Boston Bowel Preparation Scale Score Research Articles

Superior bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy with 1L-PEG compared to 2L-PEG and picosulphate: Data from a large real-world retrospective outpatient cohort

BackgroundSeveral randomized clinical trials comparing different bowel preparations (BP) have shown similar efficacy; however, there is a lack of real-world studies on this topic. AimsThis study aims to identify the most effective BP regimen in a real-world setting and any predictors of inadequate BP. MethodsA retrospective single-center study was conducted over 14 months at an academic hospital including outpatient colonoscopies in which adult patients did not teach on how to perform BP before colonoscopy. Colonoscopies with 1L-PEG, 2L-PEG and picosulphate mixtures were considered. A multivariable analysis for factors associated to poor BP was fitted. ResultsOverall, 1779 patients (51 %F, 60±14) years were included. The 1L-PEG regimen provided a higher rate of BP adequacy at multivariate analysis (adjusted OR 2.30, 95 %CI 1.67–3.16,p < 0.001) and was associated with higher median Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score (p < 0.001), higher rate of right-colon cleansing (p < 0.001) and exam completion (p = 0.04). Furthermore, we identified male sex, history of constipation, active smoking, previous pelvic surgery, concomitant psychiatric/neurological or chronic kidney diseases as predictors of inadequate BP. ConclusionsThis is the largest real-world study comparing 1L-PEG to other BP regimens. Our results suggest 1L-PEG provides better BP in a non-controlled setting, improving clinical practice quality and minimizing the need for repeated colonoscopies and saving healthcare resources.

Randomised trial of ‘hybrid’ water-assisted colonoscopy (modified water immersion) versus water exchange colonoscopy: WAVE study

Background and aimsColonoscopy practice has evolved with a trend towards water-assisted insertion. A recent national survey suggests a hybrid approach to colonic distension during insertion, with water used predominately to...

A smartphone application to enhance bowel preparation for first-time colonoscopy: a randomized controlled study.

Colonoscopy is an essential cancer screening tool; however, bowel preparation is a multifaceted process that involves several steps. Proper preparation is crucial for a successful colonoscopy in terms of diagnostic accuracy and procedural safety. We evaluated the performance of a smartphone application with bowel preparation instructions on individuals undergoing their first colonoscopy. In this randomized, prospective, endoscopist-blinded study, participants were scheduled to undergo their first colonoscopy between January 2020 and January 2022. The study protocol was registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20190928002). They were randomly assigned to the smartphone education application (APP) or the standard education (control) group. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma detection rate (ADR) were compared. Factors associated with excellent bowel preparation were also evaluated. In total, 119 patients (APP group, n = 57; control group, n = 62) underwent their first colonoscopy. The mean BBPS score and proportion of excellent bowel preparation (BBPS≥8) were significantly higher in the APP group than in the control group. Smartphone application-guided bowel preparation achieved a higher proportion of adequate and excellent bowel preparation scores, was associated with other quality indicators, and achieved the target ADR, cecal intubation rate, and adequate withdrawal time. This application may be a user-friendly option to improve the first-time colonoscopy experience, resulting in effective screening of colorectal cancer. The study protocol was registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20190928002).

Cirrhosis and Portal Hypertension Worsen Bowel Preparation for Screening Colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy is a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure that reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality but requires adequate bowel cleansing for high-quality examination. Past studies have suggested cirrhosis as a risk factor for worse bowel preparation. We carried out a match-controlled retrospective study evaluating patients with and without cirrhosis who underwent outpatient screening colonoscopies to assess the effect of cirrhosis and portal hypertension complications on preparation quality and endoscopic measures. We also did a subgroup analysis excluding patients with obesity. We examined 1464 patients with cirrhosis and matched controls. Cirrhotic patients had lower mean Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores and slower cecal intubation times. We found a single point increase in the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, as well as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, and variceal hemorrhage were all associated with a longer cecal intubation time. Subgroup analysis excluding patients with obesity again found a significantly lower BBPS score and longer cecal intubation time while also finding a 24% drop in polyp detection. Patients with cirrhosis have worse BBPS scores and longer cecal intubation times. Nonobese cirrhotic patients additionally have a lower polyp detection rate. Portal hypertension complications were associated with worsened preparation quality and longer cecal intubation times. Each incremental increase in MELD score lengthened cecal intubation time. These findings support a more aggressive bowel preparation strategy for patients with cirrhosis, especially patients with severe disease or portal hypertension complications.

Agreement between the perception of colon cleansing reported by patients and colon cleansing assessed by a validated colon cleansing scale

AimsPatients’ perception of their cleansing quality can guide strategies to improve cleansing during colonoscopy. There are no studies assessing the agreement between the quality of cleansing perceived by patients and cleansing quality assessed during colonoscopy using validated bowel preparation scales. The main aim of this study was to compare the cleansing quality reported by patients with the quality during colonoscopy using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Patients and methodsConsecutive patients referred to an outpatient colonoscopy were included. Four drawings representing different degrees of cleansing were designed. Patients chose the drawing that most resembled the last stool. The predictive ability of the patient's perception and agreement between the patient's perception and the BBPS were calculated. A BBPS score of <2 points in any segment was considered inadequate. ResultsSix hundred and thirty-three patients were included (age: 62.8±13.7 years, male: 53.4%). Overall, 107 patients (16.9%) had inadequate cleansing during colonoscopy, and in 12.2% of cases, the patient's perception was poor. The patient's perception compared to the quality of cleanliness during colonoscopy presented a positive and negative predictive value of 54.6% and 88.3%, respectively. The agreement between patient perception and the BBPS was significant (P<0.001), although fair (k=0.37). The results were similar in a validation cohort of 378 patients (k=0.41). ConclusionsThe cleanliness perceived by the patient and the quality of cleanliness using a validated scale were correlated, although fair. However, this measure satisfactorily identified patients with adequate preparation. Cleansing rescue strategies may target patients who self-report improper cleaning.Registration number of the trial: NCT03830489.

Boston bowel preparation scale score 6 has more missed lesions compared with 7–9

Adequate bowel preparation is an important factor in high-quality colonoscopy. It is generally accepted that a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score ≥ 6 is adequate, but some reports suggest ≥ 7. Subjects who underwent colonoscopy at least twice within 3 years from August 2015 to December 2019 were included. Polyp detection rates (PDRs), adenoma detection rates (ADRs), and number of polyps including adenomas were compared stratified by baseline colonoscopy (C1) BBPS score. Among 2352 subjects, 529 had BBPS 6 (group 1) and 1823 had BBPS 7–9 (group 2) at C1. There was no significant difference in PDR or ADR at C1 and follow-up colonoscopy (C2) between the two groups. However, the numbers of polyps (1.84 vs. 1.56, P = 0.001) and adenomas (1.02 vs. 0.88, P = 0.034) at C2 were significantly higher in group 1 than group 2, respectively. Segmental BBPS score 2 in group 1 compared to group 2, especially, showed higher PDR (P = 0.001) and ADR (P = 0.007) at C2. BBPS 6 is associated with a higher number of polyps and adenomas in short-term follow-up colonoscopy than BBPS 7–9. To reduce the risk of missed polyps, a thorough examination is necessary for BBPS 6.

Effectiveness and safety of Shankhaprakshalana-a yogic technique-in bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A retrospective study.

Shankhaprakshalana (SP) is a yogic method aiming to cleanse the bowel. It involves the use of warm saline water and a combination of five asanas. This study was designed to assess the effectiveness and safety of bowel preparation by SP. This is a retrospective observational study of prospectively collected data. Patients planned for colonoscopy were screened and enrolled to undergo bowel preparation by SP on the day of the colonoscopy. Patients having comorbid conditions, poor performance status, suspected or previously diagnosed intestinal stricture and past history of major abdominal surgery and those unable to perform asanas of SP were excluded. A low-fiber diet was advised for one day before the colonoscopy. Patients were advised to drink 400mL of lukewarm saline water followed by five asanas (exercises) of SP, each done eight times dynamically and sequentially. After completing six such cycles, patients underwent colonoscopy. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score was used to assess the quality of bowel preparation. Total 238 patients were included. The major indications for colonoscopy were abdominal pain (35.3%), hematochezia (23.9%), diarrhea (20.2%), constipation (10.9%) and anemia (9.7%). The mean age was 37.7 (± 12) years. The mean BBPS was 8 (± 1.2). Bowel preparation was inadequate (BBPS < 6) in only two patients. Mean segmental BBPS for the three segments of the colon (right, transverse and left) was 2.6 (± 0.5), 2.7 (± 0.4) and 2.6 (± 0.7), respectively. Minor adverse events (nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting, giddiness and bloating) were noted in 10 participants (4.2%), which did not require hospitalization. Bowel preparation was completed in 133 (± 35) minutes. Shankhaprakshalana is an effective and safe method to achieve adequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Since this is a single-center and retrospective study, future multi-centric, prospective studies comparing it with the standard bowel preparation regimens are warranted.

3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to 2 L polyethylene glycol in colonoscopic bowel preparation in relatively high-BMI (≥ 24 kg/m2) individuals: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BackgroundWhether body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor for poor bowel preparation is controversial, and the optimal bowel preparation regimen for people with a high BMI is unclear.MethodsWe prospectively included 710 individuals with high BMIs (≥ 24 kg/m2) who were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy from January to November 2021 at 7 hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated into 3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) group (n=353) and 2 L PEG group (n=357). The primary outcome was the rate of adequate bowel preparation, and the secondary outcomes included Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, and adverse reactions during bowel preparation. Furthermore, we did exploratory subgroup analyses for adequate bowel preparation.ResultsAfter enrollment, 15 individuals didn’t undergo colonoscopy, finally 345 participants took 3 L split-dose PEG regimen, and 350 participants took 2 L PEG regimen for colonoscopic bowel preparation. 3 L split-dose PEG regimen was superior to 2 L PEG regimen in the rate of adequate bowel preparation (81.2% vs. 74.9%, P = 0.045), BBPS score (6.71±1.15 vs. 6.37±1.31, P < 0.001), and the rate of polyp detection (62.0% vs. 52.9%, P = 0.015). The cecal intubation rate was similar in both groups (99.7%). Regarding adverse reactions, individuals were more likely to feel nausea in the 3 L PEG group (30.9% vs. 19.3%; P = 0.001); however, the degree was mild. In the subgroup analysis for adequate bowel preparation, 3 L split-dose PEG regimen performed better than 2 L PEG regimen in the overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2 ) (P = 0.006) and individuals with constipation (P = 0.044), while no significant differences were observed in relatively normal (BMI 24-24.9 kg/m2) (P = 0.593) and obese individuals (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) (P = 0.715).Conclusions3 L split-dose PEG regimen is superior to 2 L PEG regimen for colonoscopic Bowel Preparation in relatively high-BMI individuals, especially overweight individuals (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2 ).Trial RegistrationThis trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR2000039068). The date of first registration, 15/10/2020, http://www.chictr.org.cn

Telephone instructions improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

To evaluate the effect of telephone instructions on the quality of bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Online English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase) were screened for randomized controlled trials on telephone instructions regarding bowel preparation for colonoscopy from inception to April 15, 2022. After data extraction, the Review Manager software was used for meta-analysis. Nine randomized controlled trials with 3,836 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The rate of adequate bowel preparation was significantly higher in the telephone group than in the control group. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.30, P < 0.01). The pooled mean difference (MD) for the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score was 1.32 (95% CI: 0.15-2.49, P < 0.05), and that for the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale score was -1.93 (95% CI: -2.35 to -1.51, P < 0.01). The polyp detection rate was significantly higher in the telephone group than in the control group (RR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.23-2.04, P < 0.01), whereas no significant difference was noted in the adenoma detection rate between the groups (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 0.97-1.94, P = 0.08). Telephone instructions for patients undergoing colonoscopy significantly improved the quality of bowel preparation and increased polyp detection rate.

Effect of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy.

Inadequate bowel preparation can result in decreased diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic safety of colonoscopy for colon cancer screening. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) has been used to assess the quality of bowel preparation. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) are commonly used medications for diabetes mellitus and obesity that are known to delay gastrointestinal motility. We hypothesized that the use of GLP-1RA would be associated with decreased quality of bowel preparation. We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy at a large academic medical center between December 2021 and December 2022. We included patients taking any GLP-1RA for diabetes or obesity during colonoscopy defined as our cases, and patients who were prescribed GLP-1RA at one point but not within 3 months of colonoscopy defined as our controls. We excluded patients on any promotility or antimotility agents and those without BBPS recorded on their procedure report. Independent t test assessed statistical differences in the case and control groups to compare the quality of bowel preparation for continuous variables, and the χ 2 test was used for categorical variables. Multivariate linear regression including diabetes as a covariate was also performed for continuous variables, and multivariate logistic regression was performed for categorical variables. A total of 446 patients were included in the study, comprising 265 (59%) cases and 181 controls (41%). There were no statistically significant differences between groups at baseline except for the diagnosis of diabetes ( P = 0.001) with a higher proportion of patients with diabetes in the cases. The mean BBPS was significantly higher in controls (7.0 ± 1.9 vs 7.5 ± 2.4, P = 0.046) when controlling for diabetes. The percentage of patients with a total BBPS score of <5 was significantly higher in cases (15.5% vs 6.6%, P = 0.01). The proportion of patients who required a repeat colonoscopy due to poor bowel preparation was also significantly higher in cases (18.9% vs 11.1%, P = 0.041). The use of GLP-1RA was associated with a statistically significantly lower quality of bowel preparation, with additional clinical significance given a notable difference in the need for a repeat colonoscopy. It will be essential to understand the cumulative effect of medications that may delay gastric emptying on the quality of bowel preparation to better understand the appropriate measures and counseling that need to be taken before undergoing outpatient colonoscopies.

The effectiveness of walking exercise on the bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a single blind randomized clinical trial study

Background and AimBowel preparation is a crucial factor affecting the diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopy, and few randomized control trials evaluated enhancement in bowel preparation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of walking exercises on bowel preparation before a colonoscopy procedure.MethodsThe present study is a single-blind randomized controlled trial involving 262 patients scheduled for colonoscopy procedures. These patients were randomly assigned to two groups: an intervention group (n = 131) and a control group (n = 131). In the intervention group, participants followed a predetermined plan that included the consumption of specific liquids and foods, bisacodyl pills, polyethylene glycol powder, and a regimen of walking exercises in preparation for their colonoscopy. Conversely, individuals in the control group followed the same regimen but were not instructed to engage in walking exercises. On the day of the colonoscopy, both groups were assessed for their level of physical activity using a foot counter. Additionally, an experienced gastroenterologist evaluated and compared the bowel preparation between the two groups using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).ResultsThe number of footsteps recorded in the two groups exhibited a significant difference (P < 0.001). Although there was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups in terms of mean BBPS scores (6.26 ± 1.9 vs. 6.29 ± 1.9, P = 0.416), individuals who took more than 6900 steps had significantly higher BBPS scores compared to those with fewer than 6900 footsteps (6.62 ± 1.8 vs. 5.92 ± 1.9, P = 0.003).In the univariate analysis, BBPS was found to be significantly associated with individuals under the age of 50 (OR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.30–4.61, P = 0.006) and smoking status (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.17–0.94, P = 0.043). In the multivariate analysis, the relationship between BBPS and age below 50 and smoking remained significant (OR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.30–4.70, P = 0.005, and OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16–0.93, P = 0.034, respectively).ConclusionA higher number of footsteps taken especially more than 6900 can significantly enhance bowel preparation; however, walking exercise as an intervention before colonoscopy is not significantly associated with BBPS. Also, older people and smokers seem to have fewer benefits from walking exercises for bowel preparation.Trial registrationISRCTN32724024 (Registration date:22/08/2018).

Correlation between prescribing doctor attributes and intestinal cleanliness in colonoscopy: a study of 22522 patients

Objective This study aimed to analyze the correlation between different attributes of doctors who prescribe colonoscopies and the cleanliness of the intestine to guide the development of colonoscopy application protocols. Methods Data on colonoscopy cases conducted in the gastroenterology department of Hangzhou First People’s Hospital between April 2018 and March 2021 were collected. The gender, age, professional attributes of the prescribing doctors, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score were recorded. In addition, the correlation between the prescribing doctors’ characteristics and the intestine’s cleanliness was analyzed. Results The study included 22,522 patients with a mean BBPS score of 6.83 ± 1.94. There were 16,459 male and 6,063 female doctors with similar BBPS scores (p = 0.212). The study found no significant difference in BBPS scores between 19,338 internist and 3,184 non-internist (p = 0.154). However, BBPS scores differed significantly between 18,168 gastroenterologists and 4,354 non-gastroenterologists (p = 0.016) and between 19,990 intestinal-related specialties(gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery) and 2,532 non-intestinal-related specialties (p = 0.000). In addition, BBPS scores were significantly different between 18,126 prescribing endoscopiests and 4,396 non-endoscopiests (p = 0.014). However, there was no significant difference in BBPS scores among doctors of different ages (p = 0.190). The study found significant differences in BBPS scores between male and female patients and those under or over 40 years (p = 0.000). Conclusion To improve colonoscopy preparation quality, priority should be given to doctors in gastroenterology, intestinal-related specialties, and endoscopiests. Their expertise may result in better education and improved bowel cleanliness.

The Effect of Oral Simethicone in a Bowel Preparation in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: Current guidelines suggest adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, its effect on key quality indicators for screening colonoscopy remains unclear. The primary aim was to assess the rate of adequate bowel preparation in split-dose high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG), with or without simethicone. Methods: This is an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial, including patients scheduled for colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. Patients were randomly assigned to 4 L of PEG split dose (PEG) or 4 L of PEG split dose plus 500 mg oral simethicone (PEG + simethicone). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, the preparation quality regarding bubbles using the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS), ADR, CIR, and the intraprocedural use of simethicone were recorded. Results: We included 191 and 197 patients in the PEG + simethicone group and the PEG group, respectively. When comparing the PEG + simethicone group versus the PEG group, no significant differences in adequate bowel preparation rates (97% vs. 93%; p = 0.11) were found. However, the bubble scale score was significantly lower in the PEG + simethicone group (0 [0] versus 2 [5], p < 0.01), as well as intraprocedural use of simethicone (7% vs. 37%; p < 0.01). ADR (62% vs. 61%; p = 0.86) and CIR (98% vs. 96%, p = 0.14) did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: Adding oral simethicone to a split-bowel preparation resulted in a lower incidence of bubbles and a lower intraprocedural use of simethicone but no further improvement on the preparation quality or ADR.

Efficacy of single-versus split-dose polyethylene glycol for colonic preparation

Background: Before a colonoscopy, polyethylene glycol (PEG) is often used to prepare the colon. PEG dosage recommendations are still up for discussion. In this randomized controlled experiment, the effectiveness and acceptability of PEG administered in single vs. split doses for colonic preparation was compared. Methods: A total of 120 individuals were randomized to either split-dose PEG for colonic preparation or a single-dose PEG at Department of Gastroenterology, Hayatabad medical complex. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used for assessing the rate of bowel cleaning for the colonoscopy. A visual analog scale was used to evaluate the preparation's acceptability and tolerability. Results: The quality of colonic preparation was considerably greater in the split-dose PEG group than in the single-dose PEG group, as shown by the BBPS score, which was significantly higher in the split-dose PEG group (7.5±1.2) than in the single-dose PEG group (6.3±1.3) (P0.001). Patient satisfaction did not vary significantly between the two groups, but the split-dose PEG group had a higher completion rate of colonoscopies (97% vs. 95%) as well as greater patient acceptability and tolerance.

Prepackaged formula low-residue diet vs. self-prepared low-residue diet before colonoscopy: A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Compared with self-prepared LRD, a prepackaged low-residue diet (LRD) can improve patient compliance, but whether it can further improve the quality of bowel preparation is uncertain. The study aimed to compare the application of the prepackaged formula LRD with self-prepared LRD in bowel preparation for colonoscopy. A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted in 15 centers. The eligible subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the formula LRD group and the self-prepared LRD group. On the day before the colonoscopy, subjects in the self-prepared LRD group were instructed to consume a restricted LRD prepared by themselves, while subjects in the formula LRD group were given six bags of prepackaged formula LRD and instructed to consume them according to their individual need. The primary outcome was an adequate bowel preparation rate. Secondary outcomes mainly included Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores, dietary restriction compliance rate, tolerance, satisfaction, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and adverse reactions. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT03943758. A total of 550 subjects were recruited. Compared with the self-prepared LRD group, the formula LRD group showed a higher adequate bowel preparation rate (94.5 vs. 80.4%; P < 0.01), BBPS scores (7.87 ± 1.13 vs. 6.75 ± 1.47; P < 0.01), dietary compliance rate (92.4 vs. 78.9%; P < 0.01), tolerance (P < 0.01 in degree of hunger, intensity of physical strength, and negative influence on daily activities), satisfaction (8.56 ± 1.61 vs. 7.20 ± 2.02; P < 0.01), and ADR (25.6 vs. 16.0%; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in adverse reactions. Compared with self-prepared LRD, the formula LRD showed similar safety and higher bowel preparation quality, compliance, and tolerance in bowel preparation. More formula LRDs could be designed according to different dietary habits and ethnic populations, and further researches are warranted to confirm their effect. https://register.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT03943758.

Agreement between the perception of colon cleansing reported by patients and colon cleansing assessed by a validated colon cleansing scale

AimsPatients’ perception of their cleansing quality can guide strategies to improve cleansing during colonoscopy. There are no studies assessing the agreement between the quality of cleansing perceived by patients and cleansing quality assessed during colonoscopy using validated bowel preparation scales. The main aim of this study was to compare the cleansing quality reported by patients with the quality during colonoscopy using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Patients and methodsConsecutive patients referred to an outpatient colonoscopy were included. Four drawings representing different degrees of cleansing were designed. Patients chose the drawing that most resembled the last stool. The predictive ability of the patient's perception and agreement between the patient's perception and the BBPS were calculated. A BBPS score of <2 points in any segment was considered inadequate. ResultsSix hundred and thirty-three patients were included (age: 62.8±13.7 years, male: 53.4%). Overall, 107 patients (16.9%) had inadequate cleansing during colonoscopy, and in 12.2% of cases, the patient's perception was poor. The patient's perception compared to the quality of cleanliness during colonoscopy presented a positive and negative predictive value of 54.6% and 88.3%, respectively. The agreement between patient perception and the BBPS was significant (P<0.001), although fair (k=0.37). The results were similar in a validation cohort of 378 patients (k=0.41). ConclusionsThe cleanliness perceived by the patient and the quality of cleanliness using a validated scale were correlated, although fair. However, this measure satisfactorily identified patients with adequate preparation. Cleansing rescue strategies may target patients who self-report improper cleaning.Registration number of the trial: NCT03830489.

Evaluation of bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy including a novel low volume regimen (Plenvu): CLEANSE study

BackgroundPoor bowel preparation is the leading cause of failed colonoscopies and increases costs significantly. Several, split preparation, 2 day regimens are available and recently, Plenvu, a low-volume preparation which can...

Factors of easy and difficult cecal intubation during unsedated colonoscopy.

difficulty of cecal intubation should be a main indicator for the need of sedated colonoscopy and skilled endoscopists. The present study aimed to explore the factors associated with easy and difficult cecal intubation in unsedated colonoscopy. all consecutive patients who underwent unsedated colonoscopy at our department by the same endoscopist from December 3, 2020 to August 30, 2022 were retrospectively collected. Age, gender, body mass index (BMI), reasons for colonoscopy, position change, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, cecal intubation time (CIT) and major colonoscopic findings were analyzed. CIT < 5 min, CIT 5-10 min and CIT > 10 min or failed cecal intubation were defined as easy, moderate and difficult cecal intubation, respectively. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent factors associated with easy and difficult cecal intubation. overall, 1,281 patients were included. The proportions of easy and difficult cecal intubation were 29.2 % (374/1,281) and 27.2 % (349/1,281), respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis found that age ≤ 50 years, male, BMI > 23.0 kg/m2 and the absence of position change were independently associated with easy cecal intubation, and that age > 50 years, female, BMI ≤ 23.0 kg/m2, position change, and insufficient bowel preparation were independently associated with difficult cecal intubation. some convenient factors independently associated with easy and difficult cecal intubation have been identified, which will be potentially helpful to determine whether a colonoscopy should be sedated and a skilled endoscopist should be selected. The current findings should be further validated in large-scale prospective studies.

A Novel Text Message Protocol to Improve Bowel Preparation for Outpatient Colonoscopies in Veterans.

The current gold standard for screening for colorectal cancer is colonoscopy, a procedure that depends on the quality of bowel preparation. In 2016, the Veterans Health Administration introduced Annie, a text message service to improve health care communication with patients. The Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center conducted a prospective, single center study to measure the impact of Annie text messaging on patient satisfaction and quality of bowel preparation for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. Patients undergoing colonoscopy were divided into 2 groups. The control group received standardized patient education and a phone call prior to procedure. The intervention group, consisting of all patients who agreed to enroll, received a 6-day Annie text messaging protocol consisting of key bowel preparation steps that started 5 days prior to their scheduled procedure. Bowel preparation quality was measured using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score. During the study period, 688 veterans were scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy: 484 veterans were in the control group, 204 veterans were in the intervention group, and 126 were surveyed. Annie text messaging instructions were associated with a higher BBPS score (8.2) compared with usual care (7.8); P = .007 using independent t test, and P = .002 using parametric independent t test. Patients also reported satisfaction with the Annie text messaging service. There was a statistically significant improvement in the average BBPS score in veterans receiving Annie text messages compared with the routine care control group for outpatient colonoscopies.

S631 Overnight Split Dosing With 1L Polyethylene Glycol + Ascorbic Acid Bowel Preparation Delivers High Levels of High-Quality Cleansing for Colonoscopy: A Sub-Analysis of a Large Real-World Study

Introduction: Clinical guidelines recommend evening/morning split dosing for routine colonoscopy procedures. Overnight split dosing with 1 liter polyethylene glycol + ascorbic acid (1L PEG+ASC) has demonstrated strong cleansing performance in clinical trials. Here we report a sub-analysis from the largest real-world study to date of 1L PEG+ASC, evaluating patients who received this split dosing regimen. Methods: An observational, multicenter, retrospective study evaluated the medical records of colonoscopy outpatients between July 2019 and September 2021 at 12 centers in Spain and Portugal. Eligible adults (aged ≥18 years) had a screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy after an evening/morning (split dose) or same-day regimen of 1L PEG+ASC. Bowel cleansing was assessed by site endoscopists using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Segmental BBPS scores of 3 defined high-quality cleansing. High adherence was defined as consumption of ≥75% of each dose and safety was assessed based on registered adverse events (AEs). BBPS scores were compared between time to colonoscopy groups with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: A total of 13,169 patients from the 12 centers were enrolled in the study, of which 4,316 received a split-dosing regimen and were included in this analysis. In the split-dose group, 48.0% of patients were male, mean (SD) age was 58.1 ± 13.4 years, and 33.4% were ≥65 years old. An overall BBPS score of 9 was attained in 58.3% of patients (Figure A). High rates of BBPS 3 were observed in all segments (Figure B). There was no effect of time lapse to colonoscopy on segmental cleansing in the transversal and left colon (Figure C). Only 1.6% of colonoscopies were incomplete, 0.39% due to poor preparation. Overall, 3.9% (95% CI: 3.4%–4.6%) of patients experienced an AE. The main AEs were nausea (2.4%), vomiting (1.2%), and abdominal pain (0.4%). Adherence was high at 97.6% of those 1,834 patients who reported volume intake. Conclusion: Results from this analysis show that overnight split dosing with 1L PEG+ASC delivered an excellent overall and segmental bowel cleansing quality in real-world settings.Figure 1.: Bowel cleansing performance of split dose 1L PEG+ASC: (A) Rates of overall colon high-quality cleansing (BBPS score >6); (B) Rates of segmental high-quality cleansing (BBPS score 3); (C) Effect of time to colonoscopy on mean segmental BBPS scores.