High-quality Bowel Preparation Is Required for Detection of Sessile Serrated Polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The effect of bowel preparation quality has been well-characterized for detection of adenomas but not for detection of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSPs). We performed a prospective study to determine proportions of patients in whom SSPs were detected at different levels of bowel preparation quality, using common validated scoring systems. METHODS: Our study enrolled 749 male veterans 50-75 years old undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Proportions of patients in whom SSP were detected were calculated for each level of preparation quality based on the Aronchick scale (poor = low quality, fair = intermediate quality, and good or excellent = high quality) and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS; scores of 0-3 for right, transverse, and left colon segments). We compared SSP detection among different levels of preparation quality using multivariate logistic regression, adjusting for age, indication, and endoscopist. Our primary hypothesis was that SSP detection would not be significantly lower with intermediate-quality than with high-quality preparations. RESULTS: SSPs were detected in a significantly smaller proportion of patients with intermediate-quality preparation than high-quality preparation, for the entire colon (4.6% vs 12.0%; odds ratio [OR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.87) and right colon (1.5% vs 7.9%; OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.81). SSPs were detected in smaller proportions of patients with total colon BBPS scores <7 than in patients with BBPS scores of 7-9 (4.7% vs 12.6%; OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.67). SSPs were detected in right colons of a smaller percentage of patients with BBPS scores of 2 than scores of 3 (4.7% vs 9.5%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Any bowel preparation quality below high quality is associated with a significant decrease in the detection of SSPs. Although intermediate-quality preparation and BBPS segment scores of 2 seem to be adequate for detection of adenomas, these levels of preparation quality may not be adequate for detection of SSPs.

Yield of repeat forward-view examination of the right side of the colon in screening and surveillance colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy is less protective for cancers of the right side of the colon than for distal colon cancers. Repeat examination of the right side of the colon has been suggested to increase adenoma detection and potentially provide greater protection against the development of cancers of the right side of the colon. Our prospective study assessed the yield of a second forward-view examination of the right side of the colon done immediately after the initial examination. METHODS: All men 50 to 75 years of age undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy at the West Haven Veterans Affairs Medical Center were invited to participate. A second forward-view examination was performed if the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score was 8 to 9 (scale = 0-9) with right a side of the colon segment score of 2 to 3 (scale = 0-3). The primary outcome was the per-patient adenoma detection rate (including sessile serrated polyps) on a repeated examination of the right side of the colon, defined as the number of patients with ≥1 adenoma on the second examination of the right side of the colon divided by total number of patients. An increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR) was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Repeated examination of the right side of the colon, performed in 280 patients, revealed additional adenomas in 43 patients (15.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] of difference, 11.3%-21.0%). The overall ADR increased by 3.2% (95% CI, 1.1%-5.3%) after the second examination of the right side of the colon; the ADR for the right side of the colon increased by 6.7% (95% CI, 3.8%-9.7%). Ten patients (3.6%) had a change in their screening/surveillance interval with the addition of findings on the second examination of the right side of the colon. CONCLUSION: A substantial 15.4% of patients had additional adenomas detected on a second forward-view examination of the right side of the colon, whereas the overall ADR increased significantly by 3.2%. Given the lack of additional training or equipment required, repeated forward-view examination of the right side of the colon is a simple, readily available method to achieve a modest improvement in the ADR.

Quantification of Adequate Bowel Preparation for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopy in Men.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Bowel preparation is defined as adequate if it is sufficient for identification of polyps greater than 5 mm. However, adequate preparation has not been quantified. We performed a prospective observational study to provide an objective definition of adequate preparation, based on the Boston Bowel Prep Scale (BBPS, which consists of 0-3 points for each of 3 colon segments). METHODS: We collected data from 438 men who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopies and then repeat colonoscopy examinations within 60 days by a different blinded endoscopist (1161 colon segments total) at the West Haven Veterans Affairs Medical Center from January 2014 to February 2015. Missed polyps were defined as those detected on the second examination of patients with the best possible bowel preparation (colon segment BBPS score of 3) on the second examination. The primary outcome was the proportion of colon segments with adenomas larger than 5 mm that were missed in the first examination. We postulated that the miss rate was noninferior for segments with BBPS scores of 2 vs those with BBPS scores of 3 (noninferiority margin, <5%). Our secondary hypotheses were that miss rates were higher in segments with BBPS scores of 1 vs those with scores of 3 or of 2. RESULTS: The adjusted proportion with missed adenomas greater than 5 mm was noninferior for segments with BBPS scores of 2 (5.2%) vs those with BBPS scores of 3 (5.6%) (a difference of -0.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.9% to 2.2%). Of study subjects, 347 (79.2%) had BBPS scores of 2 or greater in all segments on the initial examination. A higher proportion of segments with BBPS scores of 1 had missed adenomas larger than 5 mm (15.9%) than segments with BBPS scores of 3 (5.6%) (a difference of 10.3%; 95% CI, 2.7%-17.9%) or 2 (5.2%) (a difference of 10.7%; 95% CI, 3.2%-18.1%). Screening and surveillance intervals based solely on the findings at the first examination would have been incorrect for 16.3% of patients with BBPS scores of 3 in all segments, for 15.3% with BBPS scores of 2 or 3 in all segments, and for 43.5% of patients with a BBPS score of 1 in 1 or more segments. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BBPS scores of 2 or 3 for all colon segments have adequate bowel preparation for the detection of adenomas larger than 5 mm and should return for screening or surveillance colonoscopy at standard guideline-recommended intervals. Colon segments with a BBPS score of 1 have a significantly higher rate of missed adenomas larger than 5 mm than segments with scores of 2 or 3. This finding supports a recommendation for early repeat colonoscopic evaluation in patients with a BBPS score of 0 or 1 in any colon segment.

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.

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.

Patterns and predictors of treatment initiation and completion in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines for hepatitis C (HCV) strongly recommend antiviral treatment for patients with more severe liver disease given their increased risk of developing cirrhosis and other liver-related complications. Despite the proven benefits of therapy, 70%-88% of patients chronically infected with HCV do not undergo treatment. The goal of this paper is to describe patterns of treatment initiation among patients with both mild and severe disease and to assess the factors that are associated with treatment initiation and completion. METHODS: Subjects completed previously validated questionnaires to ascertain sociodemographic characteristics, choice predisposition, and clinical characteristics prior to meeting with the hepatologist to discuss treatment initiation and were followed for 12 months. We examined the association between patient characteristics and treatment patterns controlling for liver disease severity. RESULTS: Of the 148 eligible subjects entered into our study, 55 (37%) initiated treatment during the 12-month follow-up period. Of the 86 subjects with severe liver disease, 43 (50%) initiated treatment. Financial barriers and geographic access to care were the most common reasons for treatment deferral. Of the 55 patients initiating treatment, 24 (44%) discontinued treatment, with intolerance of side effects being the most common reason for discontinuation. After adjusting for liver disease severity, patient choice predisposition (prior to discussion with their provider) was strongly associated with initiation of treatment, while sociodemographic characteristics were not. CONCLUSION: Treatment initiation did align with current recommendations (patients with severe disease were more likely to initiate treatment), however, rates of treatment initiation and completion were low. Patient choice predisposition is the strongest predictor of treatment initiation, independent of disease severity. Improving individualized treatment outcomes for patients with chronic HCV requires efforts at identifying patients' choice predisposition, and improving access for those wishing to initiate therapy.