Impact of Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation Quality on Follow-up Interval Recommendations for Average-risk Patients With Normal Screening Colonoscopies: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

Optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy: consensus recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Optimizing Bowel Preparation Quality for Colonoscopy: Consensus Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Optimizing Bowel Preparation Quality for Colonoscopy: Consensus Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Which is the better polyp detection metric: adenomas per colonoscopy or adenoma detection rate? A simulation modeling study

Background and study aims We compared the ability of adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) to assess endoscopist detection, using statistical principles and simulations. Patients and methods We simulated a population of endoscopists and patients to compare the ability of ADR versus APC for capturing true endoscopist ability (TEA). We compared these rates with and without adjustment for patient and exam factors using multivariable models, and adjustment for imprecision due to low volume using empirical Bayes (shrinkage). Power calculations were used to compare the ability of ADR and APC to distinguish higher from lower rates over two time periods for an endoscopist. Results APC and ADR had similar discriminatory ability for assessing TEA. This increased with higher volumes and after adjusting for risk factors and low volume using shrinkage. Higher APC and ADRs had higher power for comparing endoscopist detection over two time periods, but APC was superior to ADR. For example, there was 29% power to distinguish APCs (n = 200 colonoscopies) 0.10 from 0.15, similar to the power (28%) to distinguish corresponding ADRs: 10% and 14%. However, at same volume (n = 200), the power to distinguish higher APC rates (0.50 vs.0.75) was greater (89%) than the power (78%) for corresponding ADRs (39% vs.53%). Conclusions Adjusting for patient and exam factors and/or using shrinkage techniques for lower-volume endoscopists can increase the correlation between TEA for both ADR and APC. For higher detection rates, APC offers more power than ADR in distinguishing differences in detection ability.

Evaluation of the efficacy of polyethylene glycol in combination with different doses of linaclotide in a fractionated bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The ideal bowel cleansing program still needs to be explored. The aim was to compare the bowel cleansing effect and patient tolerance of low-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with different doses of linaclotide in fractionated bowel preparation.

METHODS

The subjects were randomly assigned to the 3LPEG group, 2LPEG + 2L group, or 2LPEG + L group. The primary outcome was to use the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) to evaluate the efficacy of bowel cleansing, and the secondary outcomes were the detection rate of adenomas and polyps, adverse reactions, tolerance, and defecation dynamics; subsets of patients with chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 753 patients were randomly assigned. In ITT analysis, the success of preparation of the 2LPEG + 2L group was better than that of the 2LPEG + L group or the 3LPEG group (92.0% vs. 82.3% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.002). Compared with the 3LPEG group, the 2LPEG + L group showed similar but non-inferior results (82.3% vs. 82.1%, P > 0.05). The 2LPEG + 2L group was similar to the 2LPEG + L group in terms of adverse reaction, tolerance, willingness to reuse, and sleep quality, but both were superior to the 3LPEG group. In a subgroup analysis of chronic constipation, the 2LPEG + 2L group had the best cleansing effect on the right colon and mid colon, while in the subgroup analysis of irritable bowel syndrome, the tolerance was better in the 2LPEG + 2L group and the 2LPEG + L group than the 3LPEG group.

CONCLUSIONS

2LPEG + 2L is a feasible bowel preparation regimen.

Barriers against Implementation of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Performance Measures for Colonoscopy in Clinical Practice

Background and Objectives: The implementation and monitoring of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures for colonoscopy are suboptimal in clinical practice. Electronic reporting systems may play an important role in data retrieval. We aimed to define the possibility of systematically assessing and monitoring ESGE performance measures for colonoscopy through reporting systems. Materials and Methods: We conducted a survey during a nationwide event on the quality of colonoscopy held in Rome, Italy, in March 2023 by a self-administered questionnaire. Analyses were conducted overall and by workplace setting. Results: The attendance was 93% (M/F 67/26), with equal distribution of age groups, regions and public or private practices. Only about one-third (34%) and 21.5% of participants stated that their reporting system allows them to retrieve all the ESGE performance measures, overall and as automatic retrieval, respectively. Only 66.7% and 10.7% of respondents can systematically report the cecal intubation and the adenoma detection rate, respectively. The analysis according to hospital setting revealed no significant difference for all the items. Conclusions: We found a generalized lack of systematic tracking of performance measures for colonoscopy due to underperforming reporting systems. Our results underline the need to update reporting systems to monitor the quality of endoscopy practice in Italy.

Effectiveness of a Mobile Health Application for Educating Outpatients about Bowel Preparation

Colonoscopy is an essential method for diagnosing and treating colorectal cancer, relying on effective bowel preparation to thoroughly examine the large intestinal mucosa. Traditional education involves printed instructions and verbal explanations but does not guarantee clear patient understanding. Poor bowel preparation can obscure mucosal visibility, delaying cancer diagnosis and treatment. A mobile medical model using Android devices for bowel preparation education was tested in a single-blind, randomized trial. This trial enrolled outpatients undergoing colonoscopy at the Endoscopy Center for Diagnostic and Treatment between 27 October 2021 and 31 December 2022. This study introduced the ColonClean app alongside traditional methods. After examination, endoscopists rated the preparation quality using the Aronchick scale. A data analysis was conducted using SPSS 25.0 to determine if there was a significant improvement in bowel preparation quality between the control group (traditional method) and the experimental group (traditional method plus the ColonClean app). Forty patients were recruited in each group. In the experimental group, all ratings were "fair", with 75% receiving an "excellent" or "good" rating, showing statistical significance (p = 0.016). The ColonClean app improves bowel preparation quality more effectively than traditional care instructions.

Endoscopist adenomas-per-colonoscopy detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) may be a better measure of colonoscopy quality than adenoma detection rate (ADR) because it credits endoscopists for each detected adenoma. There are few data examining the association between APC and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) incidence. We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to examine APC and PCCRC risk.

METHODS

We included New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry patients with an index examination and at least 1 follow-up event, either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. Our outcome was PCCRC defined as any CRC diagnosed ≥6 months after an index examination. The exposure variable was endoscopist-specific APC quintiles of .25, .40, .50, and .70. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on APC, controlled for age, sex, year of index examination, index findings, bowel preparation, and having more than 1 surveillance examination.

RESULTS

In 32,535 patients, a lower hazard for PCCRC (n = 178) was observed for higher APCs as compared to APCs of <.25 (reference): .25 to <.40: hazard ratio (HR), .35; 95% confidence interval (CI), .22-.56; .40 to <.50: HR, .31; 95% CI, .20-.49; .50 to <.70: HR, .20; 95% CI, .11-.36; and ≥.70: HR, .19; 95% CI, .09-.37. When examining endoscopists with an ADR of at least 25%, an APC of <.50 was associated with a significantly higher hazard than an APC of ≥.50 (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-2.56). A large proportion of endoscopists-one-fifth (32 of 152; 21.1%)-had an ADR of ≥25% but an APC of <.50.

CONCLUSIONS

Our novel data demonstrating lower PCCRC risk in examinations performed by endoscopists with higher APCs suggest that APC could be a useful quality measure. Quality improvement programs may identify important deficiencies in endoscopist detection performance by measuring APC for endoscopists with an ADR of ≥25%.

Clinically significant serrated polyp detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Higher adenoma detection rates reduce the risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Clinically significant serrated polyps (CSSPs; defined as any sessile serrated polyp, traditional serrated adenoma, large [≥1 cm] or proximal hyperplastic polyp >5 mm) also lead to PCCRC, but there are no data on associated CSSP detection rates (CSSDRs). We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) to investigate the association between PCCRC risk and endoscopist CSSDR.

METHODS

We included NHCR patients with 1 or more follow-up events: either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis identified through linkage with the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry. We defined our outcome, PCCRC, in 3 time periods: CRC diagnosed 6 to 36 months, 6 to 60 months, or all examinations (6 months or longer) after an index examination. We excluded patients with CRC diagnosed at or within 6 months of the index examination, with incomplete examinations, or with inflammatory bowel disease. The exposure variable was endoscopist CSSDR at the index colonoscopy. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on CSSDR controlling for age, sex, index findings, year of examination, personal history of colorectal neoplasia, and having more than 1 surveillance examination.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-eight patients with CRC diagnosed at least 6 months after their index examination were included. Our cohort included 142 endoscopists (92 gastroenterologists). We observed that the risk for PCCRC 6 months or longer after the index examination was significantly lower for examinations performed by endoscopists with CSSDRs of 3% to <9% (hazard ratio [HR], .57; 95% confidence interval [CI], .39-.83) or 9% or higher (HR, .39; 95% CI, .20-.78) relative to those with CSSDRs under 3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to demonstrate a lower PCCRC risk after examinations performed by endoscopists with higher CSSDRs. Both CSSDRs of 9% and 3% to <9% had statistically lower risk of PCCRC than CSSDRs of <3%. These data validate CSSDR as a clinically relevant quality measure for endoscopists.

Colonoscopy utilization and outcomes in older adults: Data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is frequently performed in older adults, yet data on current use, and clinical outcomes of and follow-up recommendations after colonoscopy in older adults are lacking.

METHODS

This was an observational study using the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry of adults age ≥65 years undergoing colonoscopy for screening, surveillance of prior polyps, or evaluation of symptoms. The main outcomes were clinical findings of polyps and colorectal cancer and recommendations for future colonoscopy by age.

RESULTS

Between 2009 and 2019, there were 42,611 colonoscopies, of which 17,527 (41%) were screening, 19,025 (45%) surveillance, and 6059 (14%) for the evaluation of symptoms. Mean age was 71.1 years (SD 5.0), and 49.3% were male. The finding of colorectal cancer was rare (0.71%), with the highest incidence among diagnostic examinations (2.4%). The incidence of advanced polyps increased with patient age from 65-69 to ≥85 years for screening (7.1% to 13.6%; p = 0.05) and surveillance (9.4% to 12.0%; p < 0.001). Recommendations for future colonoscopy decreased with age and varied by findings at current colonoscopy. In patients without any significant findings, 85% aged 70-74 years, 61.9% aged 75-79 years, 39.1% aged 80-84 years, and 27.4% aged ≥85 years (p < 0.001) were told to continue colonoscopy. Among patients with advanced polyps, 97.2% aged 70-74 years, 89.6% aged 75-79 years, 78.4% aged 80-84 years, and 66.7% aged ≥85 years were told to continue colonoscopy (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Within this comprehensive statewide registry, clinical findings during colonoscopy varied by indication and increased with age. Overall rates of finding advanced polyps and colorectal cancer are low. Older adults are frequently recommended to continue colonoscopy despite advanced age and insignificant clinical findings on current examination. These data inform the potential benefits of ongoing colonoscopy, which must be weighed with the low but known potential immediate and long-term harms of colonoscopy, including cost, psychological distress, and long lag time to benefit exceeding life expectancy.

Recommendations for follow-up interval after colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation in a national colonoscopy quality registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopist recommendations regarding a repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel cleanliness have not been fully described. Our aim was to evaluate the timing of recommendations for repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel preparation using a large, national colonoscopy registry.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of all outpatient screening and surveillance colonoscopies among adults ages 50 to 75 reported in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium from 2011 to 2018. The primary outcome was a recommendation to repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Secondary outcomes were recommendations based on indication of colonoscopy and colonoscopy findings and predictors of a recommendation to follow-up within 1 year.

RESULTS

There were 260,314 colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation performed at 672 different sites by 4001 endoscopists. Of these, 31.9% contained a recommendation for follow-up within 1 year. This did not differ meaningfully by examination indication. The severity of colonoscopy findings influenced the recommendations for follow-up (within 1 year in 84.0% of cases with adenocarcinoma, 51.8% with any advanced lesion, and 23.2% with 1-2 small adenomas). Younger age, more severe pathology, location in the Northeast, and performance by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate ≥25% were associated with recommendations for follow-up within 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Only some colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation are recommended to be repeated within 1 year, which may have implications for potential missed lesions. Further understanding of reasons driving recommendations is an important next step to improving guideline-concordant colonoscopy practice.

Revising the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) research priorities: a research progress update

BACKGROUND

One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities.

METHODS

As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined).

RESULTS

The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition.

CONCLUSIONS

Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.

Efficacy and Patient Tolerability of Split-Dose Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) Oral Solution Compared to the Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Solution for Bowel Preparation in Outpatient Colonoscopy: An Evidence-Based Review

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard exam for evaluation of colonic abnormalities and for screening and surveillance for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy of colonoscopy is dependent on the quality of the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) have emerged as two of the most commonly used bowel preparation agents. We conducted an evidence-based review of current evidence to further investigate the efficacy and patient tolerability of split-dose SPMC oral solution compared to PEG solution for colonoscopy bowel preparation.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using Pubmed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. All studies on split-dose bowel preparation with SPMC and PEG were reviewed. Relevant studies regarding colonoscopy and bowel preparations were also included. Randomized controlled trials were prioritized due to the high quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials were included. Split-dose SPMC and PEG were associated with similar results for adequacy of bowel preparation. Split-dose SPMC was associated with increased patient tolerability and compliance.

CONCLUSION

Split-dose SPMC and PEG are both adequate and safe for bowel preparation for outpatient colonoscopy, with split-dose SPMC being more tolerable for patients. Additional RCTs comparing these and other bowel preparation solutions are necessary to further investigate quality of bowel preparation, patient preference, and cost-effectiveness of the various options.

Benefits of switching from guaiac-based faecal occult blood to faecal immunochemical testing: experience from the Wallonia-Brussels colorectal cancer screening programme

Background

Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) have replaced guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBTs) in several colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes. We aimed to evaluate the benefits of this transition based on the Wallonia–Brussels-organised CRC screening programme.

Methods

A total of 1,569,868 individuals aged 50–74 years, who were invited to screening during 2009–2017, were studied by linking their screening records with insurance, pathology and cancer data in the Belgian Cancer Registry. We compared neoplasm detection rates and positive predictive values (PPVs) of gFOBT and FIT at 15 µg haemoglobin per gram cut-off in screen-naive individuals. We furthermore examined the incidence rates of interval cancer in gFOBT- and FIT-based screening programme.

Results

Advanced neoplasms were detected less frequently by gFOBT (0.8%) than by FIT (1.3%), with a difference of 0.5% (P < 0.01). PPVs were lower for gFOBT (15.1%) than for FIT (21.7%) for advanced neoplasms (difference 6.6%, P < 0.01). Compared to participants with negative gFOBT, those with negative FIT were 77% less likely to develop interval cancer (incidence rate ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.16–0.33).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that in an organised CRC screening programme, replacing gFOBT with FIT improved neoplasm detection rate and substantially reduced interval cancer incidence.

Update in Surveillance Recommendations in Individuals With Conventional Adenomas

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Conventional adenomas, which are precursors to almost 70% of colorectal carcinomas, are found in more than one-third of screening colonoscopies. Surveillance recommendations, based on adenoma size, histology, and number, have evolved over the years and are currently reflective of index adenoma categorization as either low-risk (LRA) or high-risk (HRA). In this review, recent guideline recommendations as well as primary data that have helped to shape these recommendations are presented.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent data have demonstrated that individuals with HRA on index exams may be at increased risk for CRC while those with LRA may have a minimal long-term risk for CRC, similar to those adults with normal index exams. Furthermore, the quality of the index exams is important for minimizing CRC risk. While individuals with HRA may require close surveillance intervals of 3 years, those with LRA or normal exams may need longer such as 10-year follow-up.