Impact of low-volume versus standard-volume bowel preparation on participation in primary screening colonoscopy: a randomized health services study

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Pisera
Keyword(s):  
Health Services ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Screening Colonoscopy ◽  
Volume Versus ◽  
Primary Screening ◽  
Low Volume

scholarly journals The impact of low- versus standard-volume bowel preparation on participation in primary screening colonoscopy: a randomized health services study

Endoscopy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (03) ◽  
pp. 227-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Pisera ◽  
Robert Franczyk ◽  
Paulina Wieszczy ◽  
Marcin Polkowski ◽  
Maciej Rupinski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Participation Rate ◽  
Proximal Colon ◽  
Lesion Detection ◽  
Screening Colonoscopy ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Volume Group ◽  
Sodium Picosulfate ◽  
Low Volume ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of low-volume vs. standard-volume bowel preparation on participation in screening colonoscopy, bowel preparation quality, and lesion detection rates. Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, health services study within the population-based primary colonoscopy screening program in Poland. Individuals aged 55 – 62 years were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to bowel preparation with a low-volume (0.3 L sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate) or standard-volume (4 L polyethylene glycol) regimen and then invited to participate in screening colonoscopy. The primary outcome measure was the rate of participation in screening colonoscopy. Compliance with the assigned bowel preparation, bowel preparation quality, and lesion detection rates were also evaluated. Results A total of 13 621 individuals were randomized and 13 497 were analyzed (6752 in the low-volume group and 6745 in the standard-volume group). The participation rate (16.6 % vs. 15.5 %; P = 0.08) and compliance rate (93.3 % vs. 94.1 %; P = 0.39) did not differ significantly between the groups. In the low-volume group, fewer participants had adequate bowel preparation compared with the standard-volume group (whole colon 79.0 % vs. 86.4 %, P < 0.001; proximal colon 80.1 % vs. 87.3 %, P < 0.001). Detection rates of advanced adenoma (AADR) and advanced serrated polyps (ASPDR) were lower in the low-volume group than in the standard-volume group (AADR in the proximal colon 2.6 % vs. 4.3 %, P = 0.02; ASPDR in the whole colon 2.0 % vs. 3.3 %, P = 0.04; ASPDR in the proximal colon 1.0 % vs. 1.9 %, P = 0.048). Conclusion When compared with a standard-volume bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol, low-volume bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate did not improve participation rate or lesion detection rates, and negatively affected bowel preparation quality.

scholarly journals Recent Advances in Colonic Preparation for an Accurate Colonoscopy - How to Improve Our Practice to Meet the Quality Criteria

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 139-144
Author(s):  
Mihai-Radu PAHOMEANU ◽  
Lucian NEGREANU
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Screening Colonoscopy ◽  
Diffi Cult ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Examination Time ◽  
Bowel Cleansing ◽  
Colonic Preparation ◽  
Low Volume

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a major problem of global health. Screening colonoscopy is the gold standard in detection of CRC. A quality colonoscopy needs good indication, adequate bowel preparation, adequate examination time (30 to 45 minutes), a minimum 6 minutes time for mucosal examination during colonoscopy descent, a good centre adenoma detection rate. In 28-33% of the colonoscopies, the bowel preparation is unsatisfactory which leads to several hidden costs including the rise of preventable and treatable death rate regarding colorectal carcinoma. The ESGE (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) recommends a maximum of 10% poor preparations, threshold that is diffi cult to reach in many centres. Newer low-volume laxative regimens for bowel cleansing are better in the fi elds of compliance and tolerability than the classic 4L PEG with 2L PEG-CS (Clensia ®) being one of the new promising low-volume formulas. The low fi bre diet is now preferred due to better compliance and tolerability.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy

Medicine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 97 (17) ◽  
pp. e0599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li-Juan Yi ◽  
Xu Tian ◽  
Yuan-Ping Pi ◽  
Ling Feng ◽  
Hui Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Comparative Efficacy ◽  
Volume Versus ◽  
Low Volume

scholarly journals Risk Factors of Inadequate Bowel Preparation for Screening Colonoscopy

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 2740
Author(s):  
Efrat L. Amitay ◽  
Tobias Niedermaier ◽  
Anton Gies ◽  
Michael Hoffmeister ◽  
Hermann Brenner
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Sociodemographic Factors ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Screening Colonoscopy ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Screening Practice ◽  
Abdominal Symptoms ◽  
Inadequate Bowel Preparation

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document