Agreement between the perception of colon cleansing reported by patients and colon cleansing assessed by a validated colon cleansing scale / Concordancia entre la percepción de limpieza colónica referida por los pacientes y la limpieza colónica evaluada mediante una escala de limpieza validada

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 (AU)

Objetivos La percepción de los pacientes sobre su calidad de limpieza previa a la colonoscopia puede guiar estrategias de rescate para mejorar la limpieza durante la colonoscopia. El objetivo fue evaluar la concordancia entre la calidad de limpieza percibida por los pacientes con la calidad durante la colonoscopia utilizando la escala de preparación colónica de Boston (BBPS). Pacientes y métodos Se incluyeron pacientes consecutivos remitidos a una colonoscopia ambulatoria. Se diseñó un set de 4 imágenes representativas de diferentes grados de limpieza. Los pacientes elegían la imagen que se asemejaba más a la última deposición. Se calculó la concordancia entre la percepción del paciente y la BBPS. Una puntuación de la BBPS < 2 puntos en cualquier segmento se consideró una limpieza inadecuada. Resultados Se incluyeron 633 pacientes. Globalmente, 107 pacientes (16,9%) presentaron una limpieza inadecuada durante la colonoscopia, y en el 12,2% de los casos, la percepción del paciente fue de limpieza inadecuada. La percepción del paciente presentó un valor predictivo positivo y negativo de 54,6 y 88,3%, respectivamente, para predecir la calidad de limpieza mediante la BBPS. La concordancia entre la percepción del paciente y la BBPS fue significativa (p < 0,001), aunque aceptable (k = 0,37). Los resultados fueron similares en una cohorte de validación de 378 pacientes (k = 0,41). Conclusiones Existe concordancia entre la limpieza percibida por el paciente y la calidad de la limpieza mediante una escala validada, aunque esta fue aceptable. Estos resultados sustentan el uso de estrategias de rescate en los pacientes con percepción de una limpieza colónica inadecuada (AU)

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.

Prevalence and clinical impact of alcohol withdrawal syndrome in alcohol-associated hepatitis and the potential role of prophylaxis: a multinational, retrospective cohort study.

Background: The prevalence and impact of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in patients with alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH) are unknown. In this study, we aimed to investigate the prevalence, predictors, management, and clinical impact of AWS in patients hospitalized with AH. Methods: A multinational, retrospective cohort study enrolling patients hospitalized with AH at 5 medical centres in Spain and in the USA was performed between January 1st, 2016 to January 31st, 2021. Data were retrospectively retrieved from electronic health records. Diagnosis of AWS was based on clinical criteria and use of sedatives to control AWS symptoms. The primary outcome was mortality. Multivariable models controlling for demographic variables and disease severity were performed to determine predictors of AWS (adjusted odds ratio [OR]) and the impact of AWS condition and management on clinical outcomes (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]). Findings: In total, 432 patients were included. The median MELD score at admission was 21.9 (18.3-27.3). The overall prevalence of AWS was 32%. Lower platelet levels (OR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.05-2.48) and previous history of AWS (OR = 2.09, 95% CI 1.31-3.33) were associated with a higher rate of incident AWS, whereas the use of prophylaxis decreased the risk (OR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.93). The use of intravenous benzodiazepines (HR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.02-4.64) and phenobarbital (HR = 2.99, 95% CI 1.07-8.37) for AWS treatment were independently associated with a higher mortality. The development of AWS increased the rate of infections (OR = 2.24, 95% CI 1.44-3.49), the need for mechanical ventilation (OR = 2.49, 95% CI 1.38-4.49), and ICU admission (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.19-3.23). Finally, AWS was associated with higher 28-day (HR = 2.31, 95% CI 1.40-3.82), 90-day (HR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.18-2.69), and 180-day mortality (HR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.06-2.24). Interpretation: AWS commonly occurs in patients hospitalized with AH and complicates the hospitalization course. Routine prophylaxis is associated with a lower prevalence of AWS. Prospective studies should determine diagnostic criteria and prophylaxis regimens for AWS management in patients with AH. Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

COVID-19 vaccination rate and willingness of an additional dose among inflammatory bowel disease patients receiving biologic therapy: Fearless and with desire / Tasa de vacunación y aceptación de la dosis adicional de la vacuna frente al COVID-19 en los pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal que reciben terapia biológica: sin miedo y con ganas

Background: Vaccination against COVID-19 prevents its severe forms and associated mortality and offers a promising action to control this pandemic. In September 2021, an additional dose of vaccine was approved in patients with immunosuppression including IBD patients on biologic agents. We evaluated the vaccination rate and additional dose willingness in this group of at risk patients. Methods: A single-center, cross-sectional study was performed among IBD patients on biologic agents and eligible for an additional dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. IBD clinical characteristics and type of vaccine and date of administration were checked in medical records. Acceptance was evaluated after telephone or face-to-face surveys in IBD patients. Results: Out of a total of 344 patients, 269 patients (46.1% male; mean age 47±16 years; Crohn's disease 73.6%) were included. Only 15 (5.6%) patients refused the COVID-19 vaccine mainly (40%) for conviction (COVID-19 pandemic denial). 33.3% would re-consider after discussing with their doctor and/or receiving information on the adverse effects of the vaccine. Previous to the additional dose, the COVID-19 vaccination was present in 94.4% of patients (n=254). Adverse effects occurred in 53.9% of the cases, mainly pain in the arm (40%). Up to 94.1% of the patients agreed to an additional dose and 79.4% had already received the additional dose at the final time of the assessment. Conclusions: IBD patients on biological agents accept the vaccine as well as an additional dose if recommended. Physicians in charge of IBD units should provide information and confidence in the use of the vaccine in these IBD patients.(AU)

Antecedentes: La vacunación frente al COVID-19 constituye una acción prometedora para controlar esta pandemia. En septiembre de 2021, se aprobó una dosis adicional de vacuna en pacientes con inmunosupresión, incluidos los pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII) que reciben agentes biológicos. En este estudio se evaluó la tasa de vacunación y la disposición de recibir la dosis adicional de vacuna en este grupo de pacientes de riesgo. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio transversal unicéntrico con pacientes afectos de EII con tratamiento biológico y elegibles para una dosis adicional de la vacuna COVID-19. Se evaluó la aceptación y los efectos adversos de la vacuna mediante encuesta telefónica o presencial y se recopiló en las historias clínicas las características de la EII, el tipo de vacuna recibida y la fecha de administración. Resultados: De un total de 344 pacientes, 269 (46,1% varones; edad media 47±16 años; enfermedad de Crohn n=198) fueron incluidos. Solo 15 (5,6%) pacientes rechazaron la vacuna frente al COVID-19, el 40% por convicción (negación de la pandemia COVID-19). Antes de la dosis adicional, la vacuna COVID-19 se había administrado en el 94,4% de los pacientes (n=254). En el 53,9% de los casos presentaron efectos adversos, principalmente dolor en el brazo (40%). Hasta el 94,1% de los pacientes refería la aceptación de una dosis adicional de la vacuna y el 79,1% ya había recibido esta dosis adicional en el momento de la evaluación final. Conclusiones: Los pacientes con EII que reciben agentes biológicos aceptan la vacuna frente al COVID-19, así como una dosis adicional si se les recomienda. Los médicos responsables de las unidades de EII deben proporcionar información y confianza en el uso de la vacuna en estos pacientes.(AU)

Efficacy, Efficiency, and Acceptability of Telemedicine for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients' Follow-Up Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, ambulatory clinic visits were replaced by the implementation of telehealth modalities in most inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) units. AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, efficiency, patient satisfaction, and acceptability of using telephone consultation in an IBD unit. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed in IBD patients who underwent telephone consultation during COVID-19 lockdown (between 16th March and 13th April 2020). To assess the efficacy of this telephone consultation (lockdown visit), nonscheduled visits, emergency consultation, hospital admission, and surgery from lockdown visit to the next scheduled consultation (post-lockdown) were checked. To evaluate efficiency, the time between lockdown visit and post-lockdown consultation was compared with previous consultation (pre-lockdown), and the total number of visits 12 months before and after lockdown visit was checked. A telephone survey was designed to rate perception for a telephone consultation. RESULTS: Out of a total of 274 patients, 220 patients (52.2% male; mean age 49 ± 16 years; Crohn's disease, n = 126; ulcerative colitis, n = 83; indeterminate colitis, n = 11) were included. Only one patient was consulted at the emergency department, 11 patients needed to rearrange the visit, and none patient underwent surgery before the scheduled post-lockdown visit. The interval to post-lockdown visit compared to pre-lockdown visit increased in 37.7% of patients. The satisfaction survey (n = 185) revealed that 94.6% perceived it was effective. However, 44.4% of patients rather prefer on-site consultation for follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic was shown to be effective and efficient to care for IBD patients. In addition, telephone consultation is well accepted by patients in non-extended follow-up periods.

COVID-19 vaccination rate and willingness of an additional dose among inflammatory bowel disease patients receiving biologic therapy: Fearless and with desire.

Effective vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 are already available and offer a promising action to control the COVID-19 pandemic. IBD patients on biological agents accept the vaccine as well as an additional dose if recommended. BACKGROUND: Vaccination against COVID-19 prevents its severe forms and associated mortality and offers a promising action to control this pandemic. In September 2021, an additional dose of vaccine was approved in patients with immunosuppression including IBD patients on biologic agents. We evaluated the vaccination rate and additional dose willingness in this group of at risk patients. METHODS: A single-center, cross-sectional study was performed among IBD patients on biologic agents and eligible for an additional dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. IBD clinical characteristics and type of vaccine and date of administration were checked in medical records. Acceptance was evaluated after telephone or face-to-face surveys in IBD patients. RESULTS: Out of a total of 344 patients, 269 patients (46.1% male; mean age 47±16 years; Crohn's disease 73.6%) were included. Only 15 (5.6%) patients refused the COVID-19 vaccine mainly (40%) for conviction (COVID-19 pandemic denial). 33.3% would re-consider after discussing with their doctor and/or receiving information on the adverse effects of the vaccine. Previous to the additional dose, the COVID-19 vaccination was present in 94.4% of patients (n=254). Adverse effects occurred in 53.9% of the cases, mainly pain in the arm (40%). Up to 94.1% of the patients agreed to an additional dose and 79.4% had already received the additional dose at the final time of the assessment. CONCLUSIONS: IBD patients on biological agents accept the vaccine as well as an additional dose if recommended. Physicians in charge of IBD units should provide information and confidence in the use of the vaccine in these IBD patients.

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.).

Appropriateness of high-priority criteria and safety of endoscopy procedures during the COVID-19 lockdown.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) pandemic, gastroenterology guidelines recommended the suspension or reduction of non-urgent endoscopy. We aimed to assess the appropriateness and safety of endoscopic activity during the pandemic first wave lockdown using European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommendations. METHODS: We identified scheduled patients from the onset of the lockdown in Spain since March 16, 2020) to April 14, 2020. Daily hospital COVID-19-related burden was also registered. A similar cohort from a period immediately before the lockdown was studied (pre-lockdown cohort) to compare appropriateness. RESULTS: 454 endoscopy procedures were performed during the studied period, comprising a 49.7% reduction compared to the pre-lockdown cohort (n = 913). There was a significant increase in ESGE high-priority indications (62.1% vs. 45.6%, p<0.001) associated with an increase in relevant endoscopic findings (p = 0.006), advanced neoplasia/cancer (p = 0.004) and cancer detection rate (p = 0.010). There were no differences in the rate of admissions or infection among scheduled patients in the lockdown cohort. None of the staff members tested positive for COVID-19 in the 7 days after the adoption of protective measures. CONCLUSION: A prioritized endoscopic activity is not associated with higher contagion after adopting protective measures. In addition, a triage of procedures that follow the ESGE criteria increases the rate of relevant endoscopic findings. These considerations may reduce the impact of the delays of diagnosis after the pandemic.

Diagnosis of synchronous pancreatic and ampullary adenocarcinomas during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Multiple primary tumors occur in 5-10 % of the population. However, synchronic neoplasms diagnosed within six months of one another is a rarity. We report the case of a patient initially diagnosed with a pancreatic cyst and a synchronous pancreatic and ampullary adenocarcinoma eleven months later.

An Enhanced High-Volume Preparation for Colonoscopy Is Not Better Than a Conventional Low-Volume One in Patients at Risk of Poor Bowel Cleansing: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: We tested the hypothesis that an enhanced bowel preparation strategy (EBS) improves colonic cleansing in patients at high risk for inadequate bowel cleansing (HRI). Methods: This prospective randomized clinical trial included consecutive HRI patients referred for outpatient colonoscopy between February and October 2019. HRI was considered if patients scored >1.225 according to a previously validated bowel-cleansing predictive score. HRI patients were randomized (1:1) to a low-volume conventional bowel cleansing strategy (CBS) (1-day low residue diet (LRD) plus 2 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid) or to an EBS (3-day LRD plus 10 mg oral bisacodyl plus 4 L PEG). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to assess the quality of cleanliness. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses were performed. A sample size of 130 patients per group was estimated to reach a 15% difference in favor of EBP. Results: A total of 253 HRI patients were included (mean age 69.8 ± 9.5 years, 51.8% women). No statistically significant differences were found in the BBPS scale between the two groups in the ITT analysis (CBS 76.8% vs. EBS 79.7%, P = 0.58) or PP analysis (CBS 78% vs. EBS 84.3%, P = 0.21), risk difference 2.9% (95% CI-7.26 to 39.16) in the ITT analysis, or risk difference 6.3% (95% CI-3.48 to 16.08) in PP analysis. No differences in preparation tolerance, compliance, adverse effects, or colonoscopy findings were found. Conclusion: EBS is not superior to CBS in hard-to-prepare patients. (EUDRACT: 2017-000787-15, NCT03830489). Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03830489.

Increasing the low residue diet to 3 days does not improve the bowel cleansing in hard to prepare patients: Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial / Aumentar la dieta baja en residuos a 3 días no mejora la limpieza intestinal en pacientes difíciles de preparar: análisis post-hoc de un ensayo controlado aleatorizado

Background: Recent evidence suggests that the number of low residue diet (LRD) days does not influence the bowel cleansing quality in non-selected patients. However, there are not data in the subgroup of patients with risk factors of inadequate bowel cleansing. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess whether a 3-day LRD improved the bowel cleansing quality in patients with risk factors of poor bowel cleansing. Patients and methods: Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial carried out between December 2017 and March 2018 in a tertiary care hospital. Patients with high risk of poor bowel cleansing were selected following a validated score. The patients were randomized to the 1-day LRD or 3-day LRD groups. All patients received a 2-L split-dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were conducted for the main outcome. Results: 135 patients (1-day LRD group=67, 3-day LRD=68) were included. The rate of adequate cleansing quality was not significantly different between the groups in the ITT analysis: 76.1%, 95% CI: [64.6–84.8] vs. 79.4%, 95% CI: [68.2–87.4]; odds ratio (OR) 1.2, 95% CI [0.54–2.73]) or in the PP analysis: 77.3%, 95% CI: [65.7–85.8] vs. 80.3%, 95% CI: [69.0–88.3]; OR 1.2, 95% CI [0.52–2.77]). Compliance with the diet or cleansing solution, satisfaction or difficulties with the LRD and the polyp/adenoma detection rates were not significantly different. Conclusion: Our results suggest that 1-day LRD is not inferior to 3-day LRD in patients with risk factors of inadequate bowel cleansing.(AU)

Antecedentes: La evidencia reciente sugiere que el número de días de dieta baja en residuos (DBR) no influye en la calidad de la limpieza intestinal en pacientes no seleccionados. Sin embargo, no hay datos en el subgrupo de pacientes con factores de riesgo de una limpieza intestinal insuficiente. Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar si una DBR de 3 días mejoraba o no la calidad de la limpieza intestinal en pacientes con factores de riesgo de limpieza intestinal deficiente. Pacientes y métodos: Análisis post-hoc de un ensayo controlado aleatorizado realizado entre diciembre de 2017 y marzo de 2018 en un hospital de atención terciaria. Los pacientes con alto riesgo de limpieza intestinal deficiente se seleccionaron mediante una puntuación validada. Los pacientes se aleatorizaron a los grupos de DBR de un día o DBR de 3 días. Todos los pacientes recibieron una dosis dividida de 2l de polietilenglicol más ácido ascórbico. Se realizaron análisis por intención de tratar (IdT) y por protocolo (PP) para el criterio principal de valoración. Resultados: Se incluyeron 135 pacientes (grupo DBR de un día=67, DBR de 3 días=68). No se observaron diferencias significativas en la tasa de calidad de limpieza suficiente entre los grupos en el análisis por IdT (76,1%; IC del 95%: [64,6-84,8] frente al 79,4 7%, IC del 95%: [68,2-87,4]; razón de posibilidades (OR): 1,2; IC del 95%: [0,54-2,73]) o en el análisis PP: (77,3%; IC del 95 %: [65,7-85,8] frente al 80,3%, IC del 95%: [69,0-88,3]; OR: 1,2; IC del 95% [0,52 -2,77]). No se observaron diferencias significativas en el cumplimiento de la dieta o con la solución limpiadora, en la satisfacción o las dificultades con la DBR y en las tasas de detección de pólipos/adenomas. Conclusión: Nuestros resultados sugieren que la DBR de un día no es inferior a la DBR de 3 días en pacientes con factores de riesgo de limpieza intestinal insuficiente.(AU)

Increasing the low residue diet to 3 days does not improve the bowel cleansing in hard to prepare patients: Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that the number of low residue diet (LRD) days does not influence the bowel cleansing quality in non-selected patients. However, there are not data in the subgroup of patients with risk factors of inadequate bowel cleansing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess whether a 3-day LRD improved the bowel cleansing quality in patients with risk factors of poor bowel cleansing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial carried out between December 2017 and March 2018 in a tertiary care hospital. Patients with high risk of poor bowel cleansing were selected following a validated score. The patients were randomized to the 1-day LRD or 3-day LRD groups. All patients received a 2-L split-dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were conducted for the main outcome. RESULTS: 135 patients (1-day LRD group=67, 3-day LRD=68) were included. The rate of adequate cleansing quality was not significantly different between the groups in the ITT analysis: 76.1%, 95% CI: [64.6-84.8] vs. 79.4%, 95% CI: [68.2-87.4]; odds ratio (OR) 1.2, 95% CI [0.54-2.73]) or in the PP analysis: 77.3%, 95% CI: [65.7-85.8] vs. 80.3%, 95% CI: [69.0-88.3]; OR 1.2, 95% CI [0.52-2.77]). Compliance with the diet or cleansing solution, satisfaction or difficulties with the LRD and the polyp/adenoma detection rates were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that 1-day LRD is not inferior to 3-day LRD in patients with risk factors of inadequate bowel cleansing.