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.

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.

Nonneoplastic polypectomy during screening colonoscopy: the impact on polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and overall cost.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of nonneoplastic polypectomy (NNP) and its impact on the polyp detection rate (PDR) is unknown. The correlation between NNP and adenoma detection rate (ADR) and its impact on the cost of colonoscopy has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of NNP in screening colonoscopy, the impact of NNP on the PDR, and the correlation of NNP with ADR. The increased cost of NNP during screening colonoscopy also was calculated. DESIGN: We reviewed all screening colonoscopies. PDR and ADR were calculated. We then calculated a nonneoplastic polyp detection rate (patients with ≥1 nonneoplastic polyp). SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent screening colonoscopies from 2010 to 2011. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: ADR, PDR, NNP rate. RESULTS: A total of 1797 colonoscopies were reviewed. Mean (±standard deviation) PDR was 47.7%±12.0%, and mean ADR was 27.3%±6.9%. The overall NNP rate was 10.4%±7.1%, with a range of 2.4% to 28.4%. Among all polypectomies (n=2061), 276 were for nonneoplastic polyps (13.4%). Endoscopists with a higher rate of nonneoplastic polyp detection were more likely to detect an adenoma (odds ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.2). With one outlier excluded, there was a strong correlation between ADR and NNP (r=0.825; P<.001). The increased cost of removal of nonneoplastic polyps was $32,963. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study. CONCLUSION: There is a strong correlation between adenoma detection and nonneoplastic polyp detection. The etiology is unclear, but nonneoplastic polyp detection rate may inflate the PDR for some endoscopists. NNP also adds an increased cost. Increasing the awareness of endoscopic appearances through advanced imaging techniques of normal versus neoplastic tissue may be an area to improve cost containment in screening colonoscopy.

Increased risk for irritable bowel syndrome after acute diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Individuals with diverticulosis frequently also have irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but there are no longitudinal data to associate acute diverticulitis with subsequent IBS, functional bowel disorders, or related emotional distress. In patients with postinfectious IBS, gastrointestinal disorders cause long-term symptoms, so we investigated whether diverticulitis might lead to IBS. We compared the incidence of IBS and functional bowel and related affective disorders among patients with diverticulitis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients followed up for an average of 6.3 years at a Veteran's Administration medical center. Patients with diverticulitis were identified based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision codes, selected for the analysis based on chart review (cases, n = 1102), and matched with patients without diverticulosis (controls, n = 1102). We excluded patients with prior IBS, functional bowel, or mood disorders. We then identified patients who were diagnosed with IBS or functional bowel disorders after the diverticulitis attack, and controls who developed these disorders during the study period. We also collected information on mood disorders, analyzed survival times, and calculated adjusted hazard ratios. RESULTS: Cases were 4.7-fold more likely to be diagnosed later with IBS (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-14.0; P = .006), 2.4-fold more likely to be diagnosed later with a functional bowel disorder (95% CI, 1.6-3.6; P < .001), and 2.2-fold more likely to develop a mood disorder (CI, 1.4-3.5; P < .001) than controls. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with diverticulitis could be at risk for later development of IBS and functional bowel disorders. We propose calling this disorder postdiverticulitis IBS. Diverticulitis appears to predispose patients to long-term gastrointestinal and emotional symptoms after resolution of inflammation; in this way, postdiverticulitis IBS is similar to postinfectious IBS.

Long-term risk of acute diverticulitis among patients with incidental diverticulosis found during colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonic diverticulosis is the most common finding during routine colonoscopy, and patients often question the significance of these lesions. Guidelines state that these patients have a 10% to 25% lifetime risk of developing acute diverticulitis. However, this value was determined based on limited data, collected before population-based colonoscopy, so the true number of cases of diverticulosis was not known. We measured the long-term risk of acute diverticulitis among patients with confirmed diverticulosis discovered incidentally on colonoscopy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using administrative and clinical data from the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, collecting data on patients who underwent colonoscopies from January 1996 through January 2011. We identified patients diagnosed with diverticulosis, determined incidence rates per 1000 patient-years, and analyzed a subgroup of patients with rigorously defined events confirmed by imaging or surgery. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to identify factors associated with the development of diverticulitis. RESULTS: We identified 2222 patients with baseline diverticulosis. Over an 11-year follow-up period, 95 patients developed diverticulitis (4.3%; 6 per 1000 patient-years); of these, 23 met the rigorous definition of diverticulitis (1%; 1.5 per 1000 patient-years). The median time-to-event was 7.1 years. Each additional decade of age at time of diagnosis reduced the risk for diverticulitis by 24% (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Based on a study of the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, only about 4% of patients with diverticulosis develop acute diverticulitis, contradicting the common belief that diverticulosis has a high rate of progression. We also found that younger patients have a higher risk of diverticulitis, with risk increasing per year of life. These results can help inform patients with diverticulosis about their risk of developing acute diverticulitis.

Adenoma detection rate is necessary but insufficient for distinguishing high versus low endoscopist performance.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopist quality is benchmarked by the adenoma detection rate (ADR)-the proportion of cases with 1 or more adenomas removed. However, the ADR rewards the same credit for 1 versus more than 1 adenoma. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether 2 endoscopist groups could have a similar ADR but detect significantly different total adenomas. DESIGN: We retrospectively measured the ADR and multiple measures of total adenoma yield, including a metric called ADR-Plus, the mean number of incremental adenomas after the first. We plotted ADR versus ADR-Plus to create 4 adenoma detection patterns: (1) optimal (↑ADR/↑ADR-Plus); (2) one and done (↑ADR/↓ADR-Plus); (3) all or none (↓ADR/↑ADR-Plus); (4) none and done (↓ADR/↓ADR-Plus). SETTING: Tertiary-care teaching hospital and 3 nonteaching facilities servicing the same patient pool. PATIENTS: A total of 3318 VA patients who underwent screening between 2005 and 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: ADR, mean total adenomas detected, advanced adenomas detected, ADR-Plus. RESULTS: The ADR was 28.8% and 25.7% in the teaching (n = 1218) and nonteaching groups (n = 2100), respectively (P = .052). Although ADRs were relatively similar, the teaching site achieved 23.5%, 28.7%, and 29.5% higher mean total adenomas, advanced adenomas, and ADR-Plus versus nonteaching sites (P < .001). By coupling ADR with ADR-Plus, we identified more teaching endoscopists as optimal (57.1% vs 8.3%; P = .02), and more nonteaching endoscopists in the none and done category (42% vs 0%; P = .047). LIMITATIONS: External generalizability, nonrandomized study. CONCLUSION: We found minimal ADR differences between the 2 endoscopist groups, but substantial differences in total adenomas; the ADR missed this difference. Coupling the ADR with other total adenoma metrics (eg, ADR-Plus) provides a more comprehensive assessment of adenoma clearance; implementing both would better distinguish high- from low-performing endoscopists.

A Pain in the Butt: Hemorrhoids, Fissures, Fistulas, and Other Anorectal Syndromes.

Painful and bothersome anorectal syndromes can be a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for clinicians because structural and functional abnormalities may often coexist and require a multidisciplinary approach to management. Although it is often difficult to attribute all of a patient's anorectal symptoms to a singular disorder with definitive intervention and cure, improving quality of life, treating coexistent conditions such as functional constipation and/or defecation disorders, addressing psychological comorbidities if present, and confirming there is no evidence of inflammatory or malignant conditions are top priorities.

Quality monitoring in colonoscopy: Time to act.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test for colorectal cancer screening. The primary advantage of colonoscopy as opposed to other screening modalities is the ability to provide therapy by removal of precancerous lesions at the time of detection. However, colonoscopy may miss clinically important neoplastic polyps. The value of colonoscopy in reducing incidence of colorectal cancer is dependent on many factors including, the patient, provider, and facility level. A high quality examination includes adequate bowel preparation, optimal colonoscopy technique, meticulous inspection during withdrawal, identification of subtle flat lesions, and complete polypectomy. Considerable variation among institutions and endoscopists has been reported in the literature. In attempt to diminish this disparity, various approaches have been advocated to improve the quality of colonoscopy. The overall impact of these interventions is not yet well defined. Implementing optimal education and training and subsequently analyzing the impact of these endeavors in improvement of quality will be essential to augment the utility of colonoscopy for the prevention of colorectal cancer.

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.