Bowel preparation quality between hospitalized patients and outpatient colonoscopies

High diagnostic yield despite a lower completion rates for inpatient versus outpatient colon and pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy: a nested case-control study

BACKGROUND

Increased familiarity with capsule endoscopy (CE) has been associated with a growing demand for urgent inpatient procedures. Limited data exists comparing the effect of admission status on colon capsule (CCE) and pan-intestinal capsule (PIC) performance. We aimed to compare the quality of inpatient versus outpatient CCE and PIC studies.

METHODS

A retrospective nested case-control study. Patients were identified from a CE database. PillCam Colon 2 Capsules with standard bowel preparation and booster regimen were used in all studies. Basic demographics and key outcome measures were documented from procedure reports and hospital patient records, and compared between groups.

RESULTS

105 subjects were included, 35 cases and 70 controls. Cases were older, were more frequently referred with active bleeding and had more PICs. The diagnostic yield was high at 77% and was similar in both groups. Completion rates were significantly better for outpatients, 43% (n = 15) v's 71% (n = 50), OR 3, NN3. Neither gender nor age affected completion rates. Completion rates and preparation quality were similar for CCE and PIC inpatient procedures.

CONCLUSION

Inpatient CCE and PIC have a clinical role. There is an increased risk of incomplete transit in inpatients, and strategies to mitigate against this are needed.

SPLIT-DOSE BOWEL PREPARATION IS SUPERIOR TO STRAIGHT-DOSE IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS UNDERGOING INPATIENT COLONOSCOPY

BACKGROUND

There is a two-fold higher rate of failed colonoscopy secondary to inadequate bowel preparation among hospitalized versus ambulatory patients. Split-dose bowel preparation is widely used in the outpatient setting but has not been generally adapted for use among the inpatient population.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of split versus single dose polyethylene glycol bowel (PEG) preparation for inpatient colonoscopies and determine additional procedural and patient characteristics that drive inpatient colonoscopy quality.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed on 189 patients who underwent inpatient colonoscopy and received 4 liters PEG as either split- or straight-dose during a 6-month period in 2017 at an academic medical center. Bowel preparation quality was assessed using Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), Aronchick Score, and reported adequacy of preparation.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation was reported as adequate in 89% of the split-dose group versus 66% in the straight-dose group (P=0.0003). Inadequate bowel preparations were documented in 34.2% of the single-dose group and 10.7% of the split-dose group (P<0.001). Only 40% of patients received split-dose PEG. Mean BBPS was significantly lower in the straight-dose group (Total: 6.32 vs 7.73, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Split-dose bowel preparation is superior to straight-dose preparation across reportable quality metrics for non-screening colonoscopies and was readily performed in the inpatient setting. Interventions should be targeted at shifting the culture of gastroenterologist prescribing practices towards use of split-dose bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy.

Face-to-Face Instruction and Personalized Regimens Improve the Quality of Inpatient Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Poor bowel preparation is commonly observed in inpatients undergoing colonoscopy, particularly those with higher risks for inadequate bowel preparation.

AIMS

The objective of this study was to determine whether personalized bowel preparation regimens combined with face-to-face instruction (FFI) could improve the quality of bowel preparation for inpatient.

METHODS

In this endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial, 320 inpatients were enrolled and randomly allocated (1:1) to the control and intervention groups. The intervention group received FFI and personalized bowel preparation regimens, while the control group received the routine bowel preparation regimen and education. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation rate. Secondary outcomes included rates of procedure-related adverse events, incorrect diet restriction and laxative intake, etc. RESULTS: The adequate bowel preparation rate in the intervention group was significantly higher compared to control group [intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis: 70.0% vs 51.3%, P < 0.001; per-protocol (PP) analysis: 79.4% vs 58.6%, P < 0.001]. Bowel cleanliness was significantly improved in high-risk inpatients (ITT analysis: 65% vs 44.6%, P = 0.004; PP analysis: 73.0% vs 51.7%, P = 0.004) and in low-risk inpatients (ITT analysis: 80% vs 62.7%, P = 0.037; PP analysis: 92.3% vs 69.8%, P = 0.003). There were no significant differences between two groups regarding procedure-related adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Personalized bowel preparation regimens combined with FFI improve the rate of adequate bowel preparation, especially for patients with high-risk factors. As such, inpatients could benefit from this novel approach for better bowel preparation to ultimately improve the quality of colonoscopies.

Low-Volume Bowel Preparation Is Associated With Reduced Time to Colonoscopy in Hospitalized Patients: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Delays in inpatient colonoscopy are commonly caused by inadequate bowel preparation and result in increased hospital length of stay (LOS) and healthcare costs. Low-volume bowel preparation (LV-BP; sodium sulfate, potassium sulfate, and magnesium sulfate ) has been shown to improve outpatient bowel preparation quality compared with standard high-volume bowel preparations (HV-BP; polyethylene glycol ). However, its efficacy in hospitalized patients has not been well-studied. We assessed the impact of LV-BP on time to colonoscopy, hospital LOS, and bowel preparation quality among inpatients.

METHODS

We performed a propensity score-matched analysis of adult inpatients undergoing colonoscopy who received either LV-BP or HV-BP before colonoscopy at a quaternary academic medical center. Multivariate regression models with feature selection were developed to assess the association between LV-BP and study outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 1,807 inpatients included in this study, 293 and 1,514 patients received LV-BP and HV-BP, respectively. Among the propensity score-matched population, LV-BP was associated with a shorter time to colonoscopy (β: -0.43 [95% confidence interval: -0.56 to -0.30]) while having similar odds of adequate preparation (odds ratio: 1.02 [95% confidence interval: 0.71-1.46]; P = 0.92). LV-BP was also significantly associated with decreased hospital LOS among older patients (age ≥ 75 years), patients with chronic kidney disease, and patients who were hospitalized with gastrointestinal bleeding.

DISCUSSION

LV-BP is associated with decreased time to colonoscopy in hospitalized patients. Older inpatients, inpatients with chronic kidney disease, and inpatients with gastrointestinal bleeding may particularly benefit from LV-BP. Prospective studies are needed to further establish the role of LV-BP for inpatient colonoscopies.

Patient, Physician, and Procedure Characteristics Are Independently Predictive of Polyp Detection Rates in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Variability in colon polyp detection impacts patient outcomes. However, the relative influence of physician, patient, and procedure-specific factors on polyp detection is unclear. Therefore, determining how these factors contribute to adenoma and sessile serrated polyp (SSP) detection is important to contextualize measures of colonoscopy quality such as adenoma detection rate and patient outcomes.

AIMS

To determine the relative contribution of physician, patient, and procedure-specific factors in total polyp, adenoma, and SSP detection rates.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy and used a two-level generalized linear mixed regression model to identify factors associated with polyp detection.

RESULTS

7799 average risk screening colonoscopies were performed between July 2016 and October 2017. The patient factor most strongly associated with increased risk of adenoma and sessile serrated polyp detection was white race (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05-1.39 and OR 3.17, 95% CI 2.34-4.30, respectively). Adenomatous (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.04-3.57) and sessile serrated polyps (OR 5.56, 95% CI 1.37-20.0) were more likely to be found during procedures performed with anesthesia care as compared to those with moderate sedation. Physician with a luminal gastrointestinal focus had increased odds of adenoma detection (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.02-2.50).

CONCLUSIONS

In a multi-level model accounting for clustering effects, we identified patient, provider and procedural factors independently influence adenoma and sessile serrated polyp detection. Our findings suggest that to compare polyp detection rates between endoscopists, even at the same institution, risk adjustment by characteristics of the patient population and practice is necessary.

Split dose bowel preparation before colonoscopy of PEG (Nulytely) in comparison to routine single dose bowel preparation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of polyethylene glycol (PEG) in single- or split-dose regimens for colonoscopy bowel preparation.

METHODS

This is a prospective, randomized, endoscopist blinded, single-center study, that included adult patients who underwent colonoscopy during the period from December 2017 to October 2018. Two groups were enrolled in the same period: One group used 4 L of PEG (Nulytely) in a single-dose preparation, administered a day before the procedure, and the other group received a split-dose regimen of 2 L PEG (Nulytely), given a day before the procedure and 2 L on the day of the procedure in the early morning. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used for bowel preparation adequacy; scales 0 and 1 were considered inadequate, and scales 2 and 3 were considered adequate preparation.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty patients were enrolled, 120 (50%) using the split-dose regimen and 120 (50%) using the single-dose regimen, for bowel preparation. Males constituted 51.6% of the study cohort. In the single-dose group, 62.5% achieved adequate bowel preparation compared to 89.2% in the split-dose group (p< 0.001). In addition, polyp detection in the split-dose group was 23.3% in comparison to 10.8% in the single-dose group (P = 0.016). We also found hypertension and diabetes as significant predictors of bowel preparation inadequacy, while sex and age were not related to bowel preparation adequacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy with PEG (Nulytely) is better than routine single-dose, in terms of adequate bowel preparation and polyp detection.

A patient-centered framework for health systems engineering in gastroenterology: improving inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation

Background

Inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation (ICBP) is frequently inadequate and can lead to adverse events, delayed or repeated procedures, and negative patient outcomes. Guidelines to overcome the complex factors in this setting are not well established. Our aims were to use health systems engineering principles to comprehensively evaluate the ICBP process, create an ICBP protocol, increase adequate ICBP, and decrease length of stay. Our goal was to provide adaptable tools for other institutions and procedural specialties.

Methods

Patients admitted to our tertiary care academic hospital that underwent inpatient colonoscopy between July 3, 2017 to June 8, 2018 were included. Our multi-disciplinary team created a protocol employing health systems engineering techniques (i.e., process mapping, cause-effect diagrams, and plan-do-study-act cycles). We collected demographic and colonoscopy data. Our outcome measures were adequate preparation and length of stay. We compared pre-intervention (120 ICBP) vs. post-intervention (129 ICBP) outcomes using generalized linear regression models. Our new ICBP protocol included: split-dose 6-L polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution, a gastroenterology electronic note template, and an education plan for patients, nurses, and physicians.

Results

The percent of adequate ICBPs significantly increased with the intervention from 61% pre-intervention to 74% post-intervention (adjusted odds ratio of 1.87, p value = 0.023). The median length of stay decreased by approximately 25%, from 4 days pre-intervention to 3 days post-intervention (p value  = 0.11).

Conclusions

By addressing issues at patient, provider, and system levels with health systems engineering principles, we addressed patient safety and quality of care provided by improving rates of adequate ICBP.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-021-01661-4.

Comparison of 1L Adjuvant Auxiliary Preparations with 2L Solely Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid Regime for Bowel Cleaning: A Meta-analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

The effectiveness of additional usage of adjuvants for bowel preparation is still unclear. This study compared 1L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid with adjuvant drug regimens (1L PEG-AA, lower volume) with 2L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2L PEG-A, low volume) to evaluate whether the adjuvants can be used to reduce the standard dosage of purgative further. The PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science database were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was the efficacy of bowel preparation, and the secondary outcomes were patients' tolerability and complication rate. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADEpro guideline development tool. Five RCTs with a total of 1013 patients from Korea were included. The majority of patients were outpatients from different hospitals. The pooled data showed no significant difference in the adequate bowel preparation rate (89.3% versus 89.4%, RR 1, 95% CI 0.95-1.05, I ² = 47%) as well as in the complication rate (RR for nausea 1.22, 95% CI 0.89-1.65, I ² = 49%; RR for bloating 0.96, 95% CI 0.73-1.28, I ² = 0%; RR for vomiting 0.69, 95% CI 0.32-1.50, I ² = 33%; RR for abdominal pain 1.01, 95% CI 0.61-1.69, I ² = 0%). But a significantly higher willingness rate was observed in the lower volume (85.1% versus 67.9%, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14-1.38, I ² = 46%). The quality of primary outcome evidence was moderate. The findings of this meta-analysis revealed that 1L PEG-AA may be a viable alternative to 2L PEG-A, with comparable effectiveness, better patient preference, and no statistically significant adverse event occurrence.

Findings during screening colonoscopies in a Middle Eastern cohort

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Colorectal cancer is the most common cancer in males and the third most common cancer in females. We aim to determine the polyp and adenoma prevalence in a cohort of patients who underwent opportunistic screening colonoscopies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using an endoscopic reporting database of individuals seen at three tertiary care hospitals (two public hospitals and one private) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Consecutive patients who were 45 years of age and older and underwent opportunistic screening colonoscopies between November 2016 and October 2017 were included. We excluded those with a history of colon cancer or colonic resection for any reason, inflammatory bowel disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, or anemia.

RESULTS

Around 1180 patients were included in the study with a mean age of 58.6 years (SD = 7.3), with males representing 53.6% and an overall cecal intubation rate of 92.4%. Masses were found in 1.6% of the study population (50% in the sigmoid or rectosigmoid, 37.5% in the rectum). The polyp detection rate in colonoscopies was 24.8% and the adenoma detection rate was 16.8%. The histology of removed polyps was tubular adenomas in 56.6%, hyperplastic polyps in 32.7%, tubulovillous adenomas in 8.2%, and villous adenomas in 2.5%. The majority of the polyps were in the sigmoid colon (28.3%) and rectum (22.0%), followed by the ascending colon (11.2%) and cecum (10.3%), then the transverse colon and descending colon (9.4% each), and multiple locations in the remainder.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of polyps and adenomas in this cohort is less than that reported in the Western populations.

Which Patient-Related Factors Determine Optimal Bowel Preparation?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Adequate bowel cleansing before colonoscopy is a simple concept but the high rate of inadequate or incomplete bowel cleanliness and its consequences have been the subject of many studies, guidelines, and meta-analysis. The complexity resides in all the factors surrounding preparation intake such as type and regimen of bowel preparation, diets, compliance, and also patient-related factors that all influence quality of the bowel preparation. The purpose of this review is to focus specifically on patient-related factors and their challenges. Patients with lower GI bleeding are excluded from this review.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient factors that may be associated with a poor bowel preparation were searched for in the literature. With regard to patient's characteristics, higher age, male gender, and socio-economic status (lower income, Medicaid, and lower education) were all associated with higher rates of inadequate bowel preparation. Comorbidities such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), in-patients, body mass index (BMI), cirrhosis, constipation, and neurological condition as well as some pharmacotherapy were also associated with inadequate bowel preparation. Studies identifying predictive patient factors as well as those studying these patients in particular showed variability in the strength of the patient factor associations. Patients taking tricyclic antidepressant, narcotics, and those with neurological conditions were identified to have a stronger association with worse bowel cleanliness. Those can be implemented with the current recommendations of split-dosing. Identifying individual factors that can impact the quality of bowel cleanliness can be challenging. Some have been well-studied in the literature such as age, in-patient status, or constipation and others such as male gender or higher BMI have required more studies to clearly conclude on any possible association. In many studies, simple recommendations like walking 30 min during the preparation, and additional instructions or support have also been added to instructions to improve motility and compliance.