The impact of poor bowel preparation on colonoscopy: a prospective single centre study of 10,571 colonoscopies

Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively explore the risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation (IBP).

METHODS

We searched the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases up to August 24, 2023, to identify observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined risk factors for IBP. A random effects model was used to pool the adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 125 studies (91 observational studies, 34 RCTs) were included. Meta-analyses of observational studies revealed that three preparation-related factors, namely, characteristics of last stool (solid or brown liquid), incomplete preparation intake, and incorrect diet restriction, were strong predictors of IBP. The other factors were moderately correlated with IBP incidence, including demographic variables (age, body mass index, male sex, Medicaid insurance, and current smoking), comorbidities (diabetes, liver cirrhosis, psychiatric disease, Parkinson's disease, previous IBP, poor mobility, inpatient, and Bristol stool form 1/2), medications (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, antidepressants, narcotics, antipsychotics, and calcium channel blockers), and preparation-related factors (preparation-to-colonoscopy interval not within 3 to 5/6 h, nonsplit preparation, and preparation instructions not followed). No colonoscopy indications were found to be related to IBP. Meta-analyses of RCTs showed that education, constipation, stroke/dementia, and discomfort during preparation were also moderately associated with IBP. Most of the other findings were consistent with the pooled results of observational studies. However, primarily due to imprecision and inconsistency, the certainty of evidence for most factors was very low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

We summarized five categories of risk factors for IBP. Compared to demographic variables, comorbidities, medications, and colonoscopy indications, preparation-related elements were more strongly associated with IBP. These findings may help clinicians identify high-risk individuals and provide guidance for IBP prevention.

Patient Navigation Plus Tailored Digital Video Disc Increases Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Low-Income and Minority Patients Who Did Not Attend a Scheduled Screening Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Up to 50% of people scheduled for screening colonoscopy do not complete this test and no studies have focused on minority and low-income populations. Interventions are needed to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening knowledge, reduce barriers, and provide alternative screening options. Patient navigation (PN) and tailored interventions increase CRC screening uptake, however there is limited information comparing their effectiveness or the effect of combining them.

PURPOSE

Compare the effectiveness of two interventions to increase CRC screening among minority and low-income individuals who did not attend their screening colonoscopy appointment-a mailed tailored digital video disc (DVD) alone versus the mailed DVD plus telephone-based PN compared to usual care.

METHODS

Patients (n = 371) aged 45-75 years at average risk for CRC who did not attend a screening colonoscopy appointment were enrolled and were randomized to: (i) a mailed tailored DVD; (ii) the mailed DVD plus phone-based PN; or (iii) usual care. CRC screening outcomes were from electronic medical records at 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to study intervention effects.

RESULTS

Participants randomized to tailored DVD plus PN were four times more likely to complete CRC screening compared to usual care and almost two and a half times more likely than those who were sent the DVD alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining telephone-based PN with a mailed, tailored DVD increased CRC screening among low-income and minority patients who did not attend their screening colonoscopy appointments and has potential for wide dissemination.

Development and validation of a three-dimensional deep learning-based system for assessing bowel preparation on colonoscopy video

Background

The performance of existing image-based training models in evaluating bowel preparation on colonoscopy videos was relatively low, and only a few models used external data to prove their generalization. Therefore, this study attempted to develop a more precise and stable AI system for assessing bowel preparation of colonoscopy video.

Methods

We proposed a system named ViENDO to assess the bowel preparation quality, including two CNNs. First, Information-Net was used to identify and filter out colonoscopy video frames unsuitable for Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) scoring. Second, BBPS-Net was trained and tested with 5,566 suitable short video clips through three-dimensional (3D) convolutional neural network (CNN) technology to detect BBPS-based insufficient bowel preparation. Then, ViENDO was applied to complete withdrawal colonoscopy videos from multiple centers to predict BBPS segment scores in clinical settings. We also conducted a human-machine contest to compare its performance with endoscopists.

Results

In video clips, BBPS-Net for determining inadequate bowel preparation generated an area under the curve of up to 0.98 and accuracy of 95.2%. When applied to full-length withdrawal colonoscopy videos, ViENDO assessed bowel cleanliness with an accuracy of 93.8% in the internal test set and 91.7% in the external dataset. The human-machine contest demonstrated that the accuracy of ViENDO was slightly superior compared to most endoscopists, though no statistical significance was found.

Conclusion

The 3D-CNN-based AI model showed good performance in evaluating full-length bowel preparation on colonoscopy video. It has the potential as a substitute for endoscopists to provide BBPS-based assessments during daily clinical practice.

Optimization of colonoscopy quality: Comprehensive review of the literature and future perspectives

Colonoscopy is crucial in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) and reducing associated mortality. This comprehensive review examines the importance of high-quality colonoscopy and associated quality indicators, including bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), complete resection, specimen retrieval, complication rates, and patient satisfaction, while also discussing other ADR-related metrics. Additionally, the review draws attention to often overlooked quality aspects, such as nonpolypoid lesion detection, as well as insertion and withdrawal skills. Moreover, it explores the potential of artificial intelligence in enhancing colonoscopy quality and highlights specific considerations for organized screening programs. The review also emphasizes the implications of organized screening programs and the need for continuous quality improvement. A high-quality colonoscopy is crucial for preventing postcolonoscopy CRC- and CRC-related deaths. Health-care professionals must develop a thorough understanding of colonoscopy quality components, including technical quality, patient safety, and patient experience. By prioritizing ongoing evaluation and refinement of these quality indicators, health-care providers can contribute to improved patient outcomes and develop more effective CRC screening programs.

Efficacy and tolerability of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid with senna versus 2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for colonoscopic bowel preparation: Prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded trial

OBJECTIVES

Low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) reduces the dosage of colonoscopic bowel preparation (BP) solution, but is still poorly tolerated. Adding laxatives to the BP solution reduces the volume of fluid required, without affecting quality. This study aimed to compare 1 L PEG-Asc plus 24 mg senna (1L-PEG/AS) and conventional 2 L PEG-Asc (2L-PEG/A) regimens on BP quality and patient tolerability.

METHODS

A single-center, randomized, investigator-blinded, noninferiority trial was performed between June and August 2022. Outpatients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to the 1L-PEG/AS or 2L-PEG/A group. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to evaluate BP quality. Adverse events and tolerability were surveyed using questionnaires.

RESULTS

Overall, 344 patients received 1L-PEG/AS or 2L-PEG/A regimens. The baseline characteristics and adverse events of the two groups were comparable. The 1L-PEG/AS group showed noninferior adequate BP rates compared with the 2L-PEG/A group (88% vs. 89%, P = 1.00); overall BBPS was 7.1 ± 1.5 and 7.2 ± 1.5, respectively (P = 0.39). Higher willingness to repeat the BP was observed in the 1L-PEG/AS group (85% vs. 62%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The 1L-PEG/AS regimen was comparable to the 2L-PEG/A regimen in terms of BP adequacy, requiring lower BP solution volumes, with better patient tolerance. Thus, it may be a suitable alternative to the conventional BP solution for colonoscopy. The Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT1051220043).

A comprehensive intervention to enhance inpatient colon preparation quality for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Adequate colon preparation is a critical component of high-quality colonoscopy especially for inpatients undergoing colonoscopy for acute indications. Inpatient colonoscopy has a high incidence of inadequate preparations. We report implementation of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention to improve inpatient colonoscopy preparations.

METHODS

Bowel preparation quality from inpatient colonoscopies performed for the 12 months prior to the comprehensive intervention were compared to colonoscopies performed for 12 months following the intervention. The intervention had multiple components including: 1) EMR-based colonoscopy preparation order set; 2) automated EMR alerts prompting nursing assessment of preparation progress; 3) standardized nursing charting processes for tracking preparation progress; and 4) standardized education for nursing staff and ordering providers on adequate colon preparation, assessment of colon preparation quality, and use of the above processes; and print and video patient education materials.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-eight inpatient colonoscopies were performed in the preintervention assessment period and 163 colonoscopies in the postintervention period. Median preintervention Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) was 6 and 26% of patients had inadequate colon preparation. Median postintervention BBPS was 8 with 16% inadequate colon preparation (P=0.016). The postintervention group had less ASA class I patients and used a lower dose of fentanyl than the preintervention group. There were no other significant differences between the pre- and postintervention groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a comprehensive colon preparation quality intervention resulted in significantly improved inpatient colon preparation quality and decreased frequency of inadequate preparations. The intervention consisting of an EMR-based order-set, nursing alerts and charting process, and patient education materials is continually being refined.

Determining efficacy of dynamic multimedia bowel preparation instructions versus standard instructions on adenoma detection and patient reported measures (DIGICLEAN trial): a study protocol for a multicentre, colonoscopist-blinded, randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy plays important roles in bowel cancer screening and treatment. Poor bowel preparation occurs in 20-25% of colonoscopies. This negatively impacts adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rates, procedural time, requirement for repeat colonoscopies, healthcare costs and likelihood of patient withdrawal from screening programmes. It is unclear whether a combination of multimedia modalities can improve bowel preparation quality, adenoma detection rates and patient-reported measures in those undergoing colonoscopy assessment.

METHODS

The DIGICLEAN trial is a prospective, parallel, multicentre, colonoscopist-blinded, randomised controlled trial. The trial will enrol 1294 participants aged 45 years and older who are indicated for a colonoscopy as an outpatient with a positive faecal occult blood test, iron deficiency anaemia or rectal bleeding. Participants will be randomised into the interventional arm, where bowel preparation instructions are delivered via a web-based application which uses scheduled short messaging service, regular patient survey assessment, email and videos; or the control arm, where routine standard written, verbal or emailed instructions are administered. The web-based application will assess patient-reported bloating, constipation and dietary adherence leading up to the colonoscopy. Depending on patient responses, additional aperients may be encouraged digitally in the interventional arm with same instructions made available in written format for the control arm. Patient-reported measures will be collected in both arms the day after the procedure using the validated Newcastle ENDOPREM questionnaire. In some sites, participants will undergo digital pre-anaesthetic screening as well. The co-primary endpoints are the adenoma detection rates and patient-reported measures taken after the colonoscopy.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/ETH00059). Findings will be reported at national and international gastroenterology meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12622000747729.

Complete endoscopic removal rate of detected colorectal polyps in a real world out-patient practical setting

OBJECTIVES

Colonoscopy with adenomatous polypectomy reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. We introduced a strategy of removing all neoplastic polyps in single-session out-patient colonoscopy using cold polypectomy. We aimed to investigate the achievement of single-session complete removal rate of detected colorectal polyps in clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included colonoscopy-scheduled 40-79-year-old outpatients, with at least one colorectal neoplasm, between January 2015 and December 2016. Exclusion criteria were: colorectal neoplasms 21 mm or larger in size; pre-examination for colorectal surgery or endoscopic submucosal dissection; colonoscopy performed by health check program; ongoing antithrombotic treatment; inflammatory bowel disease; familial adenomatous polyposis. We defined 'clean colon' as the removal of all detected neoplastic polyps in a single-session colonoscopy. We evaluated clean colon rate, factors relating to clean colon failure and complications.

RESULTS

We evaluated 2527 patients (mean age 68 years; 799 women) with 8203 colorectal polyps (7675 adenomas, 423 serrated lesions, 105 Tis and T1 cancers). In 1-4 mm polyps, cold snare polypectomy (CSP; 51.8%) and cold forceps polypectomy (CFP; 45.8%) were applied. Clean colon rates were 95.1% per patient and 97.1% per lesion. The significant factors denoting clean colon failure were inadequate bowel preparation, ≥5 lesions, and the most advanced estimated histology of adenocarcinoma, on multivariate analyses. Post-polypectomy bleeding requiring endoscopic hemostasis occurred in five patients (0.2%) who had undergone endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or hot snare polypectomy (HSP). Perforation occurred in one patient (0.04%) with EMR.

CONCLUSIONS

The clean colon rates were satisfactory in single-session out-patient colonoscopy using cold polypectomy.

The impact of smartphone applications on bowel preparation, compliance with appointments, cost-effectiveness, and patients' quality of life for the colonoscopy process: A scoping review

The aim of this scoping review is to evaluate the impact of smartphone application (SPA) technology in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy to measure compliance with appointments, cost-effectiveness, bowel preparation, and quality of life. The scoping review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and PubMed were screened up to Oct 14, 2020, and bibliographies of the retrieved articles were included. Based on pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria, 8 primary studies were included in the final analysis from a total of 3,979 non-duplicate articles. Seven out of eight studies measured the bowel preparation quality. In six of these studies, patients in the smartphone group had a successful bowel preparation when compared with the control arm; on the other hand, one study did not find any differences between groups. Adherence to colonoscopy screening was assessed by one study. Patients in the digital intervention arm were significantly more likely to complete a screening test. Patient satisfaction during the periprocedural period of colonoscopy was assessed by five studies which reported significantly higher patient satisfaction in the intervention arm compared to the control arm. None of the studies measured cost-effectiveness. We came to the conclusion that a well-designed, user-friendly SPA can help and guide patients undergoing colonoscopy through the process of following up on their appointments, adhering to bowel preparation, and better understanding their disease condition. Future trials investigating SPAs should include cost-effectiveness and adherence to appointments as an endpoint.

Edge artificial intelligence wireless video capsule endoscopy

Gastrointestinal (GI) tract diseases are responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide, including colorectal cancer, which has shown a rising incidence among adults younger than 50. Although this could be alleviated by regular screening, only a small percentage of those at risk are screened comprehensively, due to shortcomings in accuracy and patient acceptance. To address these challenges, we designed an artificial intelligence (AI)-empowered wireless video endoscopic capsule that surpasses the performance of the existing solutions by featuring, among others: (1) real-time image processing using onboard deep neural networks (DNN), (2) enhanced visualization of the mucous layer by deploying both white-light and narrow-band imaging, (3) on-the-go task modification and DNN update using over-the-air-programming and (4) bi-directional communication with patient's personal electronic devices to report important findings. We tested our solution in an in vivo setting, by administrating our endoscopic capsule to a pig under general anesthesia. All novel features, successfully implemented on a single platform, were validated. Our study lays the groundwork for clinically implementing a new generation of endoscopic capsules, which will significantly improve early diagnosis of upper and lower GI tract diseases.

Optimizing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A cross-sectional study of the Chinese population

Background

The quality of bowel preparation is an important factor in the success of colonoscopy. However, the quality of bowel preparation is often affected by multiple factors. The main objective of this study was to explore the specific factors that affect the quality of bowel preparation.

Methods

Patients were consecutively recruited from the gastroenterology department in Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan from May 2018 to December 2018. All patients were undergoing colonoscopy. Bowel preparation was evaluated by the Ottawa Bowel preparation Scale (OBPS) and all patients were categorized into 2 groups according to the OBPS. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify the factors associated with bowel preparation quality.

Results

A total of 910 patients were included in the analysis with an average age of 48.62 ± 13.57 years. Patient source (P < 0.001) and the preparation method (P = 0.029) were correlated with OBPS adequacy. In addition, after stratified by age, preparation method (P = 0.022) was a significant factor among patients under 50 years old; whereas waiting time (P = 0.005) was a significant factor among patients over 50 years old.

Conclusion

Bowel preparation should be tailored based on the age of the patients to determine the most appropriate plan, including the most appropriate waiting time and the most appropriate purgative combination. Doctors should also focus more on the quality of bowel preparation in inpatients, who are more likely than outpatients to have an inadequate bowel preparation.

High-Volume Colonic Lavage Is a Safe and Preferred Colonoscopy Preparation for Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Background

Colonoscopies provide a crucial diagnostic and surveillance tool for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Accordingly, IBD patients undergo repeated and frequent colonoscopies. The oral purgative bowel prep (BP) is often burdensome on patients, resulting in delayed or missed colonoscopies due to patient noncompliance. Additionally, oral BP has been noted to possibly induce colon mucosal inflammatory changes in some patients, which may be misleading when assessing actual disease activity.

Methods

In this retrospective clinical study, we evaluated the use of an FDA cleared, defecation-inducing high-volume colon irrigation (>40 L) BP to prepare IBD patients for colonoscopy. Data were collected at 4 US Hygieacare centers from September 2016 to March 2021. The IBD patient population consisted of 314 patients that underwent 343 BPs. The BPs were prescribed by 65 physicians and performed by 16 nurses and technicians.

Results

Patient ages were 20-85 years old, 76% females, 24% males, and 97% of the patients were adequately prepared for their colonoscopy (n = 309). Patient satisfaction with the BP was very high, as reflected in postprocedure surveys and open-ended responses text analyses, and there were no serious adverse events.

Conclusions

We present data supporting that the defecation-inducing high-volume colon irrigation BP for colonoscopy is safe, effective, and preferred for IBD patients. Using this BP for IBD patients can allow earlier interventions, significantly impacting disease management and future outcomes.

Efficacy and tolerability of colonoscopies in overweight and obese patients: Results from a national database on gastrointestinal endoscopic outcomes

Background and study aims  Gastroenterologists are encountering a rising number of obese patients requiring colonoscopy. Existing literature regarding colonoscopy outcomes in this population is scant and conflicting. We analyzed a nationwide cohort of patients to identify the effects of body mass index (BMI) on colonoscopy success, efficacy, and tolerability. Patients and methods  The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI) endoscopic database was queried for all colonoscopies in adults between 2008-2014. Patients were stratified into four cohorts based on BMI classification for comparison. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify the effect of BMI on procedure outcome, efficacy and tolerability. Results  Of 41,401 procedures, 27,696 met study inclusion criteria. Of these, 49.4 % were performed for colorectal cancer screening, most commonly under anesthesia directed sedation. Patient discomfort was the reason for an incomplete colonoscopy in 18.7 % of all cases, and more frequent among the overweight and obese cohorts. An inadequate bowel preparation was most common in the class III obesity cohort. Compared to the normal BMI group, a BMI ≥ 30 and < 40 kg/m ² was associated with an increased odds of an incomplete colonoscopy ( P  = 0.001for overweight, P  = 0.0004 for class I/II obesity), longer procedure ( P  < 0.05 for all) and poorer tolerance ( P  < 0.0001 for class I/II obesity, P  = 0.016 for class III obesity). Anesthesia-administered sedation was more commonly used than endoscopist directed sedation amongst the obese cohort compared with the normal BMI cohort ( P  < 0.0001). Conclusions  Endoscopists should consider the increased odds of incomplete colonoscopy, longer procedures, and poorer tolerance when performing colonoscopy in obese patients to improve clinical management and procedural outcome.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopic Procedures: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

High-quality pediatric gastrointestinal procedures are performed when clinically indicated and defined by their successful performance by skilled providers in a safe, comfortable, child-oriented, and expeditious manner. The process of pediatric endoscopy begins when a plan to perform the procedure is first made and ends when all appropriate patient follow-up has occurred. Procedure-related standards and indicators developed to date for endoscopy in adults emphasize cancer screening and are thus unsuitable for pediatric medicine.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of endoscopic procedures. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process and finalized at an in-person conference. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 14 standards for pediatric endoscopic procedures, as well as 30 indicators that can be used to identify high-quality procedures. These were subcategorized into three subdomains: Preprocedural (3 standards, 7 indicators), Intraprocedural (8 standards, 18 indicators), and Postprocedural (3 standards, 5 indicators). A minimum target for the key indicator, "rate of adequate bowel preparation," was set at ≥80%.

DISCUSSION

It is recommended that all facilities and individual providers performing pediatric endoscopy worldwide initiate and engage with the procedure-related standards and indicators developed by PEnQuIN to identify gaps in quality and drive improvement.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopy Facilities: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing international recognition of the impact of variability in endoscopy facilities on procedural quality and outcomes. There is also growing precedent for assessing the quality of endoscopy facilities at regional and national levels by using standardized rating scales to identify opportunities for improvement.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of facilities where endoscopic care is provided to children. Consensus was reached via an iterative online Delphi process and subsequent in-person meeting. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 27 standards for facilities supporting pediatric endoscopy, as well 10 indicators that can be used to identify high-quality endoscopic care in children. These standards were subcategorized into three subdomains: Quality of Clinical Operations (15 standards, 5 indicators); Patient and Caregiver Experience (9 standards, 5 indicators); and Workforce (3 standards).

DISCUSSION

The rigorous PEnQuIN process successfully yielded standards and indicators that can be used to universally guide and measure high-quality facilities for procedures around the world where endoscopy is performed in children. It also underscores the current paucity of evidence for pediatric endoscopic care processes, and the need for research into this clinical area.

Predictors of poor bowel preparations and colonoscopy cancellations in inpatient colonoscopies, a single center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

An adequate bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy is a major quality-limiting factor that determines both the diagnostic and therapeutic yield of a colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for colon cancer screening and it is the primary approach to the workup of hematochezia, diarrhea and iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Several modifiable factors of bowel prep adequacy have been identified, that account for around 25% of inadequate bowel preparations in outpatient colonoscopies. However, the literature is sparse when examining the factors associated with inadequate preparations and procedure cancellations in an inpatient hospital setting. We aim to identify factors that affect bowel preparation adequacy and procedure cancellations among diagnostic colonoscopies performed during hospitalization.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of 1,500 consecutive patients who had a diagnostic colonoscopy as an inpatient at a tertiary level hospital over a 2-year period. All patients were administered a clear liquid diet the day prior to the colonoscopy. Patients were then instructed to drink 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG, Golytely) between 5 am to 9 am on the day of the procedure. The clinical course of each case was followed to identify quality of preparations, cancelled procedures and the reasons for cancellations. We applied univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify variables to predict cancellation and poor preparation.

RESULTS

A total of 1,029 patients were included in the study. 194 (18.8%) patients had colonoscopy cancellations and 268 (26.0%) had poor bowel preparations. Multivariate analysis revealed these factors to be associated with colonoscopy cancellations: education at the graduate school level [odds ratio (OR) =1.93, P=0.04], Hispanic ethnicity (OR =0.47, P<0.01), hemoglobin level <10 g/dL (OR =1.41, P=0.05) and if the colonoscopy was done for other indications (OR =0.53, P=0.04). Factors associated with poor bowel preparation on multivariate analysis, were dementia (OR =2.44, P=0.02), gastroparesis (OR =3.97, P=0.01) and inpatient opioids use (OR =1.69, P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of colonoscopy cancellations and poor bowel preparations in inpatient colonoscopies were high, and we were able to identify predictors of inadequate colon preparation and procedure cancellations. Exploring more individualized colon preparation regimens based on personal risk factors could reduce the number of inadequate and cancelled colonoscopies in an inpatient setting.

Volume of fluid consumption during preparation for colonoscopy is possibly the single most important determinant of bowel preparation adequacy

Background

The effectiveness and safety of colonoscopy are directly dependent on the quality of bowel preparation. Multiple risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) have been identified; however, IBP is still reported in 20-30% of cases in most studies. We aimed to identify modifiable predictors of the adequacy of bowel preparation using sodium picosulfate, and to recommend easily modifiable parameters to increase the success rate of colonoscopies.

Methods

This was a single-center observational study of adult outpatients referred for an elective colonoscopy. Patients were interviewed prior to colonoscopy; volume of liquids consumed was calculated as number of 200-mL cups showed to the patient. Additional information, including medical history, diagnoses and regular medications, was procured from patients’ medical records. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify factors significantly associated with IBP in a subgroup analysis of high-risk patients.

Results

The rate of IBP in 1172 subjects was 19.4%. This rate decreased as fluid consumption increased, with a further drop associated with shorter intervals from end of preparation to colonoscopy. Drinking < 1.4 L significantly increased the risk of IBP (odds ratio [OR] 3.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.65-4.95), while drinking ≥2 L was associated with adequate preparation (OR 0.09, 95%CI 0-0.42). These associations were stronger in high-risk individuals.

Conclusion

Greater fluid intake and short interval to colonoscopy are easily modifiable parameters that can substantially reduce the rate of IBP, especially among high-risk individuals.

Inadequate Bowel Preparation in Pediatric Colonoscopy-Prospective Study of Potential Causes

OBJECTIVES

Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) for colonoscopy leads to missed diagnosis, longer anesthesia time, higher chance of complications and increased costs. Adult studies have demonstrated that patient characteristics such as male gender and obesity are associated with IBP. Little is known about factors affecting bowel preparation in children. Our aim was to determine factors associated with IBP in children.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled children undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. Quality of bowel preparation was assessed using Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score (range 0-9). Data collected included patient demographics, indication, and type of insurance. Patients were divided into two groups based on BBPS score-adequate (BBPS score > 5) and inadequate (BBPS score < 5) and groups were compared using Student t-test and chi-square test. Possible predictors were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 334 children were prospectively enrolled of whom 321 were studied further (age range 2-18 years; mean age 12.4 years; 60.4% female; 85.9% Caucasian). The mean BBPS score was 6.8 (standard deviation of ±2). IBP was reported in 12.8% (41/321). Multivariable logistic regression analysis did not show statistical differences between the groups in studied patient factors including age, gender, obesity, race, insurance type, and indication for colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to several adult studies, the results of our prospective study did not show any relationship between examined patient factors and IBP in children. Interestingly, IBP was less prevalent in our pediatric study compared to published adult data (12.8% vs 20-40%).

Risk Factors of Inadequate Bowel Preparation for Screening Colonoscopy

The success of a colonoscopy in detecting and removing pre-cancerous and cancerous lesions depends heavily on the quality of bowel preparation. Despite efforts, 20–44% of colonoscopy participants have an inadequate bowel preparation. We aimed to assess and compare risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation and for the presence of advanced colorectal neoplasms in routine screening practice. In this cross-sectional study, among 8125 participants of screening colonoscopy in Germany with a comprehensive assessment of sociodemographic factors, lifestyle and medical history, we examined factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation and with findings of advanced neoplasms using adjusted log-binomial regression models. Among the identified risk factors assessed, three factors were identified that were significantly associated with inadequate bowel preparation: age ≥ 70 years (adjusted prevalence ratios, aPR, 1.50 95%CI 1.31–1.71), smoking (aPR 1.29 95%CI 1.11–1.50) and abdominal symptoms (aPR 1.14 95%CI 1.02–1.27). The same risk factors were also associated with the prevalence of advanced neoplasms in our study (aPR 1.72, 1.62 and 1.44, respectively). The risk factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation in this study were also associated with a higher risk for advanced neoplasms. Inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy might lead to missed colorectal cancer (CRC) precursors and the late diagnosis of CRC. People at high risk of advanced neoplasms are in particular need of enhanced bowel preparation.

Patient-centered approaches to targeting incomplete bowel preparations for inpatient colonoscopies

Background

A high-quality colonoscopy bowel prep is vital to completing the procedure. Adequate inpatient bowel preparation has been consistently difficult to achieve because of multiple factors. Incomplete bowel prep can lead to repeated colonoscopies, poor patient experience, increased costs, and prolonged hospitalization. This study aimed to develop patient-centered interventions to optimize bowel prep for inpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

Methods

The Model for Improvement and Donabedian frameworks guided this project. An interdisciplinary team compiled quality improvement tools that identified areas for improvement. Interventions development included a nursing tip sheet for troubleshooting symptoms, a standardized order label and a patient educational placemat. Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were carried out to test and analyze the effects of the interventions. The project aim was a 30% reduction in incomplete inpatient colonoscopies from poor bowel prep. Process measures included the number of colonoscopy split prep order labels, and placemats used. The balancing measure was the number of repeat colonoscopies.

Results

Prior to the intervention, 44% (44/99) of inpatient colonoscopies had poor bowel prep resulting in 10 repeat procedures (10%). Post intervention, 60% (28/47) of the colonoscopies used the standardized label, 66% of physician orders used 2-L split prep, and 80% of patients were provided with the educational placemat. Of the 47 colonoscopies audited post intervention, there was a significant decrease in poor prep (27.7% [13/47], P=0.038) for colonoscopies. The percentage of repeated colonoscopies decreased to 4% (2/47).

Conclusion

Developing simple and easy-to-use patient-centered interventions can effectively improve colonoscopy preparation for hospitalized patients.

Standardizing inpatient colonoscopy preparations improves quality and provider satisfaction

PURPOSE

Inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation quality is frequently suboptimal. This quality improvement (QI) intervention is focused on regimenting this process to impact important outcomes.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control (DMAIC) methodology was employed, including generating a root-cause analysis to identify factors associated with inpatient bowel quality. These findings motivated the creation of a standardized electronic health record (EHR)-based order set with consistent instructions and anticipatory guidance for administering providers.

FINDINGS

There were 264 inpatient colonoscopies evaluated, including 198 procedures pre-intervention and 66 post-intervention. The intervention significantly improved the adequacy of right colon bowel preparations (75.0 percent vs 86.9 percent, p = 0.04) but not overall preparation quality (73.7 percent vs 80.3 percent, p = 0.22). The intervention led to numerical improvement in the proportion of procedures in which the preparation quality interfered with making a diagnosis (10 percent-6 percent, p = 0.29) or resulted in an aborted procedure (3.5 percent-1.5 percent, p = 0.39). After the intervention, provider satisfaction with the ordering process significantly increased (23.3 percent vs 61.1 percent, p < 0.001).

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The QI intervention significantly reduced the number of inpatient colonoscopies with inadequate preparation in the right colon, while also modestly improving the diagnostic yield and proportion of aborted procedures. Importantly, the standardized EHR order set substantially improved provider satisfaction, which should justify broader use of such tools.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Novel clinical outcomes such as ability to answer diagnostic questions were improved using this intervention. The results align with strategic goals to enhance provider experience and continuously improve quality of patient care.

Severe Acute Colonic Diverticular Bleeding: The Efficacy of Rapid Bowel Preparation With 1 L Polyethylene Glycol Ascorbate Solution and Direct Endoscopic Hemoclipping for Successful Hemostasis

Colonic diverticular bleeding is an established cause of painless acute lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Colonoscopy, performed within 24 hours of presentation, is the usual initial diagnostic procedure in such patients. In order to improve the diagnostic and therapeutic yield of urgent colonoscopy, adequate colon cleansing is required in patients with signs and symptoms of ongoing bleeding. We hereby delineate the importance of rapid bowel preparation with a very-low-volume novel 1 L polyethylene glycol ascorbate solution in the setting of acute severe colonic diverticular bleeding. The 1-L regimen may demonstrate similar efficacy to that of traditional higher volume preparations and it can substantially reduce the time for bowel preparation. Therefore, it can be considered for bowel purge when colonoscopy has to be rapidly planned in critical patients. This article further illustrates that the endoscopic technique using epinephrine followed by direct hemoclipping may be added to the armamentarium for acute colonic diverticular hemorrhage as the first treatment, especially in elderly patients with multiple comorbid conditions. While ample evidence surrounding the efficacy of the clipping method persists in the literature, rapid bowel preparation with 1 L polyethylene glycol ascorbate solution's imperativeness to achieve hemostasis with direct hemoclipping remains elusive.

The Bowel CLEANsing National Initiative: A Low-Volume Same-Day Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Preparation vs Low-Volume Split-Dose PEG With Bisacodyl or High-Volume Split-Dose PEG Preparations-A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Bowel cleanliness has been shown to be superior with split-dose vs nonsplit preparations; we aimed to directly assess the poorly characterized comparative efficacies of split-dose vs same-day polyethylene glycol (PEG) regimens.

METHODS

In this study, one of a series of randomized trials performed across 10 Canadian endoscopy units, patients undergoing colonoscopies between 10:30 and 16:30 were allocated to PEG low-volume same-day (15 mg bisacodyl the day before, 2 L the morning of the procedure), low-volume split-dose (15 mg bisacodyl the day before, 1 L + 1 L), or high-volume split-dose (2 L + 2 L). Coprimary endpoints were adequate bowel cleansing based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale using in turn different threshold cutoffs.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,750 subjects were randomized equally across the 3 groups, with no differences in adequate bowel cleanliness rates (low-volume same-day, 90.5%; high-volume split-dose, 92.2%; P = 0.34; and low-volume split-dose, 87.9%; P = 0.17) for the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥6 and 2 for each segment. Willingness to repeat the preparation was not significantly different between low-volume same-day (91.0%) and low-volume split-dose (92.5%; P = 0.40) but was greater than the high-volume split-dose (68.9%; P < 0.01). No significant differences were noted for withdrawal time, cecal intubation, or polyp detection rates.

DISCUSSION

In this large randomized trial of PEG regimens, low-volume same-day resulted in similar bowel cleanliness compared with high-volume or low-volume split-dosing. Willingness to repeat and tolerability were superior with low-volume same-day compared with high-volume split-dose and similar to low-volume split-dose.

Efficacy and Patient Tolerability Profiles of Probiotic Solution with Bisacodyl Versus Conventional Cleansing Solution for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Although adequate bowel preparation is essential in screening colonoscopy, patient intolerability to bowel cleansing agents is problematic. Recently, a probiotic mixture solution with bisacodyl emerged to improve patient tolerability. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and patient tolerability profiles of probiotics with bisacodyl versus conventional polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution for bowel preparation for screening colonoscopies in healthy patients in this prospective, randomized, case-control study. In total, 385 volunteers were randomly assigned to receive 2 L of water + 200 mL of probiotic solution (case group, n = 195) or 4 L of PEG solution (control group, n = 190). The efficacy of the bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Ottawa scale system, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate, and the patient tolerability profiles were assessed using a questionnaire. The demographics were not significantly different between groups. When the Ottawa score for each bowel segment was stratified into an adequate vs. inadequate level (Ottawa score ≤ 3 vs. >3), there were no statistical differences between groups in each segment of the colon. There were no significant differences in the polyp and adenoma detection rates between groups (38.42% vs. 32.42, p = 0.30; 25.79% vs. 18.97%, p = 0.11). The case group showed significantly fewer events than the control group, especially nausea, vomiting, and abdominal bloating events. Regarding the overall satisfaction grade, the case group reported significantly more “average” scores (95% vs. 44%, p < 0.001) and were more willing to use the same agents again (90.26% vs. 61.85%, p < 0.001). As patient compliance with bowel preparation agents is associated with an adequate level of bowel cleansing, a probiotic solution with bisacodyl might be a new bowel preparation candidate, especially in patients who show a poor compliance with conventional bowel preparation agents.

Comparison of Effectiveness between Abdominal Vibration Stimulation and Walking Exercise for Bowel Cleansing before Therapeutic Colonoscopy

Background/Aims

Adequate bowel preparation is important for successful colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the clinical feasibility and effectiveness of abdominal vibration stimulation in bowel preparation before therapeutic colonoscopy.

Methods

A single center, prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded study was performed between January 2016 and December 2016. Patients for therapeutic colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled and assigned to either the vibrator group or walking group. Patients who refused to participate in this study as part of the experimental group consented to register in the control group instead. During the preparation period, patients assigned to the walking group walked ≥3,000 steps, whereas those assigned to the vibrator group received abdominal vibrator stimulation and restricted walking. All patients received the same colon cleansing regimen: 4-L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution.

Results

Three hundred patients who received PEG solution for therapeutic colonoscopy were finally enrolled in this study (n=100 per group). Bowel cleansing with abdominal vibration stimulation showed almost similar results to that with walking exercise (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score for the entire colon: vibrator vs walking vs control, 7.38±1.55 vs 7.39±1.55 vs 6.17±1.15, p<0.001). There were no significant differences between the vibrator group and walking group regarding instances of diarrhea after taking PEG, time to first diarrhea after taking PEG, total procedure time, and patient satisfaction.

Conclusions

This study indicates that, compared with conventional walking exercise, abdominal vibration stimulation achieved similar rates of bowel cleansing adequacy and colonoscopy success without compromising safety or patient satisfaction.

Comparison of Effectiveness between Abdominal Vibration Stimulation and Walking Exercise for Bowel Cleansing before Therapeutic Colonoscopy

Background/Aims

Adequate bowel preparation is important for successful colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the clinical feasibility and effectiveness of abdominal vibration stimulation in bowel preparation before therapeutic colonoscopy.

Methods

A single center, prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded study was performed between January 2016 and December 2016. Patients for therapeutic colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled and assigned to either the vibrator group or walking group. Patients who refused to participate in this study as part of the experimental group consented to register in the control group instead. During the preparation period, patients assigned to the walking group walked ≥3,000 steps, whereas those assigned to the vibrator group received abdominal vibrator stimulation and restricted walking. All patients received the same colon cleansing regimen: 4-L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution.

Results

Three hundred patients who received PEG solution for therapeutic colonoscopy were finally enrolled in this study (n=100 per group). Bowel cleansing with abdominal vibration stimulation showed almost similar results to that with walking exercise (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score for the entire colon: vibrator vs walking vs control, 7.38±1.55 vs 7.39±1.55 vs 6.17±1.15, p<0.001). There were no significant differences between the vibrator group and walking group regarding instances of diarrhea after taking PEG, time to first diarrhea after taking PEG, total procedure time, and patient satisfaction.

Conclusions

This study indicates that, compared with conventional walking exercise, abdominal vibration stimulation achieved similar rates of bowel cleansing adequacy and colonoscopy success without compromising safety or patient satisfaction.

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.

The importance of colonoscopy bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal lesions and colorectal cancer prevention

Background and study aims  Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has reduced CRC incidence and mortality and improved prognosis. Optimal bowel preparation and high-quality endoscopic technique facilitate early CRC detection. This review provides a narrative on the clinical importance of bowel preparation for colonoscopy and highlights available bowel preparations. Methods  A PubMed search was conducted through June 2019 to identify studies evaluating clinical outcomes, efficacy, safety, and tolerability associated with bowel preparation for CRC screening-related colonoscopy. Results  Selecting the optimal bowel preparation regimen is based on considerations of efficacy, safety, and tolerability, in conjunction with individual patient characteristics and preferences. Available bowel preparations include high-volume (4 L) and low-volume (2 L and 1 L), polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions, sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate/magnesium oxide plus anhydrous citric acid, sodium phosphate tablets, and the over-the-counter preparations magnesium citrate and PEG-3350. These preparations may be administered as a single dose on the same day or evening before, or as two doses administered the same day or evening before/morning of colonoscopy. Ingesting at least half the bowel preparation on the day of colonoscopy (split-dosing) is associated with higher adequate bowel preparation quality versus evening-before dosing (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.9-3.4). Conclusions  High-quality bowel preparation is integral for optimal CRC screening/surveillance by colonoscopy. Over the last 30 years, patients and providers have gained more options for bowel preparation, including low-volume agents with enhanced tolerability and cleansing quality that are equivalent to 4 L preparations. Split-dosing is preferred for achieving a high-quality preparation.

Combination of bisacodyl suppository and 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid is a non-inferior and comfortable regimen compared to 2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Appropriate bowel cleansing before colonoscopy is an important factor in increasing the detection rate of lesions. Low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) reduces the dosage of bowel preparation agent, but still presents discomfort to patients. The primary aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of bowel cleansing between 2 L PEG-Asc (control) and 1 L PEG-Asc with bisacodyl suppository (suppository) groups, and the secondary aim was to investigate complications and tolerability between the two groups.

METHODS

This was a single-center prospective randomized controlled study. We identified 168 patients scheduled for colonoscopy between August 2017 and January 2018 and randomly assigned them to the control or to the suppository groups. Efficacy of bowel cleansing was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and side-effects were surveyed using questionnaires.

RESULTS

No significant difference was detected in baseline characteristics including insertion and withdrawal times, and adenoma detection rates between the two groups. Total BBPS score was 7.93 ± 1.06 and 7.74 ± 1.02 in the control and suppository groups, respectively (P = 0.22). Incidence of abdominal pain and nausea was not statistically different, whereas that of sleep disturbance and anal discomfort was higher in the control group. (P = 0.00).

CONCLUSIONS

One liter PEG-Asc with bisacodyl suppository resulted in an equivalent bowel-cleansing outcome with reduced patient discomfort compared to 2 L PEG-Asc. Therefore, PEG-Asc with bisacodyl suppository represents a potential alternative and increases patient compliance with bowel preparation.

Randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of a visual educational leaflet on the preparation of colonoscopies in hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

the safety and diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopies depends on the quality of colon cleansing. Several factors have been reported that affect the quality of bowel cleansing, hospitalization being one of them.

AIMS

the aim of the study was to investigate whether a visual educational leaflet improved the level of cleanliness achieved in hospitalized patients undergoing a colonoscopy and to identify predictors of a poor bowel preparation.

METHODS

a prospective, single-center, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial was performed. The intervention group was given a visual educational leaflet and both groups received four liters of polyethylene glycol solution. Demographic data, personal history, reason for admission and indication for colonoscopy, work shift during which the procedure was performed and endoscopy findings were collected. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to assess the bowel preparation.

RESULTS

one hundred and thirty-six patients were included in the study; 51.5% were male, with a mean age of 64.3 ± 17.6 years. The educational leaflet did not result in a difference in the total BBPS obtained between the standard group and the intervention group (7 [6-9] vs 6 [5.7-9]; p = 0.17). According to the multivariable analysis, the only factors associated with a poor bowel cleansing were heart disease (OR 3.37 [1.34-8.46]; p = 0.010) and colorectal cancer (OR 3.82 [1.26-11.61]; p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

the use of a visual educational leaflet for the preparation of colonoscopies did not provide a significant improvement in hospitalized patients in our health area. Heart disease was identified as the only predictor of poor preparation for colonoscopy.

Poor Health Literacy and Medication Burden Are Significant Predictors for Inadequate Bowel Preparation in an Urban Tertiary Care Setting

GOALS

The goal of this study was to identify factors impacting the quality of bowel preparation in an urban tertiary care setting.

BACKGROUND

Inadequate bowel preparation is encountered in 17% to 32% of colonoscopies performed in the United States. Suboptimal colonic visualization reduces the yield of screening colonoscopies and increases healthcare costs because of longer procedure times and aborted procedures.

STUDY

We performed a cross-sectional survey in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy within the Johns Hopkins Health System. A Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) score of <5 was considered inadequate. Fisher's exact, χ tests and univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression were performed to assess the strength of the association for selected factors with a BBPS<5.

RESULTS

In total, 467 patients (76.3% response rate) completed the survey between August 2017 and October 2017. The median BBPS score was 7, and 81.4% of patients had an adequate bowel preparation (BBPS≥5). There was significant association between bowel preparation adequacy and level of education, health literacy, functional status, income, and medication burden. When adjusted for other factors, poor confidence in filling forms (OR, 24.1; P<0.001), multiple daily prescription medications (OR, 12.49; P=0.02) and poor functional status (OR, 2.82; P=0.03) had the highest odds of predicting inadequate bowel preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Inadequate bowel preparation is a significant problem accounting for reduced yield of screening and increased health care costs. Poor health literacy, functional status, and number of daily medications are significant factors predicting inadequate bowel preparation in the tertiary care setting.

Use of smartphone applications to improve quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction Smartphone-based applications (apps) have been used to improve the quality of bowel preparation (prep) but the success rates have been variable. We have performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of smartphone apps on bowel preparation.

Methods Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane) were reviewed for eligible studies of smartphone apps versus standard education before colonoscopy. The following outcomes were analyzed: pooled rate of adequacy of bowel prep among both arms and Boston bowel preparation score (BBPS) when reported. Pooled analysis was reported as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference in random effect model with Review Manager 5.3 (P ≤ 0.05 for statistical significance).

Results Six studies were eligible with smartphone app (810 patients) vs. standard education (855 patients, control group) for bowel prep. The smartphone app group had a higher proportion of adequate bowel prep compared to the control group: 87.5 % vs 77.5 % (five studies), pooled OR 2.67; 95 %CI 1.00 – 7.13 with P = 0.05. There was substantial heterogeneity in studies with I 2 = 78 %. When analysis was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), smartphone app users had a numerically higher rate of bowel cleansing: 87.1 % vs 76.9 %; however, pooled OR was not statistically significant (OR 2.66, 95 %CI 0.92 – 7.69, P = 0.07). When studies using BBPS were evaluated (n = 3), smartphone app users had higher mean scores (better bowel prep) with a mean difference of 0.9 (95 %CI 0.5 – 1.3), which was statistically significant (P < 0.01).

Conclusion The smartphone app is a novel educational tool that can assist in achieving adequate and better bowel cleansing before colonoscopy.

Quality assurance of colonoscopy within the Dutch national colorectal cancer screening program

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is capable of reducing CRC-related morbidity and mortality. Colonoscopy is the reference standard to detect CRC, also providing the opportunity to detect and resect its precursor lesions: colorectal polyps. Therefore, colonoscopy is either used as a primary screening tool or as a subsequent procedure after a positive triage test in screening programs based on non-invasive stool testing or sigmoidoscopy. However, in both settings, colonoscopy is not fully protective for the occurrence of post-colonoscopy CRCs (PCCRCs). Because most PCCRCs are the result of colonoscopy-related factors, a high-quality procedure is of paramount importance to assure optimal effectiveness of CRC screening programs. For this reason, at the start of the Dutch fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program, quality criteria for endoscopists performing colonoscopies in FIT-positive screenees, as well as for endoscopy centers, were defined. In conjunction, an accreditation and auditing system was designed and implemented. In this report, we describe the quality assurance process for endoscopists participating in the Dutch national CRC screening program, including a detailed description of the evidence-based quality criteria. We believe that our experience might serve as an example for colonoscopy quality assurance programs in other CRC screening programs.

Impact of Video Aid on Quality of Bowel Preparation Among Patients Undergoing Outpatient Screening Colonoscopy

Aim:

To investigate the effect of video aid on quality of bowel preparation.

Study:

A retrospective study was done on patients undergoing outpatient screening colonoscopy. All subjects received educational video prior to colonoscopy in addition to the standard counseling. Patient charts were reviewed to collect data regarding quality of bowel preparation (adequate or inadequate). The study population was stratified into four groups according to viewing status: Group I 0% (control group), Group II <50%, Group III >50% to <75%, and Group IV watched ⩾75% of the video.

Results:

A total of 338 patients with an average age of 59.1 years and 60.3% females were included in the final study cohort. Of the patients in Groups I, II, III, and IV, 94.3%, 90.9%, 100%, and 91.7%, respectively, had adequate preparation (P value = .827). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) for Groups I, II, III, and IV was 28.8%, 50%, 50%, and 22.6%, respectively (P value = .305). The mean cecal intubation time was 20.7, 16.4, 16.57, and 17 minutes for Groups I, II, III, and IV, respectively (P value = .041).

Conclusions:

Video aid use for patients undergoing screening colonoscopy lacked a statistically significant impact on the quality of bowel preparation, ADR, and advanced adenoma detection rate when compared with standard practice.

Patient Characteristics Associated With Quality of Colonoscopy Preparation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Some features of patients are associated with inadequate bowel preparation, which reduces the effectiveness of colonoscopy examination. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between patients' sociodemographic characteristics, health conditions, and medications with inadequate bowel preparation.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Review databases for randomized controlled trials cohort (prospective and retrospective), case-control, and cross-sectional studies published through March 2016. We collected information on study design, study population, and bowel preparation. For each factor, we obtained the odds ratio (OR) for inadequate bowel preparation. We conducted the meta-analyses using the random-effects approach and investigated any identified heterogeneity and publication bias via graphical methods, stratification, and meta-regression.

RESULTS

We performed a meta-analysis of 67 studies, comprising 75,818 patients. The estimated pooled OR for inadequate bowel preparation was small for sociodemographic characteristics: 1.14 for age, and 1.23 for male sex (excluding studies in Asia, which had substantial heterogeneity and publication bias), and 1.49 for low education. The effect of high body mass index differed significantly in studies with mostly female patients (OR, 1.05) vs those with mostly male patients (OR, 1.30) (P = .013 for the difference). ORs for constipation and cirrhosis were heterogeneous; adjusted ORs were larger than unadjusted ORs (1.97 vs 1.29 for constipation and 3.41 vs 1.36 for cirrhosis). Diabetes (OR, 1.79), hypertension (OR, 1.25), stroke or dementia (OR, 2.09), and opioid use (OR, 1.70) were associated with inadequate bowel preparation. History of abdominal surgery (OR, 0.99) did not associate with inadequate bowel preparation. Use of tricyclic antidepressants had a larger effect on risk of inadequate bowel preparation in studies of mostly female patients (OR, 2.62) than studies of mostly male patients (OR, 1.42) (P = .085 for the difference).

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found no single patient-related factor to be solely associated with inadequate bowel preparation. Health conditions and use of some medications appear to be stronger predictors than sociodemographic characteristics.

Training in Endoscopy: Colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is effective in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with colorectal cancer (CRC). Interval cancers or post-colonoscopy CRCs, are cancers detected within the surveillance interval, or between 6–36 months after a clearing colonoscopy. The incidence of interval cancers is 3.4%–9.2% of all detected CRCs, as reported in population-based studies. Colonoscopy is a technically difficult procedure that is challenging to learn, and needs time and effort to gain competency. Therefore, trainee competence is a critical component of CRC screening and surveillance. Herein, we review the colonoscopy training methods and quality assessment metrics for colonoscopy competency.

Impact of Resected Colon Site on Quality of Bowel Preparation in Patients Who Underwent Prior Colorectal Resection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Various factors are known to be associated with quality of bowel preparation (QBP), but have rarely been investigated in patients with prior colorectal resection. The aim of this study was to investigate variables associated with bowel preparation in patients with prior colorectal resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 247 patients with prior colorectal resection and undergone surveillance colonoscopy were consecutively chosen. One clinician performed endoscopy for all patients. QBP was rated using Aronchick grade and was categorized as either satisfactory (Aronchick grades, 1 to 3) or unsatisfactory (Aronchick grades, 4 and 5). Factors associated with QBP were analyzed.

RESULTS

Unsatisfactory bowel preparation was detected in 49 patients (19.8%). There was no difference in QBP on the basis of sex, age, body mass index, hypertension history, diabetes mellitus history, smoking habits, time after surgery, resected colon length, or bowel preparation method. Operation method was marginally associated with QBP (P=0.056). When we dichotomized patients into right-side colon preservation or not, the right colon preservation group showed a significant association with poor QBP on univariate (22.3% vs. 7.5%, P=0.028) and multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-12.3; P=0.038).

CONCLUSION

Patients with a preserved right colon were associated with poor bowel preparations compared with patients who underwent right-side colon resection. When preparing patients with history of colorectal resection for colonoscopy, these differences should be considered for better bowel preparation.

Cost Effectiveness of Screening Colonoscopy Depends on Adequate Bowel Preparation Rates - A Modeling Study

Background

Inadequate bowel preparation during screening colonoscopy necessitates repeating colonoscopy. Studies suggest inadequate bowel preparation rates of 20–60%. This increases the cost of colonoscopy for our society.

Aim

The aim of this study is to determine the impact of inadequate bowel preparation rate on the cost effectiveness of colonoscopy compared to other screening strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

A microsimulation model of CRC screening strategies for the general population at average risk for CRC. The strategies include fecal immunochemistry test (FIT) every year, colonoscopy every ten years, sigmoidoscopy every five years, or stool DNA test every 3 years. The screening could be performed at private practice offices, outpatient hospitals, and ambulatory surgical centers.

Results

At the current assumed inadequate bowel preparation rate of 25%, the cost of colonoscopy as a screening strategy is above society’s willingness to pay (<$50,000/QALY). Threshold analysis demonstrated that an inadequate bowel preparation rate of 13% or less is necessary before colonoscopy is considered more cost effective than FIT. At inadequate bowel preparation rates of 25%, colonoscopy is still more cost effective compared to sigmoidoscopy and stool DNA test. Sensitivity analysis of all inputs adjusted by ±10% showed incremental cost effectiveness ratio values were influenced most by the specificity, adherence, and sensitivity of FIT and colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Screening colonoscopy is not a cost effective strategy when compared with fecal immunochemical test, as long as the inadequate bowel preparation rate is greater than 13%.

Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards.

How Efficacious Are Patient Education Interventions to Improve Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Bowel preparation is inadequate in a large proportion of colonoscopies, leading to multiple clinical and economic harms. While most patients receive some form of education before colonoscopy, there is no consensus on the best approach.

AIMS

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of patient education interventions to improve bowel preparation.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database, CINAHL, EMBASE, Ovid, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were: (1) a patient education intervention; (2) a primary aim of improving bowel preparation; (3) a validated bowel preparation scale; (4) a prospective design; (5) a concurrent control group; and, (6) adult participants. Study validity was assessed using a modified Downs and Black scale.

RESULTS

1,080 abstracts were screened. Seven full text studies met inclusion criteria, including 2,660 patients. These studies evaluated multiple delivery platforms, including paper-based interventions (three studies), videos (two studies), re-education telephone calls the day before colonoscopy (one study), and in-person education by physicians (one study). Bowel preparation significantly improved with the intervention in all but one study. All but one study were done in a single center. Validity scores ranged from 13 to 24 (maximum 27). Four of five abstracts and research letters that met inclusion criteria also showed improvements in bowel preparation. Statistical and clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Compared to usual care, patient education interventions appear efficacious in improving the quality of bowel preparation. However, because of the small scale of the studies and individualized nature of the interventions, results of these studies may not be generalizable to other settings. Healthcare practices should consider systematically evaluating their current bowel preparation education methods before undertaking new interventions.

Alternatives to Incomplete Colonoscopy

A thorough and complete colonoscopy is critically important in preventing colorectal cancer. Factors associated with difficult and incomplete colonoscopy include a poor bowel preparation, severe diverticulosis, redundant colon, looping, adhesions, young and female patients, patient discomfort, and the expertise of the endoscopist. For difficult colonoscopy, focusing on bowel preparation techniques, appropriate sedation and adjunct techniques such as water immersion, abdominal pressure techniques, and patient positioning can overcome many of these challenges. Occasionally, these fail and other alternatives to incomplete colonoscopy have to be considered. If patients have low risk of polyps, then noninvasive imaging options such as computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) colonography can be considered. Novel applications such as Colon Capsule™ and Check-Cap are also emerging. In patients in whom a clinically significant lesion is noted on a noninvasive imaging test or if they are at a higher risk of having polyps, balloon-assisted colonoscopy can be performed with either a single- or double-balloon enteroscope or colonoscope. The application of these techniques enables complete colonoscopic examination in the vast majority of patients.

Age Is the Only Predictor of Poor Bowel Preparation in the Hospitalized Patient

We examine the impact of key variables on the likelihood of inpatient poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Records of inpatients that underwent colonoscopy at our institution between January 2010 and December 2011 were retrospectively extracted. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to assess the effect of clinical variables on the odds of poor preparation. Tested predictors included age; gender; use of narcotics; heavy medication burden; comorbidities; history of previous abdominal surgery; neurological disorder; product used for bowel preparation, whether or not the bowel regimen was given as split or standard dose; and time of endoscopy. Overall, 244 patients were assessed including 83 (34.0%, 95% CI: 28.1-39.9%) with poor bowel preparation. Cecal intubation was achieved in 81.1% of patients (95% CI: 76.2-86.0%). When stratified by quality of bowel preparation, cecal intubation was achieved in only 65.9% (95% CI: 60.0-71.9%) of patients with poor bowel preparation and 89.9% (95% CI: 86.1-93.7%) of patient with good bowel preparation. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, only advancing age was an independent predictor of poor bowel preparation (OR = 1.026, CI: 1.006 to 1.045, and p = 0.008). Age is the only independent predictor of poor bowel preparation amongst hospitalized patients.

Implementation of a program to improve the quality of colonoscopy increases the neoplasia detection rate: a prospective study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopists worldwide have been encouraged to report quality indicators in order to evaluate their performance. We aimed to determine whether a program to improve the quality of colonoscopy results in better rates of neoplasia detection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a prospective study set in a private endoscopy center. From May 2009 to March 2010, we evaluated 1573 consecutive colonoscopies (group 1). After the implementation of a quality program, from February 2011 to January 2012, we prospectively evaluated 1583 colonoscopies (group 2). Our quality-enhancing intervention consisted of instructing both patients and endoscopists. We measured the cecal intubation rate and the neoplasia detection rate. Overall neoplasias, high-risk adenomas, carcinomas, right colon adenomas, and adenomas detected in screening studies were analyzed.

RESULTS

Cecal intubation was documented in 1384 cases from group 1 (88 %) and 1534 from group 2 (96.9 %) (P < 0.0001). The neoplasia detection rates in groups 1 and 2 were, respectively: neoplasias 288 (18.3 %) and 427 (27 %) (P < 0.0001), high-risk adenomas 76 (4.8 %) and 142 (9 %) (P < 0.0001), carcinomas 16 (1 %) and 21 (1.3 %) (P = 0.52), right colon adenomas 112 (7.1 %) and 154 (9.7 %) (P = 0.01), and adenomas 141 (16.5 %) and 233 (28 %) (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a quality program improves the neoplasia detection rate. Because of the small number of cancerous lesions found in both groups, we were unable to identify differences in the carcinoma detection rate.

Predictors of Inadequate Inpatient Colonoscopy Preparation and Its Association with Hospital Length of Stay and Costs

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Adequate bowel preparation is essential to safe and effective inpatient colonoscopy. Predictors of poor inpatient colonoscopy preparation and the economic impacts of inadequate inpatient preparations are not defined. The aims of this study were to (1) determine risk factors for inadequate inpatient bowel preparations, and (2) examine the association between inadequate inpatient bowel preparation and hospital length of stay (LOS) and costs.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy preparation over 12 months (1/1/2013-12/31/2013).

RESULTS

Of 524 identified patients, 22.3% had an inadequate preparation. A multiple logistic regression model identified the following potential predictors of inadequate bowel preparation: lower income (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.04, 1.22), opiate or tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) use (OR 1.55; 0.98, 2.46), and afternoon colonoscopy (OR 1.66; 1.07, 2.59); as well as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥3 (OR 1.15; 1.05, 1.25) and symptoms of nausea/vomiting (OR 1.14; 1.04, 1.25) when a fair preparation was considered inadequate. Inadequate bowel preparation was associated with significantly increased hospital LOS (model relative mean estimate 1.25; 95% CI 1.03, 1.51) and hospital costs (estimate 1.31; 1.03, 1.67) when compared to adequate preparations.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of inadequate inpatient bowel preparations is high and associated with a significant increase in hospital LOS and costs. We identified five potential predictors of inadequate inpatient preparation: lower socioeconomic class, opiate/TCA use, afternoon colonoscopies, ASA class ≥3, and pre-preparation nausea/vomiting; these data should guide future initiatives to improve the quality of inpatient bowel preparations.

Education for Ward Nurses Influences the Quality of Inpatient's Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

Although adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for colonoscopy, preparation among inpatients is often suboptimal. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of ward nurse education on the quality of bowel preparation of inpatients.A prospective, double-blinded, non-randomized, controlled study was performed. Expert endoscopists provided enhanced education to nurses who belonged to an "educated ward" followed by training that was repeated every week for 1 month. The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation, which was based on the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS). Patient compliance and their subjective feelings and the factors affecting inadequate bowel preparation were also analyzed.One hundred three inpatients in the educated ward and 102 patients in the control ward were enrolled. Baseline data were comparable between the 2 wards. The mean values of the total OBPS scores were 4.42 ± 2.23 and 6.15 ± 2.38 in the educated and control wards, respectively (P < 0.001). The rate of poor preparation (OBPS ≥ 6) in the educated ward was significantly lower than that in the control ward (31.1% vs 58.8%, P < 0.001). Compliance with preparation and diet instructions in the educated ward was superior to that in the control ward (P<0.001). Control patients were more likely to be anxious before colonoscopy (P < 0.001), whereas patients in the educated ward showed higher level of satisfaction (P = 0.001) and better sleep quality (P < 0.001). A lack of ward nurse education (OR 2.365, P = 0.025), constipation (OR 6.517, P < 0.001), and insufficient water ingestion (OR 2.044, P = 0.042) were independently associated with inadequate bowel preparation among inpatients.Ward nurse education effectively improved the quality of bowel preparation, and relevant colonoscopic outcomes among inpatients. Additional efforts are needed to control constipation and to encourage additional water ingestion in inpatients for better bowel preparation.

Electrolyte changes after bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A randomized controlled multicenter trial

AIM: To investigate the electrolyte changes between 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid 20 g (PEG-Asc) and 4-L PEG solutions.

METHODS: From August 2012 to February 2013, a total of 226 patients were enrolled at four tertiary hospitals. All patients were randomly allocated to a PEG-Asc group or a 4-L PEG. Before colonoscopy, patients completed a questionnaire to assess bowel preparation-related symptoms, satisfaction, and willingness. Endoscopists assessed the bowel preparation using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). In addition, blood tests, including serum electrolytes, serum osmolarity, and urine osmolarity were evaluated both before and after the procedure.

RESULTS: A total of 226 patients were analyzed. BBPS scores were similar and the adequate bowel preparation rate (BBPS ≥ 6) was not different between the two groups (PEG-Asc vs 4-L PEG, 73.2% vs 76.3%, P = 0.760). Bowel preparation-related symptoms also were not different between the two groups. The taste of PEG-Asc was better (41.1% vs 16.7%, P < 0.001), and the willingness to undergo repeated bowel preparation was higher in the PEG-Asc group (73.2% vs 59.3%, P = 0.027) than in 4-L PEG. There were no significant changes in serum electrolytes in either group.

CONCLUSION: In this multicenter trial, bowel preparation with PEG-Asc was better than 4-L PEG in terms of patient satisfaction, with similar degrees of bowel preparation and electrolyte changes.