0.8%) as Native American or Alaska Native, 34 629 (69.1%) as White, and 1877 (3.7%) as other race, including multiracial; and 5734 (11.4%) as having Hispanic ethnicity. Of the 11 109 eligible individuals who declined participation (18.0%), 4824 (43.4%) declined due to a stated preference for a specific screening test, with FOBT/FIT being the most preferred method (2820 [58.5%]) vs colonoscopy (1958 [40.6%]; P < .001) or other screening tests (46 [1.0%] P < .001). Preference for FOBT/FIT was strongest in the West (963 of 1472 [65.4%]) and modest elsewhere, ranging from 199 of 371 (53.6%) in the Northeast to 884 of 1543 (57.3%) in the Midwest (P = .001). Adjusting for region, the preference for FOBT/FIT increased by 19% per recruitment year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.25). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional analysis of veterans choosing nonenrollment in the CONFIRM study, those who declined participation more often preferred FOBT or FIT over colonoscopy. This preference increased over time and was strongest in the western US and may provide insight into trends in CRC screening preferences.

An Expert Consensus to Standardize Assessment of Bowel Cleansing for Clinical Trials of Bowel Preparations for Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite regular need for colonoscopy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD), the efficacy and tolerability of bowel preparation (BP) agents is rarely assessed in this population. Assessing BP quality with existing scales may be challenging in CD due to presence of inflammation, bowel resection, and strictures. AIMS: To provide recommendations for assessing BP quality in clinical trials for CD using a modified Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness process. METHODS: Based on systematic reviews and a literature search, 110 statements relating to BP quality assessment in CD were developed. A panel of 15 gastroenterologists rated the statements as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate using a 9-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Panelists considered it appropriate that central readers, either alone or with local assessment, score BP quality in clinical trials. Central readers should be trained on scoring BP quality and local endoscopists on performing high-quality video recording. Both endoscope insertion and withdrawal phases should be reviewed to score BP quality in each colonic segment and segments should align with endoscopic disease activity indices. The Harefield Cleansing Scale and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale were considered appropriate. The final score should be calculated as the average of all visualized segments. Both total and worst segment scores should also be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a framework for assessing BP quality in patients with CD based on expert feedback. This framework could support the development or refinement of BP quality scales and the integration of BP quality assessment in future CD studies.

Regression and Random Forest Machine Learning Have Limited Performance in Predicting Bowel Preparation in Veteran Population.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate bowel preparation undermines the quality of colonoscopy, but patients likely to be affected are difficult to identify beforehand. AIMS: This study aimed to develop, validate, and compare prediction models for bowel preparation inadequacy using conventional logistic regression (LR) and random forest machine learning (RFML). METHODS: We created a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy at a single VA medical center between January 2012 and October 2015. Candidate predictor variables were chosen after a literature review. We extracted all available predictor variables from the electronic medical record, and bowel preparation from the endoscopy database. The data were split into 70% training and 30% validation sets. Multivariable LR and RFML were used to predict preparation inadequacy as a dichotomous outcome. RESULTS: The cohort included 6,885 Veterans, of whom 964 (14%) had inadequate preparation. Using LR, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the validation cohort was 0.66 (95% CI 0.62, 0.69) and the Brier score, in which a lower score indicates better performance, was 0.11. Using RFML, the AUC for the validation cohort was 0.61 (95% CI 0.58, 0.65) and the Brier score was 0.12. CONCLUSIONS: LR and RFML had similar performance in predicting bowel preparation, which was modest and likely insufficient for use in practice. Future research is needed to identify additional predictor variables and to test other machine learning algorithms. At present, endoscopy units should focus on universal strategies to enhance preparation adequacy.

Comparison of Serum Vitamin D Levels in Relation to Bowel and Bladder Symptoms in Women with Vulvar Diseases.

Objectives: We sought to investigate associations between vitamin D levels and bowel and bladder disorders in women with vulvar diseases. Methods: This is a planned sub-analysis of a cross-sectional study comparing the prevalence of bowel and bladder symptoms in women with biopsy-proven vulvar lichen sclerosus (LS) to a control group of women with non-lichenoid vulvar diseases. All subjects were recruited from a tertiary referral vulvar care clinic in a university-based practice. Serum vitamin D levels were measured and subjects self-completed questionnaires during study recruitment. Pelvic floor disorders were determined from the following questionnaires: Rome III Functional Bowel Disorders Questionnaire, the Bristol stool scale, the Medical, Social and Epidemiologic Aspects of Aging Questionnaire, and the Overactive Bladder-8 Question Version. Results: 181 women with vulvar diseases were included: 88 with LS and 93 with non-LS vulvar diseases. The mean age was 52.5 ± 15.3 years, and 94.5% were Caucasian. Vitamin D levels (26.8 ± 13.1 vs 29.5 ± 19.0 ng/mL), prevalence of low vitamin D levels (51.1% vs 45.2%), and vitamin D supplementation (42.0% vs 47.8%) were similar in women with and without LS (p ≥ 0.27). These factors did not differ between women with and without overactive bladder (OAB) (vitamin D levels 30.1 ± 17.8 vs 26.3 ± 14.8 ng/mL), urinary incontinence (27.9 ± 15.2 vs 26.4 ± 11.0 ng/mL), constipation (26.7 ± 14.8 vs 28.5 ± 16.8 ng/mL), or irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) (30.8 ± 22.1 vs 27.6 ± 13.4 ng/mL). Conclusions: In this cohort of women with vulvar diseases, vitamin D levels and supplementation were not significantly different amongst women with vulvar lichen sclerosus or other non-lichenoid vulvar diseases. Furthermore, vitamin D levels are not serum biomarkers for OAB, urinary incontinence, constipation, or IBS.

Hydrogen Breath Testing Predicts Bowel Preparation Quality Prior to Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of hydrogen breath testing as a predictor of bowel preparation. METHODS: Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov. Two investigators evaluated abstracts for inclusion criteria - report of correlation between hydrogen breath levels and bowel preparation quality, prospective design and non-emergent colonoscopy in adults. Included studies underwent duplicate data extraction using a standardized approach. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool assessed quality of the studies. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-nine publications were identified, and six unique studies met inclusion criteria. The number of patients analyzed ranged from 61 to 127. Three studies were performed in the USA, one in Japan and two in Italy. Three studies used a prebiotic in addition to a purgative, with the intention of enhancing the discriminating ability of hydrogen breath levels. Three studies assessed baseline hydrogen levels. In five of the six studies, hydrogen breath levels were predictive of inadequate bowel preparation. Suggested absolute hydrogen levels to distinguish adequate from inadequate bowel preparation ranged from 3 to 10 parts per million. Depending on the cutoff value, sensitivity ranged from 71% to 100% and specificity from 87% to 100%. There was significant heterogeneity among studies in breath testing protocol and breath analyzer used. Full-text studies had low risk of bias in most assessed domains. CONCLUSION: Hydrogen breath levels predict bowel preparation adequacy but existing studies have significant limitations. Further studies should use standardized methods and consider the real-world practicality of self-administered home breath testing.

Adherence to CRC Screening and Surveillance Guidelines when Using Split-Dose Bowel Preparation.

GOAL: To prospectively assess physician recommendations for repeat colonoscopy in an average-risk screening cohort. BACKGROUND: Endoscopists' adherence to colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines for repeat colonoscopy have not been well characterized. Furthermore, little is known about patient and colonoscopy factors that are associated with endoscopists' nonadherence to guideline recommendation. STUDY: This is a prospective cohort of average-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening between August 2011 and January 2013. The primary outcome was assessment of physician recommendations for repeat colonoscopy. RESULTS: 462 participants were prospectively enrolled. 13.6% (62) had guideline-inconsistent recommendations. 89% of the guideline-inconsistent recommendations were for an earlier interval. Endoscopists' reports cited suboptimal bowel preparation as the most common reason for earlier repeat colonoscopy. On multivariable analysis, patient split-dose preparation noncompliance was significantly associated with guideline-inconsistent recommendation (OR = 2.7) even after adjusting for other patient or bowel preparation-related characteristics. Additionally, increased odds of guideline-inconsistent recommendation were associated with older age (>70 years old), higher BMI, having 3 or more polyps, having had at least two previous colonoscopies, suboptimal bowel preparation, and having taken at least 12 hours till clear bowel movement. CONCLUSIONS: Gastroenterologists are adherent to CRC screening and surveillance guidelines. Suboptimal bowel preparation is the most frequently cited factor in endoscopy reports leading to deviation from guidelines. Continued emphasis on optimization of bowel preparation, particularly patient compliance to split-dose regimen, is needed.

Who is Responsible for What Happens Before, During, and After Colonoscopy? Results of a National Survey of Primary Care Physicians.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Primary care providers (PCPs) play a critical role in colon cancer screening by initiating referrals to gastroenterologists for colonoscopy, but little is known about their role in pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation selection and pre-colonoscopy follow-up care. This study aimed to better understand coordination of care between PCPs and gastroenterologists as well as the current availability of "open-access" screening colonoscopy. METHODS: A multiple-choice survey was developed to assess PCPs' experiences with open-access colonoscopy, their involvement in the pre-colonoscopy process, and follow-up after colonoscopy. The survey was distributed electronically to a nationally representative sample of PCPs, via the American College of Physicians (ACP) Research Center's Internal Medicine Insider Research Panel. RESULTS: Of 442 PCPs invited to participate, 210 responded (response rate, 210/442, 48%), and 29 were ineligible (spent <25% of their time on clinical care or placed no referrals to colonoscopy), yielding 181 completed surveys. A total of 39% reported that open access was "rarely" or "never" available in their practice setting. The majority reported that pre-colonoscopy care was coordinated by gastroenterologists rather than PCPs. For example, 93% reported that gastroenterologists were responsible for bowel preparation selection in their practice setting. Post-colonoscopy, 54% of PCPs reported that they were responsible for ordering subsequent colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs frequently coordinate follow-up care postprocedure but play a relatively minor role in the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation process. Open access availability for screening colonoscopy remains limited in this national sample of PCPs.

Factors Associated with Surveillance Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Polyp Detection Rates.

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR) data in surveillance colonoscopy are limited. AIMS: Our aim was to determine surveillance ADR and SSPDR and identify associated predictors. METHODS: A retrospective review of subjects who underwent surveillance colonoscopy for adenoma and/or SSP at an academic center was performed. The following exclusion criteria were applied: prior colonoscopy ≤ 3 years, incomplete examination, or another indication for colonoscopy. Patient, endoscopist, and procedure characteristics were collected. Predictors were identified using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 3807 colonoscopies, 2416 met inclusion criteria. Surveillance ADR was 49% and, SSPDR was 8%. Higher ADR was associated with: age per year (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02-1.04), male gender (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.29-1.88), BMI per kg/m2 (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.04), withdrawal time per minute (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.07-1.10), and endoscopists' screening ADR (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00-1.03). Years since training (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98-0.99) was associated with lower ADR. Family history of CRC (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.02-2.27) and endoscopists' screening ADR (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.15-1.74) were associated with higher SSPDR. African-American race (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.10-0.75) and diabetes (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.21-0.76) were associated with lower SSPDR. CONCLUSIONS: For surveillance colonoscopy, nearly half of patients had an adenoma and one in twelve had an SSP. In addition to established factors, BMI, endoscopists' screening ADR, and years since training were associated with ADR, whereas African-American race and diabetes were inversely associated with SSPDR. Further studies are needed prior to integrating surveillance ADR and SSPDR into quality metrics.

Family history in colonoscopy patients: feasibility and performance of electronic and paper-based surveys for colorectal cancer risk assessment in the outpatient setting.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Family history is crucial in stratifying patients' risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). Previous risk assessment tools developed for use in clinic or endoscopy settings have demonstrated suboptimal specificity for identifying patients with hereditary cancer syndromes. Our aim was to test the feasibility and performance of 2 family history surveys (paper and electronic) in individuals presenting for outpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: Patients presenting for outpatient colonoscopy at a tertiary care center were asked to complete a 5-question paper risk assessment survey (short paper survey) either alone or in conjunction with a second, comprehensive electronic family risk assessment survey (comprehensive tablet survey). Each subject's survey results, along with the electronic medical record, were reviewed, and 10 high-risk criteria and PREMM1,2,6 model scores (a predictive model for carrying a Lynch syndrome-associated gene mutation) were used to identify patients warranting genetic evaluation for suspected hereditary cancer syndromes. RESULTS: Six hundred patients completed the short paper survey (cohort 1), with an additional 100 patients completing both the short paper and comprehensive tablet survey (cohort 2). Using 10 high-risk criteria and/or a PREMM1,2,6 score ≥5%, we identified 10% and 9% of patients as high risk for CRC in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Of the 69 high-risk subjects, 23 (33%) underwent genetic evaluations and 7 (10%) carried germline mutations associated with cancer predisposition. Both patients and endoscopists reported the tools were user-friendly and helpful for CRC risk stratification. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic assessment of family history in colonoscopy patients is feasible and can help endoscopists identify high-risk patients who would benefit from genetic evaluation.

How Efficacious Are Patient Education Interventions to Improve Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Bowel preparation is inadequate in a large proportion of colonoscopies, leading to multiple clinical and economic harms. While most patients receive some form of education before colonoscopy, there is no consensus on the best approach. AIMS: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of patient education interventions to improve bowel preparation. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database, CINAHL, EMBASE, Ovid, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were: (1) a patient education intervention; (2) a primary aim of improving bowel preparation; (3) a validated bowel preparation scale; (4) a prospective design; (5) a concurrent control group; and, (6) adult participants. Study validity was assessed using a modified Downs and Black scale. RESULTS: 1,080 abstracts were screened. Seven full text studies met inclusion criteria, including 2,660 patients. These studies evaluated multiple delivery platforms, including paper-based interventions (three studies), videos (two studies), re-education telephone calls the day before colonoscopy (one study), and in-person education by physicians (one study). Bowel preparation significantly improved with the intervention in all but one study. All but one study were done in a single center. Validity scores ranged from 13 to 24 (maximum 27). Four of five abstracts and research letters that met inclusion criteria also showed improvements in bowel preparation. Statistical and clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Compared to usual care, patient education interventions appear efficacious in improving the quality of bowel preparation. However, because of the small scale of the studies and individualized nature of the interventions, results of these studies may not be generalizable to other settings. Healthcare practices should consider systematically evaluating their current bowel preparation education methods before undertaking new interventions.

Predictors of suboptimal bowel preparation in asymptomatic patients undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy.

AIM: To identify risk factors for a suboptimal preparation among a population undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS: Retrospective review of the University of Michigan and Veteran's Administration (VA) Hospital records from 2009 to identify patients age 50 and older who underwent screening or surveillance procedure and had resection of polyps less than 1 cm in size and no more than 2 polyps. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or a family history of colorectal cancer were excluded. Suboptimal procedures were defined as procedure preparations categorized as fair, poor or inadequate by the endoscopist. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of suboptimal preparation. RESULTS: Of 4427 colonoscopies reviewed, 2401 met our inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Of our population, 16% had a suboptimal preparation. African Americans were 70% more likely to have a suboptimal preparation (95%CI: 1.2-2.4). Univariable analysis revealed that narcotic and tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) use, diabetes, prep type, site (VA vs non-VA), and presence of a gastroenterology (GI) fellow were associated with suboptimal prep quality. In a multivariable model controlling for gender, age, ethnicity, procedure site and presence of a GI fellow, diabetes [odds ratio (OR) = 2.3; 95%CI: 1.6-3.2], TCA use (OR = 2.5; 95%CI: 1.3-4.9), narcotic use (OR = 1.7; 95%CI: 1.2-2.5) and Miralax-Gatorade prep vs 4L polyethylene glycol 3350 (OR = 0.6; 95%CI: 0.4-0.9) were associated with a suboptimal prep quality. CONCLUSION: Diabetes, narcotics use and TCA use were identified as predictors of poor preparation in screening colonoscopies while Miralax-Gatorade preps were associated with better bowel preparation.

Lower Urinary Tract and Functional Bowel Symptoms in Women With Vulvar Diseases and Controls.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the prevalences of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and constipation in women with vulvar diseases to those from the general population. METHODS: Three groups of women were recruited from the University of Michigan Gynecology Clinics, women with: (1) biopsy proven lichen sclerosus (LS), (2) non-LS vulvar diseases (vulvar controls, VC), and (3) presenting for annual examinations (AE). All patients completed self-administered surveys and validated pelvic floor symptom questionnaires. RESULTS: 317 subjects were enrolled: 101 with LS, 86 VCs, and 130 AEs. Compared to women in the VC and AE groups, LS subjects were older and of higher parity, and also had a higher prevalence of overactive bladder and urinary incontinence. The IBS was more common in the LS and VC groups compared to the AE group but no difference in constipation was seen. Similar results were found when all women with vulvar disease (LS and VC) were compared to the AEs. Age (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.28; P = 0.003) and IBS (adjusted OR, 3.05; P < 0.001) were the 2 variables predictive of overactive bladder. Urinary incontinence was predicted by age (adjusted OR, 1.35; P = 0.002), vulvar disease categorization (adjusted OR, 2.31; P = 0.004) and IBS (adjusted OR, 4.51; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We find a significantly greater prevalence of LUTS and IBS in women with vulvar disease compared to women presenting for annual gynecologic exams, but no difference in constipation. Similar rates of LUTS, IBS, and constipation were seen in women with LS and non-LS vulvar disease.

Adherence to recommended intervals for surveillance colonoscopy in average-risk patients with 1 to 2 small (<1 cm) polyps on screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Among average-risk patients, repeat colonoscopy in 5 years is recommended after 1 to 2 small (<1 cm) adenomas are found on screening colonoscopy or in 10 years if hyperplastic polyps are found. However, sparse quantitative data are available about adherence to these recommendations or factors that may improve adherence. OBJECTIVE: To quantify adherence to recommended intervals and to identify factors associated with lack of adherence. DESIGN: Retrospective endoscopic database analysis. SETTING: Tertiary-care institution and Veterans Affairs Health System. PATIENTS: Average-risk individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy found to have 1 to 2 small polyps on screening colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of recommending repeat colonoscopy in 5 years if 1 to 2 small adenomas are found and in 10 years if hyperplastic polyps are found. RESULTS: Of 922 outpatient screening colonoscopies with 1 to 2 small polyps found, 90.2% received appropriate recommendations for timing of repeat colonoscopy. Eighty-four percent of patients with 1 to 2 small adenomas and 94% of patients with 1 to 2 hyperplastic polyps received recommendations that were consistent with guidelines. Based on logistic regression analysis, patients aged >70 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-5.7), fair bowel preparation (OR 12.7; 95% CI, 7.3-22.4), poor bowel preparation (OR 10.0; 95% CI, 4.3-23.6), and the presence of 2 small adenomas versus 1 small adenoma (OR 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-6.0) were factors associated with "overuse" or recommendations inconsistent with guidelines. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study design. CONCLUSION: More than 90% of endoscopists' recommendations for timing of surveillance colonoscopy in average-risk patients with 1 to 2 small polyps are consistent with guideline recommendations. Quality of preparation is strongly associated with deviation from guideline recommendations.

Patient compliance and suboptimal bowel preparation with split-dose bowel regimen in average-risk screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Although split-dose bowel regimen is recommended in colon cancer screening and surveillance guidelines, implementation in clinical practice has seemingly lagged because of concerns of patient compliance. OBJECTIVES: To assess patient compliance with the split-dose bowel regimen and assess patient- and preparation process-related factors associated with compliance and bowel preparation adequacy. DESIGN: Prospective survey cohort. SETTING: Tertiary care setting. PATIENTS: Average-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening between August 2011 and January 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Split-dose bowel regimen patient-reported compliance and bowel preparation adequacy with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score. RESULTS: Surveys and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score data were completed in 462 participants; 15.4% were noncompliant with the split-dose bowel regimen, and suboptimal bowel preparation (score <5) was reported in 16% of all procedures. White (P = .009) and married (P = .01) subjects were least likely to be noncompliant, whereas Hispanic subjects and those who reported incomes of US$75,000 or less were most likely to be noncompliant (P = .004). Participants who were noncompliant with split-dosing were less likely to follow the other laxative instructions and more likely to have their colonoscopy appointment before 10:30 am. Compliance differed by bowel preparation type (P = .003, χ(2) test), with those who used MiraLAX showing the highest compliance, followed by polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution and other bowel preparations. Noncompliance with split-dose bowel preparation (odds ratio 6.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-14.2) was the strongest predictor of suboptimal bowel preparation. LIMITATIONS: Patient self-report, performed at tertiary care center. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 1 in 7 patients do not comply with a split-dose bowel regimen. Ensuring compliance with the split-dose bowel regimen will reduce the risk of a suboptimal bowel preparation.

The impact of bowel cleansing on follow-up recommendations in average-risk patients with a normal colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Repeat colonoscopy in 10 years after a normal screening colonoscopy is recommended in an average-risk patient, and it has been proposed by American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) as a quality measure. However, there are little quantitative data about adherence to this recommendation or factors that may improve adherence. Our study quantifies adherence to this recommendation and the impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adherence. METHODS: In this retrospective database study, endoscopy reports of average-risk individuals ≥50 years old with a normal screening colonoscopy were reviewed. Quality of colon cleansing was recorded using the Aronchick scale as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Main outcome measurements were quality of bowel preparation and recommendation for timing of repeat colonoscopy. Recommendations were considered consistent with guidelines if 10-year follow-up was documented after excellent, good, or fair prep or if ≤1-year follow-up was recommended after poor prep. RESULTS: Among 1,387 eligible patients, recommendations for follow-up colonoscopy inconsistent with guidelines were seen in 332 (23.9%) subjects. By bowel preparation quality, 15.3% of excellent/good, 75% of fair, and 31.6% of poor bowel preparations were assigned recommendations inconsistent with guidelines (P<0.001). Patients with fair (odds ratio=18.0; 95% confidence interval 12.0-28.0) were more likely to have recommendations inconsistent with guidelines compared with patients with excellent/good preps. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations inconsistent with guidelines for 10-year intervals after a normal colonoscopy occurred in >20% of patients. Minimizing "fair" bowel preparations may be a helpful intervention to improve adherence to these recommendations.