VALIDATION OF PREDICTIVE MODELS FOR INADEQUATE BOWEL PREPARATION IN COLONOSCOPIES IN A TERTIARY HOSPITAL POPULATION

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Afecto ◽  
A Ponte ◽  
JC Silva ◽  
C Gomes ◽  
S Fernandes ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Edgar Afecto ◽  
Ana Ponte ◽  
Sónia Fernandes ◽  
Catarina Gomes ◽  
João Paulo Correia ◽  
...  

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Bowel preparation is a major quality criterion for colonoscopies. Models developed to identify patients with inadequate preparation have not been validated in external cohorts. We aim to validate these models and determine their applicability. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Colonoscopies between April and November 2019 were retrospectively included. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥2 per segment was considered adequate. Insufficient data, incomplete colonoscopies, and total colectomies were excluded. Two models were tested: model 1 (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, diabetes, constipation, abdominal surgery, previous inadequate preparation, inpatient status, and American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] score ≥3); model 2 (co-morbidities, tricyclic antidepressants, constipation, and abdominal surgery). <b><i>Results:</i></b> We included 514 patients (63% males; age 61.7 ± 15.6 years), 441 with adequate preparation. The main indications were inflammatory bowel disease (26.1%) and endoscopic treatment (24.9%). Previous surgery (36.2%) and ASA score ≥3 (23.7%) were the most common comorbidities. An ASA score ≥3 was the only identified predictor for inadequate preparation in this study (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001, OR 3.28). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of model 1 were 60.3, 64.2, 21.8, and 90.7%, respectively. Model 2 had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 57.5, 67.4, 22.6, and 90.5%, respectively. The AUC for the ROC curves was 0.62 for model 1, 0.62 for model 2, and 0.65 for the ASA score. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Although both models accurately predict adequate bowel preparation, they are still unreliable in predicting inadequate preparation and, as such, new models, or further optimization of current ones, are needed. Utilizing the ASA score might be an appropriate approximation of the risk for inadequate bowel preparation in tertiary hospital populations.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Berger ◽  
E Cesbron-Métivier ◽  
S Bertrais ◽  
A Olivier ◽  
A Becq ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 2740
Author(s):  
Efrat L. Amitay ◽  
Tobias Niedermaier ◽  
Anton Gies ◽  
Michael Hoffmeister ◽  
Hermann Brenner

The success of a colonoscopy in detecting and removing pre-cancerous and cancerous lesions depends heavily on the quality of bowel preparation. Despite efforts, 20–44% of colonoscopy participants have an inadequate bowel preparation. We aimed to assess and compare risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation and for the presence of advanced colorectal neoplasms in routine screening practice. In this cross-sectional study, among 8125 participants of screening colonoscopy in Germany with a comprehensive assessment of sociodemographic factors, lifestyle and medical history, we examined factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation and with findings of advanced neoplasms using adjusted log-binomial regression models. Among the identified risk factors assessed, three factors were identified that were significantly associated with inadequate bowel preparation: age ≥ 70 years (adjusted prevalence ratios, aPR, 1.50 95%CI 1.31–1.71), smoking (aPR 1.29 95%CI 1.11–1.50) and abdominal symptoms (aPR 1.14 95%CI 1.02–1.27). The same risk factors were also associated with the prevalence of advanced neoplasms in our study (aPR 1.72, 1.62 and 1.44, respectively). The risk factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation in this study were also associated with a higher risk for advanced neoplasms. Inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy might lead to missed colorectal cancer (CRC) precursors and the late diagnosis of CRC. People at high risk of advanced neoplasms are in particular need of enhanced bowel preparation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 243 ◽  
pp. 511-515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eline Vandael ◽  
Bert Vandenberk ◽  
Joris Vandenberghe ◽  
Hilde Pincé ◽  
Rik Willems ◽  
...  

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 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 1082-1091 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyang Guo ◽  
Xin Shi ◽  
Xiaoyu Kang ◽  
Hui Luo ◽  
Xiangping Wang ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 92 (2) ◽  
pp. 382-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reid L. Hopkins ◽  
David Parsons ◽  
Leonie Hoyo ◽  
Brian C. Jacobson

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 819-826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sultan Mahmood ◽  
Samid M. Farooqui ◽  
Mohammad F. Madhoun

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document