Importance of reporting segmental bowel preparation scores during colonoscopy in clinical practice
AIM: To evaluate the impact of reporting bowel preparation using Boston Bowel Preparation Scale(BBPS) in clinical practice.METHODS: The study was a prospective observational cohort study which enrolled subjects reporting for screening colonoscopy. All subjects received a gallon of polyethylene glyco...
Saved in:
| Published in: | World journal of gastroenterology : WJG Vol. 21; no. 13; pp. 3994 - 3999 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
United States
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
07-04-2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | AIM: To evaluate the impact of reporting bowel preparation using Boston Bowel Preparation Scale(BBPS) in clinical practice.METHODS: The study was a prospective observational cohort study which enrolled subjects reporting for screening colonoscopy. All subjects received a gallon of polyethylene glycol as bowel preparation regimen. After colonoscopy the endoscopists determined quality of bowel preparation using BBPS. Segmental scores were combined to calculate composite BBPS. Site and size of the polyps detected was recorded. Pathology reports were reviewed to determine advanced adenoma detection rates(AADR). Segmental AADR’s were calculated and categorized based on the segmental BBPS to determine the differential impact of bowel prep on AADR. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty subjects were enrolled in the study with a mean age of 59.2 years, 36.3% males and 63.8% females. Four subjects with incomplete colonoscopy due BBPS of 0 in any segment were excluded. Based on composite BBPS subjects were divided into 3 groups; Group-0(poor bowel prep, BBPS 0-3) n = 26(7.3%), Group-1(Suboptimal bowel prep, BBPS 4-6) n = 121(34%) and Group-2(Adequate bowel prep, BBPS 7-9) n = 209(58.7%). AADR showed a linear trend through Group-1 to 3; with an AADR of 3.8%, 14.8% and 16.7% respectively. Also seen was a linear increasing trend in segmental AADR with improvement in segmental BBPS. There was statistical significant difference between AADR among Group 0 and 2(3.8% vs 16.7%, P < 0.05), Group 1 and 2(14.8% vs 16.7%, P < 0.05) and Group 0 and 1(3.8% vs 14.8%, P < 0.05). χ2 method was used to compute P value for determining statistical significance.CONCLUSION: Segmental AADRs correlate with segmental BBPS. It is thus valuable to report segmental BBPS in colonoscopy reports in clinical practice. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | AIM: To evaluate the impact of reporting bowel preparation using Boston Bowel Preparation Scale(BBPS) in clinical practice.METHODS: The study was a prospective observational cohort study which enrolled subjects reporting for screening colonoscopy. All subjects received a gallon of polyethylene glycol as bowel preparation regimen. After colonoscopy the endoscopists determined quality of bowel preparation using BBPS. Segmental scores were combined to calculate composite BBPS. Site and size of the polyps detected was recorded. Pathology reports were reviewed to determine advanced adenoma detection rates(AADR). Segmental AADR’s were calculated and categorized based on the segmental BBPS to determine the differential impact of bowel prep on AADR. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty subjects were enrolled in the study with a mean age of 59.2 years, 36.3% males and 63.8% females. Four subjects with incomplete colonoscopy due BBPS of 0 in any segment were excluded. Based on composite BBPS subjects were divided into 3 groups; Group-0(poor bowel prep, BBPS 0-3) n = 26(7.3%), Group-1(Suboptimal bowel prep, BBPS 4-6) n = 121(34%) and Group-2(Adequate bowel prep, BBPS 7-9) n = 209(58.7%). AADR showed a linear trend through Group-1 to 3; with an AADR of 3.8%, 14.8% and 16.7% respectively. Also seen was a linear increasing trend in segmental AADR with improvement in segmental BBPS. There was statistical significant difference between AADR among Group 0 and 2(3.8% vs 16.7%, P < 0.05), Group 1 and 2(14.8% vs 16.7%, P < 0.05) and Group 0 and 1(3.8% vs 14.8%, P < 0.05). χ2 method was used to compute P value for determining statistical significance.CONCLUSION: Segmental AADRs correlate with segmental BBPS. It is thus valuable to report segmental BBPS in colonoscopy reports in clinical practice. Colorectal cancer screening;Adenomas;Polyps;Boston Deepanshu Jain;Mojdeh Momeni;Mahesh Krishnaiah;Sury Anand;Shashideep Singhal;Internal Medicine Department,Albert Einstein Medical Centre,Ph 19141,United States;Division of Gastroenterology,Department of Internal Medicine,The Brooklyn hospital Centre,Brooklyn,NY 11205,United States;Division of Gastroenterology,hepatology and Nutrition,University of Texas health Science Centre at houston,houston,TX 77030,United States ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Undefined-1 ObjectType-Feature-3 content type line 23 Correspondence to: Shashideep Singhal, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Texas Health Science Centre at Houston, 6431 Fannin Street, MSB 4.234, Houston, TX 77030, United States. sdsinghal@gmail.com Telephone: +1-713-5006683 Fax: +1-713-5006699 Author contributions: Jain D contributed to enrolling patients, compiling results and writing up manuscript; Momeni M and Krishnaiah M contributed to enrolling patients; Anand S contributed to enrolling patients, supervising study progress, and editing the manuscript; and Singhal S contributed to study design, supervising study progress, analysing data, editing the manuscript. |
| ISSN: | 1007-9327 2219-2840 |
| DOI: | 10.3748/wjg.v21.i13.3994 |