Citations

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies. Trial registration: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies. Trial registration: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01978509

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy. Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01. Conclusion: In this pilot study, the low-volume colon preparation Prepopik® may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal colon cleansing regimen protocol for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume solution. Data collection included colon preparation quality based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and a questionnaire given to all subjects, in which we evaluated the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume prep averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (6.6, SD 2.19) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.64. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: Although not statistically significant, a low-volume colon preparation showed a trend of equivalent quality of bowel preparation measured by BBPS in comparison to traditional volume regimens, with less unpleasant taste, which may contribute to better patient compliance and therefore better bowel preparation in the inpatient setting. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01978509

INTRODUCTION: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy since these patients are usually older, less mobile, have more medical comorbidities, and often require emergent evaluation. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was IRB approved and conducted as a pilot study at a Tertiary Referral Medical Center between September 2013 and March 2019. Hospitalized patients aged 18 years or older undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high-volume solution (GoLYTELY®, medium-volume solution (MoviPrep®) or a low-volume Prepopik® solution. Adverse effects including unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting were scored through a questionnaire using a five-point scale ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 4 (severe symptoms). Boston Bowel Prep Score (BBPS) was used to evaluate colon cleanliness. Descriptive statistics are presented as mean values ± standard deviation (SD), and P -values were calculated using Chi-Square and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Mean age was 66.6 years (16.34) and 68% were male (Table 1). Indications for colonoscopy varied and are shown in Table 1. Total BBPS scores were higher in patients who received Prepopik®, 7.4 (1.62), than GoLYTELY® 6.6 (2.19) or MoviPrep® 6.9 (1.55), P = 0.66 (Figure 1). There was no difference in BBPS in right, transverse, or left colon scores. Regarding tolerance to preparation, 100% of the Prepopik® group reported completing the bowel preparation compared to 77.8% of the GoLYTELY® group and 66.4% of the MoviPrep® group ( P = 0.24). The Prepopik® group reported fewer side effects than GoLYTELY®/MoviPrep® groups (Table 2). CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, a low-volume colon preparation demonstrated at least equivalent quality of bowel preparation measured by BBPS in comparison with traditional higher volume regimens, with less adverse effects, and better compliance for cleansing completion. This study suggests small volume purgative may lead to better patient compliance and therefore, better bowel preparation in the inpatient setting. The lack of statistical significance is likely due to a type II error. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.

AbstractBackground and AimFeedback has been shown to improve performance in colonoscopy including adenoma detection rate (ADR). The frequency at which feedback should be given is unknown. As part of a quality improvement program, we sought to measure the outcome of providing quarterly and monthly feedback on colonoscopy quality measures.MethodsAll screening colonoscopies performed at endoscopy unit at Mayo Clinic Arizona by gastroenterologists between October 2010 and December 2012 were reviewed. Quality indicators, including ADR, were extracted for each individual endoscopist, and feedback was provided. The study period was divided into four distinct groups: pre‐intervention that served as baseline, quarterly feedback, monthly feedback, and post‐intervention. Based on ADR, endoscopists were grouped into “low detectors” (≤ 25%), “average detectors” (26–35%), and “high detectors” (> 35%).ResultsA total of 3420 screening colonoscopies were performed during the study period (555 patients during pre‐intervention, 1209 patients during quarterly feedback, 599 during monthly feedback, and 1057 during the post‐intervention period) by 16 gastroenterologists. The overall ADR for the group improved from 30.5% to 37.7% (P = 0.003). Compared with the pre‐interventional period, all quality indicators measured significantly improved during the monthly feedback and post‐intervention periods but not in the quarterly feedback period.ConclusionsIn our quality improvement program, monthly feedback significantly improved colonoscopy quality measures, including ADR, while quarterly feedback did not. The impact of the intervention was most prominent in the “low detectors” group. Results were durable up to 6 months following the intervention.

Background: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients with gastrointestinal (GI) involvement have a lower quality of life (QoL) and while the impact of upper GI symptoms on QoL in SSc patients has been described few data exist on the presence and impact of lower gastrointestinal (LGI) and pelvic floor symptoms in SSc. Our goal was to assess the prevalence of these symptoms in women with SSc and evaluate their impact on QoL. A secondary hypothesis was that the impact of LGI symptoms on QoL is mediated by depression. Study: Women with SSc (n=175) attending an outpatient scleroderma clinic completed multiple validated questionnaires. Pelvic floor and LGI symptoms included fecal incontinence (FI), urinary incontinence (UI), dual incontinence (DI), chronic constipation, diarrhea, and pelvic pain. The Student t tests adjusted for multiple comparisons were used to evaluate group differences at the 0.05 level. Results: Complete data were available for 160 women. FI was reported by 65, UI by 64, DI by 40, chronic constipation by 94, diarrhea by 82, and pelvic pain by 35 of SSc patients. Overall QoL was reduced in SSc patients with FI (0.96 vs. 0.63; P=0.007), UI (0.96 vs. 0.65; P=0.01), DI (1.11 vs. 0.67; P=0.002), and pelvic pain (1.01 vs. 0.70; P=0.04). Antidepressant use was reported by 26%. The negative impact on QoL in patients with pelvic floor symptoms was partially mediated by depression. Conclusions: Women with SSc suffer from an increased prevalence of LGI and pelvic floor symptoms including FI, UI, diarrhea, constipation, and pelvic pain and this effect seems to be partially mediated by depression.