Mo1273 Influence of Cirrhosis on Quality of Bowel Preparation and Polyp Detection Rate During Screening Colonoscopy

2012 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. AB372
Author(s):  
Kunal Karia ◽  
Arun Jesudian ◽  
Brian P. Bosworth
2010 ◽  
Vol 71 (5) ◽  
pp. AB147-AB148
Author(s):  
Manan B. Shah ◽  
Nikhil A. Kumta ◽  
Himanshu Verma ◽  
Raja Taunk ◽  
Oren Bernheim ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 101 ◽  
pp. S556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence B. Cohen ◽  
David Kastenberg ◽  
Sandra R. Lottes ◽  
William P. Forbes ◽  
Edwin Carter

2016 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-32
Author(s):  
Ioan Sporea ◽  
Alina Popescu ◽  
Roxana Sirli ◽  
Oliviu Pascu ◽  
Cristina Cijevschi Prelipcean ◽  
...  

The aim of the paper was to propose a score for performance evaluation in colonoscopy units.Method. We proposed a score (CDCD score - Cecal intubation, polyp Detection rate, Cleansing and Documentation of cecal intubation) based on the following parameters that  assess the quality of colonoscopy units: total colonoscopies rate, polyp detection rate, rate of cecal intubation photo record, rate of recorded Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) (rated 1 to 5 stars). The mean score obtained based on the above mentioned criteria was used as a quality parameter of the endoscopy unit.We  applied and calculated this score in all screening colonoscopies performed in our Endoscopy Department during the last 4 years.Results. The study group included 856 screening colonoscopies. The rate of total colonoscopies was 92.1% (789/856 cases) and the polyp detection rate was 23.9%. Regarding the quality of bowel preparation, the BBPS was recorded in 51.1% cases. The cecal intubation was photo recorded in 44% of cases.We considered that of the 4 parameters, the highest weight for an excellent quality belonged to the cecal intubation rate, followed by the polyp detection rate, because they evaluate the endoscopic technique, while the other 2 are more administrative. Thus, for the unit’s assessment we used the following equation: UNIT’S QUALITY CDCD SCORE = (3xcecal intubation rate+3xpolyp detection rate+1xphoto documentation+1xBBPS documentation)/8. Thus, the CDCD Score for our unit was ≈4 stars (3.7 stars).Conclusion. the proposed CDCD score may be an objective tool for the quality assessment in different endoscopy units. 


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryoji Ichijima ◽  
Sho Suzuki ◽  
Mitsuru Esaki ◽  
Tomomi Sugita ◽  
Kanako Ogura ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Chronic constipation is a significant factor in poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Macrogol 4000 plus electrolytes (Movicol, EA Pharma, Tokyo, Japan), containing polyethylene glycol (PEG) and electrolytes, have been used recently to treat patients with constipation. However, prospective studies on the use of macrogol 4000 for bowel cleansing for colonoscopy are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of macrogol 4000 in addition to PEG administered in patients with chronic constipation.Methods: This single-center, single-arm prospective study enrolled patients with chronic constipation who were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of good bowel preparation assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (6 or more points). The secondary endpoints were the time from when pPEG (MoviPrep, EA Pharma, Tokyo, Japan) was taken until colonoscopy could be started, amount of PEG taken, number of defecations, whether additional PEG doses were taken, and adverse events. Endoscopy-related endpoints included cecal intubation rate, insertion time, observation time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and polyp detection rate (PDR). The tolerability of PEG and macrogol 4000 was assessed using a questionnaire.Results: Forty patients were included in the analysis. The median BBPS was 7 (range, (3–9)) and ³6 points in 37 cases (92.5%). The median time until colonoscopy can be started was 210 min (90–360 min), the median volume of PEG taken was 1500 mL (1000–2000 mL), and the median number of defecations was 7 (3-20). No adverse events were observed. Fourteen patients required an additional dose of PEG. Cecal intubation was achieved in all cases, the median insertion time was 6.0 min (range, 2.3–22 min), and the median observation time was 8.8 min (range, 4.0–16.0 min). The ADR and PDR were 60.0% and 75.0%, respectively. A greater proportion of patients rated the tolerability of macrogol 4000 as good compared with that of PEG (95.0% vs. 50.0%, p < 0.01).Conclusions: Intake of macrogol 4000 in addition to PEG is effective and safe for colonoscopy in patients with chronic constipation.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Peng ◽  
Douglas Rex, MD, MACG

Background:   The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is of primary importance to the quality of screening colonoscopy. An online survey was conducted to assess knowledge and practices on ADR.  Methods:  Paid questionnaire distributed by email. Eligible respondents were board certified gastroenterologists who perform >80 colonoscopies per month with 3 to 35 years after fellowship.  Results:  39% were unaware that ADR applies only to screening colonoscopies and 76% incorrectly answered that ADR includes sessile serrated polyps/adenomas.  51% of respondents incorrectly believe the threshold is set at 25% because 25% is a national ADR average. Many also believe the threshold depends on the patient population (current evidence suggests adjusting ADR for factors other than age and sex is unnecessary). 75% ranked ADR as highly important. 80% reported tracking ADR. A busy practice was the most common reason for not tracking ADR. Caps, chromoendoscopy, and good bowel preparation were viewed as valuable for improving ADR (this is true except for caps). HD colonoscopes and education were considered less valuable (although evidence suggests HD and education are associated with improved ADR). 57% reported not sharing ADR information with their patients, and 59% reported no patients in the past 6 months asking for their ADR. Conclusion:  The importance of ADR as a validated quality measure is well understood, but there are misconceptions among gastroenterologists regarding the definition and measurement of ADR and which methods are proven to increase ADR.  Patients are having very little impact on ADR measurement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document