Is a split-dose regimen of 2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid tolerable for colonoscopy in an early morning visit to a comprehensive medical check-up?

Boston bowel preparation scale score 6 has more missed lesions compared with 7-9

Adequate bowel preparation is an important factor in high-quality colonoscopy. It is generally accepted that a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score ≥ 6 is adequate, but some reports suggest ≥ 7. Subjects who underwent colonoscopy at least twice within 3 years from August 2015 to December 2019 were included. Polyp detection rates (PDRs), adenoma detection rates (ADRs), and number of polyps including adenomas were compared stratified by baseline colonoscopy (C1) BBPS score. Among 2352 subjects, 529 had BBPS 6 (group 1) and 1823 had BBPS 7-9 (group 2) at C1. There was no significant difference in PDR or ADR at C1 and follow-up colonoscopy (C2) between the two groups. However, the numbers of polyps (1.84 vs. 1.56, P = 0.001) and adenomas (1.02 vs. 0.88, P = 0.034) at C2 were significantly higher in group 1 than group 2, respectively. Segmental BBPS score 2 in group 1 compared to group 2, especially, showed higher PDR (P = 0.001) and ADR (P = 0.007) at C2. BBPS 6 is associated with a higher number of polyps and adenomas in short-term follow-up colonoscopy than BBPS 7-9. To reduce the risk of missed polyps, a thorough examination is necessary for BBPS 6.

Impact of comprehensive optical diagnosis training using Workgroup serrAted polypS and Polyposis classification on detection of adenoma and sessile serrated lesion

OBJECTIVES

Many interventions have been attempted to improve adenoma detection rate (ADR) and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SDR), and one of these interventions is educational training to recognize polyp characteristics. This study aimed to investigate the change in polyp detection rates of endoscopists before and after comprehensive training through the Gangnam-Real Time Optical Diagnosis (Gangnam-READI) program.

METHODS

Fifteen gastroenterologists participated in a 1-year comprehensive training program that consisted of ex vivo and in vivo training that encompasses knowledge and skills in endoscopic characterization of colonic polyps using the Workgroup serrAted polypS and Polyposis (WASP) classification. We evaluated the impact of the training program by comparing the overall and individual ADR and SDR 6 months before and after the training.

RESULTS

Overall, 18,280 polyps (9337 adenomas and 855 sessile serrated lesion) were collected. The optical diagnosis training had no significant impact on the difference in ADR after training compared to before training (47.7% vs. 46.5%, P = 0.608). A tendency for a decrease in ADR variance was noted among the endoscopists after training (74.9 vs. 32.7, P = 0.121). The overall pre-training period SDR was 4.5% and showed a statistically significant increase to 5.6%, 8.0%, and 7.1% in the first and second half of the training period, and post-training period, respectively (P = 0.003). The optical diagnosis training did not decrease variance in SDR (8.9 vs. 8.8, P = 0.985).

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive optical diagnosis training with WASP classification has a significant impact on increasing the overall SDR of expert endoscopists.

Small sessile serrated polyps might not be at a higher risk for future advanced neoplasia than low-risk adenomas or polyp-free groups

BACKGROUND

Polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy is recommended according to the risk stratification of initially removed polyps. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of advanced neoplasia following low-risk SSPs compared with that following LRAs and polyp-free groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From September 2013 to August 2017, asymptomatic Koreans aged 50-75 years who underwent surveillance colonoscopy post-baseline colonoscopy were enrolled. The 1314 participants who met the study design criteria were stratified into three groups according to the presence of LRAs or low-risk SSPs. The rate of advanced neoplasia was then compared between groups by surveillance colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 1314 participants were classified according to baseline colonoscopy findings: no polyp (n = 551), LRA (n = 707), and low-risk SSP (n = 56). All participants underwent surveillance colonoscopy after an average of 28.1 ± 8.7 months. The rate of advanced neoplasia at surveillance was not different between groups: no polyp group (13/551, 2.4%), LRA group (27/707, 3.8%), and low-risk SSP group (0/56, 0%). The LRA group exhibited a significantly higher rate of low- and high-risk polyps (47.5, 13.4%) than did the no polyp (35.6, 7.4%, p < .001, p = .001), but no significant differences to the low-risk SSP group (35.7, 7.1%, p = .117, p = .253), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with low-risk SSPs were not at a higher risk of advanced neoplasia than LRA patients, even in the polyp-free group. We suggest that surveillance colonoscopy after the removal of low-risk SSPs is not required more often than for LRAs.

Low-volume regimen without additional liquids or adjunctive agents versus standard bowel preparation in non-constipated patients: a propensity score matching analysis

AIMS

Split-dose, 4-L polyethylene glycol (PEG, HSD) is currently the first-line choice for unselected or difficult colon preparations. Almost all low-volume bowel preparations (BPs) include a large volume of additional liquid and adjunctive agents to improve cleansing efficiency. However, neither HSD nor additional liquids or adjunctive agents of low-volume regimens may be necessary for low-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare the cleansing efficiency between split-dose, low-volume (2-L) PEG without additional liquids or adjunctive agents (LSD) and HSD in non-constipated patients.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed from January 2013 to December 2015. Consecutive non-constipated patients who received LSD or HSD BPs were enrolled into LSD and HSD groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce selection bias and potential confounders. The primary outcome was bowel cleansing quality, as evaluated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The adenoma detection rate (ADR), the most important secondary outcome, was also recorded. Follow-up was conducted in 2016.

RESULTS

After excluding those participants who meet exclusion criteria or lost follow-up, 1656 non-constipated patients underwent LSD (n = 999) or HSD (n = 657) BP. Most patients had a BBPS score ≥6 (LSD vs. HSD, 93.6 vs. 92.9%, p = .166). The segmental BBPS scores were ≥2 in 92 and 91.9% in the LSD and HSD groups, respectively. The overall ADR was 16.7% in the LSD group and 17.5% in the HSD group (p = .334).

CONCLUSION

For non-constipated patients, LSD is not inferior to HSD in cleansing efficiency, while more willing to repeat the same BP.

Longer Withdrawal Time Is More Important than Excellent Bowel Preparation in Colonoscopy of Adequate Bowel Preparation

BACKGROUND

Adequate bowel preparation is crucial for effective screening colonoscopy. However, it is unclear whether higher bowel preparation scores correspond to beneficial effects on the adenoma and polyp detection rate (ADR and PDR) in the adequate bowel preparation group.

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of bowel preparation, according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) on ADR and PDR in the adequate bowel preparation group.

METHODS

Healthy examinees between 50 and 75 years old who underwent colonoscopy between September 2015 and August 2016 were included. BBPS scores, CWT, ADR, and PDR were reviewed retrospectively. Predictors of ADR and PDR were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model.

RESULTS

A total of 5073 cases with adequate bowel preparation (BBPS ≥ 6) were analyzed. Examinees with good (BBPS = 6, 7) and excellent (BBPS = 8, 9) bowel preparation were 1898 (37.4%) and 3175 (62.6%), respectively. Both ADR and PDR were higher in the good bowel preparation group than in the excellent bowel preparation group (ADR 47.3% vs. 45.0%, P = 0.035; PDR 73.7% vs. 69.5%, P = 0.004, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, CWT, rather than BBPS, was significantly associated with both ADR (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.06; P < 0.001) and PDR (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02-1.07; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Both ADR and PDR were lower when bowel preparation was excellent rather than good. However, CWT, not BBPS, was significantly associated with ADR and PDR in the adequate bowel preparation group. Therefore, meticulous inspection is important for high-quality colonoscopy regardless of the BBPS score in examinees with adequate bowel preparation.

Multidirectional Colonoscopy Quality Improvement Increases Adenoma Detection Rate: Results of the Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center Colonoscopy Quality Upgrade Project (Gangnam-CUP)

BACKGROUND

To prevent colorectal cancer, high-quality colonoscopy is advocated, undertaken by endoscopists with high adenoma detection rates (ADRs). Despite reports that various factors may impact ADRs, the significance of such factors is still unclear.

AIMS

The analysis was aimed at quality-oriented interventions for boosting ADRs.

METHODS

Study enrollees were adults subjected to screening colonoscopy between September 2013 and August 2016 at the Gangnam Center of Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System. The investigation entailed six periods (P1-6) of 6 months each, during which serial multidirectional quality improvement efforts were instituted. In particular, we sought to further educate endoscopists, provide feedback on individual ADRs, and introduce a split-dose regimen, gauging results via the Boston Bowel Preparation Score. Changes in polyp detection rates (PDRs) and ADRs were then analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 13,430 colonoscopies were undertaken by 15 experienced endoscopists. Overall, the ADR increased from 45.6% (P1) to 48.2% (P6, p < 0.001). The PDR, ADR, and advanced adenoma detection rate (AdvADR) showed the greatest increases between P3 and P4 [PDR 67.8% → 71.2% (p < 0.001); ADR 44.1% → 47.7% (p = 0.001); AdvADR 2.3% → 3.3% (p = 0.028)] in keeping with the introduction of a split-dose regimen. The sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (SSADR) increased substantially from 2.1% (P1) to 7.9% (P6, p < 0.001), with the largest gain between P1 and P2, just after education (p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Successful quality improvement in colonoscopy was achieved through comprehensive multidirectional efforts in education, feedback, and enhanced bowel preparation. Achieving high-level bowel preparation was paramount in ADR improvement. The SSADR was improved through education.

Low-Volume Polyethylene Glycol Improved Patient Attendance in Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis

Background: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been regarded as the primary recommendation for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. However, a conclusive conclusion has not yet been generated.

Aim: We performed this updated meta-analysis to further investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of low volume preparation based on PEG plus ascorbic acid related to 4L PEG.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted to retrieve potential randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 2000 to April 2018. Two independent searchers critically searched all potential citations, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias accordingly. Moreover, we used the STATA 12.0 and trial sequential analysis (TSA) 0.9 to complete all analyses.

Results: A total of 13 RCTs enrolling 3,910 patients met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis based on PP analysis indicated that compared to standard volume PEG regime, low volume regime improved patient compliance RR = 1.01; 95% CIs = 1.00, 1.03; P = 0.143 (≥75% intake); RR = 1.07; 95% CIs = 1.00, 1.14; P = 0.046 (100% intake), the willingness to repeat the same regime (RR = 1.30; 95% CIs = 1.07, 157; P = 0.007), and patient acceptability (RR = 1.18; 95% CIs = 1.07, 1.29; P = 0.001), and decreased the overall adverse events (RR = 0.86; 95% CIs = 0.77, 0.96; P = 0.009). However, no difference was observed between these two different solutions for bowel preparation efficacy (RR = 0.98; 95% CIs = 0.95, 1.02; P = 0.340). These all results were further confirmed by TSA.

Conclusions: The effect of low volume regime was not inferior to the standard volume PEG regime, and low volume regime was associated with better compliance when subjects ingested all the solution, willingness to repeat the same regime, higher acceptability, and lower nausea in non-selected population.

Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

INTRODUCTION

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been considered as the first recommendation for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. A previous meta-analysis suggested that low volume PEG may improve the acceptability of ingesting bowel preparation solution. However, several limitations impaired the power of findings from this published meta-analysis, such as the variation in study design of included trials and adjuvant prescriptions. Moreover, some studies related to this topic have been published recently. And thus, the aim of this updated meta-analysis is to further assess the comparative efficacy of low volume versus standard volume of PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy with trial sequential analysis (TSA).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Systematic searches will be performed to capture any potential randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Moreover, we will also manually check the bibliographies of related studies and reviews so as to get additional studies. Two reviewers will independently screen the citation records, extract essential information, and appraise the risk of bias of each RCT in sequence. Finally, we will used the STATA software version 12.0 and TSA software version beta 0.9 to statistically analyze all data and test the robust of each pooled result, respectively.

RESULTS

We will submit the full-text of systematic review to a peer-review journal for publication.

CONCLUSION

This updated systematic review and meta-analysis with TSA will further assess the comparative efficacy and safety of low-volume versus traditional standard volume PEG for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. And then, a more comprehensive evidence body on low-volume compared to standard volume PEG in bowel preparation will be constructed.