What Level of Bowel Prep Quality Requires Early Repeat Colonoscopy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Preparation Quality on Adenoma Detection Rate

Aug 20, 2014The American journal of gastroenterology

How bowel cleaning quality affects early repeat colonoscopy and detection of growths

AI simplified

GLP-1 Therapies on OpenScience ↗PubMed ↗DOI ↗

Abstract

An odds ratio of 0.94 indicates no significant difference in adenoma detection rates between intermediate-quality and high-quality bowel preparation.

ADRs were significantly higher with both intermediate-quality and high-quality preparation compared to low-quality preparation, with an odds ratio of 1.39.
Absolute risk increases for adenoma detection were 5% for both intermediate and high-quality preparations relative to low quality.
Adequate bowel preparation (excellent/good/fair) was associated with higher ADRs compared to inadequate preparation (poor/insufficient), with an odds ratio of 1.30.
No significant difference in ADR was found between intermediate-quality and high-quality bowel preparation.
The findings support the need for early repeat colonoscopy in cases of low-quality preparation.

AI simplified

OBJECTIVES: Current guidelines recommend early repeat colonoscopy when bowel preparation quality is inadequate, defined as inability to detect polyps >5 mm, but no data link specific bowel preparation categories or scores to this definition. Nevertheless, most physicians use a shortened screening/surveillance interval in patients with intermediate-quality preparation. We determined whether different levels of bowel preparation quality are associated with differences in adenoma detection rates (ADRs: proportion of colonoscopies with ≥1 adenoma) to help guide decisions regarding early repeat colonoscopy-with primary focus on intermediate-quality preparation.

METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies with adenoma or polyp detection rate stratified by bowel preparation quality. Preparation quality definitions were standardized on the basis of Aronchick definitions (excellent/good/fair/poor/insufficient), and primary analyses of ADR trichotomized bowel preparation quality: high quality (excellent/good), intermediate quality (fair), and low quality (poor/insufficient). Dichotomized analyses of adequate (excellent/good/fair) vs. inadequate (poor/insufficient) were also performed.

RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. The primary analysis, ADR with intermediate- vs. high-quality preparation, showed an odds ratio (OR) of 0.94 (0.80-1.10) and absolute risk difference of -1% (-3%, 2%). ADRs were significantly higher with both intermediate-quality and high-quality preparation vs. low-quality preparation: OR=1.39 (1.08-1.79) and 1.41 (1.21-1.64), with absolute risk increases of 5% for both. ADR and advanced ADR were significantly higher with adequate vs. inadequate preparation: OR=1.30 (1.19-1.42) and 1.30 (1.02-1.67). Studies did not report other relevant outcomes such as total adenomas per colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS: ADR is not significantly different with intermediate-quality vs. high-quality bowel preparation. Our results confirm the need for early repeat colonoscopy with low-quality bowel preparation, but suggest that patients with intermediate/fair preparation quality may be followed up at standard guideline-recommended surveillance intervals without significantly affecting quality as measured by ADR.

Full Text

Full text is available at the source.

View full text (PDF) ↗View full text (HTML) ↗View full text ↗

What Level of Bowel Prep Quality Requires Early Repeat Colonoscopy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Preparation Quality on Adenoma Detection Rate

Abstract

Full Text

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the glp-1 therapies brief

Abstract

Full Text

Related papers

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the glp-1 therapies brief