Differences between morning and afternoon colonoscopies for adenoma detection in female and male patients

The role of endoscopist adenoma detection rate in in sex differences in colonoscopy findings: cross-sectional analysis of the SCREESCO randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Fewer adenomas are detected at colonoscopy in women compared to men and failure to detect adenomas and sessile serrated polyps is associated with an increased risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate whether this was in part due to the greater difficulty of conducting colonoscopy in women, with the difference being more apparent in colonoscopies conducted by less skilled endoscopists.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Cross-sectional exploratory analysis of data on 16,551 individuals undergoing a primary colonoscopy (PCOL group) or colonoscopy after positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT group) within the randomized controlled trial SCREESCO. Endoscopist adenoma detection rate (ADR; low or high) was determined based on each endoscopist's colonoscopies performed in SCREESCO. In each study group, the relationship between the sex difference in colonoscopy outcome and endoscopist ADR was assessed using multiplicative interaction tests.

RESULTS

Endoscopists performed equally many colonoscopies in men and women (median 52% men). There were no signs of effect modification of the risk ratio of any finding (men vs women) by endoscopist ADR in the PCOL group (p = 0.33) or the FIT group (p = 0.30). The proportion of incomplete index colonoscopies was lower in men than in women in both groups and there was no effect modification by endoscopist ADR in either the PCOL group (p = 0.41) or the FIT group (p = 0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides no evidence that endoscopist skill measured by ADR underlies the sex difference in adenoma detection at colonoscopy. This study has trial number NCT02078804 and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.

The challenge of cognitive science for medical diagnosis

The historical tendency to view medicine as both an art and a science may have contributed to a disinclination among clinicians towards cognitive science. In particular, this has had an impact on the approach towards the diagnostic process which is a barometer of clinical decision-making behaviour and is increasingly seen as a yardstick of clinician calibration and performance. The process itself is more complicated and complex than was previously imagined, with multiple variables that are difficult to predict, are interactive, and show nonlinearity. They appear to characterise a complex adaptive system. Many aspects of the diagnostic process, including the psychophysics of signal detection and discrimination, ergonomics, probability theory, decision analysis, factor analysis, causal analysis and more recent developments in judgement and decision-making (JDM), especially including the domain of heuristics and cognitive and affective biases, appear fundamental to a good understanding of it. A preliminary analysis of factors such as manifestness of illness and others that may impede clinicians' awareness and understanding of these issues is proposed here. It seems essential that medical trainees be explicitly and systematically exposed to specific areas of cognitive science during the undergraduate curriculum, and learn to incorporate them into clinical reasoning and decision-making. Importantly, this understanding is needed for the development of cognitive bias mitigation and improved calibration of JDM in clinical practice.

Comparison of procedural outcomes between morning and afternoon colonoscopies performed by colorectal surgeons

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Colonoscopy is a common procedure performed by colorectal surgeons for screening, diagnosis, and surveillance of various colorectal diseases. Existing literature has conflicting data on quality outcomes of colonoscopies performed in the afternoon and the morning schedules and only includes colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists. We sought to analyze procedural outcomes between morning and afternoon colonoscopies performed by colorectal surgeons.

DATA SOURCES AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A retrospective chart review of colonoscopies performed by colorectal surgeons at a tertiary care center from October 2018 through July 2020 was performed. Complete colonoscopies with documented times were included. Patients with colonic resection and incomplete colonoscopy were excluded. Main outcome measures adenoma and polyp detection rates and colonoscopy time variables were compared between morning and afternoon colonoscopies.

RESULTS

A total of 781 patients were analyzed. Colonoscopies were evenly distributed during shifts (49% morning and 51% afternoon). The overall polyp and adenoma detection rates were 46% and 29%, respectively. There were no significant differences in adenoma and polyp detection rates and colonoscopy duration between morning and afternoon colonoscopies. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that history of prior polypectomy was an independent predictor of adenoma detection rate (OR: 2.17, 95% CI 1.33-3.54, p = 0.002) and was associated with significantly increased colonoscopy times in afternoon shift.

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in quality outcomes of adenoma and polyp detection rates between morning and afternoon colonoscopies performed by colorectal surgeons. In addition to known predictors, cecal intubation time and history of polypectomy were also independent predictors of adenoma detection rate. Patients with prior polypectomy had increased colonoscopy times in afternoon shift. Since colorectal surgeons perform higher proportion of diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies, these patients may be better suited for colonoscopies in morning shift.

Effect of the Weekend on Bowel Preparation Quality in Outpatient Colonoscopies

INTRODUCTION

Inadequate bowel preparation has been associated with a higher likelihood of missing adenomatous polyps. Colonoscopies immediately following a weekend may be prone to inadequate bowel preparation. This study aims to evaluate if day of the week is a predictor of bowel preparation adequacy, while assessing other patient and procedural variables and their effect on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all adult patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy between January 2015 and April 2020. Adequacy of bowel preparation was compared among all days of the week and days following federal holidays. Secondary outcomes included patient demographics, indication and timing of the procedure.

RESULTS

Of 4,279 colonoscopies, Monday had the highest rate of inadequate preparation (BBPS < 6) (16.5%) compared to other days of the week (p < .001). Post-holiday procedures were not associated with poor bowel preparation (p = .901). Similarly, on multivariate analysis, we found that procedures on Monday (OR 1.67 95%CI 1.33-2.10, p < .001) and African-American race (OR 1.34 95%CI 1.11-1.62, p = .003) were associated with inadequate bowel preparation. Females were more likely to have adequate bowel preparation (OR 0.71 95%CI 0.59-0.86, p < .001).

DISCUSSION

Bowel preparation on Mondays is more likely to be inadequate than other days of the week. Additionally, gender and ethnicity appear to be associated with quality of bowel preparation. A better characterization of procedural and patient variables can lead to a more personalized approach to bowel preparation.

Factors Associated with Withdrawal Time in European Colonoscopy Practice: Findings of the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group

The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analyzed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) mean withdrawal time (WT) target. We also investigated factors associated with WT, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysis looking at WT according to the ESGE definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In 1150 qualifying colonoscopies, the mean WT was 7.8 min. Stepwise analysis, including 587 procedures where all inputs were known, found that the variables most associated with mean WT were a previous total colonoscopy in the last five years (p = 0.0011) and the time of day the colonoscopy was performed (p = 0.0192). The main factor associated with a WT < 6 min was the time of day that a colonoscopy was performed. Use of sedation was the main factor associated with a higher proportion of WT > 10 min, along with a previous colonoscopy. Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey met the minimum standard set by the ESGE. However, there was variation and potential for improvement.

When should we perform colonoscopy to increase the adenoma detection rate?

The rate of adenoma detection is the most reliable quality indicator of colonoscopy. Studies have reported that colonoscopy performed in morning has a higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) than that performed in the afternoon. These studies have explained that several physician-related factors such as undergoing an emergency procedure the night before colonoscopy, accumulated workload, and increased fatigue level in the afternoon might have led to such finding. However, several opposing articles have indicated that the time of day and ADR is not quite related. Complex confounding factors can impact study results. Colonoscopy withdrawal time and bowel preparation quality are key factors. However, queue list numbers, participation of academic fellows, nurses' assistance, and the number of colonoscopies allocated per hour are also notable factors. Recently, an attempt has been made to homogenize the ADR in the morning and afternoon through artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy. This review article introduces the history of this long-debated topic, discusses points to consider in real-world practice, and suggests new ideas for planning future research. By understanding this issue, the rate of adenoma detection during colonoscopy is expected to be improved further.

Does time of day matter for colonoscopy quality? A review of over 13,000 screening colonoscopies in a colorectal surgery unit

BACKGROUND

There exists conflicting data in the literature with regard to adequate adenoma detection rate (ADR) as well as other quality metrics during colonoscopy based on the time of day that the procedure is performed. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of time of day on quality metrics in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

Screening colonoscopies performed between January 2010 and September 2018 by twenty-eight colorectal surgeons were queried from a prospectively maintained database. Quality parameters examined included adenoma detection rate (ADR), gender-specific ADR, withdrawal time, total examination time, cecal intubation rate, bowel preparation quality, and intra-procedural complications. Colonoscopies were compared between morning (07:30-11:59 AM) and afternoon (12:00-17:00 PM) groups.

RESULTS

There were 13,809 endoscopic screening examinations performed in asymptomatic patients older than 45 years. Patients had a mean age of 59.8 years, and 48.5% were female. A total of 8868 (64%) of the scopes were performed in the morning and 4941 (36%) were performed in the afternoon. Median endoscopist volume was 189 [54, 701] and included only surgeons who performed both afternoon and morning colonoscopies. There was no difference in both ADR and bowel preparation quality between the two groups. Both groups exceeded all national quality benchmarks, with the morning group having significantly shorter examination times.

CONCLUSIONS

In our practice, colonoscopies meet and exceed all national quality benchmarks, independent of the time of day they are performed.

Safety and efficacy of sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid bowel preparation in patients with baseline renal impairment or diabetes: subanalysis of a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Selecting a bowel preparation for patients with renal impairment or diabetes requires special consideration. We aimed to describe the effect of baseline renal impairment or diabetes on the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of low-volume sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid (SPMC) ready-to-drink oral solution bowel preparation.

METHODS

A post hoc secondary analysis was performed from a randomized, assessor-blinded study of SPMC oral solution bowel preparation in participants with mild or moderate baseline renal impairment or diabetes. Primary efficacy endpoint ('responders') was the proportion of participants with 'excellent' or 'good' ratings on a modified Aronchick Scale (AS). Secondary efficacy outcomes were the quality of ascending colon cleansing from the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and selected results from the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), adenoma detection, and laboratory evaluations.

RESULTS

Similar overall colon cleansing was demonstrated in the subgroups, with >85% of participants in any subgroup rated as responders by the AS, and >92% of participant responders by the BBPS. Most participants reported a tolerable bowel preparation, regardless of baseline renal impairment or diabetes history. Safety of SPMC oral solution was similar between all subgroups and the overall cohort. For the mild renal impairment, moderate renal impairment, and diabetes subgroups, respectively, commonly reported, drug-related AEs were nausea (2.6%, 5.3%, 1.4%) and headache (2.2%, 2.6%, 4.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Ready-to-drink SPMC oral solution demonstrated efficacious colon cleansing in patients with baseline mild/moderate renal impairment or diabetes, with a tolerable bowel preparation reported by most.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03017235.

Comparative Effectiveness of Commercial Bowel Preparations in Ambulatory Patients Presenting for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) is associated with reduced adenoma detection. However, limited research has examined the impact of different commercial bowel preparations (CBPs) on IBP and adenoma detection. We aim to determine whether type of CBP used is associated with IBP or adenoma detection.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated outpatient, screening or surveillance colonoscopies performed in the Cleveland Clinic health system between January 2011 and June 2017. IBP was defined by the Aronchick scale. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was performed to assess the association between CBP type and IBP and adenoma detection. Fixed effects were defined as demographics, comorbidities, medication use, and colonoscopy factors. Random effect of individual endoscopist was considered.

RESULTS

Of 153,639 colonoscopies, 75,874 records met inclusion criteria. Median age was 54; 50% were female; 17.7% had IBP, and adenoma detection rate was 32.6%. In adjusted analyses, compared to GoLYTELY, only NuLYTELY [OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.60, 0.72)] and SuPREP [OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.40, 0.69)] were associated with reduced IBP. Adenoma detection did not vary based on the type of bowel preparation used.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients referred for screening or surveillance colonoscopy, choice of CBP was not associated with adenoma detection. Decisions about CBP should be based on other factors, such as tolerability, cost, or safety.

Evaluation of the combined effect of factors influencing bowel preparation and adenoma detection rates in patients undergoing colonoscopy

Background

Colonoscopy is a commonly used modality for screening and surveillance of colorectal cancer (CRC). Therefore, it is essential to have adequate bowel preparation (prep) for the procedure which depends on type of bowel regimens, diet before colonoscopy and timing of the procedure.

Aims

The purpose of this study is to analyse the effect of multiple factors on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and prep quality of colonoscopy. This is the also the first study determining outcomes based on various combinations of diet, timing of the procedure and bowel prep regimens.

Methods

This is a retrospective single-centre observational study. Data about diet before procedure, bowel prepprep regimen and timing of the procedure was collected for patients coming for screening colonoscopy.

Results

Patients with split prep had higher good prep rates (73.8% vs 56.2%) and higher ADRs (34.2 % vs 29.9%) as compared with non-split prep. The good prep quality (65.8% vs 62.1%) and ADRs (31.9% vs 31.5%) were comparable in patients who received clear liquid diet as compared with low residue diet. The good results of bowel prep were obtained with split prep with either clear liquids or low residue diet irrespective of the timing of procedure. The poor prep was noticed in patients who underwent procedure in afternoon, with a low restrictive diet and non-split bowel regimen.

Conclusions

The current study adds to our knowledge about the combined effect of multiple variables affecting the bowel prep quality and ADR. It is imperative to opt for the best combination required for colonoscopy, as this will influence the effectiveness of colonoscopies regarding timely cancer detection and prevention.