The effect of quality of segmental bowel preparation on adenoma detection rate

Rui Guo, Yong-Jun Wang, Mo Liu, Jun Ge, Ling-Ye Zhang, Ling Ma, Wen-Yu Huang, Hui-Hong Zhai, Rui Guo, Yong-Jun Wang, Mo Liu, Jun Ge, Ling-Ye Zhang, Ling Ma, Wen-Yu Huang, Hui-Hong Zhai

Abstract

Background: The effectiveness in surveillance colonoscopy largely depends on the quality of bowel preparation. We aimed to investigate the quality of bowel preparation segmentally and its effect on Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rate (AADR) at corresponding bowel segments.

Methods: This is a single-centered and cross-sectional study. A consecutive of 5798 patients who underwent colonoscopy examination were included. Bowel preparation was evaluated based on Bowel Bubble Scale (BBS) in general and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) in each segment (right side, transverse and left side of colon) and total BBPS scores. The quality of bowel preparation was correlated with ADR and AADR.

Results: Four thousand nine hundred forty colonoscopies (14,820 bowel segments) were included in the final analysis. In which 30.9% scored 3, 57.5% scored 2, 11.2% scored 1 and 0.4% scored 0 on basis of BBPS. For each score, ADR were 10.8, 7.7, 4.9 and 3.2%, respectively; whereas AADR were 4.5, 2.8,1.8 and 1.6% (P < 0.05). 36.9% of the colonoscopies showed presence of minimal bubbles and 34.3% with no bubble. For bowels without bubbles and with a large amount of bubbles, ADR were 28.3 and 20.0% respectively; and AADR were 13.3 and 7.1% respectively.

Conclusions: Segmental bowels' cleanliness and the amount of bubbles in bowels significantly affect ADR and AADR. The better the bowel preparation at each segment is and the less bubbles in the bowel there are, the higher ADR and AADR we got. We suggest repeating colonoscopy if any segment of the bowel preparation is poor, or if there is more bubbles, even if the total score of BBPS indicates good or fair bowel preparation.

Keywords: Adenoma detection rate (ADR); Advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR); Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS); Bowel bubble scale (BBS); Bowel preparation.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study Flow
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Detection Rates For Total Lesion, Adenoma and Advanced Adenoma for Different Levels Based on BBPS. Note: The influence of BBPS total score (0–9) on detection rate of adenoma, high-risk adenoma and total lesions was statistically significant. (P < 0.001)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Detection Rates for Total Lesion, Adenoma and Advanced Adenoma for Different Levels Based on BBS

References

    1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegle RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87–108. doi: 10.3322/caac.21262.
    1. Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, Zhang S, Zeng H, Bray F, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(2):115–132. doi: 10.3322/caac.21338.
    1. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, van Ballegooijen M, Hankey BF, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. New Engl J Med. 2012;366(8):687–696. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1100370.
    1. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, Zhao WK, Lee JK, Doubeni CA, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal Cancer and death. New Engl J of Med. 2014;370(14):1298–1306. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1309086.
    1. Doubeni CA, Corley DA, Quinn VP, Jensen CD, Zauber AG, Goodman M, et al. Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in reducing the risk of death from right and left colon cancer: a large community-based study. Gut. 2018;67(2):291–298. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312712.
    1. Kahi CJ, Rex DJ, Imperiale TF. Screening, surveillance, and primary prevention for colorectal cancer: a review of the recent literature. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(2):380–399. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.06.026.
    1. Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P, Morikawa T, Liao X, Qian ZR, et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(12):1095–1105. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301969.
    1. Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M, Rosenbaum AJ, Wang T, Neugut AI. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(6):1207–1214. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.051.
    1. Clark BT, Rustaqi T, Laine L. 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. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(11):1714–1723. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.232.
    1. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(1):31–53. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058.
    1. Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Levin TR. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US multi-society task force on colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012;143(3):844–857. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.06.001.
    1. Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, Dominitz JA, Kaltenbach T, Martel M, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US multi-society task force on colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2014;147(4):903–924. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.07.002.
    1. Yeh JH, Hsu MH, Tseng CM, Chen TH, Huang RY, Lee CT, et al. The benefit of adding oral simethicone in bowel preparation regimen for the detection of colon adenoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;34(5):830–836. doi: 10.1111/jgh.14508.
    1. Bai Y, Fang J, Zhao SB, Wang D, Li YQ, Shi RH, et al. Impact of preprocedure simethicone on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: a multicenter, endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2018;50(2):128–136. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-119213.
    1. Zhang S, Zheng D, Wang J, Wu J, Lei P, Luo Q, et al. Simethicone improves bowel cleansing with low-volume polyethylene glycol: a multicenter randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2018;50(4):412–422. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-121337.
    1. Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF, Chilton A, Rutter M, Dumonceau JM, et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Endoscopy. 2012;44(10):957–968. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1325686.
    1. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(1):72–90. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.385.
    1. Chinese Society of Digestive Endoscopy Guidelines for the preparation of digestive endoscopy in China (Draft) Chinese Journal of Digestion. 2013;19(9):354–356.
    1. Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G, Fix OK, Jacobson BC. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(3 Pt 2):620–625. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.057.
    1. McNally PR, Maydonovitch CL, Wong RK. The effectiveness of simethicone in improving visibility during colonoscopy: a double-blind randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc. 1988;34(3):255–258. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(88)71324-3.
    1. Chinese Society of Digestive Endoscopy The diagnosis and treatment of early colorectal cancer and precancerous lesions in China(Chongqing,2014) Chinese Journal of Digestive Endoscopy. 2015;2:69–85.
    1. Jain D, Momeni M, Krishnaiah M, Anand S, Singhal S. Importance of reporting segmental bowel preparation scores during colonoscopy in clinical practice. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(13):3994–3999. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i13.3994.
    1. Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston bowel preparation scale. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(4):686–692. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.06.068.
    1. Calderwood AH, Schroy PC, 3rd, Lieberman DA, Logan JR, Zurfluh M, Jacobson BC. Boston bowel preparation scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80(2):269–276. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.01.031.
    1. Clark BT, Protiva P, Naqar A, Imaeda A, Ciarleqlio MM, Deng Y, et al. Quantification of adequate bowel preparation for screening or surveillance colonoscopy in men. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(2):396–405. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.09.041.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren