Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol ; 45(4): 101693, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33852957

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy has a 20-30% rate and impedes on the quality of the procedure. The aim of this study was to develop a predictive score of inadequate bowel preparation, using a patient questionnaire on potential risk factors. METHODS: In this single center study, consecutive patients with colonoscopy indication were enrolled. The primary outcome was inadequate bowel preparation defined by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score <7 or a score ≤1 in any of the 3 colonic segments. RESULTS: A total of 561 patients were included. Inadequate bowel preparation was seen in 25.0% of cases. Seven risk factors were selected into the prediction model of inadequate bowel preparation: diabetes or obesity, irregular physical activity, cirrhosis, use of antidepressants or neuroleptics, use of opiate medication, history of surgery and history of inadequate bowel preparation. The risk score, named PREPA-CO, had an AUROC of 0.621, adequately predicted bowel cleanliness in 68.3% of cases, with a specificity of 75.8% and a negative predictive value of 80.8%. CONCLUSION: We developed a predictive score named "Prepa-Co", allowing the identification of patients at high risk of inadequate bowel preparation. In clinical practice, this score could help tailor the prescription of the preparation to the patient.


Subject(s)
Cathartics , Colonoscopy , Preoperative Care , Cathartics/therapeutic use , Colon , Humans , Predictive Value of Tests , Preoperative Care/standards , Risk Factors , Surveys and Questionnaires
2.
Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol ; 42(1): 6-16, 2018 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28870440

ABSTRACT

Here, we review recent improvements made to different noninvasive tests used for the diagnosis of esophageal varices (EV) in the light of the recent Baveno VI recommendation and with an emphasis on clinical application. Like for fibrosis tests, these noninvasive EV tests can be classified as direct markers when they provide a visualization of EV (including all imaging procedures like endoscopy or radiology) and as indirect markers when they do not (blood markers or elastometry). Clinical descriptors expressed as percentages, especially the spared endoscopy rate and the missed high-risk esophageal varices (HREV) rate, are more eloquent in this setting than classical statistical descriptors like accuracy. Single biomarkers are insufficient, generally due to a missed HREV rate exceeding the acceptable limit of 5% indicated in the Baveno VI consensus. Thus, biomarker combinations are currently garnering the most interest. The Baveno VI recommendation states that in alcoholic and viral cirrhoses, screening endoscopy can be safely set aside for patients with liver stiffness<20kPa and platelets>150G/L. The Baveno rule's mean missed HREV rate is<5% but its spared endoscopy rate is<20%. New combinations or stepwise algorithms show promise but must be validated. Going forward, the Baveno rule provides a simple noninvasive method to rule out HREV in clinical practice but the need for further research continues. The noninvasive diagnosis of HREV will be significantly improved by new, simple and affordable combinations.


Subject(s)
Esophageal and Gastric Varices/diagnosis , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...