Would you recommend screening colonoscopy for the very elderly?

Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer occurrence and mortality in the older population: a population-based cohort study

We aimed to evaluate the association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence and related mortality in an older population.This retrospective, nationwide, population-based cohort study used data of adults aged ≥40 years from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. After excluding colonoscopy within 6 months of CRC diagnosis during enrollment, CRC occurrence and related mortality were compared between colonoscopy and non-colonoscopy groups using a time-dependent Cox proportional hazard model. Subgroup analysis was conducted among four age groups: young, middle-aged, old, and very old.Among 748986 individuals followed for 9.64 (SD 0.99) years, the colonoscopy group had a 65% lower CRC occurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [HRa] 0.35, 95%CI 0.32-0.38) and 76% lower CRC-related mortality (HRa 0.24, 95%CI 0.18-0.31) after 5 years compared with the non-colonoscopy group. Colonoscopy was associated with the most significant reduction in CRC occurrence in the middle-aged group (HRa 0.32, 95%CI 0.29-0.35) and in CRC-related mortality in the young group (HRa 0.04, 95%CI 0.01-0.33); the very old group had the least reduction in both CRC occurrence and CRC-related mortality (HRa 0.44, 95%CI 0.33-0.59 and HRa 0.28, 95%CI 0.15-0.53, respectively).We found a significant association between colonoscopy and reduction in CRC occurrence and CRC-related mortality in adults aged ≥40 years after 5 years of follow-up; however, these associations were weaker in the very old group. More research is needed on the association between colonoscopy and older age.

Correlation between prescribing doctor attributes and intestinal cleanliness in colonoscopy: a study of 22522 patients

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze the correlation between different attributes of doctors who prescribe colonoscopies and the cleanliness of the intestine to guide the development of colonoscopy application protocols.

METHODS

Data on colonoscopy cases conducted in the gastroenterology department of Hangzhou First People's Hospital between April 2018 and March 2021 were collected. The gender, age, professional attributes of the prescribing doctors, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score were recorded. In addition, the correlation between the prescribing doctors' characteristics and the intestine's cleanliness was analyzed.

RESULTS

The study included 22,522 patients with a mean BBPS score of 6.83 ± 1.94. There were 16,459 male and 6,063 female doctors with similar BBPS scores (p = 0.212). The study found no significant difference in BBPS scores between 19,338 internist and 3,184 non-internist (p = 0.154). However, BBPS scores differed significantly between 18,168 gastroenterologists and 4,354 non-gastroenterologists (p = 0.016) and between 19,990 intestinal-related specialties(gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery) and 2,532 non-intestinal-related specialties (p = 0.000). In addition, BBPS scores were significantly different between 18,126 prescribing endoscopiests and 4,396 non-endoscopiests (p = 0.014). However, there was no significant difference in BBPS scores among doctors of different ages (p = 0.190). The study found significant differences in BBPS scores between male and female patients and those under or over 40 years (p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

To improve colonoscopy preparation quality, priority should be given to doctors in gastroenterology, intestinal-related specialties, and endoscopiests. Their expertise may result in better education and improved bowel cleanliness.

Efficacy and safety of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly: comparison with oral sulfate solution

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Recently, 1 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid (Asc) has been introduced in Korea as a colonoscopy preparation agent. Data on its efficacy and safety in older adults have been limited. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1 L PEG/Asc in older adults by comparing it with oral sulfate solution (OSS).

METHODS

A prospective multicenter randomized study was conducted with subjects aged ≥ 65 years who underwent colonoscopy. The participants were randomized to receive 1 L PEG/Asc or OSS. The primary endpoint was successful bowel preparation, defined as total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥ 6, and ≥ 2 at each segment. Patient satisfaction, adverse events, and renal function changes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Among the 106 patients, 104 were finally included in the analysis. Overall, successful bowel preparation was achieved in 96.2% of both 1 L PEG/Asc and OSS groups. The satisfaction scores for taste, total amount ingested, overall feeling, and willingness to repeat the same regimen were not significantly different between the groups. Adverse events of moderate or higher severity occurred in 16 and 10 cases in the 1 L PEG/Asc and OSS group, respectively. There were no significant changes in electrolyte levels or renal function from baseline.

CONCLUSION

The successful bowel preparation rate was > 90% in both groups without severe adverse effects and significant changes in renal function. As a new low-dose preparation regimen for colonoscopy in older adults, 1 L PEG/Asc, is as effective and safe as OSS.

Impact of an Abdominal Compression Bandage on the Completion of Colonoscopy for Obese Adults: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomly allocated into the abdominal bandage and conventional groups during a routine colonoscopy. The primary outcome was CCR.

RESULTS

A total of 250 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the abdominal bandage and conventional groups from January 2021 to April 2021. Eleven patients (five in the abdominal bandage group and six in the conventional group) were excluded due to schedule cancellation after randomization, and 239 patients were eventually included in the final analysis. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding baseline characteristics (P > 0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in terms of advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), bowel preparation scale (BBPS), bubble scale (BS), and withdrawal time between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, compared with the conventional group, the cecal insertion time (CIT) of the abdominal bandage group was significantly shortened (279.00 (234.50-305.75) vs. 421.00 (327.00-485.00), P < 0.001), and the CCR (96.7% vs. 88.2%, P = 0.01) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) (47.5% vs. 32.8%, P < 0.001) were improved. Besides, logistic regression analysis showed that body mass index (BMI) and abdominal compression bandage were associated with CCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal compression bandages could effectively shorten CIT and improve CCR and ADR for obese patients during a routine colonoscopy. This trial is registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR2100043556).

Smartphone education improves embarrassment, bowel preparation, and satisfaction with care in patients receiving colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trail

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is considered a safe and effective tool for detecting colorectal cancer. Nevertheless, the proportion of patients are hesitating to receive colonoscopy. Smartphone education may decrease the barrier of colonoscopy. The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of smartphone education in colonoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, controlled study to examine the effectiveness of smartphone education on embarrassment, bowel preparation, and satisfaction in colonoscopy. The patients' embarrassment was measured by the colonoscopy embarrassment scale. The quality of the bowel preparation was evaluated by gastroenterologists according to the Aronchik Scale. The satisfaction of colonoscopy care was assessed by a satisfaction scale developed by the authors.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients were analyzed in the smartphone education and control groups (n = 75 in each group). The smartphone education group reported fewer embarrassment (B = -2.78, P = .02) than those of the control group, the patients who were older (B = .15, P = .001) and who were male (B = 2.91, P = .003) showed higher embarrassment. Additionally, smartphone education group were likely to have better colon preparation (odds ratio = 2.46, 95% confidence interval: 1.20-5.02) than that of the control group. Smartphone education also improved the satisfaction with care (β = 4.60, P < .001), and above normal body mass index decreased the satisfaction with care (β = -0.19, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Smartphone education improves embarrassment, bowel preparation, and satisfaction with care in patients receiving colonoscopy.

Safety and Efficacy of Low-Volume Preparation in the Elderly: Oral Sulfate Solution on the Day before and Split-Dose Regimens (SEE SAFE) Study

Background/Aims

The use of a low-volume bowel cleansing agent is associated with a greater willingness to undergo repeat colonoscopy. Oral sulfate solution (OSS) is a recently approved low-volume agent; however, its efficacy and safety in the elderly population remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of the OSS preparation, in comparison to those of a standard polyethylene glycol (PEG; 4 L) preparation, in elderly patients.

Methods

A multicenter, randomized, investigator-blinded study was conducted. Participants were randomized to receive OSS or 4-L PEG with a split-dose regimen. Bowel cleansing efficacy was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Acceptance, satisfaction, and preparation-related symptoms were recorded. Additionally, blood parameters were analyzed for electrolyte abnormalities and nephrotoxicity.

Results

A total of 193 patients were analyzed. No group differences in overall bowel cleansing efficacy were observed, with “adequate” preparations achieved in 95.9% (93/97) and 94.8% (91/96) of patients in the OSS and 4L PEG groups, respectively (p=0.747). However, mean BBPS scores for the entire (p=0.010) and right colon (p=0.001) were significantly higher in the OSS group than in the 4-L PEG group. The severity of clinical adverse events and frequency of acute kidney injury were similarly low, and no clinically meaningful electrolyte changes were identified. Self-reported scores regarding amount (p<0.001) and feeling (p=0.007), as well as overall satisfaction (p=0.001) and willingness to repeat the preparation (92.8% vs 67.7%, p<0.001), were significantly better in the OSS group than in the 4-L PEG group.

Conclusions

In elderly individuals, OSS with a split-dose regimen has greater acceptability and comparable efficacy in bowel cleansing compared to 4-L PEG. (Clinical trials registration number: NCT03112967)

Same-Day Single Dose of 2 Liter Polyethylene Glycol is Not Inferior to The Standard Bowel Preparation Regimen in Low-Risk Patients: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Split dose of 4 l polyethylene glycol (PEG) is currently the standard regimen for bowel preparation (BP). However, it may be unnecessary for patients without high risks (e.g., old age, constipation, and diabetes, and so on) for inadequate BP. The study aimed to compare the efficacy of bowel cleansing between low-risk patients receiving same-day, single dose of low-volume (SSL) PEG vs. standard regimen.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, observer-blinded, non-inferiority study enrolled low-risk patients in three centers. Patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to the SSL or standard group. The primary outcome was adequate BP, defined by Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) ≥6 and each segmental score ≥2. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, cecal intubation rate, and patient willingness to repeat BP, and so on.

RESULTS

Among 2,532 patients eligible for the study, 940 (37.1%) were at low risk and 792 (31.3%) at high risk for inadequate BP. The low-risk patients were randomly allocated to the SSL (n=470) or standard group (n=470). The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that adequate BP was achieved in 88.1% in the SSL group and 87.0% in the standard group (relative risk (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-1.63, P=0.621). The overall BBPS was 7.3±1.2 and 7.3±1.3, respectively (P=0.948). No significant differences were found between the two groups with regards to the right, transverse, and left-segmental colon BBPS (all P>0.05). However, in terms of adverse events, patients in the SSL group reported less nausea (19.6% vs. 29.9%), vomiting (5.3% vs. 11.4%), and abdominal discomfort (2.2% vs. 6.0%) compared with those in the standard group. More patients in the SSL group were willing to repeat BP (94.0% vs. 89.5%, P=0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

For low-risk patients, the SSL regimen was not inferior to the split dose of 4 l PEG for adequacy of BP. Single dose of low-volume regimen had significantly fewer adverse events. This simplified regimen may be preferable in the "easy-to prepare" population.

Impact of patient audiovisual re-education via a smartphone on the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a single-blinded randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Education on preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of audiovisual (AV) re-education via a smartphone on bowel preparation quality before colonoscopy.

METHODS

A prospective, endoscopist-blinded, randomized, controlled study was performed. Patients who underwent colonoscopy with 3 purgatives, including 4 L of polyethylene glycol (4-L PEG), 2 L of PEG with ascorbic acid (2-L PEG/Asc), and sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC), were enrolled and randomized into the AV re-education via smartphone group (AV group, n = 160) and a control group (n = 160). The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The secondary outcomes included instruction adherence using adherence score (AS) and patient satisfaction with education using a visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

A total of 283 patients (AV group, n = 139; control group, n = 144) were analyzed per protocol. The mean BBPS (7.53 vs 6.29, P < .001) and the proportion with adequate preparation were higher in the AV group. The mean BBPS of the AV group was significantly higher than that of the control group for the 2-L PEG/Asc and SPMC preparations, but not for the 4-L PEG preparation. The mean AS and the mean VAS score were all significantly higher in the AV group. Among the 3 purgatives, the mean AS was lowest in the 4-L PEG group (P = .041).

CONCLUSIONS

AV re-education via smartphone was easy and convenient, and enhanced preparation quality, patient adherence to instructions, and patient satisfaction.

ADENOMA DETECTION RATE EVALUATION AND QUALITY OF COLONOSCOPY IN THE CENTER-WEST REGION OF BRAZIL

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third commonest cancer in men and the second in women worldwide. Peculiarities of its evolution allow secondary prevention measures through colonoscopy, with high diagnostic and therapeutic capacity. In this context, the quality indicators of the procedure become important, among them the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

OBJECTIVE

To relate the ADR in a medium risk population subjected to colonoscopy with sociodemographic, technical and histopathological indicators.

METHODS

This was a descriptive, observational and retrospective study whose data were collected from medical records of colonoscopy exams with the indication of colorectal cancer screening or prevention in the period from August to October 2016.

RESULTS

A total of 436 exams were included for analysis. Female sex represented 66.3% with 289 patients versus 33.7% for men. Patients aged between 50 and 59 years were 223 (51.1%) and those between 60 and 75 years were 213 (48.9%). In 99 exams (22.7%) chromoscopy was used, and 420 patients (96.3%) were adequately prepared. There were 118 patients with adenomas, resulting in an overall ADR of 27.1%. The ADR for men was 30.6% and 25.3% for women. Patients between 60 and 75 years old had a significantly higher ADR (31.9%, compared to 22.4% of the younger ones). Examinations in which chromoscopy was used also presented higher ADR.

CONCLUSION

The ADR values found for the population of the studied region were compatible with internationally established goals. Continuous evaluation of the ADR may yield interventions aimed at improving quality standards for colonoscopy and promote better prevention of colorectal cancer.

Increased Post-procedural Non-gastrointestinal Adverse Events After Outpatient Colonoscopy in High-risk Patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The incidence and predictors of non-gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) after colonoscopy are not well-understood. We studied the effects of antithrombotic agents, cardiopulmonary comorbidities, and age on risk of non-GI AEs after colonoscopy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective longitudinal analysis to assess the diagnosis, procedure, and prescription drug codes in a United States commercial claims database (March 2010-March 2012). Data from patients at increased risk (n = 82,025; defined as patients with pulmonary comorbidities or cardiovascular disease requiring antithrombotic medications) were compared with data from 398,663 average-risk patients. In a 1:1 matched analysis, 51,932 patients at increased risk, examined by colonoscopy, were compared with 51,932 matched (on the basis of age, sex, and comorbidities) patients at increased risk who did not undergo colonoscopy. We tracked cardiac, pulmonary, and neurovascular events 1-30 days after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Thirty days after outpatient colonoscopy, non-GI AEs were significantly higher in patients taking antithrombotic medications (7.3%; odds ratio [OR], 10.75; 95% confidence interval, 10.13-11.42) or those with pulmonary comorbidities (1.8%; OR, 2.44; 95% confidence interval, 2.27-2.62) vs average-risk patients (0.7%) and in patients 60-69 years old (OR, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 2.01-2.42) or 70 years or older (OR, 6.45; 95% confidence interval, 5.89-7.06), compared with patients younger than 50 years. The 30-day incidence of non-GI AEs in patients at increased risk who underwent colonoscopy was also significantly higher than in matched patients at increased risk who did not undergo colonoscopy in the anticoagulant group (OR, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.01-2.65) and in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease group (OR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Increased number of comorbidities and older age (older than 60 years) are associated with increased risk of non-GI AEs after colonoscopy. These findings indicate the importance of determining comorbid risk and evaluating antithrombotic management before colonoscopy.

Associations Between Parameters of Glucose and Lipid Metabolism and Risk of Colorectal Neoplasm

BACKGROUND

Diabetes and dyslipidemia have been linked to an increased risk of colorectal neoplasm (CRN). However, previous studies evaluating these associations have shown inconsistent results, and large-scale studies are few in number.

AIM

To investigate the associations between the parameters of glucose and lipid metabolism and the presence of CRN.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed on 38,490 Korean adults aged ≥30 years undergoing their first colonoscopy as part of routine preventive health care between 2010 and 2011.

RESULTS

The prevalence of overall CRN increased with increasing levels of glucose, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), insulin, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), triglycerides, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and apolipoprotein B (ApoB) and with decreasing level of apolipoprotein A1 (ApoA1). The adjusted prevalence ratios for overall CRN comparing the fourth with the first quartiles of fasting glucose, HbA1c, insulin, HOMA-IR, triglycerides, total cholesterol, LDL-C, ApoB, and ApoA-1 were 1.83 (95% CI 1.62-2.06), 1.17 (95% CI 1.03-1.33), 1.09 (95% CI 0.97-1.23), 1.22 (95% CI 1.08-1.37), 1.31 (95% CI 1.16-1.48), 1.19 (95 % CI 1.07-1.33), 1.38 (95% CI 1.23-1.54), 1.30 (95% CI 1.14-1.47), and 0.85 (95% CI 0.76-0.95), respectively. There was also a significant association between higher levels of glucose, LDL-C, and ApoB with a higher prevalence of advanced CRN. Moreover, the risk of CRN increased further in cases in which the parameters of glucose metabolism and lipid metabolism worsened simultaneously.

CONCLUSIONS

The levels of parameters of glucose and lipid metabolism are significantly associated with the prevalence of CRN. Altered glucose and lipid metabolism may contribute to the development of CRN.