Split-Dose Bowel Preparation Reduces the Need for Early Repeat Colonoscopy Without Improving Adenoma Detection Rate

被引:4
|
作者
Wang, Li [1 ]
Sprung, Brandon S. [2 ]
DeCross, Arthur J. [2 ]
Marino, Danielle [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Massachusetts, Dept Med, Internal Med Residency Program, 55 North Lake Ave, Worcester, MA 01655 USA
[2] Univ Rochester, Med Ctr, Div Gastroenterol & Hepatol, 601 Elmwood Ave,Box 646, Rochester, NY 14642 USA
关键词
Adenoma detection rate; Boston Bowel Preparation Scale; Early repeat colonoscopy; High baseline ADR; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; COLORECTAL-CANCER; POLYETHYLENE-GLYCOL; WATER EXCHANGE; SCREENING COLONOSCOPY; QUALITY INDICATORS; RISK; MULTICENTER; METAANALYSIS; INTERVAL;
D O I
10.1007/s10620-017-4877-3
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Split-dose bowel preparation is associated with improved mucosal visualization and patient tolerance, becoming a standard of care. However, quality measures data associated with this preparation are limited. At our academic tertiary-care facility, we aim to study the effect of changing from single- to split-dose preparation on colonoscopy quality measures. A retrospective cohort study with quality indicators was conducted using electronic medical record data. Cases were identified via ICD9 code V76.51, "Special screening for malignant neoplasms of colon." Single-dose preparation data was collected from 9/1/13 to 8/31/14. Split-dose preparation was implemented 11/2014, and data were collected from 1/1/15 to 8/31/15. A total of 1602 colonoscopies in the single-dose group and 1061 colonoscopies in the split-dose group were analyzed. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was significantly improved in the split-dose group 8.64 +/- SD 1.25 versus 8.25 +/- SD 1.61, p < 0.001. There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate 40.7% (95% CI 37.8-43.7%) versus 40.5% (95% CI 38.1-42.9%), p = 0.92; however, the rate for recommending an early repeat examination due to an inadequate bowel preparation was significantly decreased to 3.9% (95% CI 2.7-5.0%) versus 8.9% (95% CI 1.52-2.97%), p < 0.001. While split-dose preparation significantly improves overall bowel cleanliness, there is no significant adenoma detection rate improvement with high baseline rate, suggesting a threshold which may not improve with enhanced preparations. Split-dose preparation significantly reduces the frequency with which inadequate preparation prompts an early repeat examination, which has important clinical implications on performance, costs, and patient experience, providing further evidence supporting split-dose preparation use.
引用
收藏
页码:1320 / 1326
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Patient Acceptance, Convenience, and Efficacy of Single-dose Versus Split-dose Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation
    Khan, Maqsood A.
    Piotrowski, Zdzislaw
    Brown, Michael D.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2010, 44 (04) : 310 - 311
  • [32] Predicting inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy in participants receiving split-dose bowel preparation: development and validation of a prediction score
    Dik, Vincent K.
    Moons, Leon M. G.
    Huyuk, Melek
    van der Schaar, Peter
    Cappel, Wouter H. de Vos Tot Nederveen
    ter Borg, Pieter C. J.
    Meijssen, Maarten A. C.
    Ouwendijk, Rob J. T. H.
    Le Fevre, Doris M.
    Stouten, Merijn
    van der Galien, Onno
    Hiemstra, Theo J.
    Monkelbaan, Jan F.
    van Oijen, Martijn G. H.
    Siersema, Peter D.
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2015, 81 (03) : 665 - 672
  • [33] In split-dose prepared patients, water exchange could significantly improve overall and segmental bowel preparation scores and increase adenoma detection rate
    Leung, Felix W.
    ANNALS OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2018, 31 (02): : 127 - 128
  • [34] COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF SPLIT-DOSE COLONOSCOPY BOWEL PREPARATION REGIMENS: A PRAGMATIC RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
    Yang, Yu-Xiao
    Xie, Dawei
    Rivero, Raphael
    Bond, Michael W.
    Damisa, Jibreel
    Lu, Qiao
    Khan, Nabeel H.
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2024, 166 (05) : S353 - S353
  • [35] Patient compliance and suboptimal bowel preparation with split-dose bowel regimen in average-risk screening colonoscopy
    Menees, Stacy B.
    Kim, H. Myra
    Wren, Patricia
    Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J.
    Elta, Grace H.
    Foster, Stephanie
    Korsnes, Sheryl
    Graustein, Brittany
    Schoenfeld, Philip
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2014, 79 (05) : 811 - +
  • [36] Efficacy of Prokinetics with a Split-Dose of Polyethylene Glycol in Bowel Preparation for Morning Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Kim, Hyoung Jun
    Kim, Tae Oh
    Shin, Bong Chul
    Woo, Jae Gon
    Seo, Eun Hee
    Joo, Hee Rin
    Heo, Nae-Yun
    Park, Jongha
    Park, Seung Ha
    Yang, Sung Yeon
    Moon, Young Soo
    Shin, Jin-Yong
    Lee, Nae Young
    DIGESTION, 2012, 86 (03) : 194 - 200
  • [37] Same-day Versus Split-dose Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy A Meta-analysis
    Cheng, Yuan-Lung
    Huang, Kuang-Wei
    Liao, Wei-Chih
    Luo, Jiing-Chyuan
    Lan, Keng-Hsin
    Su, Chien-Wei
    Wang, Yuan-Jen
    Hou, Ming-Chih
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2018, 52 (05) : 392 - 400
  • [38] Open-access colonoscopy quality indicators and patient perception using split-dose bowel preparation
    Manem, Nihita
    Donovan, Katherine
    Miller, David
    Yodice, Michael
    Wang, Katie
    Balogun, Khadijat
    Kabbach, Ghassan
    Feustel, Paul
    Tadros, Micheal
    JGH OPEN, 2021, 5 (05): : 563 - 567
  • [39] Optimal preparation-to-colonoscopy interval in split-dose PEG bowel preparation determines satisfactory bowel preparation quality: an observational prospective study
    Seo, Eun Hee
    Kim, Tae Oh
    Park, Min Jae
    Joo, Hee Rin
    Heo, Nae Yun
    Park, Jongha
    Park, Seung Ha
    Yang, Sung Yeon
    Moon, Young Soo
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2012, 75 (03) : 583 - 590
  • [40] Patients with History of Colonoscopy Are Less Likely to Achieve High Quality Preparation After Implementing Split-Dose Bowel Preparation
    Madhoun, M. F.
    Bitar, H.
    Parava, P.
    Bashir, M. H.
    Zia, H.
    ACTA GASTRO-ENTEROLOGICA BELGICA, 2017, 80 (02): : 257 - 261