Effect of bowel preparation volume in inpatient colonoscopy. Results of a prospective, randomized, comparative pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). RESULTS: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.

Is the level of cleanliness using segmental Boston bowel preparation scale associated with a higher adenoma detection rate?

BACKGROUND: The impact of Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) scores on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in each segment has not been adequately addressed. The aim of this study was to determine the association between segmental or overall ADR and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR) with segmental and total BBPS scores. METHODS: All outpatient screening colonoscopies with documented BBPS scores were retrospectively reviewed at a tertiary institution from January to December 2013. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used to analyze the detection rates of adenomas and serrated polyps with bowel prep scores. Odds ratios were calculated using logistic regression that controlled for withdrawal time, age, body mass index, diabetes status and sex. RESULTS: We analyzed 1991 colonoscopies. The overall ADR was 37.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35.3-39.6). There was a significant difference in the overall ADR, and in SDR across all bowel category groups, with total BBPS scores of 8 and 9 having lower detection rates than scores of 5, 6 and 7. As the quality of bowel preparation increased, there was a statistical decrease in the ADR (odds ratio [OR] 0.79 [CI 0.66-0.94], P=0.04) of the right colon, while in the left colon, there was a statistical decrease in SDR (OR 0.78, [CI 0.65-0.92] P=0.019). CONCLUSION: Segmental ADR and SDR both decreased as prep scores increased, decreasing notably in patients with excellent prep scores of 8 and 9. A possible explanation for this unexpected discrepancy may be related to longer and better visualization of the mucosa when cleansing and suctioning is necessary.

Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rates: Outcomes of quality improvement program.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Feedback has been shown to improve performance in colonoscopy including adenoma detection rate (ADR). The frequency at which feedback should be given is unknown. As part of a quality improvement program, we sought to measure the outcome of providing quarterly and monthly feedback on colonoscopy quality measures. METHODS: All screening colonoscopies performed at endoscopy unit at Mayo Clinic Arizona by gastroenterologists between October 2010 and December 2012 were reviewed. Quality indicators, including ADR, were extracted for each individual endoscopist, and feedback was provided. The study period was divided into four distinct groups: pre-intervention that served as baseline, quarterly feedback, monthly feedback, and post-intervention. Based on ADR, endoscopists were grouped into "low detectors" (≤ 25%), "average detectors" (26-35%), and "high detectors" (> 35%). RESULTS: A total of 3420 screening colonoscopies were performed during the study period (555 patients during pre-intervention, 1209 patients during quarterly feedback, 599 during monthly feedback, and 1057 during the post-intervention period) by 16 gastroenterologists. The overall ADR for the group improved from 30.5% to 37.7% (P = 0.003). Compared with the pre-interventional period, all quality indicators measured significantly improved during the monthly feedback and post-intervention periods but not in the quarterly feedback period. CONCLUSIONS: In our quality improvement program, monthly feedback significantly improved colonoscopy quality measures, including ADR, while quarterly feedback did not. The impact of the intervention was most prominent in the "low detectors" group. Results were durable up to 6 months following the intervention.

Postcolonoscopy Followup Recommendations: Comparison with and without Use of Polyp Pathology.

Background. Appropriate recommendations for a followup exam after an index colonoscopy are an important quality indicator. Lack of knowledge of polyp pathology at the time of colonoscopy may be one reason that followup recommendations are not made. Aim. To describe and compare the accuracy of followup recommendations made at colonoscopy based on the size and number of polyps with recommendations made at a later date based on actual polyp pathology. Methods. All patients who underwent screening and surveillance colonoscopy from March, 2012, to August, 2012, were included. Surveillance recommendations from the endoscopy reports were graded as "accurate" or "not accurate" based on the postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines established by US Multisociety Task Force on Colon Cancer. Polyp pathology was then used to regrade the surveillance recommendations. Results. Followup recommendations were accurate in 759/884 (86%) of the study colonoscopies, based upon size and number of polyps with the assumption that all polyps were adenomatous. After incorporating actual polyp pathology, 717/884 (81%) colonoscopies had accurate recommendations. Conclusion. In our practice, the knowledge of actual polyp pathology does not change the surveillance recommendations made at the time of colonoscopy in the majority of patients.

Common anorectal disorders.

Anorectal disorders result in many visits to healthcare specialists. These disorders include benign conditions such as hemorrhoids to more serious conditions such as malignancy; thus, it is important for the clinician to be familiar with these disorders as well as know how to conduct an appropriate history and physical examination. This article reviews the most common anorectal disorders, including hemorrhoids, anal fissures, fecal incontinence, proctalgia fugax, excessive perineal descent, and pruritus ani, and provides guidelines on comprehensive evaluation and management.