Mo1624 - Adenoma and Colorectal Cancer Rates by Time to Repeat Colonoscopy after Colonoscopy with Fair Bowel Preparation

2018 ◽  
Vol 154 (6) ◽  
pp. S-773
Author(s):  
Audrey H. Calderwood ◽  
Davis T. Weaver ◽  
Lynn Butterly ◽  
Amy B. Knudsen
2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy B. Menees ◽  
H. Myra Kim ◽  
Grace H. Elta ◽  
Sheryl Korsnes ◽  
Philip Schoenfeld

Goal. To prospectively assess physician recommendations for repeat colonoscopy in an average-risk screening cohort. Background. Endoscopists’ adherence to colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines for repeat colonoscopy have not been well characterized. Furthermore, little is known about patient and colonoscopy factors that are associated with endoscopists’ nonadherence to guideline recommendation. Study. This is a prospective cohort of average-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening between August 2011 and January 2013. The primary outcome was assessment of physician recommendations for repeat colonoscopy. Results. 462 participants were prospectively enrolled. 13.6% (62) had guideline-inconsistent recommendations. 89% of the guideline-inconsistent recommendations were for an earlier interval. Endoscopists’ reports cited suboptimal bowel preparation as the most common reason for earlier repeat colonoscopy. On multivariable analysis, patient split-dose preparation noncompliance was significantly associated with guideline-inconsistent recommendation (OR = 2.7) even after adjusting for other patient or bowel preparation-related characteristics. Additionally, increased odds of guideline-inconsistent recommendation were associated with older age (>70 years old), higher BMI, having 3 or more polyps, having had at least two previous colonoscopies, suboptimal bowel preparation, and having taken at least 12 hours till clear bowel movement. Conclusions. Gastroenterologists are adherent to CRC screening and surveillance guidelines. Suboptimal bowel preparation is the most frequently cited factor in endoscopy reports leading to deviation from guidelines. Continued emphasis on optimization of bowel preparation, particularly patient compliance to split-dose regimen, is needed.


2014 ◽  
Vol 146 (5) ◽  
pp. S-736-S-737
Author(s):  
Jodie A. Barkin ◽  
Daniel A. Sussman ◽  
James S. Leavitt ◽  
Jamie S. Barkin

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Aamar ◽  
Zeeshan Butt ◽  
Kamraan Madhani ◽  
Iqra Hussain ◽  
Joel Garsten ◽  
...  

Background. In the United States, patients wear a one-piece, reusable cloth gown during colonoscopy procedures. Many patients report embarrassment related to bodily exposure during colonoscopy. This may limit participation in colorectal cancer screening programs. Aims. To assess whether the use of a novel, disposable patient garment (Privacy Pants, Jackson, MS), which increases patient coverage, can reduce embarrassment related to bodily exposure and increase colonoscopy acceptance rates. Methods. Patients were offered a novel gown, and they completed questionnaires before and after colonoscopy. Results. A total of 120 patients participated. 54% were female and 82% were Caucasian. The novel gown had high overall satisfaction (8.3) and was associated with a sense of respect during the procedure (9.4). 67% (80) of the patients had a prior colonoscopy, and of these, 76% would request a novel gown over a traditional gown for future procedures. Among all study participants, a high rate of acceptability for repeat colonoscopy if recommended by their doctors was reported (mean of 9.4). Nonwhites were more likely to have a concern for embarrassment addressed by using novel gowns as compared to whites (P value 0.02). Conclusion. All participants, particularly women and nonwhite participants, reported high rates of respect and satisfaction and decrease in embarrassment utilizing the novel gown during colonoscopy. Patients who had prior colonoscopy with a traditional gown preferred the novel garment. A novel procedure gown may enhance colonoscopy acceptance by minimizing embarrassment.


2000 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 469 ◽  
Author(s):  
W You ◽  
F Jin ◽  
G Gridley ◽  
A Schatzkin ◽  
G Yang ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document