Agreement between the perception of colon cleansing reported by patients and colon cleansing assessed by a validated colon cleansing scale.

AIMS: Patients' perception of their cleansing quality can guide strategies to improve cleansing during colonoscopy. There are no studies assessing the agreement between the quality of cleansing perceived by patients and cleansing quality assessed during colonoscopy using validated bowel preparation scales. The main aim of this study was to compare the cleansing quality reported by patients with the quality during colonoscopy using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients referred to an outpatient colonoscopy were included. Four drawings representing different degrees of cleansing were designed. Patients chose the drawing that most resembled the last stool. The predictive ability of the patient's perception and agreement between the patient's perception and the BBPS were calculated. A BBPS score of <2 points in any segment was considered inadequate. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty-three patients were included (age: 62.8±13.7 years, male: 53.4%). Overall, 107 patients (16.9%) had inadequate cleansing during colonoscopy, and in 12.2% of cases, the patient's perception was poor. The patient's perception compared to the quality of cleanliness during colonoscopy presented a positive and negative predictive value of 54.6% and 88.3%, respectively. The agreement between patient perception and the BBPS was significant (P<0.001), although fair (k=0.37). The results were similar in a validation cohort of 378 patients (k=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: The cleanliness perceived by the patient and the quality of cleanliness using a validated scale were correlated, although fair. However, this measure satisfactorily identified patients with adequate preparation. Cleansing rescue strategies may target patients who self-report improper cleaning. Registration number of the trial: NCT03830489.

Usefulness of a novel computer-aided detection system for colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Artificial intelligence-based computer-aid detection (CADe) devices have been recently tested in colonoscopies, increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR), mainly in Asian populations. However, evidence for the benefit of these devices in the occidental population is still low. We tested a new CADe device, namely, ENDO-AID (OIP-1) (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), in clinical practice. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included 370 consecutive patients who were randomized 1:1 to CADe (n = 185) versus standard exploration (n = 185) from November 2021 to January 2022. The primary endpoint was the ADR. Advanced adenoma was defined as ≥10 mm, harboring high-grade dysplasia, or with a villous pattern. Otherwise, the adenoma was nonadvanced. ADR was assessed in both groups stratified by endoscopist ADR and colon cleansing. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, the ADR was 55.1% (102/185) in the CADe group and 43.8% (81/185) in the control group (P = .029). Nonadvanced ADRs (54.8% vs 40.8%, P = .01) and flat ADRs (39.4 vs 24.8, P = .006), polyp detection rate (67.1% vs 51%; P = .004), and number of adenomas per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CADe group than in the control group (median [25th-75th percentile], 1 [0-2] vs 0 [0-1.5], respectively; P = .014). No significant differences were found in serrated ADR. After stratification by endoscopist and bowel cleansing, no statistically significant differences in ADR were found. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy assisted by ENDO-AID (OIP-1) increases ADR and number of adenomas per colonoscopy, suggesting it may aid in the detection of colorectal neoplastic lesions, especially because of its detection of diminutive and flat adenomas. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04945044.).

Comparison of flipped learning and traditional lecture method for teaching digestive system diseases in undergraduate medicine: A prospective non-randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined the effects of a large-scale flipped learning (FL) approach in an undergraduate course of Digestive System Diseases. METHODS: This prospective non-randomized trial recruited 404 students over three academic years. In 2016, the course was taught entirely in a Traditional Lecture (TL) style, in 2017 half of the course (Medical topics) was replaced by FL while the remaining half (Surgical topics) was taught by TL and in 2018, the whole course was taught entirely by FL. Academic performance, class attendance and student's satisfaction surveys were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: Test scores were higher in the FL module (Medical) than in the TL module (Surgical) in the 2017 cohort but were not different when both components were taught entirely by TL (2016) or by FL (2018). Also, FL increased the probability of reaching superior grades (scores >7.0) and improved class attendance and students' satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The holistic FL model is more effective for teaching undergraduate clinical gastroenterology compared to traditional teaching methods and has a positive impact on classroom attendances.

Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline.

This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC). A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of CTC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations 1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. Delay of CTC should be considered following endoscopic resection. In the case of obstructing colorectal cancer, preoperative contrast-enhanced CTC may also allow location or staging of malignant lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 When endoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp  ≥  6  mm in diameter detected at CTC. CTC surveillance may be clinically considered if patients do not undergo polypectomy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 5 ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CTC as a primary test for population screening or in individuals with a positive first-degree family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, it may be proposed as a CRC screening test on an individual basis providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

One-day versus two-day cleansing for colon capsule endoscopy: a prospective randomized pilot study / Comparación de la limpieza intestinal en un día versus 2 días para la colonoscopia con videocápsula: estudio piloto prospectivo y aleatorizado

BACKGROUND: Standard bowel cleansing for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) requires a liquid diet and bowel laxatives for at least 2 days, which is a major drawback of this procedure and affects tolerance and acceptability. Objective To compare the quality of colon cleanliness achieved with one-day versus two-day bowel preparation in outpatients undergoing CCE. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group I (one-day schedule, n = 20) received a fiber-free diet and 3 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) on day 0; group II (two-day schedule, n = 20) received a liquid diet and 3 L of PEG in the evening of day −1, and 1 L of PEG in the early morning of day 0. In both groups, the patients received 15 mg bisacodyl on day −1 and one or two additional sodium phosphate (NaP) boosters following capsule ingestion. Each colon segment was assessed for cleanliness using a four-point grading scale (excellent = 1, good = 2, fair = 3, and poor = 4). For the For the final analysis, colon cleanliness was rated as adequate (good or excellent) or inadequate (fair or poor). RESULTS: Overall colon cleanliness was adequate in 94% (CI 91-97) of patients in group I versus 80% (CI 72-88) in group II (P = 0.27). No significant differences were observed in the per-segment quality of colon cleansing between the two groups. CCE reached the rectum in 80% (CI 73-87) of patients in group I versus 75% (CI 67-83) in group II (p = 0.59). CONCLUSION: The quality of colon cleanliness achieved with one-day bowel preparation is equivalent to that of the standard two-day schedule in patients undergoing CCE

ANTECEDENTES: El inconveniente principal de la cápsula endoscópica de colon (CEC) es unapreparación intestinal que exige una dieta estricta y la toma de soluciones evacuantes durante al menos los 2 días previos a la prueba, limitando su aceptabilidad. OBJETIVO: Comparar la calidad de la preparación intestinal administrada en un día respecto a la de 2 días para la CEC. MÉTODOS: Se aleatorizan 2 grupos: Grupo I (preparación-1 día, n = 20) dieta sin fibra con 3 Lde polietilenglicol (PEG) el día 0; Grupo II (preparación-2 días, n = 20) dieta líquida y 3 L de PEG la noche previa (día 1) y 1 L de PEG el día 0. En ambos grupos se administra 15 mg debisacodilo el día 1 y fosfato sódico (NaP) como propulsor tras la ingesta de CEC. Cada segmento del colon fue valorado según la escala de limpieza de 4 grados (excelente = 1, buena = 2, regular = 3, y mala = 4). Para el análisis final, la limpieza global se cataloga como adecuada (1 y 2)o inadecuada (3 y 4). RESULTADOS: La limpieza global fue adecuada en un 94% (IC: 91-97) de pacientes del Grupo I frente al 80% (IC: 72-88) en el Grupo II (P = 0,27). No se determinaron diferencias cuando se compara la limpieza por segmentos colónicos. La CEC alcanza el recto en el 80% (IC: 73-87) del Grupo I frente al 75% (IC: 67-83) del Grupo II (p = 0,59).CONCLUSIÓN: La calidad de la limpieza colónica para la CEC obtenida con la preparación de un día único es similar a la preparación estándar de 2 días

One-day versus two-day cleansing for colon capsule endoscopy: a prospective randomized pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Standard bowel cleansing for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) requires a liquid diet and bowel laxatives for at least 2 days, which is a major drawback of this procedure and affects tolerance and acceptability. OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of colon cleanliness achieved with one-day versus two-day bowel preparation in outpatients undergoing CCE. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group I (one-day schedule, n=20) received a fiber-free diet and 3 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) on day 0; group II (two-day schedule, n=20) received a liquid diet and 3 L of PEG in the evening of day -1, and 1L of PEG in the early morning of day 0. In both groups, the patients received 15 mg bisacodyl on day -1 and one or two additional sodium phosphate (NaP) boosters following capsule ingestion. Each colon segment was assessed for cleanliness using a four-point grading scale (excellent=1, good=2, fair=3, and poor=4). For the final analysis, colon cleanliness was rated as adequate (good or excellent) or inadequate (fair or poor). RESULTS: Overall colon cleanliness was adequate in 94% (CI 91-97) of patients in group I versus 80% (CI 72-88) in group II (P=0.27). No significant differences were observed in the per-segment quality of colon cleansing between the two groups. CCE reached the rectum in 80% (CI 73-87) of patients in group I versus 75% (CI 67-83) in group II (p=0.59). CONCLUSION: The quality of colon cleanliness achieved with one-day bowel preparation is equivalent to that of the standard two-day schedule in patients undergoing CCE.

[Quality of life specific questionnaire for constipated patients: development and validation of CVE-20]. / Cuestionario específico de calidad de vida para pacientes con estreñimiento: desarrollo y validación del CVE-20.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although constipation affects quality of life, questionnaires hardly exist for its evaluation. We aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire able to measure the quality of life in patients with constipation. PATIENTS AND METHOD: A Spanish multicenter study was performed in 2 stages: a) questionnaire development (open interview to patients with constipation, pilot questionnaire, quantitative and factorial analysis, Rasch analysis, and specific questionnaire design), and b) questionnaire validation in 136 patients. These patients were divided in 2 groups: a) reliability group (n = 55; no need to begin or change treatment; re-tested after 15 days), and b) sensibility to change group (n = 81; need to begin or change treatment; re-tested after 3 months). We collected clinical and socio-demographic data and we evaluated the quality of life through the general questionnaire EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) and the specific one, design in the previous stage (25 items). After that, we analysed feasibility, reliability and validity (of content, convergent and longitudinal). RESULTS: The trial questionnaire was obtained during the development stage and the results were 51 items that were later reduced to 25 in the validation stage. A total of 126 patients (93% women; mean age [standard deviation]: 43.4 [1] years) completed the study properly. The answer average time was 12 min. The content validity process reduced the questionnaire to 20 items (CVE-20) within 4 domains: emotional, general physical, rectal physical and social. The reliability was good in relation to the general punctuation (Cronbach alpha coefficient = 0.87), being in the different domains of 0.79, 0.73, 0.75 and 0.60, respectively. The construct validity showed a good correlation between the CVE-20 results and constipation severity. The CVE-20 score positively correlated with EQ -5D changes. The test and re-test reliability were good: interclass correlation coefficient = 0.89 (ranging from 0.80 to 0.88 in the different domains). The clinically relevant and minimal difference was 17 points (95% confidence interval, 11-23). The content validity showed a strong correlation between CVE-20 and constipation severity. CONCLUSIONS: The CVE-20 is the first specific questionnaire in Spanish language for constipated patients; it is valid, reliable, sensitive to changes and it meets the psychometric requirements to be applied in daily practice and clinical trials.