Sa1639 Impact of Bowel Preparation Quality on Detection of Non-Polypoid Colorectal Neoplasms and Their Prevalence in Average-Risk Screening Colonoscopy

2015 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. AB292
Author(s):  
Chang Kyun Lee ◽  
Chi Hyuk Oh ◽  
Jung-Wook Kim ◽  
Jae Young Jang ◽  
Hyo-Jong Kim
2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (17) ◽  
pp. 616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shail M Govani ◽  
Eric E Elliott ◽  
Stacy B Menees ◽  
Stephanie L Judd ◽  
Sameer D Saini ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 79 (5) ◽  
pp. 811-820.e3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy B. Menees ◽  
H. Myra Kim ◽  
Patricia Wren ◽  
Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher ◽  
Grace H. Elta ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 152 (5) ◽  
pp. S337-S338
Author(s):  
Madhav Desai ◽  
Julie Nguyen ◽  
Neil Gupta ◽  
Sravanthi Parasa ◽  
Sreekar Vennelaganti ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parakkal Deepak ◽  
David H. Bruining

Since the advent of the first flexible fiberoptic sigmoidoscope in 1967, lower gastrointestinal endoscopy equipment has technologically advanced and is used for a number of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. This review covers the definition of and indications for lower endoscopy; diagnostic and screening colonoscopy, bowel preparation for colonoscopy, special considerations for patients on anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents; endocarditis prophylaxis; general technique; diagnostic and therapeutic techniques during colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, anoscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography, balloon-assisted colonoscopy, and lower endoscopy training; and innovations on the horizon. Figures show room setup and patient positioning for colonoscopy; technique for insertion of a colonoscope and endoluminal view of rectum, descending colon, transverse colon, and cecum; pinch biopsy and hot biopsy forceps; snare polypectomy and endomucosal resection of a polyp using the lift and cut and suction cap techniques; Haggitt classification of tissue invasion in a pedunculated polyp; endoscopic clips and their application; self-expanding uncovered metal stents and their method of deployment; an anoscope; and rigid endorectal probes for endoscopic ultrasonography. Tables list indications for colonoscopy, recommendations for screening for colorectal cancer (average risk) from the US Preventive Services Task Force, recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force for surveillance after baseline colonoscopy in average-risk individuals, recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force for screening and surveillance in colorectal cancer (high risk), bowel preparation scales, agents for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy, and Haggitt classification of tumor invasiveness in an adenomatous polyp.   This review contains 10 highly rendered figures, 7 tables, and 60 references.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (32) ◽  
pp. 3947-3952 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Bian ◽  
Charles L. Bennett ◽  
Deborah A. Fisher ◽  
Maria Ribeiro ◽  
Joseph Lipscomb

Purpose We evaluated the Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Oncology Watch intervention, a clinical reminder implemented in Veterans Integrated Service Network 7 (including eight hospitals) to improve CRC screening rates in 2008. Patients and Methods Veterans Affairs (VA) administrative data were used to construct four cross-sectional groups of veterans at average risk, age 50 to 64 years; one group was created for each of the following years: 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010. We applied hospital fixed effects for estimation, using a difference-in-differences model in which the eight hospitals served as the intervention sites, and the other 121 hospitals served as controls, with 2006 to 2007 as the preintervention period and 2009 to 2010 as the postintervention period. Results The sample included 4,352,082 veteran-years in the 4 years. The adherence rates were 37.6%, 31.6%, 34.4%, and 33.2% in the intervention sites in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010, respectively, and the corresponding rates in the controls were 31.0%, 30.3%, 32.3%, and 30.9%. Regression analysis showed that among those eligible for screening, the intervention was associated with a 2.2–percentage point decrease in likelihood of adherence (P < .001). Additional analyses showed that the intervention was associated with a 5.6–percentage point decrease in likelihood of screening colonoscopy among the adherent, but with increased total colonoscopies (all indicators) of 3.6 per 100 veterans age 50 to 64 years. Conclusion The intervention had little impact on CRC screening rates for the studied population. This absence of favorable impact may have been caused by an unintentional shift of limited VA colonoscopy capacity from average-risk screening to higher-risk screening and to CRC surveillance, or by physician fatigue resulting from the large number of clinical reminders implemented in the VA.


2017 ◽  
Vol 85 (5) ◽  
pp. AB407
Author(s):  
Abhiram Duvvuri ◽  
Sreekar Vennelaganti ◽  
Ramprasad Jegadeesan ◽  
Babak Gachpaz ◽  
Prashanth Vennalaganti ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Selvi Thirumurthi ◽  
Gottumukkala S Raju ◽  
Mala Pande ◽  
Joseph Ruiz ◽  
Richard Carlson ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (04) ◽  
pp. E610-E620
Author(s):  
Madhav Desai ◽  
Joseph C. Anderson ◽  
Michael Kaminski ◽  
Viveksandeep Thoguluva Chandrasekar ◽  
Jihan Fathallah ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and study aims Sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate has been variably reported and unlike adenoma detection rate (ADR) is not currently a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy. Composite detection rates of SSL in patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy are not available. Methods Electronic database search (Medline, Embase and Cochrane) was conducted for studies reporting detection rates of serrated polyps (SSL, Hyperplastic polyp, traditional serrated adenoma) among average risk subjects undergoing screening colonoscopy. Primary outcomes were pooled SDR (SSL detection rate) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR). Pooled proportion rates were calculated with 95 %CI with assessment of heterogeneity (I2). Publication bias, regression test and 95 %prediction interval were calculated. Results A total of 280,370 screening colonoscopies among average risk subjects that were eligible with 48.9 % males and an average age of 58.7 years (± 3.2). The pooled SDR was available from 16 studies: 2.5 % (1.8 %–3.4 %) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 98.66 %) and the 95 % prediction interval ranging from 0.6 % to 9.89 %. When analysis was restricted to large (n > 1000) and prospective studies (n = 4), SDR was 2 % (1.1 %–3.3 %). Pooled PSPDR was 10 % (8.5 %–11.8 %; 12 studies). There was evidence of publication bias (P < 0.01). Conclusion Definitions of SSL have been varying over years and there exists significant heterogeneity in prevalence reporting of serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Prevalence rate of 2 % for SSL and 10 % for proximal serrated polyps could serve as targets while robust high-quality data is awaited to find a future benchmark showing reduction in colorectal cancer arising from serrated pathway.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document